Budget Estimates And Related Papers

Debate resumed from 29 May.

Hon. J. S. TINGLE [4.18]: This is probably a good budget. We are in the black, the Government says. The Opposition says this is a bit of a fiddle; and I, being hopeless with figures, would not venture an individual opinion. But for the sake of this speech, let us say the Government has got it right. However, the present Government cannot claim full credit for this, because it is the culmination of an ongoing process. The Treasurer has every right to feel good about the budget he has brought in, and to assert it shows the good financial position of this State. Without wishing in any way to appear to be nitpicking, I have noticed in consecutive budgets of both State and Federal governments the tendency for spending on social welfare and community services to continue to creep upwards.

I would wish to make only the passing observation that it seems to me we must be coming to a point where we shall have to ask ourselves whether spending on social welfare and community service programs can continue to grow year by year. That observation is prompted, in an indirect way, by what went wrong with green slips, and the remedial measures the Government had to take. Even now, those measures might not be enough. I know they are not social welfare or community services, but they are an example of how a well-intentioned effort to regulate and facilitate an important service can blow out and have an unexpected consequence.

I note that in its upcoming Victims Compensation Bill the Government will address the problem of funding increasing individual payouts under the victims compensation scheme. There are other areas where, if the spiral continues, the time must come when the money simply will not be there to fund these important programs in the way that was intended when they were introduced, and we will be forced to modify them - to spread the jam much thinner on the toast, as it were. Not for a moment would I suggest that we should abandon these programs, or give up on the very proper function of the community taking the responsibility of supporting the less advantaged of its members or those who temporarily need help.

I am merely pointing out that we have had several indicators already that costs are ballooning, and it might be wise to look ahead - even beyond the next election - to try to find ways of adapting these schemes before they, and we, run into a brick wall. But I also want to ask today whether, while we are putting money into these quite worthwhile and commendable schemes, we might be constantly overlooking an area of community health, social wellbeing, and safety which has serious economic ramifications for all of us, and needs some attention. So, let me concentrate on the matters of crime, violence, crime prevention and community safety.

The budget spends 3.9 percent more on the police, to a figure of $989.5 million. At least part of that increase of 3.9 percent will certainly be swallowed up in rising costs of maintaining the existing effort. However, this will, we are told - and we will have to wait to see whether it actually happens - put another 100 police on the job, and 650 more on the streets. These extra police are
Page 1797
always promised, but, of course, have a curious habit of never actually appearing. But, even if they did, would that be enough? The present police strength of 13,000 or so might seem adequate - until you realise that on any given day up to half the apparent police strength might not actually be available for duty, for various reasons. And is the service big enough for the State? The Government will spend $11.2 million to buy new self-loading pistols for the police. Given the minuscule levels of training of police officers in pistol shooting, this could turn out to be a double-edged sword. Even though police are, undoubtedly, consistently undergunned against criminals, merely giving them a gun with more bullets in it is not really helping them unless they become expert in its use.

Police are required to undergo pistol practice only once a year and to dry fire their service pistols every six months. It is a fact that a great many officers do not have the time, the inclination or the facilities for even this limited practice. I believe that unless the Government and the Police Service do some serious thinking about the adequacy of police pistol training they will still leave our officers seriously undergunned, even with their brand-new self-loaders. A self-loading pistol can be a difficult and frisky thing to tame, and it takes a lot of getting used to. If, as popularly supposed, the Government also makes the serious blue of issuing police with a much talked about particular make of pistol, the Glock, which comes without a safety catch, it might even be a backward step for the men and women in the police force. In the Northern Territory there have already been seven reported accidental discharges of the Glock, sometimes when it is simply being replaced in the holster.

I hardly need to point out that when anyone, police officer or criminal, fires a gun in a public place there is always the risk that some innocent bystander will be hurt. Police equipped with high capacity self-loading pistols, which they are not properly trained to use, are not what we need. But most of all, what I want to ask about is the missing bit of the budget. In amongst the increased allocations for this and that, and the money being spent to make our community work more effectively and safely, where is the money to go deep into the causes of the things that do not work properly in our community? Where is the money for a real, bone-shaking study into violence? Where is the funding - or even the motivation or suggestion - for an anti-violence commission? Where is the money to do the things that might make it less necessary to re-arm the police, to find out why some people in our society seem so ready to resort to instant, mindless, pointless, random violence against people with whom they have no personal quarrel? When are we going to start the job of finding out where and how our society is unravelling, and start to stitch it back together again?

Speaking after the Port Arthur massacre, the eminent Queensland criminologist and psychologist, Professor Paul Wilson, pointed out that we seem to be building up in society a number of what he called sick, lonely, psychotic people, who were bottling up an anger at society; an anger that might, one day, explode. Why is society developing people like that, with those inbuilt rages? Is it not time we asked that question? Or do we not want to have to face the answer? There is an ongoing debate about whether our society is becoming more violent, and nobody seems to have the perfect answer. Statistically, we hear, society is not becoming more violent. Indeed, some statistics suggest it is less violent now than in the days of The Rocks pushes with their cutthroat razors. But even if the overall level of violence - per annum, shall we say, in the language of the statisticians - is not increasing, one thing is certain: the community is now subjected to outbursts of violence more horrific, and on a much more spectacular scale, than were experienced even 10 years ago.

The Hilton bombing was an outrageous, isolated incident, impossible to contemplate in the peaceful Australian community. People told themselves that "it was the work of some fanatical outside group, nothing to do with us". Then there was Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Strathfield, Terrigal, Redfern, Crescent Head and Dunblane. And finally - at least for now - there was Port Arthur. But beyond the shock of hearing about the Port Arthur massacre, did people experience the same feelings of disbelief? Did they still say to themselves that this could not be happening in Australia? Or was there, underlying our horror, the grim feeling that it was not really so unexpected? Have Australians come to accept that this sort of thing could and might happen here? Have repeated episodes taught us almost to expect it? What a short step it is from expecting this sort of spectacular, headline-filling violence to accepting it.

My great fear is that Australians, as a people not given to violence, have slowly but surely been conditioned to believe that violence of some sort is inevitable. The hard question we have to address is: why? And if and when we have answered that question, we have to ask: how do we stop it? I believe the answer as to why is easy to find, and is made up of two main components. The people Professor Paul Wilson spoke of have probably always been amongst us to some extent: the disturbed, the antisocial, the grudge-bearers, the overlooked, the unimportant people who bitterly resent their isolated and lonely role in society. They, if you like, are the fuel for the fire. But in my firm opinion, the spark - the thing that causes the ignition of that fuel - is the exploitation of violence in almost every corner of the media.

There is violence in much modern music, even if it is subliminal. There is violence in the print media, in the lurid and competitive reporting of events such as Port Arthur. Certainly there is overwhelming violence in the visual media of films, television and videotapes. I know it is a cliche to say that, but one must resist the temptation to dismiss it as a cliche, and instead should re-examine
Page 1798
it. There has been a pattern in violent films of making a hero of the solitary, grim, unforgiving dispenser of justice. It began with the so-called spaghetti westerns, and expanded through the development of characters like Dirty Harry and Rambo and the vengeful characters played by Charles Bronson in many of his films. Honourable members should contemplate the characteristics of these figureheads for a moment: solitary, grim, unhappy, despised or rejected by their peers and left to strike back on their own. They stride through society being judge, jury and executioner all in one, and dispense justice with a gun.

Lonely, solitary figures become the perfect role models for the lonely, rejected, asocial people Paul Wilson was talking about. Bear in mind that these fictional characters are virtually bullet-proof, seldom if ever called to account for their killings. They are quite falsely given a God-like power to do what they please to people whom they see as not fit to live. And that power, I believe, is at the basis of the problem I am grappling with now. Honourable members might be familiar with the powerful argument by the author John Grisham about the connection between movie violence and real life - the copycat frenzy that can be set off in unstable and impressionable minds by fantasy violence.

Grisham's long-time friend, Bill Savage, a quiet, respected man, was one of the two victims of Sarah Edmondson and Benjamin Darras, two American teenagers who went on a spree of cold-blooded killings. Grisham makes the point that both had seen the Oliver Stone movie Natural Born Killers and that it had made a deep impression on them. Ben, he says, loved the film, and saw Sarah and himself as identifying with the two mindless killers in the film, Mickey and Mallory. Grisham also made the point that in the film, after a spree that takes more than 100 lives, Mickey and Mallory escape from gaol, settle down and have children, and live happily ever after with no retribution. Instead, the film excuses them saying they could not help what they did. They were, the film suggests, driven by demons.

In Grisham's view, the film Natural Born Killers planted a demon in the minds of Sarah Edmondson and Ben Darras that led them to become killers. In his j'accuse type writing on Sarah and Ben, Grisham makes the telling point that after Ben had shot Bill Savage, he allegedly said to Sarah that the killing had made him feel powerful, and he urged her to kill someone too, to feel the same power. Psychologists I have talked to tend to agree that mass killings have been about power - not about killing. They say that lonely, angry, psychopathic or sociopathic people, harbouring deep bitterness for the society they believe despises them, see in the role model of films like this a way of getting back at society. After Strathfield, it was suggested to me that Wade Frankum's reason for killing so many people was that, for the brief minutes when he had them under his gun, he knew a feeling of supreme power. Those people were helpless and his to dispose of as he wished. That most mass killers kill themselves, I am told, is a verification of that momentary crazy lust for power. They have been in command for a moment, and could not face the ignominy of going back to their former status. They kill themselves, satisfied that they have got their own back on society.

Not everyone will agree with this or understand it, but I believe it is a powerful argument that could point us in the direction we need to go, if we are to find a way to stop or at least reduce this type of awfulness. If we accept that casual, ersatz violence in the powerful visual medium can be the spark that ignites the fuel of deep-seated individual hatred, then surely we should look at that. Grisham makes the interesting point that if it were possible to declare films to be products - like cars, white goods, food, clothing, and the many other products that are warranted and for which the manufacturer has to take responsibility - it might also be possible to force filmmakers to accept some responsibility for the effect their films have on society. Is that impossible? Is that unrealistic? Or should we think about it? Moviemakers make violent films because they are convinced audiences like them. No doubt there is a curious and morbid streak in many of us which likes to be shocked, which likes to wallow in the gory details and the lurid visions. That is the bit we have to excise, that is the base part of us we should stop pandering to. If people did not go to see films like Natural Born Killers, they would not be made, and we would be spared little gems like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Exterminator, Eliminator, Blood Debt and all the rest of them.

The special-effects people have conditioned us to believe that pain is painless; that death is something that happens only to other people. Perhaps we could bring some reality back into this endless, mindless fantasy if filmmakers were held at least to some degree responsible for the way their movies affect people, especially when, as in the case of the movie Natural Born Killers, there seems to be pretty clear evidence of a copycat effect. After all, if one puts a powerful idea into an impressionable mind, and that impressionable mind accepts and believes it and then goes out and acts upon it, is one not at least partly responsible for the effects of that action? The trouble with violent film, in particular, is that it tends to isolate the act from the consequences; it tends to suggest to the feeble-minded, the unstable, the angry and the antisocial that it is not wrong for them to act in the way that the film might suggest.

I am reminded of the experience of an American doctor working in a hospital in Washington. A young boy - a gang member - was brought in, suffering serious stab wounds. While he was being treated, the boy told the doctor he had often bashed and stabbed members of other gangs in fights. "But", he told the doctor, "I never knew before that it hurt to be stabbed." Reality
Page 1799
overtaking fantasy? By accepting the sorts of calculated, manipulative representations of violence in films, we are pandering to the violence in us instead of rejecting it. Maybe Grisham's idea is censorship, maybe it is totalitarian; but is the defence of freedom of speech and freedom of expression valid against a community that has to have bars on its windows, locks on its cars, and is afraid to go out at night?

I suggest to the Government that violence is a presence in our community that has to be dampened down. Even though it might cost money, the money ought to be provided in next year's budget for a powerful commission to examine each major act of violence, root out its causes and find ways to block it next time; and for a reshaping of public attitudes until we understand that violence is not entertaining, but painful and shattering. Whatever the cost of doing that, it is nothing compared to the very real cost of violence, in personal terms and in real money terms, to every one of us. Let us make it a budget item next year. That is, of course, if we are really interested in asking the important questions and if we really want to know the answers - answers that may not be entirely comfortable, answers that could well be about ourselves.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [4.31]: In speaking in support of the 1996-97 State budget I intend to concentrate upon the impact of both the New South Wales budget and Costello's proposed budget cuts upon employment in New South Wales. In the period since the election of the Carr Government there has been an impressive rate of growth in employment and that is a plus for New South Wales. Jobs created in New South Wales totalled more than 83,000, which represented, in effect, 60 per cent of job increases throughout Australia. During the past year New South Wales has had the lowest level of unemployment in Australia. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have to agree with that. The honourable member would also agree that there has been a significant rise in the number of people participating in the job market, compared to conservative States such as Queensland and Western Australia - which the Hon. D. F. Moppett would probably drool about - where the participation rate fell.

Because of business and private investor confidence, investment in New South Wales increased in the six months to September 1995. Business investment in the six months to September 1995 was up 11.9 per cent on the same period in 1994; and private investment in the six months to September 1995 was up 5.1 per cent on the same period in 1994. This clearly shows that Labor has created jobs in New South Wales and has not sacked public sector employees, as the Opposition did during its seven years in office. Investment in New South Wales was 12 times the national average during the past year. The Labor Government has secured an incredible $9.5 billion worth of new investment which could lead to 35,000 new jobs in the next few years. However, this buoyant situation is threatened by the Howard policies which will increase unemployment, not only in New South Wales but also throughout Australia. Honourable members need only look at the employment that has been generated by various investments in regional New South Wales to gain an idea of what this Government has done.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Ask the people in regional New South Wales.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. F. Moppett is whingeing and carrying on as he always does. He will never let a fact get in the way of his ramblings. In the past year a number of major projects have been assisted to fruition in regional New South Wales by the regional business development scheme. By leave, I incorporate in Hansard a list of examples of recent major projects secured or retained for country New South Wales that will involve the creation of a number of jobs.

______

Proposed expansion of Overall Forge Pty Limited, Albury ($2.6m investment - 65 jobs).

Proposed expansion of Air Affairs Pty Limited, Nowra ($8.350m investment - 25 jobs).

Expansion of Big River Timbers Pty Limited, Grafton ($3.1m investment - 58 new jobs).

Proposed establishment of a cheese and ice-cream manufacturing plant by Southlands Limited, Sutton Forest ($4.7m investment - 40 new jobs).

Expansion of Bayview Seafoods Pty Limited, Taree (Investment $2m - 20 new jobs).

Relocation of Nufarm Limited from Sydney to Dubbo (Investment $1.8m - 15 new jobs).

Expansion of Beers Abattoirs, Culcairn (Investment $950,000 - 40 new jobs).

Relocation of Thermit Australia Pty Limited from Sydney to Somersby (Investment $2.4m - 30 jobs).

Expansion of Stonetile Australia Pty Limited, Orange (Investment $2.5m - 16 new jobs).

Expansion of Byrne Trailers Australia Pty Limited, Wagga Wagga (Investment $1.4m - 20 new jobs).

Relocation of Sydney Yachting Centre Pty Limited to Berkeley Vale - 24 new jobs.

Expansion of Bashford Boatbuilders Pty Limited, Nowra - 50 new jobs.

Establishment of Southern Stone Processing Pty Limited, Harden - 12 new jobs.

Expansion of Barraba Manufacturing Pty Limited, Barraba - 12 new jobs.

Relocation of Mushroom Compositors Pty Limited from Sydney to Singleton - 10 new jobs.

Establishment of P/ACE shoe manufacturer, Junee - 16 new jobs.

Expansion of Dubbo Macquarie Print - 20 new jobs.

Expansion of Singleton engineers to create 10 new jobs.

Relocation of heavy steel fabricator to Moss Vale creating 20 new jobs.

Page 1800

Establishment of emu processing plant at Grong Grong - 20 new jobs.

Establishment of paper processing plant at Albury creating 20 new jobs.

Establishment of oilseed processing plant at Newcastle creating 30 new jobs.

Relocation of aluminium finishing and distribution operations to the Central Coast - 23 jobs initially rising to 48.

______


The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I have incorporated that list for the benefit of the Hon. D. F. Moppett. This strong growth position in New South Wales is threatened by Costello's con. Without doubt it is threatened. In the past couple of months there has been talk of an $8 billion hole in the budget. I recall the same talk when Greiner was elected in 1988. He established the very biased Curran committee which had the job of cutting public sector employment. The public servant responsible for that job went to Victoria and used the same methodology to cut 40,000 jobs in that State. Unemployment rose dramatically because of his efforts.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What about the broken promises?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I will come to broken promises in a moment. The Federal razor gang proposes to knock off $19 billion. It is like a scatter gun. The Hon. J. S. Tingle referred to the dangers of a scatter-gun approach with regard to new police pistols. The economic scatter-gun approach by the Howard Government will create real hardship and undermine the job growth rate in New South Wales and nationally. It will lead to the loss of 15,000 or 20,000 public service positions. The Howard Government has proposed savings of between $7.4 billion and $9.5 billion in health, mainly by increasing the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent. I have had something to do with health issues in recent times and I can see a situation developing wherein already financially squeezed hospitals will face even greater problems if cuts are made to the health care system.

The Howard Government has proposed major cuts to university study grants - for example, a $364 million cut to the higher education contribution scheme and a $584 million cut to Austudy and Abstudy. It has also proposed: a squeeze on nursing homes and other community welfare areas; savings of $1.5 billion in social security, with pensioners targeted for a $690 million saving; and a $4.5 billion saving in the industry portfolios from the scrapping of subsidies under the diesel fuel rebate scheme and the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. The Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are silent about those two issues. The farming sector will be hit with a cut to the diesel fuel rebate. Fortunately, New South Wales Farmers - one of my associations - and Senator Collins, who has done a great job in this area, are fighting to prevent the implementation of those cuts.

What really stuck in my craw was hearing that the mining industry - cap in hand and screaming all sorts of abuse at the Howard Government - had gone to Canberra to save its $700 million diesel fuel subsidy. Mind you, this is the same mob that leads the charge from the big end of town; that cuts welfare, health and community services whenever it can; that talks about not having any government intervention in the affairs of this State and of this country; that pursues the most economically rationalist, dry policies ever known. As soon as the Government's big foot goes on the tail of the mining industry, it goes running and screaming that it cannot lose its $700 million.

Over the past few days the mining industry has given one of its most hypocritical performances over its little loss of subsidy. For the past 20 years it has actively promoted cuts to expenditure across-the-board to everyone else in the community that did not affect it. I am fully in support of farmers retaining the diesel levy; they have been under pressure because of the drought. Last year was a good season with some record crops, but beef prices are down and wool prices are not the best at the moment. Farmers are still suffering, despite some recovery, and that may be temporary as it is possible that we are heading into another rainfall deficient year. As a consequence, the levy should remain and the Federal Government should not continue with its mania about the rebate on diesel fuel.

I refer now to the proposed cuts to education. Recently Senator Vanstone said at a meeting that cuts to university budgets could be between 5 per cent and 12 per cent, and that could be in the order of $600 million. That is a detrimental action because Australia needs to be the smart country. Technological change and development are being spoken about on the one hand, but on the other hand it is proposed to cut the budgets of universities that provide the means for improving technology. I am on the Board of Governors of the Charles Sturt University. The university runs many courses that are important to the development of the New South Wales economy and, in particular, the economies of regional areas. The Charles Sturt University faces substantial funding cuts which could mean the abolition of various courses. I support the thousands of students and academics who demonstrated outside Parliament House today protesting to the Howard Government that university scholars and academics will not tolerate these cuts. Professor Hilmer has been a strong supporter of reform in various areas -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: And you are his apostle.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I am certainly not his apostle. Even Professor Hilmer is of the view that it is wrong to adopt a scatter-gun approach by making cuts to tertiary education.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Why don't we wait until they actually bring down the budget?

Page 1801

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. F. Moppett asks why not wait until the budget is brought down. He should tell the New South Wales farmers to stop jumping up and down about abolishing rebates on diesel fuel. They are anticipating a problem; they have virtually been told that there is a problem and therefore are being pro-active. The attitude of the Hon. D. F. Moppett is in conflict with New South Wales Farmers. If it is good enough for New South Wales Farmers to oppose the Federal Government's proposed tax, it is good enough for universities to do the same. The cuts will hit universities unevenly but will be most felt in regional universities. Inevitably the cuts will be imposed where it will be easier administratively to do so, rather than generally, and areas of less need will be targeted.

This may have unfortunate consequences for faculties that do not have powerful allies in professional associations. Old and well-established universities have access to private funding which has been slowly built up over generations. However, newer universities, such as the Charles Sturt University and the University of Western Sydney, have had insufficient time to establish private funding and are more reliant on government funding. The real impact of the cuts will be most savagely felt by them. Invariably those universities are located where the population base can support them, that which requires tertiary education, especially in specialist fields, and for monetary reasons or because of distance, cannot access the older and well-established universities.

Higher education is an expensive option for rural families who must meet transport and accommodation costs. In addition, it would appear they need a fair amount through higher education contribution scheme - HECS - charges. In other words, the cuts will hit hardest the new universities that have been established to service a public which, in the past, has been too isolated or too poor to avail itself of tertiary education. The cuts will not affect everyone in the same way, but at the end of the day large sections of the poorer and more isolated communities will be effectively denied tertiary education for the foreseeable future.

The Howard Government should look carefully at the way it imposes any cuts to tertiary education funding, as the cuts it imposes today may not be felt throughout Australia for the next five or even 10 years, but they will be felt because Australia will begin to lose what was an expanding pool of well-trained men and women from all walks of life. Regional universities such as the Charles Sturt University - based primarily at Albury, Wagga Wagga and Bathurst - will lose far more than will Sydney University and Melbourne University. Regional universities will be hit dramatically by these cuts. I call upon all honourable members to urge the Federal Government to take great care about imposing cuts in funding for universities because to do so is to undermine the very basis of our future.

The Costello argument is based upon an $8 billion black hole in the Federal budget. For a start, the figure is not really $8 billion. The usual figure used in budget announcements is the $4.5 billion starting deficit for 1996-97, a significant proportion of which is attributable to the coalition's own actions last year in blocking $2.5 billion worth of budget measures. The underlying deficit, taking out asset sales, State debt repayments, and so on, focuses on the figure used by professional economists, that is, $7.6 billion reducing to $3.3 billion in 1998-99. There is significant evidence that the $8 billion is not a real figure at all. If the figure was $4.9 billion, that would represent a gross domestic product of $500 billion, approximately 1 per cent.

Even if almost $8 billion were allowed in terms of the $7.6 billion projection, it is around 1.5 per cent of GDP. In other words, it is a comparatively low figure, and particularly low when compared to many overseas countries. The $8 billion figure used frequently by Costello has been severely criticised by many in the economic community. For instance, Professor Gruen, Professor Neville and Mr Argy in the Australian Financial Review of 20 May said:

The figure of $8 billion is itself not a firm figure. It is a Treasury forecast assuming no policy changes and a rate of growth of the economy of 3.25 per cent . . . [A] small difference in the assumed rate of economic growth can make a large difference in the size of the projected deficit.

Subsequent to that, the Australian growth figure is in excess of 4 per cent, which would have a dramatic impact on the $8 billion figure. This scare campaign by Costello mirrors the campaign put forward by Greiner and supported by Curran in 1988. The same scenario is being built up in relation to the 1996-97 budget. According to Treasury figures, the coalition in the last election produced $6.8 billion -

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You should run in Hume.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: After the results on the weekend that is becoming a rather attractive proposition.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: I second that.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I have Johnno's support for that. The coalition promises will cost $6.8 billion, and this should be added into the factor. Part of the reason for this proposal is to give the coalition an opportunity to walk away from its commitments. There is no economic crisis facing this country. The national deficit of $4.9 billion represents no more than 1 per cent of national income, GDP. Even a deficit of $7.6 billion represents only 1.5 per cent of national income. Neither figure is large by international standards. A deficit of 1.5 per cent of national income, taking the larger figure, would put Australia equal third among the major OECD countries with regard to economic outlook. Furthermore, in 1982-83 Australia's deficit was 4.9 per cent of national income, which represented a
Page 1802
$24.5 billion deficit in 1996 dollar terms. In 1982-83 there was a real economic crisis. There is not now.

Australia's structural deficit, as has been pointed out in many journals, is estimated to be the second lowest of the OECD countries. Only Finland has a better looking balance of expenditure and income. Ours is around one-quarter of the average. If Australia had a deficit which was the average of OECD countries, it would be of the order of $15 billion, not $4.9 billion. Overall, the figures that I have been relating to the House clearly demonstrate that Australia's economic position is very healthy and is not in the parlous state that Mr Costello has suggested.

The Federal Government cuts will result in only 0.5 per cent of growth for the next year. Growth is strong, although one bank - I think it was the National Australia Bank - has said "We are having a good time here, we had better cut things back quickly." If there were a cut of 0.5 per cent in national growth, 40,000 jobs could not be created next year. Therefore, over two years the Government would throw away 80,000 jobs on top of the Government's proposed cuts of 15,000 to 20,000 positions in the public sector. In that regard the Community and Public Sector Union has not been able get a firm undertaking from the Government.

On Mr Costello's scenario, the great endeavours of the New South Wales Government to create jobs and to get employment going - last year it created 83,000 jobs - will be undermined by the proposed Federal cuts. The cuts will have a dramatic effect on the State's growth and prosperity. Linked with this is a non-budget issue that will also cause job losses. The Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon. John Anderson, proposes that Australia import chicken products. A similar proposal was tried in the fish industry, but it did not meet the guidelines laid down by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service for the importation of fresh food products.

J. T. Larkin, the Director of Economics and Agribusiness Research with Instate Pty Limited, in an excellent analysis on economic impacts came to the conclusion that the costs associated with allowing the importation of such products far outweighed the benefits. Other countries have little difficulty with subsidisation. For example, in 1996 the United States provided subsidisation to the tune of over $US20 million in relation to 32,955 tonnes of poultry exports. The United States proposes, under current projections, to continue such subsidisation to the year 2000, and that will relate to $US100 million worth of subsidised chicken product. It is proposed by AQIS that these subsidised products be allowed into Australia as they are allowed into such countries as Thailand, where wage rates are very low and there are concerns about health issues.

The effect of this importation will be the loss of 13,300 jobs in the industry across Australia, 5,200 in New South Wales alone. Nothing will be gained from this proposal. We certainly will not get a better chicken product - we have the best chicken product in the world already. Prices may be lower as a result but the threat to employment will far outweigh any benefit in that regard. Recently the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics - ABARE - conducted a study into the outbreak and impact of Newcastle disease, which is probably one of the great threats from imported chicken product, especially product from Thailand which is not subject to the usual stringent protocols.

The survey concluded that if an outbreak of Newcastle disease occurred following the importation of 5,000 tonnes of poultry meat, the estimated net gain to our society in terms of price would be $130,000. However, the resultant loss to egg and poultry producers would be $152 million. For many reasons the Federal Government must overturn this policy. The subsidising of a product, the quality of which cannot be fully guaranteed, will undermine a thriving, important industry in this country. In another paper Dr Jeff Fairbrother, the Executive Director of the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, enumerated the range of dangers associated with the importation of chicken meat. Evidence shows that the same argument can apply to a number of products, including the proposed salmon imports from Canada. Dr Fairbrother stated:

Not only is Australia free of virulent Newcastle disease but it is also one of the few countries in the world that does not allow vaccination of any poultry against Newcastle disease.

Exotic Newcastle disease is widely recognised as the major disease threat to the viability of the Australian commercial poultry industry. It is also regarded as a major potential threat to the pet and native bird populations. The significance of the disease has been acknowledged in numerous government publications. Quarantine pamphlets issued by the NSW Department of Agriculture in 1974 and the Commonwealth Department of Health, Quarantine Division in 1984, describe Newcastle Disease as "the most feared avian disease in the world."

There is no doubt that if the disease enters Australia it will have dramatic consequences. Dr Fairbrother stated further:

However, based roughly on the cost of eradication of three outbreaks of avian influenza in recent years, it is suggested that a widespread ND outbreak could cost $30-40 million to eradicate.

Even under the strictest of guidelines Newcastle disease escaped from the Geelong facility - it escaped in the eye of a research worker at that facility. It is suggested that a widespread outbreak of Newcastle disease could cost $30 million to $40 million to eradicate. One of the better known outbreaks of Newcastle disease occurred in California in the early 1970s. That outbreak took two years to eradicate, 11 million birds were destroyed and the total cost was $US56 million.
Page 1803
The Australian estimate of $30 million to $40 million to eradicate just one outbreak of Newcastle disease would therefore not be an overestimation. There is some argument that with proper protocols chicken meat could be imported. I do not believe it is possible to devise protocols of sufficient stringency to ensure that there is never an outbreak of Newcastle disease in Australia.

Cooking, for instance, eliminates a great deal of the risk of the outbreak of disease, including salmonella, but I do not believe that every measure of risk can be eliminated. It has been clearly demonstrated that the spread of diseases such as the morbilli virus can be dramatic. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, which has recommended that the guidelines be dropped - and Mr Anderson has indicated that he is considering doing so - states in its pamphlet entitled "Newcastle Disease a Threat to all Australian Bird Life":

Newcastle Disease, the most feared avian disease in the world, has penetrated into most countries. Australia so far is free from the pathogenic forms of this disease.

When the disease first enters a country it can cause havoc in the bird industry - commercial flocks, fancy birds, pet birds and native wild birds are all susceptible.

Thousands of birds may die. Those that appear to recover can pass the disease on to healthy birds and may themselves remain chronically ill for the rest of their lives.

There is no known cure for Newcastle Disease. The disease is caused by a virus so drugs do not help. Birds continue dying even if heavily medicated.

I believe that there is no acceptable risk, so there should not be guidelines for the importation of cooked chicken meat. All honourable members have a grave duty on strong environmental grounds to pressure the Federal Government not to proceed with the importation of cooked chicken meat. I have canvassed a number of matters and shall conclude with an issue that is of concern to me. In a way, it is another employment issue and it relates to the departure of Bob Miller from the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. The Sydney Morning Herald of 6 May contained an article under the headline, "Who'll work the miracles? Now that Bob Miller's gone" - which is a very good summation of the work that Bob has done to bring together parents and children who had spent many years apart. Words fail me - I cannot fully describe the great work that Bob has done. The Sydney Morning Herald article stated in part:

In adoption circles, Bob Miller is regarded as a very special person. While he was, by all accounts, a public servant of the old school who really did dedicate himself to serving the public, he was always willing to go that one step further, to work that extra bit harder, to crack a really difficult case.

His work has been profoundly commented upon also by other commentators, including Alan Jones. It is my hope that the Government can find a means whereby Bob Miller, the former Deputy Principal of the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages, can continue this sort of work. Unfortunately, recently he was forced into redundancy. I hope the Government can continue his magnificent work. Honourable members have probably read the newspaper article to which I have referred; it is a fantastic story. People denigrate public servants in many ways. There is the old thinking that public servants do not do the right thing and do not work hard enough. That culture is very far from the work of Bob Miller, whom I have known for the past 15 years. He has done fantastic work in every task in which he has been involved. I was shocked to read in the newspaper that he had been forced into redundancy and away from an area that he obviously loved and in which he helped people significantly. It is a disgrace that this should happen. I certainly hope that the Government can find a way to continue Bob's work.

The Government's employment measures in the budget are a step in the right direction. I am sure many more jobs could be created, but the black clouds of the Howard Government hang heavily over this State and this country. I hope that the Federal Government pays heed to the great demonstration that passed by Parliament House today and to the statements made by vice-chancellors and many leading academics across Australia who oppose the proposed significant cuts in university funding. We need to build up education and business activity in this country, neither of which is achieved through across-the-board government cuts and slashes.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.