The Anti-Discrimination (Amendment) Bill is the first major step to end discrimination based on the grounds of a person's age. In 1980 the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board handed down a definition of age discrimination, which stated:
Discrimination on the grounds of age occurs when someone is treated less favourably than someone else in the same or similar circumstances, because of chronological age.
Before moving to the details of the bill, I place on record part of the history that has led to the introduction of this bill and some details of events in other States concerning this matter. The Anti-Discrimination Act was introduced in New South Wales in 1977. That measure made it an offence to discriminate against a person on grounds such as marital status, sex, religion and even sexual preference. Yet, despite being included in the original draft bill, age was not included as a grounds for discrimination. This issue has been the subject of many reports, interdepartmental working parties and representations by senior citizens' groups. In 1989, the New South Wales Premier, in an effort to improve his public support, made a number of announcements. First, he announced amendments to the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act to remove section 59; second, the lifting of upper age limits on appointment to statutory bodies and commissions; third, removal of the "72 and over" upper age limit required by the Companies (New South Wales) Code for appointment to boards; and, finally, the setting up of an interdepartmental working party on age discrimination. Honourable members should recall that the Premier addressed this House on 20th September, and said:
There is no social reform on the agenda anywhere in Australia of greater potential significance to the well-being of mankind in our society than the elimination of age discrimination.
When we hear of all this "activity" one could be forgiven for thinking that the New South Wales coalition was leading the way to end age discrimination, especially when we remember that it was the coalition members in the upper House, way back in 1976, who caused references to the "aged" to be dropped from the original bill. Direct age discrimination occurs when age is not relevant to the performance of a particular job, but is used as a criterion during the selection of a successful applicant. This can occur when
Page 5704
employers use age to determine factors which are relevant to job performance, as in experience, likely behaviour, work force stability, maturity, skills or formal qualifications. However, these factors are usually readily and more accurately determined by other means. Advertisements, along with individual assessment of applicants, would specify the qualities and skills required. This would be less likely to result in discrimination and be more likely to identify the best person for the job. On the other hand, requiring formal tertiary qualifications, unless necessary to perform the job, may unnecessarily exclude many older workers who are less likely than younger people to have these qualifications. The object of this bill will be to make these practices unlawful, thereby correcting the unequal access to employment opportunities between people of differing ages.
Families with children, teenagers or young adults - either in groups or singly - and old people, are the groups most likely to be rejected for rental accommodation because of age. This was shown by the Anti-Discrimination Board in a survey of real estate agents and by submissions, phone calls and visits from people complaining of age discrimination in the provision of accommodation. This may be based on assumptions about income level, noise, property damage and other behaviour considered undesirable or, in the case of older people, fears of ill health or disability. Sometimes a rejection is made under the guise that the accommodation is considered "unsuitable" for children or old people. However, suitability should be determined by the prospective tenants rather than by the agents or owners. We believe that applicants should be examined individually. Assumptions should not be made about future behaviour merely because of the age of any person in the proposed household. Age discrimination in the provision of accommodation should be unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The difficulty in obtaining accommodation because of low income affects certain age groups such as age pensioners. These may be reduced by public housing policies aimed at assisting low income groups. The home support services that are more likely to be needed when people get older were discussed in Discrimination and Physical Handicap, which was published in 1979.
A further recommendation regarding attendant care is made in this report. Minimum age limits on eligibility for aged persons' housing are provided for in Federal legislation such as the Aged Persons Homes Act, which overrides State legislation where State and Federal legislation conflict. Currently people living in "institutions and aged persons homes" are not covered by the Anti-Discrimination Act in respect of practices or benefits of such institutions. We have recommended that rights of redress against discrimination be extended to people living in such institutions. "Goods and services" include insurance, credit, entertainment and services of a government department other than Federal. We made a general recommendation that age discrimination in the provision of goods and services should be unlawful, with some exceptions. Discrimination in insurance based on statistical and actuarial data would continue to be lawful. We also recommended that the current policy of requiring annual tests for people over a certain age to continue holding their driver's licence be lawful while a review is undertaken to identify the ages which are of greater risk. The exclusion of children from public places and the use of other goods and services should be unlawful except where specified in legislation such as the Liquor Act, which excludes people under 18 years from licensed premises. Age discrimination in registered clubs should be unlawful but, consistent with recommended amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act, in voluntary associations should continue to be exempted.
The manifestation of age discrimination has severe implications for aged people. Studies in the United States have shown that victims of age discrimination commit suicide, die of heart attacks and suffer family break-ups at a rate higher than the rest of
Page 5705
the community. Some 20 years ago the United States introduced legislation to make discrimination on the basis of age unlawful. The imperative to act is upon us. The number of people in the 45 to 54 age group, the group increasingly at risk, will increase in the next five years by 27 per cent, three times more than that of the general population. According to a number of studies, unemployed Australians over 45 remain out of work twice as long as the average. This Parliament has the opportunity to afford great change to one of our most valued sections of the community. This bill gives the chance for New South Wales to catch up with other States and the rest of the world in allowing our aged population to live in society with dignity.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.
SUMMARY OFFENCES (PROSTITUTION) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DAVOREN (Lakemba) [9.10]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Summary Offences (Prostitution) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act. For some time street prostitution has been a source of great worry in my electorate and the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Canterbury. Under the guidance of the previous Attorney General, the Hon. John Dowd, the Government attempted to solve the problem but, unfortunately, was unsuccessful. Police officers from the Lakemba and Campsie patrols have attempted to control the problem. However, they have been hampered by the legislation. Although it is an offence under the present legislation to loiter for the purposes of prostitution within view of a school, church, residence or hospital, the Local Court has found that the legislation is flawed. When giving evidence, police officers have been asked whether they have 20-20 vision or whether the arrest was made on a dark night. Attempts to curb the problem have been unsuccessful. I have spoken to police officers from the Campsie and Lakemba patrols and have received great support for the proposed amendment from Chief Superintendent Doug Kelly, the district commander of the Bankstown district.
With the help of Chief Superintendent Kelly and his legal officers, it was resolved to introduce an offence of loitering for the purpose of soliciting or loitering for the purpose of prostitution. If the police are of the view that a lady or, indeed, a gentleman is obviously loitering for the purposes of prostitution, an arrest can be effected. Hopefully this amendment will solve the problem. I have been assured that it will, but its success will of course depend upon Parliament agreeing to the amendment. Street prostitution along Canterbury Road poses a tremendous problem. People have been forced to sell their homes at reduced prices. People residing in the area are fearful. For some time it was the task of an employee of Canterbury council to collect the debris resulting from acts of prostitution. As I have said, I have been assured that this measure will solve the problem, and I am sure Parliament will agree to the amendment.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.
Page 5706
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motion
Notice of Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the honourable member for Marrickville, and Notices of Motion Nos 9 and 10, standing in the name of the honourable member for Port Jackson, and Notice of Motion No. 11, standing in the name of the honourable member for Davidson, called on and lapsed.
ENDANGERED FAUNA (INTERIM PROTECTION) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [9.16]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill and the amendments I intend to move to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act represent a balanced approach to the fundamental issue of the protection of endangered species from the impact of economic activity. The bill results from consultations with the environment movement and the timber industry, consultations which should have been undertaken by the Government when it was considering its knee-jerk and extreme action in regulating in Special Government Gazette 138 to exempt persons and agencies from the provisions of wildlife legislation. The bill would be unnecessary if the Government had taken a calm and rational approach to the judgment of Mr Justice Stein in relation to Chaelundi State Forest. The regulation introduced by the Government has opened a window of opportunity to all those developers and public agencies that wish to threaten the habitats of endangered species. They know that stronger laws to protect endangered species are on the way. The Premier's announcement of a few weeks ago implies this. It is simply not good enough that the Government's package of protection measures for endangered species will not be available until at least March next year.
The Government has failed to ensure that endangered species and their habitats will be protected in the interim. The Government's proposal to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to ensure that the consent of determining authorities is required to consider any adverse effect of proposed development on the habitat of protected or endangered fauna will not protect endangered species. That is because under the Act bodies such as the Forestry Commission are proponent, judge and jury. They are the determining authorities for their own proposals, and history has shown that they cannot be trusted with the fate of endangered species. The decision by the Forestry Commission to log Chaelundi State Forest, which is an enormously important habitat for a suite of endangered species, provides sufficient evidence of that. On 23rd October a Cabinet Office briefing paper entitled "Chaelundi Options", which was prepared by Robyn Kruk and Marion Bennett of the natural resources branch, was delivered to the Government. That document, which contained a series of options, recommended that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act be amended to prevent government bodies from being their own determining authorities. The Government chose to ignore the preferred option. The Cabinet Office and the public recognise the complete lack of credibility in the present process. Unfortunately the State Government does not.
Page 5707
The term "consider" is extraordinarily weak. Extinction of a species is a matter of great gravity and the Government's interim package announced by the Premier in this House on 12th November does nothing to advance the cause of endangered species protection. The Government says it wishes to return to business as usual while long-term measures are developed. However, business as usual was where the State's wildlife protection laws were when they were being flouted by bodies such as the Forestry Commission. As found in the latest Chaelundi case before Mr Justice Stein in the Land and Environment Court, the Government was guilty of contravening the Heritage Act to prevent use of conservation orders for natural areas. The results of the case show to what extent the National Party in this coalition Government has a stranglehold on environmental protection in New South Wales. The Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill separates the proponent from the decision to harm endangered species.
The bill recognises that those who drafted the National Parks and Wildlife Act meant the National Parks and Wildlife Service to be the pre-eminent wildlife conservation body in New South Wales. This concept was wholeheartedly endorsed by Mr Justice Stein in the Land and Environment Court, and by the three appeal judges in the Court of Appeal decision last week. The drafting of this bill has been based on three principles. The first is that it is irresponsible to create a window of opportunity for the destruction of endangered species. By definition the location of these species and their habitats is rare. It will not take much activity to cause irreparable damage. Second, bodies such as the Forestry Commission - often, as they are, characterised by a one-eyed approach to timber-getting - should be separated from the decision to harm endangered species. Third, consultation with affected groups can lead to a balanced and informed decision. This bill is the second part of the Opposition's package to save endangered fauna in New South Wales. The first is the disallowance of the regulation.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Ms ALLAN: The third embraces public consultation about a threatened species conservation Act. The Opposition will put its proposal on the table for public comment. The interim protection bill that is tabled today is essentially that proposed by the environmental movement and endorsed by that movement. However, the Labor Party has done the responsible thing and drafted further amendments which, after discussions with the forestry industry, are also included in the bill. The industry has specific problems because it, more than any other economic activity in New South Wales, operates in an environment where it is likely to come in contact with the bulk of native fauna. When the honourable member for Port Stephens participates in the debate at a later time, he will address a number of the concerns of the forestry industry. The bill is divided into two schedules, the first amending the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the second amending the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. A key concern in the drafting of the bill has been to craft the wildlife powers exposed by the Stein judgment and confirmed by the Court of Appeal into a process that does not overwhelm the National Parks and Wildlife Service with applications for licences and directs the exercise of environmental protection powers to those situations where there will be a significant effect on the State's wildlife heritage. It is not the intention of the Opposition or the other members of Parliament who have signalled their support for this legislation, or of the environmental movement, that the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is already a largely underresourced public sector organisation, should be overwhelmed by the impact of this legislation.
Page 5708
The bill will achieve these aims by establishing two thresholds. The first relates to endangered and vulnerable and rare fauna. While retaining the power of the National Parks and Wildlife Service to grant licences to take or kill endangered species, it establishes a scientific committee to review schedule 12, which lists endangered fauna. We all acknowledge that the present schedule 12 is out of date and needs significant amendment by scientists and environmentalists and others with expertise in this area. The result of a review will be to reduce the number of species on the list in accordance with accepted scientific criteria for listing species as endangered, vulnerable or rare. We have been guided by the criteria used by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. As there will be fewer species on the list, there will be fewer applications for licences than would have been the case under the old schedule 12. The second threshold applies to protected fauna. Protected fauna are those native animals that are not endangered and which the National Parks and Wildlife Act recognises do not need the same severe level of protection as endangered fauna. The bill establishes that a fauna impact statement will be required only where there is likely to be a significant effect on the environment of a protected species. This test matches that found in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is required to set the terms of reference for the statement but the usual consent procedures under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act occur subsequently.
The result of the significant effect test will be that relatively few fauna impact statements will be required but that there will be a greater level of scrutiny of those activities that have the potential to cause significant damage to the environment. This process supplements the process already in existence under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Some concern has been expressed about the doubling up of environmental impact statements and fauna impact statements. A provision has been inserted in the bill that will remove the need for a separate fauna impact statement if an environmental impact statement that addresses the same matters is also required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. There is also some concern that there will be undue expense involved in the production of fauna impact statements because of the need for extensive research. However, one of the amendments to be incorporated in the bill specifies the qualification that only what is possible is done. The bill also creates the power of stop work orders by the Minister or by the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This power will be used in emergency situations only and is necessary because the survival of a species can be on a knife edge and quick action to save it can be needed. Experience with the Heritage Act, brought in by a Labor Government, indicates that this power is used with discretion.
I wish to address the hysterical outburst by the Premier when he claimed that 10,000 separate licences would be required this year to allow normal forestry operations to continue, plus many more to cover operations such as farming. The Premier implied that he was addressing this bill, but it appears to me that he was quoting from National Parks and Wildlife Service advice immediately subsequent to the Stein judgment on Chaelundi. No such number of licences will be required. Let me give the House an example. In the southeast forests the Forestry Commission produces an environmental impact statement every 12 to 18 months. Appendix 4 of the 1990 environmental impact statement contained small area environmental impact statements of several compartments each. In all there were 28 small environmental impact statements. Of these only seven noted rare or threatened fauna. If this is taken as a guide, for the southeast of the State only seven applications for licences would have been made. The cost in administrative terms will not be prohibitive. The bill also includes a user-pays system for licence applications. The National Parks and Wildlife Service can therefore raise the funds to process applications and not put additional pressure on its budget - a budget already
Page 5709
severely squeezed by the Government. The licensing process gives the National Parks and Wildlife Service a rightful place in land use decisions where endangered species are involved. It is analogous to the pollution control licence process that the Government endorses. The possibility of extinction of a species is, as I have said already, of the gravest concern. No doubt the Government would like to submerge it in a jungle of resource security laws and the everyday planning approval process. The Opposition rejects this approach.
A valuable effect of the bill will be to encourage far more effective consultation between government, conservation and resource use bodies. They will need to talk with each other rather than choose to dismiss the endangered species views of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is not compelled by the bill to refuse applications. Rather, it encourages recovery plans and allows conditional consents. Further, there is the added provision for appeals by the applicant or any objector if dissatisfied with the director's decision on an application. I want to place on record the support that has been given to the Opposition in the preparation of this legislation by officers of the Total Environment Centre, the Environmental Defender's Office and other representatives of major conservation groups in New South Wales. I congratulate them also on their efforts in the past few weeks to meet with a number of members of Parliament who have now come to the point of declaring support for the legislation. I register my appreciation of the support that has been given by the non-aligned Independents in this Chamber, and by the Australian Democrats and the Call to Australia group in the Legislative Council.
In particular I want to congratulate two individuals who I believe have done outstanding work on this issue and who have probably brought the situation to a point where we now have this legislation before the House. I refer to John Corkhill from the environmental movement and Tim Robertson who has been his legal counsel in the many court appearances that John Corkhill has made in an attempt to protect forests in New South Wales. The protection of biodiversity is of the utmost importance. Australia - and New South Wales - has a wealth of unique animals but also the worst record for extinctions of any continent on the planet. It was pertinent that this week I took my caucus environmental committee to the Australian Museum to examine the threatened species exhibit currently in place. It was very educational for us to see the number of species that have been lost from this State because of very poor practices in the past. There is a clear recognition that we face a biodiversity crisis. There is a danger of losing for all time not only other life forms with which we share this planet but also a gene pool, which humanity has adapted since our appearance on the planet, essential to our survival.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Moore.
MOONEE BEACH NATURE RESERVE BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.31]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill provides for certain measures which will effectively prohibit the construction of a sewage disposal outfall at Look At Me Now Headland north of Coffs Harbour. It is
Page 5710
brought forward as a matter that requires urgent action in view of the recent occurrences in that location. To that end it will seek to do a number of things: dedicate the Look At Me Now Headland into the nearby Moonee Beach Nature Reserve; ensure that those lands which are not Crown lands become Crown lands before the bill receives royal assent to prevent the Government from changing their status; revoke the current easement for the pipeline; and withdraw the Government's power to grant easements after the bill receives royal assent by revoking part 12 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. This easement was originally gazetted for the purposes of allowing some future pipeline, despite the fact that the Look At Me Now Headland was purchased more than 10 years ago for the purpose of being incorporated into the nearby nature reserve with its current zoning 6A.
The bill seeks to prohibit the construction or operation of a pipeline at Look At Me Now Headland. As I said, this bill is required urgently for a number of reasons. The people of Emerald Beach are in despair. The community is divided between those who are seeking to exercise their normal democratic rights and the police, who are harassing and intimidating the peaceful residents of that area. I understand that up to 20 per cent of the population of Emerald Beach has so far been arrested and that the total number of arrests is 238. There are many allegations of maltreatment in police cells. In addition, some people have been charged under the Crimes Act, which in effect will mark them with a criminal stigma for ever. Also, it is worth noting that the current Coffs Harbour City Council is out of step with up-to-date concepts of wastewater management and disposal and is resorting to what is known as "dinosaur technology" typified by disposal of effluent into the sea.
The bill has been introduced as a sequel to the Solitary Islands Marine Park Bill, of which notice was given by my colleague the honourable member for Davidson, Dr Metherell. That bill seeks to declare the waters off Coffs Harbour in the Solitary Islands Reserve a marine park. But in doing so it has provoked objections from the fishing industry and it also has been questioned by the National Parks Association. The concerns are valid in that it would never be the intent of those opposed to the outfall to affect the fishing industry in the area. Further, it is understandable that the National Parks Association would not wish to see a national park declared which was anything but consistent with its general policy regarding parks. For that reason the Solitary Islands park proposal shall remain on notice and will be the subject of further consultation and considerations.
This debate is really about a number of issues. First, the whole question of wastewater management is subject to review, particularly so that we may learn from the lessons of the past. My experience with the operations of the Water Board in Sydney and an examination of the many mistakes of the past lead me to realise that the whole thing can be done much better. The situation in Sydney, particularly in Manly, highlights the problems that arise if one seeks to implement major transport systems for sewage to a focal treatment plant, particularly on a headland. The history of beach pollution and difficulties with sludge management are typified in the North Head treatment plant at Manly. The Sydney Water Board is learning from its mistakes and is also recognising community concerns about proper management of the water and the air. For that reason the question of wastewater management is up for review and I hope the expanding populations of the east coast of Australia will learn from the mistakes made by our city fathers in Sydney.
The concept of the collection of potable clean water which is then used and disposed of, either treated or partially treated, is a "throughput" concept and it is not valid. Water is a precious resource and should be treated with respect. Replacing linear
Page 5711
systems with circular systems is now gaining credibility. By this I mean that the effluent is treated to an acceptable standard and then reused within the cycle. It makes a lot of common sense. The prospect of damming more rivers and disposing of more effluent into the oceans is now regarded as anachronistic. The possibilities of reuse are clear when one considers that 60 per cent of all domestic water use can be provided for with non-potable water - in other words, for toilet purposes and for garden reticulation. This introduces the concept of dual reticulation to houses. The opportunities arise in Coffs Harbour for a redesigning of the wastewater processes, and the community has given quite a clear message to that effect. The Coffs Harbour model will lend itself to many other communities up and down the east coast of Australia.
The State Pollution Control Commission needs to be encouraged to adopt these principles, and in doing so show flexibility in its dealings with the Coffs Harbour City Council. Further, if this bill is carried, the Public Works Department will need to be given particular encouragement to adopt the reuse principle rather than traditional methods. I have introduced this bill because I believe this is not a matter just for the people of Coffs Harbour but a matter for the people of the whole of the east coast of Australia. This is an opportunity to establish a model. We are at a watershed in the history of the provision of wastewater management. The issue at Coffs Harbour has a long and convoluted history which goes back over nine years. I recently visited Coffs Harbour to speak to those in opposition to the outfall and to the mayor and council officers. The current disposal of effluent from Woolgoolga plant is into Willis creek. The State Pollution Control Commission has demanded of the Coffs Harbour City Council that there be no further disposal into that creek, because of the degradation of the waters.
The treatment process at Woolgoolga is currently to high secondary standards and it is quite clear that there are processes that could be added at Woolgoolga - such as Memtec treatment - that would give it tertiary standard. The demands by the SPCC have precipitated the decision by the city council to proceed with the construction of an outfall. I have a copy of a letter from Andrew Speers, adviser to the Minister for the Environment, to Mr John Tozer of Coffs Harbour dated 26th November which says, inter alia, "Disposal of waste waters to ocean indirectly via Willis Creek could be made environmentally acceptable". The construction of the outfall has been opposed by community groups and the council over many years, and only in the past few months has the decision to proceed been reversed by the incoming council. There is no doubt that an outfall would provide for an immediate increase in capacity for sewage disposal and allow the opportunity for further land subdivisions and development. There is no doubt that many would stand to make large financial gains if this decision went ahead. Of course, the area around Willis Creek is likely to be cleaned up with the absence of an effluent disposal facility there, with significant benefits to owners in the area.
The other point that has to be made is that if effluent is disposed of into a creek it is possible to monitor its standards more effectively, but if it goes into an outfall in the ocean it is "out of sight, out of mind" as it is immediately diluted and forgotten. So far the issues have focused on the opportunities for improved wastewater management, on the avoidance of the mistakes of the past whereby effluent was discharged into a marine environment, particularly a pristine marine environment such as that of the Solitary Islands, which are the most protected waters in New South Wales, and also on the broader issue of encouraging water reuse through skilled and innovative designs. But there is also an economic question that needs to be considered. A recent statement by Mr Wal Murray on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio indicated that, with new subdivisions, a dual reticulation system could be introduced at a cost of $1,200 to $1,500
Page 5712
a block. With existing blocks this figure is probably around the $3,000 mark. This cost needs to be measured against the likely cost of providing that same water through an expanded potable water system, such as damming a river. That is likely to cost up to $5,000 per household.
Water is becoming scarce in Coffs Harbour. The local newspaper, the Coffs Harbour Advocate of 3rd December, has as its headline "Coffs remains in grip of drought". Of course, the attraction of reuse is that the water supply is always predictable. The figures I have cited lead one to believe that, quite apart from environmental issues, strong and impressive economic considerations enter the equation. Let me summarise the position to make it quite clear what this bill seeks to do. The bill seeks to prohibit the building of an outfall at Look At Me Now Headland. This land, which was purchased originally for the purpose of inclusion in nearby Moonee Beach Nature Reserve, shall be dedicated through this bill for inclusion in that reserve. The bill will also revoke the pipeline easement which traverses that parcel of land. Finally, this bill will protect the people of Emerald Beach from a mistake which, once made, probably will never be able to be corrected. It will protect the people of Emerald Beach from the flawed decisions that now preoccupy the people of Sydney who are wrestling with the almost insurmountable problems of marine disposal of effluent. I remind honourable members of the words of one wise observer who said:
Environmental concerns are no longer the private preserve of the birdwatchers, the same bell tolls for us all.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Moore.
DATA PROTECTION BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.42]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
For almost a decade the New South Wales Privacy Committee has been advocating the need for data protection legislation in New South Wales. The Commonwealth has had data protection legislation incorporating a number of data protection principles since 1988. As honourable members would be aware, Mr Roden of the Independent Commission Against Corruption is looking at the information exchange club - a term used by Mr Roden to describe the sale of government information to third parties. In August this year the New South Wales Privacy Committee put a submission to Mr Roden, a copy of which was circulated to all honourable members on 13th August. The submission contains data protection principles based on the Commonwealth principles. It contains also some principles from European Community proposals for data protection in western Europe.
The bill has as its centrepiece in part 3 the 11 principles proposed by the New South Wales Privacy Committee to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Those proposals are a hybrid or combination of data protection principles already in the
Page 5713
Commonwealth Act - principles which are up for consideration by the European Community. I congratulate the New South Wales Privacy Committee on a decade of work in this area. I acknowledge in particular the splendid work of the Director of Research and Policy of the New South Wales Privacy Committee, Maureen Tangney, who is present in the Chamber this morning. Maureen's work, above all else, has enabled the legislation to reach this stage. I do not hide for a minute the fact that many of the matters covered in this bill are difficult conceptually and difficult in policy terms in as much as they cut across competing interests. The key is to get a workable balance between all those competing interests. I hope that this bill is a starting point.
Part 2 of the bill is quite distinct from part 3, not only in layout but also in the matters sought to be addressed. Part 2 sets out a number of offences relating to corrupt dealings with public sector information. This is designed as a starting point in dealing with the sorts of matters Mr Roden has referred to in the information exchange club. The bill provides for offences and penalties for the use and disclosure of information by public officials except in the proper course of their duties; soliciting disclosure of information; obtaining information; and offering to supply information. Those provisions are designed, as it were, as a starting point to cover the field in the classic type of exchange or deal that seems to be emerging in evidence before Mr Roden where a private inquiry agent approaches someone in a statutory government authority for information; someone within a government department offers information; someone approaches a person in a government department and solicits information; someone further up the line requests a person such as a private inquiry agent to seek information from the Government on an untoward basis; or any combination of those actions.
Part 2 is designed to cover that whole raft of activity by splitting it up, looking at the roles of individuals concerned and attempting to deal with each of their roles in turn. That area of the bill is deliberately designed to stand separately from the data protection safeguards. As I have said, notwithstanding the fact that those safeguards are in Commonwealth legislation and are being considered by the European Community, they are complex and cut across competing interests. Various attempts have been made to deal legislatively with those matters. It is fair to say that I have recently been looking at the situation in New Zealand. The New Zealand Government tried to cover the field in relation to both the public and the private sector. The New Zealand bill, which is an extremely ambitious bill, has run into an enormous wall of opposition. The New Zealand Government has tried to be incredibly ambitious. It has taken on all competing interests and has tried to find a global solution at one time. Enormous difficulties have been created in trying to implement the bill. It has now been referred to legislation committees.
For that reason I have tried, in conjunction with Maureen Tangney, to pitch this bill at a level which puts it higher than a series of motherhood statements - a level which, essentially, in the initial phase, is educative rather than punitive. The bill is educative in the sense that it requires permanent heads of departments to develop within a time frame codes of practice based on these principles in conjunction with advice from the New South Wales Privacy Committee. A little further down the track the New South Wales Privacy Committee will report to the Parliament, through the Attorney General, on the progress being made on what I hope will soon be an Act. At that point I envisage that we could move into the next phase. Initially, it is a case of people coming up to speed on what in many cases will be new concepts. The bill is deliberately pitched at that level. Given that the Independent Commission Against Corruption is looking at this matter, I believe that this type of approach is encouraged by it. The Independent Commission Against Corruption views the educative function as extremely important.
Page 5714
This bill is consistent with that type of approach. I do not pretend that this bill is anything more than a starting point. I hope that the bill, in its present form, becomes law. Depending on feedback that is obtained it may well be the case that I will move substantial amendments to it at a later date. I think that in the public interest the bill should lie on the table for some time for public comment. It should not be put to vote before the Independent Commission Against Corruption has reported on the information exchange club. It is most advisable to look at the results of the inquiry when they are brought down, with a view to seeing at that time how the bill stacks up, so to speak.
The other issue I wish to raise is the question of balance in relation to this type of matter. Though there is an important public interest factor in the maintenance of privacy of personal information, there are also competing interests, particularly in relation to tackling fraud in the public sector and also the use of appropriate information which, in some instances, might be caught by data protection principles for appropriate commercial purposes. That begs the question of how to achieve that balance and what precisely should or should not be available. I do not pretend that this bill is an answer to all those matters. The bill provides a framework for the progressive development of principles and assessment of competing interests, of which we should be mindful. We should monitor the bill as it develops having in mind that there are cases where in the proper circumstances some appropriate access should be allowed to some personal information. I was keen to make that point because I believe that privacy is not necessarily a one way street.
It is important to set the parameters and, above all else, to ensure that the people who hold sensitive personal information, for whatever reason, understand the data protection principles, particularly the giving of informed consent by those who provide information, the secure storage of data and access to it to correct errors. It is in that education sense that the matter must be viewed. Having had some discussions with the shadow attorney, I understand that basically he agrees with the procedure proposed for dealing with this matter; namely, that it should lie on the table for some time with a view to seeking public comment and awaiting the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption on the information exchange club. It may well be that when the Independent Commission Against Corruption has reported, the appropriate place for the bill to be further considered is in a legislation committee. At this stage I do not think it is right for me to pre-empt that, but it is worth while putting it on the record for future consideration. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Moore.
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH PROPERTY TRUST BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KERR (Cronulla) [9.54]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to constitute the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia in Australia and New Zealand Property Trust as a statutory body, to define the trust's powers, duties and functions, and to provide for the vesting of property in the trust. The history of the Russian Orthodox Church is as rich and colourful as the history of the
Page 5715
nation itself. Though I cannot do it justice in the short time available, I hope to provide a brief outline of the origin of the church and its migration to Australia as a backdrop to the legislation currently before the House. Christianity was officially adopted in Russia from Constantinople by Vladimir, the Varanian prince of Kiev at the end of the tenth century. That matter was mentioned yesterday by the honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Strathfield.
Mr Zammit: Vladimir the Great.
Mr KERR: Yes, Vladimir the Great as he was later known. Conversion to the faith was widespread. Following the formal separation of eastern and western Christendom, in 1589, Moscow became a patriarchate of the orthodox church of the east. The Russian Orthodox Church continued to flourish until early this century. In the wake of the Russian revolution of 1917 - as the Premier said, that was perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the world this century - the anti-religious sentiment of the Soviet Government created enormous hardship for the church. Strong pressure was placed upon the church to declare loyalty to the Soviet regime. This culminated in 1927 with the head of the church making a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet state. Those who opposed this situation were forced underground, forming the origins of the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. The church has adopted the Nicene Creed and adheres closely to the doctrine and organisation of the Orthodox Eastern Church. The first Australian parish was established in Brisbane in 1924. Soon afterwards the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia established its first New South Wales parish in Strathfield, which would be of great interest to the honourable member for Strathfield. Today the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia comprises 26 parishes throughout Australia.
With that background in mind, I turn now to the provisions of the bill. The bill provides for the creation of a statutory trust, to be known as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Australia and New Zealand Property Trust, and invests it with certain powers in relation to dealings with property and the investment of funds. It empowers the holding of property by the trust, the co-operative use of church property, the blending of trust funds and the variation of trusts. By this bill the trust may be appointed the executor or administrator of an estate. The bill has been prepared in accordance with the Government's policy of assisting churches to better administer their temporal affairs. It avoids the costs of transferring church property to new trustees each time a trustee dies or retires, and it enables the church to better invest its funds. The provisions of the bill are consistent with the approach taken in other property trust legislation. As honourable members will recall, the Coptic Orthodox Church (New South Wales) Property Trust Bill received bipartisan support when it passed through both Houses of Parliament last year. This bill will assist the Russian Orthodox Church in Australia to further its religious and charitable dealings. I commend the bill and I thank all those who assisted me in the preparation of this great undertaking.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notices of Motion
Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:
That General Business Notices of Motion Nos. 9, 10 and 11 on the business paper for today be reinstated to the business paper for tomorrow maintaining their order of precedence.
Page 5716
NATTAI NATIONAL PARK BILL
Ministerial Statement
Mr MOORE: I seek leave of the House to make a brief statement with respect to the Nattai National Park Bill moved by the honourable member for Davidson prior to its further debate by the House.
Leave granted.
Mr MOORE: I wish to inform the House that on the last occasion when the Nattai National Park Bill moved by the honourable member for Davidson was before the House I gave certain undertakings to the House about the nature of the resolution of the matter. I undertook to the honourable member for Davidson, as I have been discussing with him, that I would have certain boundaries drafted for the purposes of proceeding with compromise arrangements that I had outlined to the honourable member for Davidson. I wish to advise the House that Cabinet has considered the matter further this morning, and that the boundaries I outlined to the honourable member for Davidson will be submitted to the Governor early next week and the park will proceed. I suggest to the House it might be appropriate to postpone further consideration of the bill. We have other speakers if needed. It will be done early next week.
TOBACCO ADVERTISING PROHIBITION BILL
Second Reading
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Moore.
METHADONE CLINICS (RESIDENTIAL AREAS) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 15th November.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [10.2]: I take this opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for The Entrance for the campaign that he has been embarking on for a long time to try to ensure that not only in his electorate but throughout New South Wales, and especially in the more dense residential areas, there is a methadone program which most members of this Chamber support, a program that fits comfortably with the community for the benefit of both patients of the clinic and the community in which it is to be situated. That campaign has produced tremendous results since the coalition came to office and established stronger guidelines enabling transfer of methadone clinics to more acceptable sites throughout Sydney. For example, in the Sutherland area a clinic that was situated in a shopping centre opposite a hotel, where it was causing concern to shopkeepers, business people and residents of that area, was transferred to wonderful new premises at St George Hospital. It is near Kogarah station and has the full support of health services of that area.
That move turned out to be very beneficial to the patients who require the care provided by these clinics and beneficial to the community involved. That is what we have attempted to achieve. Much of that good work is due to the sponsorship of the
Page 5717
honourable member for The Entrance, Mr Graham. This private member's bill introduced by the honourable member is another move by him to further ensure that clinic patients and the community in which the centres are situated are able to coexist satisfactorily as part of this very important program. This measure is not the panacea of the drug problem, but it is one of the genuine tools in overcoming the problems of illicit drugs in our community. Methadone treatment for opioid dependence has been thoroughly evaluated in Britain, the United States, Hong Kong, the Netherlands and Australia. Research continues to be conducted to identify means of further improving this form of treatment. Indeed, methadone treatment has been described as the most heavily researched area of human endeavour apart from psychotherapy.
Methadone maintenance has been demonstrated to be effective in attracting dependent opioid users to treatment, reducing illicit drug use by those in treatment, reducing the criminal activity of those in treatment, improving the employment prospects of those in treatment, and reducing the spread of HIV within the opioid-using population. The treatment of opioid dependent persons commenced in New South Wales in late 1969. The number of individuals receiving such treatment remained relatively small until 1985. Since that time the program has expanded to be the largest, with 6,034 patients in treatment as at 2nd December, 1991. Patients are treated by 53 public and 140 private medical practitioners, each of whom has received the approval of the Director-General of Health on the recommendation of a panel of medical practitioners with expertise in methadone treatment. Patients are dosed at a variety of establishments including 20 specialist public units, 10 specialist private clinics and 274 community pharmacies.
The day-to-day operation of the New South Wales methadone program occurs within the framework provided by the document entitled "Policies and procedures for the methadone treatment of opioid dependence in New South Wales". These policies and procedures are consistent with the national methadone guidelines and are regularly reviewed in light of current research and expert opinion. Where approved methadone prescribers are found to be operating outside these policies and procedures, their case is considered by the methadone subcommittee of the medical committee established under the Poisons Act 1966 with a view to placing conditions on or withdrawing approval from methadone prescriptions. Additionally, each approved prescriber is reviewed annually. Similarly, where the operation of a clinic is reported to be outside the policies and procedures, the clinic is reviewed. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 prohibits the supply of certain drugs of addiction, including methadone, except by persons licensed or authorised under the poisons regulations. Medical practitioners, dentists and vets are amongst certain health professionals who are authorised by the poisons regulations to supply drugs of addiction, other than hallucinogenics, in the course of treatment, except where such authority is withdrawn in any case. Retail pharmacists are similarly authorised for the purpose of their businesses.
The term "methadone clinic" has no statutory basis but is merely a generic way of describing premises from which a substantial number of addicts are supplied methadone as part of the treatment for their addiction. Methadone clinics are generally owned and conducted under a licence to supply methadone by companies in which a medical practitioner has an interest. Whilst the medical practitioner is authorised to supply methadone in accordance with the Poisons Act it would be impractical for the doctor to have to personally dispense the methadone to each of his methadone patients. A licence to supply issued to the relevant company permits methadone to be supplied from particular premises under certain conditions. In the case of methadone such conditions include the requirement that the actual administration of the methadone to patients must be carried out by a specified responsible person, usually a registered nurse.
Page 5718
Licences to supply methadone are handled under the regulations in the context of licences to supply drugs of addiction generally. Regulation 47 of the poisons regulations deals with licences in regard to drugs of addiction, including licences to supply methadone. The Director-General of the Department of Health may refuse to issue a licence, or issue a licence subject to conditions. The director-general may at any time specify, vary or revoke conditions, or otherwise vary a licence. A licence remains in force until withdrawn or suspended. Regulation 51 deals with licences to supply drugs of addiction. It prescribes the form of a licence to supply drugs of addiction and the relevant application form. It provides for application for renewal of a licence, accompanied by a prescribed fee on an annual basis. Regulation 69 concerns withdrawal or suspension of a licence. The director-general may withdraw or suspend a licence to supply methadone on the following grounds:
(a) if the prescribed fee for the renewal is not paid by 30th September in any year occurring after the year in which the licence was issued;
(b) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with any of the terms and conditions in force in respect of the licence;
(c) if the holder of the licence has been convicted of an offence against the Act or these regulations or the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act;
(d) if the holder of a licence has been charged with any offence against the Act or the regulations or the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and in respect of that charge an order has been made under section 556A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900;
(e) if the holder of the licence requests in writing that it be withdrawn;
(f) if in the opinion of the director-general the holder of the licence is no longer a fit and proper person to manufacture or supply drugs of addiction; or
The next condition is important. It is:
(g) if in the case of a licence which authorises the supply of methadone the director-general is of the opinion that the use of the premises on or from which the methadone is supplied is causing disruption to the amenity of the area in which the premises are situated.
Regulation 71 provides a right of appeal to the District Court from decisions of the director-general in relation to licences. The Poisons Act provides for restrictions on the actual prescribing by medical practitioners of drugs of addiction, including methadone. The participation of doctors and addicts in the New South Wales methadone program thus occurs in the following way. An authority from the director-general to prescribe a drug of addiction such as methadone to a known addict is required by the Act. Any application for such authority must be referred to the medical committee for advice, unless the application is made by an approved prescriber. A medical practitioner who intends to have a significant methadone treatment practice may apply to become an approved prescriber under section 28 of the Poisons Act. Any application for approval is referred to the methadone subcommittee of the medical committee for its recommendation. The director-general may give a conditional or unconditional approval. In the case of an approved prescriber of methadone a condition is imposed limiting the number of addicts in respect of which the doctor can prescribe methadone. Such condition may be varied on the recommendation of the medical committee, which has a monitoring and review role. Where a party seeks to establish a specialist methadone clinic several procedures are in place to ensure that the party is both desirable and competent to operate such a service, and to ensure that the location of such services presents as little disruption to the general public as possible.
Page 5719
I emphasise that the director-general's power to impose conditions on the granting of the licence may include conditions that methadone clinics are not to be located in, or adjacent to, residential areas, or in other areas near schools, colleges or places where children and young people congregate. Consultation with the local community must be undertaken. Where there is significant community objection to the establishment of the clinic, a licence will generally not be granted. Interested parties are required to meet with officers of the drug and alcohol directorate, the relevant area health service or health region. The local municipal council must be advised of the purpose to which the premises will be put and consent to its use before consideration will be given to providing the necessary licence. The local member of State Parliament must also be consulted and his or her consent obtained. Advice must be sought from the Police Service regarding the security of the premises, and the recommendations of the service must be carried out before a licence will be issued. Clinics must restrict to 300 the number of patients treated concurrently and may operate only between the hours of 6.30 a.m. and 8 p.m. Clinic managers must ensure that patients whose behaviour is disruptive to the local community are identified and managed appropriately. Review of the operation of methadone clinics is routinely carried out by the Pharmaceutical Services Branch of the Department of Health to ensure compliance with the licence conditions and the Poisons Act and regulations.
A good working relationship exists between officers of the directorate and the New South Wales Police Service. Where police are concerned about the operation of a methadone clinic, the directorate is usually advised and the operation of the clinic is reviewed by both the directorate and the Pharmaceutical Services Branch to ensure that these concerns are addressed. Where complaints regarding the operation of a methadone clinic are received from members of the community, the directorate advises the clinic that a complaint has been received and requests that the matter be addressed, by identifying the patients responsible for disruption and by changing the way they are managed to ensure disruption is curtailed. Where complaints continue, the members of the local community and clinic management are brought together to examine the means by which problems can be resolved. Where community concerns continue to be voiced and clinic management is unable to adequately address these concerns, relocation of the clinic is considered. If clinic management is amenable to relocation of the clinic, an alternative site is sought and the clinic is relocated. This has occurred in both the public and private sectors, with the relocation of the Gemini Centre, a public clinic in Sutherland, being transferred to St George Hospital.
The Sydney Private Clinic, a privately operated clinic in Chatswood, has moved to premises within the grounds of Royal North Shore Hospital. Negotiations are still under way with several other private clinics regarding suitable alternative locations. When all avenues to deal with complaints regarding the operation of a methadone clinic have failed, the director-general has the power under poisons regulations to revoke the licence under which a methadone clinic operates. The proprietor may appeal this decision to the District Court. Clearly, existing policies and procedures are in place to tackle the many problems associated with this type of drug misuse. These programs are working effectively. It is important to address the problems raised by the honourable member for The Entrance about the methadone clinic at Long Jetty. That clinic was established prior to the Government's election in 1988. Therefore the clinic was not required to comply with the stringent regulations that this Government has since put in place. For some time the community has expressed concern to the honourable member for The Entrance. Shopkeepers and residents are concerned about the impact of the methadone clinic at Long Jetty. The honourable member has introduced this private member's bill in an attempt to give the Government of the day the opportunity to try to resolve that concern
Page 5720
about an issue which is important to the honourable member for The Entrance and his electorate.
It is important for the community and patients of methadone clinics that this matter be addressed. It is important also that the program maintains its credibility, otherwise it will not be effective. The operation of methadone clinics must be reviewed on an ongoing basis, whether the clinics are operated by private individuals or by the Government. That monitoring will ensure that the clinics are achieving the objectives of the program and that the patients of the clinics and the local communities coexist harmoniously. I congratulate the honourable member for The Entrance upon attempting to address the issue. However, as this is a private member's bill it is important that its provisions be examined carefully by officers of my department to ascertain whether they are capable of addressing the matters of concern referred to by the honourable member for The Entrance. That examination has been conducted by legal officers of the Department of Health, who have advised me that the bill is deficient in a number of ways. I ask the honourable member for The Entrance to agree to debate on the bill being adjourned upon my giving a number of undertakings. First, my department will review the operations of the methadone clinic at Long Jetty and speak with the proprietor of the clinic to ascertain whether the problems can be resolved. Second, the honourable member for The Entrance and officers of my department should meet between now and when the Parliament resumes in February next year to draft provisions that will address the concerns of the honourable member for The Entrance and other honourable members, to ensure that methadone clinics are properly located for the benefit of patients and the community. I trust that before the commencement of the next parliamentary session steps will be taken to resolve these matters.
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville), Deputy Leader of the Opposition [10.23]: I support the proposition advanced by the Minister that debate on this bill be adjourned. A number of concerns have been expressed about methadone clinics. There may in fact be, as the Minister said, more effective ways to deal with those concerns. Should the debate proceed, the Opposition will object to parts of the bill. I have no hesitation in accepting the assurances given by the Minister that between now and when Parliament resumes next year his department will be seeking to address the various concerns. I urge the Minister to consult other honourable members, not only the honourable member for The Entrance, who support the methadone program and have legitimate concerns about how it is being implemented in their electorates. I suggest that, in the same way as the former Minister for Health established a bipartisan committee on AIDS, the present Minister should give some consideration to setting up a bipartisan committee to inquire into drug abuse and the role played by methadone. I do not suggest that the committee would make decisions with regard to government policy. It would be more an advisory and information exchange body to inquire into the problems of drug abuse and what changes are occurring in the community.
The New South Wales Government may wish to adopt an approach similar to that adopted in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not suggest that we should follow strictly the line taken by the Federal Government, which has recommended the adoption of a scheme similar to the scheme implemented in Manchester, England, of a controlled prescribing of addictive drugs or drugs of abuse. Available evidence of that scheme deserves further examination. Should the Federal Government decide to trial such a scheme, it would be advantageous to New South Wales if the Government supported the experiment rather than denigrated it, as one Minister of this Government has done already. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion with him to Cabinet in a spirit of bipartisanship to persuade Cabinet to support what may be a dangerous but worthwhile
Page 5721
path to tread. The community does not understand completely the true role that methadone plays. It may be that its role has changed over the years. It is important, therefore, to monitor the program. I support the provisions of this bill that provide for such monitoring. One is admitted to the methadone program only if one meets strict criteria: patients must have regular urine testing; patients must swallow the methadone immediately it is provided; and they must submit to counselling. The rules are incredibly rigid.
It has been said that methadone is a form of social control. Debate on the subject has been wide-ranging. In some instances the high dosages recommended have actually killed people. Concern has been expressed about whether the program should be conducted by the private or the public sector. The reviews that have been conducted, the results of which have not been made public in many instances, show that many of our genuinely held beliefs are ill founded. We should ensure that the program is reviewed regularly to tailor it to different situations throughout the State. The role of the program may be different in some areas of the inner city from its role in rural centres throughout New South Wales. Those who are addicted to drugs use methadone in different ways. These matters must be considered. If debate on the bill were to proceed, the Opposition would seek to move an amendment relating to compensation. The managers of methadone clinics must have the full support of the Government. Clinics that are considered by the Department of Health to be operating efficiently, as I understand is the case with the clinic in the electorate of the honourable member for The Entrance, obviously have substantial overheads. I refer to the costs associated with leases and necessary equipment. It would be unfair if such clinics were closed overnight as a result of ministerial order. Operating a methadone clinic is not a glamorous vocation. Many doctors would rather not be involved in prescribing methadone. The owners of methadone clinics should not be penalised in any way. Certainly an amendment along the lines of allowing the leases to run would be beneficial. If the Government were to close a particular clinic, it would have a peripheral but important onus to find an alternative site for the prescriber to re-establish.
It is important that we do not pander to the concerns of the few who do not approve of a methadone clinic in their area because that attracts drug addicts. We have to show more maturity. Concerns do arise from methadone clinics being located in residential areas. They bring to that area people addicted to drugs and others who wish to prey on those as well. That can be disruptive for the local community and not productive to those addicts wanting to rehabilitate themselves or to have some control over their addition. With this type of legislation, when the need arises for a closure order, the need also arises to look at the requirements of the clients themselves. When one is wishing to establish a new clinic, clients' needs must be considered. It has been suggested that it may be preferable to move this clinic to Gosford Hospital. On the surface that appears a reasonable suggestion. Facilities will be available. However, it is not easy for people to travel from Long Jetty to Gosford. Those people who are short of cash, unable to obtain a job and dependent on unemployment benefits would find it difficult to attend Gosford Hospital every day. That may destroy the program we are seeking to continue. Obviously, there are solutions. An outreach program could take clients by bus to the clinic. There is a range of ways in which the system could work. This must be looked at in the sensitive way in which the Minister has approached this matter. We must seek to solve the problem, not penalise someone.
From all accounts the doctor running this clinic should not be penalised. He is doing a good job and one which many people would not undertake. He should be assisted in continuing with that work, not penalised and thrown out of the area because
Page 5722
of community concerns. This would result in people dependent on this clinic being ignored. If we assist that doctor we will be showing a maturity in trying to do something sincere and effective about drug abuse. I hope the Minister will take up the suggestion, or a modification of it, that a joint parliamentary committee be set up to look at the issue of drug abuse. The Minister should request that his colleagues be supportive and not aggressively oppose what is proposed in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not wish to endorse that plan but we need to take a much more mature approach. If the Australian Capital Territory is prepared to go that way we should ensure that people are not sidetracked by political point-scoring in border areas with problems of their own. Let us find a way of assisting our drug addicts, the doctors involved and other ancillary health professionals as well as those States that are endeavouring to test a new approach to see if it will be of benefit.
If we move in that direction we will be a world leader in a mature and effective approach to drug abuse, as has been the case with AIDS. I hope that would be accepted by all members of Parliament. Obviously the honourable member for The Entrance is concerned about this issue. His opponent from the Labor Party in that area is also concerned and seeks bipartisan support in looking at the issues, not merely in gaining political points. I hope in that spirit the honourable member for The Entrance will accept the Minister's suggestion, as we will, to defer this bill. Let us consult with all concerned in an endeavour to find a solution and not penalise those who are trying to do valuable work for heroin addicts and other drug users. Other honourable members wish to speak on this legislation. It is important that they speak now. The Opposition then will accept an adjournment of this debate.
Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [10.35]: I congratulate the honourable member for the Entrance on his initiative in moving this private member's bill. I was interested to hear the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Minister regarding the methadone clinics. The Minister referred to a State conducted methadone clinic that had been in the Sutherland shopping centre. I have had some experience of the problems associated with the location of methadone clinics. The methadone clinic at Sutherland was in a commercial centre, not in a residential area but opposite a hotel. For quite a period of time problems arose that were traced back to some clients and their associates at the methadone clinic. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about unscrupulous people who prey on those involved in the program. That was basically the case with the Gemini centre at Sutherland. This clinic was later moved to the St George hospital where I understand it is functioning exceedingly well. Many of the problems which had been brought to my attention by shopkeepers and the publican of the hotel opposite the Gemini centre then disappeared. This is ample proof that the location of the methadone clinic can cause problems, even though at the time comments were made that this was a political campaign, that it was all a beat-up. The transfer of that methadone clinic to St George hospital demonstrates that the proof is in the pudding because those problems have disappeared. That is important and that is why I support this legislation. I hold the belief that methadone clinics should be located in or near a hospital. I have always held and will continue to hold that belief.
This bill is quite interesting. The bill will give the Minister the right to direct the closure of a methadone clinic in a residential area if the Minister is satisfied that it is not appropriate in that location. The bill allows a review process. That is most important. We should not be encouraging knee-jerk reactions to this particular issue. It is important that there be a review process. It is important that the occupier of the clinic and the local council and members of the public be given an opportunity to make submissions on whether or not that methadone clinic should be closed. It is imperative
Page 5723
that the Minister be given the power to close a private clinic. That is a clear power the Minister has not had in the past. It has been difficult for the Minister to direct the closure of a private clinic. The bill should clearly define that any methadone clinic be located in a surgery or medical practice. I do not have first-hand knowledge of the complaints raised by the honourable member for The Entrance, but I sympathise with him because of similar problems experienced in my electorate. I support the honourable member in his endeavours.
Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [10.40]: I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill. Methadone treatment is one of the few health issues in which the honourable member for The Entrance and I have shared an interest. And it is one of the few matters in the Wyong area in which the Minister for Health Services Management and the bureaucrats in the health system have shown an interest. When the honourable member for The Entrance introduced his bill I thought that was a political stunt. However, I am pleased that there has been co-operation and that a bipartisan approach has been taken to ensure that an effective and permanent solution is found to the problem. No one will deny that there is a problem at Long Jetty. It has existed for some time. The Labor Party candidate for the electorate of The Entrance alerted people to that problem on 5th May when he issued a press release. He followed that up prior to the State election. Mr McBride campaigned heavily on the issue. It is essential that a bipartisan approach is adopted to this matter. Often we as politicians do not enjoy a good reputation among the public because our activities and mindless behaviour lead to our being held in bad repute. Prior to the State elections a child was killed at a bus shelter in The Entrance electorate. The Labor Party candidate took the view that it was inappropriate to gain political mileage from that tragedy. That has led to my belief that a bipartisan approach is essential to this proposed legislation. We should not play petty games that will cause problems in the future. The last time the honourable member for The Entrance raised this matter in the Parliament was on 26th July, 1989, when he said:
The addicts attend the clinic only three days a week, and take away their methadone doses for the other four days. I know that doses are being sold at the local hotel for $75. Some people using the services of the clinic are not heroin addicts. Police officers challenged a known criminal who was leaving the clinic, and he admitted that he was not an addict. He has been taking away his four doses a week and selling them at the hotel.
This matter has continued since 26th July, 1989. That is virtually the last time one can find any reference by the honourable member for The Entrance to the issue of methadone treatment. I have put forward a number of questions upon notice about action taken since that time. Surely those matters would have been investigated by the police and prosecutions launched. I shall be pleased to have the Attorney General respond to my question No. 807 on the Questions and Answers paper. A permanent and effective solution must be found to the problem that exists in the Long Jetty area. I am pleased that the honourable member has taken this issue to heart. He cavorts around his electorate pretending that he has a Labor heart in a Liberal body. As politicians we must take action. That is something that was realised by the Labor Party candidate for The Entrance at the last election. I hope the matter can be resolved with the co-operation of the Minister for Health Services Management. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that many of the issues debated since 20th August, when the Parliament resumed, have related to the result in the two disputed electorates of Maitland and The Entrance. I sympathise with the honourable member for The Entrance and the honourable member for Maitland, and indeed for the Labor Party candidate for The Entrance, Mr McBride, who is a friend of mine. Obviously they have been put under a lot of strain and pressure. I am pleased that this bill has been brought before the
Page 5724
House. I hope the problem can be resolved by a bipartisan approach that will assist us to bring good government to the people of New South Wales, as members are bound to try to do.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.46]: I support the bill, which has been introduced by my friend and colleague the honourable member for The Entrance. This is the first private member's bill he has introduced, and in fact the first bill introduced by a Government member in the Fiftieth Parliament. I do not believe any were introduced in the term of the Forty-ninth Parliament. This bill demonstrates the enormous commitment of the honourable member to his people. He champions them in his electorate and in the Parliament. It is significant that he should be the first member to introduce a private member's bill. No other member of this House works harder than he does for his electorate. Sometimes he can drive other people mad because of his single-mindedness and determination to ensure that, no matter what, The Entrance comes first. As a member representing an adjoining electorate one has to be conscious of his attitude and realise that the people of the Gosford electorate also get good representation, as all honourable members will acknowledge. When the redistribution occurred and my home was included in the electorate of The Entrance I received a letter from the honourable member which said "At last you can be sure of good representation". I thought that was a little unkind. However, I acknowledge the work that the honourable member has put into preparing this bill and in ensuring that methadone treatment, though an admirable concept, and one that should be continued as a form of treatment for heroin addicts, should be carried out in the most appropriate place - which is not in a residential area.
The honourable member for The Entrance has laboured for three years on this issue. He does not have a Labor heart in a Liberal body, but rather he has a heart that is concerned for all the people of his electorate, whether Liberal or Labor voters. His approach has been bipartisan because he realised he had to take action in the interests of all the people of his electorate. If that meant he had to criticise the Government and be at odds with the former Minister for Health or the present Minister for Health Services Management, to the chagrin of both those Ministers, he was willing to accept that. In his attempts to ensure a good deal for his electorate he has never reflected adversely on the concept of methadone treatment, or on those who conduct the clinic at Long Jetty. They are fine people. I have known them personally for many years. I am proud to tell the House that Dr Orgias is a friend of mine and of my family. His son and mine are close personal friends at school. I have been to his home and he has been to mine. I have visited his clinic and seen the excellent work that he does at Long Jetty. In no sense is the bill or anything related to the methadone program a reflection on the work that doctor has done. He is to be commended for it. Similarly, I commend the staff at the Long Jetty clinic, one of whom, Sister Jane Cutler, is another person whom I have known for many years. She is an especially caring and compassionate person. She does an excellent job in looking after methadone patients who are heroin victims. She along with other staff have provided an excellent service. They and their clinic are beyond reproach.
The concept of methadone is very valuable in the fight against AIDS, intravenous needle use and the scourge of the drug menace. If methadone helps people get off heroin - and it does - it is well worth while. Nobody pretends that it is the only weapon in the fight against the drug menace. It is one of the armoury of weapons that society has to use, along with counselling and other forms of assistance and medical treatment. For some people methadone works and it is accordingly worth while. The only issue then is the appropriateness of the siting of methadone clinics. The honourable member for The Entrance earlier than anybody else voiced a concern which we have since
Page 5725
discovered is felt by many people. I understand that it is a concern of people at Roseville, Kogarah and Ashfield. The honourable member has always been insistent that if the clinic is moved it should be moved to an appropriate place. Was Wyong Public Hospital an appropriate place? No, it is not conveniently located for public transport. The clinic must be relocated to some place which is readily accessible and which will not intrude upon a residential area. Accordingly, an industrial area or a hospital site that is well located for public transport on the Central Coast would be ideal. Gosford District Hospital is well located for public transport. A clinic is to be set up at that hospital.
Mr Doyle: It is not going in at Gosford hospital. It will be in the middle of a residential area. The honourable member should practise what he preaches.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Peats to order.
Mr HARTCHER: At the time, that had the support of the honourable member for Peats who, as the local member for Parliament, was the person whose views were sought. The honourable member for Peats has supported its relocation and is to be congratulated on his support. It will serve the people of the Central Coast well. If the clinic at Long Jetty is to be relocated, it will be moved to an appropriate location. The people of Long Jetty have been long-suffering in tolerating the existence of the clinic in their area. I congratulate them for the forbearance they have shown. I congratulate particularly the owners of the pawn shop next door, Kevin May and his two sons Tyson May and Matthew May. They have spoken to me and to the honourable member for The Entrance on a number of occasions. They have always acknowledged that the program is worth while but have made representations along the lines that the clinic would be better located elsewhere. I am sure that they will welcome this bill as much as will the other residents in Long Jetty. One person wrote to the honourable member for The Entrance saying:
We are not against people being helped to stop using drugs but we are fed up with having the methadone clinic rooms located where they are and would very much like to see them moved to a more suitable area away from where people live and shop. We will not walk near the vicinity of the location of the clinic as even in broad daylight one gets the feeling of walking down a dark, lonely alleyway in the dead of night. Elderly, middle aged and young people are frightened in Long Jetty and surrounding homes, streets, reserves and parks, and they will be as long as the clinic remains where it is. We do hope that you are successful in having the clinic moved to a more suitable place. Congratulations on a very good job you are doing for the Central Coast, Bob. You are the best member of Parliament we have ever had for The Entrance.
That is signed by residents of The Entrance. The honourable member for The Entrance has not simply sought to make representations. He has sought to gain the understanding of the people of Long Jetty. As part of that process he sent a circular to the people of Long Jetty through a mailbox drop and organised a public meeting that was held at the Anglican church hall in 1989. I had the privilege of chairing that public meeting, which was to educate the people of the area as to what methadone treatment is, its uses and how it works. Thus there was a wide understanding throughout the community of the methadone concepts. That is to the credit of the honourable member. He has not sought to downgrade the methadone treatment program or to ridicule those who use it. He has always been understanding of it. He sought, as a responsible member of Parliament, to ensure that the community was educated and aware of its virtues. He has always sought to ensure that the interests of the residents of Long Jetty were protected and that the clinic was appropriately located. The relocation to Gosford hospital has my support. I am
Page 5726
pleased that the honourable member for Peats gave his support to the relocation. The people of Gosford will be very glad to know that the honourable member for Peats has been the champion of their interests and has looked after them well in this area alone.
The bill seeks to ensure that, where there is a review process, it is not hasty. The bill requires that the local government body be involved and that the Minister, in undertaking the review, should consult a wide range of community representatives because the methadone treatment program in the final analysis depends on a high degree of public acceptance and support. If we say that methadone clinics should not be in residential areas but somewhere else, we must do so in a way that does not create a public feeling that somehow any person on the methadone program is a second-class citizen. Such people are not; they need medical treatment like anyone else who has an illness or problem of a medical nature. Accordingly, they should be treated responsibly, compassionately and fairly. That is why if a clinic is to be relocated, if the Minister is so moved - and he is now empowered to do so under this Act - he should consult widely and make sure that the community knows what is going on and why the relocation is taking place.
This private member's bill is a superb initiative of the honourable member for The Entrance. It is yet another example of his ongoing concern for the people in his area. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Wyong speak of the work of the Labor candidate in The Entrance, who issued a press statement on 5th May, 1991, after the election date had been announced and after the Forty-ninth Parliament had been dissolved on 3rd May - in other words, it was a simple use of this issue for political gain - and followed that up by a direct mail campaign to people in the area, asking for their support for the proposal that the methadone clinic at Long Jetty be relocated to a more appropriate area, knowing full well that that is what the honourable member for The Entrance had been seeking for some three years. He was simply seeking to latch himself on to the coat-tails of the honourable member for The Entrance and the work that he had done over three years. The honourable member for The Entrance stands proudly before his constituents and this House, having introduced this bill. I am sure that he will make sure that not only will the bill go through - I am confident that it will - but also that when it comes into force there will be a proper consultation process with the people of Long Jetty, that there is no reflection on the excellent work done by the clinic and that a site is found for the relocation of the clinic that will be appropriate for the people of the Central Coast and for the work of the clinic so that the methadone program can go on unaffected and so that peace, quite and harmony can be restored to Long Jetty. I commend the bill.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.0]: I have listened with great interest to the contribution made by the honourable member for Gosford, particularly in relation to the issue of methadone clinics in residential areas or in hospitals within the electorate of the honourable member for Peats. There has not been a more determined fight than this by the honourable member for Peats, Mr Doyle, to have the former Minister for Health establish a methadone clinic at Gosford District Hospital. However, instead of establishing it at Gosford District Hospital, where there is available space and opportunity to do it, the former Liberal Minister for Health decided to put the methadone clinic in the midst of a residential area. It is not at Gosford District Hospital, as the honourable member for Peats requested. I should like to have been in the Government party room when the former Minister for Health embarrassed the honourable member for The Entrance by giving him the lead and stating that methadone clinics were to be placed willy-nilly in residential areas throughout New South Wales. The direct effect and brunt of that decision fell upon the honourable member for The Entrance and the honourable
Page 5727
member for Peats. Many people in an around Holden Street, Gosford, came to see the honourable member for Peats. Notwithstanding his strong objections about this issue, and his raising it in the Parliament, his pleas were ignored.
This issue is not confined to Gosford; this sort of thing happens in the electorate of Ashfield. I have been waging a continual battle with previous Ministers for health, not the present Minister for Health Services Management. It will be interesting to note the Government's reaction to this bill and what the result will be. Will the bill be removed? It is unique because it is a private member's bill, introduced by a member who is aggrieved about an issue that might be regarded by some as a single issue. I believe there is a simple solution to the problem. The passage of this bill would result in a government direction that residential areas will no longer be used for the location of methadone clinics. Honourable members will be aware that my electorate covers a wide area of the inner city. Honourable members will be aware also that in and around that area are a vast number of underutilised hospital facilities. For example, Western Suburbs Hospital has a large vacant area and a large number of houses. The list goes on - Prince Alfred Hospital, King George V Hospital, Marrickville District Hospital, which the Government intends to close. I could think of a dozen hospitals within the city that could more appropriately be used for the purposes of dispensing methadone.
Prospect Road, Summer Hill, is one and a half kilometres from Summer Hill railway station, and access to the railway station is no longer available by bus. Betric Hospital is situated well away from transport. A patient who does not have a motor vehicle must walk the distance from the station to the hospital. Patients arrive at that hospital for treatment at 6.30 a.m., and some as early as 5.30 a.m., and are there until 9.30 or 10.30 at night receiving methadone treatment. At various times hundreds of patients visit that hospital. I never want anyone to say to me that I have no sympathy, empathy or understanding of the problems faced by people on methadone treatment. That is not the case. These people deserve better than they are getting. They do not deserve to have to walk in the rain one and a half kilometres from the station to the hospital, and return. In general, hospitals are located close to transport, and for that reason methadone clinics should not be located in residential areas because many residential areas are no longer serviced by public transport. The patients at Betric Hospital are inconvenienced by having to walk from the station to the hospital.
Another aspect is the gross offence occasioned to local residents by the location of methadone clinics in residential areas. For instance, 500 children attend Summer Hill public school. At St Patrick's school at Prospect Road in Summer Hill there are 250 children and another 1,000 young boys attend Trinity Grammar School. Another 50 young children attend Yeo Park school which is in close proximity to the methadone clinic. The hospital is in the midst of a residential area. The local residents understand that methadone must be available to those who need treatment, and I have acknowledged that in this Parliament. But why should methadone clinics be located in residential areas? I do not blame the present Minister for Health Services Management for this situation but I want to have a whack at the former Minister for Health. Mention was made of the last State election. I want to indicate to the House what a hypocrite the former Minister for Health was. Under the guidance of the former Minister for Health, the campaign director opposed to me in the election issued a news release reported in the Western Suburbs Courier on 24th April. It is a well-read newspaper. The article stated that new guidelines were being issued by the Minister for Health. This is what the Liberal Party is reported to have said in a newspaper in my electorate. It realised it was a hot political issue and wanted to depoliticise it, just as the honourable member for Peats wanted to ensure that in his electorate and in the electorate of Gosford methadone clinics were not
Page 5728
thrust upon them without their permission. The guidelines issued by the former Minister for Health stated:
Clients should not be expected to travel excessive distances from their homes to take part in a program.
Distribution of clients should be rational rather than random and the most rational way was to have a service close to the client's home address.
Private practitioners would be restricted from being able to freely move patients to where the practitioner should move.
Another of these guideline stated that the local council had to give permission. The press release stated that two drug clinics in Summer Hill could be removed under the new guidelines. As I said, that was on 24th April, 1991. Let me tell the House what happened in 1990. In about April 1990 the same Minister, the same hypocrite, issued guidelines in identical terms after I had met with him and with the bureaucrats of the Department of Health to deal with residents' complaints and concerns about the location of methadone clinics in residential areas, and about their loss of residential amenity occasioned by the presence of methadone clinics in those areas. Some of the problems are quite serious. Honourable members will understand when I say that people who need methadone treatment arrive at a clinic at about 6.30 a.m. and are there during the day, some of them sitting in cars and drinking booze and causing disturbances. I understand that, and they have my full support to undertake the methadone program. But that program should be available through hospitals, and there are ample hospitals in and around the inner west of Sydney that have vacant buildings and are serviced by transport. They could accommodate the present needs of methadone patients without the need to incur any cost at all. Honourable members will recall that I have just referred to what the Minister said in April 1991. A year earlier, in April 1990, he said the following, which is a direct quote and it is not as if he jumbled up the paragraphs. The press release is in identical terms and states:
In general clients of these centres should not be asked to travel excessive distances from their homes, in order to take part in methadone programmes. The distribution of clients in methadone maintenance programmes should be rational rather than random, and the most rational distribution is to have a service close to the client's home address.
That is the same press release that the previous Minister for Health issued 12 months prior to the last election. In April 1990 the previous Minister for Health also said:
The new guidelines will restrict private practitioners from being able to freely move patients wherever the practitioner moves.
So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to give the new Minister for Health Services Management a bit of a go, but I am not prepared to tolerate falsehoods or whisper campaigns about the likely removal of methadone clinics from my electorate. This Government has had two and a half years within which to do this. It has made no bona fide attempt to move the methadone clinics out of residential areas. This bill will give the Government much greater power than it has now. There is no reason why my constituents should have to wait any longer. Eighteen months ago I had a meeting with the previous Minister for Health, his ministerial advisers and departmental officers. He promised me that these clinics would be moved to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital or to Marrickville Hospital. He said that the Government would commission a report to look at the availability of facilities in those two hospitals. The Government said that the closure of Betric Hospital, therefore, would be imminent. Nothing could be further from the truth. My constituents are still experiencing the same sorts of problems; they still
Page 5729
have the same inconvenience associated with those clinics. The number of methadone patients is increasing in residential areas. On 12th December, 1990 - about 12 months ago - the previous Minister for Health, in a letter to me, said that the number of patients receiving methadone was 5,222 compared with 3,434 in 1987. It was not that the Department of Health did not know or understand that there was going to be an increase in the number of patients.
[Extension of time agreed to.]
It was not that the department did not know that there would be an increased usage of methadone programs in New South Wales. I ask the present Minister: why did the department not plan for it? This Government is closing down hospitals. Marrickville Hospital is being closed and part of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital is being closed. I am not suggesting that the Government should rebuild any of its capital stock; there are plenty of existing buildings in the system that could be modified without the necessity of overexpending. Why did the department not plan for this? It had the figures and it knew that the number of people dependent on methadone was going to double. It was not a secret; therefore, the department should have planned for it. It is not too late to do something about the situation now, particularly in the inner city. I welcome this bill. I am sorry that the pleas of the honourable member for Peats to have the Holden Street clinic located in other than a residential area in Gosford fell on deaf ears. For about three years I have been preaching the gospel for the removal of this clinic. I am pleased that the bill is before the Parliament for consideration. I say to the Minister for Health Services Management that although it has been agreed to adjourn debate on this bill, it may not be discussed further. If this bill does not come on for debate in the name of the member who introduced it, it will come on in my name.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Chikarovski.
FAMILY RELIEF BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 15th November.
Mr CARR (Maroubra), Leader of the Opposition [11.15]: Before debate on this bill was adjourned I was making the point that under the Greiner Government there had been increases in State taxes and charges well beyond the consumer price index. This Government has increased the cost of living to ordinary families in this State well beyond the consumer price index. In detailing the three-year history of this process I was pointing out that, from 1st July this year, an average family in New South Wales will be paying up to $1,400 a year more than in 1988 because of this Government's increased charges. After the last State election, which this Government all but lost because of the reaction of families to its record of increasing charges, we again saw a range of increases - for example, water and electricity charges - ahead of the general movement of the cost of living. One day after officially being sworn into office the Greiner Government increased electricity prices by $28 a year or 5.2 per cent - above the consumer price index.
Hospital bed charges increased by 5.2 per cent - again above the consumer price index - causing the health insurance bill of average families to rise by $40 a year. In addition to this, battling families will be forced to find up to $85 a year extra to pay for public transport. Once again this Government is shifting the burden of its waste and
Page 5730
mismanagement - waste such as the $100 million on Eastern Creek - on to ordinary families through increased charges. The Government has approved water rate rises of 5.2 per cent - again above the consumer price index. That represents $20 a year for households in Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. But the water usage rate goes up by 9.3 per cent from October which is nothing less than double the consumer price index. Every one of these increases represents a broken promise by the Premier - he has broken 200 promises, and these are further broken promises - and an added burden on the families of New South Wales. He has wasted money on consultants; he has wasted money on the Eastern Creek Raceway - as I have said, over $100 million has been sunk into that black hole - he has wasted money on the upper echelons of the public service, the senior executive service; and he has wasted money by handing out cash to special interest groups. The ordinary families of this State have to pay for this waste through increased taxes and charges.
The legislation that I am sponsoring in this Parliament will peg all increases in government charges to no more than the cost of living, with no charge to rise more than once in a 12-month period. The legislation is that simple. This legislation is about protecting people's interests and protecting the living standards of families in New South Wales who have been hurt by this incompetent Premier. The legislation will entrench in law what this Government said at the last election it would do, but it has failed to deliver. These are the charges that ordinary families pay every day of their lives. The bill sets out exactly which household charges are to be pegged at a level no higher than the consumer price index. They include public transport passenger fares, electricity charges, public hospital bed charges and technical and further education fees. As well, council rates and charges levied under the Local Government Act in respect of residential land will be pegged to no more than the cost of living. Weight tax imposed under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act in respect of motor vehicles used substantially for private use is also to be pegged, together with the fees for registration or renewal of registration of a motor vehicle under the Traffic Act, and drivers' licences. Rent payable on a Department of Housing dwelling or a New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation dwelling is included as a household charge and is pegged to the consumer price index by this bill. The exception here is rent paid by tenants subject to market rent arrangements.
Water rates and charges on a dwelling or residential flat building relating to water, sewage and draining services will be prohibited from increases greater than the consumer price index. The consumer price index as defined in the bill means simply the consumer price index for Sydney - the normal proxy for the whole State - published by the Australian Statistician under the Commonwealth Census and Statistics Act 1905. The Greiner Government has consistently run the lie - the big lie, except it never gets any exposure; I suppose it is a weak, limping lie - that the level of charges has increased on average at less than the rate of inflation in the past three years. This is based on the Government's bogus index of taxes and charges. The Government's index - this demonstrates how dishonest it is and how it works, because these are supposed to be the items that impact on the family budget - is arrived at by including Forestry Commission royalties, Waste Management Authority fees, coal royalties, State Rail Authority freight charges, Valuer-General's valuation lists, Land Titles Office charges and Corporate Affairs Commission fees. That is how the Government arrives at its index of government charges. The Opposition reckons the consumer price index is a better measure because we are talking about how this Government's charges affect ordinary battling families in New South Wales. Let us take the consumer price index for Sydney; that is the fairer measure, not the Government's bogus index of government charges which includes royalties imposed by the Forestry Commission, Waste Management Authority fees, coal
Page 5731
royalties and all the rest. Those charges account for almost 25 per cent of the index weighting and are not part of the average household's daily budget.
It is part of the Premier's deception of the public of New South Wales to conceal and hide the chronic waste and mismanagement within this Government. Ordinary families know they are hurting under this Government; that is why they are demanding relief. That is why at the last State election - the election all the experts said we would lose - we got a majority of votes in a majority of seats. The Government was saved only by that disgraceful rort, that racket put together by the Minister for the Environment on the eve of the election that outlawed the use of ticks and crosses. That matter once again is before the court. The court case at present concerning The Entrance and Maitland electorates is all about this principle that at the last State election we got a majority of votes in a majority of seats. As much as the Government wants to squeal and reel, that is the truth. The reason we got the majority of votes is that we went into that campaign, with all the experts and all the polls against us, talking in a Labor fashion about the problems of ordinary families in this State and how they had been hurt, deceived and insulted by the Government's policies; how they had been forced to shoulder the burden of the waste and mismanagement of this appallingly inept manager, the Premier of New South Wales.
Under this bill families get the relief: they are guaranteed by law that their ordinary bills will be pegged. Where a New South Wales household charge is comprised of two or more components, the pegging will apply not only to the charge as a total of those components but also separately to each of those components as if they were a separate charge. For example, the Government's proposed savage hike in water usage rates would be virtually halved under this bill. Where a household charge is increased above the consumer price index, that proportion of the charge that exceeds the limit is invalidated. Furthermore, no new New South Wales household charge will be increased more than once within a 12-month period. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a reduction in any New South Wales household charge. The Government may reduce a charge at any time. Similarly, increases may be less than the latest increase in the consumer price index prior to the charge taking effect. There is a sunset clause in the bill that requires the expiration of the Act at the end of 30th June, 1995.
Proposed increases in government charges will be gazetted. The gazettal will occur no later than four weeks prior to the commencement date. The gazettal notice will include details of the percentage increase to apply and a comparison to the latest consumer price index as defined in the bill. The Regulation Review Committee, as part of its charter, will review these gazetted increases within four weeks of gazettal. The committee will report on any breaches of the Act. Where a breach has occurred the department or authority must take corrective action and such action must be reported in the body's annual report. Where a department or authority breaches the bill, the department head or the board of the department or authority will incur a penalty. This will be either a 10 per cent reduction in remuneration for one year or, following successive breaches, dismissal from his or her position without compensation. Any government body which is empowered to review government charges is also subject to this bill.
The consequences of this legislation are wide reaching. It will force government to live within its means. If this bill had been in place the Minister for the Environment - and more recently the Minister for Housing - would not have been able to allow the Water Board to engage in a $100 million spending spree on consultants. That would not have been possible because they would have been living within the
Page 5732
constraint provided for in this legislation. The situation in the Water Board is getting worse. Recently it advertised an open day for consultants. They are going to turn up at a fairground somewhere and be given samples of the board's drinking water and told how they can milk the Water Board of more ratepayers' money. The Water Board organised an open day for consultants after our colleague the honourable member for Blacktown revealed in this House that the Water Board engaged in $100 million worth of secret spending on consultants. One would have thought that it would learn from the previous scandals involving consultants. The revelations in respect of the senior executive service have been confirmed and accepted by the Premier who went into the last election defending the SES as appropriate. Now he concedes in this House, as he did a month ago, that the Government has wasted huge sums of money on the SES and that it must be cut back to its original size. We in the Labor Party always proposed that the senior executive service should be cut to roughly half its size.
The size of the senior executive service would not have been allowed to blow out, to double itself, on the Government's original intentions if Labor's Family Relief Act had been in place because it would have forced government to live within its means. If this Act had been in place there is no way the Government would have been able to pay out taxpayers' money, money taken from families, to special interests. I refer to that disgraceful payment of $100 million to the Fairfax family. Taxpayers' money was handed to the Fairfax family, as if it did not have enough, as stamp duty relief. The ordinary families of this State do not get stamp duty relief but the Fairfax family was given $100 million. Then there was that payment to George Herscu. George Herscu was going under, going bankrupt, and a massive payment of $35 million of taxpayers' money was handed to George Herscu. What does that mean?
Mr Harrison: Where did that money go?
Mr CARR: My colleague the honourable member for Kiama asks where it has gone? Nobody knows, but it is not serving the people of New South Wales. That sort of largesse to special interests would not have been possible if Labor's Family Relief Act had been in place. The other example I am compelled to highlight is the payment to egg producers. The government says it wants to deregulate egg production in New South Wales. That is a fine decision. It is a free-market government; it wants to get rid of regulations. But just to demonstrate how committed it is to the free market it hands over the enormous sum of $61 million to the egg producers. That $61 million was taken from the families of New South Wales and handed over as compensation for egg market deregulation. That money went to the big companies. I make the point again: those sorts of payouts to special interest groups would not have been possible if the public interest - the interests of people such as those in the gallery today - had been protected by Labor's Family Relief Act. By putting a cap on government charges, the Government would have been forced to live within its means. The Government would not have had the opportunity to lavish taxpayers' money on its office refits. All the waste that is now hanging around your Government supporters', which is the symbol of the Government -
Mr Amery: Like Clarence Street.
Mr CARR: Clarence Street? Is that one of the access roads to Eastern Creek? I had forgotten about Eastern Creek. We are talking about waste and mismanagement and how that burden is carried by the ordinary families of New South Wales, and will be until this legislation is enacted. There the Premier stood in December 1989 assuring the Parliament that no more than $2 million of taxpayers' money would be placed at risk with Eastern Creek. However, the blowout took place, stage by stage, deceit by deceit
Page 5733
revealed, until finally this week the bill for Eastern Creek, to be borne by the ordinary families of New South Wales, has reached more than $100 million. The latest payment poured into Eastern Creek is $16 million. I have news for the Government: revelations on the way will confirm that the fiscal bleeding from the gaping wound of Eastern Creek will continue.
The truth is that this bill must be paid by the ordinary families of New South Wales. It could well be that every family will be forced to pay by way of State taxes and charges something like $45 for the Premier's enthusiasm for a bikeway that should have remained the responsibility of the private sector. The most important effect of Labor's Family Relief Bill is that it will force the Government to live within a financial straitjacket. It will save taxpayers from the waste and mismanagement that has been characteristic of the Greiner years. It will force the Government to take the knife to wasteful practices and plain mismanagement. It will stop any government acting as a high-charging government, as this Government has been for three and a half years. It will ensure that battling families, wherever they live in the State, will be given a break from the endless round of increasing government charges. In every sense this is a bill for the battlers. More important, it will result in concrete protection, not broken promises. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Mr SPEAKER: The question is, That grievances be noted.
WOLLONGONG HOSPITAL ORTHOVOLTAGE MACHINE
Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [11.33]: I have two grievances relating to health in the Wollongong electorate that are causing great concern in that community. The first relates to an offer made by the trustees of the Illawarra cancer appealathon fund, which raised almost $3 million on two occasions during the past few years. The trustees have offered to pay for the installation of an orthovoltage machine in the cancer care centre at Wollongong Hospital. During the past few months the cost of the machine has escalated considerably. The original quote was $268,895; it is now $303,000. The difficulty is that the room in which the machine is to be installed has to be renovated. It is located in a new building where the lead lining in the room is only two millimetres thick, but needs to be a minimum of seven millimetres. The first renovations quote obtained from Medical Applications was $30,000. Subsequently the area health service obtained an opinion from the Public Works Department, which in June quoted $198,670, of which almost $57,000 relates to fees and commission payable to the department, and $142,000 for the actual work.
Originally the trustees were willing to pay for the machine and for the renovation of the room. The quote having increased to $200,000, the trustees have understandably baulked, particularly with regard to the $57,000 payable to the Public Works Department by way of commission and fees. Since then, Medical Applications has provided another quote, of $55,000, to fit out the room. The area health service in its reply to the trustees on 17th September, 1991, said that it cannot provide capital funding for the installation of the orthovoltage machine. The private contractor successfully completed the necessary renovation work and installed a similar machine at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital in Newcastle. However, apparently that contractor is unacceptable to install a similar machine in a purpose-built building in the Illawarra. The cancer centre, using a linear
Page 5734
accelerator, treats on average 42 patients each day. Its optimum daily operating capacity is 37 patients. If the orthovoltage machine were installed, an average of 10 to 15 patients could be treated each day. That would allow the linear accelerator to be used effectively for its designated purpose as a curative tool in the treatment of cancer.
The purpose of an orthovoltage machine is basically to provide palliative treatment for patients whose cancer is at such a stage that they cannot be cured. This is an intolerable situation and it requires the intervention of the Department of Health. I suspect that the trustees would look favourably to increasing their offer of funding to $55,000 for the fitout. However, installation of the machine would require the approval of the area health service and the Department of Health. I ask the Minister for Health Services Management to intervene in the matter as it should be addressed as quickly as possible. It certainly should not be delayed until next year. My second grievance about health matters in the Wollongong electorate relates to a study of lead levels in residential areas immediately surrounding heavy industrial sites. The study was a joint project of the pollution task force, which comprised Healthy Cities Illawarra and the health promotion unit of the Illawarra Area Health Service, conducted under a joint research agreement between the area health service and the University of Wollongong.
Mr Phillips: On a point of order. The honourable member for Wollongong is a new member of the House -
Mr Beckroge: You would not have known if the Deputy Clerk had not told you.
Mr Phillips: After I sought advice, to check my facts. That is not an accusation you should make. The honourable member for Wollongong may not be aware that during the grievance debate a member is allowed to raise only one matter of concern. He is now speaking about a second matter.
Mr Hatton: On the point of order. I do not believe that to be the fact. On grievance matters honourable members can use the time allocated to them to raise a multitude of matters. That change was made quite some months ago.
Ms Machin: On the point of order. The honourable member for South Coast is not correct. Quite recently, as the Chair, I have made rulings, based on rulings of Speaker Rozzoli made in this and the last Parliament, to make it clear that during private members' statements and grievance debates members may raise only one subject concerning their electorate but may not canvass a range of issues.
Mr Hatton: Further to the point of order. I am quite certain that is not the case. It was made known to honourable members that in the 10 minutes allocated to members to make private members' statements they could raise a number of matters, provided the issues related to their electorate and were of concern to the members. On many occasions members have raised a number of matters in this debate. I am amazed that a point of order should be taken on a member who seeks to raise a number of matters on behalf of his electorate.
Mr Face: On the point of order. If the honourable member for Port Macquarie has ruled that members can raise only one subject in these debates, the Speaker may have to regard her ruling as setting precedent, because that rule was not applied when I or Speaker Kelly occupied the chair. The honourable member for Wollongong is attempting what I have been permitted to do and have done on numerous occasions. It is fundamentally a further erosion of honourable members' privileges.
Page 5735
Mr Griffiths: That is nonsense. The honourable member should have a look at Speaker Kelly's rulings.
Mr Face: The Minister would not know what day it is.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! I call the honourable member for Charlestown and the Minister to order.
Mr Sullivan: On the point of order. Many of the people who use the linear accelerator at the cancer care unit suffer from this pollution by living in the industrial residential areas near the industry in question. This really is the curative side of the issue.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! For the benefit of all members I shall restate some guidelines set down by Speaker Kelly, and adopted by Speaker Rozzoli, outlining the parameters of grievance debates. I shall then address the issue of the honourable member for Wollongong. Guidelines set down by Speaker Kelly reaffirm:
(1) Members should restrict themselves to matters of concern to themselves, their electorates or their community generally and should not ventilate inappropriate matters;
(2) Members must confine themselves to one subject of particular concern to them and their electorate. Members may not canvass a number of matters in one contribution, even though they had sufficient time in which to do so; and
(3) Members must not attack the conduct of other members under the guise of having a grievance noted.
The reference there is Speaker Rozzoli, 1988, No. 9, Hansard reference 17th November, 1988, at page 3682. In particular I draw to the attention of all honourable members in particular the second guideline. I ask the honourable member for Wollongong to bear those guidelines in mind. I will allow him some latitude, but he must then return to strict observance of the guidelines. I ask all subsequent contributors to the grievance debate to do likewise.
Mr SULLIVAN: Mr Acting-Speaker -
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's time for speaking has expired.
Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River), Minister for Justice [11.43]: The honourable member for Wollongong perhaps has not been advised that, as a courtesy and for the productive disposal of private members' statements and grievance debates, it is usual practice for members to advise the Minister's office of the topic sought to be raised. This may enable the Minister an opportunity to provide a full and frank response. Because the honourable member for Wollongong, as a new member, has not received that advice from his colleagues, my office was not advised of this issue. Therefore, it is impossible for me to make a contribution to a matter of concern to the honourable member and his constituents. I shall undertake to seek advice and supply him with a full and frank answer. I hope that in future he and all honourable members will inform parliamentary ministerial staff of issues they wish to raise so that these debates may be much more constructive.
Page 5736 CROWN LAND ASSESSMENTS
Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.45]: I grieve on behalf of many individual and constituent groups within the Port Macquarie electorate. I wish to focus on land assessments which are now a requirement for certain changes of Crown land use under the new Crown Lands Act. For the record and the benefit of Independent members of both Houses of this Parliament, I should like to refer to the last Parliament to discuss how that came about. We developed a new Crown Land Act under the former Minister responsible, the Hon. Ian Causley, Minister for Natural Resources. That involved some sweeping changes to the Act and major improvements to what had, at times, become a fairly outdated and unwieldy Act. Because of the situation at that time in the upper House, a number of amendments were moved. The Government accepted some of these amendments in order to have the major part of the Act passed. One was the inclusion of a provision to undertake a land assessment of any piece of Crown land once its use was proposed to be changed, no matter how minor or major that use may be. In fact there is no differentiation between using a one metre square piece of Crown land for a small purpose and selling off or leasing a major portion of Crown land for some development or significant use.
The moving of that amendment showed that those moving it did not possess wide knowledge of Crown land, in country New South Wales in particular. This may or may not be a problem in the city but it is a problem for country members of Parliament, given that there are more parcels of Crown land and their use tends to be somewhat fluid. This is particularly so on the North Coast where the population is growing and pressure is mounting for change, and often a very good case for a change, in the use of land. I shall give the House a few examples relating to the Port Macquarie area. It demonstrates how unwieldy this provision is. Concern has been expressed about Crown land being sold off. The old lie of a dollar an acre always springs to mind. Using the same criteria, I recall that the former environment Minister responsible for planning sold similar land for 17c an acre. But that is by the by. It is possible to have a system in which the need for Crown land and its maintenance is observed. However, a practical approach must be taken on adjustments to Crown land estates in New South Wales.
In the past 18 months matters have come to my attention. One relates to a residential property near my home in Port Macquarie. The home accidentally encroached on a Crown land reserve. The owners sought rectification by doing a simple land swap. They traded a portion of their private land back to the reserve in order to retain that part of Crown land that had been incorporated into their property and on which they had built a swimming pool. So far it has taken approximately a year to deal with that simple trade because of administrative procedures and the delays in carrying out the land assessment. Because it was not a major issue it did not have priority. In the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Oxley is the Rocks Ferry boat ramp. It requires a three foot or six foot extension on the side of the ramp. Because it is on Crown land it must go through the whole land assessment process merely to add a few feet to the side of the ramp to make it more practical for the users. The river-beds are classified as Crown land and if any works are required to be done, a land assessment process must take place. Subsequently an environmental impact study must be carried out, so in that case there are two bites of the cherry.
For about three years a constituent of mine has been seeking to lease or purchase a parcel of Crown land which is of a fairly unusual shape and would not be required for other purposes. He is in the transport industry and wants to establish a business with a depot on this area of land. He lodged his application before the amendment to the Act
Page 5737
was dealt with by the previous Parliament but is still waiting to have it brought to finality. Earlier I referred to an example involving a small block of land. In the electorate of one of my colleagues a one metre square portion of land was required on which to erect a small tower. Even for that small parcel of land it was necessary to go through the land assessment process. In Laurieton it is proposed to build a home and community care centre which will cost about $300,000. The proposal is somewhat complicated and involves a number of departments. That project also requires land assessment. The fishermen's co-operative at Laurieton wants to extend and develop its premises. That would be a wonderful asset for the community and a boost to tourism. The co-operative is now caught up in the land assessment process. The maritime museum at Port Macquarie wants to obtain land adjacent to its present premises but has to make application for land assessment also. The Port Macquarie ocean pool committee is in a similar position.
In a number of the instances to which I have referred a fair amount of duplication is involved because once the land assessment has been done it will be necessary to carry out an environmental impact study. The few projects around Port Macquarie that I have mentioned have a value totalling about $3 million. They are community-based projects except for one or two of them which have private involvement. They are being delayed because of the amendment, which was probably moved in good faith in the other place during the term of the previous Parliament. The Act is having a negative impact on many legitimate activities in the electorate and throughout New South Wales. It has caused a problem for applicants and for the Department of Lands. My colleague the Minister for Conservation and Land Management has told me that at present about 29 man years of work is involved in the backlog of land assessments. It is not possible to process them speedily. Some alternative must be found, whether it be prioritising applications, trying to knock out a few or deleting the requirement for land assessments. Councils are caught in a vicious circle. An applicant such as the ocean pool committee cannot lodge a development application until the land assessment is completed. That assessment must be done to enable the Department of Lands to grant its consent to owners of land. The department must first consent to a development application being lodged, but will not do so until the land assessment has been carried out. That means that councils are unable to consider such an application. In many cases the projects involve public consultation. That is often delayed or is not possible because the application gets tied up in this circuitous process.
A number of solutions have been suggested and at some stage I hope they will be put before the House for consideration. They will simplify procedures and enable some of these excellent community projects to be undertaken without the need to go through this convoluted process. Under the Act the Minister has authority to waive the need for a land assessment if he is satisfied that the application pays due regard to the principles of Crown land management. The former Minister in good faith gave an undertaking to do that. His successor may have done it once, in regard to the one square metre portion of land about which I spoke. Another suggestion was that councils and the Land Titles Office could put the proposals on display at the same time so that the development application could be considered and the public input process commenced at the same time as the land assessment was being done. When the development application went before council the environmental impact study could be commenced at the same time as the land assessment was displayed. That would mean that three stages would be continuing at the one time. It might be possible to draw a distinction between the sizes of the various parcels of land. It seems absurd to have to go through this process which takes up lots of time and money while decisions are made about a small parcel of land. Another suggestion related to regional plans. I know the Minister is considering this
Page 5738
proposal and I commend him for his actions in attempting to find ways around the problem. If we must have the provision, and I doubt that we must, at least an attempt should be made to weed out the smaller projects that can be done immediately and to streamline the remainder of the procedures by running them in conjunction with the consideration of council applications so that they can be completed as quickly as possible.
SHOALHAVEN POLICE RESOURCES
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [11.55]: I raise matters related to police facilities and the police manning levels at Shoalhaven. The first matter is the provision of a police boat for the area. The requirement for such a vessel has been firmly established for some years. There was an old boat in the area which was unseaworthy and unsafe in open waters and in bad weather conditions. During the last election campaign a commitment was given that the boat would be replaced with a suitable vessel. A tender was let. One of the complaints I received was that the successful tenderer was a Queensland firm and not a local manufacturer who could have provided a vessel of similar specifications that would have done the job quite well. The Police Association is concerned that the boat for which the tender was let will not be supplied. The electorate was misled about the indebtedness of the State and the extent of the financial problems. I hope that the reductions in expenditure by the Government in its attempt to address its financial difficulties will not affect that firm undertaking and it will not be cast aside. During holiday times it is essential to have a police vessel in the Shoalhaven region. It is a wild wind area that has problems with northerly winds and sudden southerly busters. The region has hundreds of kilometres of waterways, estuaries, lakes and bays. Fortunately the Navy has been able to help out on a number of occasions and assisted with rescue services. It cannot be expected to do all the work that should be performed by a police vessel. The position is serious because police do not have a boat and they have to call for assistance from the Maritime Services Board or the Fisheries Department. They should be able to carry out proper patrols.
The legislation to control drink driving of vessels will come before the Parliament in the near future. That will emphasise the need for more police resources, personnel and equipment. Officers of the Maritime Services Board and the Fisheries Department are overworked and their resources stretched to the limit. They should not have to make up for the inadequacies of the Government allocation. Police manning levels in Shoalhaven are of extreme concern. The area has more than 80 kilometres of coastline. At least 35 villages are scattered throughout the Shoalhaven region. That makes the policing of the area strategically difficult. The population of the small villages is increasing. In holiday times houses that are normally vacant are fully occupied, as are the camping areas. Manning levels have been increased during holiday periods, and I am grateful for that. In the off-peak period many properties are unattended because owners of those properties live outside the electorate. There is a steep increase in crime, particularly in rapidly growing areas such as Culburra, St Georges Basin and Vincentia. These problems must be addressed. I am not renowned for massaging egos but I should heap praise on the local police. They have done and are doing an excellent job. They have taken community policing to heart. These police, particularly those who have to service outlying areas from Nowra, work closely with the community and with rare exception work diligently. I refer especially to the officers who operate from Huskisson police station and service the rapidly growing Huskisson-Vincentia-St Georges Basin region which has a staggering population growth rate of 11 per cent compounding, with several hundred residences being built every year despite the fact that we are in the middle of a recession.
Page 5739
The community has reacted positively to the police because of the way the police are operating, running blue light discos and getting involved with youth organisations, the Bay Basin Resources Committee, the St Georges Basin and Districts Precinct Committee and various community organisations such as chambers of commerce and ratepayers associations. Police need assistance urgently. Earlier this year I spoke with Assistant Commissioner Gibson, chief superintendents Cassidy and Eric Rosa from the establishment control branch and Mr David Gill, who was working on the allocation of police personnel. I pointed out that I thought some savings could be made, that some reallocation to the Shoalhaven could occur and that there was an urgent need for more police in those rapidly growing areas. It is all very well to say that the police are doing a good job, to flog a willing horse. It appears to me that people in the police force are not recognised for doing a good job because it is difficult to get more police personnel and equipment to help do that job.
The Police Association and police themselves quite properly complain about the lack of resources in the Shoalhaven area. This needs to be addressed. One way for this to be addressed urgently is through the appointment of a public service communications officer. There is a freeze on new positions and even on replacement positions in some public service areas. However, people are being offered redundancies. One such person could be offered a job in the Shoalhaven. It would save police time and would be a great boost for efficiency in dealing with telephones, faxes, typing and radio networks. It would free police from the desk and put them where they are trained to be - in the field doing the job. The appointment of a public service communications officer is urgent and is a low cost solution to some of the problems of police manning levels.
The last thing I mention is the review by the Chief Magistrate of the structuring of court circuits. For a short time police had to go from Milton to Batemans Bay together with witnesses and defendants. There was no public transport and that journey was done at great cost and time loss. It has been shown throughout the world - not only in Australia - that one of the major costs of the Westminster system of justice is the loss of police time through their waiting outside court houses for innumerable hours and having to travel to court cases. I make a plea that in the review the Milton and the Nowra court circuit be structured to make the best use of police resources so that witnesses, defendants and members of the legal profession are not put to extra cost and inconvenience.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [12.5]: I appreciate the issues raised by the honourable member for South Coast about policing matters in his area. I am pleased that he honestly recognises that every government in Australia has a budgetary problem. We are in the worst recession for 60 years. Twelve months ago nobody predicted this and Australia then was driven into a much deeper recession by the policies of the Federal Government and Federal Treasury. They are still trying to find answers and a way to drag Australia out of that recession. Things are still not looking bright for the near and medium-term future. For the short time that the Greiner Government has been in office it can stand proud on its record in policing. There are well over 1,000 additional police in the force; there have been reductions in crime rates in all sorts of areas and in accident and death rates on the roads; and there has been a significant impact on organised crime and a great impact on institutional crime through the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In the areas of justice, law and order and policing we have done a lot, but there is always a lot more to do and things that can be done better. One of the challenges of being in government is finding better ways to do things. I appreciate the issues raised by the honourable member for South Coast on behalf of his constituents and their efforts to try to find better ways of local
Page 5740
policing, in conjunction with the community and the police force. I will take the issues he has raised to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services so that he can look into the matter for him.
LOOK AT ME NOW HEADLAND AND EMERALD BEACH PROTESTER ARRESTS
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [12.6]: Once more I bring before the House the problems being experienced in the Emerald Beach and northern beaches area of my electorate concerning the authorised sewage outfall. At the moment there are people within the community belonging to environmental groups and members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales claiming that undue force has been used by police officers in trying to prevent breaches of the peace in this area. Their claim is nothing but a lie. The police are at Emerald Beach only because a certain group of people have decided that they will ignore law and order and the fact that a commission of inquiry in 1988 decided that an outfall should be placed at Look At Me Now Headland. They are ignoring the ruling of the Land and Environment Court on an appeal placed before it by the Coffs Harbour Environment Centre. When it was notified that the appeal was to be brought forward, it was stated that it would be brought forward on environmental grounds and on the basis of the environmental impact statement that had been done. They knew that the environmental impact statement was rock solid and that the commission of inquiry that was legally constituted had been through the environmental impact statement and that it would hold up in any court of law.
When they had to submit the grounds of appeal they came in at five minutes to five in the afternoon of the last day that the appeal had to be lodged and decided to lodge the appeal on the grounds that the council was not complying with its local environmental plan. They lost the case. One of the leaders of the environmentalists, Alderman Alf Williams, stated publicly that he would accept the decision of the Land and Environment Court. When the environmentalists lost the case they decided, as is typical of the environmental movement these days, that what they had said publicly before as an assurance to the people of Coffs Harbour did not really matter, and they decided to lodge an appeal against the decision. They have also indicated that they will appeal on other grounds, but they do not have any grounds - they will not tell anyone what the grounds are. So they are now advocating a system whereby law and order will not be maintained and where police officers are placed in an intolerable situation because they must keep the peace and these people are breaching the peace.
The green attitude is that the ends justify the means. The green movement has tried to indicate through an Independent member of this House, the honourable member for Davidson, that the effluent to be released at the Look At Me Now Headland would be similar to that released from North Head in Sydney. Dr Metherell made the statement, "We do not want another North Head on the North Coast". That is misrepresentation of the worst kind. The sewage treatment taking place at the Woolgoolga treatment works is tertiary treatment. Even Memtec will not give guarantees about the quality of the effluent. Memtec is the company that environmentalists hold up as the saviour of the North Coast, but even that company will not guarantee that its treatment of the effluent will produce effluent of a better quality or quality equal to that produced now at Woolgoolga, which will continue to be produced after augmentation. The environmentalists are placing the majority of Coffs Harbour residents in a totally untenable situation. They advocate and practise breaches of the peace and anarchy. The council was elected on this sewerage issue in September. The majority on council is about 75 per cent to 80 per cent, yet the environmentalists with their "not in my back
Page 5741
yard" or NIMBY syndrome seek to disturb and to thwart this development in the northern beaches area. The activists do not take into consideration the health risks involved. Some people who cannot afford or do not wish to pay pump-out costs for their septic systems are pumping them nightly into drains. The activists refuse to accept the fact that such a practise is more environmentally damaging than the ocean outfall would be.
I have consulted marine biologists in Coffs Harbour about the outfall and the effects on the marine reserve. I refer to Steve Smith and to David Clayton. They say that the effluent to be released from the Look At Me Now Headland could be considered beneficial to the marine environment in that it may promote nutrient growth, producing more algae, and thus could promote fish breeding in the area. The activists argue that fresh water cannot be put into the ocean. They concede that the effluent is 99.8 per cent fresh water and cannot be put in the ocean. The truth is that all the rivers and creeks on earth run into the ocean at some stage. The lies and insinuations stir a minority of people into breaching the peace. The professional activists who have come from the AIDEX exhibition in Canberra are pushing the local residents to the edge. It is local residents who are being arrested while professional demonstrators sit back and let someone else take the blame. These activists are not credible and cannot be credible. The police in Coffs Harbour are doing a magnificent job under very trying circumstances. Chief Inspector Peter Mortensen and Inspector Ron McDonald are doing a tremendous job. Their troops are to be congratulated, as are council staff who have to put up with abuse from people, a fair percentage of whom are not residents of the North Coast. These activists are professional demonstrators who are on the dole, paid by the Department of Social Security, and act against development, against councils and, therefore, against society.
I am concerned that members of the Legislative Council and some Independent members of this House are talking to environmental groups and refusing to listen to the arguments of the local council, the Public Works Department and independent people in the area who present a balanced and logical view about the need for the outfall. The effluent that is produced cannot be used completely on land. I compliment the council for investigating re-use options. Re-use will be part of the scheme in Coffs Harbour in years to come. At the moment sludge is used at the airport and effluent is used on Sawtell golf course. My main concern is that the environmentalists cost the State and the ratepayers of Coffs Harbour a fortune because they refuse to accept instructions from police, they refuse to accept the lawful findings of a commission of inquiry and they refuse to accept that a council elected on this issue is empowered to do the job that the people of Coffs Harbour put them there to do. I condemn the activists and I condemn the members of this House and of the Legislative Council who back them without regard for the health and well-being of the people of Coffs Harbour.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [12.16]: The important issue raised by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is how far demonstrators should go in trying to push a point of view. It is always a fine line. For many years in Australia demonstrators occasionally have stepped over the line but in the main they have a reputation of being able to exercise a democratic right to demonstrate, to express a strong point of view in opposition to a range of issues. I know that a number of members of this House share the concern of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour at the recent trend for demonstrators to become aggressive, to step over the line. Recently in Canberra behaviour by demonstrators caused injury to and put at risk the lives of police officers, and caused enormous damage to public property. Quite obviously they went too far in expressing a view. They made no bones about the fact that once the
Page 5742
demonstrations had finished in Canberra they were heading north to Coffs Harbour to demonstrate there over the Look At Me Now Headland ocean outfall.
This is not an easy issue. The community must resolve the problem of effluent disposal. We cannot just oppose it; the problem will not go away. Legal and other processes must be conducted. It is the democratic right of a citizen not to be happy with a decision and to demonstrate in relation to that. But the line must be drawn at violence. When the welfare of citizens is put at risk, that line must be drawn. The police officers must try to maintain law and order. The police also have a responsibility not to transgress the line. It does not take much to step over the line. Some people in the community use these issues to undermine the community by the use of violence. I am sure the community and parliamentarians would treat that seriously and would not accept it. Though activists have a right to demonstrate and to do so strongly, they have no right to employ violence. They have no right to undermine society or to move toward anarchy.
I know that this is a difficult issue for the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and many honourable members in this House. I wish I had the luxury - as some Independents in this place have - of being able to strut around New South Wales. I wish that I were an instant expert and a populist on all issues. It is the height of arrogance for people to believe that they are experts on every issue. It is also very destructive to be a populist. Independent members in this Parliament have that luxury, but Government members and members of the Labor Party do not. I commend the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for indicating that people have a right to demonstrate. I am sure that honourable members will keep a careful note of what is happening in Coffs Harbour over the issue of the Look At Me Now Headland ocean outfall.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND MR HILTON SIMMONDS
Mr A. S. AQUILINA (St Marys) [12.21]: I will take only a few minutes of the time of the House to speak about a confidential and sensitive issue. I have the permission of my constituent, Mr Hilton Simmonds, to mention his name in Parliament. Mr Simmonds was a ward of the State. As a child he was not allowed to have details of his parents. Of course, this was over 40 years ago and regulations and laws are quite different today. It is understood that his parents would now be deceased. Mr Simmonds has been trying for many years to get details of his parents. By accident he came across a photograph in a local historical journal of a gentleman who looked very much like he did as a younger man. That started a chain of events. He has suffered considerable anxiety in trying to establish who his forebears were. Both he and I have contacted the Department of Health and Community Services in his attempt to gain access to his files, which are supposedly at the Kingswood State Archives. This matter is difficult because it is confidential. Mr Simmonds has been told that his files are stamped, "Not to be released". When we run into a problem such as this - the file was drawn up decades ago in the Children's Court - we need to be sensitive to changing community attitudes and to people's desire to know more about from whence they came.
I hope that the Minister for Health and Community Services and the Attorney General will give sympathetic consideration to this matter. In due course I will, in confidence, give the relevant Minister further details about this case. I ask the Minister for Health Services Management, who is in the Chamber, to pass on my concerns and those of Mr Simmonds. We seem to have come up against a brick wall. It may be the case that the Minister will not be able to help. But Mr Simmonds has given me
Page 5743
permission to raise this matter in Parliament and to mention his name to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. He was a ward of the State and is extremely unhappy at not being able to access his files after a period of many years. Even though laws have been changed he is still not able to access those files in the archives. I ask the Minister in the Chamber to pass to the relevant Minister my concerns about people in this sort of situation. Many wards of the State have been unable to access details of their family background. They have a great need, psychologically and emotionally, to access these details with the assistance of the Government of the day.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [12.25]: I note the important matter raised by the honourable member for St Marys about his constituent, Mr Simmonds, who was a ward of the State and who requires access to departmental files and information to determine more about his genetic background. Every member of this House would accept that it is a matter of right and principle for people to find out about their genetic backgrounds. I will take up the matter of access to files with the relevant Minister to determine whether something can be done to help Mr Simmonds.
CROATIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
Mr PETCH (Gladesville) [12.26]: I grieve for the Australian Croatian community regarding the present tragedy and injustice affecting the Republic of Croatia. It is an injustice perpetrated not just by the aggressors, the communist government based in Serbia, but also by those foreign bodies who are intervening only nominally - the European Community, the United States of America and Australia. This is an urgent issue that requires immediate action rather than feeble procrastination, vigorously exemplified by the foreign interveners negotiating there at present. This is not just a Croatian tragedy; it is a humanitarian tragedy that resonates with alarm around the world. I make it clear to the House that when I refer to the communist Government in Serbia I do not refer to those loyal Australians of Serbian background or those people who have emigrated to Australia to escape the yoke of communism. I do not refer to those loyal Serbs who live in Serbia who are peaceful people, who are not part of this war, and who do not support the communist regime.
The Federal Labor Government in Canberra initially intervened to recognise the inevitable break-up of Yugoslavia and the legitimate aspirations of Croatia in seeking independence. It condemned the unwarranted use and force of the Yugoslav army whose military aim is to annex foreign territory. This war is not a civil war, as it has been erroneously described, but a war between two governments. With the escalation of the destruction and occupation of Croatia, the Labor Government has taken a weak and ineffectual stance. In addition, the Labor Government in Canberra has contributed $100,000 for the Croatian cause only to have it sent to the Red Cross in Belgrave, capital of the communist government in Serbia. What an absurd act of naivety or hypocrisy. No one would expect the Serbian communist government to lawfully transfer this donated aid to the very people they are attacking. The statement by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, "to recognise Croatia when the time is right", is absolute hypocrisy. When is the time right? Does that time come when the military might of the communist government has levelled every town and every village in Croatia? Is that when the time is right to recognise Croatia? I wish now to say something about constituents of Croatian origin in my electorate. They are the most loyal, law-abiding, peace-loving people one could ever wish to meet. They have demonstrated a loyalty to me that has never been exhibited by any other group.
Page 5744
The Croatian community in this country has been the victim of vilification and denigration. It has been raided, charged and put in court. Recent revelations by the communist government clearly show that evidence given in an attempt to convict a lot of Croatians in this country was false evidence - evidence given by a communist who has subsequently returned to Yugoslavian territory. I grieve for the people of Croatian origin. I have a deep concern for the grievous events that unravel so speedily while aid arrives so hesitantly. Vukovar is a salient example. That town, with a population of 84,024 people, has faced continual bombardment by the Yugoslav army for 90 days. The city's Baroque architecture has been shelled completely. The city has been levelled. There has been a huge casualty toll as well as immeasurable suffering. The 15,000 people trapped in the city are living in underground shells and sewer drains under deplorable conditions. The army moved into the city and fired its first shell into the police station and its second into the hospital. That is its modus operandi in its efforts to take over and annexe all the sovereign territory of the Republic of Croatia.
The tragic figures speak for themselves: more than a quarter of a million Croatian refugees have been forced from their homes; more than 2,000 Croatians have been killed - mainly innocent civilians; the aged and defenceless have been mutilated and massacred; war damage has been occasioned to the extent of $US20 million; artillery that has been banned under international treaties, such as cluster bombs, napalm bombs and chemical weapons, has been used. Surely there can be no justification for this insanity and mass destruction that the Yugoslav army so systematically persists in. The communists of Serbia have from the advent of the war justified their offensive attack by claiming that they are protecting the Serbian minority in Croatia. This claim has been irrevocably exposed as mere fabrication and deliberate artifice for territorial gain, as reflected from the recent onslaught of the Croatian port of Dubrovnik, which is under World Heritage listing. There are no Serbians in Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik is a magnificent port on the Adriatic. Yet the Serbs sent their ships and shells there to try and level that city. It is under World Heritage listing, but that means nothing whatever to these insurgents, these communists who want to take the territory of Croatia and annexe it. There is no Serbian population resident in or army garrison located in Dubrovnik. This is at the very least an attempt at genocide. Other cities facing this threat of mass destruction are Osijek, Zadar, Split, Sibenik, Mostar and Vinkovci.
It is fortunate that those born in Australia have never suffered under such conditions of invasion and have never had to flee their homes in search of safety and basic human rights. The 250,000 Croatians resident in Australia today are living proof of this tragedy. History is repeating itself. But this repetition of events can be stopped. It is unfortunate that amongst the very loyal Australians of Serbian background and Serbian origin - as well as among those of Croatian background and Croatian origin - there will always be extremists and extremist factions. That does not refer to the general population of those peoples. I draw the attention of the House to a cassette, a copy of which I am holding in my hand, called "Stop the War in Croatia". This tape was on sale and available at Brashs. A friend of mine went to buy a copy to give to his friends. It contains a peaceful song with the message: stop the war, stop this genocide. The tape has been withdrawn from sale under threat; and that is happening here in this country.
It is imperative that Australia as a responsible member of the international community and as a democratic country take the action necessary to abolish the war against the Croatian people. Australia should nullify its political cajolery and be the first nation to recognise the independence of Croatia. This can be accomplished with the assistance of other parliamentarians. The statements I have made here today are
Page 5745
irrefutable, and I therefore strongly appeal to the House and those present to join with me as parliamentarians for Croatia and Slovenia.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [12.35]: A couple of the matters raised by the honourable member for Gladesville on this very important issue bring certain matters to my mind. His remarks highlight just how lucky we are to be politicians in Australia. Though we have our differences and our wrangles and we get excited about issues at times, politics is easy in Australia. We really do have the freedom to walk the streets, to speak our minds, to stand up for issues, to fight for the many things that are important to us and generally not feel at risk. We must continue to protect that wonderful freedom. In Europe the Croatians and the Serbs have significant and long-term rivalries. A lot of hatred has built up over many years. They have engaged in a massive fight for power and perpetrated what we in Australia regard as useless killings. I am sure that when we as members of Parliament turn on television sets each night and read the newspapers we have a sense of helplessness as to what we as Australians can do about what is happening in Europe. That feeling must be multiplied a hundredfold for Croatians in Australia as they see their homeland being destroyed and their loved ones, their friends and their fellow countrymen being progressively eliminated.
I am not an expert in the area of international affairs. All one can do is shake one's head when at times the world community seems so able to resolve issues but at other times it just stands aside and watches things happen. It really gives one a sense of helplessness. The Croatian and Servian communities in Australia are wonderful additions to our society. The honourable member for Gladesville has indicated that he has in his electorate such communities that are made up of good Australian citizens, good supporters of our democratic system and great contributors to our society. I am sure that all members of this Parliament join with the honourable member in calling on those in the Federal Parliament and the leaders of the world to find ways to resolve this terrible tragedy that is occurring in Europe. It is to be hoped that it can be brought to an end as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
Mr ZIGGY POHL CONVICTION INQUIRY
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [12.38]: Seventeen years ago a murder occurred in Queanbeyan, and one Ziggy Pohl was later convicted of the murder of his wife. At that time Mr Pohl pleaded his innocence, but since that time a group of people has been pleading on his behalf to have the matter reheard. I joined the fight to look after this innocent man some time ago; and about 18 months ago one Roger Graham Bawden attended Queanbeyan police station on 8th September, 1990, and confessed to the murder of which Mr Pohl had been convicted. I wrote to the former Attorney General asking that the matter be disposed of by way of inquiry under section 475 of the Crimes Act, but to no avail. The present Attorney General issued a press release on 15th July, 1991, stating that an inquiry would be held under section 475 of the Crimes Act and that that inquiry would be conducted by Mr Justice McInerney. The Attorney said that the judge would inquire into doubts on the question of the guilt of Mr Pohl, who had already served that gaol sentence. That inquiry was ordered in July this year. We are now fast approaching Christmas, and at today's date no court has been made available for this matter to be examined by his Honour. Mr Pohl has been incarcerated in prison for 12 years for an offence committed approximately 17 years ago, and another person has now confessed to the crime and admitted Mr Pohl's innocence. Administration of justice in this State moves ever so slowly, and in this instance it has been totally unsatisfactory for Ziggy Pohl to be kept under a cloud of innocence not pronounced.
Page 5746
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have no personal knowledge of this matter. I seek the member's assurance that his raising the matter will not jeopardise any future court action.
Mr WHELAN: Not at all. My concern is that, with Christmas approaching, this matter may not be resolved until the new year. I have no criticism of the present Attorney General, who has kept up to the mark on this matter. I seek only to ask him to ensure that the matter is disposed of prior to Christmas. Mr Pohl would like to return to his homeland to see his mother, who is 100 years old, and explain to her his wrongful conviction. I wish also to raise the matter of compensation for Mr Pohl, but I shall do so on another occasion. Also on the subject of the administration of justice I wish to complain about the increasing cost of court fees in New South Wales, which have risen dramatically and have adversely affected the administration of justice. In the New South Wales Commercial Division of the Supreme Court filing fees have increased by 769 per cent. Those fees in the Court of Appeal have increased from $230 to $1,500, that is by 769 per cent.
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Is the honourable member for Ashfield relating court costs to the matter of Mr Pohl? Earlier today Acting-Speaker Tink ruled that in the grievance debate and during private members' statements members may not refer to more than one matter. The honourable member for Ashfield may not, therefore, on the basis of discussing the New South Wales legal system, discuss court costs and an inquiry into an individual. I would rule those to be different matters.
Mr WHELAN: I am talking about the administration of justice, not the entire judicial system in New South Wales. I am talking about two matters - the delay in an inquiry and increased court costs and how that will affect people going to trial, and their reluctance to do so.
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member can draw a link between those matters he will be in order.
Mr WHELAN: There are numerous other examples in relation to costs in the District Court, the Supreme Court and the Local Court. For example, the cost of making a certified copy of a signature or a will has increased by 100 per cent. For people who apply for probate on their parents' estate and do not want to use the services of a solicitors, the costs associated with those jurisdictions have increased by 200 per cent to 300 per cent. The cost of photocopying a document has increased to $30.
Mr Phillips: On a point of order. The honourable member may be attempting to draw a link between the cost of photocopying a will and so on and the delay in Mr Pohl's case but I fail to see the link. I submit that the honourable member is out of order.
Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I would be prepared to hear the honourable member for Ashfield on whether there is a link between these matters. I note he prefaced his comments by saying he would discuss the administration of justice. If the honourable member does not wish to speak further to that link, I uphold the point of order.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [12.45]: I am advised that the Governor has appointed Mr Justice McInerney to conduct an inquiry under section 475 of the Crimes Act 1900 into Mr Pohl's conviction for murder. The
Page 5747
inquiry is being established and will commence when arrangements are completed. As the honourable member for Ashfield said, the media has drawn attention to delay in establishing the inquiry. However, obviously this matter is difficult for the Attorney and the Government because clearly it is a matter for the Department of Courts Administration and the Supreme Court. I am sure that this matter will be referred to the department and the court to see what can be done about expediting this matter.
SUTHERLAND CAR PARKING SPACES
Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [12.46]: I grieve about car parking in the streets of Sutherland. Complaints have been received from office workers, residents and the Chamber of Commerce representing the business people of Sutherland about the lack of parking spaces in the Sutherland town centre and surrounding streets. The problem is caused basically by car parking spaces being taken by commuters using the Sutherland railway station. Sutherland is the demographic centre of the shire and has the largest railway station in the shire. Sutherland railway station attracts the largest number of commuters of any station on the Illawarra line, and because of the efficient services provided from that station many commuters choose to drive to Sutherland, park their cars and then travel by train. They come from as far afield as Engadine, Heathcote, Menai and even from Gymea and Kirrawee in the electorate of my colleague the Minister for Health Services Management. These commuters are occupying car parking spaces that should be reserved for people who work and shop in Sutherland.
In 1989 Sutherland Shire Council conducted a study which showed that 704 commuter vehicles occupy council kerb-side spaces in the town centre. The study identified, on the basis of advice from the State Rail Authority, that approximately 50 per cent of commuter demand for street car parking spaces would be catered for by the provision of off-street parking within approximately three years. However, the State Rail Authority has now advised council that unfortunately due to the lack of capital funding it will not be able to proceed with all its plans to upgrade and seal car park areas in Toronto Parade, the old Princes Highway, and East Parade north and south of the railway station. Recent discussions with the SRA's Illawarra line manager suggest that it might be a few more years before such funding is made available. The only additional car parking spaces made available by the SRA for commuters is in the car parking area, providing for 60 off-street spaces, that was once leased to the Sutherland United Services Club. That is quite a disappointing result.
The local traffic committee - comprising representatives of council, police and the Department of Transport and me as the local member - has inquired into car parking at Sutherland. Through the council, the committee has conducted a survey in respect of the peak demand periods for parking by shoppers. As a result of the study the committee put forward a number of proposals to allow workers to park in four-hour car parking spaces on the outskirts of Sutherland. The hope is that that will provide more parking for shoppers. This will mean that commuters will be required to park four to five blocks away from the railway station, which is not the case at present. It concerns me that the SRA does not seem prepared to co-operate with the council in seeking alternatives to providing commuter parking in Sutherland. Recently a meeting was held in my office with representatives of the SRA, council and GBS Group Pty Limited. That company has a tender for the redevelopment of the Sutherland town centre. This meeting was to discuss short-term ways of overcoming this problem. The then manager of the SRA's Illawarra line agreed that it might be possible for the council, if it were prepared to provide funds, to upgrade the Toronto Parade car park. Since that time neither the council nor I have heard from the SRA on this matter. It would be of advantage to the
Page 5748
SRA, the council and the local shopkeepers for an arrangement to be arrived at where the SRA leases this land to council for the use of commuters. A high degree of co-operation is required.
Council reports and information from the SRA indicate they are blaming each other, with the business people being caught in the middle. Business proprietors say that Sutherland town centre is choked with cars, shoppers do not have sufficient car parking spaces and that drives away business. I hope that the council and the SRA will get their act together to find short-term solutions to alleviate the problem. It is important also that Sutherland business proprietors encourage their employees to use these proposed four-hour parking restrictions. Those spaces have been allocated to employees of those businesses. This will alleviate the parking congestion and will ensure that more residential amenities are available for those living within a short distance of the shopping centre. I ask the Minister for Health Services Management to convey my concerns to the Minister for Transport. I hope the SRA will be co-operative and that Sutherland council will reach agreement with the SRA to develop the Toronto Parade car parking area to provide parking spaces for 100 additional cars. This will be of benefit to the commuters, the shopkeepers and the workers in the Sutherland town centre.
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda), Minister for Health Services Management [12.54]: The honourable member for Sutherland has extensive knowledge of planning and development requirements of Sutherland Shire Council because of the excellent service he provided to that council. Since being elected to this Parliament in 1988 he has made it clear that the development of the centre of Sutherland has always been dear to his heart. The people of the Sutherland shire have one last opportunity to get this development right. The planning required for the town centre involves the railway station, parking facilities, retail development and the shire council chambers. Council has designated Sutherland as an administrative centre, whereas it has designated Miranda as a commercial centre. Council will not rush this matter because councils do not tend to decide matters of planning quickly, sometimes at great cost and detriment to the community. The SRA and Government must ensure that they are not responsible for any delays. The town centre will be a success only if the council, the SRA, business people, the Department of Administrative Services and all those bodies associated with that town centre unite to complete the planning, overcome the problems and proceed with the matter, rather than allowing the usual bureaucratic delays that prevent good planning and development. I congratulate the honourable member on raising this issue.
ILLAWARRA LEAD POLLUTION
Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [12.56]: I raise the matter of lead pollution - a health matter - in the Illawarra. In August 1990 a detailed report was published headed "Report on the Wollongong Lead Study". It was a joint project of the pollution task force of Healthy Cities Illawarra and the health promotion unit of the Illawarra Area Health Service. That report was prepared under the joint research agreement between the area health service and the University of Wollongong. That report was quite extensive. A total of 164 soil samples and 83 blood samples were taken from the southern area and 79 soil samples and 30 blood samples from the area north of heavy industry in Wollongong. Soil samples were taken from parks and roadsides as well as a number of homes of volunteers. The conclusions were, first, that soil lead levels were higher in the southern area than the northern area; second, that blood lead levels were also higher in the southern than the northern area. The report reaches this important conclusion:
Page 5749
A total of 7 children in the southern area and 2 children in the northern area had blood lead levels higher than the recommended level of concern of 25 parts set by the NHMRC. This represents 8% of the total number tested, a value slightly less than in Port Pirie.
The report continues:
Given the higher soil levels in Port Pirie, this is a disturbing conclusion and indicates that there is a significant number of children in the Illawarra - and not only close to the obvious industrial source - with blood lead levels high enough to be of concern.
Honourable members should remember that this level is 25 parts. The National Health and Medical Research Council at present is reviewing that standard and is likely to lower it to 10 or 15 parts. The report further states:
The results of this study should be widely disseminated to the community along with advice on the simple procedures available to minimise exposure of young children to potentially contaminated material . . .
We consider that a regional study of soil lead levels would be a valuable exercise . . .
We consider that the number of children showing blood levels above or close to the present NHMRC level of concern . . . is good cause for further action on this issue.
The health promotion unit of the Illawarra Area Health Service is in the process of publishing in eight to 10 languages pamphlets entitled "Looking Out for Lead: Some Things to Do to Protect Children". Given the existing problem, that is insufficient. It really requires a major clean-up of the affected area. That is the responsibility of the State Government, local council and the company, which is the major source of lead pollution in the area. I request the Government to examine this matter carefully with a view to making a major commitment to address the problem. A lot of publicity has been given to lead problems at Broken Hill and Port Pirie. Having in mind the quotation I read from the report to which I referred it would be unfair to the Illawarra to fail to regard the problem there as being equally significant. The matter should be addressed.
Question - That grievances be noted - resolved in the affirmative.
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [1.0]: I wish to make some brief remarks about the report of the Regulation Review Committee on the regulation which I tabled on 2nd December. The purpose of the regulation is to exempt certain persons and authorities from liability for offences under section 98 or section 99 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The committee's report drew the attention of the Parliament to the departure from the requirements of section 7(a) of the Subordinate Legislation Act. That provision says that a proposed statutory rule must not be submitted for making by the Governor unless it is accompanied by a certificate of the responsible Minister stating whether or not the provisions of that Act have been complied with. Those provisions relate to an assessment of the costs and benefits of the regulation and of any options. Importantly they also cover the issue of whether the regulation accords with the objects, spirit and intent of the enabling Act. The certificate accompanying the draft regulation
Page 5750
obliges the relevant Minister and his administration to turn their specific attention to ensuring that these cost-benefit assessments have been made. It provides also to the Governor, before he makes the regulation, an assurance that correct procedures have been followed. The Minister has advised my committee that the certificate was inadvertently omitted from the Executive Council minute that accompanied the proposed regulation. On several occasions the committee sought confirmatory details from the Minister to demonstrate compliance by his administration with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act. Unfortunately, the Minister did not volunteer to supply that information in either written or oral form.
As a consequence the committee in its report drew Parliament's attention to the apparent departure from section 7(a) and recommended that the Minister table the necessary information to demonstrate compliance by his administration with the assessment procedures of schedule 1 to the Subordinate Legislation Act. In his correspondence the Minister assured the committee that the necessary requirements of the Act were followed. At present the committee has no reason to doubt that assurance, and now awaits a response to its recommendation that details of the assessment be produced. Far too many bureaucrats have an inordinate fear that members of the Regulation Review Committee are trying to impose upon Ministers changes of direction. Everything the Committee does is in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation Review Act and the Subordinate Legislation Act. The things people are required to do have been mapped out. This committee was not established by the present Government but by a former Government. The bureaucracy has nothing to fear from the committee, but on many occasions the committee receives from departments things like regulatory impact statements which demonstrate no one has even read the Act or bothered to inform themselves about what is required of them. I assure Ministers who are involved with this matter that the Regulation Review Act and the Subordinate Legislation Act have a useful purpose. The committee does not interfere with government policy or at all with what the Government of the day is trying to do. It is of a mechanical nature and looks after the rights of individuals, small businesses and others. The Regulation Review Committee is not out to try to get anybody but is attempting to do a job.
Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [1.5]: I take this opportunity to congratulate the Regulation Review Committee, of which you, Mr Acting-Speaker, are a member, on the report that it has presented to the Parliament. I was a member of the Regulation Review Committee in the first 12 months following my election to the Parliament. I commend the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for the work he is doing at present and the work he did while I was a member of the committee. He and other members of the committee take their jobs seriously, as does the secretariat of the committee. It must be embarrassing to the Government that a hitherto non-controversial committee of the Parliament, headed by a member of the National Party, which traditionally has lent strong support to the Forestry Commission, has brought forward a report highlighting the failure by the Minister for the Environment to comply with the clearly defined procedures established by the Regulation Review Act 1987 to review various regulations. A specific framework has been defined for all Ministers of the Crown when they are preparing regulations. That framework is outlined in the report and has been referred to already by the chairman of the committee. Ministers must comply with strict requirements. The one I note that has been highlighted in the report of the Regulation Review Committee is that the Minister responsible must look for other options for achieving his or her objectives when he or she formulates a regulation.
According to the Regulation Review Committee report an evaluation must be made of the costs and benefits of the regulation and other available options. That
Page 5751
requirement has been included to protect the Minister and the Government. It is intended to place the Minister in a position to identify the option that will involve the greatest net benefit to the community. The process should involve consultation with relevant parties. If that is so - as you well know, Mr Acting-Speaker, and as the Minister should know - why is it that instead of having a regulation that complies with those safeguards we have one that directly flaunts those guidelines? Obviously very little consultation took place at the time. The whole process of proposing and gazetting the regulation took approximately one week. There is no evidence to suggest that any assessment was made by the Minister of the potentially significant economic and environmental impact of this regulation. The embarrassment has been compounded since the Land and Environment Court first made its decision about the Chaelundi State Forest arising from which this regulation was gazetted. The embarrassment to the Government has been compounded by the Regulation Review Committee doing the work that it is supposed to do and highlighting the need for the Minister for the Environment to improve his administrative procedures so that these types of errors will not occur again.
The Minister seems to have treated the committee arrogantly in the correspondence he has had with it. He has not sought to accommodate the committee's request for various items of important information it has requested. Perhaps he had other issues on his mind. The House has just debated a bill that will circumvent the impact of the regulation we are discussing. In addition, next week the House will probably debate a motion seeking to disallow the regulation. I again congratulate the committee. It has done a great job in what is a fairly controversial area at the present time. I wish that the work and application that it has shown in assessing the Minister's action had been matched by preparedness by the Minister to ensure that this regulation - which is a dreadful regulation for the community and the environment movement in New South Wales, not to mention the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill, the merits of which I do not want to debate - had been properly gazetted. Then we would not have had to criticise the Minister, which is exactly what we are doing.
Mr RIXON (Lismore) [1.10]: Having been appointed to the Regulation Review Committee, I take its work very seriously. It is most important that that committee follow very closely the rules, regulations and guidelines which have been laid down within the Subordinate Legislation Act and the Regulation Review Act. As indicated by the chairman, our examination is ongoing. In effect the Minister has said that through an administrative oversight his compliance certificate with the subordinate legislation did not accompany the executive council minutes which went to the Governor. On the basis of procedural fairness, the committee in its report is giving the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that his department carried out the various assessments required of the effect of the regulation in accordance with schedule 1 of the Act. The Minister could have made things a little easier by volunteering the information when first requested by the Committee.
From recollection, the committee wrote to the Minister on three occasions asking him to show that he had made the relevant assessments. The committee has a duty to check compliance with the Subordinate Legislation Act. In fact, it has to check out aspects of a large number of matters with departments under schedules 1 and 2 of the Act. So far the committee's experience has been that most Ministers are willing to co-operate. In the present case the committee is confident that the Minister will produce the details requested of his administration's assessment. The committee will then decide whether they satisfy the Act. As members of the committee, it is most important that we
Page 5752
convey to all our Ministers that our committee takes its work very seriously. Our executive staff is very conscientious in the guidance it gives us. Thus we are fully and clearly prepared to follow the guidelines under which we work to ensure that the regulations which come before the people of New South Wales follow the Act with which they are associated. The committee looks at each regulation simply within the administration of the Acts under which we work.
Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [1.14]: I join previous speakers in expressing the concern of the Regulation Review Committee at the apparent ignorance of the Minister to comply with what is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, that is, the Subordinate Legislation Act. I was the mover of the motion in the committee. It was unanimously supported by both sides of the political spectrum and asked the Minister to explain before the Parliament why, after four attempts by the Regulation Review Committee, there had been no success in getting from him some explanation as to his compliance with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act. The steps are pretty straightforward but it is worth looking at them. First, we received the legislation, which was to exempt certain persons and authorities from liability for offences relating to the taking and killing of protected and endangered fauna under sections 98 and 99 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. That arose from the Chaelundi decision and was the result of a regulation coming forward to exempt those bodies.
As previous speakers have said, the purpose of the tabling of this report and of the Regulation Review Committee is not to debate the merits or otherwise of government policy but simply to address the content of regulations in terms of their compliance with the intent of the policy. We have to consider whether there has been any departure from the requirements of provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act, including compliance by the Minister with section 7 and with the guidelines in schedule 1 governing the preparation of the regulations. That schedule requires the Minister to check the objectives of the regulation to ensure that they accord with the objectives, principle, spirit and intent of the enabling Act, in this case, the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Minister also has the obligation to look at other options for achieving its objectives. Frankly, he did not do it. Under section 7 the Minister is required to certify when submitting the proposed regulation whether these provisions have been complied with. The committee asked the Minister in writing whether he could simply detail the steps he or his administration followed to comply with the requirements. He was not able to do that. We felt that he had an obligation to do so. Instead in a reply dated 29th October he told us that he had considered the advice of the Solicitor General. Unfortunately, as was pointed out in the report that has been tabled, the Solicitor General's report deals with the Land and Environment Court decision and not the regulation. It does not even deal with the Court of Appeal decision. As a consequence, the Regulation Review Committee was not satisfied that the Minister had complied with section 7 or schedule 1.
As a third attempt, we again wrote to the Minister on 12th November asking him to arrange for information to be urgently supplied to the committee in relation to specific matters raised by the committee, particularly the certification to the Governor in the making of the regulation prior to the last date for disallowance. The Minister wrote back, acknowledging our letter and simply telling us that because the shadow minister had moved for disallowance he would not bother to pursue the matter any further. In addition, he did not believe that, had the notice of disallowance not been given, he would have been able to further assist the committee in any way. As a final step, we again wrote to the Minister asking him simply to provide a copy of the certificate issued by him to the Governor in relation to the regulation. He wrote back again on 29th November
Page 5753
telling us again that he was not going to help us. In fact, he simply said that he had inadvertently omitted from the Executive Council minute the certifications.
Quite clearly, there is an admission of the breach. At this stage we are not questioning the merits or otherwise of the regulation; that is a matter for disallowance. After four attempts, we simply ask the Minister to tell us whether he has complied with the Subordinate Legislation Act. As a committee, we unanimously believe that the Minister has not done so. We have tried four different ways to get that information and the Minister has not provided it so far. We have now taken this rather extraordinary step of raising this matter. In that sense, I have to commend the chairman of the committee who is under some pressure on this matter. He has done the work of a parliamentarian, as he constantly reminds us, and we join with him in asking the Minister to do the same.
Mr YEADON (Granville) [1.18]: I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the report of the Regulation Review Committee as I am a member of the committee. I also emphasize, as have other members of the committee, my concern about the actions of the Minister. I join with other honourable members in indicating that I believe the Minister could have saved himself a lot of heartache and stress if he had been more co-operative with the committee throughout the course of this matter. One thing I would like to emphasize particularly is that the function of the Regulation Review Committee is not to judge government policy or in any way seek to determine government policy. Rather, its role is to determine whether regulations put forward comply with the provisions of the Regulation Review Act and the Subordinate Legislation Act. As a consequence of examinations, the committee may report and make recommendations to Parliament, including giving opinions that a regulation ought to be disallowed on the grounds upon which the committee has formed that opinion. It is important to point that out, given that some honourable members may not be aware of the functions of the committee. I want to emphasise that it is not a policy role; rather, the requirements of the Acts must be adhered to and the processes in relation to them conformed with.
In relation to the regulation the subject of this report, a letter dated 19th October from the Minister for the Environment indicated that the Minister was apparently unable to provide any information as to whether his administration had complied with the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act in respect of the making of this particular regulation. Under the requirements of section 7A of the Act the responsible Minister is required to submit a certificate to the Governor stating whether the provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act relating to the proposed regulations have been complied with. As a result of what was contained in that letter the committee wrote again to the Minister asking him to supply it with a copy of the certificate issued by him in relation to the regulation and details of the grounds on which he formed the opinion referred to in that certificate. The Minister responded to the committee on 29th November and although he stated that the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act had been complied with, this is in conflict with a further statement in that correspondence that the certificate required under section 7A was inadvertently omitted from the Executive Council minute accompanying the proposed regulation. The Minister's letter went on to state that section 7A does not require the preparation or consideration of written grounds upon which he has based his opinion. I emphasise that the committee is not at issue with that point made by the Minister.
The committee was seeking from the Minister a written statement of those grounds to demonstrate compliance by his administration with the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act. The Minister has not volunteered to supply that information either in written or oral form and hence the committee has been forced to the point of
Page 5754
making this special report to the Parliament. The committee has resolved that the attention of the Parliament be drawn to the problems in regard to this regulation and the requirements of section 7A of the Subordinate Legislation Act. The committee has resolved also to recommend to the Parliament that the Minister table within seven sitting days the following: details of the evaluation made by his administration in accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act of the costs and benefits expected to arise from the regulation as compared with the costs and benefits expected to arise from alternative options to achieve the objectives of the regulation; and also details showing the manner in which the objectives of the regulation accord with the objectives, principles, spirit and intent of the enabling Act.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [1.23]: My contribution to this debate will be brief. I am pleased to see this debate going well under the charter of reform. I want to commend the chairman of the committee. In my heart, the basis of the charter of reform is the belief that committees of the House are committees of the House, to look after the proper processes of Parliament in the public service. Therefore, the chairperson of whatever political persuasion ought to have the integrity to tease out a problem and, if something is wrong, to stand up and say it is wrong and not be subjected to flak from within his or her own party - which obviously will be the Government in every case. A chairperson should not be subjected to criticism simply for doing a job, but it is the case. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has stood up and has taken the flak. He has taken the view that as chairperson of a committee with a task to do, that task will be done with integrity. When a committee undertakes a task with integrity, the chairperson of that committee has served the constituency and the State well.
It is a salutary lesson that we can have committees that work in this manner, that committee chairpersons do not have to be apparatchiks of the political party machine, and there are salutary lessons to be learned by public servants and by Ministers when a critical report is produced. I say that not from the point of view of having the Opposition score points against the chairperson or against the Minister concerned but simply to say to the people of New South Wales that until the standing orders were changed they were governed in the first 10 minutes each day of this Parliament when Ministers lay papers on the table. The umbrella legislation is put through the House on a vote and then dozens and even hundreds of regulations are tabled and the State is governed by regulation. I commend the committee for the integrity of its task and the thoroughness with which it carried it out. I commend it also for producing a report that is not afraid to say that the Minister got it wrong and it has to be fixed.
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [1.26]: I should like to finish off the honourable member for Murrumbidgee entirely by commending him on his impartiality, fairness and independence as chairman of the committee, as we seem to be having a small love-in for the honourable member this afternoon. I felt that after he had three Labor members and one Independent member make complimentary remarks about him, a Liberal Minister would finish him off entirely. At the outset I apologise to His Excellency for any inconvenience I caused him by my inadvertent failure to comply with the requirement to attach a certificate to the regulation. I have considered the matters contained in the committee's report, including its request of me to furnish further information. I have consulted my legal advisers and have received an advising from the
Page 5755
Crown Solicitor that was made available to me at about 12.50 this afternoon. I am considering that advice. If, after considering it, I deem it appropriate to comply with the second part of the committee's recommendations, I will do so at that time.
Report noted.
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON FIXED TERM PARLIAMENTS
Report
Mr BOWMAN (Swansea) [1.28]: I intend to contribute only a few remarks on this occasion. The Opposition wishes to record its satisfaction at the way the committee proceeded. This is a little surprising given that because of circumstances beyond anyone's control the whole matter had to be conducted at what could reasonably be called breakneck speed. In those circumstances, unless the committee is sensitively chaired, unless its staff are able to operate under tremendous pressure and to work very effectively, and unless members of the committee co-operate to more than the ordinary degree with one another, shemozzle can result. I pay tribute to the chairperson of the committee, the honourable member for Cronulla. I pay tribute also to the clerk of the committee, Greg Kelly, and to those who worked so efficiently and at lightening speed - Amanda Olsson, Peita Burgess and Maria Oakes. The report represents a clarification of differences of opinion which arose and also a substantial measure of consensus that was achieved about a number of matters.
In the circumstances everyone concerned should be satisfied that the matter has progressed to this point. Some matters will require to be resolved. When the legislation is before the Parliament in-depth debate can occur. I note that the Opposition adheres to the view that it would be safer to have a referendum and to change the projected date to June rather than March to lessen the chance of any invalidity of the legislation. We recognise that this view is not shared by the majority of people on the committee but we believe it must be argued carefully. So far it has received detailed consideration but it is still our belief that further discussion is desirable. It is important that this far-reaching change should take place in a way that will reflect credit in this Parliament and not lead to any kind of disturbance or unmannerly disputation which could cause members of the public to believe that some sort of cat fight had been going on.
In any political situation tactical considerations are present in the minds of those whose responsibility it is to advance the views of the individuals and groups that they represent. It is most important that the matters that impinge upon the Governor's prerogative to dissolve or prorogue Parliament do not produce any controversy that will cloud the issues and lead people to believe that the motive for this exercise is really one of tactics rather than for the creation of a fair political system in this State. It was agreed in relation to paragraph 6 that the Solicitor General would provide an opinion. Before this matter is debated in Parliament it is highly desirable, in fact essential, for the advice from the Solicitor General to be made available so that the degree of contention about the matter can be reduced as far as possible. I think there is a healthy measure of consensus. There has been a genuine attempt to resolve matters that are resolvable in the short term.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Page 5756
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [1.33]: I thank the members of the committee for producing their report within such a short time. At present the Government is considering what amendments ought to be made to the draft bill as a consequence of the committee's deliberations. With respect to the final point asked by the honourable member for Swansea which related to a request from the committee for advice from the Solicitor General on certain matters, the Government is examining the option of amendments so as to obviate the necessity for such advice to clarify matters in the bill. It is a great pleasure for me to have been present in the Chamber to receive the report of the first New South Wales Legislative Assembly legislation committee. It is yet another of the major structural changes being introduced to enable the Parliament to have a greater say and role in the formation of legislation where there ought to be a much more consensual approach.
For the information of those committee members who are present in the Chamber and who are likely to participate in subsequent debate when this measure is before the House, I indicate that on Monday morning it is my intention to continue my second reading speech and to seek the leave of the House to substitute an amended bill and to adjourn debate until Tuesday so that honourable members are given a 24-hour period to read the Government's response - in the form of a draft report - to matters raised by the committee. It is my view that the committee has properly considered all the legal matters that arise with respect to the date, but it has not considered practical matters - for example, the state of members' physical and psychological health if they were to conduct a six-month campaign. That would not take into account how many chook raffles or fund raising dinners they would need to organise to be able to afford what would inevitably amount to a six-month campaign, commencing at or about the beginning of February. However, that does not detract from the work of the committee in considering the legal, technical issues. The Government is considering its response to other practical issues. I thank the committee for its report.
Report noted.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Merton) left the chair at 1.37 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have this day received from the honourable member for Heffron the following notice of a matter of public importance:
That this House notes the negligence of the Minister for Housing in continuing to promote home loan products which are inappropriate to the present economic climate; the failure of the Premier and Treasurer to oversight the Government's interest in FANMAC Limited by not taking action to prevent the salary of the Managing Director of that Government-backed company from escalating to in excess of $1.3 million; and calls on the Minister for Housing to direct FANMAC and his Department to modify HomeFund products and to meet with representatives of Co-operative Housing Societies who are concerned at a number of aspects of the HomeFund Schemes.
Pursuant to sessional orders, I set down the motion for debate at the conclusion of formal business.
Page 5757 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
TREASURY CASH RESERVES
Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Does the October financial statement show that under this Government Treasury cash balances are down to an all time low of $482 million? Does this equal only nine days of budget expenditure? Does it compare to cash reserves in July 1989 of $1.8 billion? What action is the Premier taking to ensure availability of a prudent level of cash reserves so that the Government is not forced to borrow to fund daily operations?
Mr GREINER: The level of cash funds is entirely and absolutely appropriate.
HOMEFUND LOANS
Dr KERNOHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Housing. What provision for safeguards are there to ensure that borrowers taking out HomeFund loans are protected against unexpected economic hardship?
Mr SCHIPP: I appreciate the efforts of the member for Camden on my housing committee and the way she looks after her constituents in regard to their housing. Many people who have taken up home loan funds would be down in her neck of the woods. I know how happy they are with their loans despite what we may have read in the last 12 or so hours. HomeFund loan provisions are mainly for people on low or modest incomes. I am proud, and I know this Government is proud, of the fact that we have been able to provide home loans to 48,000 borrowers - there are about 43,000 in the system - and to the great credit of those people, the battlers out there in the world at large, they are maintaining their repayments at a very high level. I think it is important that we do not have the destroyers who sit opposite running around spreading false information. I know that recently the member for Heffron went to the Port Macquarie conference and put out 35 lies and false representations. I have every one of them documented. That is typical of the destroyers opposite who try to drag the credibility of this loan scheme down to their own level. They have no credibility.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Heffron to order.
Mr SCHIPP: This scheme has credibility. Total losses in the scheme over a five-year period are around $880,000 which represents 0.01 per cent of the total loan portfolio. If any commercial home lending institution achieved that result, it would be smiling about it. It is a credit to the structure of the scheme, the borrowers and the co-operative society.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Heffron to order for the second time.
Mr SCHIPP: The way in which those loans were originated and the performance of this program is absolutely phenomenal in anyone's terms. We hear about
Page 5758
the 6,000 in arrears figures quoted today in the Sydney Morning Herald. In fact, 4,823 of those loans are delinquent by only one day to 30 days. A totally false impression is being peddled around about this loan program. In fact, included in that figure are borrowers who are not up to date with their home insurance and have become in arrears. In the first month of borrowing some people do not get their repayments gelled exactly right and if they are one day over they go on to an arrears figure. We have no doubt at all that only 723 are two months in arrears and a very low percentage, of the order of 1,100 loans, are in arrears of three months and more. They are phenomenal figures, there is no doubt about that. To answer the honourable member's question, only 892 of subsidised borrowers, that is 4.4 per cent of the program in that area, or about 50 per cent of the program, have applied for assistance by way of loan reductions. It really puts the lie to what has been peddled by those opposite. The figure of $38 million shortfall quoted from last year's Auditor-General's Report was in fact the subsidy component of loans paid out for the home purchase assistance fund and endorsed and totally supported by the Commonwealth Government, which has to give approval for that money to be used. Again, it is an absolutely false impression that that is a loss or a shortfall. It is part of the structure. We can call it income support subsidy, or whatever you like, but it is factored totally into that program.
The other matter I should mention is the safety nets. I might add that this program starts off at 20 per cent of income repayment, which is 3 per cent below the banks and other financial institutions, and even if you had the worst case scenario where income is rising slower than the 6 per cent increase in repayment, it would take five years before it caught up with the 30 per cent repayment factor under this type of loan. It is totally insulated against incomes which do not rise quickly enough. The safety nets are these: people can apply for mortgage assistance for a low start loan and they will get up to one year mortgage assistance from repayments; their repayments come back to the 27 per cent repayment level and they also have the opportunity to take out loan insurance of $100 per annum. This week I hope to be able to announce that it is extended over the whole portfolio, not just new applicants. This is a marvellous program. It has assisted 48,000 people, most of whom would not otherwise have been able to afford a home. The Opposition is as jealous as can be about the program, but that is sour grapes. The Opposition is trying to destroy the reputation of a program that is considered not only in Australia but throughout the world to be a model for home lending by a government authority. In a recent survey, 85 per cent of HomeFund borrowers said they would again seek a HomeFund loan. The scheme is a monumental success story.
SCHOOL CERTIFICATE FOLIO
Mr J. J. AQUILINA: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Is the Premier aware of teacher protests about a picture in the school certificate folio distributed to 80,000 year 10 students today? Does the drawing depict a young man holding a cigarette, giving the impression that it is "cool" to smoke? Was this graphic approved by the Board of Studies and the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs? When will the Premier end his Government's association with the tobacco lobby?
Mr GREINER: The answer to the first part of question is no, and the rest is irrelevant.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING LAND AND HOUSE PACKAGE
Mr DOWNY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing. Does the Department of Housing acquire the majority of its new housing stock through its land and
Page 5759
house package system? What advantages have been identified in this method of acquisition?
Mr SCHIPP: The answer is yes. This has been another success story for the Greiner Government and for the Department of Housing. This method has contained acquisition costs for Department of Housing dwellings. When I was appointed Minister for Housing I asked my department for a rule of thumb as to what the department pays for properties in different parts of the State. I was told there was no such guide. I had seen the figures relating to the term of the previous Labor Minister - and I do not think too many members of the Opposition will hold their heads high when I mention his name. It was a disgrace for him to have the title of Minister for Housing. I am talking about Frank Walker. He had no rule of thumb; the department acquired properties throughout the State at any figure; it just went on and on.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coogee to order.
Mr SCHIPP: I shall not mention Mort Bay and the $50 million that has gone down the tube there; or the millions of dollars wasted on the Phontos job at North Ryde. I could go on and on about the pattern of neglect and wanton irresponsible management of the housing portfolio under the Labor Government. It was unbelievable. It is no wonder that it takes so long to find out everything that happened. There is criticism from some members opposite, but the majority of Opposition members are decent people and they say to me in the corridors that I have really got it going right. Sixty-nine per cent of the department stock is acquired through the land and house package program. The department advertises for a certain amount of stock. In a recent advertisement it sought 500 pensioner units and received responses relating to 5,886 dwellings. That will allow the department to choose the best of those dwellings according to location and other criteria. That has been of considerable value to the building industry, and the individual styling and design of homes built by different builders provides a benefit to the new occupants. The department is increasingly using this method of stock acquisition.
Dr Metherell: Another disaster of yours, Joe?
Mr SCHIPP: The honourable member for Davidson does not know the difference between planning and housing. He is hopeless. This package allows the department to acquire properties for which development applications have been approved, thereby saving a delay of nine months in some instances, and reduces the necessity for the department to hold land stock for future developments. It is a very effective method. It was commenced in about 1982, a time that we would all like to forget about - certainly the people of New South Wales would like to forget it. Since then the department has acquired 17,670 units of accommodation through the package. As a testimony to its value, at 30th June, 1,801 dwellings that had been acquired through the package were valued by independent valuers for the purpose of their transfer to the public equity partnership scheme. Notwithstanding that the valuations were made at a time when the housing market had bottomed, the total value of the sale price of the dwellings was $144 million, against an acquisition cost of $129 million - a benefit of $15 million. You cannot ask for better than that, but again these knockers and destroyers opposite want to spread all the bad news they can. An increasing proportion of the department's stock will be acquired in this way.
Page 5760
WATER BOARD CONSULTANTS
Ms ALLAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Housing. Did the Water Board conduct a seminar for consultants today at the Canterbury Racecourse Function Centre? Did the seminar seek increased and major participation from external consultants, contractors and suppliers in the Water Board's operations? Why is the Minister increasing spending on consultants and contractors?
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr SCHIPP: The honourable member for Blacktown does not understand good management practices. I do not in any way resile from the fact that the department uses consultants but it is nowhere near the proportion the honourable member claims as a result of having picked up a piece of paper she could not read.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.
Mr SCHIPP: Had she added up the date column and put a dollar sign in front of it, she would have arrived at a more relevant answer. If the Water Board is holding seminars, I would say that it is doing so for a good and proper purpose.
Later,
Mr SCHIPP: The question asked by the honourable member for Blacktown related to a seminar held at Canterbury racecourse and conducted by the Water Board. There has been a seminar. There were 750 in attendance and it was highly successful. The board presented its proposed massive capital works program and the seminar was designed to give the construction and supply industries an opportunity to gear themselves up to meet the requirements of the program.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.
Mr SCHIPP: It was for an absolutely worthwhile purpose and was a good management decision.
BLUE-GREEN ALGAE RIVER INFESTATION
Mr SMALL: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. What is the present state of emergency facing western New South Wales along the Darling and Barwon rivers affected by the blue-green algae especially now that the Army is expected to have its water purification units operating?
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The honourable member for Murray has been heavily involved in maintaining the quality of our river systems, in particular the Murray River. It is obvious that there is no immediate solution to the algae pollution problem. However, with the co-operation of the State government departments involved, a massive
Page 5761
program of assistance has been launched. I have been advised that the Army's water purification plants should be operating tomorrow afternoon at three centres along the Darling River. Three reconnaissance teams have arrived at Collarenebri, North Bourke and Louth to examine where and how best to deal with the purification problems. The Department of Public Works is providing assistance to Army personnel in assembling the activated carbon systems to their units. At first the Army will set up a large plant that can purify 20,000 litres of water per hour at North Bourke and Collarenebri, with a smaller unit that can purify 7,500 litres an hour at Louth. It is planned that the soldiers will have the equipment operational within a few hours of their arrival tomorrow afternoon.
My colleague the Minister for Natural Resources, Ian Causley, has advised me that his department has commenced an emergency drilling program, concentrating on the shallow sand and gravel aquifiers associated with the Darling River system. A total of 20 bores will be drilled on both sides of the Darling River upstream and downstream of Bourke to provide water for stock. A blue-green algae task force has been formed, which includes 10 government and private enterprise scientists and engineers. This is the best qualified group of algae pollution experts ever assembled in the State. An interim report will be presented to the Minister for Natural Resources as soon as possible on how we can minimise this very serious environmental problem. The Public Works Department has also offered a grant to Bourke Shire Council for construction of an emergency pipeline from Bourke water supply to North Bourke. The estimated $110,000 cost of the pipeline will be met equally between council and the Public Works Department.
At present council is carting water to North Bourke until water can be piped from the Bourke supply, which is being treated with powdered activated carbon to remove toxins, taste and colour. North Bourke residents have offered to contribute voluntary labour and plant hire to achieve an early completion - a sign of the tremendous community spirit which exists within the town. Also the State Government has provided a $40,000 contribution for the construction of a new filtering plant to ensure clean water for the residents of Wilcannia. The Public Works Department and the Department of Health have each contributed $20,000 for the filtration plants so that the residents of Wilcannia have access to safe and clean drinking water. It is proposed that the carting of water will become unnecessary as more filtration and purification systems are installed. I have made arrangements for a filtration system to be established at the Tilpa hotel in order to eliminate the need to cart water to that town. One could suggest that perhaps beer would be better.
A Public Works Department engineer has been visiting the Aboriginal communities along the river from Walgett to Broken Hill. Aboriginal communities are being serviced either by town water or supplied by tanker to local fibreglass storage tanks. The director of the Orana and Far West Public Health Unit has informed me that it is currently investigating reports of skin rashes and gastroenteritis. Though no cases of algae-induced illness have been confirmed, anecdotal reports at present are being investigated. The Department of Health is preparing fact sheets on the health effects of blue-green algae for distribution to the community and local practitioners. The Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs has advised me that his department is currently conducting a survey of property-owners along the river. The survey hopes to establish how many stock are dependent on the Darling River for their water and how many stock losses have occurred. Also it seeks to ascertain whether owners have established any practical options. Preliminary information on the survey should be available tomorrow. As Minister for the head department in charge of the emergency, I assure the House that
Page 5762
I am satisfied with the efforts being made to provide the community with safe water. In the longer term it is the Government's objective to make sure that such a disaster along our river system never recurs.
WYONG TAFE COLLEGE
Mr J. H. MURRAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment. In view of the Government's decision to pay Bernie Ecclestone $2 million annually to run a bike race at Eastern Creek, will the Minister reconsider his decision to cut out pre-apprenticeship on-site training for all building trades, except carpentry, at Wyong TAFE College? How can the Minister justify this decision when Central Coast youth unemployment is at an all-time high?
Mr FAHEY: The first part of the question is totally irrelevant to the operations of TAFE and very relevant to the $10 million a year plus that will flow into New South Wales as a result of the decision taken by the Government in respect of the Eastern Creek Raceway. As to the building industry courses, pre-vocational or otherwise, on the Central Coast, the honourable member for The Entrance knows, because he is a strong supporter of pre-vocational schemes on the Central Coast, that this year two houses were constructed for the Department of Housing, with the support of my colleague the Minister for Housing. There has been enormous support for that program in that part of New South Wales. The Central Coast is extremely important to this Government, and on previous occasions I have indicated to this House the number of employment programs in which the Government is involved, in particular among youth on the Central Coast. In fact, two weeks ago the Prime Minister announced an employment package in which a total of $87 million was allocated by the Federal Government to its labour market programs with not one iota of reference to the difficulties facing school-leavers in this country. Those programs were for those persons who have been unemployed for a considerable period of time, and no program had been developed for the youth of this or any other State in Australia.
I indicated that, with the support of the Federal Government's funding for TAFE, there would be a total of $34.2 million, and that, at the direction of this Government, half of that money would be allocated to under 25 year olds. I decided to increase the funding for free pre-vocational courses. This Government is concerned to do something about the employment and skills training of school-leavers. It is an absolute farce that the honourable member for Drummoyne should speak about doing something for training skills for school-leavers. This year this Government put into TAFE 60,000 more students than last year. It is concerned about unemployment, recognises the need to develop skills and ensures that this leads ultimately to employment. That is a responsible decision. Considerable funds have been spent in that area. Programs on the Central Coast are real and effective as to the TAFE colleges and the labour market programs. Those programs are not farcical programs, as was claimed by the Leader of the Opposition when he visited the Central Coast on one of those occasions when he managed to find his way there. He became lost on some other occasion.
[Interruption]
Mr FAHEY: The honourable member is right; the Leader of the Opposition got lost because he could not find The Entrance railway station. Those programs were nonsensical. It was a case of the Leader of the Opposition saying, "Let us get our youth into running around picking up papers in the street". It was an environmental clean-up
Page 5763
campaign that would lead to nothing, the typical Labor approach to any problem of unemployment; a bandaid effort for a few months, giving young people a little bit of work for a few months as though something had been done to help them and then casting them adrift again, back into the unemployment statistics. The Central Coast has been well and truly looked after by the TAFE programs of this Government. A commitment has been made for a new college at Ourimbah, an exciting program run in conjunction with the Newcastle university. There is an emphasis on youth generally in the Government's programs. Those programs will be available next year, as they have been this year. Pre-vocational courses will be a pivotal point, a central plank in the development of schools on the Central Coast and the rest of New South Wales next year.
WYONG TAFE COLLEGE
Mr J. H. MURRAY: I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment a supplementary question. When is he going to answer the question?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a supplementary question.
RURAL PRODUCE MARKETING CO-OPERATIVES
Mr TURNER: I ask my question without notice of the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Cooperatives. What action is the Government taking through the co-operative sector to assist New South Wales farmers who are struggling to sell their produce? Specifically, how are they being assisted to compete in Australia and on overseas markets?
Mr PEACOCKE: The honourable member for Myall Lakes has taken a great interest in the co-operative movement, as have members from both sides of the House. This is one of the truly bipartisan subjects discussed in the House. All honourable members will be aware of the desperate plight of the rural community as a result of the severe economic downturn in local and overseas trade. They will be aware also of the desperate situation caused by the drought. In that regard this nation must look to new methods of adding value to primary produce and changing the system for the sale of raw rural products. It is crazy that 95 per cent of Australia's wool exports are in the form of raw greasy wool. Traditionally co-operatives have been associated with rural producers, in industries such as dairying, rice and cotton where there is a firmly established co-operative sector. The advantage of co-operatives has been recognised in North America, the United States of America and Canada. In the State of Quebec 60 per cent of manufacturing is done through the co-operative movement. Similarly, throughout Asia and Europe the rural sector has a large co-operative component. In China the All China Co-operative Federation represents 114 million members and has 4 million employees and more than 600,000 retail outlets. It is pleasing to note that in the past four years more co-operatives have been formed in New South Wales than were formed in the previous 50 years. It has been a pleasure to be the Minister responsible for co-operatives in that period.
One of the areas identified for economic growth in Australia is value-added primary production. The Department of Co-operatives and I commenced a study on how to assist farmers through the co-operative movement to add value to their products. Shortly we will release a major program for farmers. Value-added primary production is vital if our rural communities are to get back on top. Model co-operatives are being developed in Coonamble and Mudgee to demonstrate how the primary producer can claw
Page 5764
back some of the processes which add value to primary products which, for the most part, at present take place overseas. We believe it is possible to increase the return to farmers by between double and six times what they make at present from the raw materials they produce. Two of the co-operatives I mention are involved in wool and one in beef and grain. I hope that the wool co-operative in Coonamble will shortly be exporting its product overseas. I am pleased to be able to announce that preliminary agreement has been reached with the All China Federation of Marketing and Supply Co-operatives for a joint venture to process raw wool and produce garments from the Coonamble co-operative. Agreement in principle has been reached with the purchasing arm of the European consumer co-operative to pre-order and subsequently purchase garments produced by the Coonamble co-operative and its joint venture partner. That market represents more than $500 million and promises to give wool farmers who are close to ruin a much brighter future.
In addition to the substantial expansion this project allows, there is tremendous potential for using the model as a template to allow us to target not only the European community but the significant Japanese consumer co-operative market as well. The new co-operative which was formed in Mudgee will mill natural fibres and be involved in significant import replacement within Australia. The Government has given this co-operative a $10,000 grant to help it to develop a business plan. The co-operative is made up of local business people, members of the Mohair Producers Co-operative and local growers, will mill natural fibres only, and should be blending wool and other fibres by early 1992. The new co-operative should be established within the next month and will join the growing ranks of co-operative ventures that are forming throughout New South Wales. Another fine example of what can be done with co-operatives is the new organisation being considered by the sleeper cutters and timber workers. Honourable members will recall that the sleeper cutters picketed my office. They are good little guys. They had a problem, which I think has been resolved.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr PEACOCKE: I suggested to them that they should form a co-operative to find other uses for their products, because they were being overtaken by technology.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. If members wish to converse, they should leave the Chamber to do so.
Mr PEACOCKE: I am pleased to say that the sleeper cutters are involved in forming a new co-operative, and their union is also. I believe they will do immeasurably better by marketing their products differently. I am actively supporting that venture. The Government is giving the sleeper cutters and timber workers some money to carry out a feasibility study, which I believe will give those little guys, who have been solely dependent on selling sleepers to State Rail, a much better and more assured income. I hope that will be a great success. The growth of the rural co-operative sector in New South Wales is capable of transforming the economy of New South Wales. If honourable members have vision and can see scope for development of co-operatives in their electorates, whether in the city or country, my agencies would be pleased to assist them. In the past during recessions we have gone down the tube with a certain level of
Page 5765
incompetence and emerged with the same level of incompetence. The time has come to examine new ways for ordinary people to get together and produce income for themselves and the nation. I believe the co-operative sector is one avenue for doing that.
ROYAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN REVIEW
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Health Services Management. Has the independent review of activity and financial trends at the Royal Hospital for Women been completed? If so, what are the results of the review and what action is being taken?
Mr PHILLIPS: A few months ago I advised the House in an answer to a question that I had been provided with information by the department that expressed concern about the level of activity at the Royal Hospital for Women and that that might lead to a reduction in its budget allocation. When I raised that matter with the chairman of the board and the executive officer of the hospital it was pointed out that it was necessary to appoint an independent consulting firm, which turned out to be Deloitte Ross Tohmatsu, to determine the appropriate level of funding for that hospital and what things could be put in place to determine its future. I am pleased to advise that the report is now available. Both the Department of Health and the Benevolent Society of New South Wales have expressed satisfaction at the outcome of the review. In conjunction with the Benevolent Society, I have released a joint media release. The key findings of the review are that the hospital's budget has increased by 47 per cent since 1987. The Eastern Sydney Area Health Service has acted properly in proposing a funding reduction of $3 million on an understanding that private and commercial opportunities were being explored and with the awareness of a reduction in the hospital's obstetric activity. The hospital could sustain such a reduction and still perform part of its mission in a substantive manner. However, this would require a significant reduction in service and is not recommended.
A steady reduction in births of 15.8 per cent has occurred from 1987 to 1988. However, savings from this reduction have been applied to the expansion of other services such as gynaecological oncology, the menopause clinic and the development of an adult high dependency unit. The hospital is efficient in its operation and its work is complex and of high quality. However, the hospital suffers from inbuilt inefficiencies of a size which will require either a significant redevelopment of the existing site or its relocation adjacent to a major teaching hospital. There must be significant doubt as to whether investing $18 million over three years in refurbishing the current hospital would provide a worthwhile long-term return. The hospital sees a relatively high proportion of private patients, with almost 55 per cent of normal deliveries and over 60 per cent of assisted deliveries being private. The report recommends that an explicit agreement be drawn up between the Eastern Sydney Area Health Service and the hospital so that an agreed range and level of service is provided. As a result of this report, I have decided that the $3 million reduction originally proposed by the area health service in the hospital's budget for the current year will not be applied. However, the hospital's budget for 1991-92 already included a productivity and efficiency target of $868,000, which required the hospital to introduce efficiency measures. The hospital has managed services and expenditure within the budget, and the findings of the review suggest that the capacity exists for further initiatives to contain expenditure by an additional $200,000 in the remainder of this financial year. I reiterate that the Government continues to support the hospital's role in providing specialist services to women. I am committed to working together with the committee established by me to determine a clear plan for the hospital's future. When I do so, I will report again to this Parliament.
Page 5766
NORTH ENTRANCE PENINSULA SAND MINING
Mr ROGAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources. Is the Department of Mineral Resources supporting a proposal for sand mining at the North Entrance Peninsula? Why were computer and file references on this matter deleted or removed from circulation? Did the Minister or his officers request this action because of a possible by-election in The Entrance? Will the Minister approve this proposal?
Mr CAUSLEY: From time to time consideration has been given to a project in that area. I do not have the exact details in this regard but I will get them and inform the honourable member of them.
CITYRAIL SERVICES SURVEY
Mr MORRIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister yet received the latest results of CityRail's market research on rail services? What were the findings, particularly on public satisfaction with on-time running, train cleanliness, journey times and other rail services?
Mr BAIRD: I thank the honourable member for Blue Mountains for his very solid support in transport matters. He knows that transport and rail services in the Blue Mountains have never been better.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much interjection. The Minister will be heard in silence.
Mr BAIRD: Members of the Opposition will find it galling to know of the improvements in public transport, but they know they have occurred. Even the honourable member for Mount Druitt knows how significant the improvements have been. I remind the House that on-time running of trains is now at the level of more than 90 per cent, the best on-time running record of the rail system.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coogee to order. I call the honourable member for Wallsend to order.
Mr BAIRD: Honourable members opposite may sneer at these results. Independent polling for market research purposes recently carried out by CityRail highlights that an increasing number of passengers rate CityRail's performance as being good or very good -like the Government's performance. Everyone remembers what a mess railway stations were in under the previous Government. They looked as though they were out of the Bronx - out of the third world, out of Zimbabwe. Our survey shows that 80 per cent of regular CityRail customers rate station cleanliness as good or very good.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Granville to order.
Mr BAIRD: That is part of our $105 million CityRail upgrading program for our rail stations.
[Interruption]
Page 5767
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order.
Mr BAIRD: The honourable member for Kogarah talks about our rail fares. In fact, the survey shows that 71 per cent of commuters believe that they are getting value for money on our trains.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.
Mr BAIRD: On the trains provided, the number of people who believe that they are travelling in modern carriages has jumped from 51 per cent to 66 per cent in the past three months.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.
Mr BAIRD: The Opposition would never have dared to ask passengers about train comfort because it was never able to find anyone who was comfortable. But our survey shows that 63 per cent of passengers rate the comfort of our trains highly, as the honourable member for Blue Mountains would know.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order.
Mr Photios: That is because Garry McIlwaine is not on the train.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order.
Mr BAIRD: Garry McIlwaine well knows how to clear a train. It is not only our own figures that record an on-time running rate of 90 per cent plus. The survey shows that of those who use CityRail services regularly, as the honourable member for East Hills would know, 71 per cent ranked them in terms of on-time running as good or very good. Non-users - even those who do not use the system -
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. As I have often pointed out to members, the number of interjections is directly in inverse proportion to the propensity for having a goodly number of questions asked. I ask that all members be silent so that we can maximise the value of question time.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order for the second time.
Mr BAIRD: Despite the lies told about rail services and despite the problems of the Leader of the Opposition in finding the station at The Entrance, which he claimed he had been to -
[Interruption]
Page 5768
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order.
Mr BAIRD: - the reality is that of those who do not travel on trains, 63 per cent thought our train services were good, 69 per cent thought the railways offered modern carriages, and 65 per cent rated station cleanliness highly. Many of these people know what the situation is and know that our goals before coming to government of providing a safe, clean, reliable and cost efficient system are being met.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Granville to order for the second time.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for St Marys to order.
Mr BAIRD: More than 90 per cent of our trains are running on time. We have an anti-graffiti program. Any trains with graffiti will be removed within 24 hours of the graffiti appearing. The level of assault on trains is down 27 per cent.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the second time.
Mr BAIRD: The operating cost of railways has dropped by $1 million a day.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. At this late stage of question time I ask for the co-operation of members to allow the Minister to finish his answer.
Mr BAIRD: The result is that we have a transformed railway system.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.
Mr BAIRD: That shows this is a can do government that gets it right.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for St Marys to order for the second time.
Mr BAIRD: That is why the independent board of the National Rail Corporation decided only yesterday to place the headquarters of the National Rail Corporation here in Sydney and to appoint the chief operating officer of State Rail, Vince Graham, as its chief executive officer. It is known around the Commonwealth that New South Wales is leading in rail reform. We are the ones who are getting it right, right, right. All the
Page 5769
Opposition can do is complain about the results we are achieving. I am glad to be able to share the results of this survey today because it shows the opinion of the community about improved services across the CityRail network.
______
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Mr Speaker laid upon the table volume 3 of the Auditor-General's Report, and pursuant to section 52(3) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, laid upon the table a report of the Auditor-General into public housing construction, selection and management matters.
Ordered to be printed.
PETITIONS
Water Rate Payments at Post Offices
Petition praying that for the convenience of customers, particularly the elderly and those without private transport, the Minister for Housing reappraise the facilities available for the payment of water rates to include post offices, received from Mr Rumble.
Silverwater Industrial Pollution
Petition praying that the House take action to control environmental abuse in the Silverwater industrial area, received from Mr Ziolkowski.
Walker Estates
Petition praying that the Government preserve the Walker estates, including Yaralla, for public use, received from Ms Moore.
Royal Hospital for Women
Petition praying that the House provide funding to the Royal Hospital for Women to ensure that it maintains its leadership role in women's health care, received from Ms Moore.
Woollahra Traffic
Petition praying that the House take all necessary steps to reduce the traffic volume in Ocean Street, Woollahra, and that Ocean Street be returned to a safe and pleasant street consistent with residential neighbourhood values, received from Ms Moore.
Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf
Petition praying that public money not be wasted demolishing the structurally sound finger wharf and establishing a walkway on the western side of Woolloomooloo Bay but instead that basic renovations be carried out on the wharf and an integrated multimedia arts centre be established, received from Ms Moore.
Page 5770St Joseph's Hospital
Petition praying that the Minister for Health Services Management intervene to save St Joseph's Hospital from closure and that the necessary funding and support staff be provided to allow it to continue to operate as a public hospital, received from Mr Ziolkowski.
Cooks River Pollution
Petition praying that the House take steps to restore the Cooks River to its original condition, received from Ms Moore.
Sydney Harbour Foreshores
Petition praying that the House stop the sale of publicly owned land on the foreshores of Port Jackson and its waterways, including that currently leased from the Maritime Services Board, and retain such land in public ownership; acquire for the public foreshore land whenever the opportunity arises; and optimise public access to the foreshore, received from Ms Moore.
Royal Agricultural Society Showground
Petition praying that the House will prevent the sale by the Government of foreshore and public parklands, including the Royal Agricultural Society Showground, the E. S. Marks Athletic Field and part of Moore Park, and that residents be included on their administrative bodies, received from Ms Moore.
Steel-jawed Leg Hold Traps
Petition praying that the House legislate to ban totally the manufacture, sale and use of steel-jawed leg hold traps in all areas of the State as they cause great suffering to all animals and birds, both target and non-target, caught in them, received from Ms Moore.
Lidcombe Hospital
Petitions praying that the House reject any proposals to close down or cut back services or staffing at Lidcombe Hospital but instead support an increase in services and staffing at the hospital, received from Mr Nagle and Mr Shedden.
MINISTER FOR HOUSING AND FANMAC LIMITED
Matter of Public Importance
Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [3.13]: I move:
That this House notes as a matter of public importance the negligence of the Minister for Housing in continuing to promote home loan products which are inappropriate to the present economic climate; the failure of the Premier and Treasurer to oversight the Government's interest in FANMAC Limited by not taking action to prevent the salary of the Managing Director of that Government-backed company from escalating to in excess of $1.3 million; and calls on the Minister for Housing to direct FANMAC and his Department to modify HomeFund products and to meet with representatives of Co-operative Housing Societies who are concerned at a number of aspects of the HomeFund schemes.
Page 5771
The role of FANMAC Limited and its subsidiary, FANMAC Overseas No. 1 Limited, is a matter of public importance and, I might add, a matter of intense public interest. The New South Wales Government holds more shares in FANMAC than any other single corporation or individual. New South Wales Treasury owns 26 per cent of the shares; the GIO holds 10 per cent; yet this unlisted public company with a government shareholding of 36 per cent is not required to report to the Parliament. It is not subject to parliamentary and, thereby, public scrutiny. The Auditor-General makes the point that FANMAC is not required to report to Treasury. He said:
Funds raised by FANMAC do not originate from government sources and as such are not included in the financial statements of either the Treasury or the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation.
In addition to the Government's shareholding in the company the Government has always had two representatives on the board of directors. One is the secretary to the New South Wales Treasury, the person one assumes would make sure that the Premier and Treasurer is able to oversight the Government's interest in FANMAC, and the other is the head of the New South Wales Department of Housing. The secretary to the State's Treasury has been one of the Government's two representatives on the FANMAC board of directors since its inception. In fact, the publication recently released by the Association of Co-operative Housing Societies - the Minister for Housing will be familiar with this volume; "History of the New South Wales HomeFund Loan Program" - credits the Secretary to the Treasury as saying that by late 1984 he was trying to extract himself from the FANMAC project to attend to other Treasury matters and he turned to his friend, the managing director of the world's largest traders in mortgage-backed securities, and said - this is at page 13 of this publication:
Look Trevor, having talked the Government into this, I realise the thing is bigger than Ben Hur, can you identify somebody to research this and possibly run such a corporation?
His friend did have someone - a Mr Michael Lynch who was then running the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Despite this Government's backing and representation, Michael Lynch, the Managing Director of FANMAC Limited, earned in excess of $1.3 million in the financial year ended 30th June, 1991. Apparently, this was a result of a profit sharing agreement. However, while FANMAC makes a nice tidy profit the shortfall in the income of FANMAC's trusts, which is picked up by the taxpayers of New South Wales and reported by the Auditor-General, blew out in 1990 from $5 million to $38.3 million. The Minister for Housing, who is in the Chamber, seems somewhat confused on these matters. In the course of answering some dorothy dix questions that were asked of him he attempted to indicate to the House that this pool of money was available to provide interest subsidies to the holders of loans. The Auditor-General's Report for 1990 states:
As stated earlier, the role of the Home Purchase Assistance Fund is to provide support to the various FANMAC trusts in addition to the provision of funds to meet the income shortfalls of FANMAC Trust. The fund is required under the terms of the trustee to purchase defaulting mortgages from the FANMAC Trust so as to ensure that those trusts can meet their principal commitments to bondholders.
So much for the Minister's comments -
Mr Schipp: It is an amount of $50,000.
Page 5772
Mrs GRUSOVIN: No. I will correct that later. So much for the Minister's comments in earlier debates some years ago in this House when he claimed that there was no need - as did the present Minister for Transport - to have a government-backed authority, a corporation set up, and that the private sector could manage it well. Perhaps the private sector could have managed it better; it could not have managed it any worse.
Mr Schipp: You would not know what you are talking about.
Mrs GRUSOVIN: I know very well what I am talking about. Perhaps the Treasurer knows whether volume 3 of the Auditor-General's Report for 1991 will show a further increase in shortfalls in FANMAC Trust, or is FANMAC undertaking some window-dressing of its balance sheet and keeping some shortfalls on its books or on the books of the trustees. Of course, that is a matter about which we are not entirely sure. But we now have provided to us - it was tabled in the recent parliamentary recess - the 1990-91 annual report of the Department of Housing. It is interesting to note in that annual report that new figures indicate that the shortfall of $38.3 million that was noted last year has now blown out to $54,053,763. That seems to be a substantial blowout - a blowout that went from $5 million to $38.3 million the year before last and which is now $54,053. The Minister might find interesting earlier notes on the Home Purchase Assistance Fund. Would he inform the House under "Note 2, abnormal item" what the amount of $8,594,248 is for? The note beside that for 1991 is "A write down of non-interest bearing FANMAC bonds reflecting diminution in value arising in prior years". I would be most interested if the Minister is able to explain those figures.
This is not just another indication of this Government's gross financial mismanagement; it is an indication of the Government's failure to manage. FANMAC has a monopoly of the State Government's home ownership program and it has one client - the New South Wales Department of Housing. This issue of FANMAC affects in excess of 43,469 home purchasers in New South Wales who have already obtained FANMAC loans. It affects in the vicinity of 183 co-operative housing societies who originate and manage those loans and it has the potential to affect every taxpayer in this State. Under this Government the great Australian dream of home ownership has become a nightmare for thousands of New South Wales families. While thousands of home purchasers in New South Wales are faced with a continual struggle to meet their FANMAC mortgage commitment - and many are faced with the prospect of losing their homes - this Government, which says it manages better by putting people first, sat back and allowed the term "fat cat" to take on a whole new meaning. Low income earners who have been encouraged to take up government-sponsored home loans and who are locked into mortgages for another 20 to 30 years at fixed interest rates as high as 15.9 per cent, 15.5 per cent and 14.8 per cent per annum for the life of those loans, are absolutely incensed at the revelation that Mr Michael Lynch, Managing Director of FANMAC Limited - the conduit for the Government's HomeFund program - earned in excess of $1.3 million in the 1990-91 financial year. Many of these people are the lowest income earners. For many their only source of income is some sort of government benefit, yet they are paying the highest interest in New South Wales.
I can quote from a number of examples I have of people who are absolutely in dire distress. We have information from one person who obtained a HomeFund loan in October 1990 at 15.25 per cent interest fixed. She has now approached the Advance Bank - which I might say is a shareholder in FANMAC - to see whether she can refinance her loan. I have to tell you that Advance Bank was offering 10.9 per cent loans fixed for one year. The result of her inquiries was that she would have had her payments increased by some $7 more per month to refinance and obtain that 10.9 per cent loan, but
Page 5773
of course it would have been of much shorter duration and certainly much more advantageous to her than 15.25 per cent. However, the Advance Bank informed her that she was not eligible for the cheaper loan because they said she was "too impoverished". My understanding is that the same person approached St George Building Society but St George had a policy whereby it does not refinance government loans. So much for the indications of this Minister that it is easy to hop in and out of these loans and everyone is having a swimmingly good time. Another letter sent to me is from a concerned father. I might add, it was presented as a result of a conversation at the table I sat at, adjacent to the Minister, at the Housing Industry Top Homes Award evening. This father sought my help for his daughter and her husband. They have taken out a loan for $55,000 fixed for 18 years at 15.9 per cent, with monthly payments of $574.24. She and her husband after the first year now owe not $55,000; they owe $56,995. As at the end of last month she now owes $58,887 and the father said to me, "Is this the way to encourage young couples with families to work together to own their home? No help is being given in these extremely hard times. They are finding it extremely difficult to meet their mortgage commitment and believe the interest rate should not have been fixed originally and they are in danger of losing that home". I have other similar letters arriving at my office, the number of which is increasing constantly.
The Managing Director of FANMAC, this fat cat, is earning megabucks because the Government allows him, in fact it encourages him and his organisation, to push products which encourage larger numbers of low income earners into home ownership schemes which they either simply cannot afford or from which they have no escape. Michael Lynch, the million dollar man, has said that his salary results from a service agreement entered into in 1986 and varied in 1987. The Premier and the Minister for Housing will say that FANMAC was set up under the previous Labor Government. They will probably attempt to say that this salary blow-out is all as a result of decisions made under the previous Labor Government. But there are a number of things that this Minister will not say. He will not be saying that the Premier and Treasurer have had responsibility for oversighting the Government's interest in FANMAC for almost four years and that during that four years the Government has continued to dump more and more into the FANMAC schemes and continually told the people of New South Wales how proud they are of their joint achievements with FANMAC. The Premier in his Budget Speech talked about the great success and how the Government is pumping more and more money in. The Minister will not say that the present Secretary to the Treasury was a member of the salaries committee which approved that agreement and has allowed this salary to blow-out to this extent.
The first full year of operation for the FANMAC product was 1987-88. This Government took office during that period. If the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing had been on the ball, they should have been aware of the existence of a service agreement which made provision for a share of profits to be paid to the managing director. If they were not happy with that agreement, why did they not do something about it, and why did they encourage more and more volume lending by FANMAC? The current Minister for Housing also gets a mention in the "History of HomeFund" booklet at page 42. It was he who asked the Premier to expand that program and approve huge increases in borrowings from what was $350 million when they came to government to nearly $700 million. That figure is now over $3,000 million and a further $1,500 million will be available in 1991-92 as seen in the Budget Speech. Minister Schipp is quoted in this book as saying, "Oh, the Premier and I used to do this by just verbal conversations and tell Treasury later. I think it was quite irate about this". Can the people of New South Wales really believe this is good financial management? The "History of HomeFund" booklet goes on to say:
Page 5774
The Minister says when it was found that there was even more demand for loans, more conversations with the Premier followed until the lending was stretched to just under a billion dollars.
Again the Minister is quoted as saying:
Each time he [the Premier] saw me he would say, "You are not here again for more money are you"?
The reality is that Mr Lynch only benefited from a profit sharing arrangement because the Government kept giving him more and more money to play with. This Government has had almost four years in which to do something. Surely the two government representatives on FANMAC's board of directors have made sure that the Premier and Treasurer and the Minister for Housing have each seen the annual reports of FANMAC, the only way that the people of New South Wales can follow the activities of this unlisted public company which is substantially owned by the State Government. In 1987 under Labor Mr Lynch earned $107,000; in 1988 he earned $177,000; in 1989 he earned $240,000. Shortfalls in income in FANMAC trusts amounted to $5 million in that year. In 1990 he earned in excess of $713,000 and in that year shortfalls in income in FANMAC trusts blew out to $38.3 million. As I just said, it is now $54 million. But, of course, his salary is now up to $1.3 million plus. I doubt very much that the Treasurer or the Minister for Housing will say that the original articles of association of FANMAC Limited specifically stated:
The remuneration of the managing director shall be fixed by the directors and shall not be by way of a commission on or percentage of turnover.
They will not say that there appear to have been breaches of the Companies Code. They will not say that one of Mr Lynch's executive service agreements - we do not know how many there have been - was varied at a general meeting of FANMAC Limited on 18th January, 1989, even though that agreement was not due to expire until 30th June, 1990. That meeting of shareholders approved an interest free loan to Mr Lynch to purchase shares in the company, apparently in contravention of two articles of association. One of those articles specifically precluded the giving of any financial assistance for the purpose of purchasing shares in the company or dealing in or lending money on its own shares. The other precluded the making of a loan by the company to a director. The public record does not contain any amendments to those two articles. I would welcome an explanation by the Treasurer as to why the articles of association -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's has exhausted her time for speaking.
Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga), Minister for Housing [3.28]: We have just heard from a bitter, twisted and very confused person who will say anything to try to destroy one of the proud achievements of this State. I do not put it just in the terms of this Government because I openly admit that this program was established under rules set up by the previous Government. I will deal first with the matter of Mr Michael Lynch because I think his is an interesting story. That particular gentleman is regarded as a pinnacle of success within the non-bank institutions in Australia. This most sought after person will find a niche anywhere he wishes to go when his contract expires in the middle of next year. His contract was approved by the FANMAC Board. There is no doubt about that. That board has two representatives of 10 representing the New South Wales Government. It remunerates the director and discloses that in the annual reports. There is no secret that he received in years gone by $1.3 million. That is made up of two
Page 5775
components; the first was the salary component which I understand is low by comparison with some positions held by others in the private sector, but let us say it is a matter of judgment. The second one is based on the profits of FANMAC. He gets 15 per cent of after tax earnings, excluding the first 25 per cent which is paid to the shareholders. As the honourable member for Heffron said, the New South Wales Government is the largest shareholder so it gets its dividend back.
Under Mr Lynch's guidance and expertise FANMAC has grown into one of Australia's leading non-bank institutions. FANMAC has outshone mostly all other mortgage securitisation companies and has avoided the poor performance of other companies during this very difficult period. Mr Lynch has shown his faith in FANMAC by reinvesting 35 per cent of his share of the after tax profits in FANMAC, which has also helped to reinforce the company's asset base. Being a Canadian he has invested back in Australia, which I think is fairly significant. The extraordinarily strong growth of FANMAC has seen the share price increase from 67 cents to approximately $12 today. New South Wales' original investment of $853,000 is now valued at approximately $15.3 million and the total dividend the State has received in the five years is $1,322,500,000. It is the most lucrative investment this State has ever made. FANMAC has provided loans to some 48,000 families, 43,000 of whom are still in the current list and the total value is approximately $3.6 billion. In fact, if you took the 48,000 loans it goes over $4 billion.
Mr Lynch has been with FANMAC for six years, two years of which he was a consultant during the time of the previous Labor Government - we hear much from Labor's members about consultants these days - and for four years he has been the managing director. His average annual remuneration has been $423,200. He commenced on $100,000 and that has risen to $1.3 million this year. During the course of his activities it is estimated that he saved the Government and FANMAC millions and millions of dollars, through his expertise in the sophisticated area of mortgage securitisation, particularly with regard to data processing. His contract expires in June next year, when he will retire. I had my fingers crossed all week that the honourable member would ask me about this matter during question time, so that all honourable members would hear that this five-year contract was entered into at the insistence of the former Government and signed by Mr Booth, the Treasurer under the Unsworth Government. That is how the matter transpired. If that honourable member who just made that diatribe and attack had only thought about it, she would have known that the Labor Government established that contract and that it has been supported by this Government and has worked to the benefit of the people of New South Wales. If she has any feeling of embarrassment whatever -
Mr J. H. Murray: It is not the original contract.
Mr SCHIPP: It is the contract entered into at the insistence of Mr Booth, the Labor Treasurer. It will expire in the middle of next year. I turn to the other matters raised. On the available evidence there is no problem with HomeFund. The portfolio has a total of 43,000 loans, of which only 1,092, or 2.48 per cent, are in arrears of three months or more. In the past three months the percentage of loans in arrears for three months or more has fallen from a high of 2.76 per cent. The normal commercial analysis of loans in trouble relates to loans of this type. A total of 5,526 loans are in arrears, not 6,000 as stated in a newspaper today. These loans may be from one day in arrears to a maximum of 30 days. The number of loans two months in arrears falls to 723. A recent examination of all loans in arrears of three months or more reveals on a worst case basis the possibility of only 122 defaults. To the end of October the program
Page 5776
had a total of 62 losses, constituting payments of $880,000, or 0.01 per cent of the total portfolio. This is considerably less than the percentage with normal commercial institutions.
Though the majority of losses are paid from the Home Purchase Assistance Fund, if it is identified that a loss has occurred as a result of poor loan origination and through poor management by the Co-operative Housing Society, the loss is the responsibility of the society. The HomeFund system provides a number of safety nets for its borrowers. If LowStart borrowers are in difficulty, they can apply for mortgage assistance with regard to repayments. If subsidised borrowers have difficulty, they can apply at any time to have their repayment reduced to 27 per cent of income. In addition, Loansure insures their mortgage repayments for six to 12 months. As evidence that HomeFund loans are not causing problems, only 894 borrowers, that is 4.4 per cent of all subsidised loans, have repayment reductions.
Mr J. H. Murray: Why are the housing co-operatives upset?
Mr SCHIPP: Executives of the co-operatives are ringing me and asking why the Opposition is trying to destroy them and how can they redress the damage that has been done. Further confirmation that HomeFund is travelling well is that a recent investigation of all borrowers revealed a very high satisfaction rate with the loans, with more than 85 per cent of those surveyed saying they would take up a loan again if offered. The loans are carefully constructed, with a fixed rate to protect borrowers from future increases in interest rates and repayments set initially at 27 per cent of income and structured to grow by 6 per cent. Though the debt in the loan grows, it does so at a very slow rate; it is 2.28 per cent in the first year for subsidised borrowers, and thereafter the rate of growth in debt declines. With regard to the 6 per cent repayment increase it should be noted that during the past five years, during which the program has been operating, average weekly earnings have increased by 5.8 per cent compound - almost the same rate as the repayment increase. Furthermore, to deliberately protect borrowers from income-repayment growth, the income-repayment ratio is set at 3 per cent less than that permitted by banks.
For example, if income grows at 16.6 per cent less than repayment requirements it takes 13 years for the borrower to pay 30 per cent of income; if the income grows at 33 per cent less than repayments, it takes seven years to reach the same proportion of income; and if income grows at 50 per cent of the rate of repayment growth, it takes five years to reach 30 per cent of income. The $38.3 million referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald, and made a feature of by the honourable member for Heffron, is comprised primarily of $38 million of subsidy. It is not connected to FANMAC fees. Approximately half of all HomeFund loans are subsidised and have a subsidy payment as part of their normal structure. The $38.3 million relates to subsidy payments and no amount of it is used to pay arrears. The Department of Housing has consistently worked with FANMAC to ensure HomeFund lending is prudential and cautious. All borrowers' incomes are independently verified, a CRAA credit check is conducted on their credit histories, and the amount of deposit is independently verified. In addition, all borrowers must comply with the Government's eligibility requirement.
During the past 12 months the department has put in place a number of measures designed to strengthen the quality control of the home lending program at the operational level to minimise recurrence of the instance of unsatisfactory loan origination and management practices. Specific action taken includes having FANMAC expanded the scope and content of the audit and inspection program of the Co-operative Housing
Page 5777
Societies Association. The aim of the program is to ensure that societies adhere to FANMAC and Department of Housing operational guidelines. Under the new arrangements, 55 societies had been audited by FANMAC as at 30th September, and it is envisaged that the remaining societies will be audited prior to the end of the financial year. Thereafter three audits of societies will be conducted every two years. A number of deficiencies have been identified so far and procedures have been implemented to prevent their repetition. A major review has been undertaken of lending guidelines in consultation with FANMAC and the Co-operative Housing Societies Association. A revised set of guidelines is due to be finalised soon and will define the roles and responsibilities of the parties more precisely than previously. To ensure society adherence to departmental and FANMAC guidelines, enhancements to the FANMAC computer system have been made. These will enable any deviation from the guidelines with regard to loan approvals to be identified at the outset and corrected. The department conducts training programs for society staff. A new training program is being developed to promote the overall effectiveness of the home lending program and to ensure full awareness and compliance with the present operational standards and guidelines.
The salary of the managing director of FANMAC was negotiated by the former Labor Government. His contract expires next year and he will retire from the company. The salary bears no relationship to the fee paid by the Government to FANMAC, which originally was set by the former Labor administration at 35c per $100 of loan outstanding. Since that time this fee has been negotiated down to 27 per cent, leading to savings to the Government of $9.1 million. FANMAC's profit is nothing whatever to do with the interest shortfall. It simply relates to the cost of running the HomeFund system. The honourable member for Heffron mentioned interest rates. Borrowers are on higher rates but they are fixed for the life of the loan. The former Labor Government set those rules and they have worked effectively. It has nothing to do with the monthly repayments. In the way the loan is structured it does not matter if the interest rate is 10 per cent or 15 per cent.
Mr J. H. Murray: When is the Minister going to meet the housing co-operative?
Mr SCHIPP: I meet them all the time. Two weeks ago I had lunch with the housing co-operative.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.
Mr SCHIPP: Members of the co-operatives spoke to me this morning saying, "What are we going to do about this woman because she is running around badmouthing a program that is highly successful". People can opt out of their program - and are opting out - if they wish and for approximately $1,000 they can refinance. Many borrowers in their own interests are finding the extra $1,000 to keep the loan under control. I reiterate that I am proud of this program. It has served its purpose well. We have five times the amount of throughput that honourable members opposite achieved when they were in government and they did not know how to work the program. This program will stand the test of history.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! The Minister has exhausted his time for speaking.
Page 5778
Mr IRWIN (Fairfield) [3.43]: In his contribution the Minister described FANMAC as a most lucrative investment at a time when there is an increasing number of people having great difficulty servicing their home loans. Obviously it is not getting through to this Minister but it is certainly getting through to me and other members of this House. The loan repayments are increasing at 6 per cent a year. The overtime which was available until recently is no longer available. Many have lost their jobs and are on unemployment benefits. Those people are in a position where their only recourse is to attempt to sell their homes to salvage their financial position. Yet this Minister describes this as a most lucrative investment -
Mr Schipp: For the Government.
Mr IRWIN: For the New South Wales Government. In this way the Minister and the scheme have come to suck the blood of the people who relied on this scheme to put a roof over their heads. When the scheme was initiated it offered hope to people to purchase their homes and provided a safety net for those who may then fall into difficulties. This Government has made this scheme a flagship of its housing policy. It preys on those who were marginal in their capacity to obtain a loan under this scheme. These people were on the Department of Housing waiting list, they were tenants and others who did not have the capacity to meet a housing loan of any description. The special provisions of the HomeFund program may have allowed them to meet the criteria. This scheme is putting increasing pressure on borrowers under the HomeFund scheme because of the way it is being administered. The Minister has admitted that at present 700 borrowers are in arrears. Almost certainly those people will be forced to sell their homes or take other action.
Mr Schipp: That is wrong.
Mr IRWIN: The Minister says that statement is incorrect. Let us look at what is occurring. Under the original agreement in 1986 a letter from the operations manager of FANMAC stated:
All defaulting mortgages will be bought by the State of New South Wales. However the co-op housing societies will still manage these mortgages under the HPAA program.
That is an ironclad assurance from FANMAC that the State of New South Wales, through the Department of Housing, would stand behind those loans. On 9th April, 1991, with a change in government, Mr R. W. Flint, the Director of Housing, stated that any matters arising from these agreements could be negotiated only by the contracting parties and the department could not intervene. What a cop-out! That is the change. Instead of standing behind the co-operative housing society and the borrowers who were in difficulty, the Government now looks for a cop-out. On 18th April Helen Colby, the General Manager of Financial Management Services, stated:
The trustee can require the State to purchase the loan but need not make the request. As you are aware the loans under discussion have not been transferred in that particular instance.
This Government is not standing behind those people but sees FANMAC as a lucrative investment. The Government is paying the chief executive of FANMAC the sum of $1,300,000 by way of a salaried package - $25,000 a week, which is more than most borrowers earn in a year. Yet this Government is totally unsympathetic and uncaring towards the plight of many people. Many more will suffer as a result of this. People
Page 5779
are cutting back on everything, not merely the luxuries but on the very necessities of life to meet their mortgage repayments. Many have passed that point and will lose their homes and many thousands of dollars. Those people and the housing societies which supported them are offered no hope by this Minister. This Government sees its housing policy as nothing more than a lucrative investment.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [3.57]: This motion is untrue. There is not one element of truth, substance or worth in the motion put forward by the honourable member for Heffron. Let us quickly analyse the situation. HomeFund is unique in home lending in Australia. It has brought opportunities for home ownership about which the Minister for Housing agreed when he said words to the effect that it offered loans for people who could not obtain them from other lending institutions. That indeed is the situation. HomeFund has offered those loans and brought home ownership to 48,000 people in New South Wales, of which 43,000 loans are still on foot. The honourable member for Heffron said that people are locked into high interest rate loans for 30-odd years. That is untrue. The maximum time, as I understand the loan, is something like 24 years. Those people are not locked in because every HomeFund client or mortgagor has the right to pay out the loan in full at any time without the payment of any penalty, and that is exactly what has happened. People have obtained a HomeFund loan to buy a property because HomeFund will lend 95 per cent, sometimes even 97.5 per cent, on the purchase price, when other lending institutions do not generally do this. Those people take advantage of the HomeFund loan, obtain the loan, and as time elapses, without any penalty at all, they obtain another loan.
On today's standards 15.9 per cent interest does sound a lot but that was the wretched interest rate that the Opposition's wretched Federal masters imposed upon the people of Australia, and at that time the HomeFund rate was reasonable. That rate was more than competitive. Honourable members opposite have had the gall and audacity to complain about it. Their Federal masters imposed those conditions and the people are paying for it. This Government gave those people hope when there was absolutely no hope whatsoever. Let me speak about the repayments and the letter the honourable member for Heffron received from the man whose daughter was having difficulty making the payments. The payments are geared to income at the rate of 27 per cent. If a person's income goes down and that person is paying more than 30 per cent of income, an application can be made to have the payments reduced. That applies to people with subsidised loans. Others on the low start loans can apply for mortgage assistance. Reference was made to additional safeguards. Under Loansure, payments can be insured for six months to 12 months. Let us get to the nitty-gritty and consider the allegations made about Mr Michael Lynch. His contract was negotiated by the former Labor Government.
Mr J. H. Murray: And renegotiated by the present Government.
Mr MERTON: The honourable member is partly right.
Mrs Grusovin: Tell us about the variation.
Mr MERTON: I shall tell members opposite about the variation. Simply the variation was this: when the contract was negotiated originally by Mr Booth Mr Lynch's
Page 5780
salary was $100,000. The 15 per cent rate remains unaltered to this day. His present salary is about $200,000. He now gets $100,000 extra; the remainder of the $1.3 million relates to the very same formula that Mr Booth, a Labor Party member, entered into.
Mrs Grusovin: That is rubbish.
Mr MERTON: The honourable member does not like the truth. The truth hurts people who tell lies. That money does not come from the taxpayers; it comes from FANMAC. He is a shareholder in FANMAC and is entitled to receive a reasonable dividend. This was a commercial decision. Honourable members know all about that and should not cry poor mouth. We know what they are all about. HomeFund loans are unique. Of the 43,000 current loans only 62 are in default completely and at present about 122 loans are more than three months in arrears.
Mr Schipp: No, are likely to be.
Mr MERTON: I correct myself. They are likely to be in a situation where there could be a default. There are 723 loans that are two months in arrears. The situation is that there are about 122 likely defaults out of 43,000 loans. Any commercial entity would be proud to have such a record. I commend HomeFund as being a worthwhile organisation. The allegations of negligence and impropriety are denied. The motion must be defeated.
Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [3.52]: I listened with amazement to the honourable member for Baulkham Hills. He never ceases to amaze me. I just do not understand him. This whole sorry matter is affecting many of my constituents. The only thing I can think is that this was a deliberate attempt by the present Government to use this system of funding to get itself out of its responsibility for providing public housing for people in the community. I shall quote some of the things that the Government said to people:
You will eventually end up paying more per month than you would on a normal loan. However, because the repayments have only gone up by 6 per cent each year, the loan should still be affordable because incomes will increase 6 per cent per year.
That statement was made in 1989. Everyone knows that incomes have not increased by 6 per cent each year, because the same Government that members on that side of the House are kicking to death, the Federal Government in Canberra, has held the inflation rate below that level. I am not here to argue the overall merits of the case. I am here to argue on behalf of the people who sent me to this place to represent them. A constituent approached me and told me that two years ago, at the end of 1989, he took out a loan for $55,000. From then until the present time he has repaid almost $13,000 and now owes almost $4,000 more than the initial loan. The Minister says that the default rate is low. That is so because people who have been left in these homes are desperate. They think they will lose their homes - not only their homes - and they will not have anywhere to live. They have accepted the present circumstances and are merely paying rent to maintain a roof over their heads in the hope that the interest rate of 15.9 per cent will be reduced to the present general level of interest of about 12 per cent to 12.5 per cent. It is an absolute disgrace that $1.3 million was paid to the managing director.
Mr Greiner: It was your idea; it was your contract.
Mrs Grusovin: There were a lot of variations.
Page 5781
Mr Greiner: Your mate Ken Booth did it.
Mr CLOUGH: My mate Ken Booth -
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order!
Mrs Grusovin: There were a lot of variations.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Greiner: There were no variations at all. I have got the Treasury's file note.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to be heard in silence. I call all members to order. The honourable member for Bathurst has the call.
Mr CLOUGH: I had not noticed that the Premier was present in the Chamber, but I am pleased that he is. He mentioned the late Ken Booth. For the Premier to put himself in the same class as Ken Booth is untenable.
Mr Greiner: It certainly is. I am not in his class.
Mr CLOUGH: He is not in the same class as Ken Booth. I do not intend to digress to discuss the relative merits of the Treasury now and when it was under the administration of the late Ken Booth. The manager of this firm is paid an amount that is equal to the cost of 20 homes. As the Minister said, Mr Lynch has his money invested. Why would he not have his money invested in the fund? He is making a fortune out of it. My main concern is to inform the Minister that the people who have to pay interest rates of 15.9 per cent cannot afford to do so.
Mr Merton: They can get out.
Mr CLOUGH: The honourable member for Baulkham Hills said that they can get out. They would go out owing more than they did when they entered into the loans.
Mr Schipp: No.
Mr CLOUGH: Yes, they would. The people that I represent borrowed $55,000 and now owe almost $59,000 after two years. They cannot get out. They would walk away from the time and effort they have put into a home that they hoped one day, if conditions were relaxed, they would own. I know that those constituents have no chance of recovering what they have put into their homes. The only thing that can be done is for the Government to say that the 15.9 per cent interest rate that was chargeable at the time is no longer valid. The Government must reassess the interest rate.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.
Mr GREINER (Ku-ring-gai), Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs [3.57]: The Government's HomeFund loan program is the outstanding home purchase assistance program in Australia. It is a program that in its concept was started by the Australian Labor Party. It was designed and conceived by Michael Ayres, who was a
Page 5782
political appointee by the Australian Labor Party and was specifically approved by both the present Secretary to the Treasury, a perfectly competent and capable officer -
Mrs Grusovin: He was on the salaries committee that determined the new arrangement.
Mr GREINER: Who was?
Mrs Grusovin: The Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr GREINER: That is right.
Mrs Grusovin: Did he tell you about it?
Mr GREINER: I was not there at the time. Ken Booth was the Treasurer. I will come to that. The reality is that what the Labor Party does not like about the scheme is that it succeeded, and it has succeeded beyond wildest expectations at the time it was set up. The scheme is about home ownership rather than the stupid ideologically inspired commitment to public housing which only the New South Wales Labor Party around Australia still has. No other Labor Party in Australia is as stupid as these clowns to retain a commitment that says somehow it is better to waste public money in order to get less public housing, less housing assistance per dollar spent. That is what Opposition members do not like about it. Everything they have complained about is a direct result of the success of the scheme in stimulating home ownership in New South Wales. Let me come to the facts about the allegations made by the honourable member for Heffron. Mr Lynch's remuneration was negotiated and unanimously endorsed by the board of FANMAC in February 1987. It has not changed in any relevant particular with respect to the way he gets to the $1.3 million.
In fact I have just spoken to the Secretary to the Treasury who has in his possession his own file note addressed to Ken Booth, who was a good bloke, and if he were here he would say that the honourable member was lying and that she is stupid. Ken Booth specifically endorsed "approved" across the bottom of the section that spells out the incentive bonus, the 15 per cent of pre-tax earnings after a certain threshold has been reached. This gentleman earns this amount of money, with the exception of a change in salary component which is totally irrelevant to the total, entirely because of the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Ken Booth approved it and signed it, and there is no way of changing it because he had a contract, and even the clowns on the Opposition side would not expect the Government to breach a contract simply because this organisation was proving to be too successful. Therefore, the Opposition does not like it.
With respect to the criticism of the Minister, compared to the criteria for arrears of the Australian Bankers Association, the performance of FANMAC - which is for the people in the home ownership scheme, the people with the lowest incomes - is better than the performance of the nationally operating banks. What sort of rubbish is this? The Opposition does not know what it is talking about. The reality is that the performance in terms of arrears - the $38 million in the year before last and the $50-odd million this year - is in line with budget and, as the Minister said, is the subsidy component. It is precisely what taxpayers are putting in to enable people who otherwise would not have the opportunity to buy their own homes to do so. I say to the honourable member and to the Sydney Morning Herald: that is a total beatup. The Government has nothing to apologise for either in terms of the performance of HomeFund or in terms of the salary
Page 5783
of Mr Lynch. Far from wanting to apologise, I say to the House that this is an outstanding scheme which has enabled tens of thousands of people to get on to the home ownership roll which they would not have otherwise been able to do. There is no credit at all in the motion and it ought to be overwhelmingly rejected.
Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [4.2], in reply: Perhaps the Premier will remain in the Chamber to answer some questions I want to pose. He certainly has not answered them in his set diatribe. I refer to the service arrangement scheme put in place for Michael Scott Lynch. This agreement was to date from 1st July, 1990, with a base salary not of $200,000, as the honourable member for Baulkham Hills has claimed; the base salary payable to Mr Lynch was $300,000. The articles of association go on to say that the effective cost to the company of this package on the basis of management projections and assumptions set out will mean that the salary will be $501,350. This document is dated 27th December, 1989. It talks of his revised base salary. His interest-free loan has now gone to $300,000. We have a few problems with this. In my earlier statements I said that there had been a very big change from what was originally organised.
I want an explanation from the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs, who does not consider this to be sufficiently important to remain in the Chamber, as to why the articles of association were amended on 15th November, 1990, to reduce the share capital of the company. There were only five fully paid shares of $1 each. The rest were paid to 67c or 1c each. Was Mr Lynch the main beneficiary of that reduction? This issue is a matter of public importance. I have not had too many questions answered in the House this afternoon. Is there any arrangement for the Government or FANMAC to purchase the significant proportion of shares owned by Mr Lynch if he leaves Australia? Why does the managing director of a government-backed enterprise even own a significant shareholding? The Minister might inform the House as to whether Mr Lynch intends to stay on after his current service agreement expires on 30th June, 1992. I would also welcome an explanation by the Treasurer as to why it is not until the 1991 annual report that a note in relation to remuneration of directors appears. It states:
A director entered into an executive service agreement with the company in 1986. By variation to this agreement in 1987 the parties agreed that in addition to salary the director should be paid in respect of the five financial years commencing on 1 July 1987 and ending on 30 June 1992, an amount calculated as a percentage of the audited pre tax profits of the company in each relevant financial year exceeding $825,000.
I know all about that. That was 25 per cent of the issued capital at the date of agreement. But there was no mention of this agreement until 1991 when the heat went on. Who are the parties to this agreement? Why was it not until the 1991 annual report of FANMAC was produced that details of a dividend for the 1990 year, not provided for in that year's annual report, were published? What did the Government do with its 37.5c per share dividend in 1990 and the 28c per share dividend in 1991? Did it go to the Home Purchase Assistance Fund to help with some of the cases we have heard of today where people were locked in for 18 years and 20 years on 15.9 per cent interest? The lowest paid people in the community do not qualify for normal banking institution loans. That is why they have used home loan funds. Where did this money go? Did it just disappear into the bowels of consolidated revenue? Many things could have been done with that money. It could have been used to boost mortgage relief for purchasers experiencing difficulty. The Minister should not tell us that there are not too many problems, that the co-operatives are all happy and that only one or two of them are having a bit of a problem. The individual figures for some of the co-operatives show the
Page 5784
truth. For example, one society has reported that the repayments on 91 homes are in arrears. Of the 91, 38 are for sale and 23 others are the subject of legal action - that is 61 out of 91. I have a couple more examples.
Mr Schipp: Name the co-operative.
Mrs GRUSOVIN: The Minister ought to know. None of this money is being used to boost mortgage relief for purchasers experiencing difficulty. It could have been used to reduce those extremely high interest rates and provide some relief. The Minister should not tell me that he is not getting letters telling him about the problems people are experiencing with their repayments. Just a few weeks ago the Minister was trumpeting about the latest reduction in interest rates. Today the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs was trumpeting about the success of his scheme. He ought to get an up-to-date briefing from his Minister or find himself a new Minister if he wants to be in touch.
[Quorum formed.]
Mr Whelan: It is an unprecedented and historic moment when a government calls a quorum on itself. I cannot believe it.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Heffron has the call.
Mrs GRUSOVIN: This is the second day on which I have tried to raise this matter, which I consider to be of grave public importance. It is interesting that a Government backbencher attempted to thwart my opportunity to present these facts to the House. It seems to me that the Government is running scared. The question that needs to be addressed by the Government is whether there is any necessity for FANMAC to continue to exist in its present form. There is a greater question about the need for FANMAC Overseas No. 1 Limited. I ask the Premier and Treasurer: what does the managing director with a staff of 23 or 24, two of whom are perhaps employed by the subsidiary which appears to have done nothing since first raising funds on the Eurobond market in 1987, do to justify a salary of in excess of $1.3 million? Co-operative housing societies originate and manage the loans. I assume that the FANMAC trustee looks after the interests of investors and the interests of the Government. The Department of Housing is supposed to look after people who have trouble meeting their mortgage commitments under the scheme and buy out any defaulting mortgages.
What does FANMAC do other than produce monthly computer printouts for the co-operatives of the loans which they originated and manage? The managing director of FANMAC gets the benefit of the executive service agreement amended on 18th January, 1989, and effective on 1st July, 1990, by fulfilling the conditions attached to that agreement. I could speak at length about the products that, as part of the contractual arrangements, Mr Lynch is providing for this State because they are totally inappropriate. I say that the architect of this scheme should be paying the people of New South Wales. I am sure he will not have any trouble fulfilling one section of his contractual agreement which states that he must identify a successor to the managing director capable of sustaining the company's performance. I am sure the head of the ANZ bank, who earns about half the salary that Mr Michael Lynch earns, and the heads of various other financial institutions, would jump at the chance to take up this position. I hope that the House considers this to be of sufficient merit to join us in a vote so that we can indicate our concern about this matter.
Page 5785
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 47
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Mr Anderson
Mr A. S. Aquilina
Mr J. J. Aquilina
Mr Bowman
Mr Clough
Mr Crittenden
Mr Doyle
Mr Face
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mrs Grusovin
Mr Harrison
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mr Irwin
Mr Knight
Mr Knowles
Mr Langton
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr McManus
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Dr Metherell
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Moss
Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Nagle
Mr Neilly
Mr Newman
Ms Nori
Mr E. T. Page
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Mr Rogan
Mr Rumble
Mr Scully
Mr Shedden
Mr Sullivan
Mr Thompson
Mr Whelan
Mr Yeadon
Mr Ziolkowski
Tellers,
Mr Beckroge
Mr Davoren
Noes, 48
Mr Armstrong
Mr Baird
Mr Blackmore
Mr Causley
Mr Chappell
Mrs Chikarovski
Mrs Cohen
Mr Collins
Mr Cruickshank
Mr Downy
Mr Fahey
Mr Fraser
Mr Glachan
Mr Graham
Mr Greiner
Mr Griffiths
Mr Hazzard
Mr Jeffery
Dr Kernohan
Mr Kerr
Mr Longley
Dr Macdonald
Ms Machin
Mr Merton
Mr Moore
Mr Morris
Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Packard
Mr D. L. Page
Mr Peacocke
Mr Petch
Mr Phillips
Mr Photios
Mr Rixon
Mr Schipp
Mr Schultz
Mr Small
Mr Smiles
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Tink
Mr Turner
Mr West
Mr Windsor
Mr Yabsley
Mr Zammit
Tellers,
Mr Beck
Mr Hartcher
Pair
Question so resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Page 5786 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Indicative Program
Mr MOORE (Gordon), Minister for the Environment [4.20]: For the information of honourable members the indicative program for the next sitting week will be made available to members' offices this afternoon. We will endeavour to deal with the program as it is laid out. I remind honourable members of the 9.30 start on Monday morning, although it is not expected that there will be any divisions in the first hour.
[Interruption]
Mr MOORE: Guidance will be provided for the honourable member for Ermington.
House adjourned at 4.20 p.m.