Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.15 p.m.]: This extremely important motion makes it very clear that the New South Wales Government is despicable, that it lies, and that for some months it has been in the business of covering up rather than providing clean water. At the moment Sydney Water is in crisis and the Carr Government is obviously in crisis but, worse still, Sydney is in crisis. There is no longer any confidence in Sydney’s water.

Mr E. T. Page: Why does that not show up in the polls?

Mr HAZZARD: That comment shows that all the Carr Government cares about is the polls. The Carr Government is a poll-driven, deceptive, despicable government.

Mr E. T. Page: Where is the evidence?

Page 7180

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister for Local Government has not even read the report from Mr McClellan, QC. The evidence is clear. The Minister for Local Government is lucky he is not in the position of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. He should keep quiet and pretend he is not here. He is also lucky he is not in the Premier’s position. Both those Ministers are quite concerned. They are not concerned about Sydney Water or the people of Sydney; they are concerned about the polls. At the moment they are obviously quite happy. Their polls must show that nobody is worried about the water.

The reality is that in the community even little children are concerned about the water. When local schoolchildren cannot drink from bubblers, when they are dragged off to the principal’s office to have it explained to them why they can no longer drink the water in this city, we have a crisis. The Minister and his trivial mates on the Labor Party benches, who are interested only in polls, are the cause of the problem. Until they focus on trying to get Sydney’s water clean rather than playing the blame game, Sydney will not have clean water. Unfortunately the Minister may not have read the article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 August which stated, "End of an era for safe water". Perhaps he was busy looking at the polls.

Mr E. T. Page: The honourable member cannot even read it, and it is in large print.

Mr HAZZARD: The level of that interjection is a real worry. I read somewhere that the Minister has a degree, but I do not know where it was handed out.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will address his remarks through the Chair and not indulge in conversation across the table with the Minister. I ask the honourable member to return to the substance of the motion.

Mr HAZZARD: Many decisions from the Chair have indicated that the honourable member speaking can respond to interjections. The Minister is making inane interjections that reflect his intellectual capacity, but he needs to get his mind around the fact that we no longer have safe, reliable water. That is a huge problem.

Mr E. T. Page: That was your third try; it was an improvement.

Mr HAZZARD: I do not know whether to express frustration with the Minister or to say that in only another 198 days we will not have to worry about him or others of his ilk. He is practising walking out of the Chamber. He will do that again in 198 days - permanently, I hope. Sydney Water is in crisis and honourable members should consider how that has come about, where we are today and what is going to happen. What is the Carr Government doing about the problem? What has it done from the moment its scientific testing showed unacceptable levels of giardia and cryptosporidium? For some hours it did not do anything. Apparently members sat in their offices trying to work out a strategy to deceive the people of Sydney and hope that the problem would disappear. Unfortunately they did not achieve anything other than to expose people to a health risk.

The Government got round to doing something on 29 July. It immediately moved into defence mode. The Minister for Local Government said that what drives the Labor Party right wing makes the Bob Carrs, the Paul Keatings, the Graham Richardsons, the group of the whatever-it-takes mentality. The Government got one of its mates, David Hill, whom it had appointed to Sydney Water, to issue a press release that underlines just how despicable the Government’s reaction has been. The press release finally received a public airing in the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 September. It is unbelievable that a man who had been appointed as Chairman of Sydney Water - the major public utility in that it provides one of the most needed commodities for life, water - was prepared to effectively fix a press release.

The Sydney Morning Herald of 3 September details changes made to a draft press release. The draft press release was headed "URGENT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT". One would think that to be an entirely reasonable heading. If the Government were interested in transparency, if it were in a partnership with the public and if it were keen to make sure that the public was protected from the dangers resulting from an increase in the levels of cryptosporidium and giardia, the word "urgent" would have remained in the press release title. However, that word was deleted. The little pen restructuring job - line out, line out, line out - was done by none other than Federal candidate David Hill. At that time Mr Hill occupied the paid position of Chairman of Sydney Water and was also Chairman of Soccer Australia - and it would appear that he was not doing a particularly good job for soccer either.

David Hill, Federal candidate, was more interested in ensuring that there was no reflection upon the Labor Party by what had become a public disaster. He took out his pen - probably the same
Page 7181
pen used by Graham Richardson to write his book Whatever it Takes - and followed the philosophy that whatever it takes is okay. He chose to delete the word "urgent". The heading now read, "PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT", indicating a fairly mild-mannered announcement. David Hill had not finished with his whatever-it-takes pen. Before he altered the draft press release the first paragraph read:

Extensive testing by Sydney Water Corporation has identified the presence of the microorganisms Giardia and Cryptosporidium in parts of Sydney’s water supply.

Mr Hill, Federal Labor Party candidate, right-wing mate, the Premier’s mate, made a few alterations. First, he chopped the "s" off the word "microorganisms", so that the press release referred to a singular micro-organism, the less dangerous of the two organisms. He then deleted the words "and Cryptosporidium". Anyone reading the amended introductory paragraph of the press release would have decided that the issue was not so serious, because it read:

Extensive testing by Sydney Water Corporation has identified the presence of the microorganism Giardia in parts of Sydney’s water supply.

The issue was downgraded probably from a concern of scale 10 to one of scale 1 - something that might slip by in the outfield, a mate’s way of approaching management of a crisis. Mr Hill could not stop there. The second paragraph as drafted read:

A batch of water containing these organisms in the Eastern Sydney CBD was identified late last week.

The press release was amended to refer to a singular organism. Mr Hill then moved on to the third paragraph. The old mate’s right-wing pen was again put to use. The third paragraph as drafted read:

A second batch has now been identified which could affect a much wider area.

In other words, people outside the eastern Sydney central business district were being put on alert to be careful because the problem could extend to a much wider area. David Hill, Federal candidate, a man of the people, a man who wants to be elected by the people - and if he is elected then he should never be trusted because after this little effort he cannot be trusted - took out his right-wing Graham Richardson pen and deleted the words, "which could affect a much wider area." On the morning the press release was issued people living in the eastern suburbs would have realised there was a problem, but those living in areas such as Cabramatta, Parramatta, Fairfield, the northern suburbs and Kogarah were the subject of a deliberate attempt at deception. An attempt was made to deceive those who lived in a vast part of Sydney, areas of marginal seats, at a time not distant from either the Federal election or the State election.

Alteration of the draft press release was a gross abuse of power. It was an attempt to make sure that residents in areas such as Parramatta, Penrith and the Blue Mountains were completely deceived. People living in Kogarah and areas in Sydney’s south-west knew absolutely nothing about the dangers facing them. The same attitude extended to the northern suburbs area, in which my electorate is located. On the morning of the press release I remember hearing on the radio that the eastern suburbs drinking water supply was contaminated by traces of giardia. I recall Alan Jones interviewing Chris Pollett. At that stage Alan Jones already had a fair grip on the issue and I remember him asking, "What are these bureaucrats, the idiots, actually doing?" He did not then know that the action was coming right from the top, that this was a David Hill exercise and that one of the Labor Party mates was effectively doing a knee-capping job on the public.

David Hill is a great mate of Graham Richardson, of Paul Keating - and we know about Paul Keating’s attitude to the people and to the Parliament - and of the Premier of New South Wales. I challenge the Premier to tell the House about the conversations he has had with David Hill. In this public forum, in this first and oldest of the Australian parliaments, we want to know what part the Premier had to play in the actions that have taken place in Sydney Water from the word go. Was the Premier up to his eyeballs, along with David Hill? Has he been involved since the beginning? Did he really want this information to go out to the public, or was he dragged to the party kicking and screaming?

Honourable members should think of some of the promises made by the Carr administration that have been broken under the direct auspices of the Premier. We were promised that hospital waiting lists would be halved within 12 months. Thank heavens the Premier has not told us that the level of cryptosporidium will be halved within 12 months; now he is just saying that he does not know, although initially we were to have a nil reading within a week or so. What about the tollway promise? Premier Carr has delivered a series of broken promises, deceptions and lies. Regrettably, he is a man branded in this Parliament as someone who does not tell the truth. I am interested to know what part the Premier played in this issue. If he had conversations with David Hill about the press
Page 7182
release then there is no rock under which he can hide, there is no place safe for him, and he should not be in this place until 27 March 1999 - which will be his last day as Premier - but should go from here very soon.

If the Premier had some part in the David Hill press release revamp - the Graham Richardson deletion of urgency, warnings of cryptosporidium existence and the area potentially affected by the parasites - then his days are numbered. I know that the Premier will be listening to this debate and I issue a challenge to him to come into the Chamber and say to the people of New South Wales, "I had no part in any of the revamping of what was said by David Hill, Sydney Water or the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning." Thus far the Premier has not issued such a clear statement, yet we are now two months into the crisis. Until the Premier makes such a statement, the people of New South Wales can safely assume that there is a good chance that the Premier may well have known much more than he should have known about what was going on with a cover-up.

What did the Ministers know about the water problem? Since the outbreak the Government has provided no constructive direction about how the problem will be addressed. The Government, with the benefit of hindsight, but lacking any reasonable person’s foresight, offered the stupid solution that for one week, then for two weeks, or at least until advice is received that the problem is fixed, water should be boiled. David Hill, the Premier, and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning give Sydneysiders a sense that New South Wales is being governed by the three stooges. I do not know which would be Mo, Larry or Curly. I suppose the Premier would be Curly because he likes to twist curly issues around the people of New South Wales and not tell them what is really going on. The three stooges have put Sydney in a despicable position. Little children, people who are ill and people with immune deficiencies are exposed to real danger.

Mr Debnam: The frail aged.

Mr HAZZARD: The honourable member for Vaucluse says the frail aged.

Mr Debnam: Does Bob Carr care? No.

Mr HAZZARD: Bob Carr does not seem to care.

Mr Debnam: He does not care about anybody.

Mr HAZZARD: As the Minister for Local Government, who was in the chair a few minutes ago, said, the Government cares about the polls.

Ms Seaton: Have you ever tried to stop a two-year-old from drinking bathwater?

Mr HAZZARD: The honourable member for Southern Highlands asked whether I have ever tried to stop a two-year-old from drinking bathwater.

Mr Face: On a point of order. This is a wide ranging debate. The honourable member is trifling with the House. I am loath to take points of order but he has erred in relation to four matters in this debate.

Mr HAZZARD: What is the point of order?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is explaining his point of order.

Mr HAZZARD: He had better get to it.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I will make that decision.

Mr HAZZARD: If that is the way the House is going to be run -

Mr Face: He has alleged that the law has been broken.

Mr HAZZARD: That is part of the debate. If you want to take part in the debate -

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the Minister explaining his point of order while the member is interjecting.

Mr Face: The honourable member has already erred on several occasions in relation to what should be a substantive motion. He has already widened the debate by referring to certain people. There is a longstanding tradition in regard to those who have no voice in this Parliament. The honourable member is perilously close to earning the censure of the House.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The debate may continue. However, I ask the member for Wakehurst to return to the substance of the debate. I agree with the Minister that it is dangerous to reflect on those who are not members of this House. In future the member for Wakehurst should avoid doing so.

Page 7183

Mr HAZZARD: Mr Deputy-Speaker, you and the Minister have to get a bit serious.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will not reflect on the Chair.

Mr HAZZARD: Last night the Minister for the Environment went hammer and tongs against Bob Wilson. Do not tell me that I cannot reflect on people who are relevant to this debate. Before the Minister for Gaming and Racing interrupted I was trying to talk about the frail and elderly and people with immune deficiencies.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Wakehurst continues in that vein I will direct him to resume his seat. I have ruled that he should not reflect on the Chair. I was not the occupant of the chair when the issue to which he has referred was raised. I ask him to return to the substance of the debate.

Mr HAZZARD: I remind the honourable Minister that this is a wide ranging debate, the terms of which have been largely extended by the Government. If the Minister had been in the Chamber and had listened to what happened late night, he would know that.

Mr Face: I ask that you bring him back to the debate.

Mr HAZZARD: This motion of no confidence in the Government is about as serious as it gets. The Minister has to listen to all the evidence that is presented in substantiation of that motion, but he does not want to hear all the evidence.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I again ask the member for Wakehurst to return to the substance of the debate.

Mr HAZZARD: Not one of the children in the gallery can drink from the bubblers at school. The Minister cannot tell me that that is not a serious problem. The Minister for Local Government said that this matter is only about polls. At every school throughout Sydney either the bubblers are turned off or plastic bags have been put over them. Each time a child wants to have a drink he or she cannot because of dangerous water laden with cryptosporidium, giardia and other bugs. The Government has done nothing for two months except to play the blame game - blame the coalition and everybody. It has not fixed the problem.

Mrs Beamer: You would not even tell the 58,600 reading.

Mr HAZZARD: I cannot believe that the honourable member for Badgery's Creek who has six children, can attack me in this Chamber.

Mrs Beamer: You did not tell us years ago when the whole problem came to a head.

Mr HAZZARD: The honourable member for Badgery's Creek is a mother and a member of the right wing - another right-wing-mate out of the Graham Richardson mould, from the Paul Keating and Premier faction. I do not think the honourable member for Badgerys Creek is mentioned in the book - she is not that bad - although quite a few other honourable members are mentioned.

The right-wing faction, the Carr Labor Government, the Paul Keating clones, the Graham Richardson duplicates, triplicates and quadruplicates all use deception and lies to make sure they get through any problem. Today nobody in the Government wants to address what needs to be done to clean up Sydney’s water. I have talked about the press releases and the moving-words-around game indulged in by David Hill. I hope that at midnight on polling day, 3 October, David Hill will know he is no longer even a Federal Labor candidate.

Mr Hill should not be the candidate for the Federal seat in which he is standing because he has been despicable in that he has lied to the people of New South Wales. Unfortunately, the Government, quite apart from fiddling the books and dudding the community, has condoned his behaviour. There can be only one explanation for the Government deliberately cooking the books. David Hill started the process and the Premier has continued it. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has issued instructions for his boys to go to Sydney Water and find something in the books about the coalition five or six years ago to take the focus away from the Government’s problem which it cannot sort out?

The Government has a lot to hide. The Government has done nothing to fix today’s problem. Today no-one will drink the water, children cannot drink from bubblers, and people in hospitals are being given bottles of water; that did not happen five or six years ago. The community of New South Wales expects action. Every time the Minister sends his bureaucrats to look through the files, or his backbenchers to create havoc in the Parliament by pretending that it is not today’s problem but a problem from five years ago, he is really saying that the Government does not know what to do and should move into full blame-game mode, not worry about sorting out the problem but just blame the other side.

Page 7184

Even little kids are saying, "This is a joke, this is dumb." About a week and a half ago we were told for the third time that we could not drink the water. I said to my 10-year-old son, "Andrew, don’t drink the water." When he asked, "Why, Dad?" I answered, "Because, unfortunately, the Government has not been able to fix the problem." He said, "That’s dumb", and I replied, "Yes, that is certainly true, Andrew, it is." The problem is that even little kids know that this is dumb but the Labor Government does not seem to realise that; it is simply playing the blame game. The Government has to adopt some of the measures put up by the Opposition in its 10-point plan.

The Leader of the Opposition has made those points clear and I do not propose to go over them, except to say that some of them are natural progressions from what the former Government had commenced before it was forced out of government in 1995. At that time, although 52 per cent of the people still wanted the coalition to govern, the other 48 per cent managed to get the Labor party into government. Next time round, compliments of special arrangements by the Government reducing the number of electorates from 99 to 92, with a bit of luck the election will be more equitable and the coalition will return to government. The kindergarten Ministers of the Labor Party, who are more interested in moving pieces around a chess board, or a blame-game board, will be out. They will be protecting their right-wing mates and will have four years to think about how they can work new strategies to protect their mates.

In the rush to blame the Opposition it has been forgotten that there were 12 long years of Labor government from 1976 to 1988. Regrettably almost nothing was done in that time to fix and maintain the quality of water for the burgeoning city. When the coalition came to government in 1988 it started programs designed to address clean water needs. I remind the Premier and the Labor Party that the former coalition Government moved towards the concept of catchment management. Do honourable members recall that catchment management committees were set up around New South Wales to try to get people at grassroots level involved in achieving clean water? That meant local industries, schools, businesses and individuals had to be educated about how to make sure that the water supply was not accepting pollutants and contaminants, and that those various bodies and persons were not contributing to the input of contaminants. The coalition sought to do that.

That most effective program continues today, but, unfortunately, under this Government it has not been given the necessary resources or support. The upgrading of mains and the implementation of four water treatment plants were initiatives of this Government. Those water treatment plants worked well until the pressures imposed on them in the past few months. They now need further work. The Government cannot hide from the fact that the coalition implemented those measures. The Government has an obligation to provide water that is suitable for drinking, what the lawyers call merchantable quality.

What a joke the $15 rebate is! If a person bought a jumper that was not of merchantable quality, he could return it and get his money back. The Premier and the Minister should ensure that no-one will lose what they have spent on water during the past two months. The Government should pay for the bottled water that people have had to buy, for the inconvenience, and for the electricity and gas needed to boil water. Hopefully the Government will come up with a solution to this problem. If not, it should look at the coalition’s 10-point plan to help it on its way.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [3.45 p.m.]: I support this motion, as does the community. It is interesting to note that at quarter to four in the afternoon the public gallery is full. That usually occurs only during question time, and reflects community concern about Sydney’s water problems. This issue could lead to the downfall of the Carr Government next week if members of the Labor Party decide that they have had enough and cross the floor to vote with the Opposition on this motion.The motion is all about the Government’s accountability and about the people of Sydney not being able to drink the water. What the people in the public gallery are seeing and what we saw last night and what we will see tonight is all about bringing the Government to account.

This Government has run roughshod over New South Wales for 3½ years and because it has gone too far the community wants it brought to account. Most members of the community would agree that the Carr Government is good at theatrics but is pathetic on management and policy. In March 1995 the Government did not even expect to win the election, and therefore did not plan to win. As a result, for 3½ years it has been stumbling, and will continue to stumble until 27 March 1999. This issue arose because of another stumble by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning in October 1996. The community wants four questions answered in relation to the motion of no confidence in the Government. First, for the past 3½ years did the Government know about the parasites? Second, did
Page 7185
the Government have power to take any action on Sydney’s water? Third, did the Government take any action? Fourth, does the New South Wales community have any confidence in the Carr Government?

We all know that the answer to the last question is that it has no confidence in the Carr Government whatsoever. On the question of whether the Government knew about the parasites for 3½ years, speaker after speaker in this debate has confirmed that the Carr Government knew all about those parasites but did nothing about them. On the question of whether the Carr Government had any power to take action in the past 3½ years in relation to Sydney Water’s practices, assets and investments, yes, it did, and I will outline the reasons it had that power. The answer to the question whether the Carr Government took any action is that it did not, as we have heard from both Government and Opposition speakers.

Does the New South Wales community have confidence in the Carr Government? The answer to that question is none at all, certainly no confidence in the Carr Government or in its Labor mates. On the question of why the Government did not take action, to some extent the Minister gave an answer to that yesterday when he indicated that he was not going to take what he called knee-jerk or expensive action. I have provided a small insight into what the Labor Government has done for 3½ years. This is the first Government that has blown its budget every single year that it has been in office. It has done that for three years and will do so in its fourth year.

Unfortunately, the figures for the Government’s fourth budget will not be available until after it leaves office. The Government has had budget blues throughout its 3½ years in office, and it has simply blown its budget. The mismanagement of Sydney Water is all about debt and dividends in government trading enterprises. It is not about water quality or services and the quality of those services. It has not been about those matters for 3½ years. The priorities of the Labor Party will become apparent when I refer to a speech made by the Premier in mid-1995. As Opposition members have said, the Treasurer has been working with Ministers on the Government front bench to extract more money for their mad spending sprees not on water quality but on various other things.

For 3½ years the Government’s only action in relation to water has been to provide jobs for the boys, as the House has heard from a number of speakers. Indeed, the Minister for Gaming and Racing got very upset when one of his mates was mentioned. For 3½ years the Carr Government has been about jobs for Labor mates and jobs for the right wing. I might add that very few jobs have been provided for the left wing of the Labor Party, which caused it to produce a document entitled Abuse of Power in 1995 or 1996. That is no surprise to the Opposition as traditionally Labor governments have been about Labor interests and abuse.

The people currently in the public gallery who were lucky enough to watch the performance of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning last night and, indeed, during question time today would know that there is no substance whatever in the response from the Government front bench to the water crisis. All we have heard is personal abuse. I turn now to the question of whether the Government knew about the parasites. On 22 October 1996, in answer to a Dorothy Dixer, a pre-arranged question, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, who has been responsible for Sydney Water for the past 3½ years, said:

To make it clear, I said I was aware of reports on the front page and on page 6 of the Sydney Morning Herald. As I said earlier it must have been a very slow news day. Frankly, attempts to beat up the likelihood of a cryptosporidium outbreak are little more than scaremongery.

The Minister made that speech in October 1996. Two years ago the Minister responsible for Sydney Water said that anyone who raised the issue of cryptosporidium in Sydney’s water supply was simply scaremongering. Indeed, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning was a member of the parliamentary committee that reviewed Sydney Water in the early 1990s. He has been involved with the issue for about six years. For 3½ years he has been the Minister responsible for Sydney Water but in the past 24 hours he has had the hide to stand up and accept no responsibility. However, he has sacked a couple of his mates whom he appointed to the board of Sydney Water. The House should remember that the Labor Party is not about management but about jobs for Labor mates. On 22 October 1996 the Minister further said:

However, let us be clear about this. Since 1992, when the first tests were conducted, no further unacceptably high levels have been found.

Anyone who has followed the debate over the past 24 hours will find that statement interesting when compared to what the Premier said in the House yesterday.

Mr O’Farrell: He lied.

Page 7186

Mr DEBNAM: He lied. I remember a poster that was circulated in Sydney and, indeed, in New South Wales about a year ago which displayed the words "Liar, liar".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I prefer the honourable member not to use that word.

Mr DEBNAM: The Premier is totally untrustworthy. I reiterate that in October 1996 the Minister responsible for Sydney Water said:

Let us be clear about this. Since 1992, when the first tests were conducted, no further unacceptably high levels have been found.

However, the Premier contradicted that statement in the past few hours with a story. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning further said:

Our water supply is getting better. Four water filtration plants, representing an investment of $3.5 billion, are now coming on line. I can report to the House that those water filtration plants are currently going through their commissioning phase. The good news is that all the plants are either meeting their performance standards or they are performing in excess of design criteria, which will effectively remove cryptosporidium.

Two years ago the Minister accepted total ownership of the water problem. He further said:

This matter received the attention of the present Government when it was in opposition and it received the attention of the previous Government . . . As I said earlier, the cryptosporidium story usually does the rounds at least twice a year.

Although the Minister knew about the problem two years ago he did nothing. He concluded by saying:

I assure honourable members that residents of Sydney can be confident they are drinking water of the best quality provided anywhere in the world.

People who have doubts that the Minister has known about the matter for six years should read Hansard of 22 October 1996. If they want further night reading I suggest they read the report of the select committee that inquired into Sydney Water in the early 1990s, which shows the Minister’s involvement in the matter. The Minister knew about the problem and he knew what action he could take to correct it. However, he failed to take any action. At about the same time, October 1996, the Water Board issued its annual report. For the information of the people in the gallery who may not be familiar with the process, the annual report is sent to the Minister, who frequently makes public comments on it.

The 1996 Sydney Water annual report identified cryptosporidium as an emerging issue. The Minister already knew that cryptosporidium was an emerging issue because he had been involved in the matter for a number of years. However, in October 1996 he decided that it was simply scaremongering to do anything about the emerging issue. In July 1996 the shadow minister for health, understandably alarmed at the Government’s attitude to these parasites, asked the Minister for Health whether testing should be undertaken. The Minister scoffed and said that routine monitoring for cryptosporidium was simply not appropriate. Two years ago senior Ministers in the Carr Government scoffed at the suggestion that action should be taken in relation to these parasites. I shall refer later to the Minister’s arrogance for the people of Sydney.

I turn now to whether the Carr Government had the power to take action on the water issue. That raises the issue of the corporatisation of Sydney Water. It is unfortunate for the people of New South Wales that when the Carr Government was sworn into office I had been a member of Parliament for only 11 months. One of the first debates to which I made a contribution in 1995 was the debate on the State Owned Corporations (Amendment) Bill. Those who have listened to the Minister and the Premier lie about their involvement in this matter and to their talk about the corporatisation of Sydney Water and what they will do to fix the problem and bring Sydney Water to heel should consider what the Premier said on 23 May 1995, more than three years ago, during his second reading speech on the State Owned Corporations (Amendment) Bill. The Premier, who had been in office less than two months and who was already out of date, said:

The bill will ensure that this Government is accountable for the operations of a statutory State owned corporation.

Mr O’Farrell: Can you repeat that?

Mr DEBNAM: On 23 May 1995, more than three years ago, the Premier told the New South Wales Parliament that the State Owned Corporations (Amendment) Bill will ensure that the Government is accountable for the operations of a statutory State-owned corporation. Some people may question whether the Premier understood that Sydney Water is a State-owned corporation. As he spends most of his spare time in Europe I understand that he probably did not know what the legislation was all about. I had my doubts, when I read the Premier’s speech, whether he knew what the issue was all about. I turned to the speech - which, understandably, is very short because he has no understanding of policy and no interest in the economics or reform of New South Wales - to find
Page 7187
that, after brief comment on the accountability of the Government, the Premier went on to say:

. . . the two existing State-owned corporations - namely, the Hunter Water Corporation and the Sydney Water Corporation - will be maintained.

So, in that same speech, he named Sydney Water. On page 1 he said:

The bill will ensure that this Government is accountable for the operations of a statutory State-owned corporation.

From the previous comment, one can therefore read into the latter "the operations of Sydney Water".

Mr O’Farrell: If he were a director, he would have to resign.

Mr DEBNAM: If he were a director, he definitely would have to resign, and he would probably speak to the Federal authorities. The last paragraph of the Premier’s speech says:

At the same time, I believe that the public also expects that these bodies should be obliged to display a sense of social responsibility in the conduct of their commercial activities, and should be accountable for their actions. The Government is committed to ensuring that these public expectations are fulfilled.

The Premier sacked his mates at Sydney Water, but he absolutely refuses to sack his other little mate, Minister Knowles. In fact, on his own words, the Premier should resign. Clearly, he is accountable on this issue. He has been involved in it up to his eyeballs since David Hill messed up the first few hours of management of the crisis. The Premier dived into the water and has been involved in the management of this issue from day one. He has been involved right through the three outbreaks, and undoubtedly will be through the next three outbreaks of cryptosporidium. I remind those in the public gallery that for the past 24 hours the Premier has been claiming that he is not accountable for the operations of Sydney Water and that in fact he will fix that by taking action to bring the water authorities under his control.

Sydney Water has been under the fingertip control of the Premier since May 1995. Despite that, the Premier refuses to accept his responsibilities, mainly because he has no interest in the people of New South Wales. I spoke in the debate on 7 June and drew the attention of the House to the fact that the State Owned Corporations Amendment Bill, which affected Sydney Water, one of the two State-owned corporations at the time, was defining legislation for the Carr Government. I had no idea at that time how prophetic my remarks would be. This is an absolutely pathetic Government. The third paragraph of my speech contained this statement:

This legislation delivers power to Labor Ministers to interfere at will.

That summed up what that legislation was about. That bill, introduced by the Premier on 23 May 1995, allowed him to interfere at will in State-owned corporations. He has done so for 3½ years. He will continue to do so until he leaves office on 27 March. Those interested in this topic could look at that debate, in which some five members of the Opposition spoke, pointing out what a disaster it would be for the people of New South Wales. I might return to some of those comments later.

Question two was: Did the Carr Government have the power to take action? There is no doubt it did. The legislation is straightforward: Premier Carr can do whatever he likes. Minister Knowles, as responsible Minister, can do whatever he likes with the co-operation of Treasurer Egan. We know that Premier Carr, Treasurer Egan and a few others work very well together to manipulate various businesses in this State. In my speech on 7 June 1995 I warned what was about to happen with the Carr Government’s reversion to the bad old days. What we have heard from the Premier in the past few days about decorporatisation of Sydney Water is simply theatrics. The Premier likes to prance around as if on stage, especially in the Parliament. The art of theatrics is all he is really interested in. He has always had the power to act in the interests of the people of New South Wales, but he simply never has.

My third question was: Did the Carr Government take any action? The answer is: none, other than appointing mates to the board of Sydney Water. Why did the Government appoint its mates to the board? Because that helps the Government in whatever its political objectives are. As I said in my speech on 7 June 1995, it is all about political expediency. It is not about good management of businesses or enterprises, and it is not in the interests of the people of New South Wales. It is simply about the interests of Bob Carr’s mates. I return to an issue I mentioned only a short while ago. One Minister who delights in stretching the truth - usually making up what he calls the truth - is the Minister for Health. In 1996 the most senior health authority in this State was telling people not to be worried about cryptosporidium, forget it, it was not an issue. He was followed by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, who dismissed the issue in response to a Dorothy Dixer. They did a good job of telling the public it was not an issue.

Page 7188

Mr Hazzard: They deceived us.

Mr DEBNAM: They did indeed deceive the public. They have much to answer for on this issue. In question four I posed: Does the New South Wales community have confidence in the Carr Government? Hardly! It has no confidence whatsoever. The Opposition, which watches the Government day to day, is very concerned about what the Carr Government is doing to New South Wales, the people of New South Wales, the interests of the people of this State, and the view that overseas persons must be taking about New South Wales. This issue is news around the world. It is of concern to our tourism industry as well as to the residents of Sydney. The honourable member for Wakehurst addressed the issue of the frail aged, those with immune deficiency, those with illnesses, and our children.

Mr Hazzard: The Minister did not give a damn. He tried to shut me up.

Mr DEBNAM: The Minister did not give a damn. In fact, he tried to shut down the debate. The only time that the Minister became concerned and agitated was when he spoke on behalf of his Labor mates.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr Face: If the honourable member for Wakehurst would take his tablets, we would not have as much trouble in this Parliament.

Mr DEBNAM: If you had given tablets to David Hill, we would not have so much trouble in this Parliament. If the people of New South Wales are asked what they think of the Carr Government -

Mr O’Farrell: There is a resounding answer.

Mr DEBNAM: Yes. If the people of New South Wales are asked about their thoughts on State politics at the moment, few would have any comment to make beyond the fact that they cannot stand Bob Carr, they do not trust Bob Carr, and they do not want Bob Carr. At the moment they want to talk about Federal issues. The reality is that people have not trusted Bob Carr since he became Opposition leader in 1988. The people of New South Wales have had more than four years of the Premier. They have had Bob Carr as Opposition leader for seven years and they have had him as Premier for 3½ years, and he has 200 days to go. By 27 March next year the people of New South Wales will have had Bob Carr in damaging mode for 11 years of hard Labor.

Mr Smith: Three lifetimes.

Mr DEBNAM: It does seem like three lifetimes. This issue of water quality and the involvement in it of Bob Carr and Craig Knowles goes back years. Craig Knowles was involved with the review of Sydney Water in the early 1990s. I have no idea when Bob Carr became involved in the issue of Sydney’s water quality. No doubt it was in the early 1990s when he was Leader of the Opposition, but in relation to the control of Sydney Water Bob Carr’s involvement -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I remind the honourable member for Vaucluse that he should refer to both Government and Opposition members by their correct titles.

Mr Hazzard: The honourable despicable Premier.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: I call the honourable member for Wakehurst to order for the second time. If he makes any further remarks of that nature I will direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him from the Chamber.

Mr DEBNAM: In 1995 the Premier, Bob Carr, had his fingers right on this issue. I refer to my speech of 7 June 1995, when I said:

This legislation delivers power to Labor Ministers to interfere at will

. . . This bill will prove to be one of the defining pieces of legislation for this new Government -

being the Carr Government -

It sets the tone of this new Government and, if passed, will be a source of great concern to the people of New South Wales.

At that time the House was debating the Premier’s control of State-owned corporations, specifically Sydney Water. I repeat my remarks of 7 June:

[This new legislation] sets the tone of this new Government and, if passed, will be a source of great concern to the people of New South Wales.

Everyone now understands that the legislation, combined with the absolute incompetence of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the Minister responsible for Sydney Water, is a source of great concern to the people of New South Wales. The Minister should have resigned months ago, and we have now clearly reached the point where the
Page 7189
Premier should resign. On 7 June 1995 I spoke about how political interference by previous Labor governments had disadvantaged the people of New South Wales and would do so again once the legislation took effect. At the time of the Premier’s interference with State-owned corporations several financial commentators pointed out that corporatisation is all about getting it right without political interference. They drew the distinction between accountability and political interference. Does the New South Wales community have confidence in the Carr Government regarding the Sydney Water issue?

Mr O’Farrell: No.

Mr DEBNAM: Not at all. The rural community has no confidence in the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs and Sydney has no confidence in the Premier. The Carr Government is unfit, unsafe and untrustworthy. I support this no confidence motion, which is also supported by the community.

Mr O’FARRELL (Northcott) [4.15 p.m.]: The people in the public gallery might be surprised to learn that in relation to such an important issue as the safety of Sydney’s water supply the Government is not following the usual procedure in this House of putting up a speaker to defend its case. That is not surprising because the Government does not have a leg to stand on. The case is indefensible. Every member in the gallery knows, as indeed every member in the House knows, that no-one can drink Sydney water. Under a coalition Government 3½ years ago people would not think twice about having a drink of water. Today in homes around Sydney parents like the honourable member for Port Jackson and I must ensure that our children take extreme care when using water for everyday tasks. The hardest thing with a 4½-year-old is to stop him drinking water when he gets in the bath.

The water problem is serious, yet the Labor Party refuses to defend its position and to explain its case to the electors of New South Wales, not only those of Sydney. It is disgraceful that members opposite do not take a serious interest in this issue. Instead they take an out-of-touch approach. Labor does not understand that families in the community are outraged, upset and angry about the administration of the New South Wales water system. The Labor Party apparently has a tradition of social justice, caring and compassion but members opposite do themselves little credit by not joining in this debate to express the concerns of their constituents. This issue is beyond politics. It is not only Liberal or Labor electorates that are affected. All Sydney electorates represented in this Parliament are affected. It ill behoves Government members not to join in and to represent their constituents on this issue by making the points we all must make - points that were so eloquently made a few moments ago by the honourable member for Vaucluse and in his speech on 7 June 1995.

Mr Debnam: Copies are available in my office.

Mr O’FARRELL: Or, for the interest of members in the gallery, the speech is also available on the Internet. I am happy to acknowledge that throughout the water crisis the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has shown application, diligence, dedication and an appropriate degree of management and commitment to accountability. However, the crisis wracking Sydney should never have occurred, because he should have shown that application, diligence, commitment to accountability and demonstration of management skills, during the preceding 3½ years. As the Leader of the Opposition said last night, essentially we had a Minister and a Premier asleep at the wheel. Sydney residents now suffer the consequences of the crash that occurred because of their incompetence and negligence. If they were in charge of a vehicle on the road, they would be charged -

Mr Debnam: With criminal negligence.

Mr O’FARRELL: - and locked up for precisely the offence named by the honourable member for Vaucluse: criminal negligence. The honourable member for Vaucluse asked what I believe are four pertinent questions. When did the responsible Government Ministers first know there was a crisis? Did they have the power to deal with that crisis? Did they take action? What confidence can the New South Wales community have in those Ministers? Many thousands of words have been uttered since this motion came on for debate, but they are the four critical issues. I have found, as I travel around my electorate and in the community generally, that people have already made a decision about the last matter. The first three issues are critical. As the honourable member for Vaucluse reminded us, responsibility lies at the heart of this crisis, the heart of this issue that is affecting Sydneysiders and the many people who live throughout New South Wales who have family, friends and relatives living in Sydney.

The honourable member for Vaucluse drew our attention to one of the first actions of the Carr Government. That was to amend the State Owned
Page 7190
Corporations Act. For the benefit of the people in the gallery, State-owned corporations are essentially public authorities that are fully owned by the Government that have been restructured and set up along commercial lines to ensure greater efficiency and benefit for the taxpayers and consumers of the State. One of the concerns the Labor Party expressed in the last Parliament was that the corporatisation structure did not provide proper accountability. It did not allow Ministers to put social obligations into effect when they thought they overrode economic imperatives. One of the first actions of the Government was to amend the State Owned Corporations Act to give Ministers greater power to influence corporatised authorities in the State to take what Labor claimed was a better interest in their social obligations.

In relation to the first point of responsibility the Premier on 23 May 1995, within months of coming to office, committed himself to a structure that gave Ministers greater control over entities like Sydney Water. What has the Minister responsible for Sydney Water, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, been doing with that power for the past two years? Clearly, the answer is nothing. He has the responsibility. The Government changed the legislation to ensure he had the necessary powers and he has done absolutely nothing with them. So, today we find ourselves in the middle of an ongoing water crisis.

Did the Government know? We know, because it has been repeated in almost every contribution from this side of the House - and I have no doubt that if members on the Government side were taking part in this debate they would acknowledge it also - that in the 1996 annual report of the Sydney Water Corporation concern was expressed about cryptosporidium. Sydney Water’s annual environmental report that year identified cryptosporidium as "an emerging issue in the field of water supply." Annual reports, as well as being reports to the public at large, are essentially reports to the responsible Minister. Who was the responsible Minister? The responsible Minister was the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. He received a report in 1996 that mentioned something called cryptosporidium being an emerging issue. One might have hoped that the odd alarm bell might have gone off, but not with the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. He was too busy trying to restructure Sydney and trying to get the ticker to take over the leadership some day. Two years ago the Minister received a report and he sat on his hands.

Another question raised by the honourable member for Vaucluse was when the Government knew about the problem and what it did about it. Did it have the power to act? As the honourable member for Vaucluse and other honourable members have reminded the House, on 22 October 1996, in response to a question asked by a member on the Government side of the House, the Minister deliberately played down the threat to Sydneysiders from parasites. I am not talking here about the Carr Government; I am talking about parasites in the water supply. The Minister told Parliament that water treatment plants would remove 99 per cent of cryptosporidium. He said:

Frankly, attempts to beat up the likelihood of a cryptosporidium outbreak are little more than scaremongery.

Before I became a member of this House, I had dealings with Ministers who answered questions during question time. Those sorts of blanket safety statements, whether they related to transport or water, were never made by Ministers unless they were checked at the highest level. So, either the Minister has simply given a glib response or he has deliberately misled Parliament. The former is less likely when one remembers that the question is what is called a Dorothy Dixer, friendly fire from his good friend the honourable member for Liverpool. They are factional foes but close geographic friends in the Labor Party.

The Minister was responding in Parliament on 22 October 1996 to a concern about a cryptosporidium outbreak, and he played it down. Nevertheless, for two days in a row the Premier has said that every time the issue has been raised the Government has been open and has taken decisive action. It does not stack up. The people of Sydney will see through it. They have only to look at the time charts the newspapers are publishing about the unfolding of events to see that members on the Government side of the House talk with forked tongues. They are more interested in politics and the next election than they are in genuinely finding out how to solve the problem that is confronting Sydney.

A fourth point relates to a speech made by the Premier in 1996 when he opened a water filtration plant. He ascended to yet another level of verbosity and hyperbole in his speech at the opening. This speech was given on 30 October 1996, three weeks before the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning downplayed the issue in the House. At the opening the Premier said:

This facility is a triumph of modern engineering and technology and an example of the excellence which helped Sydney to win the 2000 Olympic Games.

Page 7191

The obvious response to that is if the former coalition Government had shown that sort of attention to such a fundamental issue in Sydney, the city would never have won the 2000 Olympic Games. If the coalition Government had gone into the bidding process with this sort of scandal around its neck, in 18 months time everyone would be going to Beijing and not looking forward to the Olympics in Sydney. The Premier went on:

While Sydney’s water supply is amongst the best in the world today, we have taken action to guarantee the quality of Sydney’s water for future generations.

Regrettably, those future generations were born between 1 October 1996 and August 1998, because from this point on the problem is here and the Government is doing absolutely nothing to address its root cause. The Premier, carried away by hyperbole, erudition and verbosity, went on to say:

The process of filtration has been introduced to replace the settling period and guarantee the quality of water to meet future demand.

Sydney now has fresh filtered water - crystal clear, healthy and great tasting.

I do not know what water the Premier drinks - I suspect it is probably Perrier or Evian - but I am sure it is not locally brewed. It would never come from Neverfail, those marvellous bottlers of spring water from the electorate of Northcott. A company, given this crisis, could not have chosen a better name - Neverfail. One can always rely on it. I have relied on Neverfail for water supplies in my electorate office since March 1995 and I look forward to continuing to use Neverfail supplies when my electoral office moves down the road slightly after the next election. Neverfail is a famous name in the Northcott electorate. That is not a title that could ever be applied to Government members. "Everfail" would be an appropriate name for Government members, because whatever they touch turns to dross.

I was interested to discover that one does not need to examine an annual report, read newspaper reports or be an expert on water quality to be concerned about cryptosporidium. A 74-year-old gentleman by the name of Robert Young lives in the Wetherill Park suburb in the electorate of our good friend the honourable member for Fairfield, the man who knows most about unseating sitting members - although I am sure that he is upstairs at the moment giving the honourable member for Hurstville and the honourable member for St Marys a little advice. Mr Young has been calling on the Government to implement an urgent impact study on giardia and cryptosporidium in the Sydney water supplies. In the past two years Mr Young has written to the Minister for the Environment; the Minister for Health; the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning; the Minister for Transport, the whizz-kid of the Government - the man who, hopefully, by about the year 2010 will have enough experience to be deputy leader - and the Premier to express his concern about giardia and cryptosporidium in water supplies.

Mr Fraser: What response has he received?

Mr O’FARRELL: On 5 May the Minister for Health responded by saying that monitoring for cryptosporidium and giardia is very costly and that "widespread monitoring is not currently advocated in NSW." A 74-year-old from the heart of Labor territory has been warning all those Ministers of the Carr Government about this issue. What was their response? Was it openness, accountability, or an approach to the media to acknowledge that there is a problem and say that the Government was going to resolve it? Did the Government say, "Hang the cost, we will spend whatever it takes"? No, the Government responded to 74-year-old Mr Young by saying that testing for the organisms is too costly and that widespread monitoring is not currently advocated in this State. What a cop-out, what an example of just how out of touch the Government is.

That story demonstrates yet another reason that Government members do not dare show their faces in this debate. Government members do not dare to contribute to the debate or attempt to defend the indefensible. There have been years of neglect. I do not know what the Cabinet in this State does, but it is clear that it does not attempt to run New South Wales. Redistributions, pre-selections and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trips - who from the Illawarra will go next? - are obviously the issues that preoccupy Government members, because they simply do not address the real issues.

Today I received a message through my electorate office from a woman whose son last year obtained a degree in bioprocess engineering from the University of New South Wales. That subject covers water testing, water quality and related issues. The young man, who comes from my electorate and is fairly up-front and not afraid to knock on doors, approached Sydney Water for a job. He thought that Sydney Water would be a terrific employer and would be interested in his degree, and he thought it would be a great start for his career. Sydney Water responded by telling him that it was not interested in employing him - it was not interested in water testing or water quality.


Page 7192
My constituent, the young man’s mother, asks why it is that Sydney Water has to bring in overseas experts when our home-grown experts who have been trying for work at Sydney Water for years - last year at least, as evidenced by this example - are turned away by an authority that apparently was not concerned. That young man is now working in Melbourne. Many derogatory remarks are made about Melbourne and the Victorian Government but it must be said that the Victorian Government does not take these issues for granted and that it puts consumers, regulation and the benefits for and protection of consumers at the forefront of its corporatisation and privatisation processes.

It is a great pity that in the six weeks that this has been an issue all we have had from the Government is an attempt to play what others have described as the blame game. The Government has blamed the media for beating up the issue and has said that people should not worry. It has attempted to blame Chris Pollett, the chief executive of Sydney Water. It has certainly laid blame at the feet of its one-time friend David Hill. When David Hill was appointed as Chairman of Sydney Water I was reported as calling upon him to resign. I did that for two reasons. First, I deeply resent the fact that the Labor Party has its snout so firmly in the public trough in this State that it dares to fund an election campaign for a Federal candidate through New South Wales taxpayers.

Second, I recognise that whether the person in such a position is a Liberal Party or a Labor Party supporter, if one does not step down once one becomes a political candidate then one opens oneself up for public attack and decisions may then be taken for political reasons rather than in the best interests of New South Wales taxpayers or consumers, given the various bodies involved. The Government has engaged in playing the blame game by attempting to blame the former Government and trying to blame the current Opposition. Under the Westminster system there is no more powerless bunch than an opposition. Nevertheless, Opposition members are today, by our actions, being blamed for this crisis. Everything, including foxes, dogs, the odd horse and bats, is being blamed for this crisis. Everything except flying pigs is being blamed for the crisis.

Mr Fraser: What about septic tanks?

Mr O’FARRELL: Yes, and septic tanks. Next we will have an oyster crisis. The Sydney community is sick of the blame game that is currently being engaged in by those on the other side of politics. Regrettably, at times that is characteristic of all sides of politics. The community wants a commitment from us as its representatives, as its putative leaders, that when problems such as this arise we will show leadership, put aside our political differences and do what we can to have the problem fixed. What more fundamental problem can there be than one with the water upon which we all have to rely every day? For the past six weeks the community has wanted a clear commitment from the Government that the problem will be fixed. It has not wanted the political shenanigans that have been engaged in, it has not wanted public servants to be sacked and it has not wanted great political debate on the issue. The community wants guarantees about current and future water supplies in Sydney and it wants a long-term commitment to the management of water assets in this State.

I am pleased that the Minister for Regional Development is present. Opposition members realise that a crisis is about to occur in the Goulburn, Mittagong and Camden areas. I do not wish to tread on territory that may be covered by the honourable member for Southern Highlands, but I point out that Opposition members know that the lack of weight of the Minister for Regional Development at the Cabinet table has meant that necessary funding for projects in regional New South Wales has not materialised and that necessary water and sewerage projects have been deferred. That is precisely the situation that has lead to Sydney being in such a mess. God forbid that Goulburn and other major regional and rural centres should suffer the sort of inconvenience, worry and distress that has been visited upon Sydney residents in the past six weeks.

I would be delighted if the Minister for Regional Development were to speak in this debate to defend his Government on this water issue, accept his portfolio responsibilities and respond to the concerns being expressed about regional and rural New South Wales. I would be happy to offer my bipartisan support to this Government if it got serious about solving the problems affecting Sydneysiders. The Leader of the Opposition has presented a plan to solve those problems - a positive, pro-active plan which will be a terrific start to solving the problems that have been visited upon Sydney. It is the sort of plan that should have been presented by the Government six weeks ago. It is the sort of plan that, had it been presented by the Government six weeks ago, would have been fully embraced and totally supported by the Opposition. I am pleased to support this motion.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [4.40 p.m.]: There can be no greater event in parliamentary life than the moving of a motion of no confidence in a government. Such a motion is not
Page 7193
moved lightly, and has not happened often during the 10 years in which I have been a member of this House. I cannot think of a better reason to move a motion of no confidence in this Government than its failure to produce water that the people of Sydney can safely drink. Australia is not a Third World country but a proud first world country, one which has prided itself on being able to excel in many areas.

A clear message must now be sent around the world that the people of Sydney, visitors to Sydney from country New South Wales, and visitors from interstate and overseas cannot safely drink the water. Overseas travellers are warned about Delhi belly and Bali belly. Regrettably, visitors to Sydney will now be so warned. That message will send shock waves through the tourist and conference industries, which are vital not only to Sydney but, more importantly, to country New South Wales. The Minister for Regional Development probably does not understand that Sydney is a gateway. People stay in Sydney for a few days and visit the harbour, the zoo and Sydney generally, then they travel to wonderful areas such as the Hunter Valley, the central coast, my beautiful electorate of Myall Lakes and the lower north coast.

Mr Woods: The far north coast.

Mr J. H. TURNER: They travel to other areas such as the far north coast, the west of New South Wales into Monaro, and all parts of New South Wales. That is what they used to do, but now they will not come here. We have already heard that conferences have been cancelled. Conferences are worth enormous amounts of money to New South Wales, not only to Sydney. People who come to Sydney for a three- or four-day conference do not fly halfway around the world only to catch a plane and return home. They visit the areas I have referred to. But if going through the gateway of Sydney means they may become sick they will take that into consideration.

If people with young children have a choice between visiting a country in which no risk is involved in drinking the water or one in which a possible risk exists, they will not take the risk. There is no doubt that this no confidence motion is a significant motion, for binding reasons. The cost to the New South Wales economy will be dramatic, the cost of the confidence of the people of Sydney is dramatic, and the cost right across the spectrum, both in money and in emotions, is significant. That must be taken into account when this matter is voted on.

The Government has shown its arrogance in the way it has treated this no confidence motion. Not one Government member has defended the Government or the Premier in his handling of this matter. That is an indictment of the condemnation that Government members feel towards the Premier, his Cabinet, and in particular the responsible Ministers, for the manner in which they have handled the matter. The Ministers have handled the matter with the arrogance and slackness that honourable members have come to know during the last 3½ years of the Carr Labor Government.

No confidence motions are at the peak of the Westminster system. Next down the line in the Westminster system is the concept of ministerial responsibility. The Minister responsible has thumbed his nose not only at this Parliament, by not being present and not answering questions properly, but also at the people of Sydney. The Minister asked to be made responsible for Sydney Water. Shortly after the coalition lost government in this State he moved the changes to the legislation that put him in charge. He wanted the responsibility then.

Now that he has the responsibility he wants nothing to do with the matter; it is somebody else’s problem and somebody else’s fault. As the honourable member for Northcott said, the Government is playing the blame game. I believe in the Westminster system, and when the coalition is on the other side of the House, its Ministers will have to be accountable. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has to be accountable for his lack of action in this crisis. His continuing lack of action has cast a pall across Sydney and indeed New South Wales.

Schoolchildren who visited the Parliament from Krambach an hour or so ago were totally puzzled that they can drink water in Krambach, a little village 37 kilometres west of Taree, but they cannot drink water in Sydney. Some years ago, while this Government was in office, I asked my secretary to come to Sydney to do some work for me. She hovered around and looked quite anxious. When I asked her what was wrong she said, "I want a drink of water but my mother said I should not drink the water in Sydney". She may have been prophetic.

Ministerial responsibility is vital to the integrity of any government or parliament. The lack of ministerial responsibility, as shown by this Minister and this Government as a collective, is to be condemned. That is an over-riding reason why a no confidence motion in this Government should be
Page 7194
moved successfully, although the Opposition knows that will not happen. The Labor Party and every Labor member who represents a Sydney electorate will vote as a block to protect the Premier, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Planning - the triumvirate - who are responsible for the worst emergency in Sydney that I can remember, at the risk of alienating every person in their electorates.

The honourable member for Port Jackson represents a Sydney seat, as do many honourable members in this House. Surely their responsibility is to constituencies. Whether their constituents voted Labor, Liberal-National or any other party, their prime responsibility under the Westminster system is to their constituencies, followed by a responsibility to the State of New South Wales. Yet Labor members will vote as a block to protect the Premier, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Planning, who have been responsible for their constituents having to endure the odium of boiling water, otherwise sterilising water or going out of their way to buy water they can drink. That is letting down the electorate, not just a few people from pressure groups who approach members when decisions have to be made and arguments have to be weighed up. It affects the 40,000-odd people in the electorate who are being inconvenienced by not being able to drink the water.

Government members will vote against the wishes of all 45,000 people in their electorate. I would like to see how they sell that message in their local communities and newspapers. They will vote for the continuation of appalling drinking conditions and health standards in the State of New South Wales. They will vote against the people who put their hands in their pockets to spend money on bottled water. They will vote to provide a system where health cannot be guaranteed in this State. That is an appalling indictment on the Labor Party’s mentality towards this whole concept. Having said that, it does not come as a great surprise to me because during the Wallis Lake oyster scare in my electorate 18 months ago, the door was again shut after the horse had bolted.

It is interesting to note that a gag has been applied in this House against speaking about the Wallis Lake oyster scare. The first time I had ever heard such a thing was when the Speaker read a letter from the Attorney General cautioning members about discussing it. The Minister for the Environment, who is usually very garrulous, remained silent whenever she was goaded on the issue. Honourable members will probably see many issues unfolding in the future and will know why the Minister for the Environment is so quiet. I will not breach the Attorney General’s advice but I have a sneaking suspicion that the Council might be seen in a different light from that cast by the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister might be seen in a different light. I suspect that certain measures had not been taken at that time, although the Government knew about them before the announcement was made.

One thing I will do - and this is outside the advice given by the Attorney General and therefore is not sub judice - is to highlight the Government’s cavalier attitude. Following the Wallis Lake scare I called on the Minister for Fisheries to provide funding for the acceleration of testing for viral infections in oysters. One problem associated with the Wallis Lake oyster scare was that people allegedly - and I emphasise the word "allegedly" - contracted hepatitis A from eating Wallis Lake oysters. The epidemiological studies and statistics lead one to question that allegation, but that is for another time and place.

I called for funding for that purpose because it is vitally important that viral testing of oysters is carried out. That testing is not done at present. Oysters can be bacterially tested but not virally tested. The reply I received from the Minister for Fisheries was that the Government did not have the money for that purpose, but he said that if another outbreak occurred it would apply funds after it had been informed of the outbreak. That attitude exists in relation to Sydney’s water crisis and, frankly, it is not good enough. It is too late to shut the gate once the horse has bolted. The horse could be dead and floating down the river. That might have been the cause of the cryptosporidium outbreak; we do not know because we have not been told. It might have been a fox, a bat, or anything. We do know that this issue cannot be ignored.

This problem has to be fixed. The Government must be truthful and honest and face up to its responsibilities. Members of the Government get big money and cars because they have the responsibility and they should do something about it. The Opposition assumed responsibility with its well thought out 10-point plan. The Leader of the Opposition showed initiative and leadership, which has been sadly lacking in the Government for the past 3½ years. The Premier’s penny-ante grandstanding has shown him to be a Premier who lacks confidence and responsibility, a man sailing under false colours. The coalition has an alternative Premier who is prepared to say that if the Government will not do something about this
Page 7195
problem, at least the Opposition will. It will propose a plan to address the problems faced by the people.

It is up to the Government to accept that it has got it wrong. If it has to eat humble pie - and the Minister for the Environment said she had to eat humble pie over the Wallis Lake affair - then it has to do so swiftly to ensure that Sydney’s drinking water is back in the marketplace with a guarantee of purity and no risk to the health of the citizens. I refer now to the fair trading portfolio, for which I am the shadow minister. New South Wales has about 1.5 million people who rent premises. Let us assume that in Sydney there are approximately one million tenants, although I suspect there are many more than that. The Government proposes a $15 rebate for those who are inconvenienced by this water problem.

That is a total insult. It is hard to believe that the Government should offer a $15 rebate for water that must be boiled. Bear in mind that water has to be boiled for one minute. These days most jugs have automatic cut-out facilities, so people will have to hold down the cut-out button and thermostats will be ruined or burnt out. That will result in an added cost for the purchase of a new jug but, more importantly, could result in a electrical short in the jug and perhaps a fire. The Government has not thought about that. Some people have to buy water, but they will not buy water only during the scare. Newspapers have reported time and again that people have said they will never drink Sydney water again. People will incur a long-term cost that they had not budgeted for. Water in bottles is horrendously expensive.

Mr MacCarthy: As are filters.

Mr J. H. TURNER: Yes, as are filters, as the honourable member for Strathfield said. Many other artificial devices have been forced on people during this crisis, yet they will receive a paltry $15 rebate. That is bad enough in the fair trading area but the Government has said, "This is our decision." If a trader - a person in the real world, which the Labor Party does not know about or has forgotten - took that attitude the department would take him before the Department of Fair Trading and he would be unmercifully crucified to ensure that proper compensation was paid to his consumers. The people of Sydney who drink Sydney water are consumers; they are no different from consumers who buy water from Coles or Woolworths. If water purchased from Coles or Woolworths was contaminated, consumers would be entitled to fair and proper compensation. But the $15 rebate to be paid to Sydney Water consumers is not fair and proper compensation.

A $15 rebate for one million tenants in Sydney amounts to a $15 million payout. Who will get that payout? It will not be the tenants, who are still putting their hands in their pockets for bottled water, boiling water in jugs, or buying filters or various other devices to drink safe water. They will not get the money; the landlords will get the money. That is the unusual and perverse cavalier approach by the Government, which supposedly looks after workers. People rent for a variety of reasons, but it is fair to say that people starting out in life, before they buy their first homes, often start out in the rental market. Some people decide to rent forever. But by and large most people aspire to move through the rental market, through hard work, overtime, diligence, dedication and sacrifice, on to the ownership market.

That is not easy in Sydney, because of the huge costs. These are the people that the Labor Party purports to represent, yet those very people will not receive any assistance. The landlords will get the $15 million windfall but the people who pay for water day after day will get nothing. Where is the Government’s leadership on this issue? Where is its thought process for paying that $15 to those who should receive it? Every household in Sydney is connected to electricity. It would be very simple to apply that rebate to electricity accounts. In that way the tenant would get the benefit of the $15 rebate rather than the landlord. It is very simple.

My colleagues have told me that that rebate system has been used before and it is not hard to work out. But there is deafening silence on the other side about how to transfer that paltry $15, which will not cover the costs involved, to those who should receive it. If the Government provides a rebate it should do so by way of electricity bills so that tenants may also get the benefit. That is not difficult to work out. However, the Labor Party cannot think past putting the blaming on someone else rather than taking action. Basically, this is about the Government not taking action but simply blaming someone else. The absence of Government members from the Chamber shows that they have accepted the blame and they are unable to defend their actions.

I turn now to the impact of the water crisis on the fishing industry. The attitude of the Minister for Health and the Premier to the scare before the last scare - there have been so many scares that I cannot keep up with them - about two weeks ago was appalling. They knew about the crisis about six to eight hours before the public was made aware that the problem had arisen again and that the water was unsafe to drink, because they had been briefed by departmental officials. While they were vacillating
Page 7196
about what to do and showing a lack of leadership and vision, the people of Sydney were going about their daily lives unaware of the new crisis. The people of Sydney were drinking water, cleaning their teeth and making normal use of the water that we take for granted because they did not know that they could possibly get sick.

The Premier and the Minister for Health knew that people could get sick if they drank the water and I bet they did not clean their teeth or drink a glass of water. Workers at the Sydney fish markets were unaware of the scare. Fishermen do not work from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., as do the Premier and the Minister for Health. They work when necessary to catch the fish and transport them to the markets in the early hours of the morning so that they can be sold to fishmongers, seafood restaurants and the general public to be prepared for lunches and dinners. The fish are also sold to others, who work equally hard, to be taken home and eaten by people who expect the product to be safe and sound.

The fishing industry is safe and sound. It is a wonderful industry and is a credit to all those involved. However, on one particular day people working at the fish markets did not hear about the problem until about six hours after the announcement had been made. It is not simply a matter of catching the fish and putting them on the dining table; a little work is involved in preparing the fish for sale. They must be gutted and cleaned, and that is done with tap water. The fishermen who cleaned their fish with Sydney water were unable to sell those fish. I emphasise that the fish could not be sold only because they had been contaminated by the water used to clean and gut them; there was nothing wrong with the fish. The fish were fresh, and were full of omega oils which are so vital to the health of the people of New South Wales. Indeed, the consumption of fish containing omega oils is currently being promoted.

Undoubtedly, fish is a wonderful product. There was nothing wrong with the fish caught that day until they were washed out with Sydney water and then had to be thrown out. It was disgraceful. There must be some merit in what I am saying because it is the first time I have seen the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries move so quickly to enter the Chamber and leer across the table. That is an indication of his attitude to the fishing industry and, indeed, the impurity of Sydney water and the problems associated with that.

Mr Martin: On a point of order. Mr Acting-Speaker, as the motion before the House is serious I ask you to bring the honourable member back to the substance and spirit of it. The honourable member should not trivialise the debate by waving his hands and referring to irrelevant matters. I ask you to bring him back to the subject matter of the debate.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! I remind the honourable member for Myall Lakes that the subject of the debate is Sydney’s water crisis. He has made passing reference to the administration of the Minister for Fisheries, but he should now return to the subject matter of the debate.

Mr J. H. TURNER: I do not intend to trivialise the motion by reacting to the stupid point of order raised by the Minister. I was merely saying that the contamination of Sydney’s water created a furore at the Sydney fish markets, and all this puerile Minister could do was raise a cheap point of order. Fishermen will be interested to read the Minister’s point of order when we send them a copy of it, as we normally send them a copy of the Minister’s speeches. Thousands of dollars worth of fish were thrown out, and the Minister’s contribution to this debate, which he said was important, was to raise a stupid point of order.

Mr MacCarthy: Who is compensating them?

Mr J. H. TURNER: The honourable member for Strathfield rightly asks who is compensating the fishermen. As usual, they will not be compensated. The Minister said that this debate is important. If it is so important why has he not made a contribution? He has not made a contribution because he has been gagged by the Premier, as all his colleagues have been gagged on this no confidence motion. I shall finish my speech as I began: the most serious motion to be moved in a parliament that adopts the Westminster system is a no confidence motion. Government members will not defend themselves. They have been condemned for their lack of response, lack of action and lack of ministerial responsibility by the people of New South Wales, especially the people of Sydney who cannot drink the tap-water.

Mr MacCARTHY (Strathfield) [5.06 p.m.]: The Carr Government has lost the confidence of the people because of this ongoing crisis in the Sydney water system. It has risked the health of millions of citizens. It has inconvenienced people. As the honourable member for Myall Lakes said, the crisis has cost people money because they have had to buy bottled water and water filters, use extra electricity and so on. As has been pointed out, the Government has threatened the tourism industry in New South Wales and made Sydney a laughing-stock
Page 7197
internationally. It has presided over an attempted cover-up by ignoring the danger signs in the system. It has failed to keep the bureaucrats up to the mark. It has tried to blame everyone and everything for this crisis: dead dogs, bats, foxes, dead cows, catchment management, privatisation and the previous Government. Indeed, it has tried to blame everything but itself.

That is clearly the case because honourable members know any newspapers advertisements and the like containing good news always carry a Minister’s name at the bottom, stating who is responsible for the exercise. However, since day one of the crisis there has been no name on the bottom of the advertisements saying who is accepting responsibility for this exercise. It is a fundamental role of government to protect the health and safety of its people, and by any measure the Government has failed. The lack of participation of Government members in this debate clearly shows that the Government’s excuses do not stack up to analysis. Although the Premier, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning each spoke for a few minutes, there has been little since from members opposite. Having gone through the motions, they have simply clammed up. They do not want to respond because they know that their excuses do not add up.

One excuse for the water crisis is privatisation. Members opposite said that if elements of Sydney Water had not been privatised the crisis might not have arisen. One only needs to read, as has been read before in this debate, the letter written by former Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, and the shadow minister for the environment in 1992, now Minister for the Environment, to demonstrate that they were quite happy with privatisation. I will read the key elements of that letter, which thanked someone for briefing them on the proposal to tender for the Sydney Water Board’s drinking water program and related build, own and operate projects. The letter states:

The briefing was most informative.

Last December the Opposition supported the Water Board (Amendment) Bill 1991 to facilitate such projects. During the debate the Opposition supported the concept of private sector involvement in new infrastructure developments for the Sydney Water Board.

I need not read all of that letter to demonstrate quite clearly that the Government has no justification in claiming that things would not have gone wrong if certain bodies had not been privatised. The Premier himself, when opening the Prospect treatment plant on 1 October 1996, spoke about the plant as being "a model of successful partnership between the public and private sectors and an outstanding achievement which will supply Sydney with clean drinking water for generations to come." So it is abundantly clear that the Labor Party, in opposition and in government, signed off on the idea of private infrastructure.

Next, the Government tried to blame the corporatisation model. The Ministers who spoke in this debate said they were not happy with the corporatisation model for Sydney Water that the former Government introduced. The crucial point to be noted in relation to that is that Labor, in government, has not sought to change that structure. The Minister has power to give directions to Sydney Water as a State-owned corporation, as does the Minister for Health in relation to water. They have that power and they could have given directions. The only proviso on exercise of that power is that any directions given by the Ministers must be reported in an appropriate manner so that everyone will know that the Minister or Ministers have been involved in the operation. So, if the corporatised Sydney Water was so structured that it could not identify these problems, the Ministers had the power to give directions.

While the initial contract for the Prospect water treatment plant did not require the plant to treat for giardia and cryptosporidium, the parasites at the centre of this problem, Sydney Water had the power to renegotiate that contract at any time to add those two parasites to the list of parasites to be treated for. The Minister had the power to direct Sydney Water in that respect. So one cannot blame a past government for those sorts of sins. The Premier claimed that the previous Government knew about high readings of giardia and cryptosporidium in 1992, 1993 and 1994. He said so yesterday, and it is recorded in Hansard.

The Premier said that, in contrast to what he referred to as the wonderful record of the Government in this current crisis, the former coalition Government did not inform the public about those readings. I listened intently to what the Premier said, noting that he was careful not to say who was informed or when they were informed. I was interested to find out a little more about this. I found that the study to which the Premier referred was to "characterise the presence of the parasites in Sydney’s water system". That was back in 1992. What does that mean? It is in plain English. The study was to find out where there might be a problem in the system. So it was looking for the presence of the parasites.

Page 7198

The results showed that cryptosporidium was in our major storages at levels at that stage similar to or greater than in locations in the United States of America or the United Kingdom. However, the authors said that comparisons with other locations were not valid in the context of that study. Most important is that samples taken from treated water at the outlets of water filtration plants showed no cryptosporidium. So, while in 1992 there was a level of cryptosporidium in water storage reservoirs, the study showed that there were none in the treated water. That was in 1992. The Premier said that the Government at that time should have been doing some notification. The advice to the Minister also said that in 1993, following a number of other samples being taken, higher counts were found in two samples. These are the magic samples that the Premier quoted. But the report went on to say:

As the samples were collected as part of a research project, they were not analysed for many weeks and have not been able to be validated.

Confronted with something like that, one has to ask, "If they were not analysed for many weeks, were they subject to contamination after the samples were taken?" More importantly, the samples having been analysed many weeks after they were taken - and the report does not say how many weeks, but assuming that to be so - and then those responsible trying to but being unable to validate the tests, there is not much point in issuing a public health alert. There is not much point in saying: we found something three months ago, so you had better boil your water today, even though the water today is clear. So it is fair to say, being charitable, that the Premier was less than honest with us yesterday.

The Milwaukee epidemic really brought this problem of cryptosporidium to attention in the world in 1993. At that time - the closing years of the Greiner and Fahey governments - not as much was known about the problem. Technology has improved since then, and so on. More importantly, I quote the Minister’s response to a Dorothy Dix question asked of the Minister by one of his own party members. This was not a response given off the cuff: the Minister had a prepared answer and had the opportunity to have all his experts provide him with the answers. Hansard of 22 October 1996 records Minister Knowles as saying this about cryptosporidium:

However, let us be clear about this. Since 1992, when the first tests were conducted, no further unacceptably high levels have been found. Sydney’s water remains one of the cleanest supplies in the world. Our water supply is getting better.

Someone was misleading the House. Was it the Minister in October 1996 or was it the Premier in September 1998? One of them was misleading the House. As has been pointed out ad nauseam by Opposition members, Sydney Water’s annual report of 1995-96 - the first full year in which this Labor Government was in control - identified giardia and cryptosporidium as an "emerging issue". From any proper consideration of that phrase it is obvious that if these parasites were an emerging issue in 1996, it was by no stretch a major issue in earlier years. It is clear from the report that was produced in 1995-96, and from the Minister’s response in the House to a pre-arranged question from his own side, that the Minister has signed off on the performance of the Fahey and Greiner governments. That puts the problem that we face today clearly in the hands of the Labor Party and no-one else. We cannot blame former governments.

The report having identified giardia and cryptosporidium as an emerging issue in 1995-96 - and that report comes to the Government from Sydney Water - the onus was on the Minister to ensure that the problem was monitored from that point on. If one does not know that there is a problem, one cannot be blamed for not asking questions about it. A wonderful scene in Yes Minister exemplified the point quite well. But by 1996 the problem had been brought to attention. The Carr Government has been in charge since that time. This Government, having become aware of the identification of the problem in 1996, had the responsibility to ask questions to make sure that the board of Sydney Water and its great mate David Hill, the chairman of the board, were addressing the issue, were having tests done, were getting the results of analyses, were gathering the appropriate data together, were making appropriate decisions, and were recommending changes if changes were necessary.

The Government stands condemned because it or its representatives tried to cover up this crisis. The second interim report of the McClellan inquiry makes clear that David Hill, the Labor appointee extraordinaire, tried to cover up the extent of the problem. On page 4 the executive summary of the report states how far the alert should have gone:

Nevertheless, a decision was taken to limit the alert to the Potts Hill system. This decision was significantly influenced by Hill. In my opinion, the decision did not reflect appropriate concern for public health.

As the shadow minister for health pointed out, there were cover-ups earlier this year. In May the honourable member for North Shore asked a question of the Minister for Health in which she
Page 7199
referred to claims by Dr McAnulty of the Health Department that cryptosporidium could be killed by high levels of chlorination. She asked:

. . . On what grounds does the Department base its claims?

(2) What, if any, methods have been employed by the Department of Health to provide adequate and accurate testing procedures for cryptosporidium?

(3) There is serious concern in the community that alarming levels of the cryptosporidium parasite have been found in New South Wales water mains. Are you able to assure the public that this is not the case?

The question asked only 3½ months ago was quite clear. The shadow minister was trying to find out if there was a problem and what the Minister was doing about it. The answer that was provided was typical of those from this Government. The Minister replied:

(1) I am advised that Dr McAnulty was quoting a reference in a scientific paper from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

(2) and (3) The 1996 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines state that "Routine monitoring for Cryptosporidium is not appropriate".

That clearly demonstrates that the Minister was saying that chlorination was an acceptable way of killing cryptosporidium, that there was not a problem and that we do not need to monitor for cryptosporidium in our water mains. That answer gave the clear impression to everyone in this House that there was no problem with our water mains as chlorination would kill cryptosporidium. The Minister was covering up and misled this House. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning criticised the coalition Government for corporatising Sydney Water with 1980 water standards that did not test for giardia and cryptosporidium, yet he admitted, as reported in Hansard, that even the 1996 standards of the National Health and Medical Research Council do not require testing for these parasites.

The coalition cannot be criticised for adopting in 1995 standards that did not require testing when the 1996 standards did not require testing. The Government still tries the blame game, meanwhile it rips out excessive dividends from Sydney Water that could be better used for management and monitoring. Employees that used to patrol catchments have been sacked. The Government made much of the coalition’s use of filtration plants to protect the water supply. Labor pushed for catchment management, but now in government allows catchment management to decrease. A constituent visited my office on Monday and told me that over the weekend he had taken some people to look at Warragamba Dam. He said that 100 metres from the dam wall the water was covered by a thick sludge with bottles and car tyres floating in it. A black and white photograph on the front page of a newspaper clearly showed the sludge.

At a time of concern about our international reputation, it would have been easy for rangers and patrollers to clean up that sludge. Perhaps treatment may have removed any pathogens at a later stage, but for the sake of our international appearance and reputation, proper catchment management may not have prevented that sludge but would have enabled it to be cleaned up quickly. This crisis has produced international headlines: the New Zealand Herald, "Sydney’s Nice but Don’t trust the Taps", the Singapore Straits Times, "No Safe Drinking Water in all Sydney", and from the South China Morning Post "Olympic City in Parasite Shame". I should like to paraphrase the great American comic writer Tom Lehrer, but without the calypso beat:

If you visit the Olympic City
You will find it very pretty
Just two things of which you must beware
Don’t drink the water and
Don’t breathe the air!

Pollution, Pollution
You can use the latest toothpaste
And then rinse your mouth with Industrial Waste.

I represent the Strathfield electorate, which is one of the most ethnically diverse electorates in New South Wales. What has the Government done for our ethnic communities regarding the water problem? On 31 July an article in the Sydney Morning Herald said that the message had not reached some communities. It stated:

Many among Sydney’s ethnic communities remained unaware yesterday about the contaminated water problem, continuing to drink tap water and brush their teeth with it.

SBS radio and television - along with mainstream media - were the only ethnic press sent the official health warning. . .

Things have changed a little with the issue of warnings, but problems still remain. On the Saturday morning when the morning papers reported that Sydney’s water was clear but we heard a little later on the radio, "Sorry, everything in the newspapers is wrong. The scare is back on," how would the ethnic communities have managed? Those who speak English would have read it in the Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph, but what would those whose English is poor, particularly the elderly, have done?

Today that same advertisement to which I referred earlier does not contain a word of help for
Page 7200
anybody with a language problem. It contains a 1800 number to ring, but only at the end of the two-minute recorded message is the option available to push a button to speak to an operator. Certain numbers were available for people who cannot speak English, but the operator was unable to find them. How do our ethnic communities get information in the early hours of the morning when the information contained in the day’s newspapers is changed during a radio broadcast, especially when the ethnic newspaper may not be available daily? I call on the Government to put more effort into trying to make sure that those whose English is not as good as ours have ways and means to be informed.

Mr Fraser: It should have been done already.

Mr MacCARTHY: It should have been done and things have moved a little further ahead than they were on 31 July. But more must be done to ensure that the whole community receives the necessary information. I call on the Government to make sure that the advertisements contain something to draw attention to telephone numbers for particular ethnic groups to obtain information.

Mr Fraser: The Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs should understand that requirement.

Mr MacCARTHY: The Minister is taking notes and I trust that is what he is noting. The final failure of the Government is that it has no plan. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined a 10-point plan to address the problem. Those 10 points include the appointment of a new water board based on expertise, not on political association. The Leader of the Opposition has foreshadowed the introduction of the Safe Drinking Water Bill, which is similar to legislation enacted by the Clinton administration. Consumers will be told whether their drinking water meets the necessary standards, what the contaminants may be, and so on. It is also intended to freeze the planned increase in water rates until the crisis is resolved; to establish an Internet site with up-to-date information; and to undertake regularly monitoring for the parasites that have emerged during this crisis. Most important is the redirection of the $279 million dividend that has been siphoned off from Sydney Water. That will be used to improve the system, for monitoring and filtration equipment, and to provide a better rebate. As the honourable member for Myall Lakes said, the amount of $15 is derisory.

I agree with the sensible suggestion made by the honourable member for Myall Lakes that the rebate should be paid via electricity bills to ensure that consumers receive it. It is a simple process of paying $15 to every domestic account from Sydney Water to Sydney Electricity or Integral Energy. They would be the only two organisations covering the Sydney metropolitan area. That would make sure that the renters, the battlers, get the money and that it is not paid in large amounts to landlords. I give that creative solution from the shadow minister my hearty support. It is a solution Parliament should push home to the Government.

The eighth point in the 10-point plan is to transfer the responsibility for issuing health warnings from Sydney Water to the public health unit of the Health Department. The Health Department ought to protect us in that regard by reassuring us, because Sydney Water, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and the Minister for Health cannot be trusted. However, the State is now within 200 days of getting new Ministers. The ninth point is the tightening of access to water catchment areas like Warragamba Dam and the initiation of regular patrols to report on possible human and animal contamination. The final point is the imposition of statutory obligations to issue health warnings as soon as the relevant information is available.

Let me reiterate the point I made when I started. The Government has risked the health of Sydney’s citizens and has inconvenienced millions of people. It has threatened the State’s tourist industry. It has made New South Wales and Sydney an international laughing stock. It has tried to cover up. It has tried to play the blame game. It has no plan to fix the problem. By any measure the Government has failed and has lost the confidence of the people of New South Wales. This motion of no confidence should be carried by an overwhelming majority of members of this House.

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [5.32 p.m.]: I support this motion of no confidence in the Government. It is an historic motion and one that has not been moved lightly by the Opposition. The water crisis is the last straw for at least 3½ million people in Sydney and in my electorate. It is important to note that members like myself who represent regional and country communities regard the role of Sydney as being important. Sydney is the gateway to New South Wales and Australia. After visitors have seen Sydney they make a decision to visit places such as the southern highlands. Many people in my electorate commute to Sydney, if not every day, regularly throughout the week. The fact one lives in the southern highlands does not make one immune to Sydney’s current water crisis.

The crisis is particularly important for my constituents because water sources in the
Page 7201
Wingecarribee, Mulwaree and Goulburn council areas all flow ultimately into the Sydney catchment one way or the other. A range of issues arising from the crisis affects my constituents and their confidence, not only in the quality of their water but in the long-term reliability of safe water sources in the event of a future drought. Everyone has recently experienced two or more years of drought, particularly those in rural New South Wales. Once the water sources dry up or are contaminated - and that happens from time to time with blue-green algae - there is no alternative to drink.

Another reason this motion has been moved is that the water crisis is the most recent in a string of crises, especially in regional New South Wales. I am thinking of the back-to-school allowance fiasco and the decrease in electricity supply service levels. The complaints I am receiving about the service supply by the two suppliers in my electorate is increasing. I am also thinking of people not being able to use the water in the dams on their properties. At the moment the water in many of the dams in my area is a great deal safer than the water in Prospect Reservoir. The present crisis is only another in a long string of crises that have eroded confidence in the Carr Government.

I have spent a great deal of time living and working in so-called developing countries. As an archaeologist I spent a lot of time living in village communities in countries like Jordan. I have travelled extensively in Egypt. In most of those places I have joined thousands of local people in drinking the local water and have done so with absolutely no ill effects. I hope many of the men and women of those countries will visit us during the Olympic Games or will compete as members of teams from those countries. Sadly, they will be doing so against a background of traveller alerts issued by their own countries telling them they had better stay away from the water in Sydney and they had better take precautions. That is a humiliation for me as a citizen of New South Wales. It is a farce, and, even worse, the Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to blame anybody except itself. It has also blamed my constituents, and that is not acceptable. It has blamed anyone it can think of upstream from the problem. It has blamed dead dogs, live dogs -

Ms Ficarra: Bureaucrats.

Ms SEATON: Bureaucrats. It has blamed farmers who dare to actually farm animals on land that happens to contribute to Sydney’s catchment. It blames dairy farmers in particular, tourists, hikers, and people dependent on septic systems. One only has to talk to the people of Picton and The Oaks to learn about that. I am sure my colleague the honourable member for Camden, who is also my neighbour, will have more to say about the Government’s unconscionable delay in the delivery of a sewerage system to Picton, despite the funds being made available before 1995 as a result of her tireless campaigning. Of course, the people who still have septic systems in the Wingecarribee, Wollondilly and Mulwaree shire areas are being slugged an extra septic tax by this Government. The Minister for Local Government has tried to blame local government for this tax, but local government is not responsible.

The dissenting report written by members of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board in 1994 is fascinating reading. I am sure members of the Carr Government would like to be reminded of what was said in it. Essentially, coalition members argued that the Australian Labor Party members were blinkered in their reliance on catchment management alone as a solution. ALP members believed catchment management would remove the need for water treatment plants to be built. I read from page 22 of that report:

Essentially, the majority report attempts to argue that health problems of concern to the Board are insignificant, and that they "arise from ‘run off’ problems" in Water Board catchment areas. It suggests that the expenditure of sums of money as low as "$1.732 million a year" on catchment management programs "would eliminate the need for extra and expensive filtration processes".

I am the world’s greatest supporter of catchment management committees and Landcare, and I agree that land care can dramatically improve what runs out of catchment area and into waterways. Only last week I attended the inaugural meeting of the Moss Vale Landcare group, and I wish Cliff Reece, the inaugural chairman, best wishes for the future. I will give that group as much support as I possibly can. I also congratulate John Clem of the Wollondilly catchment management group; Chris Neale, who has done some great work in that organisation, and also Tony Ross of the upper Nepean catchment committee, whom I met in Camden recently. They all perform great and necessary work. The naivety of ALP members in regard to this matter reveals that they do not know what goes on in catchment areas, despite the best attempts by many people in our communities to manage them as well as they possibly can.

The State has recently experienced heavy rains and floods. One Government member referred to the one in 300 year flood, if that is what this recent flood was. Such rainfall events cannot ever be
Page 7202
managed to guarantee pristine outputs. As country members will attest, animals die in the bush. Farms have animals, and what goes into a cow ultimately comes out the back end, and there is not a great deal one can do to stop that. I should like the Minister for the Environment to tell us exactly how she would control what comes out of the back end of these creatures. After nearly 200 years of European land use, our catchment committees are catching up. Not all of our land use has been appropriate to our fragile environment. An annual expenditure of $1.732 million will go nowhere near fixing the deforestation and soil erosion that must occur if catchment management alone is to ensure the standard needed. Catchment management must be part of a balanced approach that includes water treatment systems. That point was made clearly at page 23 of the dissenting report of coalition members of the Joint Select Committee on the Sydney Water Board, where it is stated:

The Board’s ability to provide a consistently safe, reliable water supply depends on the performance of the whole system. Treatment plants are only one element of the water management system. The Board acts on the principle that the high quality water from catchments into dams reduces the need for expensive treatment later in the delivery process.

There is no argument whatsoever about that statement. It is also stated:

Prospect Reservoir management is currently under stress - settling times are near their limits. Prospect Reservoir was designed in the 1880s to detain water in storage for 180 days . . . but today water is detained for approximately two days. It has been estimated that at least two months detention is recommended for minimal standards of turbidity settlement. The third element in the strategy, treatment, is now necessary, and the Board has to maintain a clean distribution system. No single element of itself can be expected to deliver safe and secure water to the customer.

Those statements are reinforced at page 25 of the report, where it is stated:

Extra demand means that the consequences of natural events cannot be ameliorated, as in the past, by a settling period in Board storages. It is not realistic to expect to improve raw water quality above the 25-year levels by catchment management practices alone.

That is the Minister’s measure of understanding of the issues. Most people, even city dwellers, would now be aware of Wingecarribee Dam. The dam is an ancient peat swamp, home to a particular species of dragonfly and a huge natural filter. The swamp is not entirely in my electorate; it is also in the Kiama electorate. Sydney Water actually got it right and recommended to the recent mining warden’s inquiry on the proposal to extend peat mining operations that the swamp’s value as a filter was greater than its economic value as a mine. There has been little local dissent from that view, although I acknowledge that it was the cause of some debate amongst those who had previously earned their income from the peat mine. On balance, most of the community acknowledges the great value of the natural qualities of the swamp.

Most of the dairy farmers I have spoken to who farm near the swamp were pleased when the interim conservation order was introduced and when peat mining finally ceased. I congratulate members of the Robertson environment protection society - particularly Larry Whipper, David and Helen Tranter and others who were pivotal in that outcome - on their hard work over at least two years that I know of. On 9 August a disaster struck Wingecarribee Dam as a result of eight inches of torrential rain and flooding. People in my area are literally in mourning for the swamp and what we have lost. People are expressing the grief experienced when one loses a family member. They are writing poems about it. This occurrence has resulted in an enormous emotional outpouring in my community.

The peat bed lifted and fractured into big floating platelets and debris. It is an unmitigated environmental disaster. At a more practical level, the disaster presents major concerns about Wingecarribee’s long-term water supply. The people of Wingecarribee, who have just been through a very severe drought, in which the dam was a vital part of the water supply, can no longer rely on the Wingecarribee Reservoir, and we do not know how long that situation will continue. The Wingecarribee Reservoir is just downstream from the large natural peat swamp, a natural filter, which has been mined for several decades. Because of residents’ concerns, green pressure and concerns expressed by Sydney Water, as well as the application from Emerald Peat to extend the mining area, the mining warden last year conducted an inquiry which resulted in an interim conservation order being granted in the middle of this year.

Wingecarribee Dam is the responsibility of Sydney Water. Sydney Water supplies some of the dam’s content to Wingecarribee Shire Council via a bulk water supply agreement. The rest goes to Sydney’s catchment. The water supplied to Wingecarribee Shire Council is raw. The council has its own treatment plant at the side of the reservoir to purify the water. Tenders have recently been let to upgrade the plant. Normally the plant can cope with turbidity of seven to 10 units in the raw water, when water is taken into the treatment plant intake. At present turbidity is approximately 35 units at the least disturbed area and approximately 400 units at
Page 7203
the most disturbed area. At the point of intake turbidity is approximately 120 units. Clearly, there is no possibility that the treatment plant can be activated in the near future.

Wingecarribee residents are forced to rely on two smaller dams in other parts of the shire. As at Monday of this week turbidity at offtake stood at a level of approximately 120 units. A steering committee which includes the mayor, the general manager of the Wingecarribee Shire Council and representatives of Sydney Water has been established and it held its second meeting yesterday. It is proposed that another meeting, involving landowners, will occur at Ranelagh House in the next few days. I hope that the views of farmers, particularly dairy farmers, beef cattle farmers and those who operate horse-related industries, and the views of residents are taken on board.

The real problem being faced by Wingecarribee ratepayers at present relates to the price being charged for the water, which is now useless in any case. Since the Wingecarribee Shire Council gave the dam to Sydney Water 25 years ago the council has had in place an agreement under which it received a certain amount of water at no cost and paid approximately 7¢ per kilolitre for water above that level. That agreement ended late last year and Sydney Water told the council that it was renegotiating the price of water, would now allow no free water and would charge 44¢ a kilolitre for all water - that is seven times the amount ratepayers were previously paying for their water. The price has greatly increased from 7¢ to 44¢.

At the moment all that is academic because it is not possible to use the water. Water cannot enter the water treatment plant until the turbidity problem has been solved. This is a time for Sydney Water to positively consider the case being put by Wingecarribee Shire Council and to provide help not only to keep the water at an affordable price that provides value for money but also to develop as soon as possible a remediation plan for long-term water supply and to try to restore the peat swamp to some level of ecological balance to maintain the species it used to support.

The McClellan report identified that a contributing factor to Sydney’s water crisis might be sewage overflows in the Wingecarribee and Wollondilly areas, where recent natural rainfall events have been too much for most septic systems and some local sewage treatment plants. Wingecarribee Shire Council has worked hard with available resources to upgrade local sewerage facilities. The facility at Moss Vale was upgraded recently, the plant at New Berrima is new, the facility at Bowral is soon to be upgraded, as is the plant at Robertson, and a brand-new plant at Braemar is about to replace the ancient plant at Mittagong - one of the oldest of the treatment plants - which facility will also allow the northern villages to link into the sewage system.

It is vital that the State Government accelerates the provision of the sewerage infrastructure that is required in both Wollondilly and Wingecarribee, because, as many speakers have said in this debate, everything that happens in the southern highlands, in the Mulwaree shire, in Goulburn and in Wollondilly ultimately affects the quality of Sydney’s drinking water. Until that is done the reliance of the Australian Labor Party on catchment management alone, as evidenced in the report by the then Opposition members of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board, is misplaced. Until those areas have proper sewerage infrastructure there will be no hope of ever guaranteeing the quality of the run-off into the catchment.

It is useful also to look at the recent herculean efforts of Mulwaree Shire Council to get some sense out of both the Environment Protection Authority and the Department of Public Works and Services in relation to two important projects undertaken by Mulwaree Shire Council in the town of Marulan. One is a water treatment plant and the other is a sewage treatment plant. Plans were drawn up for the Marulan water treatment plant. The estimate from the Department of Public Works and Services to put the Marulan water treatment plant in place was $2.7 million. Mulwaree Shire Council wanted to take the advice of Memtec to locate a plant near the village of Marulan. The Department of Public Works and Services said it had to be located 13 miles away; 13 miles of pipes had to be built. There were months of delay and changing the goal posts by all the relevant authorities. For months the EPA and the Department of Public Works and Services came up with more fanciful requirements that bore absolutely no relation to the real circumstances of Marulan.

Eventually the mayor had had enough and said that the council would go it alone. I am pleased to say that Marulan now has a state-of-the-art water treatment plant supplied and designed by Memtec to local specifications at the cost of about $745,000. That should be compared with the $2.7 million estimated by the Department of Public Works and Services to solve the problem. In addition, unlike the Sydney Water system at the moment, the water treatment plant selected by Mulwaree Shire Council for Marulan takes out cryptosporidium, giardia and blue-green algae. For less than one-third of the cost
Page 7204
the people of Marulan now have an even better system, thanks to the leadership of Mulwaree Shire Council. New South Wales taxpayers have been saved $1 million and the people of Marulan and the ratepayers of Mulwaree shire have been saved $1 million.

If the EPA and the Department of Public Works and Services had their way the people of Marulan would probably now and in the future be boiling their water as the people of Sydney are doing at the moment. I congratulate Mayor Paul Stephenson on the good sense and local management that has prevailed. But there is no such good news for the sewage treatment plant that is so necessary for Marulan and which the Mulwaree Shire Council has to construct in a 50 per cent partnership with the Department of Public Works and Services and the EPA. Honourable members should remember that a sewage treatment plant in Marulan will help to improve the quality of Sydney’s drinking water.

Again, our old friends at the EPA and the Department of Public Works and Services could not resist claiming to be the experts. As a result of their efforts, and again because of the movement of goal posts, increasing costs and the changing of minds every time council was near a solution, Mulwaree still does not have a sewage treatment plant. Raw sewage has been a problem at Marulan for some time. This is one of the worst cases of bureaucratic intransigence and frustration. Mulwaree council does not have a great deal of money to spend. It has about 6,000 ratepayers, not a large financial base from which to work. It would appear that the EPA is stuck in a mind-set of wanting to prescribe effluent disposal in country areas.

They call it the efficient re-use of effluent, which basically means the spraying of sewage effluent over paddocks on which either stock graze or crops are grown. That is hardly a solution designed to cope with any growth that might occur. Every time more people use the system it has to be enlarged and more land needs to be captured close to that area, so it is not a sensible long-term solution. As many may know, Goulburn City Council sprays its effluent along the river flats of Wollondilly River. That is fine if conditions are absolutely perfect. In cases of heavy rain the run-off drains into the Wollondilly River and into Sydney’s catchment as well, but no doubt the EPA believes that is the right way to go.

Both the EPA and the Department of Public Works and Services are trying to persuade Mulwaree shire to sign up for a sewage treatment plant that will cost thousands of dollars more than Mulwaree Shire Council estimates it should cost. The council is correctly digging in its heels and saying, "No". The mayor would like to access some new, more affordable filtration technology that is available. He believes the council may possibly be able to afford to install some of that technology to produce drinkable water that will go back into the watercourses. That sounds good to most people but the EPA and Department of Public Works and Services say they will do it differently.

I may be wrong but I believe I have heard the Minister for the Environment talk many times in this place about the importance of environmental flows and of putting more water back into watercourses to get them flowing again. Even though Mulwaree Shire Council has a solution that would help assist in achieving that objective the EPA says that the council - I hope the House will forgive me - has to keep spraying the poo all over the place. When the council asked the EPA to examine the idea of putting the treated water back into the watercourse the EPA said an environmental impact statement had to be carried out.

The council might have to spend $400,000 on an EIS. That is obviously impossible and absolutely unrealistic. The EPA also admitted to council that even a truckload of Perrier or distilled water could not be put into the watercourse. In the past three weeks the EPA has changed the discharge standards mid-stream yet again. It is important to note the comments of the general manager, who said that the EPA proposes to impose conditions which cannot be achieved with existing technology for discharge to the creek. However, it still supports partial treatment and spray irrigation within the catchment. Partial treatment would produce effluent of very poor quality.

There are conflicting messages coming from the EPA. The council has come up against one or two other problems. I am told that the EPA decided that it needed to divert a creek and build a dam. The Department of Public Works and Services had already put a power pole in the place where the EPA decided to put the dam. The cost of moving that pole was $49,000. I am also told that the Department of Public Works and Services received a quote for $80,000 for electrical work. The council experts who looked at the project thought they could probably do exactly the same thing for $16,000.

The Department of Public Works and Services came up with a particular specification for the design of a flange nut to hold pipes together. One can purchase nuts at any hardware store to hold pipes together but the Department of Public Works
Page 7205
and Services designed a particularly unique nut that will cost more than any other nut in history. One can understand why Mulwaree Shire Council is frustrated by bureaucracy. I am sure that bureaucracy is not founded on anything other than strict adherence to mind-sets and specifications. Suggestions that come from experienced people who know the local landscape and environment and who are absolutely determined to do the right thing by their ratepayers must be considered.

I sympathise with people who live in Sydney who are frail aged, homeless or those who exist on low incomes. It is all very well to tell people to boil water but people are not always at home. If people on low incomes have to pay $1.50 or $2 for every bottle of water the total soon adds up. Homeless people do not always read newspapers and do not always hear the radio. There are electricity costs involved in boiling water. The magic rebate will not go to tenants but to property owners. Tenants have to rely on the property owners to pass the rebate on to them.

I also sympathise with members of the ethnic community who do not necessarily read English or have ready access to publications in their community languages, as referred to by the honourable member for Strathfield, and those who are immune deficient and are particularly at risk. As many of my colleagues who have small children have said, it is virtually impossible to stop a two- or three-year-old child from drinking the bathwater. We can look forward to six more months of this problem. Sydney’s problems also apply to the southern highlands. We do not want to be the scapegoat for the Premier’s problems. We want to be sure that Sydney Water will work with us to ensure that we have a reliable and safe drought-proof water supply in the future. We want to see the Government face up to its responsibilities and adopt the coalition’s 10-point plan, which will restore confidence in the water of the flagship city of Australia. There is no confidence in the Carr Government on this or any other issue it has dealt with in the past 3½ years. I support the motion.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Gaudry) left the chair at 6.00 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [7.30 p.m.]: In the interim report on the Sydney Water inquiry entitled "Possible Causes of Contaminants" published in August, Mr Peter McClellan, QC, suggested some factors pertaining to the catchment area that may be responsible for contamination. These included raw water turbidity events associated with rainfall, septic systems in The Oaks draining into the dam via Werriberri Creek, scouring of the Upper Canal during an environmental flow test, dead dogs and foxes found in the Upper Canal - when later tested these were negative for giardia and cryptosporidium - and extraction of water from the lower levels of Warragamba Dam demonstrating high levels of giardia and cryptosporidium.

On Tuesday, 8 September, the Director-General of the Health Department, Mick Reid, was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as having said, "There is significant contamination in Warragamba [Dam]". It is now generally accepted that Warragamba Dam is the source of the organisms. The questions that must be answered are how did they get there and why did a massive concentration suddenly appear? For years sewage has been flowing from broken or overflowing septic tanks at The Oaks into Werriberri Creek, which was formerly known as Monkey Creek. Thence the sewage flowed into Warragamba Dam. On 30 June the town had a population of 2,366, living in 729 dwellings which rely on septic tanks with pump-out services, adsorption trenches or the newer aerated water treatment systems - AWTS. When there is heavy rain many of these septic systems overload, and that allows overflows and ultimate pollution of the creek. A sign erected by Wollondilly Shire Council beside the creek, as featured in the Daily Telegraph last Tuesday, says it all. It states in huge letters:

WARNING

Water is unfit for drinking by humans or animals. Any contact with river water should be avoided. Contact may cause skin and eye irritation.

The sign contains five red circles with a red bar across each showing a person swimming, a horse drinking, a man drinking bottled water, a dog, and a man fishing. In other words, keep away from that creek! Werriberri Creek covers a distance of 34.5 kilometres from The Oaks to Warragamba Dam, where it disperses 4.25 kilometres from the dam wall. A constituent, Allyn Varlow, a former Water Board employee, told me that the final kilometre of the original Monkey Creek is steep and normally forms part of the dam’s storage area. Any sediment deposited in it during dry times would be flushed into the upper levels of the dam’s stored water.

At full capacity the depth of water at the dam wall is 310 feet, or 116 metres. Yet the stirring up of dam sediment by heavy rainfall has been considered a possible cause of the contamination. Mr Varlow told me that in 1964, 30-odd years ago, Werriberri Creek was recognised as an inflow that needed to be policed by frequent sampling, particularly after heavy rainfall such as we recently
Page 7206
experienced. The only way to solve this problem is to sewer The Oaks township. This has been requested by local members and mayors for many years. In October 1995, relatively recently but still a while ago, a report entitled, "Stakeholders Report for the Warragamba Special Area" stated:

Cryptosporidium and giardia and dangerous faecal bacteria have been recorded in The Oaks township stormwater drains . . . The impact of these lands on water quality is a cause for concern. A major risk is the contamination of catchment waterways with pathogenic micro-organisms.

That was almost three years ago, yet it was only in May that the Carr Government announced its priority sewerage program, which includes The Oaks, Oakdale and Bellimba Park, and other systems for townships in the Warragamba catchment area. The Carr Government is very slow when it comes to providing necessary sewerage. Construction of the Picton sewerage scheme was planned to start in 1995, after the last election, but the Labor Government moved the goalposts and the $80 million project has still not commenced. Yet it is due to be completed in July 1999. Six tenderers finalised their submissions in March and the successful tender was meant to be announced in July. It is now September.

I am told that the matter is still with Treasury. Why? Has the Government spent the money, or is it not game to announce the successful tenderer for a system that might not be politically acceptable to a public suffering a water crisis? This scheme will not affect the quality of water in Warragamba, but I mention it to highlight Labor’s poor record on providing essential sewerage as quickly as possible. It takes approximately five years from the production of an environmental impact statement to the completion of a sewerage system. Hence, sewage pollution from The Oaks will be running into our water supply for at least the next five years. Faeces from domestic animals grazing in Sydney Water’s catchment areas have been considered a possible source of cryptosporidium. However, there have been no signs of ill health or poor condition in those animals.

One of my constituents, Dr Rod Chevis, who has a PhD in veterinary parasitology and who has worked in this field all his working life, has suggested another possible source of the latest cryptosporidium outbreak. This intestinal parasite is not host-specific and its oocysts, which are only four to 4.5 microns in size - approximately half the size of a red blood cell - can be found in the faeces of any animal. Sydney Water’s catchment is home to thousands of kangaroos and wallabies and an unknown number of feral pigs. During the drought these animals probably graze close to the edges of Warragamba Dam and any other waterway where the only green vegetation in the area would be found. Massive bushfires last Christmas greatly reduced the area on which these animals could graze. In his facsimile to me Dr Chevis stated:

As grazing animals defecate while grazing, faecal pellets will be deposited close to the waters edge and thus will be readily washed into the water when rain falls. As there is no host specificity Crypto. could and probably has infected ‘Roos and Wallabies which have been present in large numbers in the Burragorang Valley in recent time. Furthermore it is an established fact that immunity to intestinal parasites wanes during periods of poor nutrition and from all accounts ‘Roos and Wallabies in the valley have been in very poor condition so would be open to infection or re-infection with Crypto. and could pass very large numbers of infective oocysts in faeces.

The infective stage (oocysts) must be passed in faeces since by the time a carcass has rotted sufficiently to liberate them the process of putrefaction would most probably have killed them.

While Weriberi Creek has been shown to be contaminated with Crypto., and this may have been the source of the first contamination of Sydney’s water, the second massive upsurge is most likely to have come from an alternative source because the creek had a good flush out in the first rains.

To explain more fully, Dr Chevis said that the subsequent torrential rains raised the levels of the dam and broke the creek banks, thus covering the previous feeding grounds, which had been contaminated with faeces from the native animals, and that the water then drained into the dam. Dr Chevis further said:

Until all the facts of this matter are actively researched and properly evaluated we cannot design a control strategy which can be expected to work, but a good starting point would be a proper filtration mechanism which can be relied upon to remove such small oocysts.

That has been agreed to by everyone and, of course, it is part of the coalition’s policy on this matter. Dr Chevis further said:

It also worries me that no parasitologist with some knowledge of the life cycles and epidemiology of intestinal parasites has, so far, been included in the expert committee.

I have not seen the list of people comprising the expert committee but if Dr Chevis’ statement is correct then that ridiculous situation must be rectified immediately. I call on the Carr Government to investigate fully Dr Chevis’ theory of contamination to ascertain if our native animals contribute to the water problem in Warragamba Dam. If that is not done, I can see Sydney Water’s exclusion with respect to the innermost catchment area being extended to outlying areas, greatly affecting my constituents who graze their animals in
Page 7207
the area. This would not only cause great personal damage to individuals but also affect the economy of our district.

Although the source of Sydney’s water problem, Warragamba Dam, is part of the Camden electorate, my constituents are lucky that their water supply comes from other sources. The Macarthur water filtration plant at Appin provides water for Camden and Campbelltown and is sourced from any one of four dams: Cataract Dam, Nepean Dam, Cordeaux Dam and occasionally Avon Dam. Although many of my constituents work in Sydney and, therefore, have the same problems as those who live in Sydney, they can take safe water from their homes when they travel to Sydney so their problem is reduced. One of my constituents, Anne Whiteman of Camden, has a very big problem. She is quartermaster supply for the biannual girl guide jamboree to be held at Silverdale - the post code is 2752 and is affected by the water crisis - from 27 September. As well as organising all other supplies, she must ensure that safe drinking water is available for approximately 1,500 members of the Girl Guide Association for one week, both on site and during excursions off site.

The piped water that is available at the camp site can and will be boiled. How to distribute the cooled boiled water throughout the camp area is the problem. At least 20 15-litre plastic containers, which can be lifted and carried by women, are needed for placement around the camp. These would be returnable after the jamboree. Also, 1,500 empty plastic drinking bottles with sports pop tops are needed for the participants to take on excursions. Anne has asked Sydney Water for help. I hope that the Minister responsible might suggest to Sydney Water that supplying these containers would be an excellent public relations exercise for Sydney Water, which certainly needs excellent public relations at the moment. Hopefully, Anne will get her water containers and the guides, aged 10 to 15 years, who come from throughout New South Wales, will have a safe and healthy jamboree. Unfortunately, other visitors to Sydney might not be so lucky unless the Labor Government ensures that no expense is spared in determining the cause of our water contamination and rectifying it as soon as possible.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [7.45 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to the motion before the House, which states:

That, in view of its mismanagement of Sydney’s water crisis, this Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House.

Members representing Sydney electorates may suggest that constituents in country areas do not have the same problems as constituents in Sydney electorates and therefore members representing country electorates do not have the right to participate in this debate. However, the water crisis is affecting not only the people of Sydney but also the people of country New South Wales. I shall give an example. At present residents of country areas who visit Sydney cannot drink water from the bubblers. The bubblers in the Domain and the botanic gardens have signs on them stating, "Do not drink the water". Visitors must buy bottled water; they cannot drink the water as usual.

Whilst the problem may seem minuscule, there is an added cost for the people of regional New South Wales. The effect of the water crisis on tourism is also an added cost. For example, some Japanese students, who did not speak English or understand English to any great extent, were visiting my electorate when the scare first arose in Sydney. During their goodwill visit to my electorate office I gave them a kangaroo pin and a few bits and pieces from the local area. One funny aspect of their visit was that the interpreter accompanying them asked me whether the water in Coffs Harbour was safe to drink. When I asked him why he asked that question he said that he had flown into Sydney in the middle of a water crisis. These people were visiting a part of New South Wales that is a one-hour plane flight from Sydney but they were frightened that the water in Coffs Harbour may be contaminated.

Luckily Coffs Harbour has a laboratory that has been approved by the National Association of Testing Authorities. That laboratory regularly tests our water supply for the presence of giardia and cryptosporidium; the water is safe. At the end of the day the Government has handled the crisis appallingly. The way it has handled the crisis has not given confidence to the people of Sydney, the people of New South Wales or the international community. As other honourable members have said in this debate, Government members have consistently tried to lay the blame for the crisis on the board of Sydney Water and said that heads will roll, and that the Government would do this or that. At the end of the day, no matter how many people are sacked, the crux of the problem is management.

The motion reflects the lack of confidence of the people of New South Wales in the Premier, his Cabinet and his Government, based on their mismanagement of the crisis. Instead of apportioning blame, as Ministers have done, they should be attacking the problem. I draw the attention of the House to an article on page 1 of the Sydney
Page 7208
Morning Herald of Tuesday, 8 September, entitled "Heat turned up on Carr over water". In five dot points the article set out how the Government would minimise the effect of this crisis - and it is a crisis. In the second of those points it was reported:

The Premier said Sydney Water would be instructed to identify private land within catchments for acquisition.

The first was that:

Cabinet agreed to plan an independent Catchment Commission to protect the water supply, and possible on-the-spot fines for people entering restricted catchment areas.

I illustrate to the House the naivety of the Government in announcing those strategies. At page 2 of that same newspaper appears an article entitled "Bugs spread in sludge in catchment areas". How pleased I am that the Minister for the Environment is in the Chamber.

Ms Allan: He is always pleased to see me, especially in his home town.

Mr FRASER: As the Minister said, I am pleased to see her come into my electorate, for every time she visits and announces, or does not announce, something, I win votes. I do not have to say anything, I let the Minister put her foot in her mouth, and welcome the votes that come my way. The page 2 article states:

Sydney Water’s human waste sludge containing the parasites giardia and cryptosporidium is being spread at the rate of 550 tonnes a day on golf courses, agricultural properties, mines, forests and public gardens in the Sydney water supply catchment and other catchments throughout the State in contravention of international standards.

The sludge is being trucked each day to 17 local government areas including Wingecarribee, Goulburn, and the Blue Mountains for deposit at rates up to 120 tonnes a hectare as part of an aggressive Sydney Water marketing campaign designed to increase the demand for biosolids in areas including agriculture, forestry, composting and land rehabilitation.

The Minister for the Environment has given the people of Coffs Harbour a wonderful opportunity: a $220 million solution to the disposal of effluent within the Coffs Harbour local government area. In government, the coalition had what I believe was a good scheme. Effluent was treated to the highest possible standard, then discharged to the ocean - a saline solution into a saline solution. Sludge was cured properly, as it had been for 35 years, then re-used on playing fields. The Minister for the Environment, however, decided that was not good enough. She wanted a feel-good solution: identify a problem in the city, fix it by transferring the waste to the bush, and then apply the cost to the people in the bush so that she could feel good.

Unfortunately, not only the Minister has fallen for this trick. Successive governments over the years have recognised some on the green fringe who promote composting toilets and opportunities for the re-use of effluent in more forms than one. The problem is that the effluent that is now being disposed of in the catchment of Sydney Water is not being cured to a standard that any of us would expect. It is not cured to the standard that Coffs Harbour City Council treats its effluent, or the standard that Coffs Harbour Shire Council treated its effluent over 35 years. According to the newspaper article, the sludge now being re-used is cured to a minimal standard. The article states:

The United States requires pasteurisation (heating at 70 degrees for an hour) for top-grade sludge - a viewpoint shared by Britain’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the magazine said.

In the Sydney Water catchment, pelleted sludge and other sludge is put in forest areas and on farms. The photograph accompanying the article shows great mounds of sludge. We all know what happens when it rains in such circumstances. The sludge is dissolved into the water and runs into our waterways. In legislation passed by this House last year, the Protection of the Environment Operations Bill, the Minister incorporated the Clean Waters Act of 1970. That Act provides that it is an offence if any waste, whether liquid, solid or gaseous, is placed in a position from which it may be washed, blown or percolated into a waterway.

The Act provides also for agricultural pursuits to now be designated pursuits which have to be licensed by the Environment Protection Authority. A farmer conducting a dairy or piggery must be licensed, at a huge cost, before any animal or farm waste can be disposed of anywhere near a catchment. At the same time, Sydney Water is disposing of human waste - which carries heavy metals and bacteria, and, as the Sydney Morning Herald article states, is not being tested for cryptosporidium or giardia - that is being washed, blown or percolated into Sydney’s water catchment. That is the problem.

Get rid of the extreme green view, and forget those who tell us to re-use this waste on our fields without proper curing. This material could be cured properly and re-used. In fact, Sydney Water will tell us that re-used water can be used only once every five years because we have a problem with heavy metals and bacteria. The cryptosporidium parasite can live in water for up to 176 days. Given a moist
Page 7209
soil base, I am sure it will live a lot longer. It is a known fact that the polio virus can live in the ground for 190 days. The former coalition Government considered this issue.

Contrary to reports, Rouse Hill at the moment is putting fresh water through its dual reticulation system because it knows the danger of re-used water and that people will not use it. As I often say to people in Coffs Harbour, "I do not mind drinking mine, but I don’t want to drink yours, because I know that what was in mine has not killed me yet and I will probably survive if I drink it again. But, if we are going to mix it all into a syrup and share it around, we will end up with problems." Cryptosporidium and giardia may not affect the many people whose bodily systems combat those parasites. But the elderly, the infirm, those with problems such as leukaemia and other diseases taxing the immune system are at serious risk. That is why we have this public problem at the moment: giardia and cryptosporidium can attack and kill such people. Chlorine does not destroy the parasites. In response to a question on notice asked on 25 June by the shadow minister for health and Aboriginal affairs, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning said:

The Australian drinking water guidelines state that routine monitoring for cryptosporidium is not appropriate.

Not appropriate? To the contrary, it is most appropriate. If the Government had been doing its job instead of saying, "It is costly, we cannot do this, we will not do that, we will not test, and it is not really a problem," we would not have this crisis today. People are afraid. I am afraid to drink water that is not bottled or boiled, or even to clean my teeth with it. I have to buy my water when I am in Sydney. I can afford it, but many cannot. The fact that the Government is forcing sludge re-use within a catchment that supplies water to Sydney, a city of more than five million people, is an absolute disgrace.

One major source of cryptosporidium and giardia bacteria in our water supply is re-used sludge. Further, in 1993 Sydney mains pipes were found to have so much algal build-up that they had become home to bacteria which actually ate chlorine. When the bacteria ate the chlorine out of the pipes, the giardia could survive. Giardia, chlorine-resistant, can be killed by a superdose of chlorine. Sydney Water’s answer was to continue chlorination. The real trick would have been to replace the pipes or clean the pipes.

What has the Government done? The AWS was carrying out reviews of environmental factors in regard to that problem in late 1994 or early 1995. What happened? Did the Government get a bill? Did someone offer the Government a solution costing $100 million to $200 million? I suggest that probably did happen, and that the Government then wanted to bring back the $278 million that was ripped out in 1998 and earlier years, in order to balance the budget of an incompetent Treasurer that had blown out with new taxes and other increases. The Government needed the money, but decided to pull the program as there had been no outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis or giardiosis.

Expenditure of $200 million would clean those pipes out. The shadow minister for health this evening quoted areas within the CBD and other areas of Sydney where there are high levels of giardia and cryptosporidium. The treatment process might be thought to be inadequate, but it really is state-of-the-art. The Minister and the Premier, and other members, both in government and now in opposition, studied the treatment process and found that it was good enough to remove bacteria. If the pipes are being cleaned out properly, and if the bacteria comes into Prospect reservoir in sludge, why are they reappearing further down the line. The crud and the algae in the pipes are sheltering the bacteria, one type being chlorine resistant, the other remaining unaffected.

The bacteria breed in the pipes and pass through them to the people of Sydney. Sludge presents a major problem, yet the Government has failed to advise people, "Yes, we have an algae problem in the pipes. We will attend to it. We will be pro-active instead of shifting the blame, and we will ensure that this problem does not continue." I am pleased that the Minister for Gaming and Racing is present in the Chamber so that he can listen to my comments on an appalling health danger in Coffs Harbour. What really frightens me is that a document called "On Tap" has been circulated by a committee set up by the Minister responsible for water.

The title of that document suggest that its subject matter is water. However, "On Tap" is a community newsletter for the Coffs Harbour sewerage strategy group. That group wants Coffs Harbour to re-use our effluent by means of a $220 million scheme. They want us to re-use it not just on farming blocks and playing fields. Volume 3 of "On Tap" states that they want to see us utilising our effluent. I turn to the heading of "Re-use Potential":

This package provides the necessary infrastructure to maximise opportunities for the use of reclaimed water . . .

Page 7210

"On Tap" goes on to say:

. . . to treat effluent to potable standard and return it to the town water supply.

That group wants us to put effluent in the town water supply. That is a disgrace. The Government cannot handle Sydney’s drinking water supply but supports efforts to force us to put re-used effluent back into our water supply. That is unacceptable. The long-term cost for the Government or any other government will be litigation. Such litigation will cost this State billions. On top of that, the group wants us to put it on our playing fields. The Health Department and other authorities are saying that is okay, but it cannot be treated to the highest possible standard and then pumped it into the ocean.

The Government should check with the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, who came up to Coffs Harbour a fortnight ago and said he would not support a deep water ocean outfall, part and parcel of this strategy, because it may affect the marine reserve. The Government should forget the marine reserve. What about the people of Coffs Harbour? They are the ones who will be affected. People are not allowed to swim in it, even when it is diluted billions to one, but in concentrated form it can be applied to a playing field. My 12-year-old son, who plays sport every weekend, is at risk of picking up some dastardly bacterial disease still in that effluent, but it cannot be dropped out in the ocean. That is absolute lunacy.

It is high time that the green ratbags of this State and Australia were told that we do not want to eat or roll in our effluent. We want it disposed of by proper sanitary methods. We want it put where it causes the least amount of harm. One argument, which neither the Minister in charge of water nor his Government have put forward, is that effluent, treated to proper standard, with heavy metals and sludges removed and cured, is actually beneficial to the marine environment because it is high in phosphates and nitrates. The argument further suggests that effluent will promote algal growth. We use the marine environment and take fish out of it. Algal growth feeds fish, and it is part of the food chain. Volume 1 of "On Tap" states:

The goals we aim to achieve through sewerage strategy are to satisfy stringent environmental safeguards in any reuse or release of treated effluent.

The experience of Sydney Water and what has happened in Sydney means that no guarantees can be given. Water safety cannot be guaranteed. I do not want my constituents to become guinea pigs in circumstances similar to the Sydney water crisis. I do not want the elderly, the young and the infirm in my electorate dying from viruses or being infected by viruses because of what this Government has done. Our health system is not geared to take it. The Minister for Health, the Deputy Premier, has ripped the money out, yet he is defending this nonsense. But his strategy is going to place extra pressure on our health system, especially on the new hospital we were supposed to get but never received.

They want effluent to be re-used in native forests, recreational areas, banana plantations, horticultural activities and forestry. One suggestion is that it be put on bananas. What will Queensland banana growers do? If I were a Queensland banana grower - an industry in Coffs Harbour worth somewhere between $50 million and $100 million, and we are always competing with Queensland, which has better growing conditions - I would put "Shit-free bananas" on the side of my banana boxes before sending them down to the markets in Sydney or Melbourne. Consumers could choose not to buy Coffs Harbour bananas.

The Government cannot give that guarantee, yet has forced them into a re-use program. One or two growers might take advantage of the offer because they are getting the effluent for nothing. But, because of Professor Hilmer, at some stage someone is going to demand payment. Once growers are fixed into the arrangement they will not be able to afford to use effluent, and they will walk away from it. What will the Minister do with it next? Will he stick it in Bucca Creek? I live at Bucca Creek, as the Minister knows. But the fact is that Bucca Creek runs into the Orara River, from which the Coffs Harbour town water supply is taken.

It then flows into the Nymboida River from which the Clarence takes its water. Effluent will be sent to the electorate of the Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs. His constituents do not want to give us water they claim as theirs even though it comes from Dorrigo. That community should be asked if it would like to have a bit of body in its water, because that is what it will get. Coffs Harbour cannot continue to use effluent for irrigation without striking high rainfall, as is happening now, which prevents the effluent from being re-used. At a local council meeting I asked what would happen to that effluent and was told it would be pumped into the creek, because that is what happened to the excess. That is not an acceptable practice. Presently on my property I have 30,000 gallons of water.

Mr Chappell: Be careful of the water you’re drinking here.

Page 7211

Mr FRASER: I shall be careful of the water. I will leave this bottle of water on the table for the honourable member for Northern Tablelands to use when he makes his contribution to the debate because I am not sure whether the carafes have just been filled with Sydney water. At the end of the day we cannot afford to push the re-use of effluent into Coffs Harbour and other catchments as happens in Sydney. If the Government is responsible it will determine how much cryptosporidium and giardia and other diseases are washed into the water supply from the re-use program of biosolids from Sydney water. Those biosolids are not treated to the standard they should be or even to the standard adopted in Coffs Harbour over the past 35 years. Coffs Harbour does not have industrial waste in its sewerage system, therefore the effluent biosolids do not contain helium. The treatment cured the biosolids, which were used in landfill and then top dressed with clean soil. Coffs Harbour was able to utilise that safe process. I do not want my constituents to drink, play in or roll in effluent, as suggested by the group being paid by the Government. Water for human consumption should be treated to the highest standard.

Sydney has spent $400 million to build a pipeline from Lane Cove to North Head for primary treatment of effluent before it is pumped out to sea and the sludge is moved west into the Sydney Water catchment. That is not good enough. If the sludge problem and algae and crud problems in the pipes are fixed, the giardia and cryptosporidium problems will be solved along with any future problems. The Government will have the support of the people of Sydney and the coalition if it explains what will be done to resolve the problem. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition states that in view of the Government’s mismanagement of Sydney’s water crisis this Government no longer possesses the confidence of the House. Whilst the Government plays ostrich and sticks its head in the sand pretending it is someone else’s problem, or sacks David Hill or does anything else, the problem will remain.

The Government should be pro-active like the Leader of the Opposition was in issuing a 10-point plan, introducing legislation and attacking the problem. If the Government does the right thing the people will have confidence in it. This water crisis is a major issue. I support the motion. I commend the Government to answer some of the questions I have raised, to eliminate the issues causing the problem and to gain the confidence of this House and the people of New South Wales. The coalition knows the Government will win on this motion along party lines, but the ballot on 27 March 1999 will show that the Government does not have the confidence of the people of New South Wales.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [8.14 p.m.]: This is a most important debate. It is an indictment on successive governments that our water is not suitable for drinking and no resolution to the problem is in sight. This problem creates hardship for the elderly, the ill, for those with low immune systems and for the homeless, and creates inconvenience for everyone else. I agree that this crisis is sending a shocking message overseas. Economic repercussions will result, if they have not already done so, and tourism will suffer seriously. What does this say about our green Games? I am seriously concerned at the Government’s failure to implement a public transport policy for all Olympic sites, including the inner city. At present the city faces the prospect of 800 private cars being parked on Rushcutters Bay Park and 25 containers on Yarranabbe Park. I fear private cars will cover the remainder of Moore Park. The foreshore parklands will be desecrated by cars and our drinking water will be contaminated - great green Games!

I should like to make some general points and then address specific problems. I agree with the spokespeople from environment groups that the long-term solution is to protect catchment areas rather than to rely only on technical solutions. The inquiry into the water problem should run its course without political interference. I oppose the issuing of refund cheques, which was blatantly and politically targeted by the Leader of the Opposition. The majority of the Sydney community would rather that revenue be ploughed back into Sydney Water to overcome contamination in the short and long term. Throughout the 1990s Sydney Water was treated as a revenue generator rather than a provider of an essential community service.

Clearly, the policy was not based on standards of excellence in the provision of water; rather it was based on the size of the dividend to the Government. There must be a balance between infrastructure renewal, filtration and revenue required by government. We certainly have not had that balance and now we are paying the price. The Premier said in his speech yesterday, "As soon as the Government identified the problem with Sydney Water we told the public about it." That is not true. On 30 July I wrote to the Managing Director of Sydney Water, to the Minister for Health and to the Minister responsible for Sydney water expressing my concern that five days had passed before information about water contamination in eastern Sydney was available to the public.

Page 7212

That small region of Sydney includes dense high-rise residential development, a large number of cafes, restaurants, hotels and other businesses that potentially affect my constituents and many other Sydney residents and visitors. This region includes also a large number of people living with HIV and AIDS, for whom delayed notification about the contamination could have proved fatal due to their depressed immune systems. The problem was identified on the Friday, but it was not until the following Wednesday that the health alert was publicised. When the second alert was given I called upon the Government on 27 August to implement a system to provide timely and accurate information for those most affected by contaminated water, such as people living with HIV and AIDS, so that they were aware exactly of the risks.

Residents in my electorate saw Sydney water being flushed out in Darlinghurst on the afternoon of Tuesday, 25 August, but the Government did not inform the public until late Tuesday evening. It is important that, until we know the water is truly safe, people with suppressed immune systems drink boiled water at all times rather than risk being told too late about a renewed contamination. I have also been informed that the community should be cautious of the Health Department’s advice about the length of time water needs to be boiled. Apparently World Health Organisation guidelines call for contaminated water to be boiled for much longer - between five and 20 minutes.

The Government should provide safe water for those at risk who cannot afford to buy drinking water. The Government should establish water depots to provide treated water for those who cannot afford it. It should be given to hostels and other support services to provide clean, safe water for the homeless and people on low incomes. This is a very serious issue in my electorate. I probably have the largest number of people with HIV and AIDS, and homeless people and people living on the street who have no access to boiled water and who do not have the income to buy bottled water.

That is why tonight I specifically call on the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, as the eradication of giardia and cryptosporidium may be a long-term project, to provide filtered water or tap water filters free or at low cost to people with low immunity, such as the elderly, the ill and people living with HIV and AIDS. I ask him to make that same provision to the homeless and to set up water banks and hostels for the homeless and services for people living on low incomes. This contamination could go on for months and it is a serious life and death issue for those people.

I refer to a draft submission that people living with AIDS are preparing to present to the Sydney Water inquiry secretariat. They point out that they have been concerned for more than two years about the impact of contamination of Sydney’s water on people with HIV and AIDS. They maintain that over that period their submissions to the Health Department have been ignored and consistently both Sydney Water and New South Wales Health have provided misinformation to this group of people who have low immune systems. They maintain:

The scope of the impact of cryptosporidium in Sydney is shown in figures recorded by the national centre for HIV epidemiology clinical research amongst PLWHAs. These figures are similar to those found in US cities which have acknowledged problems with water contamination.

They believe that water has not been filtered for patients treated by the New South Wales Health Department in hospitals. They believe that New South Wales Health has not given them correct information and they too are calling on the New South Wales Government to provide tap water filters free or at low cost for people in this category. They sum up their concerns in this way:

We believe that Sydney has been very lucky to have escaped dealing with an outbreak in which people living with HIV and AIDS and others at risk could have died, similar to the outbreaks in Milwaukee and Las Vegas. We are concerned that complacency on this issue will mean that there will no change to the consideration of the impact on people living with HIV and AIDS. Our past experience suggests that this group will not be considered or consulted about any changes. We require change and a public statement by Sydney Water and New South Wales Health acknowledging our concerns and committing themselves to addressing them.

I call upon the Government to address the concerns not only of that particular group but also the elderly, the ill and the homeless, particularly in my electorate but also in other electorates throughout Sydney. I refer to some of the contributions made by other honourable members, in particular by the honourable member for Manly. His contribution last night gave a very clear picture of the crisis we are facing and why we are facing it. He is a very credible contributor to this debate. He has been involved in this issue since the mid-1980s. He came into Parliament concerned with this issue, with a medical background, and he is the former chairman of the Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board.

I recommend that Opposition members have a good look at his contribution and use it as the basis for their questions in question time rather than their pathetic performance over the past two days. I support his calling upon the Government and the Parliament to support the McClellan inquiry and to
Page 7213
call for another interim report over the next month, to decide whether legislation needs to be amended or the regulatory framework needs to be dealt with; whether the role of the independent licence regulators should be extended to enable them to conduct their own reviews; and whether Sydney Water’s operating licence should be amended to set standards for giardia and cryptosporidium. I refer particularly to what the honourable member said regarding the involvement of both the Government and the Opposition. He said:

The case against the Government is compelling. At least two Ministers served on the committee that knew of the shortcomings of the water treatment plants and supported recommendations that they be proceeded with. In 1994 a Minister admitted in the House that the choice that had been made was the wrong choice, as was disclosed by information provided to the Parliament.

He believes that the Government has been fully aware of shortcomings and misgivings with regard to the water treatment plants and the likely impact on the management of catchments above treatment plants. Those likely impacts have transpired. The Government has now been in office for 3½ years and Sydney is faced with a public health crisis. He also says that there is blood on the hands of both the coalition and the Government. Sydney Water has been a monolithic, unaccountable, lazy organisation, and he points out that we are in the middle of a very serious public health crisis. The honourable member for Manly has summed up the situation the community of Sydney is facing and I strongly support the position he has taken and presented so ably to this House.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [8.26 p.m.]: This is not an insignificant motion. These types of motions do not occur too often. It has occurred because of the huge amount of public concern on this issue. The issue has continued to alarm Sydneysiders and all Australians. International attention is focused on Sydney and what has happened with Sydney’s poor water standard under the Carr Government. This State has been reduced virtually to Third World status in the eyes not only of Sydneysiders but also Australiawide and internationally. As late as a month ago the Minister for Health said:

Routine monitoring for cryptosporidium is not appropriate.

It is extraordinary for a Minister of Health, given today’s knowledge of these parasites, to say such a thing. It shows that he is very ill-informed by his advisers and not on top of his portfolio to have made a comment such as this. The current crisis makes a mockery of the Minister responsible for Sydney water. In a statement in October 1996 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning said:

Sydney residents are supplied with the cleanest drinking water in the world.

As the honourable member for Bligh just said, Ministers and senior bureaucrats have been aware of the risks for some time, and to make statements like that is damning and irresponsible. I have had many letters and phone calls from constituents, and many e-mails, but one in particular came from a Mr Denis McDonald from Hurstville. On 31 July, when the scare just started, he wrote:

Premier Bob Carr said last night on television that heads will roll. His should be the first to go as he as Premier is responsible. Sydney Water should be disbanded and the old Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board reinstated as it previously existed with the regular cyclical and preventative maintenance carried out by board employees. For some reason beyond my comprehension all the inspection services we used to enjoy have been dismantled. Why?

Mr McDonald concludes with these few words:

I have tried to express my anger. To think that our water is advertised as good enough to bottle.

Although I am not supporting a return to the old Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board, I understand what Mr McDonald is saying: that all of those safety guards that were there and the personnel who used to check our catchment management areas and in the field have been reduced in numbers, and we have suffered from cost-cutting measures for some time. This shock has made Sydney Water officials, bureaucrats and Ministers sit up and take notice of what has been going on and think about ways in which the problems can be fixed.

It is not long ago that Sydney residents believed that their tap water was good enough to bottle, yet today they are too frightened to even brush their teeth with it. The long-term damage that is being caused by the intense news media coverage of the water crisis will take generations to repair. Some say that the days of drinking Sydney’s tap water are over, no matter how safe any government may say the water is. That is because, frankly, people just do not trust governments any more. Many recent news media reports are noteworthy. Sarah Harris, writing in the Sunday Telegraph of 6 September, expressed the feelings of many Sydneysiders. Her article stated:

Sydneysiders could be forgiven for feeling like they’re living the script of the movie Groundhog Day.

Let’s face it - it’s a nightmare. You wake up every morning to the radio alarm blaring: "Warning, warning, alien

Page 7214
approaching . . . do not drink the water, boil first. This has been a community health announcement . . . and now, for a Walk in the Black Forest.

The article also stated:

Inside the [New South Wales Health] conference room - against an unflattering crimson backdrop that proclaimed "Caring for Health" - the Minister for aqua mort, Craig Knowles, and NSW Health director-general Michael Reid looked suitably grim.

It was all as clear as mud, really.

It seems we must boil our water for two weeks. If no one is sick, then it was all for nothing.

But if someone gets sick (and maybe even dies) the levels of cryptosporidium and giardia are too high, and we may have to keep both boiling and being extremely cross indefinitely.

The Government, Mr Knowles assured the press corps, shared the public’s frustration, but frankly didn’t know if, when or indeed how -

Mr Lynch: On a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member for Georges River appears to be slavishly reading from a document in front of her, rather than delivering her speech in an appropriate manner.

Ms FICARRA: I am quoting from an article.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! It appears to me that the honourable member is reading from copious notes.

Ms FICARRA: As I said in my speech, I was quoting from a particular article that I wish to have recorded in Hansard. I noted that I was quoting from the article.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I will not argue with the member. I suggest that she refer to copious notes. The standing orders prohibit the reading of speeches in the House.

Ms FICARRA: Does that include quoting media reports for inclusion in Hansard?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the point of order and I expect the honourable member to comply with the ruling.

Ms FICARRA: Government members are deeply concerned because they do not like hearing about the news media reports. This issue is the most damning condemnation of the Government. Although the honourable member for Liverpool sits back smiling, he knows that if the Labor Party were to conduct private polls on this basic service delivery - as the coalition is conducting polls - they would show a record of management incompetence. I realise that Government members may not wish me to read this article onto the record, but I have already quoted the majority of it.

Murray Hogarth reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 August that secret letters from inside the Sydney Water Corporation give a detailed knowledge of the workings and the power plays of Sydney Water. Sydney Water has been politicised by the Labor Government with Labor Party stooges who have no scientific expertise. Letters reveal deep factional divisions at high levels of the $14 billion corporation charged with making sure that Sydney’s water supply is safe. They portray an organisation beset with a crisis it cannot cope with. The Government is not coping with the water crisis. I quote:

Senior management lacks the wherewithal to understand even basic physical, chemical and microbiological concepts because they lack appropriate expertise in the sciences. The public health area dealing with drinking water is poorly resourced and overworked.

The letter from which I have quoted was found in a Sydney Water envelope. The Government’s response has been interesting. The latest appointment to the board has been Mr Michael Costa, Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Council. His expertise is as a numbers man. Has his appointment given the public any sense of security? No, it is just more of the same. The actions of the Carr Labor Government in crisis have been to sack David Hill and Chris Pollett, to put on Michael Costa and to pray and hope that something breaks. The Government should have learnt from all its previous disastrous political appointments - and I shall speak about the appointment of David Hill in a moment.

Let us consider the value that Sydneysiders get for their water rates. Average residential bills have increased dramatically by 4.7 per cent to $554 in 1995-96 and by 3.6 per cent to $574 in 1997-98. Meanwhile, the consumer price index increased by only 1.4 per cent and 0.1 per cent in those years. Last April, in a mid-term review of Sydney Water prices, the tribunal expressed its concern that the decrease in Sydney Water’s capital expenditure may harm repair and maintenance levels. What was the Government’s response? Sydney Water’s gross capital expenditure decreased from $447 million in 1994-95 to a low $228 million in the following year and decreased further to $187 million in 1996-97.

The Carr Government has been milking Sydney Water to prop up its ailing State budget year after year, and this city’s third water contamination scare has arisen because of the running down of the
Page 7215
Sydney Water Corporation. A sum of $530 million has been ripped off Sydney Water in two years. Where has that money gone? It certainly has not gone towards the maintenance of Sydney’s water supply, checking the filtration plant or containing catchment areas. We are being told that Sydney’s water crisis could last another six months, even if there is no new contamination of Warragamba Dam. Indeed, this crisis could continue up to next State election in March 1999.

If the dam’s catchment receives above average summer rainfall, as the latest forecasts would suggest, the city may face a string of boil-water alerts for the next year. We have been told that higher levels of cryptosporidium could indicate pollution by animal faeces - most likely cattle - while elevated giardia levels may indicate human sewage. Sydney Water experts say that the current levels of both parasites mean that Warragamba Dam will be suspect until March next year. The Director-General of Health, Mr Michael Reid, has confirmed that the number of cryptosporidium oocysts is up to 10,000 per 100 litres.

Sydney Water sources admit that there is no way of knowing how badly Warragamba Dam, Sydney’s main water storage, has been contaminated by the recent rains that filled it to capacity. No-one really knows how bad the situation is and no-one has any answers on what to do about it. Infectious oocysts of the potentially fatal cryptosporidium parasite could remain alive in the dam for hundreds of days. Recent research has shown that those oocysts can live for 176 days in water between 16 and 20 degrees - the range of temperature in the surface in Warragamba Dam, according to Dr Judi Hansen of Sydney Water Corporation.

My constituents have put forward a number of suggestions. The people of the Georges River electorate are sick of having to boil their water. Mr Graham Blewett of Peakhurst has put to me, and I have since put to the Minister, the suggestion that the Penshurst reservoir be filled from Woronora Dam, thus giving more people access to water free of parasites originating in Warragamba Dam. As Mr Blewett has pointed out, there is a pipe that goes over the old Como railway bridge. Why not bring clean water from the Sutherland area to St George? The honourable member for Sutherland is in the Chamber at the moment and she is fortunate that her electorate has such a clean water supply. We in the St George area would love to have the same water supply. It would be very easy to reconnect the Penshurst reservoir.

Who are the Sydneysiders most at risk? They are the elderly, infants, those with depressed immune systems, cancer sufferers, those with the human immunodeficiency virus, those undergoing ray therapy or chemotherapy and those with chronic heart, lung and kidney disorders. Hundreds of Sydneysiders are at risk. What of the future? Sydney Water says that dam water and sediments are unlikely to settle until late spring, although more heavy rain could cause them to mix up again to add even more uncertainty to the process. I quote small, short excerpts from a Sydney Morning Herald article on 7 September, which states:

The longer the Sydney drinking water crisis continues, the greater the uncertainty - about its underlying causes, its actual seriousness and how it might have been avoided. Instead of ending uncertainty quickly, the Carr Government, since the first signs of trouble more than six weeks ago, has managed to add to it. The Premier must now take the responsibility he should have assumed at the outset.

The prospect now is for further "boil-water" restrictions, continuously or intermittently, until Christmas or perhaps several months after that. Even then, it is not certain that the public eventually will be told much more than it already has been. That is, in essence, that tests show high readings of potentially dangerous cryptosporidium and giardia. These indications of contamination have prompted repeated "boil-water" alerts since July 27. But the more time that passes the less confidence there is in the nature and quality of these readings and the greater the need for further explanation and accountability.

That is criticism of the Premier, whose posture during the crisis has been to complain about the failings of others. The Premier must now assume greater responsibility. His first task should be to establish a more powerful inquiry to establish the truth, to remove the uncertainty and to restore public confidence. Peter McClellan, QC, has confirmed what everyone in New South Wales suspected: the handling of the Sydney water crisis was botched. It is disturbing that more than one month after the initial contamination outbreak, the source of the problem is still not known and there is no guarantee that it will not happen again.

A rebate of $15 is a joke. How can $15 possibly compensate residents for the inconvenience of having to boil water indefinitely? The report highlights problems with the management of the contamination scare, including delays in issuing public warnings. At the end of the day the Carr Government cannot say what caused the contamination or explain how the Government will prevent the problem from happening again. By contrast the Leader of the Opposition has introduced a 10-point plan as part of the Safe Drinking Water Bill. It is hoped that the Government will realise that residents want the parties to work together on this major problem, which is too important to politicise. The ideas from each party should be considered.

Page 7216

The 10-point plan of the Leader of the Opposition is extremely far-sighted, reasonable and responsible. It is directed at minimising future scares and restoring public confidence in Sydney water. The 10-point plan involves a number of matters, such as the appointment of a new Sydney Water board based on expertise, not political association; the introduction of a Safe Drinking Water Bill similar to the legislation enacted by the Clinton Administration; the freezing of the planned increase in water rates until the crisis is resolved; the establishing of an Internet site with up-to-date information on water quality; and regular monitoring for cryptosporidium, giardia and other parasites which have emerged during the past two to three years as a significant threat to the Sydney water supply.

The plan also involves redirecting money from this year’s predicted $279 million government dividend to improve the monitoring and filtration system treatments such as microfiltration and improved membrane technology. In fact, tonight the coalition was given the benefit of expertise from the head of the chemical engineering department at the University of New South Wales, Professor Tony Fane, who is a leading expert. The coalition’s plan provides for a $40 rebate to ratepayers in their next water bill. That amount may be reviewed as the crisis continues. The 10-point plan will also transfer the responsibility for issuing health warnings from Sydney Water to the public health unit of the Department of Health.

The plan will tighten access to water catchment areas such as Warragamba Dam, initiate regular patrols to report on possible human and animal contamination, and impose statutory obligations on the Minister and the department to issue health warnings as soon as relevant information is made available to them. They are all sensible and reasonable points. Two years ago Dr George Rubin, New South Wales Chief Health Officer, apparently warned the Sydney Water Corporation that giardia and cryptosporidium posed a unique threat to the safety of the drinking water. Dr Rubin sought rapid action in assessing those risks. In 1996 in a letter Dr Rubin warned:

The magnitude of this potential risk and the concerns about the adequacy of the current controls demands some prompt action from Sydney Water Corporation to ameliorate this risk.

Dr Rubin specified elements for the action plan, which were:

•An assessment of the risks of contamination and the likelihood of system failure in the field of Sydney Water’s operations which may result in outbreaks of cryptosporidium;

•An analysis and early publication of the results of all cryptosporidium surveillance done so far by Sydney Water;

•The development of best practice guidelines to minimise the risk of cryptosporidium.

What was the reaction of the Government? There was no outcome. Dr Rubin should be asked who in the Department of Health or Sydney Water took notice of anything he said. The former managing director of Sydney Water, Mr Paul Broad, replied, assuring Dr Rubin that Sydney Water had world’s best practice management procedures as the first line of defence. He said that the catchment and treatment plants would intercept as much as 99.9 per cent of cryptosporidium. However, other documents show that experts from Sydney Water advised that the treatment plants would need to achieve greater than 99.9 per cent removal to reach acceptable international risk levels. Mr Broad also responded that Sydney Water had commissioned research by the University of New South Wales to develop an online surrogate measurement for cryptosporidium at water treatment plants. Mr Broad said:

In the unlikely event of a "breakthrough", the results of this research will allow the corporation to take immediate effective action to prevent contamination of the drinking water supply.

However, that has not eventuated. The warnings were there all the way along. What was David Hill’s part in the fiasco? He is a typical political appointee with no experience in water management - some would say no experience in soccer management, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the State Rail Authority. Peter McClellan, QC, found that on 29 July Mr Hill, who was then the Chairman of Sydney Water, significantly influenced a decision to limit a public health warning to parts of Sydney, despite evidence that contamination could be more widespread. Mr McClellan said:

In my opinion, the decision did not reflect appropriate concern for public health.

The report also gave accounts of a heated telephone exchange between Mr Hill and a New South Wales Health medical officer, who claimed that Mr Hill shouted, yelled and screamed at her, and threatened her with the sack. Mr Hill said that while he could have done without the report, he did not believe it would harm his chances of winning the electorate of Hughes for the Australian Labor Party. I have got news for David Hill! He is dead in his Sydney water and no amount of boiling and keeping the button pressed down for one minute will save him.

Mr McClellan said in his report that, after deciding to issue a limited warning on July 29,
Page 7217
Sydney Water officials discovered New South Wales Health had already issued a Sydney-wide alert. Thank goodness for New South Wales Health! Sydney Water had moved to kill that alert, with Mr Hill engaging in a heated exchange with NSW Health media officer Shari Armistead, who had issued the full alert on the instructions of department head Mick Reid. Mr McClellan said that while there were conflicting accounts about what was said, he was satisfied that Mr Hill did not tell Ms Armistead, "I will sack you," although Mr Hill accepted he may have used words to the effect of "You’ll be sacked." Mr Hill’s account of the conversation had been:

Hill: This [the press release] is irresponsible. It’s unauthorised and inaccurate.

Armistead: You people should have put the release out earlier. That’s why we put it out.

Hill: You’re in enough s.... already. Don’t argue. Just retract the bloody thing and get Mick Reid to ring me.

And this person wants to stand as a Federal member of Parliament! The people of the electorate of Hughes will give him a clear message on 3 October. He has already stuffed up enough government organisations and he definitely will not ruin the lives of the people of Hughes. He is a joke. Senior officers of Sydney Water had informed the Minister of the risks involved and the maintenance required, but we still hear farcical dorothy dixers in this House. The honourable member for Liverpool was part of the farce. On 22 October 1996 he asked a dorothy dixer; he asked the Minister to report on the dangerous bug in Sydney’s water supply. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning assured honourable members that he was on top of it all. He said:

Sydney’s residents are supplied with the cleanest drinking water in the world . . . Frankly, attempts to beat up the likelihood of a cryptosporidium outbreak are little more than scaremongery.

He then tried to imply that this was related to the commercial activities of those who wanted to sell more water filtration plants and that the matter was totally under control. He said:

In the circumstances, given an attempt to bring about a public health scare, I would have thought Opposition members would have appreciated an assurance from the Government that our water supply was clean and was meeting health standards. As I said earlier, the water treatment plants are performing.

What a joke! Who could trust any of them? Nine months ago the Carr Government put its political stamp on the board of the $14 billion Sydney Water Corporation. This State-owned corporation is second only to the power companies as a money-spinner for the Treasury coffers. A new chairman was appointed from the right of the New South Wales ALP - that mastermind, that right-wing stalwart, David Hill. In addition, three other new directors on the board of eight were appointed. Within a month Mr Hill and his new board had appointed Mr Chris Pollett, one of three short-listed candidates from inside Sydney Water, as managing director on a salary of $350,000 a year.

An international executive search firm had been retained to find a replacement because the position of managing director was so important. However, none of the outsiders ever made it to the final interviews, despite the job involving control of one of the largest water utilities in the world with greater assets than most of the nation’s share-listed corporations and a massive responsibility for public health and the environment. What happened at the board’s job interviews is not known because the minutes are commercial in confidence. But from there on Sydney Water’s new hierarchy was put together. Mr Pollett reported to the board and Mr Hill reported to the Government. The three billion shares in Sydney Water were held by five State Ministers on a non-beneficial basis on behalf of the people. When David Hill was appointed the key shareholders were two of his factional colleagues on the right: the Treasurer, Michael Egan, and the former Minister for Fair Trading, Brian Langton, who has since stepped down following the infamous ICAC inquiry.

David Hill, a former ALP appointee as managing director of the ABC and State Rail, has since become our wonderful hapless candidate in the Federal seat of Hughes. David Hill was the man who earlier this year had great news for his ALP mates in this State: record dividends when the Carr Government was desperate to balance its final budget before the March election. Last year $250 million was paid to the Government and almost $280 million is expected this financial year. The people of Sydney say to Premier Carr, "Hand it back, put it where it should be, solve the problem and do whatever is necessary to improve our water supply. It is just not good enough."

The Carr Government’s shame will escalate if it cannot deal with Sydney’s water problem. The words that the Premier uttered at the opening of the Prospect water plant in October 1996 will haunt the Government into Opposition. He said that Sydney now has fresh filtered water - crystal clear, healthy and great tasting. That is all that the people of Sydney ever wanted from the Carr Government. The Government must spend the $278 million dividend
Page 7218
from Sydney Water to fix the problem. If it costs more, the Government must find the additional funds. The people of Sydney demand it and will judge the Government’s actions at the ballot box. The Opposition hopes to work in a spirit of bipartisan co-operation because this should not be a political bunfight. Opposition members make that statement on behalf of their constituents, who would expect this to be the first issue to be debated. [Time expired.]

[Debate interrupted.]