General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5

Debate resumed from 9 April 2008

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [2.34 p.m.]: General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 revealed many interesting statistics and facts on how New South Wales is falling behind other leading States of Australia. The fact that economic growth in New South Wales was the slowest of all States and Territories in 2005-06 at 1.4 per cent, and that New South Wales has been growing more slowly than the Australian economy for the past five years—by 0.7 per cent, and 2.6 per cent behind the Australian economy—is again reflective of the current sad State of New South Wales and the appalling administration it has had for the past 13 years. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, New South Wales had the lowest rate in both 2004-05 and 2005-06, and over the past five years New South Wales economic growth has been lower than Australia's gross domestic product. Morris Iemma's saviour, the State Plan, states:

It is critical that efforts continue to attract emerging industries and to bolster existing industries in regional areas.

It has been almost a year since the publication of the State Plan and I am still unaware what is being done to deal with these negative indicators. We must bolster our expenditure on regional development and revamp our image in country New South Wales as a place to migrate to and to do business in. We are falling behind quickly, and our position will not recover by maintaining the current approach, which is ineffectual. Housing is another topic raised by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 during budget estimates. One of the actions that the State Plan says the Government has already been committed to is strategies to help keep Aboriginal families together and improve access to safe and affordable housing.

If that is the case, why do a number of public houses in these communities house two to three families under the same roof? The problems of overcrowding in indigenous communities must be resolved in order to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people, as that leads to a plethora of other problems that have become endemic across the population. A recent freedom of information application from my office to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs reveals that in relation to the Aboriginal Housing Department, 49 per cent of Aboriginal housing providers do not meet the key performance indicators.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: It is almost half.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Half of the Aboriginal housing companies are not doing as they should, according to the key performance indicators. As we have travelled through regional New South Wales, and in parts of Sydney and Redfern, we have all seen the overcrowding and the dysfunction that causes within Aboriginal communities. With regard to overcrowding, the Breaking the Silence report states:

The Department of Housing does not currently have a strategy to address it. However they reported that they would be conducting research into the issue of indigenous overcrowding within the next year, as a basis for developing a strategy to address it.

One would think that the time for strategies is over and it is action that is required. There must be a full audit of the current Aboriginal housing stock in New South Wales. That message came through to us clearly last year during a tour of western New South Wales by New South Wales Nationals looking at some of the problems in indigenous communities.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: You are wonderful.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I thank the Hon. Christine Robertson for her acknowledgement that we are wonderful. I appreciate her bipartisan support. I know she does some incredible work behind the scenes as well. I just wish that the Government would listen to her more.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are disorderly.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: Furthermore, people on the North Coast of New South Wales are experiencing a number of problems in relation to the housing industry, including the skills shortage, housing stress, planning reforms and competition from the economic boom in Queensland. There are currently considerable pressures on the North Coast housing market, especially with the high rental demand experienced across the entire spectrum of the rental market. The North Coast is currently facing a serious rental shortage, which is exacerbated by the ongoing skills shortage throughout New South Wales and the lack of people available for work. According to a recent front page of the Port Macquarie News, at least 60 young people in the Port Macquarie area are seeking accommodation, and with great difficulty. It is a problem not just for the young. The increasing value of many coastal properties is forcing rents up. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [2.39 p.m.]: I was pleased to serve on General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, which gave me the opportunity to examine government expenditure relating to climate change, the environment and water. One could be quite cynical about what the State Government is doing to tackle the problem of climate change. The lack of a comprehensive plan reflects the bitter division in State Government over the issue. We all know that the Treasurer is a proud climate change sceptic and has publicly flagged the idea of diverting funds away from what he calls bogus policies in relation to climate change. At the same time the Premier is saying, "Climate change is real and it's here, and it's time that we all faced up to that".

The contradiction between the Premier and Treasurer is astonishing. Such division within the Labor Party has resulted in terrible decisions on expenditure to deal with climate change. It is all very well and good for the Iemma Government to preach about climate change and to say that we must face up to it, but during the committee's hearing we learned that the Government is doing very little on a practical level. I had a chance to ask the former Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water about the practical measures his department has taken to use energy and water efficiencies when half a million dollars was spent refurbishing his ministerial office in Governor Macquarie Tower.

[Interruption]

I inquired about his health and where he smoked. Instead of the Minister outlining how his department was at the forefront of fighting climate change at a practical level and leading by example, the former Minister shrugged off most of these questions as a matter for the Premier's Department and took other questions on notice. I have not yet received a response to these questions, which are still relevant, despite there now being a new Minister. For example, in 2002 a question was asked about the Minister for Land and Water Conservation setting up a joint project between his department and the University of New South Wales for the School of Microbiology and Immunology to examine the toxicity of blue-green algae present in the State's waterways at that time. The problem has worsened since, especially in the hot summer months. The information would have been important in managing future algal blooms. Six years later we still do not know what the Government learned from the project and whether any of the recommendations have been implemented.

It is incredibly important that the Government lead by example and ensure that departments use energy and water saving efficiencies. I hope that the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment will lead the charge. For Government members to preach about efficiency savings but not to practise them does not go down well with the community. Considerable concern has been expressed about the Government's decision to allocate $11.7 million in grants to big business for climate change projects. These grants would have been useful for small businesses, but instead some of Australia's largest and most profitable companies are being given millions of taxpayers' dollars for climate change programs that many have already implemented through their own initiatives.

One wonders if Kellogg's, a company with an annual world turnover of $11 billion, really needed $444,000 of taxpayers' money for a new efficient energy system at its Botany factory. Coles Myer, which made a profit of $747 million last year and plans to invest in its energy efficient capital works, was given a grant of $90,000 from the Government to help with a water saving project. Bunnings was given more than $1 million to install a new lighting system in 16 stores and Sara Lee was given more than $100,000 for energy improvements. It is important for businesses to become more energy and water efficient, but the Iemma Government seems to give handouts to companies that could afford these improvements themselves.

Although I have concerns with the Government's accountability and policy direction, I value the opportunity to have been involved in the budget estimates process. The committee also examined tourism. We should all be concerned about the negative flow-on effects to small business in New South Wales caused by the decline in tourism market share. For example, the number of overnight visitors has fallen from 33 million in 2000 to approximately 27 million in 2006. In dollar terms this resulted in a drop of $2 billion in spending by overseas visitors to New South Wales. New South Wales is the premier State and should do better. It is up to the Government to be more proactive in supporting the tourism industry.

The New South Wales Government spends less per visitor on tourism than any other State or Territory in Australia. For example, Queensland spends $2.80 per visitor and Victoria spends $2.70 per visitor and has increased its market share, while this Government spends only $2 per visitor and has lost its market share. Through the budget estimates we were unable to deduce what the Government has been doing to increase New South Wales visitor spending, which has fallen by 14 per cent since 2000. Increasing the number of visitor nights to 10 million would have created an additional 20,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in tourism spending in New South Wales.

Furthermore, for the second year in a row, Sydney has slipped in its ranking of world cities in the annual survey of world travellers conducted each year by the highly respected Travel & Leisure magazine. Sydney is the only Olympic city to go backwards in visitation rates, yet the Government has cut promotion expenditure. This cannot possibly be justified. A KPMG report has revealed that the tourism industry is in serious trouble as a direct result of years of neglect by the New South Wales Labor Government. Since 2000, New South Wales visitor expenditure has fallen by 14 per cent, the tourism budget has been slashed by 11 per cent and the tourism budget is now the lowest of all States and Territories. However, other States like Western Australia and Victoria have increased their tourism funding in real terms by 45 per cent and 44 per cent respectively. The New South Wales budget allocation has declined by 11 per cent. New South Wales has lost its market share to Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria.

Tourism in New South Wales should be a vibrant industry, but it is struggling under the Labor Government. It is a $23 billion industry that directly employs more than 172,000 people across the State—40 per cent in regional New South Wales. Slashing the tourism budget over the past five years has been irresponsible and has damaged the New South Wales tourism industry. The Government must inject an extra $20 million a year into promoting New South Wales and developing a whole-of-government strategy to promote tourism.

The strategy should include, but not be limited to, delivering and upgrading the convention and exhibition space, more promotion of New South Wales' wonderful assets in Australia and overseas, better signage, greater consumer protection and a changed attitude by Treasury to the tourism sector. This should be a wake-up call for the New South Wales Labor Government: unless it begins to take tourism seriously, we will see more job losses and more struggling small businesses, which rely on a vibrant tourist economy for their survival. I thank the Chair, Mr Ian Cohen, and my fellow committee members for their patience and persistence. I hope the Government heeds my comments.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: We are heading in the right direction.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: The Government may be heading in the right direction, but it has a hell of a long way to go.

Mr IAN COHEN [2.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate, particularly the Hon. Melinda Pavey for her eloquent address and the Hon. Marie Ficarra for her enthusiastic and valuable contribution.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Extremely valuable, thank you.

Mr IAN COHEN: It has been an extremely valuable exercise. I appreciated being chair of a committee that asked many forthright questions of Ministers who hold portfolios that are of interest to us all, and certainly that are of great interest to me. I appreciate that the Hon. Melinda Pavey referred to the effect of housing issues on indigenous and non-indigenous people—an issue that must be given far greater attention. Often the reality that Australia's greatest proportion of indigenous people resides in New South Wales is overlooked. People have the impression that the majority of indigenous people are in the Northern Territory, Queensland or Western Australia, but New South Wales has a significant indigenous population that has specific, as well as basic, needs, such as adequate housing. I am pleased that the housing issue was well ventilated during debate.

One only has to read headlines about sky-rocketing rents for city properties to realise the difficulties faced by people who need housing and to understand a significant cause of homelessness. Honourable members referred to the lack of affordable housing in areas along the New South Wales coast. While regional areas benefit greatly from tourism, it certainly imposes great pressures on the availability of housing. Even people who work in the tourism industry cannot afford to work and live in the same area. They have to commute to areas that are quickly becoming tourist enclaves. While I am certainly in agreement with much of what was said by the Hon. Marie Ficarra about encouraging tourism, a balance must be struck. Along the New South Wales coastline, tourism places significant pressure on limited rental accommodation. Illegal holiday letting not only has reduced available housing for people who have a legitimate need for rental accommodation but also has made holiday rental accommodation scarce for legitimate tourist operators who pay their taxes and meet their obligations to the State. Tourism operations also have been suffering from the failure of the State Government to pay sufficient attention to the issue and properly regulate rental practices.

To a great extent the noticeable decline in visitors in many coastal areas is due to inadequate attention being given to planning by the State Government. The Minister for Planning goes to great lengths to support some elements in society, but also dedicates enormous time and energy to condemning others, such as Byron Shire Council, despite the council recently having won a Local Government and Shires Associations award for regional tourism associated with the production of the East of Everything television series in the shire. Filming of the series in the Byron Bay area provided employment for local people, provided an incredible boost for the local economy, and showed a reasonably sensitive use of facilities in the local area, yet the State Government knocked the efforts of the local council. Condemnation flows freely from State Government Ministers, but they fall strangely silent about a very successful local production. Local people have told me it is the first time for some months they have been able to work on a production and sleep in their own bed at night.

My understanding is that East of Everything is the only Australian production that was filmed entirely in a region. When the series first screened on television at 8.30 on Sunday nights on the ABC, it had immediate success and won 24 per cent of the audience. The sixth and final episode was screened last weekend and the success of the series has been so great, with assistance from people in the local area and Byron Shire Council, that another series, a prequel, is planned for later this year. The combination in the series of the creativity of local artists with the acting prowess of stars such as Richard Roxburgh has led to great success. The Greens certainly support successful regional ventures, including tourism, because they benefit local economies, local artists and local creativity. Unfortunately, certain members of the State Government fail to recognise that support, preferring instead to attack the Greens for being antitourism and antidevelopment—which, of course, is absolute rubbish.

An acute problem affecting the North Coast region is the lack of public transport. The virtual non-existence of public transport in the region is criminal. It particularly affects young people because it prevents them from visiting local towns and local attractions. Young people are forced to hitchhike along North Coast roads, and everyone knows how dangerous that activity can be. It is not an appropriate form of transport for young people. Just as the provision of public transport is a priority in cities, so should it be a priority in the North Coast region.

I compliment the Hon. Marie Ficarra on addressing climate change issues that highlight the clear divisions between the policies of the State Government and the ideas of other parts of the community. It is astonishing that on the one hand we have a Treasurer who is a climate change sceptic and on the other hand we have a Premier who extols the environmental values of his Government while proceeding with construction of another coal-fired power station and mickey mouse carbon sequestration, even though operators in the United States have declared that it is not viable. It would be great if the Government could construct a solar thermal power station. The technology and talent are available currently, although much of that is going overseas owing to insufficient interest on the part of Australian governments in green technology. We should support innovative technology. The Greens would certainly support such projects as solar thermal power stations.

It is not so much a case of the Greens being against development as it is an issue of the quality of development. If the Government approved a solar thermal power station with a baseload operational capacity that is capable of resolving the power generation problems in the State for the foreseeable future, the Greens would applaud it. But, no, creativity is at an all-time low and the Government is still inextricably attached to the coal economy. Another issue that concerns me is the absence of transparency in Government decisions. A number of times I have asked the Minister for Energy how much the operators of aluminium smelters in the Hunter, which consume approximately 24 per cent of the State's electricity, pay for the electricity that the State Government provides. I have tried to get that information many times, but I still do not know the answer. Taxpayers are subsidising aluminium smelters that consume 24 per cent of the State's electricity. When that is considered in conjunction with the desalination plant that will soon come online, it makes a mockery of the State Government's assertion of adherence to a greenhouse gas reduction policy. The State Government persists with inappropriate policies at the expense of both the taxpayer and the environment.

A factor associated with the strong export market of the aluminium industry is its amelioration of production costs by purchasing cheap electricity—at the expense of New South Wales consumers. While I welcome the Government's energy and water saving initiatives, it seems to take one step forward and two steps back in its business dealings. This year I look forward to questioning the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment on the impact of the desalination plant and the marine ecology in waters surrounding Kurnell Peninsula. I await detailed information on the impacts of the project, which are estimated to be great. Just because the impacts cannot be seen beneath the water, it does not mean that the project will not have a massive impact on amenity and the environment, even before piping infrastructure is constructed. I could say much more, but time is short. In conclusion, I thank all the members of the committee for their creativity and cooperation. I also thank the Ministers who, by and large, were open and forthcoming about providing responses. [Time expired.]

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.