It is just unbelievable to consider that this person, who has absolutely no knowledge of finance, does not recognise that every year all money is committed. The fact is that there is no unspent money. Each year the allocation is made and payments are made to all of the projects on the basis of 50 per cent at the commencement of contracts when they are signed, after that there is a monitoring process, 45 per cent six months later, and at the conclusion of each individual project the final 5 per cent is paid, again after proper audit. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to get this $12 million, which is not sitting idle but has been allocated for projects right around the State for the unemployed, particularly for youth unemployed, he will have to rob it from the projects at Liverpool, or perhaps the projects at Parramatta, Penrith or Nowra, because there is no other money to meet the needs of these projects. It is about time the Leader of the Opposition woke up to the fact that this is the Government that recognised the recession before anyone else did; this is the Government that realised that something had to be done about unemployment.
Page 2238
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order.
Mr FAHEY: This Government realised something had to be done about youth. We put 60,000 more students into technical and further education colleges this year when they could not get jobs. We made the effort.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order for the second time.
Mr FAHEY: We made the effort to teach them skills at that time. Let us have a look at what is occurring in regard to employment on the Central Coast. This Government, which is a real government and spends its money properly, has a vision. It is not about this farcical stuff that is going on opposite. It is real. It has given real training opportunities to the youth of the State. On the Central Coast, in the skills gap training program $129,000 has been allocated to train local unemployed youth in the skills necessary to find work, especially in the hospitality and service areas. This year 100 youths have gained employment as a result of that program. I should mention also the Wyong group apprentices program. I shall be interested to hear what the honourable member for Wyong has to say about losing his money for the group apprentices scheme at Wyong.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr FAHEY: The $80,000 that has been allocated by this Government in that area has 120 youths in training this year. The Wyong regional work initiatives and young transactions program has assisted 228 young people with employment and vocational training this year. As a result of the Government intake of trainees 25 Central Coast youths have been given an opportunity to become trainees in government departments. The apprentice placement service and hot line have assisted out-of-work apprentices in that region. The training opportunities task force promotional team canvasses jobs for unemployed apprentices. The vocational guidance office at Gosford and the Gosford and Wyong technical and further education colleges have done a significant amount of work. Two technical and further education colleges on the Central Coast alone have taken in an additional 1,000 students to give them skills at a time of high unemployment. This pathological liar opposite floats stories. I could count on one hand the number of times that he has told the truth in the past six months. He does not know how to tell the truth. He ought to go back to American history; he is great at quoting American history. There is one statement from American history that I recall: we can fool some of the people some of the time. At this point in time, the people of New South Wales are waking up to the fact that there is no substance and no truth in
Page 2239
what he is saying; it is nothing but a big lie.
SOUTH COAST TRAINS
Mr HATTON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Did CityRail officials tell rail unions that the decrepit diesel trains on the South Coast line would have to last for another 10 years? Will the Minister give the lie to that statement and restate that the new Explorer trains will be on line by 1994? In light of the serious accident that involved a broken wheel, will the Minister give an unqualified guarantee that those old diesel trains are safe?
Mr BAIRD: I thank the honourable member for South Coast for his question. He has asked me that privately on a number of occasions. I have given him assurance on each of those occasions. Undoubtedly, many rumours float around. When it comes to lies, we know where to look. That statement is clearly untrue. We are committed to the Explorer trains, which are now on order and which will be serving the North West line going up to Armidale and also down to Queanbeyan and Canberra. We have put that project into our forward capital works planning for 1994. I have given the honourable member that assurance before and I confirm it now. State Rail is rebuilding. It is doing a first grade job. I can also confirm that we have just experienced our best on-time running figure ever, a level of 95 per cent.
WATER BOARD AND MEMTEC LIMITED
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I direct my question to the Minister for Housing. What is the current state of negotiations between Memtec Limited and the Water Board? Does the Memtec sewage effluent treatment process meet the claims made for it, or is further testing required?
Mr SCHIPP: I thank the honourable member for Lane Cove for her question and take this opportunity to congratulate her on her outstanding maiden speech, which was made last night. That speech indicates to every member of this House the contribution that she is destined to make in this place in representing her electorate. In view of the recent publicity and politicking surrounding the matter raised by the honourable member for Lane Cove, it has become imperative to factually clarify the position.
Mr Whelan: That is the end of your answer.
Mr SCHIPP: I was told something about the honourable member by his mummy yesterday. I am right about the honourable member for Ashfield. In 1989 Memtec Limited, an Australian company, made representations to the Sydney Water Board regarding a technology which it claimed would treat sewage and produce an effluent with 100 per cent removal of bacteria and viruses and near total removal of suspended solids. These claims were exciting. The board was then, and still remains, keen both to support Australian enterprise and to assist in the development of a
Page 2240
technology that will enable reclamation and reuse of water from sewage while not posing unacceptable risks to the board or the community. The board was therefore responsive to what appeared to be an exciting new technology.
In response in Memtec's claims, the board initially participated in a small-scale pilot plant trial of the technology, while commencing negotiations with Memtec that would lead to trials of a further large-scale pilot plant at Cronulla. During the past 18 months the board has been negotiating in good faith with Memtec to execute an agreement for the establishment and trial of such a plant. Memtec's original proposition for the pilot plant was that it would provide the facilities at its own cost. In February 1991, after the board had completed the necessary site works for the installation of the large-scale pilot plant, Memtec sought full funding for the plant from the board. The agreement for the trialling of the plant has not been finalised because Memtec has not been prepared to accept that a payment scheduled should be linked to the technical validation standards required by the board; nor has it been prepared to accept the validation standards required by the board.
The board has expended over $1 million in supporting various installations and tests of Memtec technology. The establishment of a full-scale plant will be very costly and the board is unwilling to invest further significant sums unless these investments are linked to the validation of Memtec's performance claims. The Water Board rejects any suggestion that it is inappropriate to link payment with performance or that the validation standards are unreasonable. Further, the board rejects any suggestion that officers of the board have been unsupportive or unco-operative with Memtec in negotiating the trials of Memtec's technology. On several occasions the board and Memtec have been close to reaching an agreement. However, on each occasion Memtec notified the board that it was not prepared to proceed on the terms discussed.
The board makes no apology for requiring strict technical standards to be specified and met in any arrangement between it and Memtec. It is important that we maintain these standards for the following reasons. First the Water Board would be required to invest substantial sums in testing the equipment and must be satisfied that this expenditure is responsible. Second, the Water Board recognises that its ultimate responsibility is to ensure that sewage treatment and water supply and provided without unacceptable risk to the community. Third, the validation standards required by the board are in fact less stringent than the performance consistently claimed by Memtec as achievable. As a leader in the water industry, the board must be fastidious in its endorsement of any new technology, particularly in this case as Memtec has attracted substantial world-wide interest. When Memtec is prepared to sign an agreement that includes a regime for proving to the satisfaction of the board that the technology works as represented, the trials will be able to proceed.
PROPERTY SERVICES GROUP CONSULTANCIES
Page 2241
Mr E. T. PAGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives. Why did the Minister mislead the House in his response to the Leader of the Opposition? Does he still maintain that $1.1 million was spent on consultancies, when his department puts the figure at over $11 million?
Mr PEACOCKE: The figures supplied to me by the Property Services Group are accurate.
Mr E. T. Page: Are they complete?
Mr PEACOCKE: They are accurate and complete. I suggest, however, that the honourable member for Coogee, having very little knowledge of financial matters of this nature, may be confusing consultancies with contracts used by the Property Services Group. There are such things as engineering tests at Homebush Bay and poisonous residual land waste tests. The figures that I quoted are accurate. They are not wrong.
OPPOSITION ROADWORKS BUDGET
Mr BECK: I direct my question without notice to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Opposition's five-year budget for roadworks in New South Wales? If so, what is the estimated cost of Labor's plan and how much money, according to forward estimates, will be available to fund Labor's commitments from conventional sources?
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: I thank the honourable member for Murwillumbah for his question, and more especially for the work that he is performing as the chairman of my backbench committee on road studies. This question gives me the opportunity to reveal to the House yet another example of the absolute incompetence of the Opposition in financial planning and management. Just recently the Leader of the Opposition stated publicly and most unequivocally that not for one moment would he, as Premier, contemplate allowing the Budget to blow out. If we could bring ourselves to believe that, his roads policy presents him with a huge problem. The alternative 1991-92 roads budget proposal of the Leader of the Opposition centres on two points. The first is that commitments will be absorbed within the existing capital works budget. The second commits the Opposition to a capital works savings target of around 2 per cent in forward estimates. The Opposition's roads proposal is designed around specific programs over a five-year period. An examination of the proposal reveals that it is not a policy or a plan - it is a blueprint for budget blowout on a grand scale.
To put it mildly, the Leader of the Opposition is trying once again to con the people of New South Wales into believing that his roads program is a serious program. The reality is that the roads proposal is a fantasy. It is overcommitted and unattainable. The money is out of reach and the Leader of the Opposition does not realise that his entire State budget would be a gigantic catastrophe. He should burst out laughing about this proposal, and he is well advised by the shadow minister for roads. This proposal is a joke and so is the shadow minister. Costing the proposal produced some jokes,
Page 2242
particularly the discovery that Labor's roads project completely overlooks funding commitments to Federal projects in this State over the next five years. These projects are worth $1,291 million more in present day dollars than the $809 million that the Opposition has allowed. On top of that it has completely omitted any provision for the five-year roadworks program in the central region. This is an oversight of $685 million in 1991-92 dollar terms.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The honourable member cannot add up, does not know what he is talking about and has made a mess of it once again. This roads proposal should give Sydneysiders some indication of what their roads would be like under a Labor government. Further examination of Labor's roads budget revealed another astonishing omission. There is absolutely no provision in the policy for recurrent Roads and Traffic Authority expenditure over the next five years. It has been forgotten. We are talking here about RTA motor traffic services, debt servicing commitments and so on. It is a not altogether minor responsibility of $1,500 million which seems to have been completely overlooked. Perhaps the Opposition has no intention of ever repaying its debts. Difficult as it is to believe, the Leader of the Opposition is presenting a roads policy -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Wyong to order.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: - which completely overlooks provision for three main expenditure areas at a total of $3,476 million. By any standard of any person, this has to be a staggering mistake. Whether it is a mistake or another blatant attempt to mislead the community, I am not sure. I think it may be the former. The bottom line is that the Opposition's commitment to its roads policy for the next five years, stated in present day dollar terms, is $9,585 million, which is a very laudable figure. We now come to the nitty gritty, to the moment of truth that arrives when one has been to fairyland and makes all sorts of promises without checking where the money will come from. Funds estimated to be available to the Roads and Traffic Authority over the next five years total $7,586 million. Deduct from that the proposed 2 per cent reduction in the roads capital works forward estimates, as promised by the Leader of the Opposition, that is $152 million, and we find that the total funds available under the Opposition's proposal would be $7,434 million.
[Interruption]
Page 2243
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber, particularly from the honourable member for Blue Mountains.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: A quick calculation reveals that the Leader of the Opposition, in one masterful miscalculation, has blown his five-year roads plan out the door by $2,151 million, or $430 million a year. If Labor were in government, how would it achieve the commitment it promises in its roads policy document? The options are narrow.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order for the third time.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: To raise sufficient funding for this proposal Labor would have to increase the present fuel levy of 3c a litre for three years to 9c a litre for five years. This would provide a return of an extra $400 million a year and there would still be a shortfall of $150 million over the five years. One would assume that Labor would honour its election promise to abolish toll roads. If it did so, it would have to pay out the contracts on the F4 Freeway and the F5 Freeway, at a total cost of $520 million, and then set about reducing other programs by $300 million a year.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: This could lead only to savage staff reductions in rural areas because the bulk of Labor's commitment is to roads in Sydney, Newcastle and the Illawarra, despite the fact that it made no provisions for roadworks in the Sydney central area.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber, and particularly from the honourable member for Parramatta.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: Country New South Wales can forget any roadworks under Labor, other than the token filling of the giant pot-holes which will appear. Can there be any more convincing demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition than suggesting to the electorate that he would manage New South Wales better when he cannot even get his sums right on a roads budget? Not only can he not get them right but they are terribly wrong. In fact they are so wrong that the roads policy alone would blow a Labor budget apart. Who knows what other monumental mistakes lurk in the budgets for the Opposition's policies relating to health, education, public transport, housing, and law and order. The Labor Party in Opposition is once again trying to tell the lie, to promote the big Labor lie it has been peddling for years. It has failed in the past and will continue to fail.
Page 2244
STATE RECREATION AREAS ADMINISTRATION
Dr METHERELL: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. In view of private assurances given by the Premier's officers will he now give a public assurance to this House that all metropolitan and coastal State recreation areas, including Davidson, will remain within the administration of the Minister for the Environment? Will the Premier also agree to the full protection of those State recreation areas by national park or nature reserve status, as environmentally appropriate and as supported by leading environmentalists?
Mr GREINER: I am sure that the honourable member for Davidson would not want to be accused of -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order.
Mr GREINER: - asking me a dorothy dix question, at least not on this, his maiden question in his new capacity. The general answer to his question is yes. The rather more specific question with respect to the Davidson State Recreation Area, in which he has a particular interest, is, first, that the Government decided some weeks ago to keep it under the administration of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and, second, that the Government is looking at adding it to the Garigal National Park.
Ms Moore: It is Arakun.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time.
Mr GREINER: I am right; the honourable member is wrong. I will be happy to provide at the appropriate time the details that the honourable member for Davidson seeks. But the general answer to his question is yes. We are looking at adding the Davidson State Recreation Area and the Lane Cove State Recreation Area to adjacent national parks - in one case Lane Cove National Park and in the other case the Garigal National Park. The other matters will be determined in an appropriate manner. Those SRAs that have a predominant recreational use will be transferred to Conservation and Land Management. The ones that the honourable member for Davidson has referred to will overwhelmingly - I think entirely, but certainly overwhelmingly - stay with national parks. We are moving in the direction indicated by the last part of the honourable member's question.
Page 2245
PROPERTY SERVICES GROUP LEGAL CONSULTANTS
Mr NAGLE: Is the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives aware that Property Services Group documents reveal that only $31,365 of $187,090 paid to legal consultants Minter Ellison will be declared in the 1990-91 annual report of that group? Are they contractors sometimes and consultants on other occasions?
Mr PEACOCKE: The honourable member may be aware that the 1990-91 annual report of the Property Services Group has not been tabled. Indeed, it has not yet been printed. However, I am happy to provide the honourable member with what I might appropriately describe as a sneak preview of figures on expenditure on consultancies for the 1990-91 year. The Property Services Group annual report will show expenditure on consultants at $1.56 million, the figure I previously quoted, and expenses on contractors of $9.92 million. The expenses on contractors are incurred in preparation of properties for sale in long-term urban redevelopment projects and in property management activities. Together these two amounts total $11.481 million. The figure of $7 million quoted by the Leader of the Opposition is completely unknown to the Property Services Group. It is a figure plucked out of the air and provided to the honourable member by one of his many unreliable sources of information and embellished by his total capacity to tell lies. I can only suggest that the honourable member seek better advice in the future. As to legal costs, I cannot answer that question. Legal costs vary from case to case.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS FINANCIAL COUNSELLING SERVICES
Mr TINK: Is the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts aware that record numbers of credit recipients are facing financial distress because of the recession and high unemployment? What assistance can the Department of Consumer Affairs provide to help them cope with their financial difficulties?
Mr COLLINS: Clearly, in tough economic times there is an increased need for financial counselling services to be available across New South Wales. In an effort to expand existing financial counselling services I have today approved the establishment of a 008 credit help line to assist New South Wales consumers who find themselves with credit difficulties. The new service is to receive funding of $250,000. The 008 credit help line will provide initial crisis counselling to allay fear and panic associated with financial stress experienced by all too many Australians in the worst recession in our history. Many common fears, such as that of imprisonment, could quickly be dealt with and the caller informed of the legal restraints on and process for debt collection. Counsellors will encourage borrowers to negotiate with the creditor themselves and, where face to face contact is needed, to refer borrowers to the nearest assistance.
The implementation of this service in the lead-up to Christmas is timely. It is during this period that many consumers run into difficulties through overuse of credit
Page 2246
facilities. Most problems relate to the use of credit cards and difficulties in meeting repayments. The establishment of a 008 credit help line will assist people with educational material and counselling on the best methods of overcoming their credit problems. Funding for the new centralised service will be administered by the New South Wales Financial Counselling Association, given that the service will operate statewide and will refer about 50 per cent of callers to local counselling services. It will be a joint venture with Credit Line and the Consumer Credit Legal Centre. The new service will require two accredited financial counsellors to be employed full time, one initially to handle incoming 008 calls and the other to take over matters requiring more in depth attention; employ legal advice to financial counsellors statewide with technical advice and training; distribute $88,000 to regional financial counselling services; and employ an administrator for three days per week to co-ordinate the distribution of case work across the State, to collate statistics, handle general administration and promote the 008 telephone service.
In the 1990-91 financial year the Department of Consumer Affairs provided assistance to 335 people - an increase of 126 per cent on the previous year. This year the department is providing $315,000 for financial counselling services through the counselling credit education and advocacy grants program. The establishment of the 008 service will provide the whole community with access to a telephone service giving initial advice and appropriate referrals; the enhancement of counselling services outside metropolitan Sydney, particularly in rural centres, by increased funding to existing services; and the enhancement of the quality of financial counselling throughout the State through training, backup advice and education materials provided by the resource workers. The establishment of the 008 credit help line will, for the first time, provide expanded statewide financial counselling services. It is essential that during the Hawke Labor Government inspired recession, coupled with high unemployment, consumers be given protection and assistance if they find themselves in financial difficulties. The question raised by the honourable member for Eastwood is a particularly important one. The answer I have given is an example of the determination of this Government to provide assistance to those most severely hit by this recession which Mr Keating said we had to have.______
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Printing of Reports
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [3.9]: I move:
That the following papers be printed:
(1) Report of the Northern Rivers County Council for the year ended 30 June 1989.
(2) Report of the South West Slopes County Council for the year ended 30 June 1989.
(3) Report of the University of Western Sydney for 1990.
This is the first stage of the implementation of the new process for dealing with the printing of reports in-house, the tabling of those documents and their assessment for
Page 2247
printing. I pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the honourable member for Monaro, the ultimate Chairman of the Printing Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
SELECT COMMITTEE UPON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET ALLOCATION
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [3.10]: I move:
(1) That a Select Committee be established to enquire into and report upon the priorities of Members in regard to the expenditure of a supplementary budget allocation which is available to the Legislative Assembly as a result of the reduction in size of the House after the 1991 General Election.
(2) Such committee shall comprise eight Members, of whom four shall be Members supporting the Government nominated by the Premier, three shall be non-Government Members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and one shall be an Independent Member nominated by the Leader of the Government.
(3) A quorum shall consist of five Members.
(4) The Chairman, who shall be a Government Member, shall exercise a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of votes the question shall pass in the negative.
(5) The Committee shall have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of the House and have power to call for persons, papers and things.
(6) The Committee shall present its Report to the House by 15 November 1991.
During discussions with the Independent members about proposals for reform of the procedure and operations of the Parliament Independent members have proposed to the Government that there should be: a more equitable distribution of resources among the members of Parliament; improved funding for information technology for members of the Legislative Assembly; additional funding for parliamentary committees; and a variety of other improvements to research services and other facilities to support members in their day-to-day operations. Each of these proposals is designed to begin to address the shift along the continuum of power between the Parliament and Executive Government. That power has been eroded consistently since the advent of organised political parties in the third and fourth quarters of the nineteenth century.
In the discussions the Government found itself in somewhat of a dilemma. On the one hand the Independent members indicated to the Government that they believed the Parliament should have greater control over its own destiny; but at the same time specific requests were made to the Government about the distribution of resources among members of the Parliament. As a result the Premier, through me, proposed a motion to the general effect of that which I have moved - with one departure, to which I will advert soon. Such a resolution would enable members of the House to be the masters and mistresses of their own destiny with respect to the unallocated component of the savings available to the Legislative Assembly as a result of the reduction in its membership. In short terms that means that after providing for the remuneration
Page 2248
package for members' electorate secretaries and assistant electorate secretaries, which is anticipated to take effect not earlier than 1st November, $939,000 will be available for 1991-92, and thereafter $436,000 will be available on an ongoing basis. The difference of approximately $500,000 arises from the four-months postponement, anticipated from the beginning of the financial year, in the availability of remuneration improvements for members' staff. I seek leave to table for incorporation in Hansard a short document produced by Treasury setting out the method of calculation of the savings.
Leave granted. [See Addendum.]
The Government believes it is desirable that this committee be established within a nominated framework as set out in the motion to enable members to determine recommendations to the House on how this money should be expended. The motion clearly contemplates that the budget will be reported back to the House and adopted by it after debate. The Government had originally contemplated not nominating the person to chair the committee. It believed that the committee, which would have even numbers, would need to operate on a consensus basis. However, the Government then thought it appropriate that, if it did not provide for a casting vote for the chairperson, it was desirable at least to appoint the person to chair the committee. That is a common convention in a number of overseas Parliaments. Particularly with this committee, where the chairperson will not have a casting vote, it was considered that the nomination of the chairperson would enable ready access by the chairperson through my office to information and things of that nature to assist the committee. That was thought appropriate, particularly as the committee is required to report by 15th November. I commend the motion.
______
AddendumTHE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
NET SAVINGS FROM REDUCED NUMBER OF MEMBERS
$ 000 $ 000
Savings: *
(10 Members of the Legislative Assembly)
Salaries and allowances 973 973
Operation of electorate offices 974 974
1,947 1,947
Proposed offset against savings:
Electorate secretaries/Assistant
electorate secretaries
Remuneration package ** 1,008 1,511
_____ _____
NET SAVINGS AVAILABLE 939 436
* Total savings of $1,874,000 (as assessed prior to the 1 July 1991 increase in Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances) have been deducted from the 1991-92 Estimates and subsequent years' Forward Estimates.
Page 2249
** Industrial Relations Unit assessment of $1,663,000 per annum is proportionately reduced by the decrease in Members. The 1991-92 figure is based on the assumption that the package will not be implemented before 1 November 1991.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [3.14]: I congratulate the Leader of the House on moving this motion. This is indeed an historic day. By tradition the Presiding Officers of the Parliament, assisted by the Library Committee and the House Committee, have had a considerable and onerous task. They have had to try to balance the requirements and wants, as opposed to the sincere needs, of members of the Parliament with Treasury constraints. They have had to: consider members' entitlements and staff; overview the Building Manager's tasks, and a host of other functions undertaken within the precincts of the Parliament; consider the staffing of the Parliament; resolve disputes, some of which would require greater wisdom than possibly Solomon had, as I am aware from being a member of this House for many years; deal with matters of propriety - some of which have been difficult and unusual; and overview all services. Sometimes tension arises between the Presiding Officers and individual members, or party leaders, and certainly with Treasury on occasions.
I pay tribute to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament. In particular, I acknowledge all the Speakers I have had the privilege of knowing. I refer especially to you, Mr Speaker. Your reforming role in this Parliament has been outstanding. Your work in changing the structures to put in place order and proper procedures has contributed and is contributing a great deal to the Parliament. It is proper that that be acknowledged. In pressing for this reform the Independent members did not come from a view of criticising the Presiding Officers; we came from the philosophical view that the Parliament is an establishment for the people, the members make up the Parliament, and therefore the institution of Parliament should be managed by a board of its members. This Parliament belongs to its members; it does not belong to the Executive Government or Treasury. With or without a board, tension will arise between the institution of the Parliament and the needs and wants of its members - and the needs of the electorates as reflected through the members by way of facilities for members - and Treasury. We will observe with interest that tension as this important step is taken today and, obviously, as it will be expanded in future.
My concept of a parliamentary board came from an inspection in Canada of the Board of Internal Economy of its House of Commons. I found that all in the Parliament put their needs before that board. For example, if it is sought to establish parliamentary committees, those committees must have budgets. Each committee's chairperson would go before another committee, which would consider the committee's budget, and that in turn would be considered by the Board of Internal Economy. Even the Speaker of that House had to submit his budget requirements to the Board of Internal Economy, which would consider them on their merits. A parliamentary board is desirable because it inculcates the culture that the Parliament belongs to the members and not to anyone else, and also that the members must accept responsibility for their expenditure. The question often asked by Executive Government is: if a board of members is established to control the Parliament and the board does not defer to Treasury, which every other department must do, where is the discipline in the system? My answer is that the electorate would provide the discipline.
Page 2250
If this Parliament seeks to put in place unjustifiable structures and hand out largesse to its members and the institutions associated with the institution of Parliament, the ultimate judge and jury will be the body politic. Based on what has happened in the past, I have no doubt that the press would not be backward in picking up the difference in how members of Parliament treat the institution of Parliament in the allocation of finance, while hospital and medical services, roads and other essential services are suffering. Another thing that is implicit but not mentioned in this motion, though it will grow out of this motion, is the recognition that Treasury is a creature of the Parliament. Parliament is not a creature of the Treasury. The Treasury should not be telling this Parliament, by placing financial constraints on it, what it can and cannot do, what services it must provide to its members and how they will service their electorates. The Treasury is a creature of this Parliament, as is the Executive Government. This Parliament is supreme over both of them. It is at the heart of our package of reforms to emphasise that again and again. I emphasise it today and support the motion. I know this is the beginning.
Committee members should first examine where the initial $939,000 in 1991 comes from and where the subsequent $436,000 will come from. If the size of this Parliament is reduced by 10 members, 10 offices, 10 staff, 10 salaries, 10 allowances and 10 of many other things will be eliminated. The saving is much greater than is being presented to this committee for expenditure. I am told that the pay rises for electorate secretaries are to come from the first allocation. I understand the logic in that, but am not so sure that I am prepared to accept it. I look forward to this House, together with the Presiding Officers and Clerks, having a real say in the expenditure of approximately $1 million so that we can take the responsibility for something more than library services, food and wine.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [3.22]: The Australian Labor Party Opposition agrees to the motion moved by the Leader of the House. We look forward to the committee's deliberation on this important matter. When listening to the Leader of the House and the honourable member for South Coast, I kept thinking of how our positions in Parliament affected us personally. I look forward to this committee deliberating and reporting back to the Parliament, as the motion states, by 15th November. My constituents are somewhat disadvantaged by my spending a great deal of time in the Parliament. Anything that will enable them to have access to me or for me to be available to them is welcome. I am talking about a computer linked office between Parliament House and my electorate office at Ashfield. My constituents and the constituents of other honourable members may then be beneficiaries of these savings. To that extent I applaud the Government's moves and look forward to the committee's deliberation. The names of the Opposition members will be advised to the Leader of the House on Tuesday next.
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [3.24], in reply: I thank the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Ashfield for their contributions. The honourable member for South Coast hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head when he spoke about the differences between needs and wants. Any member of Parliament will have infinite wants but finite needs. The amount of money saved by the reduction in members of the House will provide scope for members to
Page 2251
come to a consensual agreement about how those needs, or part of them, should be addressed. The table incorporated in Hansard makes it clear that the total annual savings, including the abolition of 20 electorate office staff, 10 electorate offices, including travelling allowances, air warrants and things of that nature, are marginally less than $2 million on a full year basis, of which, on a full year basis, $1,511,000 goes towards increases in remuneration to electorate secretaries and their assistants, including on costs for provision of annual leave, long service leave and matters of that nature. The table is provided for the guidance of all members of the committee. No doubt all members of the committee will consider that is not enough, but as the honourable member for South Coast said, this is the first step. Maybe next year there will be a board to parallel the whole of the budget allocation for the Parliament, provided they demonstrate they can reach agreement on this matter. It will be no mean task; and I look forward to not serving on the committee.
Motion agreed to.
JOINT ESTIMATES COMMITTEES
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [3.26]: I seek the leave of the House to amend the resolution passed by this House on 24th September, 1991, relating to the membership of estimates committees.
Leave granted.
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [3.26]: I move:
That the resolution adopted by this House on 24 September 1991 relating to estimates committees be amended by deleting sub-clause (2)(a) and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
(2)(a) The names of the members to be appointed, of whom five shall be Government members, three shall be Opposition members and one shall be a non-Government member nominated by the Leader of the Government.
Five estimates committees were established and there are five Independent members of this House. The honourable member for Ashfield has promised me that the next Independent will come from the Opposition benches, not Government benches. One Independent member per committee will be provided for. One Independent member has indicated that he does not desire to serve on an estimates committee. It is the view of the Government that the committees should function with their full quota. There is no desire on the part of Government to be churlish to the Opposition and it has made a technical amendment to make it possible for me to nominate, in consultation with the honourable member for Ashfield, a non-Government member who will be a member for the Opposition to pick up that extra place instead of specifying that it must be an Independent member.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [3.27]: I thank the Government for the opportunity to fill this vacancy. A quick look at the operation of the estimates committees establishes their value. I do not know the Government's attitude but the Opposition will
Page 2252
gain great benefit from them. The nominee, after an exhaustive ballot system within our party, will be Mr Amery.
Motion agreed to.
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the amended resolution.
CORPORATIONS (NEW SOUTH WALES) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby), Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts [3.30] I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
As honourable members are aware, the new national corporations scheme was established last year. This bill, a uniform State bill, amends the New South Wales corporations legislation in consequence of amendments made by the Commonwealth Corporations Legislation Amendment Act 1991. The corporations scheme provides for the corporations law of the Commonwealth to be applied in the States and the Northern Territory. The Corporations (New South Wales) Act 1990 applies the corporations law as the law in New South Wales and allows amendments made to the substantive provisions of the corporations law to become automatically part of New South Wales law. The Commonwealth Corporations Legislation Amendment Act amends the corporations legislation to update the corporations law and provide for some matters which were overlooked in its rushed introduction. In particular the Commonwealth Act amends the corporations legislation in relation to, first, the winding up of the National Companies and Securities Commission; second, the conferment of jurisdiction under the corporations law on the Family Court of Australia; third, the reform of the regulation of insider trading; fourth, the consolidation of the accounts of groups of companies; fifth, the moratorium on the Australian Company Number and the Australian Registered Body Number and sixth, a number of technical and clarifying amendments.
The amendments in this bill implement the non-substantive or machinery amendments made by the Commonwealth Act. Most of the provisions of the bill relate to the conferment of jurisdiction on the Family Court with respect to civil matters arising under the corporations law of New South Wales and to the winding up of the National Companies and Securities Commission. Schedule 1(1)(b) to (11) of the bill deals with the conferment of cross-vested jurisdiction under the corporations law on the Family Court. Before the commencement of the corporations law the Family Court had jurisdiction to deal with matters under the co-operative companies and securities legislation by virtue of the general scheme for the cross-vesting of jurisdiction of Australian courts. However, the corporations legislation excluded the general cross-
Page 2253
vesting scheme and replaced it with a special regime for the vesting and cross-vesting of jurisdiction between the Federal Court and the State and Territory courts on corporations law matters.
This bill, together with the complementary legislation of the Commonwealth and the other States, gives the family courts the same status under the corporations law as they had under the former companies and securities codes and allows them to deal with issues arising under the corporations law in relation to matters before them. Clauses 4 and 5 of the bill facilitate the winding up of the National Companies and Securities Commission by repealing the National Companies and Securities Commission (State Provisions) Act 1981. The functions of the NCSC have now, after an orderly transfer of responsibilities, been assumed by the Australian Securities Commission, and so the NCSC is to be abolished. The remaining amendments in the bill are of a minor machinery nature and implement those made by the Commonwealth Act. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Rogan.
ELECTRICITY COMMISSION (CORPORATISATION) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter), Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier [3.34]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the bill is to corporatise the Electricity Commission of New South Wales under the State Owned Corporations Act. Since coming to office in 1988 this Government has pursued microeconomic reform as a major policy. The Government has taken a number of difficult and long overdue decisions aimed at improving the performance of the State's trading enterprises. As a result New South Wales is performing markedly better than any other State economy and has been placed in a better position than any other State for economic recovery. Corporatisation is an integral part of this Government's microeconomic reform policy. It is aimed at improving the level of efficiency and accountability of government business enterprises for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers. Public sector efficiency is a vital issue for New South Wales, as it is for governments around Australia and overseas. The Federal Labor Government and the Labour Government in New Zealand both recognised the need for greater public sector efficiency and also engaged in major corporatisation programs. Corporatisation is an important part of this Government's overall strategy to increase public sector efficiency and reduce public sector debt.
The Premier in his Budget Speech referred to several Government trading enterprise reforms, including the corporatisation of the Electricity Commission. As part
Page 2254
of the corporatisation process a new competitive environment and a more effective operational framework will be established. It will mean that once again New South Wales will be at the forefront of development in the electricity industry. Together with the Special Premiers Conference initiative to move towards an eastern States power grid, corporatisation of the Electricity Commission will create a new competitive market environment. This environment will promote both productive efficiency and more efficient allocation of resources leading to reduced energy costs, more competitive New South Wales industry and lower electricity costs to consumers. Through corporatisation the substantial efficiency gains made by the commission in the past three years through commercialisation will be locked in, and the way will be cleared for the development of a competitive electricity market in New South Wales. State taxpayers and State electricity consumers will be the winners from this process.
The Electricity Commission is the nation's largest generator and transmitter of electricity, selling power to the State's retail authorities and to a number of major industrial organisations. In the late 1980s the commission found itself in a position of overcapacity in both plant and personnel. Operational efficiencies were below expectations and industry critics were calling for radical reforms to the commission and to other sectors of the industry as well as most other government trading enterprises. To deal with this situation the commission embarked on a major commercialisation process. This process was targeted at dramatically improving its business position, and a new corporation strategy was developed to achieve that objective. As a result of that strategy profitability has been lifted from a deficit in 1988 to a profit of $345.5 million for the 1991 financial year, while price increases have been kept below inflation. Productivity was improved by workplace reform and redundant work positions were reduced; labour productivity has risen around 70 per cent since mid 1988 and staff numbers have been reduced from 10,600 to fewer than 6,700 in the same period. Improved planning and maintenance have seen generating plant availability improve from 69 per cent in 1988 to just over 80 per cent this year with Bayswater power station, the commission's newest station, achieving more than 90 per cent. A competitive market has been established for the commission's coal purchases and as a result a privatisation process has been initiated for its collieries. Also, 132kV transmission lines are being sold to increase efficiencies through a rationalisation of commission and county council activities.
The State owned corporations legislation will provide a mechanism for the Electricity Commission to build on these gains. Corporatisation promotes improved business performance by increasing management authority to pursue fully commercial and clearly designated objectives while meeting agreed standards of accountability. Similarly, corporatisation locks in past achievements in efficiency and should place the corporatised commission in a competitively neutral position. The threat to market share that greater exposure to competition imposes will be a driving force in encouraging further efficiency. For the community to remain competitive there will be pressure on it, the new Pacific Power Corporation, to produce electricity at a lower cost. New entrants to this new competitive market will also increase the accuracy with which the performance of the New South Wales electricity industry is assessed by enabling comparisons in relative efficiency of private and public generators to be made. The
Page 2255
commission has clearly demonstrated that good management is not the sole province of the private sector. Clear commercial objectives, coupled with the authority to manage and underpinned by the Government's willingness to take tough but necessary decisions and live with the consequences, have been demonstrated to work and work well to the benefit of the State and its taxpayers.
In setting the scene for corporatisation, the commission is about to implement a total structural change within the organisation which will put it at the forefront of electricity reform. This structural change will establish the first competitively based electricity industry model in Australia. Three competitive generating groups and a separate "ringfenced" transmission grid organisation are being established within the commission. Each generating group will bid to sell power into an electricity pool which will then sell the power to distributing councils, major industrial customers and interstate utilities. Electricity industry access will be opened up to allow the entry of private power suppliers, who will be able to use the grid facilities on a commercial basis. Concurrent with these changes has been consideration of a national grid network to streamline and increase cross-border electricity trade and to enable other significant economies to be effected.
Following the July 1991 Special Premiers Conference, agreement was reached on the formation of a national grid management council that will co-ordinate planning, operations and access to the existing three-State southeast grid. The council will also co-ordinate the extension of the grid to include Tasmania and Queensland and to ensure the competitive provision of new generating capacity from across the entire electricity grid. Both private and public sector organisations would be expected to bid to install new generating capacity. New South Wales has played a major role in the development of the national grid to its present stage and is well placed to progress arrangements for increased competition and efficiency in the electricity supply industry. The bill will repeal the Electricity Commission Act. The commission will be established as a State-owned corporation by adding it to schedule 1 of the State Owned Corporations Act. It will go into the schedule with a new name, namely, Pacific Power Corporation. It was felt that the new name would help to signal the change in the organisation from a traditional statutory authority to the new, more dynamic corporation, which will take electricity generation into the twenty-first century. The corporation will be incorporated under the corporations law and the commission's assets will be vested in the corporation.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to a range of Acts to reflect the new corporate status of the commission. In accordance with the level playing field principle, the advantages and disadvantages of its previous statutory authority status have been removed as far as possible. Obviously, some special provisions have had to be retained to enable the commission to continue to operate efficiently during its transition to the new market arrangements. The need for some of these provisions will be progressively reviewed over the next three years and removed wherever possible. I will briefly mention two important matters. The bill includes a power to make regulations exempting the corporation from the Trade Practices Act. It is hoped at this stage that no such regulations will be necessary but, because of the nature of the grid as a "natural monopoly", regulations may be necessary. Any such regulations will be introduced only
Page 2256
after close consultation with the Trade Practices Commission. The bill includes some special provisions dealing with planning approval. It is envisaged that most development engaged in by the corporation post-corporatisation will be dealt with in the usual way under part IV of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The new corporation will require local council approval like any other developer.
There will be some developments, however, which because of their size and significance will be more appropriately dealt with under part V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This would include things such as transmission lines and large power stations - that is, strategic developments that are not simply matters of local significance. Accordingly, the bill will amend the State Owned Corporations Act to enable the Minister for Planning to declare that certain development is of State or regional significance and therefore should be dealt with in accordance with part V. Where this occurs, the Minister administering the particular corporatisation Act will be the determining authority for the purposes of part V. It should also be noted that the rights and entitlements of existing staff are preserved in this process.
Finally, some reference should be made to pricing. On passage of the bill, the statement of corporate intent of Pacific Power - a document which, under the State Owned Corporations Act, must be tabled in this Parliament - will include provisions relating to price. Initially, this will continue to take the form of a bulk supply tariff. Ultimately, however, this tariff will change as the new market arrangements are trialled and more economically rational ways of determining price are developed. This process obviously will be closely monitored by the Government. Once it is in place, monopoly prices will be subject to the new pricing tribunal which the Government has announced. The Electricity Commission is now 41 years old. To continue the reform and efficiency drive from which we are all benefiting and to undertake the fundamental structural and market changes now proposed, the commission needs the new operating environment provided by the bill. The beneficiaries of these changes will be the taxpayers of New South Wales and the consumers of electricity. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Rogan.
PERPETUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WEST (Orange), Minister for Conservation and Land Management [3.48]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The object of this bill is to rectify an anomaly in the application of the rule against perpetuities as between superannuation funds and pooled superannuation trusts. The rule
Page 2257
against perpetuities was developed by the courts to prevent interests in property from being tied up for too long by their owners. Prior to the introduction of the rule, property owners were able to control the future use of their estates by vesting their property in ongoing trusts. The rule was therefore designed to prevent interests that were to arise in the future from arising at too remote a time. Its original purpose was to ensure that property holdings could be freely dealt with, and to that extent it represented a victory by the courts over owners of large estates seeking to prevent disposal of these properties. Over the years, however, the rule frequently operated to bring about results which could not be justified. Therefore, from time to time its application has had to be modified.
Following a major review by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in 1983, the Government of the day resolved to effect a general reform of this area of the law. The vehicle for change was the Perpetuities Act 1984, one of the provisions of which - namely, section 13 - exempted superannuation funds from compliance with the rule. The main reasons for the exemption were to allow superannuation funds to be indefinitely continuing and so to maximise the benefits built up by the funds; and to allow new members to be admitted from time to time. However, superannuation funds do not carry out all their investment activities directly. Many are now pooling much of their funds into entities known as pooled superannuation trusts, which then invest the pooled funds and obtain the higher rate of return available to investments of large amounts. Pooled superannuation trusts are usually established as a unit trust, with units being allocated to the unit holders in proportion to the amounts contributed by them. In addition to superannuation funds, other unit holders include approved deposit funds and other pooled superannuation trusts.
At the time of enactment of the Perpetuities Act in 1984 legal opinion was to the effect that pooled superannuation trusts did not fall foul of the rule of perpetuities and hence they were not expressly mentioned in the legislation. Doubts subsequently arose, however, as to whether that opinion was correct and further advice was sought, this time from eminent Queen's Counsel, including the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General advised that it was clearly appropriate to amend section 13 of the Perpetuities Act 1984 to exempt pooled superannuation trusts from the rule against perpetuities. Obviously, in this important matter there can be no room for uncertainty; hence the need for this bill which will dispel any lingering doubt as to the efficacy of these trusts. It is inconsistent that superannuation funds are exempt from the rule against perpetuities but that pooled superannuation trusts, which largely exist in order to invest the moneys held by superannuation funds, are not exempt from the rule. The reasons previously referred to for exempting superannuation funds are equally applicable to pooled superannuation trusts. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Allan.
Page 2258
JUSTICES (COSTS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River), Minister for Justice [3.50]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This legislation was introduced into Parliament on Wednesday, 10th April, 1991. The second reading speech which sets out the issues associated with the legislation appears in the Hansard of that date at pages 1826 to 1829. The provisions of the legislation were debated in the Legislative Assembly on 16th April, 1991, after which it was introduced in the Legislative Council and debated there on lst and 2nd May, 1991. After debate the House divided and the motion that the bill be read a second time was defeated. During the intervening time, Parliamentary Counsel has checked the terms of the drafting and there may be minor matters of tidying up embodied in the legislation as reintroduced but any such changes do not, in fact, alter any of the matters of principle dealt with in the terms of the legislation as it existed at the time of its earlier introduction to Parliament. However, there have been two additional provisions included in the new bill.
First, the bill now makes it clear that its provisions do not apply to the awarding of costs in relation to unsuccessful private prosecutions. In most cases private prosecutions are commenced only after a police informant or a public prosecutor has declined to take action. The awarding of costs when the prosecution fails in these cases acts as a deterrence against the commencement of vexatious, malicious or frivolous prosecutions. The new provision ensures the existing law in relation to costs will continue to apply to private prosecutions. Second, the provisions of the bill have been extended to cover the quashing of summary appeal matters by judges of the District Court. Section 125 of the Justices Act allows the District Court to make a costs award which "to the court seems just" when dealing with appeal matters from the Local Court. The bill amends the section to ensure that a judge of the District Court, when quashing a summary matter on appeal from the Local Court, must be satisfied as to the same criteria as a magistrate in the Local Court before awarding costs. This is to ensure there is no inconsistency between District Court and Local Court costs awards when dealing with dismissal of summary matters. I commend the legislation to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Allan.
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT ADMINISTRATION BILL (No. 2)
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 26th September.
Page 2259
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.53]: I have a great deal of pleasure in continuing the remarks I began two weeks ago relating to this important legislation. I intend to limit my remarks because I am looking forward to the maiden contributions of my colleague the honourable member for Penrith and my colleague the honourable member for Manly. Before continuing my remarks I wish to make a comment about what I consider to be an alteration to the nature of the debate on this important bill. I am much more confident now than I was a fortnight ago that the Opposition and others will get support for a number of amendments to be moved in Committee. Over the past fortnight we have seen a dramatic turn of events in this State and with the departure of the honourable member for Davidson from the Government ranks we see the opportunity for a much more effective Environment Protection Authority in this State.
It certainly was not lost on me, as I am sure it was not lost on Government members and in particular on the Minister for the Environment, that a number of the comments made at the time by the honourable member for Davidson related to the future of the environment in New South Wales and the need for greater environmental protection. The honourable member for Davidson has certainly said on at least one occasion since that time, and I think in my presence, that there is no doubt he was very confident that the Minister for the Environment had every intention of ensuring that we have a very strong Environment Protection Authority in this State and that he was keen for that to go to Cabinet. Of course it went to Cabinet but the Minister was unable to guarantee the numbers at that level. Despite the fact that I am sure the Minister for the Environment will make a number of disparaging comments about me in his reply, I know from listening to people such as the honourable member for Davidson that at least the Minister's heart was in the right place when he took this matter to Cabinet.
I want to continue the comments I was making about the honourable member for Tamworth. I do not intend to go on at length about this. I want to say to the honourable member that he has been quoted publicly as someone who is almost one out in this Chamber on having great concerns about the limited Environment Protection Authority that this legislation will create. He is trying to link the creation of this authority with the debate which is raging at the Federal level about the issue of economically and ecologically sustainable development. It is unfortunate that a fortnight ago my remarks had to be cut short. I commend to the honourable member for Tamworth a more learned attention to the debate that is occurring. It is not sufficient in this day and age to be swept away by prejudices, particularly those being shown by the business community at present and the fears expressed by them that an effective Environment Protection Authority in New South Wales will destroy potential for economic development in this State. In particular I refer the honourable member to comments made as recently as 23rd September by the Federal Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Ros Kelly. She was trying to destroy the myth about jobs and the environment. It is almost as if an inevitable choice has to occur. She tried to explain the ecologically sustainable development process in which the Federal Government is engaged by saying:
The ecologically sustainable development process will set a framework for integrated economic and environmental considerations at the national level. The aim of ecologically sustainable development, which coincides with the ultimate objective of not only environmental
Page 2260
policy but economic and social policy as well, is to achieve changes in the patterns of economic development by wiser use of resources. It is not about the rejection of development itself.
I believe that is the great trap that some people in our community, including the honourable member for Tamworth, find themselves in today. We have only to look at some of the very important environmental issues that the national Government, and I hope the New South Wales Government, is trying to address - environmental issues that will improve the economy of this State. For example, if we take steps to improve land degradation, that must inevitably translate into increased agricultural productivity. If we take steps to improve the quality of air and water, that must eventually translate into an improvement of the level of health in our community. That will save people such as the Minister for Health Services Management some of the money that he is constantly bleating about trying to save. If we engage in major commercial activities in the environmental area, such as the Memtec initiative so far as the Water Board is concerned, it can only help the state of our economy.
We should not fall into the trap of being frightened about the need for the Environment Protection Authority. Members such as the honourable member for Tamworth must not be oblivious to the very great environmental issues in their own electorates. I remind the honourable member of issues such as effluent disposal from the Fielders Goodman plant in his own electorate. That is a very important company not only in Tamworth but in the State, but a company that nevertheless has important effluent disposal problems. We cannot ignore those sorts of issues and the Environment Protection Authority will not ignore them. The honourable member has only to look at the other local issues, such as the forestry management practices of the Peel County Council, to realise how close to home he has some very pressing environmental issues which he cannot afford to ignore when he is making comments on something such as the Environment Protection Authority.
I now want to make some comments about what is happening to the national Environment Protection Authority. I was very disappointed that, even when the Minister for the Environment had the opportunity to make a second ministerial speech on this issue, he did not talk freely about the need to relate what we are doing in New South Wales to the initiatives of the Federal Labor Government. He may be a bit disparaging of those initiatives, but I do not think he can afford to be. It is something we need to support strongly. I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister. I know he is always open to suggestions from the Opposition on how we can improve that Environment Protection Authority and relate it to what is occurring on a national level. A close relationship has to be developed between the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority that is being set up by the Federal Government and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. Many elements of the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority will have to be undertaken co-operatively with State agencies - for example, state of the environment reporting. For those members who are not aware of what this is, it is all about obtaining a reliable set of data on all manner of environmental matters, such as air quality, water quality, conservation status of all ecosystems, abundance of plant and animal species, and environmental aspects of the marine environment.
Page 2261
A lot of this data is already being collected by State land management agencies - for example, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Water Resources, the Forestry Commission and the Department of Planning. The Commonwealth also collects that data. Of course, the other major source of that data is academic institutions. The Commonwealth will need co-operation from the States to draw all that information together in a common form. It is not appropriate for the New South Wales authority just to go off and do its own thing, irrespective of what is happening at a Federal level. These days information in our society is seen to be as valuable as gold. I do not believe that the obtaining of information will be an easy matter. Unfortunately, we already have a precedent. Earlier this week the New South Wales Government withdrew from the national endangered species program. We do not need that sort of leadership on important environmental issues. We want to make sure that we will not go our own way in relation to the Environment Protection Authority as well.
According to the Minister for the Environment the draft intergovernmental agreement on the environment, which the Premier is very committed to implementing, has a schedule on data collection and handling. This schedule nominates the Australian Land Information Council as the co-ordinating body. The Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority would then use the data to generate state of the environment reports. So I think we have to discourage overlapping, which could occur if the New South Wales Government does not commit itself to close co-operation at a Federal level. All States except the Australian Capital Territory and the Commonwealth have their own environmental impact statement legislation. The Commonwealth legislation is the Environment Assessment (Impact of Proposals) Act. It applies to Commonwealth activities on Commonwealth land and, in some cases in which a Commonwealth decision is involved, export licences and, for example, the Foreign Investment Review Board. Work has been going on at the national and State ministerial level over the past year or so to develop a common set of principles and guidelines to apply to environmental impact assessment at State and Federal level. Again, this will probably end up as a schedule to the intergovernmental agreement on the environment. There will need to be close co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth to ensure that this work is finalised. Any agreement finally registered and in practice will require continuing monitoring. Proposals for environmental impact assessment which are being debated include the setting up of time limits for all stages of the environmental impact assessment process. This could lead to inadequate assessments unless close co-operation is to occur.
Another initiative that the Federal Government is considering at present is the establishment of a public emissions register. It is intended that the Commonwealth Environmental Protection Authority will maintain a register recording the emission and storage of hazardous materials. The register should be able to tell us how much of a particular substance is being stored, where it is being stored and by whom. It should also be able to tell us what is coming out of chimneys and effluent pipes. Some of this information is collected by some States. In some States, for example, New South Wales, we might have some of that information but we are not ready to share it with anyone. But we have nothing like a comprehensive register at a national level. It is intended that the public emissions register at the Federal level would initially be
Page 2262
voluntary, based on what is being done at present in the United States of America. Again, the success of this register would depend heavily on State co-operation in gathering and, where necessary, verifying data. The register will also put pressure on the State to provide more field staff for monitoring and for site inspections. It may well force the States to take more prosecution action against polluters. Therefore, it is important that the Minister for the Environment, in his final summing up, reassure us that we will work closely with the Commonwealth to develop these further initiatives.
The second stage of the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority proposal is a ministerial council or some equivalent body. This body's job would be to agree to the establishment of national standards and guidelines for air and water quality, the clean-up of contaminated sites, the management and disposal of hazardous wastes and other important issues. This body would also co-ordinate research between the various State and Commonwealth environment protection agencies. Decisions on standards would be by a simple majority of Ministers. Membership of this body would be the same as the present ministerial council. Clearly, this approach to the setting of national standards can only work with the co-operation of the States. The States would be primarily responsible for the implementation and the enforcement of those standards. Of course, this would be one of the functions of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. There is discussion at present in the context of the intergovernmental agreement on the environment that the Commonwealth and the States should agree to establish a uniform hierarchy of offences and penalties for breaches of laws which are created to implement agreed standards and guidelines. The development of this uniform hierarchy will be one of the goals of the ministerial council.
The environment movement believes that the ministerial council approach will prevent the rapid adoption of decent standards. It believes this will lead to lowest common denominator standards. It has put up an alternative model which would give the Commonwealth far greater unilateral power. One of the amendments which the Opposition will be seeking to move will attempt to ensure that New South Wales will not be bound by inferior standards, even if the Federal Government changes in the future and a government with a lesser commitment to the environment is elected. One of the issues that is being looked at by the States is whether any standards adopted should be absolute or minimum standards. A safer environmental approach would be to say, "We will follow the United States model where the Federal Environment Protection Authority sets minimum standards and individual States are free to adopt more rigid standards if they want to". A conservation group preferred this approach because it provides a safety net if the national standards are too weak. Industry, of course, would loathe it because it fears that the States will compete with one another and have tougher standards, particularly if decisions on standards are left in the hands of the environment protection authorities. One unresolved issue is how much freedom the State and the Commonwealth environment protection authorities will have to set standards without reference to a higher authority. Again, this is an issue that is being negotiated as part of the intergovernmental agreement on the environment. The present draft would give the ministerial council the legislative power to establish standards. I believe that is something that will be hotly disputed in the future.
Page 2263
As I have already said, it is important that we get more detail from the New South Wales Minister about the attitude of the New South Wales Government to the Federal Environment Protection Authority on a number of the issues I have just raised. I hope the Minister addresses this question when he makes his final comments. It is not good keeping this issue a secret. It should not be something shared between the Minister and his environment committee. It is important for the general community and members of Parliament to be aware of the Government's intentions. One of the things to which I referred early in my speech several weeks ago was the fact that it was significant that other governments around Australia that are currently moving to establish environment protection authorities are being able to do so far more effectively than we will be able to do under the proposal we have before us today. I want to refer specifically to South Australian Government proposals that are being debated widely in the community. I know that the Minister takes a strong personal interest in the environment in South Australia. For example, he would be aware that among the proposals coming from the South Australian Government are proposals that will take up most of the amendments proposed to this bill by the Opposition and other members of this House.
The South Australian Environmental Protection Authority will strengthen links between planning and development approval laws to achieve a preventive approach to pollution. It will open up regulatory controls, standards, policies and the decision-making process to public consultation and scrutiny. If the South Australian Government is not frightened of doing that I do not know why the New South Wales Government is. However, the most recent Morgan Gallup poll established that Mr Greiner is even more unpopular than Mr Bannon, so that might be one of the reasons. More important, the South Australian Government is considering the adoption of a charter on environmental quality, setting out guiding principles for environment protection. I note that that very charter includes a number of the issues the Opposition will be seeking to include in this bill - for example, a precautionary approach to environmental or human health risks. It will also ensure that the same environmental rules apply to public and private sector activities. It will include principles of openness, public disclosure, consultation and accountability to apply to all aspects of environmental protection, including standards, policies, priorities and licences.
The South Australian charter on environmental quality includes a right-to-know principle, to apply in the case of particularly hazardous industry so that the surrounding community has a say on matters of emergency procedure, hazard management and environmental improvement plans. The new approach taken by the Government of South Australia - which has a far smaller population than New South Wales and probably proportionately fewer problems than this State, particularly in relation to pollution of the urban environment - will have clear-cut advantages. We in New South Wales are missing out on those advantages because we are ignoring the important principles incorporated in the South Australian charter. The people of South Australia will have a clearer set of rules and a body with prime responsibility for environmental protection. South Australian industries reviewing their environmental performance, and investors planning development, will find it easier to ascertain what is expected of them and with what they must comply. A single licence will be a feasible alternative in South Australia. That State will not have the stupid situation that now applies in New South
Page 2264
Wales. Major industries are trying to bring to the Government's attention how difficult it is to ascertain what is happening.
I turn to the response of the Law Society of New South Wales to this bill, a matter with which in Committee I shall deal in greater detail. A couple of months ago publicity was given to the Law Society's suggestions to the Government about this bill. I have a copy of the document dated 7th May that David de Carvalho, President of the Law Society, forwarded to the Minister for Environment. There are not too many copies of this document available. I believe the document is significant and I am seeking to circulate it widely. Prior to the resumption of debate on this important legislation the Law Society - a very prestigious body within this State - had provided to the Government a series of critical comments about this bill. However, despite the comprehensive nature of those comments, very few were accepted and incorporated in the legislation. David de Carvalho, in his personal letter to the Minister, repeated his assurance that the society will assist in any way possible towards the introduction of useful and workable legislation. That was the society's objective. However, as I say, the Government has chosen to ignore most of the recommendations in the society's comprehensive submission,
The Opposition does not, of course, endorse all the society's criticisms of the bill. However, the society was most instructive in proposing amendments to improve the legislation. For example, the society argued that the definition of the environment proposed by clause 3 of the bill is not consistent with the definition in other Acts, such as the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1985, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Opposition agrees that inconsistency of this definition would serve only to complicate the exercise of the law and confuse those who will have to interpret it. The Opposition proposes an amendment to lead the way in establishing a uniform definition of the environment that can be incorporated into the statutes that comprise the environmental regulatory framework for this State.
The Law Society addressed at some length the function of reporting and developing environmental quality standards. Again, the Opposition will attempt to address, in its proposed amendments, the society's suggestion. The Opposition will, by amendments to be moved in Committee, set a procedure for the publication of reports. The Law Society was concerned about the failure of the bill to provide a timetable for action to be taken by the Environment Protection Authority. The society commented that the only assurance that citizens have about an inactive Environment Protection Authority is a requirement that the authority is to report to the Parliament every two years. Opposition amendments will make that process more regular, by requiring the authority to report annually to the Parliament; and will provide citizens with increased power to enforce the law by giving them access to third party court proceedings.
The Law Society made lengthy comment about the measures in the bill relating to the Environment Protection Authority giving directions to public authorities. The society was concerned that the Premier could not act under clause 12 of the bill as an independent arbiter in disputes between government authorities. In a previous speech I said that the Opposition agrees with that concern. The Premier caves in to every
Page 2265
demand made of him by his National Party colleagues. I instance, for example, logging of the southeast forest, Chaelundi, North Washpool and more recently the withdrawal of the national endangered species program - each a notable cave-in by the Premier. The Opposition believes that a Premier of any political persuasion should be able to provide independent assessment of a case in favour of or against the Environment Protection Authority. Unfortunately that is not so of this Premier. One of the most interesting comments in the Law Society's document is its response to an issue about which I have spoken already at some length in the course of my comments on the bill. I refer to the requirement of the environmental counsel to determine whether the Environment Protection Authority can take action against offending parties. The society said:
No member of the sub-committee -
That is the sub-committee of the society that commented on the legislation:
- was familiar with a statute which contained such a fetter on an agency's authority to institute proceedings for the commission of an offence against statutes administered by it.
The society then expressed grave concern that the second limb of the test that needs to be satisfied prior to consent being given to the institution of proceedings was set at too high a standard. In other words, the society was concerned - as is the Opposition and as are members of the conservation movement in New South Wales - that the proposal in this bill will tie the hands of the environmental counsel and the board of the Environment Protection Authority. Unless there is belief in an absolute guarantee of success in court, the environmental counsel will do nothing. Out of the mouths of the members of the Law Society sub-committee, as represented by David de Carvalho in a letter dated 7th May to the Minister, clear objections have been spelt out. Nevertheless, the Government has chosen to ignore them.
A matter of overwhelming importance in the bill is the future of the Waste Management Authority of New South Wales, and indeed the future of waste management in this State. One difference between this bill and the bill debated prior to the last election relates to the vesting of temporary responsibility for the regulation of waste disposal in New South Wales. The intention of the bill introduced prior to the election was that temporary responsibility be given to the New South Wales Water Board. This bill provides that not only the planning function of the Waste Management Authority but also the operational function of that authority, at least on a temporary basis, will be under the control of the Environment Protection Authority. The Minister for the Environment said in his second reading speech - he is shaking his head; I do not know whether he needs to clear it - that operational activities of the Waste Management Authority were to be transferred to the Water Board but now they will be transferred to a separate operational body that will for the time being report to him while the Government considers the long-term operational future of that body.
He went on then to describe the name of that body. Basically, we have a crisis in New South Wales in regard to the future of waste management. I do not usually refer to newspaper articles but an article in the Australian Financial Review of 14th October
Page 2266
entitled "Waste management at Crossroads" is very informative. The Minister should read it. The present crisis in waste management is very much of this Minister's making. I am pleased that the honourable member for Penrith intends to make her maiden speech during this debate. It is as a result of the activities of people like her and the honourable member for Londonderry that this Government made the major decision that it would not pursue the biggest land fill in the Southern Hemisphere, the Londonderry tip. That was an effective decision by this Government in the lead up to the last State election. However, it was less effective when the Minister for the Environment threw his arms up in horror and decided to end the regulation of waste management in this State and allow local councils to make the decisions.
Instead of a centralised strong authority addressing the issues of waste management, local councils will have that responsibility. In the short term it would be appropriate for the Environment Protection Authority to give serious and competent advice to the Minister for the Environment before he completely goes down the track of deregulating waste management in New South Wales. With the exception of private industry and the Minister for the Environment, no one in New South Wales would wish that to occur. On 14th October Alderman Peter Woods, Mayor of the Local Government Association of New South Wales, made a number of stinging comments about that decision in the Australian Financial Review. The Local Government Association and the traditional friends of the National Party, the Shires Association of New South Wales, also expressed grave concerns to the Government about its intended action on waste management. It might be only concerned people who have given this matter consideration but I should like to think that industry does not wish the present crisis to worsen by the wholesale injection of private sector entrepreneurial activities into waste management.
If more responsibility is devolved onto local government for the administration and regulation of waste management and disposal, an effective system will not be developed. The Waste Management Authority of New South Wales was created because of the mess surrounding waste disposal and its administration, and the need a strong centralised authority. The Minister is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He is putting the planning function into the EPA but unfortunately he has not been prepared to set up a strong authority to manage waste. This State will return to the dirty old days when the more wealthy private industries and, in some cases, irresponsible industry, will have too great a say in waste disposal. I have served in local government and know that at times the right amount of planning and systematic thought does not take place. Over the next few years local government may be vulnerable to initiatives offered by large waste management companies in a desperate attempt to fill the void that the New South Wales Minister for the Environment and the Government have created with waste disposal.
A fortnight ago I attended a conference when the director-general designate of the new EPA was speaking about its future. This was a conference of the Australian Institute of Environmental Health and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. One only had to attend that conference to realise the enormous role that the private waste industry will play in future waste management development. The Otto Waste System
Page 2267
Company was sponsoring the first social evening and I think the morning tea on the third day was sponsored by that company also. Closing drinks were sponsored by a number of waste industries; Pacific Waste Management and Transport Waste Technologies were companies also involved. These are industries with a vested interest in ensuring that local councils and shires become receptive to the way they want waste disposed of in this State.
The Protection of the Environment Administration Bill will not provide greater regulation of waste control in this State but will provide a small ineffective planning unit within the EPA. Open slather and poor waste management practices will operate in local government areas. For some years a clamour has gone on in the Hunter region to have a more centralised Hunter regional waste disposal authority. This is because councils in the Hunter region have enormous problems trying to dispose of their waste and are not at present under the umbrella of the Waste Management Authority of New South Wales. Instead of the Minister bringing in proposals to improve the situation, he will bring us all to the level where the Hunter region is now - and that is to deregulate the waste industry in this State. That is not desirable and the State Opposition will not allow it to occur. We will not be the captives of a small number of very major waste companies, including multinationals like Pacific Waste Management. Controversy is raging in the Australian media and the community about the role of Pacific Waste Management. That company is concerned about a program shown on "Four Corners" a few months ago about the company's monopolistic practice. The company is desperately trying to restore its reputation because of matters shown on that program. Pacific Waste Management is a major player in the debate about the future of waste.
If the Government's proposals proceed, the situation will not improve. Last Monday evening several members heard an interesting presentation by advanced management certificated students at the Sydney Technical College, a group called Delta Solution on Why Waste It? In many ways it would have been educational for the Minister. Many of their proposals relate to the need for strong centralised information and regulatory authorities in this State to deal with the present waste crisis. If those students were able to reach such conclusions, why is it that the Minister has the whole waste issue in such a mess that even the Local Government Association and the Shires Association of New South Wales urge that something be done? On a personal level I renewed the acquaintance of the executive director of the Waste Management Authority. Some years ago, as a result of this Minister's generosity, he and I spent a couple of weeks overseas. That man appeared to be physically deteriorating because of the stress being placed on him by this Government. The Government does not know what it is doing in this important area. It should get its act together before experienced bureaucrats are lost from the system.
There will continue to be a wide-ranging debate about this issue. I know that a lot of speeches will be made when the various amendments are moved. I understand also - although not as a result of any direct communication from this Minister, who chooses to treat Opposition members as mushrooms - that the present Minister for the Environment in a desperate attempt to save some of his political face will take some of the amendments to Cabinet next Tuesday to try to get some agreement from his
Page 2268
colleagues in order to ensure that the Government does not suffer too many embarrassing defeats on the floor of the House. I wish him luck when he takes many of those proposed amendments to Cabinet. I shall not hold my breath in the expectation that he will succeed in getting those amendments up, because unfortunately this Minister has an appalling record for getting support from his colleagues on anything. I give him one final message to take to his Cabinet colleagues next Tuesday. I shall quote from the remarks of Sharon Beder, an outstanding Sydney environmentalist, despite the attempts to discredit her made by the Premier. In a speech about the Environment Protection Authority a few months ago she made comments that the Minister should take to his colleagues next Tuesday. She said:
The Environment Protection Authority should be an advocate for the environment. Let other Government departments be advocates for industry, for business, for commerce, for forestry, for roads, for electricity or whatever. If compromises have to be made, they should take place at the political level.
This Government knows all about that, for it is always doing it. She continued:
They should be made by governments within open view of the people. There should be no place for compromises and deals behind closed doors where the future of our environment and the planet is concerned. The trade-offs between environment and economic concerns are not a matter for bureaucrats, and certainly not those with such obvious allegiances to economic rationalism.
In other words we should try to establish a strong and effective Environment Protection Authority in this State. If cabinets want to do deals, let them be played out in the full glare of publicity and constant media exposure; but let us not have the mechanisms and networks built into the legislation before that point is reached. Let us give the Environment Protection Authority a real chance to come up with solid and independent advice to people such as the Minister. I know that he is excited by the magazine he is reading more than by Sharon Beder's comments. We do not want an authority which, in the words of Neil Shepherd, will not change very much in New South Wales. We want an authority that will significantly protect the environment.
Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [4.33]: I am delighted to support the Protection of the Environment Administration Bill which has been reintroduced to the Parliament. I look forward to its enactment and to the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority. The background to the Environment Protection Authority in New South Wales comes very much from the worldwide movement of concern that is recognised by all honourable members of this House, from the Government, Independent and Opposition benches. It follows the 1987 report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, otherwise known as the Brundtland report, which brought global environmental problems into wide popular and political debate. It focused everyone's attention on issues that were critical not only to middle Australians but also to people across the planet. That has concentrated the determination of governments and opposition parties - politicians of all persuasions - and of community leaders seeking to be in the advance guard, or at least to catch up with what should have been done in a previous age. The problems are widespread. They include desertification, deafforestation, acid rain precipitation, global climate change, ozone
Page 2269
depletion, and toxic substances contaminating the food chain and underground water tables.
In plain English terms we are talking about water pollution, air pollution and serious problems affecting rainforests and the natural environment that we have surely merely borrowed on this day from future generations around the globe. It is on that basis that I am enormously proud, first and foremost as an environmentalist, and second as a member of Parliament, that we on this side of the House have demonstrated once again in this landmark legislation a keen and substantial interest in genuine and balanced reform, taking into consideration economic concerns confronting our world today, and the overriding and passionate endeavours of all of us to protect the environment so that everyone, from greenies to farmers, can get some mutual benefit from it in a natural or corporate sense. As a consequence of that, in July 1989 the Prime Minister and more recently the Premier in April 1990, each delivered a major statement demonstrating bipartisan concern for the environment. In 1990 the Premier in his landmark address entitled "New Environmentalism" was moved to remark that environmentalism has come of age as a political issue. In a brief period of time the environment has matured from a radical issue on the fringes of politics into mainstream concern shared by middle Australia. That is to say, there is now universal recognition, at least in principle, of the need for the preservation of our environment in a balanced way, just as there may be continuing differences of opinion on how to arrive at that very popular and necessary objective.
It is disappointing that the delays in the legislative process have resulted in a delay in establishing the Environment Protection Authority. For years the former Labor Government put off making the tough decisions and spending the necessary money to give teeth and force to the rhetoric that it so often espoused, and no doubt in some part believed. This Government and this Minister have spent considerable time laying the foundations for the development of the Environment Protection Authority, both in terms of structure and legislative framework. This is an appropriate opportunity for us to congratulate those who have been involved in the development of this process. I mention particularly Dr Neil Shepherd, the director general of the Ministry for the Environment and at present the director general designate of the Environment Protection Authority. In his work with the ministry and with his colleagues in the ministry he has been closely involved with the development of this legislation. He has proved his expertise in the field and an understanding of the complex issues involved. Miss Lisa Corbin, who is the assistant director of the Ministry for the Environment, together with my friend and constituent Dr Warwick Forrest, who is the acting director of the State Pollution Control Commission, should be commended and congratulated by all members of the House for their input into the development of the legislation. In my consultations with them I have appreciated their expertise and genuine commitment to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority.
I am concerned that the honourable member for Blacktown, who has spoken briefly for the second time on this legislation, having acknowledged on 30th April the great deal of awareness in the community of the need for the Environment Protection Authority, nevertheless was part of a government that failed to recognise and act upon
Page 2270
that need. Even in today's contribution, though she deliberately and intelligently made a sensible speech which demonstrated the support of the Opposition in principle for the Environmental Protection Authority, in the early part of her remarks there was a conflict that showed some of the problems that must have prevented the former Labor Government from getting the proposal off the ground and coming to fruition. The present Government is absolutely committed to and determined to bring the legislation to fruition.
Since that public consultation process on the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority started in July 1990 community groups, environment groups and industry have contributed to the debate. As chairman of the Government's environment committee I and my colleagues have participated in numerous public forums and met personally with groups holding a wide range of views. Following those consultations I remain convinced that the extensive input gained across the spectrum has been of enormous value. It is with the benefit of that input that I can assure honourable members, on behalf of the Minister and the Government, that we are determined to pursue what I suppose has been very much the modus operandi of the Minister in relation to his responsibilities as Leader of the House: genuine ongoing consultation with the community, the Opposition, the Coalition for Economic Advancement, the Independents, environment groups, industry and commerce to strengthen the legislation that is before the House.
It is worth noting that the honourable member for Tamworth and the honourable member for Manly, together with the honourable member for Coffs Harbour - I hesitate to say that for we have different opinions about many of his amendments - have demonstrated clearly an abiding interest in this legislation and have put forward some meaningful, whilst differing, suggestions on the bill. The Government is committed to, and the Cabinet will shortly consider, a range of issues with a view to building on that consultation process and to genuinely developing an approach that will better preserve and enhance the environment whilst taking into consideration the very genuine concerns of industry in the current economic climate.
Unlike the recent comments of the honourable member for Blacktown in this Chamber, in which she tried to pander to each and every interest group that may have access to Hansard, I have no intention of lauding and supporting every point of view which has been put forward on the legislation. I am sure that honourable members will forgive the honourable member for Blacktown on this occasion. Perhaps this was merely due to an unusual lack of preparation. Despite the fact that the bill has been heralded for 18 months, the bill was brought on rather quickly. That may have put her in this position. During a recent speech the honourable member for Blacktown seemed to resolve all conflicts by halving the content of her speech on the second reading debate. The first section of the speech was full of admiration and support for the environment movement, and the latter section seemed to be aimed directly at obtaining support from the Coalition for Economic Advancement. The remarks by the honourable member today demonstrate that it is very hard to marry those objectives. Naturally, the
Page 2271
Government and the Opposition will endeavour to do so, but it will be extraordinarily difficult for her, as it will be for many honourable members, to come to grips with some of those difficult points of conflict.
The honourable member for Blacktown may think that the operation of "double think" may temporarily wash over conflicting standpoints, but it hardly helps in promoting rational, honest debate or in facilitating the resolution of differing standpoints. With respect to the last address of the honourable member for Blacktown, I shall refer briefly to the concerns that she has demonstrated, which I know are genuinely deep-seated, about waste management and waste minimisation, which is the critical objective. The proposal that she put to the House today was that the Minister had washed his hands of all responsibility for waste management and waste minimisation - that is, she proposed that the Minister is now concerned with merely providing a planning process, that he was ignorant and sought to side-step the important issues that involved providing for waste management and minimisation. Her suggestion was that we would talk about the issue and provide the planning mechanisms without actually doing anything demonstrably.
That follows the work of Government and Opposition members, including the previous honourable member for Penrith and the present honourable member for Penrith, on the Londonderry tip issue. Once again, the community was confronted with a tough decision, but found itself wanting. As a consequence of the strong community campaign, strongly supported by me as chairman of the Government's environment committee and certainly by the honourable member for Penrith and her predecessor, Mr Matheson, this Government took the view, responding yet again with a very reasonable, consultative approach to community concern, that it should put aside the option to establish one more big tip. Having made that decision and demonstrated, when there was a majority in this House upholding our Government's views, our real interest in that, we then proceeded to listen to the community and put the tip to one side.
The honourable member for Blacktown suggests that this Government has abrogated any responsibility for waste management. The facts speak for themselves. Whilst she may not be fully aware of the work of this Government, it is fair to say that we have established - and I put this on the record - the Co-operative Research Centre for Waste Management and Pollution Control. That body, which has brought together the University of New South Wales, Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, ICI, Australian Defence Industries, the University of Western Sydney, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Waste Management Authority and other State authorities, with new environmental technology aims to develop solutions to waste management and pollution problems. There are nine projects encompassed in that proposal.
Building on that, as a first step, we have established the solid waste management research and development approach, centring on a materials recovery facility at a cost of $150,000. The first materials recovery facility established in this State was designed to sort mixed recyclables and to enhance opportunities for the marketing of recycled materials. In addition, $400,000 in interest free loans has been provided to assist in
Page 2272
getting rid of wood and vegetative waste, which accounts for some 25 per cent of waste. The environmental trusts legislation is landmark legislation, not just for this State but for the whole world. It has again proved the determination of this Government, which by 1997 hopes to have some half a billion dollars in capital reserves to provide for restoration, rehabilitation, research and development. A large part of that sum - namely, $284,000 - has been given to 11 grants that are directly associated with waste management and waste minimisation.
We on this side of the House support very strongly the legislation designed to develop the Environment Protection Authority and do so in a framework of appropriate consultation. I am pleased to see that in many respects industry and representatives of the environmental movement support the initiative of this Government. In a letter to the Minister for the Environment, Meredith Hellicar, the Executive Director of the Coal Industry Association, whom I know well and respect, said that the majority of industry leaders would agree that strong punitive powers are necessary to deal with those individuals or corporations which take a cavalier approach to environmental protection, provided of course that the law is reasonable and administered in a responsible and impartial way.
I believe that a responsible business community, together with mainstream environment groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, believe overwhelmingly in the urgent need for the establishment of the Environment Protection Authority. For the first time in New South Wales we will be provided with the opportunity to consolidate and streamline the mechanisms of environment protection and enhancement. New initiatives included in this legislation are as follows: the "State of the Environment" reports, a determination to break down duplication and inefficiencies, more money and more legislative teeth. In fact, there has been an increase of some $12 million envisaged in the funds directed towards environment protection, giving a total budget of $56 million. That will provide the opportunity for the establishment and the operation of the EPA to demonstrate the Government's real concern for the environment.
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.47]: I welcome this bill. As this is my maiden speech, I seek indulgence to exercise the licence normally granted to a member, in this case the licence to indulge in environmental philosophy. Not only am I a maiden, but also I have been baptised in this Parliament as an Independent with a degree of the balance of power. In that situation, it might be worth considering the words of Sir Walter Scott. He said, "What shall be the maiden's fate, who shall be the maiden's mate?". The answer to that, no doubt, will unfold as the weeks and the months go by.
As I said, I encourage legislation that seeks an integrated approach to environmental protection. For that reason, I intend to move 13 amendments in the Committee stage. There are a number of important omissions from the bill, and I shall use examples from my own electorate of Manly to demonstrate the urgent need for strengthening it. Firstly, I would like to follow some of the traditions of a maiden
Page 2273
speech and thank all those in my electorate who voted for me and put faith in a true Independent for the seat of Manly. Of course, none of that would have been possible without an effective campaign machine, and to those many hundreds of campaign workers I wish to make this full acknowledgment of my appreciation. I thank my campaign director, Julie Heraghty, and my campaign committee, comprising David Jacobsen, Ann Maria Nicholson, Mark Baxter, Sandra Missingham, Michael Heraghty and Ann Jones. In addition to them there were dozens of helpers, assistants and volunteers who made this successful campaign possible. Most importantly, however, I thank my wife and family, who have given me support over many years in local government and now within the forum of State government.
I am a product of community politics, specifically a resident action group called Residents and Friends of Manly. This group has been described as one of the most successful community groups in the State and I believe it owes its success not to any one person but to its ability to stay in touch with community issues and needs. Its philosophy of sympathetic development, environmental concerns and open government was recently overwhelmingly endorsed in the local government elections by over 42 per cent of voters in the municipality. My recent election as an Independent to the seat of Manly was the result of a 16 per cent swing. There is a message for all of us in the move towards Independents and that is that voters are saying they will not passively accept a government that is unresponsive to community needs. The tradition in a maiden speech is to go on a journey around the electorate and to highlight the issues, the problems, perhaps point out the commitments and the promises that will constitute the agenda to which each of us as representatives is going to work. I could talk about public transport, the problems with buses, the problems with the Manly Wharf interchange. I could talk about the alienation of parts of our national park or the difficulties with urban renewal, with our ageing town centre and our beachfront, and our famous Norfolk pine trees, of which we have lost so many as a result of pollution over the years. But instead I will concentrate more on specific local environment issues and then broaden out into the wider, more global environmental picture.
The problems of beach pollution have deeply concerned the people of Manly ever since the decision was made to dispose of sewage at the North Head treatment plant, only metres from what is arguably Sydney's most famous beach and tourist resort. Over the years, and particularly as the population has increased within the catchment area, sewage has been dumped on our beaches. My introduction to politics was through the issue of beach pollution in the early 1980s, and through a series of lobby groups the community has fought long and hard for their basic rights to clean water and, more recently, clean air. Health surveys in the last couple of years show quite clearly that there is a direct connection between high pollution levels and morbidity in recreational swimmers. Late last year the deep water outfall was commissioned a little early and this has taken the effluent further offshore but, of course, nothing has changed in that the effluent quality is still unsatisfactory. Putting it out of sight and out of mind is no answer and the community will continue to demand full secondary treatment. It is worth recalling the words of one particular cynic who talked about the experience of swimming at polluted beaches. He said, "It's not swimming, only going through the motions".
Page 2274
Another major concern in Manly is the toxic emissions from the daily incineration of more than 30 tonnes of contaminated sludge. I say contaminated because so long as the sewerage system is allowed to be used as a toxic dumping ground by industry, the sludge cannot be used as a fertiliser but must continue to be discarded as waste. As a result thousands of Manly residents have had no choice but to continue to breathe the air, despite increases in respiratory illnesses within the community. Following more than two years of mounting community opposition this Government has promised to phase out up to 90 per cent of incineration by January 1992 for a trial period of trucking. The Manly experiences of dealing with the Water Board and with seeking to gain access to information highlights the need for reform. This bill must acknowledge the value of environmental assets such as clean air and clean oceans. It must also include provisions for openness and accountability - in other words, the right to know. I shall be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to address the issue, based on interstate and international experience.
Not everyone knows that in 1788 Manly was visited by Governor Phillip before Sydney Cove itself. It was reported to be a place of great beauty and bounty. Of course the Aborigines of that day were the true environmentalists. They knew, for instance, what the meaning of the term "ecology" meant. Ecology from its Greek root signifies "the meaning of the dwelling". The Aborigine of that day knew about the husbandry of his or her land, knew about sustainability and knew about conservation. However, it was to this place that Europeans came and it was the values of the European culture that brought destruction. The original inhabitants, like Aboriginal people all around the world, were deeply involved in the natural world both physically and spiritually.
The European arrival brought something far more destructive to the natives even than disease and alcohol - they brought with them an obsession with land ownership and money. The Aborigines were simply added to a list of Australia's flora and fauna and exploited like the rest of the ecosystems. In the relatively short period of 200 years the occupation by Europeans has been catastrophic. And so we have transformed what was a unique and an ecologically intact environment into an ecological disaster characterised by a squalid history of greed and ignorance. We cannot turn back the clock but what we can do is this: we can recognise our problems, admit our mistakes and set goals backed by legislation which will move beyond pollution control towards the real goal of pollution prevention.
I have mentioned the local environmental issues which preoccupy the ordinary residents of Manly but these concerns are only a mirror of the big picture. And we really need to look at the bigger picture, perhaps examine where we are at and how we arrived at these points and what we need to do in the future. Currently the world faces a harsh and frightening fact; that is, in spite of unparalleled advances in medicine, science, engineering and technology - or perhaps even because of these things - we have not succeeded in creating a physical, social and cultural environment in which we can find that satisfaction for the whole person, which is surely the purpose of all our strivings. Our environment is part of us; it is not something separate and distant. It is a bit like the madness of those citizens of Cavafy's Hellenic City who lived in terror of the Barbarians who were coming to destroy them. But the Barbarians never came,
Page 2275
possibly because the citizens themselves were the barbarians and in their waiting they destroyed themselves within their own high gates. We cannot afford to wait for those Barbarians - the Barbarian is amongst us already.
Gradual change that has resulted in our degraded environment has come on slowly, bit by bit, over the last 100 years. As with any change that is slow and gradual, albeit fast measured by our history, it is often hard to identify. The environmental health effects in cities that entail a gradual build-up of toxic or other adverse exposures put us at risk of what Boyden calls the boiling frog principle, that is, we neither perceive nor react to slow health-damaging changes in our environment. Instead, like the hapless frog in the slowly heating water, we adapt incrementally and therefore remain unaware of the external hazard until we reach the limit and we die. When we consider the state of our environment, we are required to look at some of the statistics. In the sprawling cities, such as Sydney, greenhouse offenders reside. With an urban transport system designed around more than one million petrol engines the car is the biggest source of greenhouse gases. Its energy supplies come from coal-fire power stations which daily pour tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The average family car travelling about 12,000 kilometres per year produces three tonnes of carbon dioxide. It has been estimated that planting three billion trees could delay a notable onset of the greenhouse effect for 30 to 40 years. In fact, that number of trees, three billion, is roughly the number of trees that we have cut down in Australia in the last 200 years.
Where did we go wrong? One of the fundamental causes of our global environment problems is the master-servant relationship between rich and poor countries. Without a true international redistribution of wealth, and without a levelling of material standards of living between rich and poor countries, the environmental crisis probably cannot be averted. Poverty, inequity and exploitation will only exacerbate the problem. This explosion of development since the industrial revolution is fast consuming our non-renewable resources. The notion of ecological interdependence is not something our generation learned about at school. We were encouraged to think of ourselves as inheritors of the earth, as masters of the universe. That is changing today. A little ecological knowledge and humility is entering our school curriculum. A successful biological species survives. However, within a balanced ecological system of many interdependent species, the survival of one species should not be at the expense of the survival of others, otherwise the balance is upset and, most importantly, the food supply may disappear. The human species is one very recent experimental product of natural selection. Humans, for more than the first 99 per cent of their years as a species, were a great success: they fed, they bred and they spread.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
Although they exhibited increasing dominance of their local environment and put hunting pressures on various animal species it is only in the last 100 years, a minute fraction of the earth's lifetime, that the balance between the humans and the world they inhabit began to be upset. By any logic the system of finite resources and limited buffeting capacity cannot accommodate such a balance indefinitely. Over the past 200 years we have moved away from spiritual beliefs that linked us with nature to ideological
Page 2276
dominance of nature. We are now faced with our environmental crisis and we are moving back to a realisation that we are part of the natural world and inextricably linked to its survival. Our future depends on conserving its finite resources and reducing pollution and environmental degradation.
There is a convincing argument that our attitudes to our environment are reinforced by our religious beliefs. It has been said that monotheism is easily the greatest disaster to befall the human race, even more so than unfettered development. By nature God, whichever god, is totalitarian. "You will have no other God but He, He will kill those who refuse to worship Him and you are free to destroy the earth because He has instructed us to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it". We have the Gospel that says, "We have dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth". It is not too late for us to learn from the first Australians and from some of our close Asian neighbours whose spiritual systems are based on a closer and more integrated relationship with nature.
An interesting story is told by David Suzuki, the great Canadian environmentalist, about his 10-year-old daughter, who one day looked at him and said, "Dad, we think we're right in fighting to save those forests, aren't we?" He vigorously nodded his head. She said, "But the people who want to cut down the trees also believe that they're right". She asked, "So how do we know we're right?" He said that children have a remarkable ability to see with a clarity unclouded by history, vested interest or belief systems that so often blind grown ups. Every adult would do well to consider the question, "How do we know we're right?" His answer to his daughter was that he did not know for sure. But if we succeed in saving some forests and we turn out to be wrong all that will be lost is some immediate profit. The trees can always be cut down later. But if the logging industry cuts down all the trees and it is wrong, those forests can never be replaced.
It is important that we look beyond the conventional economic framework for our answers. Environmental crisis challenges the basic value system and ideology by which we have come to live. What do we really mean when we talk of the standard of living? How should we value material things against the other things that might contribute to the quality of life, including health? Last century Karl Marx asked, "What is the true source of our material wealth?" At the time Marx was preoccupied with the exploitation of workers by capitalists. Perhaps our answer now is that most economic activity and, therefore, our material wealth depends on the conversion of environmental wealth - in other words, finite resources of nature into saleable products or waste which results in environmental exploitation and degradation. It appears that the creation of wealth and development results in inevitable cost. Today's societies across the political spectrum are coming to recognise that, so long as relentless economic activity is the focal point of society, our environment is at risk. It has been said that the linear consumer economy must be replaced by a circular conservator economy with maximum
recycling and replacement of renewable resources. The WorldWatch Institute has estimated that to slow population growth, protect the topsoil on farmland, reforest the whole of the earth and retire the debt of developing countries an annual expenditure of
Page 2277
around $100 billion would be sufficient. I know that $100 billion sounds like a lot of money. It is, but it is only one-tenth of what is spent globally on arms each year.
And so to the bill itself which will establish the Environment Protection Authority. The words and text within the bill will determine the framework and constitution for the future protection of our environment. This is an important opportunity for us as elected representatives to ensure just that. The bill in its present form does little more than consolidate the Government's existing powers. The Government has chosen to introduce the authority in two stages. We have only one stage to evaluate and, as a result, several significant amendments will be moved. They will seek to strengthen the authority, provide separation of power, and introduce the public right to know and third party standing. As an example, definitions should include the precautionary principle, the concept of ESD, waste minimisation and zero pollution targets. As regards separation of power the Minister determines policy but the authority, at arm's length, is responsible separately for licence standards, prosecutions and audits.
Accountability and the right to know will result in increasing public confidence in the EPA. The inclusion of third party rights similar to those provided in section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will provide the opportunity to express public interest. One glaring omission is the failure to acknowledge the relationship between environmental protection and land use planning. We need to reamalgamate planning and the environment. Further, we need to establish clearly the role for the authority in determining environmental impact statements. This bill will provide the opportunity to restore the public's faith in the Government's record on pollution in this State. I urge honourable members to support the amendments I have foreshadowed as they will result in a more integrated approach to environment protection in New South Wales as well as a more accountable and independent authority.
[Interruption from gallery]
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I call members of the gallery to order and remind them that that kind of behaviour is considered most disorderly.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.6]: I support in principle the legislation that has been introduced by the Minister for the Environment. However, I would like to express some concerns that I have about the content of the bill. I, like the honourable member for Manly, will move during the Committee stage a considerable number of amendments. I have discussed these amendments with the Minister. I believe they are necessary to make this bill work. It should be recognised that the principle of economic advancement must be adopted. It is essential for us to recognise that a strong and sustainable economy is a prerequisite to environmental protection. I have had many discussions with a group known as the Coalition for Economic Advancement. This group represents about 50 business associations and organisations in New South Wales. Today business organisations are extremely keen to ensure that the environment, per se, is protected. But in protecting that environment we must not lose sight of the fact that industry must go on. Jobs that provide money in the way of taxation for this
Page 2278
Government must be sustained. Only by sustaining these jobs will we be able to provide economic assistance to the Environment Protection Authority and the environment.
All parties to the environmental debate, especially those in industry and business, agree that the existing regime in environmental protection is not workable. All parties are suspicious of the role of existing agencies, particularly the State Pollution Control Commission. That suspicion will be resolved only when all parties are given by mandate, as stakeholders, a legislative role in the development of the operation of the Environment Protection Authority. All parties will be required to recognise the competing claims of other parties in achieving workable solutions, rather than merely espousing particular ideological positions. In the past the State Pollution Control Commission has done a wonderful job in controlling pollution. However, I am concerned about the definition of the environment in clause 3 of the bill. This legislation will replace approximately 15 Acts and it will be the first legislation to define the environment. That definition, in paragraph (c) of clause 3(1), includes the aesthetic factors of the surroundings, such as their appearance, sounds, smells, tastes and textures. That definition of itself does not appear unusual. Probably it is a good definition of the environment. However, when that definition is considered in conjunction with clause 12 of the bill, which provides for directions to public authorities by members of the staff of the Environment Protection Authority, I am concerned that those directions will be based on the aesthetic qualities of the environment. Aesthetics is a broad concept. If clause 3 is not amended to acknowledge pollution, as well as the environment, the consequences could be totally unacceptable.
The North Coast of New South Wales, and especially my electorate of Coffs Harbour, are developing very quickly. Councils and other government authorities are given to making decisions within their power, and those decisions are essential for development; for example, the clearing of portions of land to allow for the building of houses and the clearing of land and the provision of dams on rural properties. It would be dangerous to development if a representative of the Environment Protection Authority, in accordance with clause 12(1)(b) may direct any public authority, for example the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, to cease doing anything which, in the opinion of the authority, adversely affects environmental protection, without reference to pollution per se. The stage could be reached where one could not mow one's lawn, because that might of itself damage the environment, or perhaps kill an insect. Clause 12 of the legislation should relate to pollution only, not aesthetics. The clause as it is framed will be totally unacceptable to industry.
The consultative forum to be established by the bill should comprise equal representatives from industry and farming. As I have said, they are the sectors that provide jobs and therefore revenue to the Government so that the Government may continue in government and administer the State. I believe that industry is looking for a marriage with the Government so that the two may arrive at a mutually acceptable solution whereby protection of the environment is enhanced and industry is allowed to continue to provide economic benefits to the community - benefits that it always has provided. If one had an income from sources that did not require one to work, it would be easy to be a total greenie. However, if taxes are not paid because environmental
Page 2279
protection legislation has halted industry, everyone will be on the one level and will be seeking a government hand-out. Unfortunately, unless we ensure that the community's economic considerations are well and truly catered for, we could all be out of work and without an income.
In Committee I shall move a considerable number of amendments, which I shall discuss with the Minister prior to that stage. I have no objection to the Environment Protection Authority having the power to issue directions to public authorities. However, such directions should be issued only after a period of consultation. Clause 12 should provide that any disputes that may arise - which the authority may refer to the Minister or to the Premier - should be referred only after consultation with the Minister in charge of the public authority and the Minister in charge of the Environment Protection Authority. Such a provision would remove the confrontation aspect of the clause, and industry would be able to work with the Ministers. The Ministers would be able to discuss matters and there could be consultation instead of confrontation.
Clause 28 of the bill provides for the membership and procedure of the Education Committee. The explanatory note to the bill states that the committee is to advise on public awareness. The committee is to comprise representatives of educational authorities, organisations concerned with the protection of the environment, industry, local government authorities or associations, other public authorities and the general community. That is wonderful. However, one must remember that the members of the committee are to be appointed by the Minister for the Environment after consultation with the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. The latter Minister is concerned only with the education of schoolchildren, and children could be indoctrinated with totally green ideas. I am concerned that that indoctrination could flow into industry and into the community generally and the result could be that industry will not survive. We should consider public awareness but we should direct that awareness at the community, not at children.
It is acknowledged that the community is and has been very careless in polluting the atmosphere. In the past we all have used aerosol products that have damaged the ozone layer. We have been careless about disposing of chemical products - perhaps pouring them into the sewer or tipping them on the garden. That has been a problem about which we need to educate the public. I specify the public because these days children are very aware of the problem as a result of various programs, including those conducted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In my electorate of Coffs Harbour the service at Dorrigo regularly conducts camps at Cascade to educate children in the needs of the community and the protection of wildlife. I am somewhat concerned that this legislation could be overenforced. That could result in there being a one-sided authority and education committees that would not consider the economic advantages that must be taken into account in assessing the environment. In many ways in the past the State Pollution Control Commission and environmental authorities have scared industry. This legislation, properly formulated and with amendments, could go a long way towards involving industry in a consultative process and making industry aware of its own actions in damaging the environment. Amendments need to be made and I will be introducing many amendments.
Page 2280
[Extension of time agreed to.]
Consultation with industry will and can be achieved through this legislation. I urge the Minister to speak to the Coalition for Economic Advancement about its amendments. I will be moving more than 50 amendments to the legislation. If some amendments are passed, other amendments may not be necessary. I will consult further with the Minister on this matter. This legislation can be identified with the Chaelundi State Forest and with the logging industry in Coffs Harbour. The logging industry employs hundreds of people. Directions to the Forestry Commission could be given by the Environment Protection Authority when environmental impact statements are prepared and guidelines made. If the industry is working in accordance with those guidelines, an employee representative or delegate of the EPA could view the aesthetic qualities of the environment that may be disturbed. A valuable industry such as forestry on the North Coast, which has operated for many years -
Mr Jeffery: It is under threat now.
Mr FRASER: As the honourable member for Oxley has stated, it is under threat. The Labor Party has no regard for the workers. It is supposed to be a workers' party but it is seeking to block regulation allowing government departments to operate as they should. The interpretation of sections 98 and 99 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act handed down by Mr Justice Stein could affect forestry, farming -
Mr Jeffery: The Pacific Highway.
Mr FRASER: The Pacific Highway on the North Coast needs to be upgraded. The Government is attempting to gain approval for a sewage outfall at Coffs Harbour. The local branch of the Labor Party says that if its party were in office it might not support an outfall. That looks good in the newspaper, but it shows that the Labor Party is trying to con people on the North Coast. It is not seeking to help the battler, home buyer or people who want to build a house near Sandy Beach or in other areas on the North Coast. It is absolutely ludicrous that the Labor Party might stop an outfall.
[Interruption]
Mr FRASER: One should look at the bushfire situation today.
Mr McManus: Who is making this speech?
Mr FRASER: The National Party. The Labor Party's decision not to back the legislation could result in further bushfires occurring, human life being endangered and all environmental legislation in this State being scrutinised. This legislation is good legislation, subject to amendments to protect jobs, workers, industry and the economic base of this State and Australia. My amendments will achieve much in this regard and will help the Government to formulate legislation acceptable to the environmental
Page 2281
movement and industry. That is important. I commend the bill in principle and, once the foreshadowed amendments are passed, this legislation will be great legislation for New South Wales.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Lo Po'.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hours of Sitting and Order of Business
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [5.28], by leave: I move:
That notwithstanding anything contained in the sessional or standing orders to the contrary, the House shall meet at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday 17 October 1991 with the following routine of business -
9.30 a.m. Government Business
10.30 a.m. Petitions
Notices of Motions
Presentation of Papers
Questions
Placing or Disposal of Business
Formal Business
Motions under Standing Order 49
Motions Under Standing Order 161 (Objections to the Rulings of Mr Speaker)
Motions under Standing Orders 108 and 111 (Special Adjournments, Privileges, Business of the House and Votes of Thanks)
Motions under Standing Order 113A (Disallowance of Regulations)
Consideration of Committee Reports
Government Business (With precedence being given to any Business interrupted at 10.30 a.m.)
2.15 p.m General Business Notice of Motions or Orders of the Day Pursuant to Standing Order 122A.
The intention of the motion is to commence the introduction on a Thursday by Thursday basis - and this motion purely applies to tomorrow - of a 9.30 a.m. start to enable the introduction of bills. Nothing controversial will be brought on before 10.30 a.m. and
Page 2282
one long bell will be rung at approximately 10.28 a.m. to remind honourable members that it is time to attend the Chamber for question time. The motion does not require that to be incorporated. I have consulted the Clerks on the matter and it is sufficient for me to indicate the desirability of that in this speech. I undertake that that will happen. One long bell will be rung at 10.28 a.m. to remind honourable members that it is time to attend the Chamber for question time. This is part of the restructuring of sittings on Thursdays foreshadowed by the Government's Standing Orders Committee. It is the only rational way to obtain additional time for the Parliament without sitting more bizarre hours in the evening than we do already.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [5.29]: The Opposition concurs with the proposal, on the understanding that it is limited strictly to 17th October.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
SUTHERLAND SHIRE TRAFFIC AND TOURISM
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [5.30]: Once again I draw the attention of the House to the failure by the Sutherland shire council to place on public display the tourism plan for the Sutherland shire and the Cronulla traffic parking study. I am pleased that the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism is in the Chamber, for he has a great interest in and knowledge of State development and tourism. The Government provided funding for the shire tourism plan and the Cronulla traffic plan when I called for the preparation of those plans in 1989. It is about time the people of the Sutherland shire were given the opportunity to participate in the future directions of the shire. I was pleased with the way the Sutherland shire tourism plan was prepared, in the sense that a steering committee was set up to ensure residents had input to the plan. However, it is necessary that all residents of the shire have an opportunity to inspect the plan and make submissions in relation to it. It is their future and their shire that are being talked about.
The bottom line for any tourism plan is the need to make the area more attractive to the residents. Sutherland shire residents should be able to determine which features of the plan they find attractive and those they believe should be rejected. The Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism is knowledgeable of economic and environment factors to be taken into consideration so that jobs are provided and the local environment is enhanced to make it even more attractive to visitors. The other matter I raise is the Cronulla traffic plan. It is essential that the plan be made available and that the council should make no attempt to implement it without having heard from the public in the region. Traffic congestion and unacceptable road conditions should not be part of people's daily lives. The parking and traffic plan is designed to make life easier for the residents of Cronulla and those who visit the area.
Page 2283
Mr Hartcher: Hear, hear!
Mr KERR: I am pleased that the honourable member for Gosford has some empathy with my problem, because of the pleasant nature of his electorate. It is not good when local residents do not have parking available in their suburbs. On that topic, a study and overview of the arterial roads and traffic conditions in the Sutherland shire was prepared. It was made available following representations to the Minister, Mr Baird, in May 1989. The plan should be looked at by the Sutherland shire council, which should give a response about its intentions for Sutherland shire roads. The population of the shire will increase from 188,000 in 1988 to about 205,000 in 2001. The State Government has seen the need to prioritise responsibility for roadworks in the State. The Sutherland shire council should do the same in relation to the shire's proposed road and drainage works. After all, taxpayers have put millions of dollars into shire roadworks. The people of the shire are entitled to have a plan based on merit for five or 10 years for the proposed road and drainage works, so that they have confidence in the priorities set by the council, which receives more than $109 million in ratepayers' funds. It is time for the council to take the public into its confidence.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse), Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism [5.35]: I understand the difficulties raised by the honourable member for Cronulla. It is now two years since the draft tourism plan was prepared. Part of the essence of the various tourism plans prepared by local government with the co-operation of the New South Wales Tourism Commission is that a period be provided for public discussion. That was the intention in relation to the draft tourism plan for the Sutherland shire. That is a means by which the local community can feel a sense of ownership of the document that ultimately emerges from the public consultation process and participatory democracy. It is a great pity, especially as two years have now elapsed, that the process of public participation has not been activated by the Sutherland shire council. For my part as Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism I exhort the council to ensure that that happens. If the council has particular problems with the tourism plan, the Tourism Commission will offer, and has offered, every co-operation to make sure that the plan is made available for public debate. I take the point made by the honourable member in regard to the parking and traffic plan. He has done all he can to make sure that public participation occurs and his constituents have the opportunity to give input on two important aspects for the local community: tourism and traffic management. At the very least the Sutherland shire council should ensure that public discussion takes place to facilitate a desirable outcome.
F4 TOLLWAY PROPERTIES ACCESS
Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [5.38]: I raise a matter on behalf of Mr and Mrs Walker of 4 Barfil Crescent, South Wentworthville and also the residents of Barfil Crescent and the section of Rawson Road north of the F4 roadworks. This area consists
Page 2284
of about 25 homes. As a result of the work on the F4 tollway - which is known locally as the Greiner cash register - these residents have become effectively road locked. I am pleased that the former Minister for Corrective Services is in the Chamber, for he will know what it is like to be locked up. These people have expressed great concern about their present situation because of the roadworks being undertaken on the F4 tollway. The residents who voiced their complaints and problems have been treated with disdain and contempt by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Minister. The level of common courtesy shown by the Roads and Traffic Authority to these unfortunate residents is a disgrace.
The notice of closure of Rawson Road was first stuck on a telegraph pole, picked up from the gutter by a local butcher, and then given to one of my constituents when he happened to be buying some meat. No notices were letterboxed and no letters were sent to these residents. The closure of Rawson Road has effectively locked these residents between the six-lane Great Western Highway and the road works on the Greiner cash register. This closure has severely reduced the quality of life of the residents. Numerous shops and services on Old Prospect Road once could be reached by a short walk up Rawson Road. Now residents are required to walk for 30 minutes along the Great Western Highway, Cumberland Highway and then Old Prospect Road. Residents who wish to catch a bus to Parramatta experience the same problem. It used to be a short walk to the station; now it is a half-hour hike. A number of residents are elderly or have young children and are not up to this hike. It has been suggested that a pedestrian overpass be constructed over the F4 tollway, but this has been rejected as prohibitively expensive. I urge the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism, who is at the table, to raise this with the responsible Minister. I believe that this overpass would be used by a substantial number of people, not just those living in that area. It would be used as an access point by pedestrians walking along the footpath of the Great Western Highway and wishing to go to those shops on Old Prospect Road.
The other problem is that road users in Rawson Road and Barfield Crescent now find it extremely difficult to get in and out of their residences. What was once a simple exercise of driving down Old Prospect Road and into Rawson Road is now an absurd trip down Cumberland Highway, Old Prospect Road, the Great Western Highway and into Rawson Road. A right-hand turn for east-bound traffic travelling down the Great Western Highway has been suggested, but the Roads and Traffic Authority has rejected that proposal, saying that it would not be safe. If that is the case - and I accept that that may be a possibility - I urge the Minister at least to consider, when the tollway is opened and the traffic on the Great Western Highway is severely reduced, constructing a right-hand turn to allow residents more direct access to their homes. An alternative to that proposal is that a laneway access point be constructed along Old Prospect Road between the proposed F4 tollway and the rear of the properties owned by my constituents in that part of Rawson Road and Barfield Crescent. I am not sure how that access would be restricted to residents only, but that would be a possible solution.
But this is not enough; there is more. The Roads and Traffic Authority promised a man-proof fence but constructed a five-foot wire fence only two feet from
Page 2285
the rear of my constituents' property, which allows intruders to climb into their properties. In the case of Mr and Mrs Walker, that has already occurred. Trail bikes are often in use after hours. They cause great noise and nuisance to my constituents. I request that the RTA or the Statewide Roads company patrol that area and expel these louts from that area. The dust from roadworks is intolerable, particularly on windy days in this dry weather. A water truck is used on a number of occasions, but this is more of an apology than a serious attempt to reduce the problem. Statewide Roads should also improve that situation. These residents are getting a raw deal. It is unfortunate that they are in this situation. I visited the area to see how bad it was. To see these two major highways locking these residents in and leaving them without access to major roads, buses and shops is not good enough.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse), Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism [5.43]: I will certainly undertake to convey to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Smithfield. I certainly want to make sure that no residents are disadvantaged by activities undertaken by the Roads and Traffic Authority. As a former Minister for Corrective Services and a former Minister for Roads, I had a lot to do with roads and the Roads and Traffic Authority. I always found that at every level the authority went out of its way to make sure that it consulted with local residents. If what the honourable member for Smithfield is saying is true - anything coming from the honourable member for Smithfield always has a question mark over it - I would find it to be, at the very least, out of character for the Roads and Traffic Authority, particularly knowing the quality of people operating there at senior levels of management. Nevertheless, even if the residents whom the member is talking about are unfortunate enough to be represented by him, we will do our best to make sure that the problem is rectified.
NIMMITABEL TIMBER INDUSTRY
Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [5.45]: I draw to the attention of honourable members the village of Nimmitabel, a small village located about 25 kilometres south of Cooma. I do so as a result of a recent meeting with residents in the Nimmitabel Action Group, known otherwise as NAG. A few nights ago they expressed to me some very grave concerns which I shall relate to the House. I ask the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism, who is at the table, to pass on to the Minister for Conservation and Land Management the concerns of the residents of Nimmitabel and surrounding districts for the future not only of the rural sector but also of the timber industry. I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands is in the Speaker's chair. I am sure that you, Mr Acting-Speaker, will understand the problems in the timber industry at the moment.
A twofold problem affects the village of Nimmitabel - the depth of the rural recession and the temporary closure of a timber mill at Nimmitabel which is almost 100
Page 2286
years old. The mill has closed not as a result of a lack of resources or any other matters relating to normal disputes in the southeast forest, but because the markets in both Sydney and Melbourne have dried up. There is insufficient demand in the building industry to meet the output of that mill. Regrettably, I can also report to the House that the Bombala sawmill has operating only one bench out of four. This means that employment opportunities for residents of both Bombala and Nimmitabel have been drastically affected. A number of issues were raised by the Nimmitabel Action Group. One was the great deal of trouble residents experience in maintaining student numbers in their school. The opportunities for employment having diminished, the township is in a position where student numbers in the school are likely to be reduced. Similarly, residents have a water supply which is under investigation at the moment. They are fearful that the proposed water supply, which is to be constructed by the Public Works Department, will be far too expensive for the remaining residents of Nimmitabel.
A number of matters in the rural industry can be addressed. The Federal Government can assist by helping our Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs to provide funds to the Rural Assistance Authority to help those in the rural timber industry. Today I ask the Minister at the table to raise with the Minister for Conservation and Land Management the matter of timber supply and guaranteed resource security. If opportunities in the market-place in Sydney and Melbourne are improved at least there will be some guarantee of a timber supply from the southeast forest for the Nimmitabel and Bombala mills. That is vital for the survival of Nimmitabel. At this point, I call on the honourable member for South Coast, who also has an interest in that area, and on the Federal Labor member for Eden-Monaro, Jim Snow, to use whatever influence they might have on members of the Opposition and the Independents in this House to guarantee resource security for the timber industry in the southeast region. The opportunities for survival of the industry are good, provided that the Labor Party and the Independents, along with the timber workers union, are able to get behind the timber industry in the southeast and assist in its fight for survival. The opportunities are there to expand the market-places in Sydney and Melbourne and, given guaranteed resource security and the fact that the rural industry is a resilient industry which will pick up once again, we must provide for the long-term security of timber towns such as Nimmitabel. I am sure the people of that area have every faith that the Australian Labor Party will join with the unions and with the rest of us in assisting to maintain the long-term security of the future of Nimmitabel and towns like it.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Chappell): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse), Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism [5.50]: I will ensure that the points made by the honourable member for Monaro are relayed promptly and forcefully to the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. The honourable member has outlined very succinctly the key points presented by the Nimmitabel Action Group. The honourable member has only one issue in mind, that is, the well-being of the people of his electorate. The case he has presented is in keeping with the spirit of everything he does. This issue will be considered promptly and will receive appropriate follow-up action.
Page 2287NEWCASTLE HONEYSUCKLE PROJECT
Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [5.52]: The Honeysuckle project is a matter of great importance to the people of Newcastle. It is a matter of great importance to me as their member, as I am sure it is to every member of this House, especially those from the Hunter, including the honourable member for Maitland. Given this, it is a matter of great concern that, by letter from the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives, I have been denied access to membership of the Honeysuckle Advisory Board. The board is charged with the role of advising government on the project. The 50-plus hectares of public land available for the project link the existing central business district, the bicentennial foreshore project and the waterfront of Newcastle from Civic Station to Hammell Street Bridge and parts of the Carrington foreshore.
The Honeysuckle project is the single most important element in the plans for redevelopment and revitalisation of the city of Newcastle as the administrative, commercial and recreational centre of the Hunter. Of course, it has assumed greater importance since the earthquake. It is a one-off chance to get the right mix for the city. Full consultation and co-operation between all sectors of the community is required to make sure the mix is right. The Government has determined that this $300 million project be private sector driven and has budgeted $1.6 million in the 1991-92 Budget for the initial phase of the project. Given the Federal Government's better cities program, with its emphasis on bringing people back to the city, and the better utilisation of existing public services, there is a further chance for public funding for the project. Both sides of the House support Honeysuckle as a better cities project. In this context one would expect that the member for Newcastle would be kept fully apprised of all aspects of the Honeysuckle project. It is completely within my electorate. It is of vital concern to my constituents.
The board, which was appointed by the Government in December 1990, comprised representatives of business and commercial interests in the city, the Chairman of the Hunter Economic Development Council, the Secretary of the Trades Hall Council, the lord mayor of the city of Newcastle and the then State member for Newcastle. These representatives have had input into and access to the marketing, financial and planning studies underpinning the Honeysuckle project. This input and access have been denied to me as the member elected on 25th May by the people of Newcastle as their spokesman. I committed myself to be straight with the people of Newcastle and to stand up for their interests. Since my election I have involved myself in seminars and attended private briefing sessions with the development manager of the Honeysuckle project.
Though I appreciated these briefings and saw them as essential to my role as the local member, they fell far short of the comprehensive detail required to keep me abreast of developments with the Honeysuckle project. They were in fact no more than a public relations exercise on behalf of the development manager. Given this, and the importance of the project for Newcastle and the Hunter, I wrote on 4th September to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy seeking appointment to the advisory board as the appropriate avenue for me to make a positive contribution to discussions on the project and to be kept fully apprised of the planning and development underpinning the
Page 2288
Honeysuckle project. The Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism, in his report to the responsible Minister, should note that the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy has seen fit to refuse my application on the basis that no vacancy exists on the board and he promises continued close liaison with officers of the Property Services Group and the Honeysuckle development team. He misses the point or perhaps chooses not to see it. The people of Newcastle are not mushrooms. They will not accept being left in the dark on this important project. It is their land; it is their $1.6 million; and it is their representative who is being denied effective access to the project. This project is too important for petty politics such as those displayed by the Premier -
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Chappell): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse), Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism [5.57]: I understand the point that the honourable member for Newcastle is making. He should have been around in the days of the Wran Government when he would have discovered in no uncertain terms, and very quickly, some of the political realities of being in Opposition. I can tell him it would have been a total waste of time and effort penning a letter to request something as presumptuous as being appointed to a board for which that State Government was responsible. He should understand that the courtesies and considerations extended now to Opposition members are a world apart from what happened in the days of the Wran administration. The Honeysuckle project is something in which I have a close involvement as Minister for State Development. It is without doubt the single most important urban redevelopment project to be undertaken in Australia and obviously the single most important urban redevelopment project ever to be undertaken in the great city of Newcastle. It is interesting to note that as recently as yesterday Senator Tierney moved in the Senate:
The Senate applauds the announcement made on 14 October 1991 by the New South Wales Premier to earmark $90 million for the Honeysuckle redevelopment in the Newcastle Central Business District; notes that the development will provide the critical mass needed to ignite the development of the CBD in Newcastle; expresses concern about the demonstrated lack of interest in the project by the New South Wales Opposition Leader (Mr Carr), when he said: "I didn't know. I need to study it in more detail. I need to talk to (various people)"; and notes with dismay that the ALP's "Better Cities Program" submission for NSW advocates spending all of the money on Sydney.
I doubt that Bob Carr even knew of the existence of anything such as the Honeysuckle project. Senator Tierney has summed it up well. I suggest that the honourable member for Newcastle continue to promote the idea of being included on the board and one day he might be, although I do not know. In the meantime his time would be well spent offering the Leader of the Opposition a crash course in the Honeysuckle project, telling him a few of the home truths, telling him what it means for the future of the city of Newcastle, and telling him what it means for employment and the general quality of life in Newcastle.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister's time for speaking has expired.
Page 2289
MAITLAND GIRL GUIDES COTTAGE
Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [6.0]: This evening I am concerned about what is commonly known as the girl guides cottage at 50 St Andrews Street, Maitland. In the mid-1980s the girl guides in Maitland purchased an old home with a view to expanding their activities in the fair city of Maitland. Since 20th November, 1987, a series of section 130 orders have been placed upon the building. The current section 130 order was gazetted on 30th November, 1990. It will therefore expire on 30th November, 1991, unless it is renewed. This building was gutted by fire on Wednesday, 17th April, 1991. That event left the building in an irreparable state. On 11th July I wrote to the Minister on behalf of my constituent Mr Charles Gleeson of 29 Elizabeth Street, Telarah, who was concerned about the girl guides cottage - an eyesore to the community. I have said to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy that this cottage does nothing to enhance its surroundings and it is receiving critical comment from the community. On 19th August I received a lengthy response from the Minister. He said that in March 1990 notice was given of a proposal to place a permanent conservation order on the site. The owners, the Girl Guides Association, lodged a formal objection to this proposal. Though a commission of inquiry ordinarily follows such action the Heritage Council and the Department of Planning undertook negotiations with the owners in an attempt to resolve the matter.
When the building burned down, the Heritage Council requested architectural and archeological investigations of the remains of the building prior to the commencement of any work to remove the remains. That has disturbed many people in the area. The Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism, who is in the Chamber, would be aware that the city of Maitland is proud of its historic, old buildings - a tourist attraction. The road that passes this building carries approximately 6,000 vehicles each day. The building, which has been completely gutted by fire, is boarded up, in a poor state of repair and in a dangerous condition, yet the Girl Guides Association is hindered by red tape. It is only because of that red tape that it has to carry out archeological inspections. I believe that plaques have to be put in place to let people know what was formerly built on that land. Maitland suffers from severe westerly winds. Sheets of corrugated iron on the roof of the building have come loose and are flapping around. I and many other residents are worried that they will cause serious injury to passing pedestrians.
Repeated attempts to have this order lifted have failed. The guides have been invited to make an application for funding so that an adviser from the Heritage Council can have a look at this building and report to the council. I ask the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism to approach the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy to have this order lifted so that the girl guides can demolish this building to the satisfaction of concerned residents and the council, which has raised this matter with me on numerous occasions. All honourable members would know of the outstanding work done by girl guides in their communities. I hope that the girl guides in Maitland will be able to continue the work that was intended by Lord Baden-Powell when he brought the scouting movement into being. I urge the Minister for State
Page 2290
Development and Minister for Tourism to make representations to remove this anomaly and to allow sanity to prevail.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse), Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism [6.5]: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The honourable member's strong commitment to issues of importance in his electorate are certainly appreciated by his constituents. The honourable member for Maitland will be pleased to hear that just before I came into the Chamber the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy contacted me and informed me that he has revoked the conservation order and agreed to undertake an archeological investigation on the site. That has happened for one reason alone - that is, because the honourable member for Maitland made strong and well thought-out representations to the Minister.
Mr Gaudry: Why did he waste our time for five minutes?
Mr YABSLEY: He did not know that I had received this advice. It was only before I came into the Chamber that I was able to secure this information from the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy. So this is the break-through that the honourable member has been looking for. It is a break-through for which he deserves full credit because he made the representations in a thoughtful and wise way and he got the result that his constituents were looking for.
Private members' statements noted.
[Madam Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.6 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
APPROPRIATION BILL
BUSINESS FRANCHISE LICENCES (PETROLEUM PRODUCTS) AMENDMENT BILL
MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
PUBLIC FINANCE AND AUDIT (NET APPROPRIATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
ROAD IMPROVEMENT (SPECIAL FUNDING) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 15th October.
Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [7.31]: I rise to make my maiden speech conscious not only of my loyalty to the party of which I am proud to be a member but also of my
Page 2291
duty to the electors of the Camden electorate who have done me the honour of electing me to represent them in this House. During my election campaign I made one promise to my electorate. That was to do my best for the people I represent. I am renowned for being honest and a straight talker who calls a spade a spade, and I have no intention of changing my way of doing things. It is customary at this time to pay tribute to those who helped you get elected. I started to list the people who were important to my campaign, but the list went on and on. I realised I could not do justice to all the people who assisted me, without boring everyone to death. The people on my list know who they are and they know also how very grateful I am. They include not only the members of the Camden and Picton-Bargo branches of the Liberal Party but also my many swinging voter friends. I will, however, mention one person. That is Nance Cottle, who so capably ran my campaign office despite her grief over the death of her sister just prior to the campaign.
I must mention also the love and support received from my father John, who was very surprised at my decision to change careers. Any successes I have had in my life have been due to the never-ending encouragement, love and support given by my father, my mother Betty, my brother Mark and "auntie" over the years. I know that all my family are with me tonight in spirit, if not in the flesh. It is customary also to pay tribute to the former member of an electorate, and I do so. I pay tribute to the former member for Camden, Peter Primrose. He was a hard worker and spent long hours working on behalf of his community. However, I cannot understand why he petitioned against the election results, considering that I won by 937 votes, while at the previous election he won by a margin of only 32 votes. Moreover, he publicly thanked me at the time of the declaration of the polls for running a very clean election campaign, and I reciprocated that sentiment regarding his campaign. I thank him for that.
It is customary also to talk about one's electorate and what a new member hopes to achieve in Parliament. But because of the events of recent times I must first state why I am a Liberal. Society is not people en masse; it is made up of individuals - and I believe in the individual. The Labor Party is always talking about the rights of the individual but never about the responsibilities that are as firmly attached to those rights as people are to their shadow. Being responsible for one's actions and contributing positively to society is never mentioned in the same breath as rights by the Labor Party. In particular, people must be held responsible for raising their children and not depend on governments to care for them. Every individual has abilities in some field and should be encouraged to develop those abilities and contribute to the productivity of our society. It is only through increased productivity that we can earn the lifestyle that is our current expectation.
I do not believe in socialism and the welfare State. However, governments must provide for the aged, the infirm, the disabled and those rearing children alone because of the loss of their spouse. Every healthy individual should have a job. I have a sign on my office wall which reads, "The world owes you a living, but you have to work hard to collect it". Two days' part-time community work, or whatever is the hourly equivalent of current dole payments, should be provided and the dole abolished. The Labor Party has turned a progressive country of striving individuals into a welfare State.
Page 2292
If the apathetic, apolitical majority does not wake up to itself soon, it will be too late. It will find itself fully dependent and controlled by socialist governments.
In the Sydney Morning Herald on 7th October Senator Graham Richardson stated that almost five million people are receiving government income support in a country with a total population of 17 million. This surely has been brought about by the recession that the Federal Labor Government said we had to have. Who is paying for this income support? They are the average, hard-working individuals trying to achieve a decent living for themselves and their families. The people with the least disposable income in our community today are not those on social welfare and in public housing, but the young family on a single income trying to buy a house and achieve the Australian way of life. Governments should be helping those ordinary individuals who are trying to help themselves - not taxing them to death.
I believe that today's society and governments pay too much attention to do-gooders and minority groups. Many laws have been made for the right reasons but no one thought about their full ramifications. Who would have thought there would be a career path available for a young girl to obtain a home and income for life by becoming a single mother? In what other country does a burglar entering your home to steal your property have rights? Where is the justice in our community where juveniles who have committed numerous offences, including major theft, are placed on probation after probation? How do the young people learn respect for the laws of our society unless we enforce them with community service at weekends and during school holidays? What kind of society produces a situation where schoolteachers are scared to tell the truth to their ethnic students or reprimand them for fear of being called discriminatory or racist? The freedom of honest, good-living citizens is being eroded because of the actions of irresponsible people, unstable people and criminals. Overrestrictive legislation often is put in place to protect people from themselves. However, no government can legislate to ensure common sense - a commodity that seems to be getting rarer each year as the values of our society change.
You may well wonder why a supposedly intelligent individual with a job she loved which gave her security and prestige in the community - that of director of the University of Sydney farms at Camden, and a hobby she also loved, being an alderman on Camden Municipal Council - gave it all up to become a member of Parliament. Love of the area you call home, its environment and wanting the very best for your community is not the prerogative of the Labor Party. I was worried about the future of my area and its community. I hope, by working as a Liberal within the Government, to ensure that it develops in the right way. My electorate is a very large area for one so close to Sydney but approximately half of it is taken up by Warragamba Dam and its catchment area, which has virtually zero population. The remainder includes the southern part of the Campbelltown city council area, the urban areas of the Municipality of Camden and the whole of the Wollondilly Shire. This electorate is the major portion of the region known as Macarthur.
Since July 1973, when the three cities plan was announced, the people of Macarthur have known that this was to be a growth area with an ultimate population of
Page 2293
500,000 people. By the end of this year Campbelltown will have a population of approximately 149,000, while Camden and Wollondilly will have virtually doubled in size since 1973 to approximately 25,000 and 31,000 respectively. Campbelltown has grown more slowly but in accordance with the three cities plan; whereas the doubling of population in Camden until recently and in Wollondilly was due to people wanting a semi-rural lifestyle and being able to cope with lack of employment and public transport in the area. These people, seeing explosions of suburbia, are the most vocal about their lifestyle being destroyed and the fact that this is not progress. I first came to the area in 1960 and was appalled in 1973 when I heard of the three cities plan. It was pointed out to me by the then mayor that if Camden had not grown and developed I would not be there, and that some people liked it the way it was before I came.
I do not believe that progress is synonymous with growth and prefer the Macquarie Dictionary's alternative definition of "continuous improvement". Unless growth gives continuous improvement to the lifestyle of the current residents, not only those coming to the area, it is not progress. Growth per se is not the problem - an area will die if it does not grow. It is the rate of growth that is the problem, particularly in a small existing community that cannot cope with the rapid influx of residents whose expectations are those of suburban Sydney. Also, the type of growth should be such that it complements the existing community and its lifestyle. The culture shock for people accustomed to city living in the fast lane must be appalling when they find themselves on the outskirts of suburbia.
The councils of the three local government areas in my electorate have accepted that growth is necessary and have tried to plan such that the individuality of their respective areas is maintained. The majority of proposed growth is part of the Macarthur region urban development program. Campbelltown city council agreed with the concepts of being the city in the southwest region and has worked to achieve the aim of being the major commercial and resource centre for the region. However, rather than becoming a self-contained city, Campbelltown has been joined by urban development to Sydney and is generally acknowledged as a suburb of Sydney. It is the aim of the people of Campbelltown to be the best suburb in Sydney and I will do my best to help them be just that. My constituents in Campbelltown are mostly suburban dwellers with aspirations of a good lifestyle, which includes easy access to facilities, social amenities and, more importantly, employment. In five to 10 years the potential for urban development in Campbelltown will be exhausted and a further 22,000 residents will live in what is currently my electorate.
Camden used to be seen as the first country town outside of Sydney when you drove along the Hume Highway to Melbourne. The Camden district has the unique history of being the area where the wool and wine industries were developed by the Macarthur family. Camden municipal council wants to retain the area's rural heritage and environment, and is encouraging developers to enhance the country town image and take cognisance of the history of the area. With land currently zoned for urban development Camden can expect a population increase of 30,000 within the next five to 10 years. Infill development, currently unzoned, could increase the population by another 19,000. Camden will be happy to be known as that large country town on the
Page 2294
outskirts of Sydney with its own suburbs; it does not want to become part of suburban Sydney.
Wollondilly shire has a distinctive character all of its own. Its residents live in small towns and villages or on a variety of different size rural holdings. The shire offers a rural lifestyle with a high proximity to city services. Wollondilly council has placed great importance on its rural landscape and character. The current proposals for urban development in Cawdor and the provision of a reticulated sewerage system to Thirlmere, Tahmoor and Picton, and proposals for Warragamba-Silverdale, will almost double Wollondilly's population in the near future. However, the Cawdor development, which abuts urban Camden, will pressure the amenities of that town rather than the shire.
My electorate will be the fastest growing area in New South Wales within the next few years - and probably in Australia. Although there is a great diversity of lifestyle in the area, the people living there currently suffer the same general problems. Despite major efforts by State governments of both political persuasions, movement of industry and commerce to Macarthur has been painfully slow. Virtually all new residents travel out of the region for employment or else go on the dole. Although the major rail link from Sydney to Melbourne runs through my electorate, it is only electrified to Macarthur and commuters from Wollondilly currently have a less than satisfactory rail service. Similarly, persons who work in those areas away from the Sydney central business district or the main rail line are forced to use their motor vehicle to get to work.
Lack of transport is also a major problem for students attending the two excellent tertiary institutions in the region, the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, and the Campbelltown college of technical and further education. Both these establishments are rapidly growing to cater for the increasing population. School education is also being provided for the expanding population, with two new schools announced in this year's Budget. However, the older village areas of Wollondilly are also growing and schools composed of all demountables, plus a 100-year-old building, are not readily accepted by new residents.
I believe I can safely say that no one in Australia is satisfied with the health services provided in his or her particular community. This is even more so in growth areas where a large population of children strain hospital resources when seasonal epidemics run through the community. You can be assured that I will be pressing for continued upgrading of facilities at Campbelltown and Camden hospitals, while demanding that the schedule for the proposed new hospital at Camden be advanced. This should be possible with the Greiner Government's policy of transferring health funds to areas of need, and my area is certainly one of those.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
Similarly, few people are satisfied with the number of police in their area. My electorate has the correct ratio of police per head of population but this is little consolation when there are only two police cars at night patrolling the area from
Page 2295
Leppington to Yanderra - a distance of approximately 70 kilometres. These are based at Camden and it takes 30 minutes to get from Camden to Yanderra. You can be sure that I will be trying to improve this situation. If these are the problems of our current population, what will happen when the planned urban releases already mentioned come on stream, let alone others that are in the pipeline?
The emphasis placed on the environment, heritage and lifestyle by my electorate is indicated by the three councils' slogans, namely, "Australia's First Green City", "Birthplace of the Nation's Wealth" and "Rural Living - Room to Grow". By continually putting more people on the fringe we increase the potential for higher levels of air and water pollution and degradation of sensitive environments. Air pollution has been a major topic of discussion, both locally and in the Sydney media since the final report of the study initiated by the Greiner Government, yet always reported as the "CSIRO Report", was released in February. The broad conclusions of this pilot study have been flogged to death by the media and the Opposition, so are well known to all. The Government responded promptly to this report by convening the air pollution summit in Sydney and committing $6 million to be spent on an expanded monitoring network in Sydney, the tendering for which will occur this month. As a scientist I believe it is time we stood back a bit from emotion and sensationalism and carried out those studies necessary to evaluate the risks associated with existing levels of air pollution, then assessed the task of combating it.
It would be unrealistic on the basis of an inadequate monitoring network and inadequate knowledge of air flows to inflict drastic measures on the people of Sydney as a whole. This would be necessary as air pollution in my electorate comes mainly from the main Sydney basin. Because it is impossible to change basic land forms or wind currents and eradicate motor vehicles from Sydney, it may even be that the air pollution problems in Macarthur cannot be solved completely. Members can be assured, however, that I will be promoting a sensible approach to this problem and will aim to prevent any worsening of the situation.
Parts of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system are already under stress from urban development, agriculture and sand mining. Approximately $64 million collected from the annual $80 Water Board environmental levy will be spent on upgrading the 23 sewage treatment plants which discharge into the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. Also $57 million capital works expenditure will be spent on enlarging West Camden sewage treatment plant, which will include a biological process for the removal of nutrients such as phosphorous from sewage effluent. The Water Board is undertaking a wide range of scientific and environmental studies to assess the health of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. The result of these studies, together with a computer modelling package to predict the impact of various land use scenarios on water quality and quantity will produce a strategic water management plan for the river. This plan is to be administered
Page 2296
by a community-driven catchment management committee. Pollution of our river must be controlled and any proposed development in our area must not add to it. The Greiner Government has severely curtailed the original proposals for development in South Creek valley, which is outside my electorate but will impact heavily on Camden, and has deferred that proposed for Macarthur South, except possibly for a small area of Mt Gilead in the north, contiguous with urban Campbelltown. Also involved in the Macarthur South deferral are problems associated with coalmining, coal gas production and transport costs. The Greiner Government is cognisant of the problems in my area and will try to help overcome them.
The Labor Opposition has said much about stopping all urban development in my electorate, but where do they propose to house the extra one million people estimated to live in Sydney by the year 2006? Will they ask the Federal Government to alter immigration policy so that the 40 per cent to 48 per cent of migrants currently settling in Sydney live in areas of Australia where an increased population is needed? With the everincreasing cost of providing services to new developments on the urban fringe and the underusage of existing hospital and school facilities in the inner suburbs, urban consolidation is the only answer. I understand that such consolidation cannot meet the complete demand for housing. However, a speeding up of this process would allow better utilisation of a very scarce resource these days - money. More importantly though for people, it would provide homes near their families and friends, which would help to reduce the social problems seen in rapidly developing communities on the outskirts of Sydney.
I welcome particularly the Premier's announcement of proposals to redevelop 1,500 hectares of Australian defence industry land at St Marys and the City West project in Pyrmont-Ultimo, which will provide both housing and employment opportunities. Both incorporate proposals for a light rail public transport facility. Wherever a major increase in population is planned provision must be made for an adequate public transport system - one that is environmentally friendly and efficient, namely, a rail system. If urban consolidation is not speeded up, it is estimated that the suburban sprawl will extend to Picton-Bargo in my electorate. This is ridiculous. Not only will the lifestyle in my electorate be completely destroyed, but so will Sydney, the best city in Australia. I could not stand by and let this happen to my electorate or the city where I was born and where I grew up. Hence I am here tonight. No maiden speech would be complete without a quotation from some learned work. I have always remembered what my father wrote in my autograph book when I was 10 years old, and only later realised that he had quoted from Shakespeare's "Hamlet". It is:
This above all,
To thine own self be true;
And it must follow,
As the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River), Minister for Justice [7.55]: I congratulate the honourable member for Camden on her maiden speech. I have seen the public gallery packed on only three occasions: first at question time, second when the Premier
Page 2297
is speaking, and third when the honourable member for Camden made her maiden speech.
[Interruption from gallery]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! People in the gallery will desist from applauding.
Mr GRIFFITHS: In the short time that the honourable member has been a member of this House she has shown herself to be a lady of quality and integrity, a real asset to the House and a great representative for the area of Camden.
Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [7.58]: I rise to speak in the budget debate, but before doing so I congratulate the honourable member for Camden on her maiden speech. I should say at the outset that if Billy Wentworth had been here tonight, he would have thought he was a left-wing member of the Labor Party. It was probably the most extreme right-wing speech I have ever heard in this Chamber. It was even more extreme than anything the National Party would come up with. It has been stated many times in this budget debate that this is the fourth Budget brought down by the Greiner-Murray Government. As the Leader of the Opposition said, hopefully it will be the last Budget that this Government will bring down in New South Wales. The other day the Premier made a statement. He said it was about time he took the gloves off. He has taken them off and this week in the Chamber he has found that he cannot fight. This Government has the death rattles. Hopefully the people of New South Wales will get an election before Christmas so that the real population of New South Wales can show the present Government what they really think of it.
The Premier told us prior to the election that this was going to be a balanced Budget, that the Budget was going to come in with a surplus in the vicinity of $36 million. His figures were a little bit out, because when the Budget was delivered a few weeks ago we found there was not a $36 million surplus, but rather that they have come in with a deficit of $1,089 million. That is not a bad little figure to be out by. The people of New South Wales are being penalised and will continue to be penalised because of it. The Premier made great play at Budget time. He went down and symbolically had a meal of baked beans at the Matthew Talbot Hostel. I do not know whether he was trying to audition for "Blazing Saddles 2" or what the purpose was. But let me tell him that the people of western Sydney, the people of working-class New South Wales and the people of my electorate of Londonderry have been eating baked beans since this Government came to power in 1988. Things are so bad now that they cannot even afford the baked beans.
Mr Griffiths: It was worse four years ago.
Mr GIBSON: If the Minister comes out to western Sydney, he will get an argument about that very quickly. The secretary of the Treasury, Mr Percy Allan, said in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 25th September that the deficit would have been more than $2 billion if it had not been for the hard and tough decisions made
Page 2298
by the Government. He said the tough economic measures meant that the deficit was only $1,089 million. This Government came to power and told us that it was the new form of government - New South Wales Incorporated. Those on the other side of the House were born to be leaders! We have seen what has happened. In four short years, they have virtually bankrupted New South Wales. That has been their legacy. It is the most incompetent government that ever came to power. The people of New South Wales will tell them that at the next election, whenever it may be. The Budget will be remembered as a budget that cut capital works in many areas. In many instances it has been the first cut in capital works in certain areas.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The honourable member for Lane Cove will cease interjecting.
Mr GIBSON: The present Government has no major capital works planned for the next 12 months. That follows the pattern of the conservative governments that we have had, whether they have been New South Wales or Federal governments.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member will direct his remarks through the Chair.
Mr GIBSON: If we look at everything we have in this State - whether it be the Opera House, Darling Harbour, the Snowy River scheme, the Harbour Bridge or things that we needed in war time or in depressions, such as pensions - we see that they were all brought in by Labor governments. Honourable members know what the legacy of this Government will be. They will leave the legacy of the grand prix track at Eastern Creek. After four years, the only thing they have to show is a grand prix track in the western suburbs of Sydney. The Premier and the Government told us that the commitment that the taxpayer was going to make to the grand prix track was to be a mere $2 million. Unfortunately, that legacy of $2 million at the moment has reached about $82 million. What a legacy to leave New South Wales, particularly western Sydney. Mr Acting-Speaker, you would know that we need more things in western Sydney than grand prix tracks. I am pleased to see the Deputy Premier in the Chamber. One part of the Budget that I found to be a little misleading was the road spending program. The Government boasts about spending $1.3 billion on the roads program this year. That is fine. It tells us about the 3 x 3 program that we have to follow. That money will be put into the road system to give us better roads. But the Government fails to tell us that funding is down $90 million on what it was last year, even before the 3.5 per cent inflation rate is taken into account. It is one of the real minuses of this Budget.
There are another two alarming cuts in this Budget. One is in the health capital works area, for which funding is down 1.1 per cent in real terms; another is in the law and order budget, for which funding is down by 20 per cent in real terms. It is not good enough for the Government to tell us that in years gone by - in the last three or four years - those were the areas in which money was put. The Government forgets to tell us that in those two areas demand grows on a daily basis with the population. More
Page 2299
money is needed, not cutbacks, in those areas. There are parts of the Budget that I welcome. One relates to the $10 million that is going into the recession support program to help charities and organisations, such as St Vincent de Paul Society, the Salvation Army and others. That is fine, because it is needed in the western suburbs of Sydney.
[Interruption from the gallery]
Mr Rixon: The people are leaving the gallery. They are bored.
Mr GIBSON: They should stay and listen so that they might be better educated than they were by the previous speaker.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Members will refrain from commenting about members of the public in the gallery.
Mr GIBSON: I will do so. These organisations and charitable groups need money because people in western Sydney have fallen on very hard times. Demand for assistance has never been greater. There has not been enough money.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lismore will cease interjecting.
Mr GIBSON: He would not know where western Sydney is. There is plenty of money for building grand prix tracks. Grand prix tracks are needed when people are looking for a feed and are starving: that is the way that the Government looks at things. A lot more about the grand prix track will come out in the very near future. Another area which I support in the Budget is mortgage relief for unemployed. It is a move in the right direction, but possibly not far enough. The $2.8 billion under the recession support program will go to the mature workers program to help retrenched older workers re-enter the work force. That is fine, but it is fairly hypocritical to know that, on the one hand, the Government is spending money to help people to re-enter the work force, but on the other it is talking about sacking 12,500 public servants.
Mr Phillips: Nobody said sack.
Mr GIBSON: They will not have jobs.
Mr Phillips: It is voluntary redundancy.
Mr GIBSON: That is fine! How do people feed their children after they have received voluntary redundancy? What an insult to the people of New South Wales to tell them -
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Members should not interject. The member for Londonderry should be heard in silence, and should refrain from involving himself in verbal confrontation with interjectors for that only encourages them.
Page 2300
Mr GIBSON: I do not think that I have done that.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): I will accept the member's assurance that he will not do so.
Mr GIBSON: On one hand, the Government is giving money to get people back into the work force; on the other hand, it is sacking 12,500 public servants. We do not do those sorts of things. Consider the senior executive service. The Government started to move sensible legislation about the senior executive service only yesterday which has been supported -
[Interruption]
Mr GIBSON: I did not see honourable members on the Government benches talking to their mates yesterday and calling a division on this matter. They did not do so because they do not have the numbers in this place.
Mr Phillips: That has not been tested.
Mr GIBSON: It will be tested. The Minister should not worry about that. Our plan is to cut dramatically the number of people in the senior executive service, which is at 1,500. Under this self-claimed competent Government, this economic management, the wages of these people have jumped from around $100,000 to more than $250,000 in some cases. Take the secretary of Treasury to start with. Percy Allan is doing the same job today that he did when we went out of government in 1988. In 1988 Percy Allan was getting $99,000 a year. Today he would be on more than $200,000 for doing the same job. That is great economic management! That is rational! That is exactly what has happened across the spectrum. The Leader of the Opposition has lambasted this Government.
Mr Phillips: He has lied too.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Londonderry has the call and should be heard in silence.
Mr GIBSON: The Leader of the Opposition has stated that the worst area of mismanagement is in the area of waste. This State is by far the highest taxing State, with receipts up $900 million in the last Budget. Let me note some of the wastes that have been spoken about in this Chamber since the budget debate started. $50 million has been spent on government advertising including the $1 million spent on promoting Labor's work on ocean outfalls. There has been $400 million spent on consultants, including that spent by the Department of Agriculture. Some of the great schemes that money was spent on included speed reading workshops and what have you. That was of great advantage to the workers there! There has been $150 million a year spent on the senior executive service. The amount is nearly as large as the Federal expenditure on the Commonwealth senior executive service.
[Interruption]
Page 2301
Mr GIBSON: The Minister is a smarty. The extraordinary saga of waste and mismanagement has been exposed and will continue to be exposed as long as this Government remains in office. We must not forget, for the edification of the Deputy Leader, the $17 million spent on moving the Fisheries Division from Sydney to Orange, only to have to turn around and move it back to Sydney. It should never have been moved in the first place.
Mr Phillips: Wrong again.
Mr GIBSON: It is not wrong again. To see how this Budget will affect my seat of Londonderry I picked up the folder with the capital works program for 1991-92 and I thought there must have been pages missing. After checking I found that no pages were missing. The program is so light you could almost throw it in the air and read it on the way down. There is virtually nothing in it and it is an insult to the people in the electorate of Londonderry. In the Mount Druitt part of my electorate about 4,000 people have been on the public housing waiting list for between three and four years, and in some cases longer.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lismore to order.
Mr GIBSON: Do honourable members know how much building is projected to be undertaken in the Mount Druitt area where 4,000 people are on the waiting list? We are building 34 units of accommodation. In the Richmond section of my electorate, another fast-growing area with a large waiting list for housing, how many units of accommodation will be built this year? Six only. The western suburbs of Sydney is one of the fastest growing areas of Australia. More people live in western Sydney -
[Interruption]
Mr GIBSON: I am sure the honourable member for Lane Cove has never been to the western part of Sydney. It would be like going on holiday for her.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The honourable member for Londonderry has the call and other members will cease interjecting.
Mr GIBSON: More people live in western Sydney than live in Western Australia, South Australia or Tasmania. The amount of money spent on housing in the area is an insult to the people of Mount Druitt and to the people of my electorate. Two weeks ago I spoke in this Chamber about the need to provide one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation in Mount Druitt. Years ago people moved into three and four-bedroom homes. Now they have raised their families and their children have left home.
Page 2302
In some instances the husband or wife may have died and left one person living in a three or four-bedroom home. Many of these people have asked for smaller places in which to live. They cannot maintain the lawns or the homes. On the other side of the equation we have families with three, four and five children who are on the waiting list for accommodation. Nothing is to be provided in this Budget to build smaller units of accommodation. It is only common sense that if we could build smaller one and two-bedroom units, we could take people from three, four and five-bedroom homes and make those homes available to families who need them. That has not been done and nothing in this Budget will support that proposal.
The Budget will not increase funding for the police in my electorate. There is nothing for flood mitigation work. One of the first things the Greiner Government did was to abolish the position of chamber magistrate at Mount Druitt. I know of no part of New South Wales that needs a chamber magistrate more than Mount Druitt. But nothing in the Budget will support any move to get a chamber magistrate back to Mount Druitt. In the Budget $70 million is allocated for the Hawkesbury Hospital. What a laugh! What a terrible insult for the people of the Hawkesbury and also to Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Hawkesbury. That $70 million has been in the Budget Papers every year since the Government came to office.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
As I say, the $70 million has been in the Budget Papers before, but this time there is a difference. Instead of calling tenders, which the Government should be doing now, it is calling for private money to help build Hawkesbury Hospital. It is worth noting what the honourable member for Hawkesbury said about this, as reported in the Hawkesbury Gazette on 2nd October:
Hawkesbury MP, Kevin Rozzoli, believes the idea of private involvement will not "get past first base".
"That is based on what Mr Phillips said during his visit to the hospital and the fact there is not sufficient private health cover in the area to bring it into consideration.
"I have spoken to Mr Phillips' and Mr Hannaford's office staff and they do not think it is likely either but they said they have to look at every option `as a matter of course'."
In the same publication Mr Phillips is quoted as saying:
"In terms of this project, I am unaware of any private sector involvement or discussion. I am concerned with getting on with the job."
He dismissed the possibility of private funding being used because it would delay completion of the project.
I wonder what is going on. The Budget Papers state that the Government has called for private money, yet the Minister has said in that article that he knows nothing about it and private money will not be sought. I wonder what is happening with Hawkesbury Hospital. It is a sham that the Government has proposed for the people of the
Page 2303
Hawkesbury and the people of Londonderry. It is one of the most badly needed hospitals probably throughout Australia. The local people deserve better. It is also worth noting the comments of Mr Greg Allchin, the Chairman of the Wentworth Area Health Board, which is responsible for Nepean Hospital, Blue Mountains Hospital and Hawkesbury Hospital. Mr Allchin is quoted in the Penrith Press on 8th October as saying that 42 per cent of the population in the Wentworth area health service go outside the area for bread and butter treatment. They leave the area for ordinary treatment because they cannot get that treatment from local hospitals in western Sydney. The article stated:
Until last week Mr Allchin had been silent as the questions grew about what, if any, money was really coming to western Sydney, behind the promises made by the former Health Minister Peter Collins and his successor, Ron Phillips . . .
"Three years ago, when Collins first got in, it was promised we would get some of that money [coming from restructuring health resources],"
Once again we still haven't seen any of that money yet and it seems we're the easy option to cut when it gets difficult."
The Government talks about funds being moved from the inner city to the west. This is what Mr Allchin said about that:
"We've got $2 million when we were promised $4.5 million, the productivity savings we were told we wouldn't have to make have cost us another $1 million to $1.5 million and we've come out ahead by half a million," he said.
That situation cannot continue in western Sydney. As I said, $70 million has been promised in every budget delivered by the Government, but it has not been forthcoming. Another aspect of the Budget that concerns me relates to funding for bushfire control. I am pleased that the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads is in the Chamber to hear my remarks on this matter. We are facing probably the worst bushfire season the State has ever faced. There is no risk of that. I wonder if the Government is on top of the situation. At 3.30 today a press release was issued that stated there were unconfirmed bushfires in Kenthurst, the Central Coast and the Hunter region. It was issued by Mr Hannaford. Many homes have been burnt down and a raging bushfire has been burning for much of the day, yet the Government issued a press release at 3.30 to tell us the bushfires are unconfirmed. I wonder about the Government of this State.
This could not have come at a worse time because in the Budget there is nothing for the Hawkesbury by way of extra money for the bush fire fighters. For a long time I have been pushing for extra money for these services. Would honourable members believe that in that part of Sydney bush fire brigades are using vehicles that in some cases are 30 and 40 years old. We cannot get them replaced. Some of them do not have fire safety guards and last summer some fire fighters were almost burnt to death because of the inadequacy of the vehicles used. It was not too much to ask for. We asked for $547,233 so that these volunteers - and I emphasise volunteers - can do their jobs in safety. The Hawkesbury city council fire control officer, Bill Rogers, expressed
Page 2304
his dismay last week at the Government when it refused to provide the funds. That is a travesty. All that council got was $276,338, which left a shortfall of $271,000.
Mr W. T. J. Murray: Half your luck.
Mr GIBSON: The Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Roads has just said, "Half your luck". He is not sitting on the back of one of these trucks using equipment that is 30 years old and risking his life. What a comment for the Deputy Premier to make! I will pass that comment on to the bush fire fighters. I will tell them that the Minister was so concerned about their lives and safety that he made a cheap comment in the Chamber.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The honourable member for Londonderry and the Deputy Premier will cease their interchange across the Chamber.
Mr GIBSON: We will see how that goes down with the bush fire fighters. If anything happens and we lose lives because of bushfires, especially after the comment made by the Deputy Premier, it will rest on his shoulders, on the shoulders of other government Ministers and also on the shoulders of the minister for stuff-ups - the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The response of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services was nearly the same as the response of the Deputy Premier. He said that council would receive 11 per cent more funding than it received last year. Government funding last year was a disgrace; bush fire fighters, the people who put their lives on the line, were given only a pittance. I mentioned earlier other ramifications in this Budget for western Sydney. Facilities are being moved from the city to western Sydney. The Government is to close down St Joseph's Hospital at Auburn. Every year St Joseph's treats 30,000 patients. The average time taken to treat patients in casualty areas in any hospital in western Sydney is between three and a half hours and seven hours. Where will we accommodate those 30,000 patients who will not be able to go to St Joseph's? There is no talk of any new hospitals for that area. What nonsense! People in that area on low incomes cannot afford to go to the dentist. Seven months ago one mother went to the dentist and received two temporary fillings. Because of the long waiting list she has not been able to go back to have those temporary fillings removed. That is how bad things are in western Sydney. People in western Sydney waiting to get onto linear accelerator machines for the treatment of cancer are dying before they receive treatment. So it is nonsense for the Government to say that western Sydney will receive additional facilities.
The honourable member for Camden and I have spoken about air pollution in western Sydney. Because of cutbacks in the health budget we are not getting facilities we need in western Sydney. Most support groups in western Sydney have been operating for three to six years. The Blue Mountains Asthma Support Group has been forced to close because of a lack of funding by the State Government. That is a total disgrace. Last week the Western Sydney Area Health Service told that group that in future it could not even pay for its mailing list - for the 150 lousy letters that go out on
Page 2305
a monthly basis to educate people and families on how to treat children with asthma. The Western Sydney Area Health Service cannot afford to pay for that because of cutbacks by the State Government. The Government has talked about moving all these facilities out to the west, but that is just not happening. No more money is available for the ambulance service in my electorate or in western Sydney. Only a few months ago, at 7.30 on a Friday night, a person in my electorate knocked on the door of the Tregear ambulance station because he was crook, but he received no response because there was no one at the station. He had a heart attack and died at the front door of that station.
[Interruption]
Mr GIBSON: The Deputy Premier laughs when I mention that this poor bloke had a heart attack and died at 7.30 on a Friday night at an ambulance station. I will tell the people in western Sydney that all big Wal could do was laugh. What a joke he is! That is another ramification of the provision by this Government of health services for western Sydney. The Budget provides $11 million for capital works to build a gaol in my electorate. This gaol proposal was put through without an environmental impact statement and without consultation with the people in that area. Like a mongrel dog the Government sneaked this proposal through at Christmas time. When the Government tried to put the tip at Londonderry it finished up with egg all over its face. After two years the Government, like a mongrel dog, retrieved that proposal and the tip was not built. As I have said, the Government has moved facilities to the west but those facilities are not needed.
Mr W. T. J. Murray: You do not want a gaol?
Mr GIBSON: No, we do not. I am pleased that the Deputy Premier is in the Chamber. I will tell him what we will do when we get into government. We will sit down and analyse the situation. I am sure that Ku-Ring-Gai Chase would be a marvellous place for a grand prix track. When we get into government we will look at building two or three gaols somewhere between Crows Nest and Hornsby. It is only fair that people living on the North Shore should not have to travel too far to watch the bike races and to visit their friends and relatives in gaol. They should not have to go to western Sydney to do that; they should have those facilities on the North Shore. I am certain they will. It is a disgrace that there is nothing in the Budget for youth unemployment. There has been a 48 per cent cutback for capital works for courts and the legal system. Justice delayed is justice denied. People have been waiting for years to get justice in New South Wales and the list grows longer and longer. Some good work has been done in this area but it is not enough. The budget for the Independent Commission Against Corruption has risen from $12.1 million to $14.2 million but there is still no provision for witness protection programs. What a joke and what a farce that is! There is no provision in the Budget to support the toxic waste program. This Government has cut the guts out of the people of Londonderry. It has cut the guts out of the working class and out of New South Wales itself.
Page 2306
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon), Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads [8.28]: Mr Acting-Speaker -
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The Deputy Premier has the call.
Ms Nori: On a point of order. Quite clearly, I was on my feet. I sought the call before the Deputy Premier. I am happy to observe the parliamentary tradition that the call should be given alternately to the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, but the Deputy Premier should not attempt to say that he was on his feet before I was.
Mr W. T. J. Murray: On the point of order. I believe the honourable member for Port Jackson is reflecting on the Chair. She should apologise to the Chair.
Mr Gibson: On the point of order. We realise that the Deputy Premier is not only slow on his feet but also a little slow mentally. The honourable member for Port Jackson was on her feet before the Deputy Premier even thought about getting up.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I gave the call to the Deputy Premier. That is consistent with the tradition of this House of alternating the call between members from each side of the political forum. I reiterate that the Deputy Premier has the call, and I ask him to proceed.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: One of the great things about budgets is the interpretations that are put on them by people such as the honourable member for Londonderry. It is worth while picking up a few of the points he made in respect of budget expenditure. The honourable member talked about a reduction in the capital works program. With all due respect to him, I realise that he has a problem in adding up but if he refers to the figures in the years that the Labor Party was in government and compares those with figures for this year and last year he will see that capital expenditure this year is another record. The honourable member talked about the great benefits of Darling Harbour. Perhaps he would like to return some of the $720 million spent by the former Labor Government which this State will have to pay back for many years. New South Wales has an agreement with the Federal Government, known as the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. Under that agreement the Federal Government has the responsibility to match grants determined by the State. If the honourable member for Londonderry has in the western suburbs of Sydney as many housing problems as he claims, he should use some of his influence with the Federal Government, of which obviously he has little, to ensure that it provides adequate funds to this State so that we can match them under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. The honourable member for Londonderry delivered a rather interesting diatribe about the transfer of health facilities to the west.
Mr Gibson: Tell us a bit about the bloke you laughed at that died at the ambulance station.
Page 2307
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: I am sorry. What did you say?
Mr Gibson: I said tell us a little bit about the fellow who died at the ambulance station who you were so concerned about that you laughed at.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The comments of the honourable member for Londonderry are quite amusing. A person dying of a heart attack so quickly in such circumstances would have suffered that fate in any event. The honourable member for Londonderry complained about the lack of health facilities being transferred to the west. He makes that complaint at a time when facilities are being transferred. At the same time he supports a strike held within the city with regard to the management of the health care system. He supports that strike, though it took away from people who are ill the necessary attention that they so richly deserve; although the health budget this year has been increased in real terms by 1.4 per cent - an increase that the former Government did not provide. Perhaps the most interesting comment by the honourable member for Londonderry related to his desire to build a racetrack in Ku-Ring-Gai Chase. I wonder how that sits with many of his colleagues in the left-wing of the Labor Party who are so heavily concerned about the environment. Ku-Ring-Gai Chase is a national park and obviously the honourable member for Londonderry has no regard for national parks, which his colleagues so fervently support.
A large bushfire is raging today and all of us extend our condolences to the families of those who have died, and to those who have lost their homes and will suffer misery from the fires. Yet this member, through his party, supports a decision to prevent burning off in fire-affected areas, the taking of precautions to protect the many people in those areas. This person, through the operations of the groups within the national parks, says, as a result of the decision by His Honour Mr Justice Stein, these areas cannot be burned off or burned back; necessary protection required through the national park system cannot be taken to prevent a holocaust, such as is happening this evening. If ever there were an occasion for this man to go back and look at the situation with which he has been confronted with today, tonight is that time. How many greenies are out fighting the fires tonight? How many of the greenies that are causing the problems that are there tonight is he supporting? He is totally spineless in those activities, and the basis for the action that is occurring is such that he ought to hang his head in shame.
I welcome the opportunity to support the Budget and to commend the Government's fiscal policies to the people of New South Wales. This Budget represents a continuation of the Government's clearly defined strategy for economic reform - a strategy that is working and has earned universal praise and approval. It is worth making the point that if the economic policies pursued by previous Labor governments in New South Wales in the late 1980s had been allowed to continue, this State would now be on the scrapheap, bankrupt and broken. Instead, the State has weathered the recession and is in better shape than any other. This State has an above average performance in every financial aspect, and a better economic forecast than any other State. That just did not happen by chance; it was not luck which gave New South Wales an economy with the flexibility to withstand the rigours of a recession. It is the result
Page 2308
of a carefully planned strategy, mapped out and followed with diligence and resolve by a government with the spine to do the job without shirking its responsibilities. Though other States have failed to face up to their financial problems, New South Wales has tackled them front on.
When the coalition was elected in 1988 we inherited a rapidly deteriorating financial climate which, left uncorrected, would have resulted in New South Wales in a short time becoming an unmanageable State. Some other States have now reached that position and have still to take the hard decisions. The coalition cut the debt levels and set about lifting the burden from the State's shoulders. We are continuing to do that, and as the economic hardship begins to ease New South Wales will lead Australia out of the recession. No sane person could honestly suggest that a government led by this Leader of the Opposition could have turned the State economy around from disaster to stability. No one could suggest other than that this State would have been financially ruined under a Labor administration which in the past has demonstrated an insatiable appetite to borrow big and spend recklessly, with no serious regard for the consequences. The coalition has a financial strategy; the Opposition does not. We are employing every possible policy option, including privatisation and contracting out. We are requiring government trading enterprises to declare dividends, maximising asset sales and reducing surplus staff. The Opposition has no credible alternative strategy because it has no resolve for staffing efficiency, asset sales, contracting out services, or privatisation.
New South Wales Labor has been left behind, because other Labor States are now adopting the Government's strategy and copying our universally acclaimed reforms in transport, electricity, ports, water, forestry and fishing. The alternative to these budget savings and efficiencies would be to allow debt to grow uncontrolled or to increase taxes - a certain recipe for financial disaster. The success of this Government's financial strategy is made all the more essential when we take into consideration the hardships and deprivations that the Federal Government induced recession is inflicting upon the community. Not since the recession of the 1930s have economic conditions been so adverse for ordinary Australians. When there is hardship across the board it is particularly severe in rural New South Wales, where drought is adding to the woes of primary producers and rural businesses. Only today we learned that wool prices in Australia are lower, dollar for dollar, than they were in the 1930s. The drought has been so bad that Queensland this year will be lucky to produce 100,000 tonnes of wheat, instead of the 1.7 million or 1.8 million tonnes that it is capable of producing.
We have only to look at the products of our coast, cattle, sugar and all the other products coming into this State to realise the effects this drought will have upon communities right across this nation. The city of Sydney is feeling those effects severely now but it will be feeling them severely for a long time into the future. The only way out of the circumstances confronting this State will be from what can be produced from and under the land. The secondary industries of this State will not be capable of exporting New South Wales out of its troubles because of the cost strictures applied to this nation. This situation is exacerbated by an accord between the union movement and the Labor Party. Part of that accord is the maintenance of the dollar at 78c, which is
Page 2309
slowly and thoroughly destroying the operations of primary industry and the production areas of this nation. If that figure is not quickly reduced, the capacity for primary industry to recover, gain export dollars and get this country out of this mess will be diminished even further. This recovery will be land led. The sooner we realise that and commence taking action to ensure that recovery starts, the better off we will all be.
The Budget, framed in such difficult circumstances, pays special attention to the hardship and strictures being experienced by country people. The financial strategy recognises that it is vital to maintain confidence in the State's financial management and thus protect and improve our living standards. The importance of confidence is well illustrated by Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, where the loss of consumer and business confidence has exacerbated the impact of the economic recession. The loss of confidence in those States has soured investment and consumer attitudes. The flow-on has resulted in business downturn, with a resultant loss of jobs. The New South Wales economic strategies have demonstrated to the public, commerce and industry that New South Wales has managed better than the other States and that we are better positioned to emerge first from this recession. All the economic indicators show that the people of New South Wales have the necessary confidence in this Government's ability to manage this State. They are being rewarded, as a result of good management, by a decline in taxes relative to other States. New South Wales has shifted from being a State of relatively high tax rates to one in most cases with average or low tax rates.
This Government has concentrated on putting its own house in order by efficiency and productivity. Total public sector employment has fallen by 20,000 since June 1988 and productivity has improved dramatically. A New South Wales Treasury survey of seven of the largest government trading enterprises reveals that employee productivity will increase by 67 per cent in 1993-94. At the same time overall staff numbers in the government trading enterprise sector have been reduced from 96,000 in June 1988 to 74,000 in June this year - a decrease of slightly more than 23 per cent. The State Rail Authority and the Electricity Commission were the main players in this downsizing exercise, the SRA shedding 10,000 positions and Elcom 3,600 positions. Yet, in both authorities the volume and quality of services have risen, despite the decrease in staff numbers.
The Government's financial strategy calls for further staff reductions. It is expected that in 1991-92 the overall public sector employment level will reduce by 7,000 positions, or 2.4 per cent. This will be achieved by natural attrition and voluntary redundancies. Because of the severe economic circumstances and the need for fiscal restraint, no new capital works projects will be implemented this year, despite the figure allocated being a record projected $5.517 billion, a real increase on the record 1990-91 program. The Budget will allow this Government to maintain services and increase the level of support to those in need. Much of that support will be directed to country New South Wales, where the recession, drought and poor commodity prices have combined to inflict hardship and higher levels of unemployment. The Government has recognised its responsibility to these people who find themselves in needy circumstances. This year welfare services will increase, with a 1991-92 allocation representing a real growth of 8.5 per cent.
Page 2310
If proof were needed to demonstrate how inept the Opposition would be at handling the State's finances, that proof is presented dramatically in the Opposition's road policy. Honourable members should consider the following information in the light of recent statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. If he were ever Premier, he would not contemplate allowing his budget to blow out. Earlier I outlined the figures and detail given by the Leader of the Opposition in his five-year road program. He got those figures so wrong that the roads policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition would blow a Labor Party budget apart. Who knows what other monumental mistakes the Leader of the Opposition has made in the sums with respect to the Opposition's policy on health, education, public housing, transport and law and order.
The Budget this year provides $1.7 billion for New South Wales roads. During the 1991-92 financial year almost $700 million will be spent on rural roads throughout New South Wales. This represents 52.4 per cent of the roads capital works program. The amount of $372 million will be spent on the completion of enhancement works, while the balance of $323 million will be spent on maintenance and restoration work. Because of the critical funding situation caused by a significant downturn in government revenue and a withdrawal of adequate funding from the Federal Government, no new State funded road construction works will be carried out this year under the base program. It is worth while recognising that from 1983 to 1991 road funding from the Commonwealth has been reduced by $50 million. However, maximum funding will be provided for the RTA's core activities of road safety, preservation of the road network and traffic management. The $695.4 million being provided for rural roads includes $110.4 million from the 3 x 3 road improvement program. This program is providing a much needed boost for country roads, with 60 per cent of the total funds collected being spent in New South Wales. Those funds are being provided because during the 12 years of Labor Government the deterioration in roads across country New South Wales was such that they were virtually destroyed. This Government has provided expenditure for the upgrading, maintenance and construction of those roads that has brought them up to a level where they are now trafficable.
It is significant that even in this period of severe recession the estimated level of expenditure of total capital works on roads in 1991-92 is some $1.327 billion, or 20 per cent more in real terms than when the Liberal Party-National Party took over from Labor in 1988. State funding for the road budget has increased by 23.6 per cent since 1988, the last year of Labor's decline into financial failure. Privatisation is gaining importance in the provision of roads in New South Wales. Private venture tollways are under construction on the F4 western and F5 southwestern freeways. Construction of the F4 freeway tollway started in April 1990 and is expected to be completed in 1992, at least 10 years earlier than would have been the case if the Government had to fund that project. Construction of the F5 freeway was started in February this year and will be completed in two stages, by 1994 and 1995. All the obvious benefits of those tollways will be wiped out in one go if Labor ever gets the chance to honour its commitment. But the truth is that Labor does not intend to scrap the tollways, because it knows it cannot afford to do so. Several other tollways are under consideration. The only alternative to this approach is a savage cutback in the new road construction
Page 2311
program over the next 10 years. That is unacceptable but is likely to happen under Labor when its budget blows sky high.
The Budget presents a working plan for difficult times. It does not hide the unpalatable facts of life which are forced on the Government and the community by a federally inspired recession. The Budget is an extension of the Government's strategy to provide a lean and efficient public service which can produce value for money for consumers and better results for taxpayers. The rewards of the strategy will be lower taxes, lower charges, more jobs and higher living standards for the people of New South Wales. If ever the people of New South Wales have been confronted with the facts of life, they certainly are today by the actions of the Labor Party, having regard to the statements on the Budget made by the Leader of the Opposition which would lead them into a further state of depression. I commend the Budget.
Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [8.53]: I was elected in 1988, which means that this is the fourth occasion on which I have participated in a budget debate. Each year the situation seems to worsen for the people of New South Wales. I am afraid that this 1991-92 Budget is a great disappointment for those who have been hit hardest by the New South Wales Government. Unfortunately it provides no relief for the ordinary battling family. New South Wales still has the highest average increase in government taxes and charges to March 1991. We pay an average of $251 per head more in State government taxes and charges than do our counterparts in Victoria. In 1987-88 revenue from State taxes and charges was 5.6 per cent of the gross State product; in 1990 that percentage had risen to 6.7 per cent of the gross State product. On top of that comes the $1 billion deficit. The State deficit clearly will continue, and at a rate of approximately $1.75 billion to $2 billion each year for the next three years. That kind of deficit is a disaster for the New South Wales economy. No doubt many sources of government revenue have decreased. New South Wales subsidises the other States and undoubtedly is being affected by the recession. But land tax revenue has increased by 26 per cent, a huge increase in income from that source.
Also in 1991, receipts from taxes, fees and fines have increased by 11.1 per cent, three times the rate of inflation. Revenue from government authorities has been increased by 54 per cent. One would expect that in such hard economic times as are faced in 1991 the Government would have made economies in appropriate areas and would have found ways to protect those who have been hit hardest. One area in which one would have expected the Government to keep a check would have been in regard to waste. In fact there has been a saga of waste - $50 million a year on government advertising; $400 million on consultants; $150 million on the senior executive service; $17 million to transfer the Division of Fisheries of the Department of Agriculture to Orange, and now it is coming back to Sydney. In addition there has been the saga of Eastern Creek, the Herscu affair, the money to Fairfax and so on. Because of that waste the Government has foisted a harsh and unconscionable budget on New South Wales. The first place one notices how down and out we are in New South Wales is when one realises how insubstantial is the capital works program for 1991. It is a flimsy document. When I looked at it I thought something was wrong. I consulted other honourable members and they faced the same problem. Their capital works programs
Page 2312
are worse than mine in Port Jackson, where many of the programs relate to things in the central business district, the head offices of departments and not necessarily to the residents and constituents of the electorate.
In many ways the Budget is notable for its omissions. One obvious omission concerns health services. In the Port Jackson electorate the only new major works related to health are associated with refurbishments and changes at Rozelle Psychiatric Hospital. The only works in progress are at the same place. They are the only two entries related to health in the Port Jackson electorate, which includes the central business district and the inner city. I am pleased that those refurbishments are taking place at the Rozelle Psychiatric Hospital, for they are much needed. However, it is a pity that the support for health in the inner city area stops there. I am disappointed that the new works do not include a forensic unit at the Rozelle hospital, which is badly needed. I did a tour of the hospital not long ago. It was clear that some patients there - for the protection of other patients, staff, the community and for their own protection - need to be put in isolation for short periods. I saw the unit where one such patient has to be kept at present. It is Dickensian. That is not the fault of the staff or the hospital administration; it is simply that, as with so many things in the inner city, the unit was built a long time ago, last century or at the turn of this century, and did not have the twentieth century in mind. I urge the Minister for Health Services Management and the Government to take on board the need for a forensic unit so that people can be kept at that hospital in isolation, but in comfort and appropriate care.
Rozelle hospital is the only hospital in the inner city area that seems to benefit from any funding provided in the Budget. What is happening to Balmain Hospital and Sydney Hospital? Sydney Hospital has been absolutely crucified. What has happened to the moneys that were pledged in previous budgets for the redevelopment of Sydney Hospital? One has only to walk down the street to see the big hole in the ground; it remains an eyesore. It is testimony to the fact that tenders had been let and the refurbishment of Sydney Hospital was to proceed, with major changes being made. All that one sees there is the big hole that was dug some time ago. Clearly Sydney Hospital, like a lot of other hospitals in the inner city, is to be crucified. Why has the program been abandoned? Sydney Hospital has a great tradition and pioneering spirit. It was the scene of so many firsts in the medical field. Why is it being downgraded - and, I believe, eventually closed? Where is the money for the Eye Hospital that was meant to be incorporated into Sydney Hospital? Where will the 500,000 people who come to the city as tourists, workers, visitors or shoppers go when they suffer an accident or some trauma?
We are told that St Vincent's Hospital and Prince Alfred Hospital casualty departments are where people are meant to go. Those casualty wards are nearly always closed. I must concede that that is not quite true. Since members like me have been raising this issue in the Parliament, St Vincent's casualty has been kept open. Unfortunately, it is an artificial situation because it has been able to do so only at the expense of closing down all elective surgery. It is quite clearly a political stunt. I cannot say that casualty has closed, but it might as well be because clearly, if the hospital cannot keep its casualty ward open and keep up its commitment to elective
Page 2313
surgery, it does not have the funds to operate properly. I did a tour of Sydney Hospital on Monday evening. It depressed me greatly. I visited the day procedure unit, which has been refurbished in the last couple of years. It is a nice unit. It is quite modern; it has all the modern conveniences that one would expect a modern day procedure unit to have.
Of all the units that are to be closed and moved, why has the Government directed that the DPU be moved to an old building which, under the original plan for refurbishment, is to be demolished? Why has a beautifully refurbished medical ward been closed down while an old Florence Nightingale style of ward is being kept open? It does not make sense. What is the Government planning for Sydney Hospital if its best wards are to be closed or moved unnecessarily to buildings that should be pulled down? I felt quite distressed when I walked into the intensive care unit to see that only three beds were operating. A space showed where a number of beds had been removed in the previous week or so. The monitors and so on were still there, but the ICU had been effectively demolished. Apparently these ICU beds are to be moved to a general ward.
As a said in the Chamber not long ago, although I am not a trained nurse I worked in a lot of hospitals as a nurse's aide in another life prior to my time in Parliament. I know enough to realise that a casualty service cannot be run - as the Government boasts that Sydney Hospital can offer - without having the backup of an ICU. An ICU is just that - it is an intensive care unit. It is not four beds with a few monitors stuck in the middle of a general ward without the specialist and additional staff required to staff it properly. It is not fair on the nurses and sisters in the general ward to have to look after ICU patients when they will not get additional staff. They may not have the specialist training, although I do not doubt their capacity in a technical sense to handle the work. Ambulances that bring patients to the casualty ward at Sydney Hospital will not have the resources to do a double handle. In other words, double handled patients who go into casualty for an emergency will not be able to be taken care of at Sydney Hospital because it does not have a backup ICU. In the long run, ambulances simply will not take patients to casualty at Sydney Hospital and down the track the Government will say, "Oh, hospital numbers are down. People are not using casualty", and will use that as an excuse to close the hospital down.
Sydney Hospital is becoming like a mausoleum. The staff are terribly demoralised. They are worried about where they will get jobs. They keep ringing different hospitals to find out where the vacancies are. They have rung every hospital from the coast hospital to the Nepean, and there are no vacancies. I take no heart from the assurances that were given in this Chamber by the Minister for Health only a few hours ago because I know that the reality is quite different from that which he attempted to purport in this Chamber. I am also concerned that the current budget of Sydney Hospital is $3 million short of what is required to run it effectively, even in its diminished state. The number of beds has been reduced to 50, and the Government is not providing enough money to run it even at that minimal level. I stress, as I have before, that a 50-bed hospital cannot be run viably because a 50-bed hospital with a casualty ward still needs to have some sort of infrastructure in the form of an X-ray department, pharmacy and so on. That cannot be sustained in a 50-bed hospital.
Page 2314
I am terrified. I know what the Government is going to do. Down the track, it will say that the hospital is not viable and will then close it. I stress, as I have in previous debates, that the Government must realise that the central business district is a major tourist centre. It attracts a lot of visitors every day; 500,000 in fact. We must have a hospital in the inner city that can treat people who unfortunately require urgent medical attention in the inner city. We are told that people can go to Royal Prince Alfred or St Vincent's hospitals. That is unfair on those hospitals. They are already under enormous pressure and they simply will not be able to deal with the overload. On top of that we have the imminent downgrading of Balmain Hospital. In about August rumours went around that it was to be closed. I believe that those rumours were correct. People realised that there would be an uproar, and the Government changed its mind. Then we heard that it was to be downgraded a little. Now it is quite clear that the hospital is to be dismantled and will become nothing more than a geriatric and palliative care institution. In other words, casualty will go; there will be no more medical or surgical beds; and this important local community hospital will, in effect, cease to exist.
I want to stress the importance of local community hospitals. Lately we have seen too much of local community hospitals being dismantled, one, for example, being the Homeopathic Hospital in Glebe. People like to know that they have a local hospital to go to that is not far from their home and not so huge and monstrous that they feel lost within its confines. People like to go to a local hospital where they feel that they will be treated as an individual and not just as one patient amongst thousands. We are told that they will have to go to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and that it will do this, that and everything else for the city. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital does not want to be the district hospital for the inner city. It is not economic for it to be so; nor is that its proper role within the health system of New South Wales. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital is, quite properly, a tertiary referral service for the whole of New South Wales. It is interested in pioneering work that will one day become the norm in all hospitals. That is its proper role and it is quite proper that we have a tertiary referral service in the inner city. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital will probably have to try to fulfil that other role because for a long time now the Government has starved hospitals like Balmain Hospital.
I related earlier the case of some nurses in a ward who required two blood pressure machines for which the funds were not forthcoming. Honourable members should imagine trying to run a medical ward with stroke patients. They quite often have to have their blood pressure taken and monitored to ensure that they are not about to have another stroke. Honourable members should imagine not being able to afford two sphygmomanometers. Even toasters for patients in the ward have to be provided through raffles run by nurses or the ladies auxiliary. I do not think that is good enough in any hospital in New South Wales. Another example of the lack of funding for Balmain Hospital is that the Government failed to provide it with a mere $50,000 for an instrument that would enable surgeons to perform basic operations, such as the removal of gall bladders, using a much more state-of-the-art technique. It would mean that people would be staying in hospital only for three to four days as opposed to seven to 10 days under old-fashioned techniques. Because of that, the number of gall bladder
Page 2315
removals has gone down to about a tenth of what it used to be a year or so ago. I have information from doctors and so on in the area that they feel that the Government has been deliberately undermining Balmain Hospital in ways such as I have described in order to make its figures look bad and to justify its downgrading - but hopefully not its closure.
Balmain Hospital simply cannot keep up with the demand of the local population, which begs the question of what will happen when it is downgraded. I have a constituent in her seventies who, unfortunately, has had a terribly long battle with cancer of the bowel. She also has a terrible skeletal problem such that one of her legs is almost bent into a V. She desperately needs a knee operation. She cannot hold her own weight in order to walk, and this creates enormous problems because she has had her bowel resectioned and needs to wear a colostomy bag. She is in tremendous agony. Her family desperately wants her to live her final years in some dignity, and she simply cannot do it; she cannot walk. She has battled all her life, and it seems so unfair that she has to wait another six to 10 months just to have a knee operation. I have begged the hospital to do anything to try to get her in, but I do not seem to get anywhere. It is not right for someone in that condition in the twilight of her life to have to put up with that kind of treatment. I am also concerned, as are the staff of Balmain Hospital, about a new system to be introduced whereby the ratio of enrolled nurses to trained nurses will be more than reversed. The ratio will change to one trained nurse to four enrolled aides. I have worked as a nurse's aide, and I know that it is impossible to run a surgical and medical hospital with that kind of ratio of trained staff to untrained staff.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
The restructuring that is going on in the inner city is designed to provide hospitals in the inner west, and is supposed to give us our district hospital in the inner city and our paediatric casualty unit in the city when the children's hospital goes to Westmead. However, I am concerned that the Central Sydney Area Health Service is in such a parlous financial situation that any savings made from restructuring will be absorbed into that debt and we will miss out on our district hospital and our paediatric casualty unit. I urge the Government to ensure that that is not the case. I am very concerned that of the 2,000 trainee nurses who will come on stream in the next 12 months, at best only 1,200 will be guaranteed employment at the end of their training. That is most unfair. Nurse training is very specialised. It is not as if they can hop sideways into another profession. It really means going back to a tertiary institution to undertake further studies. They were specially recruited with a very glossy campaign, specially enticed into the profession. They put in three long, hard years of study and now many of them will not have a job. Even though it has been a while since I worked in a hospital, I know that in a hospital you cannot replace human beings with machines. There are not fewer bedpans to be changed, temperatures checked, blood pressure readings to be taken, dressings to be attended and so on. I fail to see what has changed in the hospital system that means we can do without almost half the trainees who will come on stream. I would like to move to the issue of land tax. I was pleased to hear the Premier say that land tax for boarding-houses is to be abolished. I hope that means there will be some relief in sight for some of my constituents who own the Ryan's
Page 2316
Private Hotel at 161 Castlereagh Street which is home to 38 people who, if they cannot live there, will be on the street. My constituents' share of the land tax on that place has risen from $1,000 in 1980 to $39,000 in 1991.
Mr Causley: Is that my mate, John Ryan?
Ms NORI: Marg Ryan - they are country people. In 1980 land tax on the building was $4,000 a year and is now $155,000. There is a real anomaly here. My constituents have written to the Premier who has replied saying that they will not be exempt from land tax despite the fact that section 510Q of the Land Tax Management Act states that if a building is used primarily as a boarding-house it will be land tax exempt in recognition of the purpose and role it plays in providing low cost housing. The anomaly is this: Ryan's Private Hotel is situated in a four-storey building. It occupies two storeys of that building, that is, 50 per cent of the building. I argue that could come within the terms of being primarily used for the purposes of a boarding-house. The Premier's reply was that they do not come under the provisions of the Act. If the Ryan's Private Hotel happened to be in a two-storey building and occupied the whole two storeys, it would unquestionably be land tax exempt. The further anomaly is that the Ryan family is not asking for half of the building to be land tax exempt. It is asking only for its one quarter of the land tax. For some reason it pays only one quarter of the land tax. I presume that is some arrangement between the family and the owner of the building. I believe that the $39,000 that the Government would forgo in income from those premises would be worth while from the Government's point of view because 38 people would literally not find a home somewhere else and I ask the Government to take note of that.
The real problem for the inner city is that if we lose a place such as the Ryan's Private Hotel or any other boarding-house, there are not 100 other people willing to jump in and start another establishment like it. Once we lose that sort of low cost accommodation, it is gone. Land values are too high and people will not go into boarding-houses as there is not enough money in it. I note in the Budget the capital works allocation for the Legislature, that is, Parliament House. Parliament House falls within my electorate of Port Jackson and I somehow feel slightly responsible for what happens here. Madam Deputy-Speaker, you would be interested in this, particularly as we are to form some sort of parliamentary women's group here in Parliament House. I appreciate that times are tough but at some point I believe we must look at work-based child care in Parliament House, in recognition of the fact that more and more women are becoming members of Parliament and taking senior positions. Child care is a very important part of ensuring that women have proper access to positions of all sorts in society. It becomes quite difficult for women with children to aspire to positions -
[Interruption]
Ms NORI: It is not discrimination. I make the point that not too many male members of Parliament have been disadvantaged by having a young family. I do not think that is the case for women members. I believe we should look at child care facilities here in Parliament House. It would bring us into the twentieth century.
Page 2317
Another thing we could look at is why the temperature of this place is always set at a level to suit men in three-piece woollen suits and why the women have to freeze. I am pleased to note that the Water Board is providing some money for repairs to its sewerage line in Balmain because high coliform counts have been measured in the harbour adjacent to Elkington Park and the Water Board has a proposal to help alleviate the problem. So it should, because it is the collapse of the Water Board's sewerage line that has created this environmental problem. It is of real concern to me. Judging by the figures quoted, I imagine there may well have been a risk to public health. I hope that the works undertaken by the Water Board will be sufficient and not too little too late to prevent contamination of the harbour from the collapse of the line. I hope the collapse of the sewerage line was not due to neglect or ignorance on the part of the Water Board.
I hope that the Maritime Services Board will look at another section of the harbour at Long Nose Point in Balmain where I understand the retaining wall has collapsed again. I notice no allocation for that in the Budget but I think it occurred since the Budget was delivered. I urge the Government to ensure that very beautiful part of the harbour is protected for posterity. I am disappointed that the capital works allocation for the Port Jackson electorate allows for the construction of only 35 new dwellings. I am pleased to note that moneys have been allocated for the refurbishment of a number of homes in Glebe and in Millers Point. I urge the Government to bring the refurbishment program to a speedy conclusion. The old church estates in Glebe have been in the process of refurbishment for the last umpteen years. Quite clearly there will not be much new building work in the inner city as land is in short supply, so the refurbishment program takes on new meaning. I urge the Government to make sure that sufficient funds are allocated to bring the refurbishment to a speedy conclusion.
I have been unable to find a reference in the Budget Papers to funds sought by Leichhardt municipal council to have the Leichhardt swimming pool complex upgraded so that it can become an all-year pool with an aquatic centre and other sporting facilities. It would be a real asset, not just to the local residents. It would have regional significance and provide residents of the inner city with an opportunity and venue to improve their lifestyle through exercise. The final reference I wish to make in this debate is to something which has angered and disturbed me, that is, the Government's cut to the curriculum resources information team. That used to be the centralised resource or back-up for school librarians. It has been decimated and only one staff member is left. It makes it a farce. These cuts have had a drastic impact on school library services. In fact, we have not yet seen the worst of it. All New South Wales cataloguing positions with the Australian School Catalogue Information Service have been eliminated. No records will be contributed from New South Wales to the national database because New South Wales will no longer be a member of the curriculum corporation. The automatic cataloguing through the centralised computer system which used to take librarians about 10 minutes will now take 30 to 45 minutes.
Given that teachers do face to face teaching for most of the day, they have only an hour and a half to two hours each week to do cataloguing. And they already work after hours to try to keep the library in some sort of shape. Clearly, they will be expected to give up weekends, holidays and everything else. That is the only way
Page 2318
school libraries will continue. Teachers will have to go back to a manual Dewey system, which would be just like going back 50 years. The role of school librarian today is different from that when most of us went to school. In those days going to library classes was just a chore that 10-year-olds had to endure. But now school librarians even in primary schools are very central to the teaching service. They are important in providing teachers with material and resources for classroom work. The nature of the work that is undertaken within the library class is quite different. I notice that from my own children who are now doing projects that most of us would not have even attempted until later primary school or even high school. So any attack on the school library system is incredibly dangerous. It is dangerous to the best interests of our young children - our future in New South Wales.
Another service was provided by a centralised system - a review service called Scan. Once a month a document was produced which was sent to schools which would have analysed or summarised the contents and relevance of any new material that had come onto the market. So teachers did not have to sit down and reinvent the wheel every time and read every book as it came onto the market. This would have been done centrally by a team of experts who could inform the school what book would be appropriate and in what circumstances. That has gone. Teacher librarians will no longer have this valuable assistance for the selection of new materials. In 1989 60 per cent of library services were cut. This further cut is totally unconscionable. The Government should reverse its decision.
Mr SMILES (North Shore) [9.22]: I support the Budget. Before speaking in the budget debate I wish to acknowledge a comment made by the honourable member for Port Jackson about land tax. Having some responsibility for the Office of State Revenue and as Assistant Treasurer I am conscious of the problems associated with land tax and its definition in regard to boarding-houses. I invite the honourable member to present to me the information to which she alluded in her speech. On behalf of the Government I will look at the issue extremely closely. This evening I will focus on the realities of the recent Budget and its impact on the private sector or the business community in New South Wales. Too often we focus in our budget deliberations on matters of internal importance, matters of procedure and matters of comparison. Too often we overlook the real impact of the Budget on the business sector and the community at large. It is important for the House to be aware that the New South Wales Government will spend in excess of $25 billion on the private sector in New South Wales and elsewhere. That means $25 billion of business opportunities in which the New South Wales business sector can participate. That means $25 billion plus of challenge for successful business organisations in the private business sector to come and talk with the State Government in pursuit of their longevity.
Too often in the course of budget deliberations we have focused strongly on the Government's attempts, quite rightly, to reduce the number of public servants and those associated with government enterprises in this State in an effort to increase efficiency and reduce costs to the New South Wales taxpayer. However, whatever the reduction in numbers, I believe this House should be mindful of the fact that we are talking about the employment of 295,000 persons directly associated with the inner sector and
Page 2319
statutory authorities which admittedly are outside the Budget under consideration this evening. Every week in New South Wales those public sector employees collectively will take home in their pay packets well over $105 million. Obviously, $105 million each and every week would provide massive opportunities for successful, aggressive, competitive, efficient business in New South Wales to prosper. Apart from that significant employment, I believe it is appropriate to focus on a number of provisions in the Budget that should be alerting the business community in New South Wales to the tremendous range of opportunities for it to do business with the New South Wales Government.
I turn now to capital expenditure in the free enterprise sector. The capital program in this Budget is projected at $5,517 million. That is not only a real increase; it also includes major features such as education, for which the capital works expenditure will be $352 million. There will be $60 million for the design and construction of sporting facilities at Homebush Bay, and $621 million for electricity generation. Housing and homesite development programs, which will provide an opportunity for the private sector to do business with the New South Wales Government, will total $638 million. Water and sewerage services expenditure will be at least $693 million. Public transport expenditure will total $583 million and roads program expenditure, which I will allude to a little later, will consume $1,328 million, all of which will be spent in the private sector. The health services capital works programs will give the building industry a $309 million opportunity to do work. Finally, law and order and public safety capital works will be allocated $221 million for construction and similar business opportunities.
A variety of big ticket items are in the Budget. The Premier in his Budget Speech emphasised that the Government would continue to consider the importance of private venture tollways. He said that, apart from the F4 and F5 freeways, the Government had several others in mind. In recent days we have seen initial publicity for the sale of the GIO Australia. We have heard frequent mention - the Premier again reminded us of this in his speech - that the State Bank will be up for sale. In future the majority of construction projects previously undertaken by the Roads and Traffic Authority in-house will be handed to the private sector. Maintenance by contractors is being tried and we hope that the outcome will determine that contracting should be extended to all Roads and Traffic Authority road maintenance. In the rural sector Graincorp is up for sale and negotiations are under way. All these ventures constitute major business opportunities for the private sector in this State. In this Budget we are spending $71.3 million on State development and tourism. This money will be spent to help the business sector in a number of ways. This will include the implementation of the fundamental review of programs. We will be reflecting on key issues which will include overcoming impediments to private sector participation in public infrastructure. We will be looking also at the inclusion of the Business Support Unit, enlarging the role of the Department of State Development in encouraging business development and competitiveness and assisting business to locate and expand throughout New South Wales.
Page 2320
The State Development and Tourism portfolio will concentrate also on attracting, promoting and encouraging strategic, beneficial business for the State. Assistance will be given to small business to link business clients with specialists in the public sector to improve overall competitiveness - so important to this sector. The Government will target potential business growth areas of aerospace, defence and telecommunications. Funds will be allocated to encourage the capturing of major telecommunications investments for the State. We will identify business opportunities from new technology in the information, scientific, medical instruments, and processed food industries. There will be finance to facilitate the growth of private sector tourism industry, through assistance and advice to private sector operators.
Certain corrective services will be contracted out. For example, the Budget provides for privatisation, an example of which is the successful contracting out of the design, construction and management of the proposed prison at Junee. The Budget provides also for the contracting out and privatisation of certain Chullora workshop fire brigade activities. In the major Budget portfolio of health the Government is encouraging the development and use of private hospitals to reduce waiting lists. The Budget allocates $9.5 million in grants and subsidies to non-government organisations to provide complementary health services; $4.5 million for grants to non-government organisations engaged in the education, counselling and treatment of drug and alcohol addicted persons; and $2.5 million for the provision of public health awareness programs, particularly dental and drug and alcohol services for Aborigines. The Government will continue with commercialisation and competitive tendering for non-service delivery areas, such as cleaning and catering. These are all areas of the health arena in which the private sector can participate.
Home purchase assistance of up to $1,553 million is budgeted for, including funding for the rent-buy scheme, which enables applicants to buy a share of between 39 per cent and 90 per cent of a property, with private investors purchasing the remaining part of the property. In 1990-91 a pilot program of 200 loans was successfully undertaken. This year that opportunity will be expanded. By comparison with the major portfolios of health, education and so on, the arts is a small budget sector. Through a treaty with private sector interests the Gunnery building will be refurbished this year to provide a centre for the visual arts. The private sector will be invited also to submit expressions of interest in providing accommodation for individual artists within the building.
For the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs the Budget provides $53.6 million for plant industry programs concerned with pastures and all field and horticultural crops, allowing for the cost of research into crop diseases, pests and so on. The private sector will have the opportunity to share in animal industry programs, for which $42.2 million has been budgeted. The sum of $40 million has been budgeted for support services, comprising advisory services, grants to promote advancement of agriculture and agricultural services to improve performance on commodity prospects, economic conditions and so on, and the development of agricultural prospects overseas. That $40 million has been budgeted essentially to assist private business in this State to prosper. The department will maintain a continuing increased involvement, through
Page 2321
Agsell, with the private sector to increase investment in the value-added processing of agricultural products before export.
In the energy portfolio $8.4 million has been allocated for the central dialling zone electrification. Elcom again is inviting companies to tender by December for its eight Central Coast mines, with coal being sold on a competitive tender basis. On the subject of tendering, within the Budget and associated government considerations there are both large and small opportunities for participation by the business sector. I shall give an example of one large and one small opportunity. Within health the expansion of tendering opportunities for hospital cleaning and catering will provide business opportunities running into tens of millions of dollars. At the lower end, the Maritime Services Board will endeavour to privatise a 110-berth marina at Bateman's Bay. In reviewing the Budget - whether relating to employment, capital expenditure, privatisation, departments such as State Development and Tourism, fire brigades, health, housing, the arts, agriculture or energy - it can be seen that there are millions and millions of dollars of opportunity for the private sector to do business with the New South Wales Government. In brief, this Budget represents a magnificent opportunity for the private sector to realise that the New South Wales Government wants to do business with New South Wales business.
Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [9.36]: The Budget was formally handed down on 24th September, but the decisions that really lie behind the Budget were announced well ahead of that, on 2nd July. If one wants to know the impact of the Budget on the community, one need only read the responses in the newspapers following the announcement of 2nd July. They included headlines such as, "Greiner's axe falls" and, "12,500 to lose their jobs". The Premier said that the cuts are people painless. That is a load of nonsense. From people of all walks of life who come to my office and speak to me in the street and as I go to functions I hear only about the pain they are encountering. These people are workers in education, health, transport, community services and ethnic affairs. There are the victims of the loss of services. They are parents, patients, passengers. There is a common thread throughout all the responses I hear to the Budget: that the experiment of Greinerism has failed. It has failed because of lies and because of unfulfilled promises. Those two go hand-in-hand.
I shall give the House a good example: the size of the deficit. Last year we were told the State had a zero deficit. However, according to these Budget Papers the reality is that New South Wales has a deficit of more than $1 billion. We were told also that the State debt would be reduced. What a sad unfulfilled expectation that has been. First we had the lie peddled in the interpretation of the Curran Report that New South Wales had a debt of $46 billion at the change of government in 1988. However, we know now that it was not a $46 billion debt but $46 billion in liabilities. The debt was $24 billion. Now it is $28 billion. The debt has not been reduced. You can fiddle with the figures; you can undertake a calculation of two-fifths of five-eighths of some factor or other to try to make it sound better, but in reality after three and a half years of Greinerism the State debt has increased. There have been lies and unfulfilled promises.
Page 2322
The Curran report stated that New South Wales had liabilities of $46 billion. At the end of last year that figure had increased to $54 billion, and in the coming year it will probably increase by at least $1 billion. That will perhaps depend on what assets are sold off. Another example is the so-called low taxation. All who live in New South Wales know that taxes in New South Wales are not low. The Premier has repeated that claim and tonight members on the Government side of the House have also repeated it. They have said that New South Wales is a low taxing State. However, it is not. After the Greiner Government came to office every family has been slugged more than $1,200 in increased taxes and charges, in water, power, rent, transport, registration costs and so on. People in this State are now $251 per head per annum higher taxed than people in Victoria. In 1987-88 State taxes represented 5.6 per cent of the gross State product. What is the figure now? It is 6.7 per cent. Taxes are not lower under Greinerism. The people of New South Wales were told then that waste would be eliminated. I shall bore honourable members opposite by running through the list again because it is important that this waste continues to be stressed. I refer to the waste within the senior executive service. Honourable members will see what will happen in this Parliament now that the Leader of the Opposition has introduced legislation to try to eliminate senior executive service waste.
Recently the Auditor-General exposed the waste of money in the reorganisation of technical and further education, in the transfer of the Department of Agriculture, and on consultants. That figure may never be known but in recent Greiner years more than $350 million has been spent on consultants. The expensive government advertising continues. Eastern Creek has cost $73 million, plus a bit more. Another unfilled expectation was that of management competence. Eastern Creek is the best example I can give of management incompetence under the Greiner Government. There have been lies and deceptions in all those matters. No wonder people speak to me in the street and say unsolicited, "We have to get rid of this Greiner". Honourable members opposite should take cognisance of that. In May and in the local council elections in September constituents said that very same thing to me and to Labor Party workers.
The Premier likes to blame Canberra and the recession. Warning signs about the recession were ignored. I know that New South Wales does not get a good deal from Canberra, but in my opinion it has not got a good deal from Canberra for the past 35 years, following the tax sharing arrangements established after the Second World War. New South Wales and Victoria still subsidise the other States. That was the case before this Government came to office and it will be the case after it leaves office. The Premier promised competence and caring. Instead he has delivered waste and mismanagement and, what I would call, irresponsibility. No wonder Mr Greiner has the lowest approval rating of any Premier in Australia. His rating is even lower than Premier Field in Tasmania, who is struggling under a minority government; even lower than that of Joan Kirner in Victoria, Carmen Lawrence in Western Australia and John Bannon in South Australia. For the past 18 months I have sat on the Opposition benches and listened to the strutting Premier belittling, rubbishing and abusing the policies of those Premiers. However, since the last election he is the least popular Premier in Australia.
Page 2323
It is no wonder that the honourable member for Davidson was so credible a couple of weeks ago when he made his famous departure from the Liberal Party. He too recognised that Australia's only Liberal Government is weak and no longer has ideas to offer. In this Budget the Government is offering arid managerialism. That is not the answer to the desires of the people of New South Wales. It is important that the Labor Party offers a realistic alternative, and spells that alternative out in this House. The alternative outlined by the Leader of the Opposition will leave New South Wales well placed when economic recovery occurs. Labor offers a fiscal compact of restraint in spending, taxes, charges and debt. No sacrifices would be required in essential areas. It would be restraint with equity, credibility and caring. The caring will not be a sham like a budget eve visit to the Matthew Talbot hostel. It will go deep and not be set up merely for the media.
Labor will limit recurrent spending and budget sector capital spending to a maximum 3 per cent growth per annum. There will be no increased or new taxes, including no consumption tax. We will criticise a Federal Liberal Opposition on its consumption tax proposals and because of those proposals the Liberal Party will stay as a Federal Opposition. Government increases in charges will be limited to less than or equal to the consumer price index. Again notice has been given by the Leader of the Opposition of legislation attempting to give effect to that policy. There will be no cuts in the essential services such as health, education, law and order, environment, community services and transport. The Labor Party will make sure that casino proceeds would flow into health and will therefore break the cycle of the inability to increase health spending when demands are being made.
Labor initiatives will be met by rearranging priorities and cutting waste and mismanagement. Consultants, printing, travel, dead rent, ministerial office fitouts, senior executive service remunerations, ministerial expenses and computer acquisition programs pending review will all be cut. Allocating large sums of money for computer technology is causing increasing cynicism within the community because the so-called advantages of many of these computer capital spendings in schools and government departments are not being realised. Efficiencies are not apparent and more staff is required to operate that technology. This involves training and retraining, causing many people to consider that a review should be undertaken because the required savings are not being achieved. A Labor government will close government offices in Tokyo and London; freeze the restructuring of schools and TAFE to save money and to improve morale. The culture of constant change in the schools and the TAFE system is being rejected because it is mistrusted. We must pause to reflect on whether such changes are worth while. In doing so money will be saved. The waste of money in the attempt, which has now been abandoned, to restructure TAFE is an example that I have already referred to.
The Labor Party would examine joint venture projects with government and private sectors for housing and other public works. Rampant asset sales would cease. No economic justification would be found for selling at low prices when dividends can bring in public benefits. In brief, the Labor Party program would guarantee a AAA rating. I shall now comment on what the Deputy Premier said. I thought he was
Page 2324
reading last year's contribution to the Budget. He said, "The people of New South Wales applaud the courage of the Greiner-Murray Government". There is not much evidence of that, and that is what led me to believe he was reading last year's speech. He said further, "We have cut the debt". I have already dealt with that matter. The Greiner-Murray Government has not cut the debt but has increased the debt. He said that the other States have not done the hard work, but a short time later he stated, "Now they are copying our policies". This Government cannot have it both ways. The Deputy Premier and this Government should get out of the habit of telling lies in this House. Honourable members opposite should wake up to themselves because as soon as there is the opportunity the people will reinforce the message of 25th May and say, "We have to get rid of this Greiner".
The Deputy Premier then committed a low act and said that somehow today's fires were the fault of the greenies, who were not out there fighting the fires. The Labor Party also recognises the tragic nature of those fires, but to say that they were the fault of the greenies seemed to suggest that supporters of the forests and those who want to maintain and improve them are somehow irresponsible. Perhaps the Deputy Premier wants all forests to be cut down so that there will be no fires. It was a foolish contribution to the debate. I want to speak about health services. Without going over the debates that have occurred in the House since 20th August, I should reflect on the provision of health services and the strike yesterday by health sector workers. One must consider the underlying causes of the dissatisfaction with the Government's performance in providing health services. I shall quote a few lines from the editorial in today's Newcastle Herald:
Most people would have seen the strikers as valiant fighters trying to preserve an already torn hospital system from further savaging by an uncaring Government.
The editorial said further:
Its style has been to announce closures with little or no warning and to declare that its proposals are non-negotiable. It is hardly surprising, then, that health workers and communities alike regard with considerable suspicion the Government's promises that no one's health will suffer.
It proceeded as follows:
Budgetary allocations to health have grown steadily, but there are still unsatisfactory delays in providing needed care.
Finally, the editorial said in regard to the Government:
It must stop regarding people as pliable statistics and begin treating them as flesh-and-blood creatures with real and urgent concerns.
I commend a reading of that editorial to the Minister for Health Services Management and the Minister for Health and Community Services in another place. It sums up the basic reasons for health workers for the first time in many years being prepared to go on strike yesterday. The health budget provides for an overall real increase of about 1.2
Page 2325
per cent. One of the problems with that is that Mr Collins made too many promises leading up to the election which gave rise to further unfulfilled expectations. Though the increase for Aboriginal health is not sufficient, it is commendable that there has been an increase. I condemn the major reduction of 7.7 per cent in the ambulance service budget. That reduction should be weighed against the adverse effect it will have on the health of many people. I am sure the honourable member for Lake Macquarie will give the House examples of that because he has had many troubles in his electorate caused by single manning of ambulances. They have occurred also elsewhere in the Hunter region, because the single driver cannot adequately care for a sick patient. That is the effect of cutting ambulance budgets outside the metropolitan area.
The resource allocation formula for acute hospitals required an increase of 2 per cent a year in real growth to be successful. That has not been met for the past two years. Consequently people in underresourced areas such as western Sydney, the North Coast, the Illawarra and Central Coast will have to wait even longer before receiving the care that they require. The same comments apply in regard to the capital budget. There have been many delays: the move of the children's hospital to Westmead has been delayed by 12 months; upgrading of Liverpool Hospital has been allocated only $8.8 million this year; the new Hawkesbury hospital has been delayed 12 months; Cumberland Hospital redevelopment has been delayed about 12 months; the refurbishment of the Royal Women's Hospital has been cancelled; and Maitland Hospital development has not been included in this year's capital works program, in spite of recent commitments by the Premier. The redevelopment of Wyong Hospital has been delayed by six months; Gosford Hospital redevelopment delayed nine months; Wollongong Hospital redevelopment has been scaled down from $82 million to $37 million; Albury Hospital redevelopment has been cancelled after $11 million has been spent already on the project; and the new Port Macquarie Hospital has been delayed by almost two years. It is no wonder that the honourable member for Davidson was quoted in the weekend press on 6th October as having said as follows:
In hospitals . . . the Premier has confirmed privately that capital funding allocations won't come within a cooee of construction targets . . . the Premier's cynicism knows no bounds.
One of the tragic aspects of the health system is that all hospitals have had a 1.5 per cent reduction in their budget for the so-called productivity savings. That will cut deeply into patient services. Labor would immediately remove those productivity savings. This Government should remove them, at least from the growth areas. All minor public works have been taken from the capital budget and must come from recurrent expenditure. That is another problem.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
I pass now to make a few comments about the alleged underfunding of health in the Hunter region. The Budget figure for acute hospitals in the Hunter is $248.1 million. The Budget Estimates for the Department of Health show that the total recurrent estimates for the acute hospitals program for the State is $3,246.9 million. That seems to indicate that, in spite of the Minister's claims that the Hunter is getting
Page 2326
8.6 per cent of the acute hospitals budget, only 7.6 per cent is going to that region. That is a massive shortfall. There must be good reasons for it and perhaps they can be explored by the estimates committees later this month. I seek an explanation from the Minister as to how the guaranteed 8.6 per cent according to the resource allocation formula appears prima facie to be only 7.6 per cent for acute hospital services in the Hunter. One indication of the underfunding is that there is a higher level of cancellation of operations in the Hunter region, especially at the new John Hunter Hospital, than is occurring in other areas. Waiting lists in the Hunter also are longer. Promised services are being lost. I refer particularly to the cardiac surgery unit that was due to open in October but may not open this financial year. At the Mater Hospital, where the Government supported the raising of funds through an NBN telethon years ago, the palliative care hospice has not got off the ground and may not do so this financial year.
The Wallsend Hospital was closed to save money, but there has been pain and no gain. The argument still persists about the concept of the number of beds in the Hunter. We reckon we are getting only 930 beds, which is three beds per thousand of population in acute hospitals, compared with the New South Wales average of 3.5. In a recent response by the department to Professor Duggan the numbers showed that the John Hunter Hospital beds increased suddenly from 506 to 546 beds. The hospital was not designed to have that many beds. It was suggested that the 24 beds at the Rankin Park Hospital which were being used for geriatric patients from the closed Wallsend Hospital do not belong to the acute beds program but really should be included in the aged services program. Nelson Bay is said to have 10 beds in its polyclinic. That is the first time they have been included in the total number of beds in the Hunter. The number of beds is not as great as the department insists. That argument will continue.
There has been a big loss of jobs in health care services in the Hunter region. More than 500 people have accepted voluntary early retirement. There are specific shortages in anaesthetics, and paediatrics, especially of registrars. That has led to a big blockage at the front end of hospital services, particularly as paediatric admissions, especially in the casualty section after hours, are made. Medical school research is being threatened by the lack of adequate funding in the Hunter. Then one comes to the little things that make life so unpleasant and lead to the kinds of hatreds that are building up and the loss of faith in the public health system. New South Wales cannot afford to have the people lose their faith in the health system. Soon - probably next month - no morning tea will be provided at John Hunter Hospital unless a patient has a specific dietary direction from his medico. That is too grim for words. The John Hunter Hospital is supposed to run on $89.1 million. All the calculations of diagnostic-related groups and bed day ratios indicate that, at 90 per cent occupancy, that is enough to run only 497 beds - not the 546 that the department keeps claiming could be run.
A good example of recent waste in the health system is the $90,000 that was allocated to an external consultant reviewing the productivity and efficiency of the three major teaching hospitals in the Hunter region. There are excellent staff in both the Hunter Area Health Service and in the Department of Health in Sydney who could do that job without money having to be paid to consultants. Mental health is the subject of a number of inquiries in the Hunter but the key reforms will require consideration
Page 2327
towards the end of this financial year. At this stage no money appears to have been allocated to doing something different with adolescent psychiatric patients, who at the moment are going to large psychiatric hospitals - which is not what should happen. Medical psychiatric beds are needed in the public hospital system to allow proper training for students at the medical school and, more importantly, to take psychiatry of a mild disorder out of the serious disorder mental hospital into the holistic treatment concept that needs to be developed for public hospitals.
A few other things are worthy of mention in the Budget. I refer to something that people get upset about because it hurts them as individuals, the increases in the third party portion of vehicle registration in recent years. This is particularly so if one owns a diesel landcruiser, and quite a few people in my electorate do. I have had a stream of owners of those landcruisers coming into my electorate office over the last couple of years. Anything apart from a sedan or a utility has attracted some unusually high increases. A diesel landcruiser in March 1990 had a third party component of $511, an increase of $250. In March 1991 it rose to $776. Next year in March when this fellow renews his licence - he gave me this information - the cost will be down to $266. The amount has gone from around $250 to $511 to $776 and now it will come back to $266. People like that have been ripped off by third party insurance over the last couple of years. No wonder people are cynical. Increased government charges are hurting some people who have to pay full costs in this class, retirees on part superannuation and people who have taken redundancies. Those people, particularly if they took their redundancies 15 or 20 years ago, may just miss out on health benefits cards. They do not get the consideration that pensioners receive. They have been coming to me and advocating a half-way point whereby some of these retirees get part consideration, as pensioners do. That needs to be taken up by any government.
In pursuing environmental matters the State Pollution Control Commission in the Hunter region is grossly underresourced. Some industries are adopting an attitude of "We were here first, so people should move away if they do not like pollution". Even government agencies such as the Water Board need to be monitored by the State Pollution Control Commission for sewage smells and sludge disposals. It is not big enough in the Hunter Region. It lacks the ability to respond to many of the calls it gets about water and airborne pollution incidents. If the new Environmental Protection Authority does not more than double the staff in the Hunter, it will be of no use to us.
I want to express some concerns about welfare services in the Hunter region and in particular about the latest disastrous reorganisation of community services, which was done with only a budgetary idea in mind. We have seen a loss of jobs in the Hunter; we will see a loss of expertise. Particularly, we are seeing a loss of morale. I am concerned for the welfare not only of the recipients of the services but also of the staff. After the earthquake in the Hunter the staff of the Department of Family and Community Services did an excellent job of looking after people with damage to homes. Members of FACS often walked away from damage to their own homes and fixed them up much later. The FACS staff were heroic. I have praised them in this House and in public. So has the Minister. Those staff deserve much praise. Now it is those staff who need the counselling. A regional office restructuring was done and 12 months later it was
Page 2328
wiped out by a transfer to Lismore. The positions of many community service officers, who are looking after things such as the supported accommodation assistance program and the home and community care program, are being abolished around the State. What liaison has there been with the Commonwealth about those positions being abolished? In particular, for the Hunter what rationale is there in having the headquarters in Lismore? The answer cannot just be fast growth, because that is happening at the southern end of the division as much as it is in the north. The bias of the number of the people is at the Newcastle end. We do not know what the objectives of the move are. The southern end that identifies with Newcastle contains 61 per cent of the people of that division and 65 per cent of the group homes.
The jobs of community program officers across the State are being cut. There is a reduction in the funding staff and only a filtering of the remainder into district centres. Curran, in his report three years ago, spoke of the lack of accountability of community groups. That is now being checked by community services officers. Last year, a lot of money was saved by these officers monitoring community groups, and advising them how to save money and ploughing that back into services. But this kind of move is divisive for staff cohesion because formerly cohesive staff are now having to compete against each other for jobs. It is causing their families pain. There seems to be no saving grace for the move to Lismore. The abolition of the developmental disabilities services team is disintegrating the ranks of professionals. The executive officer at Stockton Hospital, for example, will be responsible to a director in Lismore. We will lose services. There will be less time for district officers to do their jobs because there is more administrative work. There is less support for district officers from community program officers, for example, in matters such as adoption. The number of staff of community program officers is so reduced in areas such as home and community care and the supported accommodation assistance program that specialty knowledge will be lost. A lot of support and advice to community groups is also lost.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [10.6]: This Budget has been handed down during one of the worst recessions in recorded history in Australia, a recession caused by Labor policies and by the world's greatest Treasurer, who now sits objectively on the back bench and hopes, like some vulture, that his Prime Minister may advocate his coming back and inflicting upon New South Wales and the rest of Australia the rest of the desecration and economic malaise. Notwithstanding the stagnating economic policies and the fact that unemployment is now well over 10 per cent, a situation which was created directly by the policies of the Federal Labor Government, and that we are now in the worst recession throughout the western world and that there is no sign of coming out of it - a situation caused by Keating and Hawke - the Premier of New South Wales, in his capacity as Treasurer, has delivered a budget that we can be proud of, one that will lead New South Wales out of the recession and into a new era. It is not at all easy to bring forward a budget in such times of economic hardship and to face the economic reality created by the direction of the doctrine of the Federal Labor Government.
Page 2329
Nevertheless, it has been put forward in the face of problems of economic hardship that we have rarely seen before.
One of the worst droughts recorded in the history of New South Wales, affecting well over 50 per cent of the State, is having a large impact on the services of New South Wales. We have had the floods of Nyngan. The bitter irony is that Nyngan will now become a drought area after the damaging floods that it had not so long ago. We had the windstorms that took the North Shore apart in no uncertain terms, wreaking havoc from western Sydney to the Central Coast. We had hailstorms. Notwithstanding all that and the role that the State Government was required to play to provide drought relief, the Government has introduced a responsible Budget for these times. The drought is probably the most devastating thing that can occur in this State at this time. I acknowledge that as a National Party member and so does my National Party colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management as well as my Liberal Party colleagues. We need to come out of the recession caused by the Labor Party philosophy and it is recognised in any economic annals that a strong primary industry will lead people out of recession. We are in recession and the drought is upon us. The El Nino effect is creating havoc. Unless we get relief from the drought, we will be left in the doldrums for some considerable time. Having said that, the National Party recognises the problems and is endeavouring to assist the man on the land to get on his feet for the sake of Australia's economy. It is vital that grain producers and sheep producers get back on their feet. Once the primary economy is up and running and strong again, I predict that Australia will verge on greatness. That will not happen until the economic policies of the Federal Labor Government change and the only way to do that is to get rid of the people in Canberra.
An examination of the economic indicators shows that New South Wales is performing better than the five State averages. That position is the result of a good Budget last year followed by a good Budget this year. New South Wales has maintained its position in the economic indicators throughout the year and I am sure the position will be maintained as we move into the next financial year. We also enjoy a AAA rating, and that is recognised throughout the world. That is an indication of the leadership of the Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales on the economic front and generally of his leadership of this State. Notwithstanding that we are in difficult economic times, the Government has not lost sight of the fact that it must continue with the initiatives of a free enterprise government and conservative government of freeing up the shackles imposed on it by the Labor Party for the 12 years it was in office.
One of the initiatives is that the privatisation program for the GIO is about to be embarked upon. This is a very exciting proposal. It will be the first full privatisation of a public instrumentality. That is a contradiction in terms because the Government is taking it back to the public for privatisation purposes, but it will be the first full privatisation exercise. It will be one of the biggest corporate exercises seen in Australia. The philosophy of this Government is achieving that privatisation. The Government is not in the role of selling insurance policies. It is a business that should go back to the people, to the small investors, to the mums and dads. The hyperbole and lies put out by the Labor Party about selling to an institution are deliberately designed to scare the
Page 2330
public of New South Wales, deliberately to try to thwart what is recognised and accepted by the community at large as the proper and correct way to go. The Government will sell the GIO to the small investors who want to get a piece of the action that has been taken from them by the policies of the former Labor Government.
The privatisation of the GIO is a bold move in these dire economic times. I am sure it will be one of the crowning achievements of this Government when the GIO is floated and given back to the people of this State and of the nation, because it is a truly national organisation. My constituents will welcome the change. I know that GIO personnel at Forster and Taree look forward to participating in these exciting times. I hope the privatisation process proceeds smoothly and is uninhibited. Tonight we have heard much about health. The honourable member for Wallsend spoke for some time about health matters. Once again we have heard the big lie from the Labor Party. A simple, four-page brochure with pictures has been produced and I am sure the Minister would be happy to make copies available to Opposition members. Even they would be able to understand it. The document states unequivocally that the health budget in New South Wales has been increased. There has been no cut.
The honourable member for Wallsend spoke about productivity cuts. He said those cuts affect growth areas and should not be carried out in growth areas. He is right. The Manning River District Hospital has a 2 per cent productivity cut. That is given back to them as enhancement moneys. There is no cut, as the Labor Party would have us believe. Indeed, there is no cut anyway because the productivity savings are going back to areas of need - to the North Coast, to the western parts of Sydney, to the growth areas such as the New England region. It is about time the Labor Party stopped lying to the people of New South Wales and that members got this four-page brochure. As I said, it a simple brochure and even the honourable member for Smithfield would understand it. Honourable members could then see what it is all about. In the New England area there was a funding increase of 8.5 per cent from 1988-89 in real terms in the hospital budget. That is over and above what the Labor Party provided. The Labor Party treated the North Coast residents as second class citizens. Now this Government, the Treasurer, the Minister for Health Services Management and the Minister for Health and Community Services accept that that is where the growth is. The North Coast region has had an increase in the health budget allocation of 12.5 per cent. For Labor members to talk about cuts is hypocritical; it is wrong and it is about time that the public got the message instead of the lies of the Leader of the Opposition. On Tuesday he sat on a truck in Macquarie Street, stirring a mob of nurses who had already been told untruths by their association, no doubt at the behest of the Labor Party. The Manning River District Hospital received $400,000 under the enhancement grants and will receive much more from this Government.
Mr Shedden: Any beds closed?
Mr TURNER: Of course there are no beds closed. Do you not listen? I just said that we have received increases, because we are a growth area. Beds are being put where they are needed. What did Laurie Brereton do? He made all the noises about moving beds to the west, and left a mess. The honourable member has no idea what he
Page 2331
is saying because beds are not being closed in my area. The Government is looking after health services in my electorate and increasing them in real terms.
There will be a significant increase of 9 per cent in the New South Wales education budget over the next five years. That is an example of what is happening in these growth areas. We are recognising this growth and we are recognising the necessity to improve services and conditions. Let me spell out in simple terms what the term "growth areas" means for honourable members opposite who do not understand. Opposition members may recall that we had an electoral redistribution. The boundaries of two electoral districts in the central Sydney area were redistributed because people in that area went to the western suburbs and up to the North Coast. That was a simple, mathematical equation. We had to include 38,000 people in one electorate after the redistribution of those two seats. New seats were created in the North Coast and in the western areas.
Mr Scully: It did not do you any good, did it?
Mr TURNER: I did very well. I hold the second safest seat in New South Wales for the National Party. The Department of School Education understands the problems associated with growth areas. At the moment more than $26 million is being expended at eight schools in my electorate. Before the next financial year commences capital works to the value of $9.24 million will be completed. The Forster-Tuncurry High School, one of the newest schools in New South Wales, will be completed. This Government has again recognised the demand in this area. We will see the closure of the existing primary school. I am pleased that the decision to close that school was made quickly. Children from the Forster primary school will be moving into new premises - the former high school which was opened in 1978. Under this program that school will be refurbished. At present, children at that school play on the street at lunchtime. Because of the increase in the number of schoolchildren there is not enough room for them to play in the school playground. The street has been blocked off and lines have been painted to enable them to play hopscotch and basketball. Opposition members think they have problems! They should go into these growth areas and see the children playing in the streets. Barriers are erected across the streets and people are advised that they cannot travel down the streets for a certain period because children are playing on them. The Government has moved to provide those children with areas in which they can play. They will have proper recreational areas. Early next year the children will move into the former high school which was opened in 1978. Even that school became too small in a short period. Honourable members opposite bleat about the fact that they have problems. I do not believe that any of their children play in the street at lunchtime when school is in.
Taree High School, a very old traditional school, was built many years ago in the centre of town. Obviously, it has problems because of urban growth. That school has been consolidated. When I took over the area of Taree my colleague the honourable member for Port Macquarie - at that time the honourable member for Manning - had done a great deal of work in an attempt to upgrade the industrial arts department; a department which has a high degree of student participation. There is no doubt that that
Page 2332
department was sadly lacking. The Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs visited the area, assessed the problem and undertook to give the school some money for upgrading. The school really needed about $900,000. Unfortunately, because of budget constraints, it received only $420,000. I took the matter up with the Minister for School Education. This Minister, who has an understanding of the problems, announced that $900,000 would be allocated to bring the industrial arts block up to an appropriate and safe standard. Quite frankly, that block was unsafe. The Minister visited the school, saw that there was a problem, and changed her decision. It is obvious that she has a handle on her portfolio. She has taken that item in the Budget, established that there is a problem, and changed her decision. I also thank the Minister for providing $700,000 to build a gymnasium at the same school.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
I hope that the public will also be able to use this gymnasium. We may be able to negotiate with the technical and further education institutions to enable the public to use the industrial arts block. People in the Myall Lakes electorate should be very pleased with that initiative. It shows that the Government is reacting to changing circumstances in growth areas. Chatham High School, another high school in Taree that has grown at an enormous rate, has received funding for a multipurpose centre. I hope that people in surrounding areas will benefit from the use of that centre. About half a million dollars will be spent on upgrading large and small schools in my electorate. Because I have nigh on 50 schools in my electorate it is important to build up the maintenance component. The honourable member for Smithfield had an incredulous look on his face when I said that I had 50 schools in my electorate. He would not know what it is like to service 50 schools. He would not know the problems associated with being a country member. Those fellows opposite who have city electorates think they have it all in tow. If they had 50 schools, 14 police stations and four hospitals in their electorates they would know what it is all about.
Mr Scully: I am bleeding for you.
Mr TURNER: So you should. One day the honourable member might have those responsibilities but I do not think he is mature enough to accept them at present. I turn now to roads - another major item in the Budget. The Pacific Highway courses through my electorate. Unfortunately, my electorate has the worst and second worst black spots in New South Wales country areas - the O'Sullivan's Gap area and the Wootton Bends area. I have suffered personal tragedy on the Pacific Highway and I am very aware of the problems associated with it. I am working as hard as I can to ensure that the traumas that I experienced will not be experienced by other people. I am pleased that the Government has allocated $20 million for work on the Pacific Highway in my electorate. In some instances that work has already started. New work will also be undertaken. In the scheme of things the most important thing to me is the Cooloongolook to Bulahdelah deviation. That deviation goes around the O'Sullivan's Gap and Wootton Bends areas that I have mentioned. That deviation will cut out the black spots that I have mentioned, and that is an important aspect.
Page 2333
There has been some discussion about whether that deviation will be a tollway or an undertaking conducted by the State Government. Obviously, that matter has to be looked at closely and the figures must stack up. An important factor is that the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads - the Leader of the National Party - recognises that this is a problem. My electorate will still receive a budget allocation for these important works. At present people are surveying the area. That significant benefit for the Myall Lakes electorate will be provided by the Greiner-Murray Government not just for country New South Wales but for everyone who uses that very busy Pacific Highway. I feel sick in the stomach when I hear an announcement on the radio that there has been an accident north of Bulahdelah because I wonder whether it could have been avoided. It is estimated that once this project has been completed there will be a 60 per cent reduction in the number of accidents. While that work is being carried out we will not be neglecting the Pacific Highway or the areas to be bypassed which I mentioned earlier. The road has been upgraded and $2 million has been allocated to bring its surface up to the best standard possible. The surface is badly cambered, and the road twists and turns but this Government has taken a responsible attitude towards providing the best surface possible.
Work is being undertaken on what is known as the Pipeclay Creek to Rainbow Flat road, which is six kilometres long, at a cost of more than $5.4 million. Further work will proceed on 31 kilometres of new road from Rainbow Flat to Purfleet, at a cost of $6.9 million. That work will supplement and complement the divided carriageway on the Pacific Highway. That is fulfilling a promise of this Government that where we could we would provide a divided carriageway on the Pacific Highway. Ultimately we will build a divided carriageway through to the Queensland border. Already in my electorate divided carriageways are being constructed. Not too long ago I had the pleasure, with the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads, the Hon. W. T. J. Murray, and the Federal Minister for Land Transport, the Hon. R. J. Brown, of opening a section of the Pacific Highway. I found it fascinating on that occasion that the Hon. R. J. Brown complimented the New South Wales Government on the provision of tollways. Indeed, he said that that was the direction in which we should proceed; that we should look to tollway construction because it releases funds for more important work in other areas. Alternatively, it allows for work that could not otherwise have been undertaken, but for a joint venture with private enterprise, thereby releasing funds that the State otherwise would have to find. That was the view of the Federal Minister, the Hon. R. J. Brown. Having known R. J. Brown from my days in local government, though not as a rule agreeing with his philosophies and policies, I have to say, "Well done R. J. Brown for accepting the State Government's lead and policy direction in relation to the provision of tollways". Perhaps some of the Labor Party representatives of Sydney electorates who have a strange feeling about the F4 tollway should speak to R. J. Brown. I suppose it would depend upon which faction they belonged to as to whether they could talk to him.
I am pleased that $5.7 million has been allocated for general rehabilitation and maintenance of the Pacific Highway. That should not be lost sight of. I am not talking about the O'Sullivan Gap area or the Wootton Bends area; I am talking about the whole of the Pacific Highway through my electorate. The $5.7 million will be used to provide
Page 2334
overtaking lanes and to upgrade pavements. Overtaking lanes are very important on the Pacific Highway. People sometimes become frustrated when stuck behind a heavy vehicle moving slowly up a hill, and they may be pushed to taking risks. Overtaking lanes are well sign-posted and if one knows that such a lane is not far down the road, the frustration largely dissipates and one is more likely to continue to drive safely. The Gloucester area has only one major road, the Bucketts Way. Perhaps I am paranoid and it may be because the Hon. Leon Punch was the local member when Labor was in Government, but in any event very few funds were allocated to this area. I am pleased to say that, under this Government and this Minister, the Hon. Wal Murray, an unprecedented amount of money has been spent on Bucketts Way; and that will continue in this Budget.
In my electorate I have a high number of pensioners, senior citizens and unemployed. Obviously they come to my electorate because it is paradise. I have the lovely twin towns of Forster and Tuncurry. I have Taree, Gloucester, the Myall Lakes and other beautiful areas, and of course we attract many people. We mainly attract aged people, and they are very important to our community. They are part of the fabric of our society, and from them we learn much that we can pass on to the next generation. Therefore I am pleased with the funding provided in this Budget for the Minister for Housing. He is a very good Minister, who has plenty of time to listen to his colleagues about their problems. He has recognised that in the Myall Lakes electorate, and throughout New South Wales, housing is most important, particularly for older people.
The Budget provides $3.8 million for housing at Tuncurry. That will allow for the building of 40 housing units, and further funding for work yet to be completed, to a total of $4.2 million, will provide a total of 52 units. More importantly, that funding will provide employment in the twin towns of Forster and Tuncurry. For Taree, $2.45 million has been allocated to create 22 housing units. That is a total of $6.65 million for building in my electorate. As I have said, one way out of the recession is to rejuvenate primary industry. I might be a little old-fashioned, but I believe that assisting the housing industry is another way of leading the community out of the recession caused by the Labor Party. I am extremely pleased that the significant sum of more than $6.5 million has been allocated for building housing units in my electorate.
Even more important, my electorate has benefited from the HomeFund scheme in New South Wales. Though originally the Minister for Housing made a policy decision not to extend the HomeFund net, he listened to reason and allowed the scheme to be extended. It was already into Forster-Tuncurry, which was in my electorate prior to the redistribution. It was already in Taree, which is now in my electorate. That scheme has more than $1,500 million available this financial year and will allow for the construction of 18,000 homes for the battlers in New South Wales, the low-income earners, who are hit hardest by Federal Labor Government philosophies. The New South Wales Government is looking after the workers in this State. It is picking up the pieces that the Federal Government dropped in our laps. It is providing homes by way
Page 2335
of the HomeFund scheme. By way of housing and massive road funding it is providing jobs for the people in my electorate - jobs that would have been available but for the policies of the Federal Labor Government. I commend the Budget.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.
House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.