LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday, 29th April, 1992
______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mr Speaker advised the House that he had received from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition notice of a matter of public importance, which would be listed for discussion at the conclusion of formal business.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
_____
FANMAC AND HOMEFUND LOANS
Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Housing. In 1990-91 did the HomeFund scheme approve 6,000 loans for Department of Housing tenants or eligible tenants? Are these families now struggling to meet repayments with interest rates reaching 15.9 per cent? Will the Minister concede his motive in this scheme is to sell off public housing and reduce departmental waiting lists?
Mr SCHIPP: The Leader of the Opposition has been dudded. He has shown he knows little more than the honourable member for Heffron about the scheme. If he cannot understand it is not an interest rate based scheme but an income based repayment scheme, then he cannot get anything into his thick head. The fact of the matter is that HomeFund is providing homes for people who would not otherwise have them. When the Labor Party was in office there were 17,000 on the waiting list for homes. There is a credibility test here.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind honourable members of the need for decorum in their conduct. Question time will run much more efficiently if members remain silent. The Minister for Housing has the call.
Mr SCHIPP: One would think that people who raise issue on the HomeFund question would have made representations of some proportion to me.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Jackson to order. I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.
Mr SCHIPP: The honourable member for Heffron claims she has hundreds of cases to be investigated. I have here a list of the representations made to me since last June. Her performance, a big fat zero; absolutely zero; not one representation to my office. If one takes the Leader of the Opposition, there is another zero.
Page 2997
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order. I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order.
Mr SCHIPP: Since June last year the Opposition has made 43 representations to me on the question of HomeFund - and certainly they have not all been negative. If I were to list the number of times I have been approached to intervene because a HomeFund loan has been refused, that would put the acid test on and we would see who has any credibility. In fact, 97.2 per cent of loans have been satisfactorily serviced. There are 1,286 loans in arrears of three months or more on the basis of a commercial private sector test as to whether a loan structure is performing or not performing. This program has inbuilt safeguards. I repeat: it is not an interest rate based scheme. The Leader of the Opposition as usual does not listen. He asked a question dumped on him by somebody who generally cannot get the facts right and does not understand the program. There are 20,000 loans in that program that receive subsidized interest. They start at lower than 8 per cent and average 10.5 per cent, if there is full subsidy over the life of the loan. Last year $36.8 million worth of subsidies were built into a scheme that was devised under the Labor Government. In principle it has not been changed by this Government, but has been refined by me and the administrators of the scheme to the stage that the people who need help will get help. Because of the situation that arose last year with City Central Co-operative Housing Society, which is well known to the honourable member for Drummoyne, a special police task force is investigating the scheme.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order. I call the honourable member for Heffron to order.
Mr SCHIPP: City Central Co-operative Housing Society is responsible for 10 per cent of the loan program - about 4,500 loans - and through poor loan origination is responsible for about 50 per cent of the projected loan losses in the program, so I would not be sticking out my head if I belonged to that society.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order. I call the honourable member for Heffron to order for the second time.
Mr SCHIPP: A substantial audit is being undertaken of the affairs of the North South West Co-operative group, and particularly the City Central Co-operative Housing Society, as to loan originations. There is a big question mark over that particular society as to the prudence of its loan origination. That is what the fight is all about. The society was not asked to provide $1 million in repayments - in other words loan purchase. The society still owes about $250,000 to be repaid at about $5,000 per annum. Of the two people parading this, I should like to know about the woman who was formerly from Tamworth. When I was in Tamworth last October she was introducing me as Mr HomeFund, Mr Goodie Goodie, and Mr Good on you Joe, and this situation was not mentioned then. That particular person originated a loan, as I understand, for her brother. Was she dudding her brother or was she behind the program?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order.
Mr SCHIPP: What about the gentleman who challenged co-operative societies and said that unless they got on with the job of selling HomeFund loans, another society would become the HomeFund provider in that area? What about those situations? Is that hypocrisy or not? Turning to case studies, I instance a case that is as good as these celebrated cases reported in the media. What about people who take out loans through
Page 2998
a particular building society - nothing to do with HomeFund, and I will not name the society - and get into trouble? They go to the Government for mortgage assistance of $5,000 or more. They get into trouble again, come to the Government and are then given a consolidated loan through HomeFund to assist them. They get into more trouble and ask for additional mortgage assistance of $4,000. No loan repayments are made in December, February and March. These are the people who run to the media. Their debts rose to $20,000. Their income was about $1,000 a week. Another person who is leading the action group will soon be investigated by police as to fraud matters. I instance two people who gave up their jobs, applied for and got Austudy. They then expected their loan to reduce down to almost zilch. Another person did not reveal that she was a former Department of Housing tenant. Her loan repayments were 23.5 per cent of her income with reduced interest. She is paying only 28 per cent of her income and is now asserting that she will be evicted because of this program.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order for the second time.
Mr SCHIPP: I have received four representations in eight or nine months from the honourable member for Londonderry. As a result of what happened with one particular society responsible for many improved loan raisings, there has been an ongoing review of the program. It has been taken under the umbrella of FANMAC, the auditing authority, which is doing audits three times every two years. Some anomalies have been found. For a short period last year, between July and October, between 1,000 and 1,500 people may not have got their full entitlement of assistance. Those people have been contacted - not a great deal of money is involved and they will have the option to have that money refunded or have it taken off their loan. Every person in the program is to be contacted and will be told to go back to their society if they have not been there and they will get the assistance that is available to them. This program, in a situation where one cannot have 100 per cent perfection because of the human foibles in life and the economic circumstances created by Labor's mates in Canberra, is as good as one will get as it is a model of similar programs around Australia. It ill behoves this person to denigrate a program and put the fear of God into people who have loans. The track record of the lot opposite, is one of no policy. There is no substance whatsoever to the claims. The program will go on no matter who is in government because it is a success story.
LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE
Mr SMITH: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Health Services Management. What procedures were carried out by the Health Department to deal with the recent outbreak of Legionnaire's disease and what regulations are in place to ensure that the risk of the disease is minimised?
Mr Carr: For God's sake, do something.
Mr PHILLIPS: The comment across the Chamber from the Leader of the Opposition is typical of the despicable approach of that side of the House to this issue of a major public health issue.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr PHILLIPS: We have witnessed the member for Fairfield, without going to the public health unit to get a proper briefing on the issue, going to the press and scaremongering among the community.
Page 2999
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Cabramatta to order.
Mr PHILLIPS: I may understand a little bit of naivety on health matters from the member for Fairfield and, of course, we always expect the Mayor of Liverpool, Mr Latham to go for a headline grab.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Cabramatta to order for the second time.
Mr PHILLIPS: We know he is an expert on roads and tollgates, and now he is an expert on Legionnaire's disease. We expect that from the Mayor of Liverpool. However Dr Refshauge, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, should know better. He knows the facts about this particular disease; he knows the facts about what is actually happening but he persists in going on the radio and saying things to scaremonger about this issue. Let us look at the facts about what is occurring. I welcome the opportunity to inform the House about what the Department of Health is doing to deal with this epidemic, especially since some members opposite and their cronies in local government are seeking to exploit a serious public health issue.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.
Mr PHILLIPS: I would first like to extend my deepest sympathy - and I am sure that of all members of this House - to those people who have lost relatives and friends to the recent outbreak of this disease. I can understand that they are perhaps bewildered and upset and are seeking answers as to why their loved ones died relatively suddenly. The fact is that all the answers are not readily available. Legionnaire's disease is still an extremely rare and somewhat mysterious disease. Around the world scientists are trying to gather information about what causes it and what can be done to try to prevent it. I have been kept informed of developments, and I have the utmost confidence in the handling of this issue by the Department of Health and public health officers. I believe they acted promptly and correctly. However, this is still an extremely rare and relatively mysterious disease. I have asked for a detailed report from my department. If any examination of how this issue was handled suggests any improvements can be made in methods of detection, enforcement or regulation, they will be made - and promptly.
The latest information from the Chief Health Officer is that a major source of infection has been identified, with almost 40 per cent of confirmed or suspected cases having visited the site. The site is located in the central business district of Fairfield, bounded by Cunningham, Smart, Spencer, Ware and Station streets. While it is believed to be the major source, it is not necessarily the only source, and investigation into other possible sources continues. Preliminary results of water tests taken in the area of Fairfield indicate that there are legionella organisms at hazardous levels. Definitive results will be available in the next few days, but the area is now safe - I emphasise that. No new cases have been reported in the last 48 hours in southwestern Sydney.
Four people have died from the disease, with an additional death from an unrelated strain of the disease. There have been 20 confirmed cases and 37 possible cases. All the confirmed cases and 28 of the possible cases have been hospitalised in southwestern Sydney. An update is expected later today. Because of the incubation period of the disease, the Chief Health Officer is confident that no new infections are occurring. New South Wales has the toughest regulations of any State or Territory in Australia - I emphasise that - and some of the toughest regulations in the world relating
Page 3000
to air conditioning systems. No other State has such microbial control procedures in place. Each year 11,500 patients are admitted to New South Wales hospitals with pneumonia, and the overwhelming majority of these cases are not due to legionella. Inpatient statistics show that six cases a month are treated for Legionnaire's disease. In other words, the diagnosis of Legionnaire's disease is not always immediately apparent; nor is it possible to perform instant tests. Confirmation of Legionnaire's disease by growing the legionella organism from blood and sputum samples takes from three to 14 days. Blood tests do not produce definitive results until 10 days after the onset of symptoms.
I refer to the case of one man who died, whom I do not propose to name for confidentiality reasons, but whose relatives have raised concerns. The patient's sputum was found to be positive for legionella on 19th April, the day of his admission to Liverpool hospital. However, this was an isolated positive result and therefore not evidence of an epidemic. The first death from Legionnaire's disease was on 18th April. Because of testing methods legionella was not confirmed as being involved until 21st April. At about midday on 21st April - the same day - the infection control officer at Liverpool hospital notified the area's public health unit that two cases, including the particular case to which I referred, had been confirmed. The public health unit began follow-up procedures immediately. At approximately 2 p.m. on 22nd April, the acting general manager of Fairfield hospital advised the deputy chief executive officer of the area that there was concern at the high number of cases of atypical pneumonia - at that time 17 cases - at Fairfield hospital. This was the first evidence of a possible epidemic. The Chief Health Officer, Dr Morey, was immediately notified and a major investigation was launched. Once suspicions were confirmed, Dr Morey began notifying the media at about 9 p.m. that evening. On 23rd April the Chief Health Officer issued a warning that people, especially those living in southwestern Sydney, experiencing symptoms of Legionnaire's disease should seek early medical attention.
The following procedures were instituted. Detailed histories of confirmed or suspected patients were taken, including what public buildings had been visited recently. Samples were taken from water cooling systems and fountains in the Fairfield, Liverpool, Campbelltown and Camperdown districts. The department and local council offices asked for all water-cooled air conditioning equipment in southwest Sydney not serviced in the previous month to be shut down, cleaned and disinfected immediately. This goes beyond health department regulations, which require monthly inspections by the occupier or maintenance contractor; all cooling towers to be cleaned every three months; and local councils to maintain a register of all plants likely to harbour the legionella bacteria. Health department environmental health officers also inspect plants.
It may be that all sources of the bacteria will not be identified because the swift move to clean all likely sources of contamination means that the source of the bacteria may have been removed. It was considered much more important - and I emphasise this - to ensure that a risk to health was quickly removed than to allow this threat to continue while tests where conducted to positively identify the source. The honourable member for Fairfield has sought to make cheap political mileage out of this sad situation. He probably does not know any better. I am amazed at the complicity of the shadow minister for health on an issue such as this. This is a cavalier attempt to undermine public confidence in public health measures for no good reason. The new Public Health Act came into force in November last year, and local councils play an important role in the code of practice for the control of Legionnaire's disease. Councils will be required to have registers of all cooling towers in their areas complete by next month, that is, within a six-month period, which was reasonable given the size of the task.
Page 3001
The honourable member for Fairfield suggests that there was some delay which could have been averted. I am staggered by this rank opportunism and that the shadow minister for health plans a further debate on the issue. I am more than pleased to stack up what this Government has done to completely overhaul public health laws against absolutely anything done by the previous Government. Before this Government came to office, the previous Labor Government was content to rely on the Public Health Act 1902, which was a hotchpotch of outdated and unwieldy regulations. The antiquated notification system would never have detected an outbreak like this. There were no public health units and no epidemiologists in the department. This Government established 14 public health units, on which it spends $4 million a year. This Government appointed epidemiologists with international qualifications and embarked on a massive consultation and reform process with all interested parties, which led to a new Public Health Act. This was a huge task. In fact, the introduction of the Act was considerably delayed because, in a spirit of bipartisanship, we showed the draft to the shadow minister for health and he argued that there should be fewer notifiable diseases.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.
Mr PHILLIPS: A legionella advisory committee was established, and it consulted with a wide range of medical experts and industrial groups to draw up a code of practice. Seminars have been held around the State, and are still being held, for local government, owner-occupiers and other involved parties. It would be physically impossible, except with thousands of personnel, for the Department of Health to itself check every cooling tower in New South Wales on a three-monthly basis. As with many other public health issues, we must rely on education and self-regulation, backed by spot checks and substantial fines, or the system will not work. The maximum penalty for a breach of the regulations is $10,000 or 12 months gaol if the matter is heard in the Local Court, and $50,000 or two years' gaol if the matter is heard in the Supreme Court. I take this opportunity to congratulate, on behalf of this House, Dr Sue Morey, the Chief Health Officer; Dr George Ruben, the Director of Epidemiology; and all those involved in what I can confirm was a very efficiently handled matter. This group of people in the Department of Health is very dedicated. The actions of Opposition members on this issue have been absolutely despicable and baseless.
FANMAC AND HOMEFUND LOANS
Mr IRWIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Housing. Did he say that struggling HomeFund borrowers who last week publicly criticised the scheme could not pass "the acid test of credibility"? Can he explain why one of these borrowers - a former public tenant - was informed that he had just received government subsidies of more than $10,000 to reduce his arrears? Was this man one of those who went public last week?
Mr SCHIPP: That question is about as good as some of the media stunts. What is the tenant's name? How can I know what you are talking about without a name being given? I can say, however, that if he was a former tenant of the public housing system, his stamp duty was waived and he probably received a $1,500 grant from the Government - and honourable members are aware that the previous Labor Government dropped the first homeowners' scheme.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Jackson to order for the second time.
Page 3002
Mr SCHIPP: In addition to that bonus, such a tenant would pay 23.5 per cent of income as a starting repayment, which never exceeds 30 per cent and generally is around 27 per cent because of the inbuilt safeguards in the system. The only ones I know who have surfaced in this regard are people by the name of Paterson. If that is their name, the honourable member can tell me and I will give him further detail about the Patersons. They are currently paying 28.3 per cent of income as repayments.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order.
Mr SCHIPP: If that is not a fair go - no mortgage insurance, limited upfront payments, all the benefits in the world - I do not know what is. In all, 97.2 per cent of loan recipients are satisfactorily servicing their loans, and the others, if they do the right thing, can get help with their loans.
Mr Irwin: You are kidding.
Mr SCHIPP: The honourable member says, "You are kidding". Loans for public housing tenants start at 23.5 per cent of income and rise by 10 per cent of the repayment per annum until it reaches 30 per cent of income, when the loan is automatically adjusted back to 27 per cent of income, which continues for the life of the loan. The honourable member cannot ask for greater fairness than that. People in receipt of a subsidised loan, of whom there are about 21,000, receive subsidised interest as low as 8 per cent and at times even lower. For those paying 8 per cent, obviously there is a gap between notional interest and effective interest. Of that amount six-elevenths is wiped off and five-elevenths is negatively amortised onto the back of the loan, and that continues for the life of the loan. Borrowers who commence repayments at 27 per cent of income will see their repayments escalate by 6 per cent per annum until they reach 30 per cent of income; if 30 per cent is reached by the triennial review, the loans are automatically adjusted back; if 30 per cent is reached before the triennial review, borrowers may apply to their society and their loans will be adjusted back.
[Interruption]
Members opposite are unable to apply their minds to what I am saying and are unable to understand even the broad principles of the program. People in receipt of unsubsidised loans, at any time when their repayments are scheduled at above 30 per cent of income, can apply for mortgage assistance which is available to them with six-monthly reviews, and if it is a long-term problem their loans can be adjusted back.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Liverpool to order.
Mr SCHIPP: The problem is that a number of loans have suffered from poor loan origination. I shall give an example of how that happens.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time.
Mr SCHIPP: The North South West Co-operative Housing Society City Central's audit contains this record:
North South West Co-operative Society is the management co-operative for all the co-operative housing societies within the NSW group. This society provides all loan origination and management services to the other societies within the group of which City Central is one.
Page 3003
That is John Murray's. The record continues:
Since December 1989 there have been seven audits of City Central's loan origination and management but the first three audits only covered 88 loans with nine being deficient. However, since June 1991 three audits of City Central have been completed and the following has emerged. Of the previous 88, nine were deficient, at 10.22 per cent of those audited. Of the next 64, 62 were deficient, which was 96.8 deficiency. In the next lot, 210 were audited and 29 or 13.8 per cent were found to be deficient. In the next lot of 311, 288 were deficient in loan origination, or 92.6 deficiency. The performance of that society, with 673 loans audited, was that 388 or 57.6 per cent were imprudently or deficiently arranged outside the guidelines. Well over 11 per cent of all City Central loans have been audited and nearly 60 per cent have been improperly originated.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order for the second time.
Mr SCHIPP: This was only one society and one grouping. The report continued:
FANMAC have advised that the major criteria on which these loans have been improperly originated are the lack of verification employment history, no verification of deposit, no credit history or other debt verification. Borrowers with uncertain income who have borrowed their deposit or who have had high level of other debt should never been provided with a loan because it is unsustainable. The major problem existing here is not HomeFund but very poor loan management on the part of one society. As the result of concerns over a long period with the society's origination and management City Central was requested to first buy poorly originated mortgages on 16th July, 1991, again on 26th March, 1991, and again on 11th March, 1992. The management of City Central, that is North South West Co-operative Society, refused to acknowledge they had breached their legal obligations under the selling agreements. They agreed to pay FANMAC only $6,000 a month on 29th July, 1991, along with a lump sum of $16,500 and still currently owe FANMAC $250,000 for losses occurring from improperly originated mortgages. As a consequence FANMAC served a notice to terminate the main co-operative societies in the NSW Co-operative group with the HomeFund program on 26th March this year, with the exception of Tamworth and Peel.
They were a one-off; they had merged three societies and one of those, Peel, was a lame duck, and they were left in place. The report continued:
It was indicated that this termination would be waived if the group acknowledged its breach of the guidelines and agreed to pay the losses which they were deemed to be responsible for. The City Central, a co-operative managed by NSW, has provided 10 per cent of the loan volume in the HomeFund program.
A table in the report then sets out a list of 49 City Central failed loans with losses and poor loan origination that constituted at 27.5 per cent of program loan losses. The table then sets out 57.6 per cent of the value of potential losses within the program. The report continued:
It should be noted that City Central's losses substantially exceed their proportion of total loans in the program by some two to one, and in addition up to 50 per cent of the anticipated value of losses are attributable to this society because of poor loan origination and management.
The issue is about City Central's bad books and not about HomeFund.
STATE FUNDING
Page 3004
Mr ZAMMIT: I direct my question without notice to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Following the recent Premiers conference, what action is the Premier and other State Premiers taking to ensure that the States receive a fairer share of funding from the Commonwealth?
Mr GREINER: I thank the honourable member for Strathfield for his question. It is fair to say that that question is the single most important determinant of the quality of services provided by State governments around Australia in health, education, and law and order. It is the single most important determinant of jobs and the pace of economic recovery. Putting those two things together, it is the most important thing in terms of living standard. Honourable members would be aware that all the Premiers and Chief Ministers met in Melbourne on Sunday. I thought it important to take the first opportunity to tell the House of the outcome of those deliberations. Basically all the Premiers agreed that the pace and success of economic recovery would be "jeopardised if the problem of adequate funding for essential services delivered by the States was not satisfactorily resolved". They went on to say that the States and Territories face together a combined budget deficit of about $7.3 billion in 1992-93. As a matter of record, New South Wales has about $1.5 billion of that amount. That amount of $7.3 billion will rise to $12.5 billion by 1995-96, notwithstanding the expected recovery in the economy. They went on to say that the deficits are long term, structural and not simply cyclical. In other words they will not simply disappear as the economy recovers. To give the House an indication of the impact on New South Wales, and this State's deficit path, of that amount $800 million is due to a collapse in our own revenues as a result of the current recession, and $1 billion of that amount is due to reduction in Commonwealth grants in real terms. It is that collapse in this State's source revenues as a result of the recession together with the $1 billion this State has lost from Canberra that more than covers the entire size of the current New South Wales deficit. That gives an indication of just how critical the position is and where the blame lies, not only in New South Wales; indeed, the rest of Australia has much more severe problems.
I simply say to the Prime Minister that all the Premiers, regardless of politics, are absolutely committed to something like a council of the Australian Federation, the notion of a national budget, of putting together State and Federal budgets to produce an overall Australian economic position for the public sector. We would hope that on 11th May he will agree to that concept of a national approach to these problems and to the concept of a council of the Federation. If not, the States are determined to pursue something along the lines of a council of the States, because the states are absolutely committed to the notion of some permanent co-operative situation in order to push the national economic interest. Regardless of politics, we would much rather be on a co-operative footing with the Commonwealth. But if we cannot be on a co-operative footing, we need to be on a permanent war footing - and not just once a year when we go to Canberra. Without that co-operative national approach all of the States, and therefore all of the people of the States, will suffer from a deterioration in services, from a huge increase in debt burden or unacceptable increases in taxes and charges.
Beyond that, let us look at Medicare. The Labor Premiers led the charge. They said that Medicare is not satisfactory. Simply maintaining the existing Medicare agreement, they say in their communique, will produce unacceptable standards of health care. There needs to be a significant increase in funding and or a significant increase in the role of the private sector along the lines of that pushed by the Minister for Health and Community Services at the most recent meeting of health Ministers. I turn to the superannuation levy, which my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment is addressing. There is simply
Page 3005
no way that a national burden of hundreds of millions of dollars of additional impost as a result of the Federal Government's policy can be borne by the States. There are existing unfunded liabilities of about $40,000 million for Australian State governments. The Commonwealth has the arrant stupidity, the arrogance, to say that it wants us to pay more and to go further and further down the tube in terms of the size of the unfunded liability. I pass by a matter that the honourable member for Strathfield has been involved in, Aboriginal affairs and the royal commission report. The Commonwealth asks why the States do not fund the commission's recommendations. The reason is that the States do not have any money, as a direct result of Canberra's recession and screwing of the States in relation to the amount of money that they get back.
The Grants Commission recently announced another $77 million loss for New South Wales. In the current year we will get $611 per head. Queensland will get $880 and Western Australia $949. We are subsidising the other States by at least $1 billion, that is $1,000 million a year. The people of New South Wales are subsidising the rest of Australia. That cannot go on. I have spoken to my colleague the Attorney General about re-examining all the legal options that may be available, including a constitutional challenge to the Grants Commission situation. New South Wales and Victoria are co-operating in the preparation of an economic and social argument about the issue. It is fundamental that the two largest States address a situation that has been deteriorating for the best part of half a century and that is now presenting an absolutely unacceptable and unfair distribution of funding in relation to the people of New South Wales and Victoria. We need from the Prime Minister on 11th May - certainly in the context of the June Premiers' conference - at least a guarantee, as a floor, of real terms maintenance. But that is nowhere near good enough. That will simply provide certainty of not having enough money. The States need real growth over and above inflation. We would prefer our national income tax proposal, but if not that let us look at something like a percentage of overall Commonwealth revenues, because Commonwealth revenues at least will grow as the economy recovers whereas State revenues will stagnate. This is the single most important issue to improve the quality of living and the quality of public services and the job opportunities of people right around Australia. I simply say to Mr Keating and the Commonwealth Government that regardless of politics the Premiers and the State Governments - and, I would believe, the people of the States - have simply had enough. This problem needs to be resolved either on a co-operative basis or, if not, on the basis of consistent confrontation. That would not be a productive way of going about it.
FANMAC AND HOMEFUND LOANS
Mrs GRUSOVIN: Mr Speaker -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Heffron is the only member with the call.
Mrs GRUSOVIN: my question is directed to the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Did inquiries into FANMAC reveal that the true rate of arrears was being disguised because subsidised loans, which account for approximately 45 per cent of all HomeFund loans, were being rescheduled? How many of those loans have been rescheduled, and at what cost? Was the Premier advised of the financial implications to the State of Government support to HomeFund?
Mr GREINER: I do not have the detail about that.
HUNTER VALLEY ECONOMY
Page 3006
Mr BLACKMORE: Is the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism aware of forecasts that the Hunter Valley region can emerge from the present recession as one of Australia's strongest regional economies?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.
Mr BLACKMORE: If so, what action is the Government taking to encourage the region to capitalise on its many natural and commercial advantages?
Mr YABSLEY: The honourable member for Maitland was present recently when the Premier launched the Hunter economic development strategy in Maitland. The strategy is very much a vision for the region's growth through until the year 2010. It comes as a result of an extensive program of consultation with more than 600 representatives from regional business, government and the community. The strategy has been put together by the Hunter Economic Development Council, which was set up by this Government back in 1988. Basically, the council has come up with a document that focuses on the Hunter having an internationally competitive economy, improving public sector efficiency, developing educational capacity and caring for the environment. In doing that the council has selected 33 key industries - in many cases in some detail. As honourable members should be aware, the industries include the flourishing tourism and wine sectors as well as food processing, the racehorse industry, value-added steel products, environmental management, marine and recreational products and energy related industries.
The strategy seeks to go beyond the traditional economic strength and base of the Hunter region. It focuses on areas such as the racehorse industry and the prospects of investigating breeding horses to suit Asian climates and to establish a research and development facility to produce vaccines. We as a Government recognise that the strength of the Hunter rests not only with the traditional industries, particularly the mining industry and to a lesser extent manufacturing and agriculture; we seek to put the emphasis now and into the future on areas such as tourism, the wine industry, the racehorse industry and so on. An area the honourable member for Maitland has shown an interest in specifically relates to Maitlands prospects. The strategy identifies that Maitland has great prospects for the establishment of what could be described as clean industries such as light manufacturing, aluminium related processing and food processing. These industries could be readily adapted to the land that is now available in Maitland and which is just awaiting services and the co-operation of the Maitland council to enable us to go ahead to explore the very exciting prospects for Maitland.
[Interruption]
The honourable member for Ashfield should keep quiet because if there is one member of this House with something to worry about -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I have said on many occasions, question time proceeds much more efficiently without undue interjection. In an endeavour to forestall a situation which may occur, I direct the Minister to answer the question he was asked and to ignore the interjection. I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order for the second time.
Mr YABSLEY: If the honourable member for Ashfield wants to pursue the
Page 3007
matter across the Chamber, I will happily respond, but I have no doubt that this statement of liquidated claim -
Mr Anderson: On a point of order. The Minister is deliberately flouting the ruling you gave a few moments ago.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Despite my endeavour to protect him, the member for Ashfield sought to interject further on the Minister. I have directed the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism to return to the answer. I now firmly direct him to do so.
Mr YABSLEY: Honourable members can be sure of one thing -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will answer the question.
Mr YABSLEY: The honourable member for Maitland is aware of the importance of the establishment of the Lower Hunter Economic Development Committee, because that committee has been given a special charter to work hand-in-hand with the Hunter Economic Development Council, and that it will do with secretarial and research assistance from the council.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order for the second time.
Mr YABSLEY: A timetable of 30th December has been established for the Lower Hunter Economic Development Committee to report.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.
Mr YABSLEY: The committee will come up with a further blueprint that focuses attention on the future of Maitland. Honourable members can be sure of one thing: the future of Maitland is a lot brighter than the future of the honourable member for Ashfield.
URBAN WATER RESOURCES
Ms ALLAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Housing. Has the Industry Commission's report on water resources and wastewater disposal rejected the privatisation of urban water resources? In that case, why did the Minister meet with Sir Gordon James, Chairman of Yorkshire Water in England, telling him that privatisation of New South Wales water supplies was "very much in your mind"?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.
Mr SCHIPP: The stupid way the question was phrased leads to the inference that I met Sir Gordon James in England. I have not been to England since I have been responsible for the Water Board. If someone in Sydney telephones me in the knowledge that he can speak to me at short notice, there is no reason that I should not meet with him. Sir Gordon talked about a whole range of issues relating to water and said to me, "Why don't you come to England?" I said, "Okay, great, I will come over to England and have a look and see what is going on". I said: "By the way, there is a person in the New South Wales Parliament who bad mouths your organisation and all the organisations in England because they happen to be privatised. She claims the water over there is
Page 3008
brown and below quality". He then described the virtues of what has happened in England. He described the pain suffered by the organisation, as well as the whole system; the regulatory provisions that accompany both corporatisation and privatisation; the safeguards associated with having arm's-length providers; environmental and health regulations, and all the things that can flow from having a properly run organisation. Why can I not have that sort of conversation without members opposite reading something into it? I repeat that a fair bit of water will have to flow under the bridge before privatisation of either the Hunter Water Board or the Sydney Water Board can even be considered.
RAINFALL
Mr SMALL: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Is the Minister aware of widespread rainfall throughout rural New South Wales in the past 48 hours? If so, has he been advised what effect these falls will have on agricultural production and the economy of the State?
Mr ARMSTRONG: Country New South Wales has received a little bit of good news, and good news for country New South Wales means good news for the New South Wales economy. The north and central western plains have received some excellent falls of rain.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. The Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs has the call. I call the Minister for the Environment to order.
Mr ARMSTRONG: There is no doubt that each time something about country New South Wales is mentioned in this place the Labor Party demonstrates its lack of interest and in its total ignorance of the basis of the economy of this State. One of these days the Opposition might appreciate that rural industries are still the State's largest employers and the largest contributors towards the export income of New South Wales. Perhaps Opposition members then will not treat rural industries as a joke but with some basic fundamental respect. The north and central western plains have received some good falls of rain, 20 to 30 millimetres. The north west slopes have received good rainfalls. Coastal areas have received rainfalls of up to 60 millimetres.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order for the third time.
Mr ARMSTRONG: The central and southern areas, the Southern Tablelands and the Monaro area have received falls of up to 100 millimetres or 4 inches.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order. I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the second time.
Mr ARMSTRONG: The honourable member for Kogarah is about two sandwiches short of a picnic at the best of times.
Mr Clough: On a point of order. The Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs is taking credit for the rainfall when he knows full well that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is responsible.
Page 3009
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.
Mr ARMSTRONG: These falls of rain will enable the sowing of much of the State's winter cereal crops. It must be realised that even an additional 10 per cent of production is worth about $80 million a year in net income to rural New South Wales. The rainfall could not be more opportune so far as weaner cattle sales are concerned on the North Coast of New South Wales, which was so badly affected by drought only a few months ago. The same applies to the Monaro area and other southern areas. These falls of rain will give those areas a badly needed fillip. They will assist Graincorp and the State railway. Graincorp has a capacity of about 12 million tonnes and these falls of rain will assist its throughput factors. I should say also that there are at present some indicators that a little more money is around in rural areas. Although in 1991 tractor and harvester sales were at a record low, signs of recovery were evident early this year. New tractor sales were at one-third the level of the late 1970s. The figures were 7,100 units compared to 20,000 units in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The figures rose by 16 per cent in the first quarter of this year.
In addition, for the first time in the three previous months of March, applications for rural assistance have fallen by 10 per cent. From November to March, 650 applications per month were received. That figure has decreased to 550. Those figures certainly represent some encouraging news. New South Wales is a long way from being through the rural recession but the situation is certainly improving. The honourable member for Port Stephens, who bills himself as some sort of a shadow spokesman for agriculture, sits in the Chamber and twitches and flinches and screws around. I note that in the past couple of weeks he visited northwestern New South Wales. Some of the reports that are emerging about his total ignorance and lack of understanding of agriculture have led to serious speculation of an appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to have him replaced by the honourable member for Waratah, John Price, who at least knows something about agriculture. The member for Port Stephens is becoming an embarrassment to the Opposition. There is talk around the Labor backbenches regarding the performance of the member for Port Stephens. The absolute debacle, when he went up to the northwest to have a look at cotton, certainly will lead to some interesting speculation. The Opposition should give full consideration to the honourable member for Waratah who has, in the past, demonstrated his capacity in that area.
GRANVILLE ASPHALT DEPOT
Mr LANGTON: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. Has the successful tenderer for the purchase of the Central Asphalt depot at Granville been guaranteed a government supply contract for five years, valued at up to $200 million? Why were other companies who expressed interest in the sale not told of the five-year guarantee of supply of asphalt to the Government?
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: Negotiations with the successful tenderer, in line with the terms of the contracts and the words within those contracts, are taking place. When the final processes are determined I will make an announcement to Parliament.
SHARE DEALINGS
Mr HARTCHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism. Is the Minister aware of State development being hampered by people refusing to settle their share dealings? Has he been advised that such practices damage the reputation of New South Wales overseas?
Page 3010
Mr YABSLEY: In New South Wales we are proud of our triple-A rating.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order. I call the honourable member for Waratah to order.
Mr YABSLEY: We are proud of the fact that we have a leading business environment in the Asia-Pacific region, that we are up there competing with Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo as a leading city in the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, we are proud of the fact that Sydney certainly is regarded as the leading city in Australia and one of the leading cities in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of the headquartering of various financial institutions, stockbroking, houses, merchant banking institutions, advertising agencies and so on. Therefore all honourable members should be concerned if any individual or any corporation does something that brings discredit to the reputation of New South Wales, in particular to the reputation of the New South Wales Parliament. If there is one person in this place who has a lot to answer for, it is the honourable member for Ashfield.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the second time.
Mr YABSLEY: I will tell the House what the honourable member for Ashfield did. Back in 1987 he bought 10,000 shares and he did not pay for them. How do we know? We know because we have a statement of liquidated claim that sets out in black and white just what -
Mr J. H. Murray: On a point of order. The question directed to the Minister referred to the business climate of this State. At the moment the Minister is making a personal attack on a member of this Parliament. Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do, that an attack on a member of this House must be made by way of substantive motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the third time.
Mr J. H. Murray: I ask that you rule that the Minister desist from his present line in answering the question. If he wishes to pursue the matter he is referring to, he should do so by moving a substantive motion.
Mr Yabsley: On the point of order. The honourable member for Gosford asked me a question in relation to State development being hampered, and therefore, the State's reputation being hampered by people refusing to settle their share dealings. I am giving one example - and one clear example - of that happening and how it does have an impact on the reputation of this State.
Mr J. H. Murray: Further to the point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that in his answer the Minister made an attack upon a member of this House. The standing orders are clear.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! On many occasions I have informed members that when a point of order is taken, particularly regarding a serious matter, the Chair must be able to hear and understand everything that is being said so that the Chair can deliberate on
Page 3011
that point of order and then give a ruling. It is most difficult for the Chair to hear a point of order when there is so much interjection. I will hear the point of order of the honourable member for Drummoyne in silence.
Mr J. H. Murray: The point I was making is that such an attack should be dealt with by way of a substantive motion.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bega to order.
Mr J. H. Murray: A substantive motion must be moved so that such a matter may be dealt with adequately by the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Over the years a number of questions have been asked that may well, if they were taken beyond a certain point, be deemed to be raising matters that require the moving of a substantive motion. However, even in the past few weeks various leading questions have been asked. If the Chair applied the general rule rigidly, many questions asked by members from both sides of the House would be ruled out of order. At present I do not intend to apply that rule. However, I inform the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism that I will listen very carefully to what is said. If the member who is referred to in the answer wishes to take a point of order in regard to this matter, it will be for that member to take the point of order.
Mr YABSLEY: The facts as outlined in the statement of liquidated claim are as follows:
Pursuant to instructions given by the defendant -
That is, the honourable member for Ashfield,
- the plaintiff placed an order for 10,000 TTL Corporation shares which were purchased at $2.95 each. On or about 13th January, 1988, and on several occasions thereafter, the plaintiff demanded payment of the amount of $29,883.50. The defendant has failed to repay the said sum or any part thereof. On or about 24th February, 1988, in accordance with the rules of the Sydney Stock Exchange Limited, the plaintiff sold the said shares realising an amount of $1,944.00.
It was a great investment. It is the sort of expertise that Sussex Street knows all about. What a great investment! The statement continues:
A sum of $27,939.50 remains due and owing by the defendant. The plaintiff prays leave to refer to the said rules of the Sydney Stock Exchange Limited as if the same were fully set out herein.
The long and the short of it is that the honourable member for Ashfield owes $27,000, or a bit more, around town, has done since 1988 or 1987, and he has not coughed up. If honourable members wish to talk about the type of character who does not deserve a place in this Chamber, it is the honourable member for Ashfield. Who said it better than Kim Beazley Snr when he was quoted in The Australian a few weeks ago as saying, "When I joined the Labor Party it was made up of the cream of the working-class. When I left it it was made up of the dregs of the middle-class." Members of the Opposition line up behind the honourable member for Ashfield and his ilk, the sort of shonks who owe dough around town, the sort of people who do business out of the boot of a car at Randwick. The honourable member for Ashfield is someone totally undeserving of a seat in this House. Honourable members will hear more of the share dealings of the honourable member for Ashfield, the TTL shares, and the almost $28,000 that he owes.______
Page 3012 PETITIONS
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will remain silent while petitions are being read. I call the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier to order. I call the honourable member for Charlestown to order. They should carry on their discussion outside the Chamber.
Family Relief Bill
Petition praying that the House give financial relief to families in New South Wales during the present difficult economic conditions and pass the Family Relief Bill to ensure that household charges do not increase each year by more than the latest increase in the consumer price index, received from Mr Price.
Public Sector Employment
Petition praying that the House ensure that vital jobs and services in the public sector be retained and public infrastructure projects be commenced as a matter of urgency to create jobs and reduce the unacceptably high unemployment levels, received from Mr Rumble.
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.
Eastern Distributor
Petition praying that the House, because of the impending opening of the Sydney harbour tunnel, implement stages 2 and 3 of the Eastern Distributor, received from Ms Moore.
Duck Hunting
Petition praying that the House legislate to ban the annual duck hunting season to protect native waterfowl and New South Wales wetlands, received from Ms Moore.
Royal Agricultural Society Showground
Petition praying that because the Royal Agricultural Society Showground, the E. S. Marks Athletics Field, Centennial Park, the Cricket Ground, Moore Park and Queen's Park form part of the original bequest by Lachlan Macquarie as commons land, future planning for this land be subject to open space study, received from Ms Moore.
Parkes to Broken Hill Rail Service
Petition praying that the House establish a replacement passenger train service between Parkes and Broken Hill, received from Mr Beckroge.
Ingleburn and Macquarie Fields Police Stations
Petition praying that the House provide, as a matter of urgency, a permanent police station at Ingleburn and upgrade the existing police station at Macquarie Fields, received from Mr Knowles.
Page 3013
Newcastle Rail Services
Petitions praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Bowman, Mr Gaudry, Mr Hunter and Mr Mills.
Public Passenger Vehicle Licences
Petition praying that the condition attaching to public passenger vehicle licences 2a and 2b be restored and recent changes to them abandoned, received from Mr Face.
Newcastle to Central Coast Rail Services
Petition praying that rail services on the Newcastle to Central Coast line be restored and that easy access be provided to platform No. 1 at Fassifern railway station by the installation of ramps to the overhead walkway, received from Mr Hunter.
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.
Newcastle Buses
Petition praying that the House maintain the existing Newcastle bus services under public ownership, received from Mr Langton.
Newcastle Buses
Petitions praying that the House support the continuation of the public transport system provided by Newcastle Buses, received from Mr Gaudry and Mr Mills.
Walker Estates
Petition praying that the Government preserve the Walker estates, including Yaralla, for public use, received from Ms Moore.
Aged Health Services
Petition praying that the House ensure that admission to public hospitals by and provision of community health services for the aged be based on need, received from Mr Fraser.
Lidcombe Hospital
Petition praying that because of dissatisfaction with the rationalisation of health services the House prevent the downgrading and possible closure of services at Lidcombe Hospital, received from Mr Shedden.
Page 3014
Hospital Waiting Lists
Petitions praying that funding cuts to health services and hospitals cease and that funding be provided to ensure that waiting lists for hospitals and operations are eliminated, received from Mr Bowman, Mr Gaudry, Mr Hunter, Mr Mills, Ms Nori, Mr Sullivan and Mr Yeadon.
SHARE DEALINGS
Personal Explanation
Mr Whelan: I wish to make a personal explanation.
Leave granted.
Mr Whelan: Recently the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism made some comments about my alleged indebtedness. I advise the House that I deny all the allegations made by the Minister. No moneys are outstanding by me. The allegation is that shares were purchased by me in a company called TTL. No documents were ever signed by me, by any member of my family or anyone associated with me. Following interjections by the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism, the Minister for Natural Resources and the Premier yesterday in debate relating to Dr Metherell, this morning I rang my solicitor, Mr Hegarty and asked that in view of the Government's intended politicisation of a five-year outstanding court case he should apply to the District Court for an expedited hearing to resolve the matter. The friends of the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism who allege that I owe the money can have their day in court. In view of the serious allegations raised I challenge the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism to make those allegations outside the House and let the people judge him.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ashfield is not entitled to debate the matter.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PROGRAM
Ministerial Statement
Mr MOORE: I wish to make a short ministerial statement concerning the draft Legislative Assembly program for the budget session. Later this week I intend to circulate a draft sitting program for the budget session based on the assumption that the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee will adopt a program for the conducting of the estimates committees debate to the general effect of the program that was circulated in a discussion paper some time ago. This will enable the estimates committees to sit during the daytime and have a Hansard record taken of their proceedings. It was the view of the Cabinet that to progress further the estimates committees' process and make the activities of this Parliament more open and accountable, pursuant to the matters being discussed by me on behalf of the Government with the non-aligned Independent members, it was desirable not to have estimates committees meet during the evening simultaneously with the sittings of the House. It is therefore the intention of the Government to set aside two full sitting weeks at the end of October and early November, during which the estimates will be considered by two estimates committees sitting each day between 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m.. The proceedings will be recorded by Hansard, which will enable members to have a full and complete record of what transpires.
Page 3015
It is also the intention of the Government to provide a period of two weeks, one of which will be a sitting week, between the first and second estimates committees weeks so that honourable members will have the opportunity to consider the Hansard of the first sitting week. It is the intention of the Government to sit for eight sitting weeks during the budget session. It will be a four-day sitting week on the pattern that has been adopted for the present session. There will be no sittings of the House proper during the two weeks of the estimates committees, except on the final Friday when there will be the whole House abbreviated Committee stage for the Budget to enable a series of five-minute speeches by honourable members who have not had the opportunity to address matters during the estimates committees process. For the information of honourable members and to assist in their diary planning - in the past the honourable member for Ashfield has indicated his desire to have a lengthy four-month holiday during the winter recess - the House will resume on Tuesday, 1st September for a week of legislation, followed by the Budget Speech on 15th September. The reply by the Leader of the Opposition will be on Tuesday, 22nd September.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.
Mr MOORE: It is estimated that the House will rise on Friday, 20th November. The reserve week will be the week concluding on Friday, 27th November, and that specifically follows requests to me by both Government and Opposition members that they be provided with the opportunity to attend school speech days at the end of fourth term. I inform all honourable members that I have every confidence that the Premier, the honourable member for Wakehurst and I will all be occupying our present respective positions as at 1st September and throughout the budget session.
Mr WHELAN: I have the same optimism but a contrary view to what the Minister for the Environment has about his position and the Premier's position. The Government should give serious consideration to requests made by the honourable member for East Hills and other Opposition members that Electricity Commission officers and other statutory officers off-budget also be the subject of budgetary estimate control and analysis; and in addition there should be some sort of streamlining of questions and answers, as discussed by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. The estimates committees did not achieve the purpose they set out to achieve, namely a further in-depth analysis of the Government's estimates. It was a first step; part of a package of arrangements. I believe the Minister when he says that the Government is keen for there to be an analysis of the Estimates. I do so knowing full well that several protective mechanisms in the estimates structure do not allow that critical analysis. I believe at a certain stage we will achieve that. The Minister and the Government deserve credit for introducing the estimates committees process. It is not a perfect system - no one is suggesting it is. It should be modified and this Parliament should determine how it is to be modified.
I want also to refer to a letter that I wrote to you, Mr Speaker, of which copies were distributed, relating to the meeting of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. It is a matter of great concern to me that the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee has not met to discuss the formation since the last arrangement. We were to meet on 10th April but on that fateful day for some reason we were too busy in this House and we could not determine the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee's resolution in relation to when Parliament would resume. At present it rests with you, Mr Speaker. As you know, Parliament is keen that a resolution be passed by this House that the Parliament can be recalled by decision of a majority of members. Such a resolution would take that onerous task from you and put it back in the hands of members
Page 3016
of Parliament. This would apply particularly to the first debate yesterday, namely the reference of the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and would ensure the Premier's undertaking of yesterday - couched in careful words - that seven days after the report members would have the opportunity to debate it in the Parliament. I hope that will be consistent with the theme. It should not be left to the Premier to make that determination, it should be the Parliament. Therefore I ask that the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee meet as a matter of urgency to review that and other outstanding matters, including the Solicitor General's opinion relating to fixed four-year terms to determine whether the Act of Parliament that has been passed by this Parliament has been interpreted and will be interpreted properly by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee of the Parliament. Otherwise in relation to comments made about the Estimates, I ask the Minister to take into consideration the matters that I have raised.
Mr J. H. Murray: Mr Speaker, I want to make a brief comment.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! By what leave does the member of Drummoyne believe he is speaking? In answer to a Ministerial statement only the Leader of the Opposition or one person deputed by him can comment.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Notice of Motion and Orders of the Day
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members would be aware of the notice of motion and the two orders of the day of general business on the business paper of Friday, 10th April, which stood in the name of Dr Metherell, the then member for Davidson. I thus draw to the attention of the House that on the business paper for today I have ordered the references to Dr Metherell to be removed as a consequence of his resignation. The notice of motion has been expunged. This is in accordance with the ruling of Speaker Kelly of Tuesday, 15th April, 1986, when he ordered the notices of motion standing in the name of Mr Smith, the immediate predecessor of the current member for Pittwater, to be struck from the business paper. The reasons for Speaker Kelly's ruling on notices are applicable in this case, namely, it cannot be withdrawn by the former member; it cannot be moved by any other member; and the House cannot be in possession of the motion until it is proposed from the Chair.
The orders of the day pose a more difficult problem. There are no previous rulings on this situation. As members will note, the orders remain on the business paper but with the name of the member who moved them deleted. I have directed so on the basis that these bills have been introduced, they are in the possession of the House, and the mover is no longer a member of the House. Beyond this point I rule that the two bills have reached a procedural dead end; they cannot be withdrawn nor taken further and therefore should remain on the business paper minus the mover's name. I have reached this conclusion based on:
* Standing Order 113(c) which states that a motion shall not be withdrawn in the absence of the member, except with his authority. In this case that authority cannot be obtained as the member in question has resigned;
* Deputy-Speaker Hedge's ruling of 26th September, 1933, when he ruled that while it was competent for one Minister to move a motion on behalf of another Minister it was not competent for one member to move a motion on behalf of another member. (Votes and Proceedings 1933-34 page 70);
Page 3017
* recent precedent in the Commonwealth House of Representatives when Neil Brown resigned as a private member an order standing in his name remained on the business paper.
In making this ruling I also highlight the words of Speaker Kelly when he said "unless the House otherwise directed". I say so in the knowledge that some members have expressed a concern as to the fate of Dr Metherell's notice of motion for a bill and the two bills currently before the House. With regard to the notice of motion, any member is now free to give a fresh notice. Similarly, for the two bills fresh notice may be given for the introduction or an appropriate procedural motion for the suspension of standing and sessional orders to facilitate the disposal by discharging the order of the day and withdrawing the bills, or progress of these bills, by order of the House.
Mr Whelan: I seek the leave of the House to suspend standing and sessional orders to allow a 10-minute discussion in relation to the rulings.
Mr SPEAKER: Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.
Mr Whelan: All I want to do is have a short discussion, ask a few questions and get a few answers.
Mr Moore: Perhaps that could be done tomorrow, after there will have been an opportunity to consider the ruling.
Mr SPEAKER: That is perhaps the wisest course. If the House wishes to debate the matter tomorrow, it can do so. I point out to the member of Ashfield that I did draw attention to Speaker Kelly's statement "unless the House otherwise directed". The matter is in the hands of the House.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Unanswered Question Upon Notice
Mr SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with the sessional orders I draw the attention of the House to unanswered question upon notice No. 176 standing in the name of the Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Ethnic Affairs.
Mr MOORE: On behalf of the Premier I indicate that a signed answer to the question was lodged earlier today.
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE (ABORIGINAL OWNERSHIP) AMENDMENT BILL
Mr MOORE (Gordon - Minister for the Environment) [3.35], by leave: I move:
That the Legislation Committee upon the National Parks and Wildlife (Aboriginal Ownership) Amendment Bill have leave to make a visit of inspection to Broken Hill, Mootwingee Historic Site and National Park and Uluru-Katatjuta National Park.
I am pleased to note the enthusiasm the honourable member for Broken Hill to a visit by the legislation committee to his area. I have been pleased with the enthusiastic response and support he has given to me on Aboriginal ownership issues during my visits to
Page 3018
Broken Hill on a number of occasions. It has been a source of continued frustration to me that the honourable member for Broken Hill has been unable to join me on my repeated visits to his electorate for talks with the local Aboriginal community and European landholders about the merits of Aboriginal ownership of national parks. The legislation committee approached me and indicated that they wished to visit the areas that were involved. I have facilitated visits by the honourable member for Keira and a number of members of the Opposition to these areas. As all members will know the legislation committee is a totally bipartisan process. At some stage I assume there will be a replacement member on the legislation committee; unfortunately, Dr Metherell is no longer available to take part in the committee's activities. In the meantime I expect that it is entirely possible for the committee to cope with the absence.
Mr Scully: Why do we not all go?
Mr MOORE: The honourable member might come back with a bigger problem.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I indicate to the Minister for the Environment that this is a procedural motion dedicated only to an extension of time.
Mr MOORE: It is not only for an extension of time. It is to permit the committee to undertake certain activities, which I was outlining before the honourable member interjected. The committee is to make inspections in the Broken Hill area; to visit the Historic Site and Mootwingee National Park, which is the major site considered in the first stage of this legislation; and to have the opportunity - which I have already had - to meet with traditional owners at a site which many would regard as representing the pioneer model for the system, namely, Uluru in the Northern Territory. I look forward to members of the legislation committee making the inspection and then assisting me in the process of fine-tuning the legislation in this House, which will be of significant benefit in aiding cultural reconciliation with Aboriginal people in this State.
Motion agreed to.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE UPON ROAD SAFETY
Mr MOORE (Gordon - Minister for the Environment) [3.40], by leave: I move:
That the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety have leave to make a visit of inspection to the United States of America and Canada.
I look forward to the reminiscences of the honourable member for Campbelltown on his references to the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety involving travel overseas, which he undertook at length - in extenso and in expenso, one might say - on his account - as I understand, with the former member for Davidson.
Mr Knight: My personal explanation is that I flew back.
Mr MOORE: The honourable member for Campbelltown should understand that the former member for Davidson gave the right-wing of the Labor Party that apology about him many years ago.
Motion agreed to.
Page 3019
LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE
Matter of Public Importance
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.42]: I move:
That this House notes as a matter of public importance the recent outbreak of legionella disease in Sydney's west and southwest.
I am sure the House joins with me in offering our condolences and sympathy to the families whose members have died from the recent outbreak of Legionnaire's disease and our hopes for a speedy recovery of those suffering from the disease at present. A number of things need to be brought to light by questions that should be seen as a constructive way of trying to ensure that the efficacy of our attack on Legionnaire's disease is improved. The high regard in which New South Wales is held in the fight against outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease is in no way diminished by this motion. In fact, we hope to reduce the effects of outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease in the future. However, a number of issues of concern should be raised. I am quite mindful of the statements by the Chief Health Officer, Dr Sue Morey, that the outbreak of Legionnaire's disease is now over but, while this outbreak is still in the minds of the community and obviously the Government, it is worth while focusing our attention on this issue, although not in any way trying to cause concern to those who would see themselves at potential risk living in the areas that have been identified.
The issues I would like to raise revolve around regulations; support for the medical profession, particularly those working in hospitals where legionella might turn up and general practitioners who would be faced with having to give advice to potential victims, namely, those who have had outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease in the area in which they live; the resources available for the implementation of regulations; and a number of other issues which I raise but do not see as of great significance concerning the way in which this outbreak has been handled. From the beginning, I put on record my support of and thanks to the people from the public health unit in the specific area. I believe that they have worked as fast and as effectively as they could have from the time they found out about the disease, although certain problems need to be investigated.
The regulations relating to Legionnaire's disease were gazetted in November 1991 but will not come into effect until 18th May, 1992. This is the place to start discussions. The first outbreak of Legionnaire's disease occurred in 1987 in Wollongong when the Labor Party was in Government. I believe that we showed we had expertise in this field but this needed to be further developed in order to cope with an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease. I and the former Labor Minister for Health have put on record that we believe we behaved in an appropriate way in light of our knowledge at the time, and we have built upon that knowledge; we have worked well. The necessary regulations have been introduced, but we have had to wait five years, and that is too long a time in my view. An attempt was made to introduce the Public Health Act at the end of 1990, but because of a lack of consultation by a former Minister of this Government that legislation did not go through Parliament in that year. Further consultation was required.
The Minister's departmental officers told me during that consultation that if the consultation had occurred before the bill was brought into Parliament we would have had agreement and the bill would have been passed unanimously. But because that previous Minister, a Minister of this Government, refused the effective, bipartisan consultation
Page 3020
which had been offered a number of times that legislation had to be delayed over the Christmas period and was introduced in the beginning of 1991. Despite that, one would have thought that the regulations in the Public Health Act pertaining to Legionnaire's disease control - which were neither under debate nor contentious, and which had in fact from the beginning on both sides of the Parliament had been supported very strongly - could have been developed and introduced so that people could have been protected during the well-known danger periods when Legionnaire's disease is more likely to break out. It is well known that this is the time of year when there is likely to be an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease. Why were the regulations not in place before this time of the year?
Although I have made some constructive criticisms about the regulations, it concerns me that it has taken so long for these regulations to be gazetted, let alone implemented. I take on board the Minister's statements earlier that there needs to be a phase-in period so that the regulations can be understood by the councils and organisations which have to put them in place - those which have cooling towers - so that they are able to meet the requirements. It seems to me that self-regulation needs to be tightened up. There is no need to get rid of self-regulation because this is an appropriate area in which to attempt it to ensure that public health measure controls are utilised, but it would be worth while for the Government to look at the option of having each business have test results on cooling towers sent to a register held at the council so that the results can be checked. I believe that there would be a very simple way of doing this. Limited discussion with councils leads me to believe they are not opposed to such a register. On further reflection, they might be concerned about the work done to date. The option of a register needs to be considered so that councils can quickly check, using computers, whether a cooling tower has been tested. The number of organisms per million could be measured. If there were less than 10, councils would not have to worry about it; if there were 10 to 100, the council might think about what it wants to do; and if there were 100 to 1,000, obviously something would have to be done. That would be a disaster. Councils might be able to discover a slow increase and monitor changes. They may be able to compile useful evidence.
If, as is often said, this State is at the forefront of Legionnaire's disease control, why not maintain and use that effective early detection tool? Practitioners in the field are often in the front line in diagnosing the first cases of Legionnaire's disease and need information from the department. Diagnosis of Legionnaire's disease is not easy. Bacteriological testing can take some time and it is unlikely that the disease can be diagnosed with only one test. A number of tests may need to be done to ascertain the presence of the disease. A number of factors affect early diagnosis. The Opposition agreed - and the Minister may check with his advisers - that Legionnaire's disease should be notifiable by general practitioners with clinical acumen at the coalface rather than solely by bacteriological or serological testing. That message was agreed to and hammered out in discussions that should have been held before and not after the bill was introduced into Parliament. If that message had been given in that agreed simplified form, though people's lives may not have been saved, potentially the efforts made could have been more successful.
I am concerned that the Minister has said that Legionnaire's disease is rare. The disease is not common and does not occur every day, but a rate of six cases per month, as mentioned by the Minister, is higher than the rate mentioned by the chief medical officer as being reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and other newspapers. Legionnaire's disease is not rare. Practitioners working in the field should be encouraged to be more aware of and alert to the disease. Recent history shows that in hospitals in
Page 3021
the Fairfield area a number of atypical pneumonias were diagnosed clinically rather than bacteriologically or through serology as Legionnaire's disease. The clinical acumen of general practitioners in the field, especially given the five or six cases of atypical pneumonia admitted to hospital per month, would have enabled an earlier diagnosis of the presence of the disease. The public health department could have swung into action and alerted the public through the media - an action with which I would not disagree - to advise people to put chlorine through the super heating systems to eliminate the bacteria. That would probably end any further spread of the disease. Any new cases would usually be those that were already developing. It is not surprising that only one source has been found that is the likely source of 40 per cent of this specific outbreak, though the source of other outbreaks probably will not be found because cleaning has been completed.
I am concerned that general practitioners and others in the medical front line have little knowledge and support from the health department about what advice they should give their patients or clients. A 16-year-old check-out assistant working in an affected area may be concerned about potential risk and whether it is safe to go to work. That person may approach a general practitioner for advice. What should that practitioner tell that person and other patients with similar concerns? Practitioners can look up the books but most books are out of date and do not contain the latest information. New South Wales health units are probably at the forefront in this field and can give expert advice. I have sought advice from a number of experts, and that advice should be available to general field practitioners regularly. Certainly, as soon as an outbreak occurs the department could easily determine which doctors live and work in the affected area and could provide them in written form with the advice they should give to their patients. The advice may not be absolute but would thus be consistent from practitioner to practitioner. I have heard that general practitioners in the area say to their patients they are unaware of the degree of risk involved but recommend a course of erythromycin, the antibiotic treatment of choice for Legionnaire's disease.
But is it appropriate to prescribe a prophylaxis of erythromycin during an outbreak? Not being an expert, I do not want to express a firm view, but the advice I have is that it probably makes no difference. I should have thought that local general practitioners have a right to obtain information from the department, which is a world leader in the fight against Legionnaire's disease outbreaks. The department should be able to provide advice quickly. One could say that 16-year-olds, those who do not smoke, those who do not have lung disease and those who are not immuno-suppressed are unlikely to contract Legionnaire's disease but general practitioners should have accurate information to be able to advise all their patients when an outbreak occurs. I support the suggestion that the public health units should be notified at the very beginning of an outbreak as an appropriate public health measure. I understand that Fairfield council offered the local public health unit immediate support when it learnt of the outbreak of Legionnaire's disease in its area. Though I do not think in this case the outcome would have differed greatly, the assistance offered was refused. I understand, but I could be mistaken, that the matter could have been handled slightly more sensitively at the time. [Time expired.]
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Minister for Health Services Management) [3.57]: Though I appreciate the more considerate approach taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this matter of public importance, I question his motives and standards. On the one hand he decided together with his colleagues, the honourable member for Fairfield - though I am not sure he is a true factional colleague - and the mayor of Liverpool, to quickly seek headlines during a most difficult public health time. On the other hand the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pontificated on radio about how the
Page 3022
public health unit could have done better. The immediate reaction in the media when it hears about such issues is to question whether the matter has been pursued properly, and that is disturbing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has total access to the public health units, to the department and all the advice that he needs and wants, and can make any suggestions that he wishes to make. I do not mind that course being taken in a considered manner in Parliament but do not regard it as appropriate for the honourable member to go public with his approach on radio while there is still an epidemic. Honourable members are aware that notice of this motion was given only yesterday, within a period of 48 hours. I emphasise that such an epidemic must be handled responsibly rather than politically. On that issue I have been severely castigated by the Liverpool City Champion newspaper. Its editorial was headed "Speak Up or Get Out Mr Phillips" and went on to say:
The administration of public health in the Liverpool district is in tatters. There is confusion about what is required by the State Government to keep Legionnaire's disease under control.
It finishes by saying:
If Mr Phillips has nothing to say, he should resign his post to make way for someone who can discharge the office with efficiency and compassion.
This is supposed to be a responsible newspaper in an area in which the community is concerned about the epidemic. The department and public health officers have been bending over backwards to provide all the responsible information available. At least two bulletins a day, I would have thought, were published and there was total access to any information required. As Minister, clearly recognising that this was a public health matter and not a political matter, I gave every assistance and my total support to the department. I ensured the department gave all the resources necessary to cover the problem. I told the department to go public as soon as it could be sure and to keep the public informed. I believe that is the most responsible approach on this type of issue. I take great exception to lord mayors and newspapers having cheap shots at the expense of public health. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised concern about when the department found out. For the record I shall clearly identify the course of events. There was no delay. Every year 11,500 patients are admitted to New South Wales hospitals with pneumonia. The majority of cases are not due to legionella. Normally, six cases a month of legionella are treated.
Diagnosis of the disease is not always immediately apparent and tests are not instant. It takes from three to 14 days to grow the legionella organism from blood or sputum samples. Blood tests do not produce definitive results until 10 days after the onset of symptoms. With that in mind, the first death from Legionnaire's disease occurred on 18th April. Legionella was not confirmed as being involved until 21st April. At midday on 21st April the infection control officer at Liverpool Hospital notified the area's public health unit that two cases had been confirmed. The unit began follow-up procedures. At 2 p.m. on 22nd April, the next day, Fairfield Hospital advised that there was concern at the high number of atypical pneumonia. This was the first evidence of a possible epidemic. The chief health officer was notified and a major investigation was launched. The media were notified that evening, once it was confirmed. On 23rd April, the next day, the chief health officer issued a public health warning to people, especially those living in southwestern Sydney experiencing symptoms of the disease, that they should seek early medical attention. Detailed histories of confirmed or suspected patients were taken, including what buildings they had visited.
Page 3023
Samples were taken from cooling towers in the Fairfield, Liverpool, Campbelltown and Camden districts. Department and local government officers requested all water cooled air-conditioning equipment in southwestern Sydney not serviced in the previous month be shut down, cleaned and disinfected immediately. Further follow-up is continuing in liaison with local councils in the area. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that maybe we could have found out and taken action more quickly. This is the second major outbreak of this disease in New South Wales, the third if we count the small outbreak at Merrylands. Of course we are learning more about this disease all the time. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly understands, this is not a simple issue. When the department and public health officers have prepared their total report on this issue they will carefully examine how best to further improve what the honourable member recognised is one of the best and most up-to-date systems which is leading the field in this area. I assure the honourable member and this House that the recommendations will be implemented. The matter is not always simple.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also raised concern about the delay in the implementation of regulations. I do not know how productive it is to go over old ground but it is important to put this on the record: the introduction of the new regulations was part of a new Public Health Act which came into force in November last year. This was a huge task. Until then the ancient and unwieldy Public Health Act of 1902 had operated. So there was a major overhaul of that Act. Compilation of the new Act was a vast exercise covering all aspects of public health. Review of the Legionnaire's disease regulations involved extensive consultation with local government authorities, engineering experts, air-conditioning experts, building owners and managers and government authorities. The Public Health Bill was presented to Parliament in November 1990. However, its passage was delayed in the upper House by a range of amendments. Parliament was prorogued before they could be considered. There was also a delay while there were arguments as to whether there should be a smaller number of notifiable diseases, which was an issue raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
He should be reminded of his comments in the Parliament at that stage. He criticised the legislation for being too regulatory and "like a medical policeman's bible". He said that a Public Health Bill's effectiveness relied on co-operation and consultation with community groups, particularly at-risk groups. Nobody disagrees with that. The bill was reintroduced in February 1991 and passed all stages. It received assent on 26th April, 1991. Regulations to give effect to all provisions of the Act, including those relating to Legionnaire's disease, were drafted. The requirement of the Subordinate Legislation Act for public consultation was met. The regulations commenced operation on 18th November, 1991. It was considered that six months was not an unreasonable time to give local councils to compile a register of water cleaning towers in their area, remembering that there are approximately 11,000 cooling towers to be on the register. Time is needed to advise the groups, to compile information on where the cooling towers are and to make up the register. That leads me to a point raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about self-regulation needing to be tightened up. It is always an interesting challenge in health to determine where priority shall be given for health dollars. The honourable member suggested that owners should advise councils of the results of tests so that councils can put the information on to their register. Every month there needs to be a test to ensure that the required chemicals are present. Overall cleaning and testing is required every three months. The cost to the community and to local government and the State of a significant number of people in local government sitting at computers inputting data constantly trying to find the person who is not complying with the chemical or cleaning test is huge; it is a very expensive task.
Page 3024
I would be interested to hear the opinions of the Department of Health and the councils about whether going through that process, finding the persons responsible and moving to prosecute them will assist in combating or eliminating the development of Legionnaire's disease in those cooling towers. A huge cost problem is involved and obviously it is important to have regard to whether it is better to spend that money on other health services or to set up banks of computers to compile information and hope that everyone is keeping up to date so that cooling towers can be kept clean. As the department is investigating this recent outbreak of Legionnaire's disease, it will take into account the suggestions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and ascertain whether those suggestions constitute effective ways of handling the problem or whether there are other more effective ways of receiving an earlier indication or notification of the disease and communicating that information to the community. It should be remembered that so far as New South Wales is concerned, this is a recent disease. The first outbreak was in 1987.
The present outbreak is the third or possibly only the second major outbreak. The Department of Health is clearly recognised as a leader in this field in New South Wales. It has some of the toughest air cooling regulations in Australia, indeed in the world. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and this House have clearly recognised, public health units in New South Wales are doing an excellent job. I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will join me in commending Dr Sue Morey and the staff of the public health units both at head office and in the areas concerned for the open, honest, efficient and professional way in which they have informed the public and quickly taken steps to stem the outbreak to restrict the number of people affected by this disease. I have taken note of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and assure him that a full report will be forthcoming. The information in that report will be made known to him.
Mr IRWIN (Fairfield) [4.12]: The most recent outbreak of Legionnaire's disease in southwestern Sydney is a tragedy for the victims and their families. Many of the grieving relatives of the victims of this latest outbreak are left asking how this can happen in a world which is regarded as having overcome horrific epidemics of infectious diseases and how it is that the familiar environment of shops and offices can prove to be a threat to life itself. Legionnaire's disease continues to demonstrate that vigilance in public health policy cannot be disregarded or taken lightly. The most frightening feature of Legionnaire's disease is not merely its potential to kill but its potential to kill scores of victims at a time. This potential must place Legionnaire's disease high on the list of public health concerns for State and local governments.
After tracing the sequence of events leading up to and following the most recent outbreak, I became alarmed at the seeming complacency of health authorities in this State. It is now five years since the first major outbreak of Legionnaire's disease left 10 people dead in Wollongong. Governments would be expected to act swiftly to put into place regulations designed to ensure that water cooling towers, the known source of the disease, are properly cleaned and maintained. I believe it is also reasonable to expect that buildings with water cooling towers would be closely monitored by health surveyors to ensure compliance with the requirements. However, what has happened clearly shows that health authorities in this State have not taken seriously the threat to public health posed by Legionnaire's disease.
Five years after the Wollongong outbreak, regulations requiring local councils to maintain registers of all buildings containing water cooling towers do not come into force until 18th May. Anticipated inspections of towers to confirm that cleaning
Page 3025
measures are carried out depend upon the compilation of registers. What has happened in April 1992? As a result of the latest outbreak, health surveyors are seeking information door to door about the location of water cooling towers, at a time when the public is at risk of a killer disease. It is no wonder that it has taken more than two weeks to even roughly identify the possible source of the epidemic. The fact that it has taken five years to implement regulations to prevent the onset of a killer disease is scandalous. Surely the situation demanded greater urgency, particularly after a further outbreak at Merrylands in 1989. The Minister mentioned the detailed work that was required in relation to the Public Health Act. If health authorities had taken this matter seriously, interim measures would have been put in place which would have ensured that registers were prepared not six months ago, but years ago. The incidence of this disease thus may well have been prevented.
Even now, with the regulations about to come into force, there is some doubt as to their adequacy to prevent outbreaks of the disease. Let us look at what happened when health authorities finally tried to do something. From the time of the first death on 18th April, Easter Saturday, it took six days before thorough inspections and sampling were carried out in Fairfield. The first information received by Fairfield City Council about the outbreak was a news broadcast on the morning of Thursday, 23rd April. An offer of assistance to carry out inspections of suspected locations was refused by officers of the Department of Health. Only after persistent efforts was the offer to provide health surveyors taken up. But by then the horse had well and truly bolted. One is left to wonder, however, about the consequences of an undetected source continuing to infect people long after the first cases had been identified. Similarly, the announcement of the outbreak so long after it may have been confirmed as a dangerous strain of legionella may well have meant that later victims may have been alerted by local doctors and early appropriate treatment given.
As a result of discussions with the family of Mr Brian Page, the first to die as a result of the outbreak, it is apparent that after his admission to Liverpool Hospital on 17th April a diagnosis of Legionnaire's disease was considered. What came as a shock to Mr Page's family were comments by staff at Liverpool Hospital that there would not be an immediate investigation. One comment suggested that an urgent investigation would be undertaken only when there had been a number of deaths. On the following day Mr Page's family received a request for further information about his movements. However, it was not until 23rd April that a thorough check was undertaken. Was the entire staff of the Department of Health on its Easter holiday at the time this outbreak became apparent? Were appropriate resources directed to the problem as soon as the alarm bells began to ring? These questions, as well as the unseemly delay in implementing what in the end may be ineffective regulations, demand responses. It is essential that a full inquiry be conducted into the actions of the Department of Health in dealing with the recent outbreak of Legionnaire's disease in southwestern Sydney. I conclude my remarks by extending my condolences to the family of the late Mr Brian Page of Mount Pritchard and, indeed, the families of all the victims of this tragic event.
Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.17]: I am pleased to add a different perspective to debate on this matter of public importance. That different perspective comes from some years of medical experience. Unfortunately some of the comments made in the debate have been political. Such comments are unnecessary. An outbreak of this magnitude and severity is sad and tragic. An evaluation, which should be taking place to some extent now and certainly when the true facts are available, is important. Politicising a problem such as Legionnaire's disease causes enormous hurt to those who have been affected by the tragedy. The Minister commented that the local media have
Page 3026
made some clear but inaccurate statements. Those statements by the media in the southwestern area of Sydney highlight the fact that those who do not know what they are talking about should sometimes keep right out of the debate.
The efficiency with which the Southwest Sydney Public Health Service has dealt with this particular issue is a credit to the service. The previous speaker talked about his concern that infectious diseases remain a problem. There is an element of truth in that statement. The people of New South Wales are getting to the point where they are almost blasé about the high technology of modern medicine and are alarmed and surprised, because of our high levels of public health, when there is such an outbreak. I do not believe there is any evidence of complacency. It is worth making a couple of comments about Legionnaire's disease. It is a mysterious and very rare disease. Studies in the United States of America have shown that the legionnella bug actually lives in pristine lakes. It can be found in quite large numbers in fresh, pristine water. Even the life cycle of the legionnella pneumophilia bacteria is still a mystery. There are great elements of mystery about it. The public health unit has worked very efficiently on this problem. It is a very difficult disease to diagnose, mainly because it has a number of atypical symptoms and it mimics other types of pneumonia.
It is important to give credit where credit is due. It is very easy to be wise with clarity of hindsight, but the medical profession recognises the specific difficulties associated with legionnella. One thing that makes it remarkable is that epidemiologically it is quite an easy disease to trace. The reason for that is, of course, that it is not passed from person to person. The disease can only be contracted from the source. It is a very interesting detective exercise for those involved in public health. That is evident if honourable members look at the chronology of events that have occurred in the southwest. Within a week - and not two weeks, as the previous speaker suggested - it was fairly clear that the source could be located down to almost a few streets. That is not only to the credit of the public health unit but also an indication of the specific features of the condition itself - the fact that it does not pass from person to person. That is very much in contrast with other forms of atypical pneumonia where the time from infection to the time of onset of symptoms can often be two or three weeks. That makes the disease enormously difficult to trace. Legionnella pneumophilia is a fascinating disease. It is one that remains a great challenge to the public health unit. It remains a mystery. Comments have been made about the Public Health Act 1991. The Government should be commended for introducing that particular legislation. The notifications have improved considerably since the Act was fine tuned, simplified and strengthened in 1991. I know that as a consumer. It was difficult notifying up to 52 diseases. [Time expired.]
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Scully.
DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE PATRICK DARCY HILLS, A.O., A FORMER MINISTER OF THE CROWN
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts), [4.22]: I move:
(1) That this House desires to place on record its sense of the loss this State has sustained by the death of the Honourable Patrick Darcy Hills, a former Deputy Premier and Minister of the Crown.
(2) That this House extends to Mrs Hills and family the deep sympathy of the members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.
Page 3027
It is with great regret that I move this motion of condolence in respect of the late Pat Hills, and offer on behalf of the House my deepest sympathies to his wife, Stella - who is present in the gallery - his daughters, Carol, Maria and Margaret, and his sons, Michael and Paul. I also pass on to Mrs Hills and her family the personal apology of the Premier who was unable to be here at this time this afternoon to move this motion himself. The passing of a former member who served in this House for such a long time as 34 years and held so many high offices in our State, including 18 years as a Minister under five different Premiers, is a sad event indeed. Pat Hills began his working life with General Motors Holden and then went on to establish his own engineering company. However, his instincts and interests led him quickly towards public life. Indeed, Pat Hills' long and impressive public career is testimony to what I think could be described as two of his greatest passions, politics and the State of New South Wales.
His passionate and lifelong love of politics was shown by his joining the Australian Labor Party at the age of 15; being active in the Amalgamated Engineering Union at a young age; being elected as an alderman on Sydney City Council at the age of 30; and then becoming Sydney's youngest ever Lord Mayor at the age of 34. An impressive record indeed, even before he began his long career in this House in 1954. His passionate love for Sydney and New South Wales was shown by his long resistance of any opportunity to move to Federal politics, preferring instead to remain in this Parliament and serve the people of this State. It was also shown by the great energy and vigour he brought to every portfolio he undertook, beginning with Assistant Minister to the Premier in 1959; then as Minister for Local Government and Highways from 1959 to 1965 and Deputy Premier in 1964 and 1965; and then as Minister for Industrial Relations, Mines and Energy in the Wran and Unsworth governments. He also, of course, had the honour of leading the Australian Labor Party while they were in Opposition in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He lost his leadership by the narrowest margin possible, a tied vote and then a countback in 1973, when Neville Wran became leader.
There are many achievements and events in Pat Hills' long career in public life which we, as current members of this House, should be mindful of at this time. To mention just a few: he was the State's longest serving Minister for Industrial Relations; as Lord Mayor of Sydney he played a key role in persuading the government of the time to set aside Bennelong Point to enable the Sydney Opera House to be built; and also as Lord Mayor he welcomed the Queen to Sydney on her first visit to Australia, the first visit by a reigning monarch. In thinking about these things, as we honour the man Pat Hills, we also recall and revive some key themes and events in our State's rich history. Apart from his passion for politics, Pat Hills was a man with wide interests and if he did not choose the right side of politics to join, he certainly chose the right football team to support. His love of sport and the South Sydney Leagues Club - a club which the Premier strongly supports - was another feature of his life, and as Chairman of the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust he oversaw the development of the Sydney Football Stadium. In a personal sense, one of the greatest tributes which I, on behalf of the Premier, as someone from the other side of politics can pay to an old adversary is that he certainly inspired great affection and loyalty from his colleagues and this is indeed indicative of his quality and integrity as both a politician and a man. Today we honour those qualities as we remember Pat Hills and offer our sympathy to his family.
Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [4.28]: I join with the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts in tribute to our late colleague, our former leader Patrick Darcy Hills. There have been, in our time, few members of this House who so completely embodied the special qualities of the party he
Page 3028
led, the city of which he was first citizen, the faith in which he lived and died, and the State and nation he loved, grew up in and was part of. These were the influences which formed him, but equally on Labor, on Sydney and on New South Wales, he has left his own distinctive mark and lasting influence. By any measure, his ministerial record was remarkable - a total of 18 years under Premiers Cahill, Heffron, Renshaw, Wran and Unsworth - a record length of service unsurpassed in the history of this Parliament. His portfolios included local government and highways, mines and energy, technology and industrial relations. The range and number of bills of the Parliament and laws of this State which stand in his name tell their own story of diligence and dedication. Together they represent large new chapters in the history of local government, the power industry and industrial relations in New South Wales. His legislative monument remains his workers' compensation Acts, which provided the framework for a scheme that has become a model for the rest of Australia and beyond.
I turn now to the achievements of our late friend. He spent 50 years in public life in some very hard arenas without once being tainted by corruption or a whiff of scandal. In that time it is well established that he cleaned up the administration of the Town Hall, whose administration he inherited. As the Attorney General said, he was the youngest ever Lord Mayor. The Attorney General said also that he was the nation's longest serving industrial relations Minister. In that post he was a conciliator, settling disputes, steering the way towards solutions to the conflicts between the two sides of industrial relations. He modernised the local government system, the power industry, the city council, superannuation schemes, shopping hours, industrial training and apprenticeships. As Terry Sheahan said in the remarkable tribute he delivered in St Marys Cathedral this week, he revamped the whole of the workers' compensation system because he would not accept that it was merely a way of paying injured workers some money. He saw and used it as a vehicle with great potential to reduce injury and disease, and, when injury and disease occurred, to focus on the positives: the rehabilitation of the victims, a system free of neglect, and the establishment of an environment that encourages safety and accident prevention. Terry Sheahan said, "He was one of Labor's finest sons, a great reformer, still hard at work at the very end, not wanting publicity or praise, just results". We endorse every word of Terry Sheahan's tribute.
The remarkable fact is that only one other Opposition Labor leader this century, and since 1893, Ernest Durack, in 1916 failed to achieve the premiership. Lest this be seen as a dimunition of Pat Hills' contribution, I wish to detail his remarkable electoral performance in the toughest of circumstances when Labor in this State was at its most vulnerable because of circumstances beyond its control. In the first election in which Pat Hills led our party, which was in 1971, the Australian Labor Party scored 51 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. The ALP won 45 seats. It won back all the ground the party had lost in the 1968 State elections, which was the one and only Askin landslide. The 1971 result was superb; it represented a great gain by the Labor Party led by Pat Hills. If there had been an Askin redistribution on the eve of the election and fair electoral boundaries, Pat Hills would have been delivered the premiership.
I, as Leader of the Opposition, pay tribute to him for his performance in what must have been the loneliest campaign - the 1973 campaign. At that time Federal Labor was most unpopular. It was in the middle of the stress and controversy of the Whitlam Government. The party gave Pat little support in that campaign. I was present at the campaign opening at the Randwick Town Hall in the seat of Coogee. The party's campaign budget that year was less than $200,000. I remember Stella and the family and others rallied to give Pat support. It was a tough climate for the Labor Party. To refresh
Page 3029
my memory of that campaign I got out some of the newspaper clippings. It will not surprise honourable members that the Sydney Morning Herald did not support Pat in his bid to be Premier. In fact, in 100 years the Sydney Morning Herald has never supported the Labor Party in any State election campaign. On the eve of the election the editorial said that Labor had made little impact and that Sir Robert Askin, that impressive figure, had run a flawless campaign. It said also that the Askin Government had done much of which the community could be proud. It was the usual pre-election Sydney Morning Herald editorial. A feature article on the same page said:
The real aim of the New South Wales Liberals in tomorrow's State election is not just to win but to win by a margin which will give the vote unmistakable national significance. They are set to deliver a numbing defeat to both State and Federal Labor.
How did Pat Hills' react? He did not give up the ghost. He went out and fought a gutsy Labor campaign which resulted in Labor obtaining 48.5 per cent of the vote. As the honourable member for Charlestown reminded me yesterday, Pat Hills held the line with 44 seats in addition to the seat of Coogee. After a Court of Disputed Returns decision Labor's Mike Cleary got home for a modest but decisive victory. That was a creditable result in the circumstances that applied in 1973. Pat Hills, the Labor hero held the line in the worst possible circumstances.
In the formative years of the Labor Party in New South Wales one hundred years ago, its foundational parliamentary leader, James McGowen, the member for Redfern - which was to be included in Pat Hills' seat of Elizabeth - sought to define for his followers the nature of Labor representation in this Parliament. The infant Labor Party was experiencing troubles and was being torn apart on the tariff issue - free trade or protection. In a fighting speech in 1894 delivered from this very place - on this side of the Chamber - McGowen said, "I was not elected as a free trader or a protectionist. I was elected as a Labor man". Pat Hills was a Labor man. He was Labor through and through. He could not conceive of a public life except as a member of the Australian Labor Party. He joined the party in 1934, the moment he became eligible to join. That was another agonising period for the Labor Party, then reeling under the Lang disruption. Some 20 years later Pat Hills, as Lord Mayor of Sydney, was one of the key figures around Premier Joe Cahill, who was instrumental in containing in New South Wales the great split which was devastating the Labor Party around Australia. That was a time when the Labor Party demonstrated, as it has so often done, its fundamental strength and resilience.
Pat Hills' career spans a great deal of Labor history and the history of this State. It is a matter of history that the Labor Party ultimately won through, largely because of Pat Hills' success in holding the ground for the party in that most difficult of elections in 1973. That was the basis on which Neville Wran was able to get over the line in 1976. Pat Hills went on to be one of a select band of Ministers who served throughout the full 12 years of that great Labor Government. It is interesting to reflect on the relationship that Pat Hills had with Neville Wran, who challenged him for the leadership. I am told that at a State electorate council meeting in Elizabeth in the late 1980s Pat Hills said, with characteristic generosity of spirit, to his members: "I may not have won you an election in 1976. You have got to give Neville Wran credit for that". Neville Wran for his part at all the functions he addressed marking the tenth anniversary of that Labor Government, and a little while later on his retirement as Premier, said that he could not have a better working relationship with any Minister than he had with Pat Hills. I cannot recall how many times he said that but some of my colleagues will recall him saying it.
Page 3030
There was in the man we pay tribute to today not a trace of bitterness or vindictiveness. We recall him as a cheerful, positive and friendly man. He was married for 50 years to Stella. On one occasion she said in my hearing, "I am married to the nicest man in the world". We knew that Pat would leave Parliament House to go home to Centennial Park to have lunch with his wife. They were very close, the best of friends and beautifully matched. Let us say, with Wordsworth, of this man, "This is the happy warrior; this is he that every man in arms should wish to be". It is with great pride that I associate my party, his party with this tribute to a great servant of this House, this city, this State and this nation.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs) [4.40]: In speaking to this condolence motion, I represent the Deputy Premier, who is also the leader of the National Party. I wish to apologise on behalf of the Deputy Premier for his not being able to speak to this motion. He has an urgent appointment. At the time of his retirement from the New South Wales Parliament the late Patrick Darcy Hills was the longest serving member of this House. He held the seat of Phillip, which became the seat of Elizabeth, from 1954 until his retirement in March 1988. Pat Hills gave long and distinguished service to the Parliament and to his party, having been a member of the Australian Labor Party from 1934. He also gave dedicated service to the community, having been elected in 1952 as Sydney's youngest Lord Mayor. As such he hosted the first visit to Sydney by Her Majesty the Queen in 1954. During his parliamentary career Pat Hills occupied no fewer than 11 portfolios, including being Deputy Premier and Minister assisting the Premier and Treasurer. When Labor lost office in 1965 Pat Hills was Deputy Premier and later became Leader of the Opposition for five of the 11 years Labor stayed in Opposition. Members might find it interesting that Pat Hills maintained that Premier Neville Wran should never have stepped down for the Street royal commission. He was quoted as saying:
I suppose because of the fact that he is a lawyer and is so close to the law, he felt that the law would ensure that his name was unblemished but frankly I wouldn't have done it. I think that the forum of the Parliament is the place for things to be debated quite openly and clearly and after all, in my view, it is the supreme body in New South Wales. That's the difference between a lawyer's approach and a toolmaker's approach.
Pat Hills was of the old school of the Labor Party. He was a wily politician, a good numbers man and politically tough and forthright. He was the sort of man you would want on your side. He earned the respect of his colleagues and his political opponents. His middle name of "Darcy" came from the surname of the famous Les Darcy, who sometimes sparred with Pat's father. Pat Hills used to hang a picture of Les Darcy, a famous Australian boxer, on his ministerial wall. In a varied political career his proudest achievement was taking the decision on his own to build the Eraring and Bayswater power stations. He remarked at the time that the power stations re-established New South Wales as an industrial State and ensured that we had adequate power.
I wish to add a few of my own comments to those I made on behalf of the Deputy Premier. When I came to this place in 1981 Patrick Darcy Hills was one of the Ministers of the Wran Government who were right at the height of their careers. Patrick Darcy Hills was a warm man, a man who always had a kind word, a man who in this Chamber would carve you into small pieces if he possibly could but once behind those bars he was just an ordinary person. He was a man who was quite generous in his praise, particularly to younger and newer members. I knew Pat Hills when he was mayor of this city. In that position he gave great lustre and dignity to this city. So I share the sense of loss of all within this Parliament in the passing of Patrick Darcy Hills. Everybody who knew him can be proud of that fact. One of the greatest things in life
Page 3031
would be to leave this Parliament in a better fashion than when first elected, and Patrick Darcy Hills certainly did that. On behalf of my colleagues in the National Party, and the Deputy Premier, I extend our deepest sympathy to his wife, Stella and daughters Carol, Maria and Margaret, and sons Michael and Paul.
Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [4.45]: I would like to endorse the comments made by honourable members, I offer my condolences to Pat's wife, Stella, their children and grandchildren and other members of their family. I pay tribute to both Pat and Stella for their contribution to the public life of this city and this State for over four decades. I cannot say I was a close friend of Pat Hills - I was not part of his generation and I did not grow up in Surry Hills - and I cannot say that I was a close political colleague in this Parliament because our time did not overlap. However, I had known and worked for Pat as a branch member and had admired him for some 13 years prior to his retirement from this Parliament. I first met Pat in 1975 when I was in my early twenties. I had transferred into the Darlington branch, which was in his electorate, and became involved in the State Electorate Council, which was called Phillip. I also had a minor position on the State Electoral Council. In later years I was secretary of the Elizabeth State Electorate Council. I am happy to say that I also worked on a number of election campaigns when Pat was the member for Phillip and then Elizabeth.
What I admired most about Pat was his patience. I speak as a rank and file branch member because it was as a rank-and-file member that I associated with Pat. I have never known anyone to be as patient and as phlegmatic as Pat. You never quite knew what he was thinking, but that was okay. In his time in public life Pat presided over many demographic changes in the inner city. This was reflected, of course, in the Australian Labor Party branches. I cannot help but smile when I think back to a State Electorate Council meeting at the Redfern Town Hall, in that little room "with the honour of" with brass trimmings. A room where about 1,000 Australian Labor Party meetings must have taken place in the last 50 or 60 years, and Pat Hills had certainly been there for his fair share of them. The reason I say I smile is that I can still see Pat Hills sitting there, I still picture him sitting patiently, waiting, listening - and if it was winter he would have a jumper on underneath his suit - while we young turks, or radicals, argued, attacked, and debated. We were always so very sure of the correctness of our position, and thinking back today even I have to admit that I cringe now at some of the things that we did that Pat had to sit their and endure. However, he was never hostile and he never lost his cool.
I remember a funny meeting at the Darlington branch - I will not mention names or details - when someone was having a bit of a go at Pat. They said, "Well, you know, if this keeps happening, there'll be trouble with your preselection". Pat just said, "I have just won a preselection 600 to 35; that's not too bad" - and it was not either. Of course a preselection challenge would never have been successful against Pat. I have to point out that Pat always supported the State Electorate Council when we supported rank-and-file preselection. Pat had always survived and co-existed quite happily in a mixed factional context in his branch - some of his stronger supporters were lefties from the left-wing Surry Hills branch - and that is not an easy accomplishment. I cannot think of any other politician at that time in that area who was able to do so. We would attend the Federal Electorate Council meetings in the same room at Redfern, cover largely the same territory, and there would be nothing but brawl after brawl after brawl. The next month we would attend the State Electorate Council meeting - with much the same people - and everything would be happy and okay. We would talk about fund raising and be very positive about what we were doing. I think it is a real tribute to Pat that we could do that.
Page 3032
Another reason I admired Pat was because he was part of and represented those wonderful, traditional, working-class inner city communities. He represented some of the most underprivileged areas in New South Wales: Redfern, Woolloomooloo, Millers Point, Glebe and Surry Hills. Those areas were characterised by poor housing, overcrowding, unemployment and sheer poverty. But he was imbued with the noble spirit and altruism that pervaded those communities. One still sees remnants of that spirit in Glebe and in Millers Point, because those communities have remained intact. I do not glorify the poverty of those communities. There is nothing noble or glorious about poverty but they did have a spirit that we do not see too often today. They were real urban villages - parochial and proud of their precinct. If a woman became a widow and needed someone to look after her kids so she could go out and scrub floors, the neighbours would pitch in. Thankfully, today we have child care. If people were sick, a neighbour would pop in and make sure they had a meal. Thankfully today we have Meals on Wheels, which is something that Pat introduced and we should be eternally grateful for that great initiative. If people were unemployed, the neighbours chipped in, and that is the kind of community that Pat was born into. Some time in late 1987 or early 1988, I chatted to Pat about what Surry Hills was like in the old days. There is no doubt that Pat was a real Surry Hills boy and was very emotionally attached to Surry Hills. The task of Pat, as the representative of those communities, was to ensure proper housing, employment and health facilities. Throughout his long career, Pat strove to ensure that his constituents received the improvements that they so desperately needed.
On a personal level, Pat and I were about as different as you could get, but that was okay. We always got on. He was always kind and helpful to me and anxious to assist. Once I was preselected, Pat was very supportive of my candidature. I was very grateful for his support because, for Pat, loyalty to the Australian Labor Party came first, second and third. I would have to be kidding myself if I did not acknowledge that if Pat had decided to play a role perhaps I would not be here today. There are many stories and anecdotes that I could recount about Pat and the inner city Australian Labor Party, but they are best kept for the confines and the camaraderie of the wonderful party that Pat loved and served so well. I know that Pat will be missed greatly by his wife and family, but I am also sure that they will take great comfort in the knowledge that Pat's legacy will be remembered by the many thousands of people who knew Pat and his achievements.
Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment) [4.50]: I would like to join with all honourable members of this House in paying tribute and giving recognition to the late Pat Hills for his distinguished public life and his service to this Parliament and the community. I was at a Ministers of Labour Advisory Council Conference in Perth last week when the news was telephoned through to me that Pat Hills had died. I conveyed that news to the chairman of that conference, Senator Peter Cook, and then asked that the conference acknowledge the eleven and a half years of service that Pat Hills had given to it and that he had contributed significantly to the workplace and industrial relations in a long and distinguished career. That recognition and condolence message might be conveyed to his wife, Stella, and to his family. I can assure honourable members that there was some discussion at the luncheon that followed of the contribution that he had made. Deep regret and great respect was passed on in the course of that conversation. I have that respect for him.
I had the responsibility of being the Opposition spokesman for industrial relations and employment for about two years prior to 1988. During that time that poker face looked across at me from this side of the House and, I am sure, wondered about me
Page 3033
often. I could not read his face or what his thoughts were, but at all times he was courteous and gave me every opportunity to obtain second reading speeches and assistance on the technicality of matters coming before this House. We may have disagreed on politics, but certainly the courtesies were there. I very much appreciated that because it was not always forthcoming to me in those days. In the past four years, my contact with Pat was through the sporting arena. His great love for the Sydney Cricket Ground and Sydney Football Stadium brought him back there on almost every occasion he had the opportunity to attend sporting events. That too was very much a part of what Pat's life was about.
I saw him last on the night of the semi-final of the cricket match between South Africa and England. I was sitting in a chair. He bent over - he was standing up - and he said hello. I immediately put my hand out and touched his knees because on the previous occasion that I saw him he indicated that he was about to go into hospital to have two knees replaced. He indicated that he would be playing a lot more golf and be a lot more active afterwards. I said, "Haven't you had the operation yet?" His answer was, "Yes, I have - three weeks ago". I said, "You should be sitting down". He said, "I feel terrific". To hear of his death within a few weeks was very sad. The step that he had taken to ensure that he was more active than ever before simply did not come to fruition in the course of the weeks that followed.
The tribute paid by the people of Sydney on all sides of politics and from all religions last Monday at St Mary's Cathedral was testimony to the esteem in which this man was held. The President of the New South Wales Labor Party, in most of his remarks on that occasion, spoke very eloquently about that contribution. I certainly cannot match that contribution, other than to say that I recognise the contribution that was made. Above everything else, in all that I have read and all that I have seen, I recognise the loyalty that that man had and the fact that he could have been depended upon when things were going right and when they were not going right for him personally. The question of loyalty has been the subject of some debate in the past day or so in this House. We can all look to the late Patrick Darcy Hills and take example from his life and his efforts throughout that life to see what loyalty really means - loyalty to his community, his party, his church and his family. His family, particularly Margaret, clearly demonstrated to me on a number of occasions that they simply worshipped the ground that he walked on and saw him as a shining light and a pivotal point in their existence. I simply say that I regret his passing; I recognise his contribution; and I express my sympathy to his widow and his children for the difficulties that they would undoubtedly be experiencing now and will experience for some time to come.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [4.56]: I join with the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts, members opposite and my party leader, Mr Carr, on this motion of condolence on this very sad occasion. The Whelan family go back many years with the Hills family. I was talking to my wife before I came to the Chamber and she reminded me that when she was a young girl she, the Hills and the Mahoneys used to holiday at Port Macquarie. Port Macquarie became one of the places Pat took stock of where he was in State politics. The principal thing about Patrick Darcy Hills was that he always had his feet on the ground and he always knew where he was going. Pat supported me in the preselection ballot of 1972, in which I was unsuccessful. That did not stop his supporting me later in the preselection ballot of 1974, in which I was successful and which ultimately led to my winning the seat of Ashfield on 1st May, 1976. His wise counsel during that time was always invaluable, and no one would ever doubt Pat Hills' ability to count. He did that for me with consummate ease. In fact, he
Page 3034
lent me one of his great supporters, who was known to the honourable member for Canterbury very well, the late Susie Sutherland, to assist me in my campaign and to ensure that I was able to defeat the evil foes who were opposed to me in that preselection ballot.
After I won that seat in Parliament, which I remind honourable members was an important seat, as was the seat of the honourable member for Blue Mountains in 1976, Pat and I kept in close contact even though he was a shadow minister at that time. He was instrumental in opening my campaign. As I have said, he was a wise counsellor. When I was first elected, I came into what was affectionately known as the old Pizza Hut. Pat was kind enough to organise that I would take his office, which was then a temporary office. One of the attributes of Pat Hills was that, whether he was a shadow minister or a Minister of the Crown and whether he was meeting the most important person or meeting someone who did place himself in high esteem, Pat, with his great presence, always treated fellow mankind as equals. He had a great presence in this Chamber. He was never ruffled as a Minister. It is a great lesson to all of us and, I regret to say, even to Ministers in the present Government that he never got ruffled. He knew how to handle every question, no matter how tricky it was. He always knew how to resolve a problem.
Pat Hills' knowledge of the standing orders was outstanding. There was not a standing order that he had not drawn up, amended or thought of. Askin, no slouch, had been in office for 11 years. Credit must also be given to Eric Willis, who also knew how to draft standing orders. That threesome - Eric Willis, Pat Hills and Bob Askin - were great combatants and knew everything about standing orders. Where the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts now sits is where Pat Hills sat as a Minister. Premier Wran sat nearby and almost every day would defer to Pat on technical standing order points to get out of predicaments that all governments seem to get into. I knew Pat both personally and in his performance in Parliament. I take this opportunity to convey my condolences and that of my family to the Hills family.
Mr LANGTON (Kogarah) [5.2]: I offer my sympathies also to Stella and the Hills family. Pat was first elected to the city council in 1948, the year I was born. The significance of that is that Pat and Stella and their family lived at that time in Fitzgerald Avenue in Maroubra, and directly adjacent, out the back in Donovan Avenue, was where my family lived. My mother and father and Pat and Stella in those days were very close. Pat and my father were particularly close in their jointly forming the Maroubra Junction branch of the Labor Party and also the local branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, now the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. They were also very close at a family level. My mother has never forgotten the great support she received from Pat and Stella in very difficult times during their life in Maroubra, including the practical and physical support she received from Pat and Stella in 1945 when my elder brother died.
We left Maroubra in 1953 when I was five years old. It has been said that I left Maroubra at five because I heard that Bob Carr was going to run for local preselection. That is not true. It was a great honour to me about 30 years later to be elected to this place and to be able to work with Pat. I know it was a great source of pride for my parents as well that I had the opportunity to work with him. Pat was a great source of advice for me and for many other new members in this place, and his words always contained much wisdom. The advice Pat gave me has assisted me greatly. My mother appreciated deeply the support she received from Pat and Stella a couple of years ago when my father died. On behalf of my mother and my own family I extend to Stella and her family my sympathies and those of my family. We understand what they are going through.
Page 3035
Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [5.4]: I wish to join with other speakers in contributing to this condolence motion. My greatest regret is that the tribute paid to Pat Hills by Terry Sheahan on Monday cannot be incorporated in Hansard. That tribute encapsulated, in every syllable, many of the thoughts of all honourable members and others who knew Pat. I have been thinking a lot about Pat since his death. I recall my first day in this Parliament in 1978. I had known Pat Hills since I was a young boy - and I do not mean only as a teenager - in the eastern suburbs. On my first day in this Parliament I walked out through the door of this Chamber and, as I had been taught to do and as I had always referred to him, I walked up to Pat Hills and said, "Excuse me, Mr Hills". He wheeled on me and said, "Don't you ever call me that again". I wondered what I had done wrong. He said, "Now that you are here and have gone through what was necessary to get here, we are all equals and you call me Pat". I thought that was significant, certainly in my understanding and appreciation of him. I had grown up in the eastern suburbs and with the Eastern Suburbs Labor Party. In my early teens my late father had held the seat adjoining Pat's. In that era there were many dominant figures within the Labor Party in that area, many of whom would not be widely known. Among those dominant figures were people like Eddie Ward and Pat Hills and so many others. It was an enthralling life experience for a young boy, having been associated with many party activities and later joining the party, to see someone like Pat Hills in operation at that level. As I got older and as my life changed it was enthralling to see him at work in this Parliament.
I want to make particular mention of the cricket ground. From about the time I was 10 my mother and father and I used to go to Sydney Cricket Ground to watch the match of the day irrespective of who was playing. That was the era when St George was dominant. We would see Pat at the cricket ground. Honourable members may remember what the cricket ground was like compared to the cricket ground of today and its wonderful public facilities. I also remember the sportsground and playing there and being aware of how dingy and dismal the players' facilities were under its wooden stand. Now Sydney has the Football Stadium. People often forget how much that is a tribute to Pat's efforts, made for no other reason than that sport and people who like sport ought to have first-class facilities. Pat deserves great credit for that achievement. South Sydney has been mentioned. I am not and never have been a South Sydney supporter. As a younger person I supported Easts. My mother, however, has been a Souths supporter since as a young girl she came down from Canowindra to Sydney to attend school. She had a great love, as did Pat, for Souths. People often forget, for it is so easy to forget, that when Souths was in a major financial crisis not so many years ago it was primarily Pat Hills and Michael Cleary, with the assistance of others, who saved the South Sydney club and enabled it to continue in the competition. I remember those sorts of things that Pat did and the reasons he did them. He did them not for personal aggrandisement but because they needed to be done, largely because rugby league was the working person's sport.
In the last four of my six and a half years as a Minister in the Wran and Unsworth governments, as indicated by the honourable member for Ashfield, Pat sat where the present Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts is sitting. I sat on one side of Pat, and Ken Booth sat next to me. For those four years it was a lesson to me to watch men such as Pat and Ken in the Parliament carrying out their role as Ministers, members of Parliament and human beings. I share the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Ashfield in watching Pat in operation. At that time a number of dominant speakers, none less than Neville Wran, were members of this Parliament. Pat's way of dealing with questions and interjections was unique to this Parliament. Other Ministers would attempt to yell over the top of an interjection. In the
Page 3036
middle of a riot Pat would stop speaking and stand silent until the uproar had died down, and then continue with his answer. That probably had a greater effect on interjectors seeking to disrupt what Pat was saying than any other mechanism that could have been employed by a Minister at the time.
It was not just in the House but also in the Cabinet, and more particularly in the policy and priorities subcommittee of the Cabinet, where the eight senior Ministers met ostensibly to deal with major policy issues and major issues covering the Government at the time that I saw and came to understand his greatness as a politician and as a human being. Cabinet may be no place for the fainthearted - and I note that Terry Sheahan is in the gallery, nodding and smiling - but there one could see all Pat's political skills and his commitment in particular to the working people of this State. In any sort of brawl I would have preferred to have Pat on my side, particularly in that forum. People should reflect upon the contribution made in this Parliament by Pat Hills. He played a singular role in the provision of the tremendous resources at the Sydney Cricket Ground and the Sydney Football Stadium. More recent events were unnecessary and less than one might have expected in the latter part of this century. I am sure that members have some understanding of what I am trying to say. It would be remiss of me not to pass on in my remarks to Stella and the family the thoughts of my mother, whom they know so well, and the thoughts of my wife.
Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [5.12]: I join other members of this House in offering my sympathy to Stella and the Hills family on the loss of Patrick Darcy Hills, a man who served this House and the people of this State so well over so many years. He touched the lives of many of us here in various ways. It is fitting that the Hills family is sitting in the gallery in the company of the State President of the New South Wales Labor Party. Pat first and foremost was a Labor man. He was part of the whole history of the Australian Labor Party in this State, certainly in the majority of my lifetime. I think this is a time for reminiscing. At the wonderful Mass in which we participated to bid him farewell and to celebrate his life the celebrant reminded us that memories are far more vivid and important than photographs or other images. The memory of Pat will be with us always.
My earliest memories of him go back to when I was a very young child. I was in awe of a man called Pat Hills, as was my family. I remember waiting at numerous times in a parked car in Fitzgerald Avenue while my father was involved in Labor Party business and discussions with Pat Hills. I want to convey the sincere sympathy of not only the other members of my family but particularly the former member for Heffron. He thought very highly of Pat and has many memories of the way in which his life was touched by Pat. My family has always felt a great responsibility for the fact that Patrick Darcy Hills never served in the Federal Parliament. There was only one vote in it. My family was involved in the preselection ballot. I was very young and I might have been in bed on the night of that ballot. Pat Hills came back to my family's home and in the living room said to my mother and aunt that he thought he probably was not going anywhere in politics and that it was probably the end. My mother and aunt said: "Pat, you are a young man. You have so much potential. You will go on to do great things". They were feeling especially guilty at that stage. At that time women only made cups of tea; they did not have party membership. My mother and aunt had not been able to participate in the ballot.
I know that there are some myths around about my family's feelings for numbers. It is terribly important to ensure you have numbers in a ballot. My family learnt the hard way. It had many regrets that at that stage Pat did not enter the Federal
Page 3037
Parliament. I think that loss went on to be New South Wales' gain. In many ways Pat has left behind a record of service and many monuments that will benefit the people of this State for a long time to come. Other memories I have of Pat Hills go back to 1962 when he picked me up in his car and took me with the late Hon. Edna Roper to participate in the filming of some of the earliest Labor campaign advertisements in the medium of television. He was always so polite, charming and courteous. He made one feel very important. I often sought his counsel after I entered this Parliament in 1978. I always valued his counsel, especially in the relatively short time I spent in Cabinet. On one occasion he paid me, I think, a supreme compliment: not long before the 1988 election he told me that I was a fast learner. I said to him, "If I am, it is only because I have had the best of teachers". Pat Hills was a true son of Labor, a superb politician and an outstanding citizen of this State. He was a wonderful husband and father and the patriarch of the Hills clan. He was exemplary in his witness of his faith. He was always these things, but finally, simply and probably most importantly, he was a good man, a good human being. May he rest in peace.
Mr FACE (Charlestown) [5.17]: I join with others in speaking to the condolence motion for the late Patrick Darcy Hills. I am the only Australian Labor Party member who served in this Chamber with Pat when he was Leader of the Opposition. You, Mr Speaker, are the only member of the Liberal Party-National Party coalition who served in that period. I say that simply to point out how things have changed in 20 years. There are not many members now who serve for more than 30 years, as did the late Bill Sheahan and Ken Booth. The volatility of the electorate has meant the passing of the era when members could serve for such lengthy periods. The fact that Pat Hills served in this Chamber for so long was to the benefit of this House and the State in general. There is no need for me this afternoon to go over the many things he achieved in his period of service. During the 1950s he played a major role in healing the wounds of the party split. Along with Joe Cahill and others he averted for a couple of decades the sorts of calamities that occurred in Victoria My father was supportive of Pat for this. He was a victim, having been unceremoniously tipped out of his union position. Newspaper tributes to Pat have not given him credit concerning the elections referred to by Opposition members. The by-election that resulted in my coming to this Parliament in 1972 was an instance of Pat's judgment proving to be true. It was one of the few times when Bob Askin lost his cool. He reacted in a way that caused considerable detriment to his party at the time.
Pat bluffed the then Premier into holding a by-election considerably earlier than he wanted. That by-election was a consequence of a considerable amount of turmoil in the Labor Party at the time of what became known within party ranks as the Shortland affair. The Liberal Party had a predetermined idea of saving McMahon by having a spill in the north, thus causing a problem for me and for the party generally, but Pat sought good advice and his judgment was correct. One of the rare strategy errors Askin made was the calling of the by-election, which cancelled the effect of the national campaign opening in New South Wales by the Country Party, as the National Party was known in those days. The calamities expected by the then government in Canberra did not eventuate. In fact I was elected without any problem. Billy Wentworth had commenced against him a defamation action as a result. Several other things occurred, but they are part of history.
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the 1971 and 1973 elections were great times during which Pat rebuilt the party. Many of the people who entered Parliament in 1971 made the transition to government in 1976. Many of them became Ministers. Eric Bedford is one who is in the gallery today. It was a period of great rebuilding of the
Page 3038
party and Pat did it successfully. It must be remembered that at that time there was a redistribution whenever there was an election. In 1971 Askin created what were known as the central and country areas and deprived Pat, based on statistics of the percentage vote, of becoming Premier of this State. Electorates in Newcastle such as Hamilton were abolished. Rural electorates were created to form the country into a central zone, which existed until the Labor Party came to office and brought some reality to the principle of one vote one value.
In 1973 Pat had everything stacked against him. A redistribution was introduced into this Parliament just before the Easter period. From memory the debate commenced at 9.27 a.m. and continued until after 1 a.m. the next morning. That redistribution was another brainchild of Sir Eric Willis and was slammed through this House by Ian Griffith, who was Chief Secretary at that time. Much has been said about the increase in numbers in this House. The Government at that time had no compunction in increasing the number of seats from 96 to 99. If the Government had not been successful in electorates such as Hornsby and won in the Nepean area, it would probably not have remained in office. Interest rates set by the Federal Government created a backlash against the Labor Party. Such was the intensity of that backlash that within 12 months of my election my majority was cut in half. That of course also resulted in a lack of support for Pat himself.
At that time Pat had turned in a result of 44 seats. Had the then Opposition been successful in the electorate of Coogee at that time, history may have been a little different in the sense that the ballot in the caucus room may have been different. Such things never deterred Pat. He went off to Port Macquarie, as he so often did, licked his wounds and started fighting again. I was probably more aware of that than most people because we occupied adjoining rooms in the old cottage. I spent a great deal of time with him during that period. He could certainly scent victory. He was not a shadow Minister but one would have thought he was. After 1974 he was never absent from the floor of the House and made many significant contributions in the period leading up to the 1976 election. His loyalty was never found wanting. On several occasions Neville said to me and others that if it had not been for Pat and the late Jack Renshaw, Labor probably would not have had the easy passage it did in those early days of government. Their understanding and knowledge of the workings of Treasury, the Executive Government and Cabinet were invaluable after Labor had been out of office for so long.
Pat was a fountain of knowledge and advice for many young members. He always took them under his wing. Many of us wanted to change the face of the world when we became members of Parliament, and over a period of time Pat was able to steady us down. Stella was always by his side. I remember well the tremendous contribution she and Billy Einfeld made to the creation of Focus. A considerable amount of money was raised for the disadvantaged and the less fortunate in the community. Pat Hills' maiden speech in 1954 related to housing, which was one of his great concerns. He foresaw the Sydney Harbour tunnel. What he said about roads at that time has all come true. It was a grand vision and he presided over most of it. Time does not permit me to say everything I would like to say. I pay a personal tribute to Pat from various people in the Hunter. He presided over the Hunter Valley Training Centre, which has trained 3,000 young people in the past 10 years. To head that, Pat appointed the Hon. Milton Morris, who was one of his foes in the Parliament. They were on different sides but Pat saw him as a person who was able to do a good job. Pat had a great ability to relate to people. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the contribution he made to this Parliament and to me personally. To Stella and his family, many of whom I have met over the years, I offer sincere condolences on behalf of myself, my wife and the people of the Hunter region.
Page 3039
Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [5.26]: At the Requiem Mass at St Mary's Cathedral on Monday, I listened to the President of the New South Wales Labor Party deliver the best speech he has made during the many years he has been in public life. In his tribute to Pat Hills he emphasised the most important feature about Pat, that he was a caring, good and just man who never forgot his origins. He worked for the benefit of those who needed the assistance that could only come from people such as Pat Hills. I first met Pat about 26 years ago when I brought a person to see him and his wonderful deputy, Sid Einfeld. It was with great pleasure that I listened to Sid read the first lesson at the Requiem Mass at the cathedral on Monday. Sid may have looked feeble but his voice was as strong as ever and the intention was there. I brought someone to see Pat and Sid, little knowing that some years later I would join them in this House as a member of Parliament. I was in awe of Pat Hills. He was the ultimate person in the Australian Labor Party and I remained in awe of him until I had been a member of this House for some time. When I became a member of this House in 1976, having had Pat open my campaign in the unsuccessful 1973 election, I could not get over the fact that Pat Hills, after all that I had read and seen about him, was a very human person indeed. He was an easy man to relate to. When I was feeling a bit downhearted, as I was when I first became a member of this House, he would put his arm around my shoulder and say, "Come on, brother, things are not as bad as they seem". His love of the Sydney Cricket Ground was obvious even then. I had not been here five minutes before he had my signature on an application to become a member of the Sydney Cricket Ground, and I have been a member ever since.
Pat was one of the most remarkable people in the Labor Party, a person who certainly followed his preachings with practice. There is no doubt that he was a great man. My wife, Doreen, and I extend our deepest sympathy to his family. Doreen particularly asked me to refer to Stella, and I would like to do that because Stella Hills is a wonderful person. On one occasion I was making arrangements to attend a Test at the Sydney Cricket Ground and I was to be accompanied by a couple of mates. I could not get them into the Sydney Cricket Ground and wanted a couple of tickets. I rang Pat and he said, "Yes, call out at my home. Stella is there, she will give you a couple of tickets". I rang the bell and Stella came to the door. She had been preparing to go somewhere and had not finished dressing. She was in a slip, but so far as Stella was concerned there was nothing unusual about that. She is a down-to-earth person who gave Pat great support during his long years in public life. It has been a pleasure and an honour to have had anything to do with Pat Hills over the many years I knew him.
Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [5.29]: I join with the Attorney General, the Leader of the Opposition and speakers on both sides of the House to support this condolence motion. I met Pat Hills 30 years ago, when I was 15. He had known my father from the early 1950s. It is with great sadness that I stand before this Parliament and talk about my friend Pat. Thomas Fuller, a seventeenth century writer, said, "If you have one true friend, you have more than your share". I was blessed to know Pat - my true friend and Labor's true friend. I remember sitting with him and my father in a hotel in Bathurst after an infamous by-election, discussing Labor's defeat. Both my father, who had more than 50 years in the party, and Pat were the stuff that human drama is made of. If there is a Labor heaven, I assure the House that Pat Hills has joined my father there. He was the human spirit. A longstanding friend, Peter Cox, said, "Pat had an air of strength that showed he was very much in control of his life's direction. His positive attitude, determination and high expectation of himself always assured him of success in everything he undertook". Pervading everything was his incredible sense of humour. Peter Cox said it was infectious. To live in the hearts of those left to die, Mr Speaker, is not to die. Pat will live on in our hearts. My constituents, my family and I send our
Page 3040
deepest sympathy to Stella and her family. Peter Cox has asked me, in this speech tonight, to extend his sympathy and that of his wife, Olive, and their family to Stella and her family. He wishes them all the best. He said that Pat will be sadly missed by all of us.
Members and officers of the House standing in their places,
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
______
PERCHERON GROUP OF COMPANIES
Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [5.30]: This evening I should like to draw the attention of the House to a matter of grave concern to some of my constituents in Albury. The matter relates to an organisation known as the Percheron group of companies. The people who approached me are of moderate means. Some years ago, they felt it would be a wise investment for them to put some money into the purchase of pine-trees which were to be grown by the Percheron group. Their hope was that, as the years went by, the trees would increase in value and eventually they would make a modest profit on their investment which would help to sustain them in their retirement. After some time, my constituents made some inquiries about the trees they believed they had purchased. When they made inquiries of the Percheron group they found the group somewhat reluctant to give them a great deal of information.
Finally my constituents located the place where the trees they had purchased were supposed to be and they went to inspect them. They, and others, became aware that the Percheron group had some small lots of well-established trees that were being shown to all investors who asked to see the trees they owned. The group had other lots of trees which were not growing very well at all and which my constituents believed would be absolutely worthless. They became concerned and began to contact others who had invested in this plan in an endeavour to find out what their experiences had been. They were quite distressed and gradually came to the conclusion that they were being robbed by those proposing the scheme.
My constituents asked me to forward a letter to the Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts seeking his assistance. I have done as they requested. In that letter they say they began as an established group and now have something of the order of 2,000 members who have invested moneys with the Percheron group of companies. They go on to say that the Corporate Affairs Commission did an excellent job gaining evidence and that they want to congratulate the commission on the way it unravelled the huge complicated web of the Percheron group of companies, which goes back over about 30 years. They also say that members in this group - Pine Tree Register Inc. - who have invested in the Percheron group, come from countries all over the world - England, Germany, the United States of America, Venezuela, Puerto Rica, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the State of Honolulu and elsewhere. Investigations have revealed that more than 20,000 investors worldwide in the Percheron group have been ripped off. In their letter addressed to the Attorney General my constituents say:
As we are the original instigators of this investigation and only small investors, we feel very strongly for the people who have worked hard to pay off their trees, to put aside a little for their old age, only to find that they have been ripped off. One of the persons responsible for this
Page 3041
massive fraud still walks around as large as life hoping that it will all just go away. To add to the hurt, the Managing Director of Percheron has been awarded by the courts $500 a week living expenses despite having many millions of dollars stacked away overseas, and despite the fact that the Australian Securities Commission and the receiver vigorously opposed this payment to him.
I feel very much for these small investors - people who had to undertake most of the investigation on their own initially, using their own time and finances, only to be so bitterly disappointed when they found that they had simply been defrauded, that this group had taken their money, and that many other people had been defrauded in similar circumstances. I appeal to the Attorney General to do what he can to assist these people. They have also informed me that they would very much appreciate it if the Attorney General could take some steps to see that, in the future, other people in similar circumstances to theirs - ordinary, poor, battling individuals - will not be ripped off by such schemes. I appeal to the Attorney General on their behalf for whatever assistance he may be able to give.
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts) [5.35]: I thank the honourable member for Albury for bringing this important matter to my attention and the attention of the House. I understand the anguish that his constituents feel, who feel they have been ripped off by this company. They are but a few of thousands of people who feel exactly the same way. It is an extremely complex matter. Indeed, it is a matter which was made deliberately complex by the people behind the Percheron group of companies. The Australian Securities Commission has spent a great deal of time trying to reassemble the wreckage of the lives of many investors in an attempt to put together the corporate jigsaw which is the Percheron group of companies. That effort resulted in the presentation of a report some months ago. The findings of that report are a matter of public record. It is fair to say that the group of companies, which has existed for something like a 30-year period, involves more than 20,000 investors, and a known figure of approximately $40 million. In response to complaints from investors, the Corporate Affairs Commission commenced an investigation into the activities of the group of companies in March 1988. As I have said, the Australian Securities Commission has just recently reported on that investigation.
The special investigation revealed that because of the irregular, and probably fraudulent operations of the various companies and trusts comprising the group, it was likely that only a small number of investors would be able to obtain a return from their investment. In particular it was not possible to identify which plantations were held by any particular investor or which contract had been fulfilled. That point has been reaffirmed tonight by the honourable member for Albury. The matter was brought to my attention by a British investigator. Honourable members would be familiar with the English actor Richard Todd, a well-known face in many British movies for the past forty years. He too was one of those who were ripped off. Many people round the world have been ripped off by this group of companies and a great deal of damage has been done. I undertake to have discussions with the honourable member for Albury to see whether anything further can be done on behalf of his constituents. I invite other members who may have been approached by constituents with such concerns to make similar representations to me. Certainly if anything can be done within a national context, I am prepared to do it. This matter must be tackled on a co-ordinated, national basis, but I am certainly prepared to discuss it further.
Page 3042 WINDALE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE
Mr FACE (Charlestown) [5.38]: The matter I wish to raise for a second time in this House concerns the Windale Community Health Centre. In the past few days I received information that a pilot scheme involving the centre and family and community services is proposed. I apologise to the Minister for Health Services Management for not informing him of my intention to raise this matter today. Originally I had intended to raise another matter. Be that as it may, I ask the Minister for Health Services Management to inform me what is proposed and whether the information I have is correct. This particular health centre at Windale has been the subject of considerable correspondence between me and the Director of the Hunter Area Health Service, Dr Tim Smyth, who is trying to relocate a doctor who has a small surgery at the centre at present. It mystifies me why the area health service would want such a small area. The doctor - Dr Ruba - has nowhere else to go. Officers from the Hunter Area Health Service have said to me that Dr Ruba could establish a practice in the Macquarie Fair shopping centre at Mount Hutton. Though Mount Hutton is a neighbouring suburb, without the use of a car it would be difficult for his elderly patients to attend his practice. Dr Ruba established his practice at Windale 17 years ago at a time when no one else wanted to go there.
The regional director has not bothered to see me personally about this matter. He has written letters and telephoned my secretary about getting rid of Dr Ruba but he will not tell me or the community why he wants the centre. I am not knocking the proposed pilot scheme to combine family, community and health services. It may well be an advantage to the community. I am not throwing cold water on the idea but as the elected member I should be informed of what is going on. For a period of years people have been waltzing in and out telling the department that they have problems. The only problem they have is that they live in an old Department of Housing area that today would never have been designed or built. I have represented these people for a long time; I have had dealings with them for more than 30 years. They have a right to know what is going on. In the last election they were informed of the possible sale of some of their homes for redevelopment. Today they do not know when or if the development is to take place.
If there is going to be a pilot scheme, I ask the Minister to advise me what form it will take, whether FACS is to be associated with it, whether it will improve the present health services, and whether the doctor will be provided alternative accommodation. If the doctor has to set up a practice at Macquarie Fair, people without their own transport will have to walk to his surgery. There are no other public buildings at Windale than the police youth club, the bowling club, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church. It is a Department of Housing area. The department's properties have been sold to private enterprise. The doctor's patients are mostly aged and infirm. In 1949 to 1950 the majority of the people who moved into the area were in their twenties and thirties. Now the average age of residents is 60 years plus. All I ask is for someone to consult with me so that I can inform the community what is likely to eventuate. I wish to make clear that I am not throwing cold water on the project. If a pilot project is to take place, I should be told about it so I can inform the community.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse - Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism) [5.43]: I will ensure that the honourable member's concerns are relayed to the Minister for Health Services Management.
Page 3043
MURRAY ELECTORATE PRE-SCHOOLS
Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.44]: I speak on behalf of 25 pre-schools in the Murray electorate. In the past several weeks many pre-school committee representatives have spoken to me about shortage of funds for pre-schools and the difficulties they face in these harsh economic times. I ask the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism to relay my concerns to the Minister for Health and Community Services in the other place. At present the budget for pre-schools is $64.2 million, which is shared by the five support areas in New South Wales. The pre-schools operational base subsidy comprises 74 per cent of the total budget, which is $47.5 million. The long day care centres salary subsidy is about $10 million. Early childhood services, which covers mobile resource units, of which there are a number in my electorate, have received $3.1 million. Vacational care operational assistance received $2.3 million and occasional care salary subsidies amount to $1.3 million. Though it may appear pre-schools receive significant funding, unfortunately the serious Federal cutbacks in recent years - $1 billion from the States' budget - are having a serious effect on local pre-schools, which provide three-year-old and four-year-old children with a wonderful start in life. Children learn to mix together, and they are given a basic understanding of school routine. Representatives of pre-schools in my electorate consider that because of lack of funds the Ross report did not cover in detail all areas of the State. Its findings were based mainly on large metropolitan centres. The more isolated communities were not fully investigated.
At most, pre-schools receive a government subsidy equivalent to $4.75 per child. Children of low income parents are subsidised by the Government also. Pre-school enrolments have increased but in many cases families with low incomes, whose children attend pre-school, are not receiving subsidies from the Government. The Federal Government has provided funding for the construction of pre-schools by way of an enhancement program. That funding has amounted to $500,000, of which my electorate has received limited funds in the past seven years. This year a maximum of only $10,000 has been made available. I urge the Minister and the Government to give careful consideration to the utilisation of funds and to request additional funding from the Federal Government to assist the endeavours of the Minister for Health and Community Services. If additional funds are not made available in these harsh economic times - [Time expired.]
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse - Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism) [5.49]: The matters raised by the honourable member for Murray are obviously, for the very best of reasons, of great concern to him. I am familiar with some of the same difficulties myself in my electorate, albeit it is in a vastly different part of New South Wales. I will make sure that the matters that have been raised by the honourable member for Murray are drawn to the attention of the Minister in another place, who I am sure will do his best within the constraints of funding from the Federal Government - which, of course, has the primary responsibility in this regard.
AUBURN ELECTORATE EDUCATION
Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [5.51]: My statement relates to a matter I raised some time ago in a question upon notice about schools and technical and further education in the electorate of Auburn, which is a somewhat deprived electorate. It has the second highest unemployment rate of any area in New South Wales. Unfortunately many of my constituents are not well to do and suffer the consequences during times of economic recession. The question I put on notice was asked of the Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs, about
Page 3044
primary schools and technical and further education in my electorate. As the answers that I received were unsatisfactory, I am seeking further information about whether enrolments are increasing or decreasing, the number of teachers, the number of support and ancillary staff, composite classes, budgeting for capital works maintenance, and student and teacher ratios. The answer I received from the Minister was as follows:
To provide the detailed information requested in the members' question would impinge on the resources and time of senior department officers. As a consequence, I am not willing to move resources from the department's core responsibility to meet this request. General statistical information on the Department of School Education is available in the department's annual report.
That is not what I am after. I am after information specifically relating to my electorate. My constituents do not know why the standard of education has fallen in the electorate. They want a better teacher to student ratio. About a year ago I was told in answer to a question I asked that as the information was on computer it could be supplied easily and quickly. It would not cost a great deal for that information to be provided. Honourable members must know what is going on in their electorates with regard to education, health, and the environment. If they do not have such knowledge, they have little purpose. I note the reaction of the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism. The prisons portfolio was taken from him because he wrecked it. My constituents are hard done by so far as education is concerned.
I wish to refer also to technical and further education at the colleges at Lidcombe, Granville and Bankstown. The policy of the Government is that because the unemployment rate is so high people will be encouraged to undertake retraining. To that end TAFE courses are being made available to retrain unemployed people for new occupations. The Federal Government provides funding for this purpose also. When I asked what and how many courses were being eliminated I was informed that some were obsolete and of low priority, and others were dropped because of lack of demand. When I asked for further particulars of those courses I was informed that the college principals had prepared detailed information about those matters, which was available upon request to them. I was given the telephone numbers of the relevant colleges. Today, at 1.30 p.m., I telephoned the Lidcombe college and asked to be provided with this information. I was informed that such information was not available to members of the public and that if I wanted access to it I would have to apply under the freedom of information provisions. That is what the deputy registrar's office told a member of this Parliament. The Government should be fair dinkum. The Government knows that the answers it has provided are unsatisfactory. It has failed to provide adequate education and it has wrecked the TAFE system. It is frightened that if that information is made available to the Opposition, the public of New South Wales will be told the truth.
NATURAL LOFTUS BAKERY
Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [5.56]: I am pleased that the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism is present to hear my statement. I am sure he will be pleased to hear what I have to say. All too often in this place members talk about negative things. Tonight I want to talk about something positive. Today I attended the opening of the new Natural Loftus pie and bakery facility in Kirrawee, which is in my electorate. It was a worthwhile event. This company has grown rapidly over the years. The story of the proprietors, Mr and Mrs Spilsbury, should be told loud and clear for all to hear. As I said at the opening today, the Spilsburys have taken a positive step forward. In the present economic climate we all tend to be fairly negative, but Natural Loftus pies and cakes is being positive and has opened a new facility in Yowie Road, Kirrawee. The number of staff employed by the company has increased from 25 to 32.
Page 3045
It has just gained a new contract to provide pies and cakes to a major airline. It is, as I said, a very positive story. When I asked Mr Spilsbury about the history of the company, he said it commenced as Como Pies many years ago when he was in partnership with another gentleman at Como, which is also in my electorate. In 1979 Como Pies moved to facilities at Loftus, and was the time of the change of name to Loftus Pies. Because of further growth in 1984 the company moved to larger premises in Caringbah. Now, because the company has grown further it has taken the big step of buying its own premises at Kirrawee to accommodate the extra staff and carry out the extra business it has gained.
What I found most inspirational about today was the relationship between Kerry and Nadine Spilsbury and their staff. As Nadine said, it is like one big family. They did a very positive thing today with their staff. As a token of their appreciation, they presented gifts to all staff at this function. That was a very positive thing. Obviously the relationship between the staff and proprietors is one reason this company is such a big success. Everyone in the Sutherland Shire knows about Natural Loftus Pies and Cakes. The other important thing is that this company also does a lot of business in the wider Sydney metropolitan area. It is a shire business of which I am particularly proud. I am sure many people from the shire also would be extremely proud of the business. As I said at the outset, the positive atmosphere of today's opening augurs well for this company. I believe that Kerry and Nadine Spilsbury and their staff deserve our congratulations on their latest venture and on taking this positive step to show that, despite the recession and the bad economic climate, they are willing to take the gamble because they believe they can be even more successful than they have been in the past few years. I congratulate them.
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse - Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism) [6.1]: I wish to join with the honourable member for Sutherland in congratulating the proprietors of Natural Loftus Pies and Cakes. It is obviously a very fine small enterprise, although it would have to be said that it is now not so small an enterprise, employing 25 people who, as the honourable member pointed out, reside in the Sutherland shire. The proprietors have obviously created a great local industry which employs people and, particularly in these difficult times, employment counts for everything. The only other point that I make is that I am sure this company is typical of the sort of small business that will be able to thrive as a result of recent reforms to the industrial relations legislation. When this company talks of its family, it is talking of its staff. That is precisely the sort of sentiment that drives the industrial relations legislation that this Government battled long and hard to put in place.
Private members' statements noted.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Chappell) left the chair at 6.3 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]
LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE
Matter of Public Importance
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [7.30]: I endorse the comments of my colleagues the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Fairfield on this matter of public importance. Most of the people affected by the outbreak of Legionnaire's disease live within the boundaries of the Fairfield electorate. However, I made inquiries
Page 3046
today and was told that three people affected by the disease live in the Smithfield electorate but that none of those who, unfortunately, died from the effects of the disease live in that electorate. I extend my condolences to the families of those unfortunate victims. I extend my best wishes for a speedy recovery to those who are continuing to suffer the symptoms of Legionnaire's disease. The regulations to come into force on 18th May primarily will place an onus on building owners to maintain an operational logbook, to have machinery serviced on a monthly basis, and every quarter to have their equipment drained, cleansed and re-dosed with chemicals. Though concern has been expressed about the unfortunate delay, I welcome the introduction of those regulations. Had the outbreak not occurred perhaps I would not be commenting that the regulations are coming into force 18 months after the enactment of the Public Health Act in September, 1990.
The outbreak of Legionnaire's disease is a major concern to the people of southwestern Sydney and affects the basic right of citizens to enter shopping centres and pursue their daily business activities without fear of being struck down with illness or death. Government has a duty to provide a regulatory mechanism and bureaucratic framework to facilitate that basic right of citizens to pursue their daily activities without fear of the risk of a major public health catastrophe. Legionnaire's disease, if not dealt with properly, has the potential to be a major health catastrophe, and the residents of southwestern Sydney regard it as such. The regulations to come into force on 18th May have serious defects. First, the regulations will require samples to be taken at council cost. Councils have said that samples should be taken at the cost of owners, not of councils. The Minister should consider changing the regulations to place that cost on building owners. Second, the regulations, as I understand them, will empower councils to undertake random inspections but place no obligation on councils to carry them out. If that is so, the regulations should be amended to impose a duty on councils to ensure that they undertake random inspections from time to time.
I have been informed that up to 18 months ago the Department of Health, through its division of analytical laboratories, allowed Fairfield City Council to submit samples for microbiological testing from time to time. Eighteen months ago that facility was cut off and the Department of Health told councils they had to pay if they sent those samples for analysis. I am informed that the sampling and testing process is extremely expensive and that Fairfield council opted, unfortunately, not to proceed further with it. I am disappointed that the council, which had been taking four to six random samples per month, opted not to continue with the sampling, but that is really the responsibility of the Department of Health. The department cannot abdicate its responsibilities to the people of southwestern Sydney. The Minister is shaking his head. This information was provided to me. If I am wrong, I would like to hear from the Minister. If what I have said is correct, it is most unfortunate and the decision should be reversed. If random sampling had been continued, Legionnaire's disease may well have been found and diagnosed in this particular locality in Fairfield. Some of the people who have been affected might not have fallen ill, and some of those who have died might have survived.
Mrs COHEN (Badgerys Creek - Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services) [7.35]: Honourable members have made several points about Legionnaire's disease in their contributions to debate on this matter of public importance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition criticised the length of time taken to diagnose the disease, the information given to general practitioners, and the obligations of councils to act in relation to water cooling towers. The honourable member for Smithfield said that Fairfield council found random sampling to be too expensive. I inform the honourable member that Wollongong council has instituted a charge of $120 to be levied on building owners. That council has recorded an excellent register of water cooling towers in its
Page 3047
area. Councils should not consider the testing procedures to be too expensive when the lives of people living in their region are at risk. I was disturbed to hear criticism of the Department of Health on public health issues and Legionnaire's disease in particular. That newly discovered disease was first diagnosed in America in 1976. The disease is difficult to diagnose and takes the form of an atypical pneumonia, of which there are many different types. The fact that a number of Legionnaire's disease cases may be brewing in the community is difficult to pinpoint. The disease is recognised as a serious problem when a cluster of cases are reported, and the diagnosis must be that of Legionnaire's disease and not atypical pneumonia.
General practitioners in their surgeries quickly recognise when more than the usual number of such cases are occurring and are used to contacting the Department of Health if they fear an epidemic. However, I have spoken to a chest specialist in my area who said that the legionella organism, though usually spread through large water-cooled airconditioning units, may be sprayed into open areas. That makes it difficult for the Department of Health to trace which building or buildings house the disease. In addition, it is difficult to trace people who may have the disease. Criticism of the Department of Health in that regard is grossly unfair. The department was criticised also for having done nothing about Legionnaire's disease since 1986. I have in front of me a record of the work done by the New South Wales Department of Health on Legionnaire's disease from 1987 to the present time - a list of 29 different actions taken and research work done. New South Wales probably leads Australia and the Pacific region in its work on this disease. Fairfield council should understand that it has had responsibility since October last year to list the buildings in its area that have at-risk air-conditioning units. Councils do not have to wait until the expiration of six months. The fine for any owner who has failed to keep his units clean is $1,000. However, if the case goes to court, the owner of a building with a very dangerous air-conditioning unit that has not been properly disinfected and checked can be fined $10,000 and imprisoned for 12 months.
I commend the Department of Health on its very rapid action. Given that I live in the area involved I also commend the department on the way it kept in touch with the community. Its representatives spoke on radio and through other media outlets. They met with all councils in the region three days after the outbreak to discuss the problem. Dr Sue Morey spoke on the radio every day to keep the public informed. It is difficult to diagnose this disease and it is difficult to determine when a cluster of the disease breaks out in contrast to the five or six cases a year that go through every hospital. Legionnaire's disease often presents as an atypical pneumonia and is not diagnosed. I am sad that honourable members opposite, particularly those from my region, have used the Department of Health for political purposes.
Mr Scully: That is outrageous.
Mrs COHEN: Yes, it is outrageous. This is a disease that people very much fear. The last thing people need to be told when there is an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease is that the department that is -
Mr Scully: It is our job to speak up.
Mrs COHEN: Speak up? The department has spent the whole time notifying people and keeping them in touch. I do not think it behoves any of us to increase the fear of the unknown in the people in my community. [Time expired.]
Page 3048
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.40], in reply: I thank all members who have participated for the information they have brought to the debate. At the outset I said the purpose of the debate was to ask questions that have been on the minds of many people who have been looking at the issue to see whether we can improve our response to an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease and other infectious diseases. Much of the information brought forward has come from people who beforehand had little or no knowledge of Legionnaire's disease. This debate has served a useful purpose in letting us know a little more than when the outbreak occurred. However, a number of things are worth encapsulating in my reply. First, in relation to notification, the Minister through his lack of response probably indicates that there is potential for improvement. This matter was raised by my colleagues, in particular the honourable member for Fairfield and the honourable member for Smithfield, and in passing by the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services and the honourable member for Manly.
I refer now to the early diagnosis of the disease. The Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services indicated that general practitioners are very good at diagnosing this disease and picking it up early. I do not think general practitioners have diagnosed any cases of Legionnaire's disease of late, probably close on never. But one would hope there will be an increase in the perspicacity of general practitioners. In the debate on the Public Health Bill the point was made that the decision on the diagnosis of Legionnaire's disease does not have to await the results of bacteriological or serological diagnostic tests. The Minister suggested that we did not know because the results of the tests took time. Having the odd notification requirement for the disease caused unjustifiable delay.
Mr Phillips: They did not wait that long.
Dr REFSHAUGE: The Minister said that we did not know of the disease outbreak until there was diagnostic confirmation.
Mr Phillips: No, it was identified from the 17 atypical pneumonia cases. There is a difference between an epidemic and identifying cases.
Dr REFSHAUGE: The information I have from departmental officers was that the bacteriological results were needed. That is probably the proof. But it is not the spirit of the Public Health Act. We should focus on the diagnostic abilities of doctors. I am not trying to blame doctors and say that they are poor doctors.
Mr Schultz: You should learn to tell the truth instead of manipulating it.
Dr REFSHAUGE: If the honourable member for Burrinjuck would like to participate in this debate in a constructive way, I would be happy to answer his interjections but the inanities he is introducing are bringing this debate down to the level of his own sewer line. Early diagnosis is an important part of ensuring that spread of the disease is limited as quickly as possible. In this instance I believe that the early cases of atypical pneumonia were not just a few isolated cases but a cluster. It did not require 17 cases in a cluster to determine that there was a problem with this atypical pneumonia. I strongly emphasise that I am not blaming any doctor. I have been out there: I know how difficult it is. It is difficult enough to pick atypical pneumonia anyway. This was why the Department of Health told me that there should be a provision in the Act to use clinical acumen and not the pathological notification. I saw the wisdom of that point of view. I am not trying to lay blame but I would have thought that a government and a
Page 3049
department so strongly pushing that point of view would have gone a step further and said to doctors, after two outbreaks of legionnella, that they should be vigilant in trying to detect an outbreak from the clinical signs. I am not saying that if this had been done, any one who did not survive would have survived or that people would not have caught the disease. However, I think emphasis should be placed on this approach. I have no complaints about the action that was taken once the department was notified. I have personal knowledge of the people directly involved and I have much time for and confidence in them.
It is worth restating that the delay in introducing the regulations was unfortunate and that I believe it could have been done faster. But it is not as if we needed to have the legislation passed. It was well known that there was no opposition from this side of the House in relation to taking action against Legionnaire's disease. Our opposition to certain provisions in the Public Health Act did not concern Legionnaire's disease. We had been on record for many years praising the way in which the department had handled previous Legionnaire's outbreaks. I believe there has been tardiness. Whether faster action would have made any difference is a matter of conjecture. But in future we should not hold up action by delaying regulations. I do not say that only this Government has done that; our Government delayed in bringing in regulations. But I put on record that this problem should be re-examined.
An area which has not been answered concerns local general practitioners. I regularly saw officers of the local area health service talking on television about what was happening. They probably spoke on radio and to the newspapers. That is their job. But I believe they should have been in direct contact - whether by mail, fax or whatever is the fastest way it could have been done - with local general practitioners in the area, the front line people who would have to advise a whole range of people on what they should do about going shopping and going to work. An enormous number of people asked for advice. Many kids did not go to work. Should they have gone or not? We should have at least worked out appropriate advice to give them. Different doctors would give different advice. Again, that is not to blame the doctors. The department has responsibility to give the most up-to-date, effective and, as much as possible, definitive information to general practitioners so they can give appropriate advice to persons affected by the disease. Should we be giving erythromycin prophylactically to people working in the Fairfield shopping centre? A lot of doctors would do that. It would not necessarily send the country broke but it is not good to over-prescribe erythromycin. That is the sort of thing general practitioners should have been given constructive information on at an early stage.
There was comment about whether regulations would work. One public health expert candidly told me that even if the regulations had been in place it would not have made any difference. That is of some concern. It implies that the regulations will not be adhered to. It is worth while monitoring whether regulations are being adhered to, and, if they are not, how we can improve matters so that they are adhered to. This is a valid point. The suggestion I made earlier may not be the appropriate way to go, but I am throwing it into the melting pot of ideas to question whether there is some way to ensure that self-regulation, which I agree is probably the most appropriate front-line strategy, can be at least overseen so it can be effectively enforced. In conclusion I should like to address the allegation that the Opposition is playing politics in relation to this matter. The Minister has implied that because I put this motion on notice for yesterday -
Mr Phillips: No; because you went public.
Page 3050
Dr REFSHAUGE: No. Because I put the motion on notice for yesterday and I spoke publicly this morning, it was alleged that I was raising the matter before the outbreak had been officially declared over. That is not true. I did not speak about this matter until the department had officially determined that this outbreak was over. As the Minister said, it is important not to use any scaremongering during an episode such as this, or in any natural disaster. The appropriate authorities do their best, as they should do. In cases of obvious negligence or gross negligence or gross maladministration we need to step in. It is important to allow that approach, which the Opposition has generally supported, to run its course but then, as soon as possible, raise the matters that I or others believe could be improved. That will ensure that we are not merely saying, "They do a great job because they are all great people". Many of them are great people and they do a great job but it is up to us to oversee that and ensure that things are improved. [Time expired.]
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION AND FEES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads) [7.52]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The objective of the bill is to continue the Government's commitment to remove cross-subsidisation between government departments and authorities. At present when State Government owned vehicles are registered, they are exempt from both the motor vehicle tax or weight tax and registration fee components. The bill provides for the abolition of the exemptions with effect from the 1992-93 financial year. The key benefits of the proposal are in accordance with the user-pays principle. If the Government is to achieve improvements in productivity and efficiency and identify the true costs of government programs, the principle of user-pays should be applied across all public sector activities. As mentioned earlier it is consistent with the removal of cross-subsidisation between government bodies. It will enable the true costs of operating government vehicle fleets to be identified. This will in turn encourage a review of vehicle needs generally within the public sector. Most importantly, it will provide an additional $9.5 million in weight tax for the State's roads program.
The additional weight tax raised will be appropriated annually to the Roads and Traffic Authority fund for that purpose. This is consistent with the Government's treatment of existing motor vehicle taxes and the State's fuel levies. Revenue from registration fees, which will be approximately $1.3 million, will be paid to the Consolidated Fund for appropriation to government services generally. The basic principle of motor vehicle taxation recognises that vehicles using the road system should contribute towards the costs of road maintenance and rehabilitation. The rationale for the existing government exemptions is no longer relevant, nor is it consistent with this Government's objectives. There is increasing attention being given to the efficiency and effectiveness of operations in the public sector. Hidden subsidies such as exemptions from weight tax and registration charges hinder this process.
Page 3051
The proposed changes to the existing legislation will ensure that State government departments and authorities are more accountable for their vehicle operations and contribute towards the costs of road enhancement and maintenance. The existing specific exemptions for State owned ambulances, mine rescue vehicles and fire-fighting vehicles are also to be eliminated. However, the current legislation provides for a number of specific exemptions and concessions for primary producers, welfare categories, mobile plant, trailers and tow trucks and these concessions will continue to apply. For example fire engines would be classified as mobile plant and would therefore be eligible for the appropriate concession. In this case they would pay only 12 per cent of the weight tax charge.
Similarly, all government agencies will be eligible for the majority of these concessions where they are relevant. There will be no direct financial impact on the family as a result of the legislation, nor will it create any additional costs for business. The financial impact on government agencies will be relatively small in the context of their total budgets. This, together with improved efficiency and productivity, should avoid the need for significant reductions in the quality of services. The whole community will benefit from the enhancement, rehabilitation and increased maintenance of the road network that the additional taxation revenue will facilitate. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Langton.
BAIL (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts) [7.57]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Bail (Amendment) Bill is a response to the decision in the case of Regina v. Masters, Richards and Wunderlich delivered by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 6th April. In that case the three accused persons appeared before the District Court charged with conspiring to supply a commercial quantity of cannabis leaf. This is an offence to which section 8A of the Bail Act applies. Therefore there was a presumption against bail. Upon appeal against conviction, the circumstances of the appellant Richards raised questions about the operation of part 6 of the Bail Act, which relates to review of bail decision. Richards had been committed to trial to the District Court on the conspiracy charge and was later granted bail by the Supreme Court. While on bail he was arrested in South Australia for other drug offences in respect of which he made admissions and was granted bail in that State. In view of these offences, the New South Wales Crown applied to the District Court for revocation of the bail granted by the Supreme Court. Because of the likelihood of Richards committing further offences, the District Court revoked the Supreme Court bail and then refused bail. The Court of Criminal Appeal later ruled that the District Court had no power to revoke the bail granted by the Supreme Court.
Section 28 of the Bail Act allows the Supreme Court to grant bail to any person accused of any offence, even when he or she is appearing before another court such as the Local Court or District Court in respect of the offence. The Chief Judge of the
Page 3052
District Court has informed me that prior to the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision in Regina v. Masters, Richards and Wunderlich, it was assumed that a District Court judge conducting the trial of an accused person who had previously been given bail by a Supreme Court judge had effective jurisdiction over the accused person and could make fresh orders for bail, whether altering the bail or revoking it. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal has now decided that the District Court has no such power. The effect of the Court of Criminal Appeal decision is that where the Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused person at any stage of criminal proceedings, the lower court before which the proceedings are actually being determined has no power to vary or revoke that Supreme Court bail. Only the Supreme Court can vary or revoke its bail decision. A problem will occur when fresh facts or circumstances arise after the Supreme Court's bail decision which will justify variation or refusal of bail by the lower court which is dealing with the accused person. An example would be where a person given bail by the Supreme Court in respect of an offence is later convicted of that offence in the District Court and faces a custodial sentence.
The sentencing judge would properly wish to adjourn sentencing for the purpose of obtaining a pre-sentence report. However, the District Court has no power to revoke the Supreme Court bail and refuse bail in the interim. Therefore, the convicted person is free to abscond. In theory the Crown could apply to the Supreme Court for revocation of its bail, but this involves delay, and meanwhile the convicted person walks free. The Court of Criminal Appeal in its decision in the case I mentioned, Regina v. Masters, Richards and Wunderlich, said, "Such a situation is absurd". In the Government's view it is more than absurd, it is dangerous. The Court of Criminal Appeal went on to suggest that part 6 of the Bail Act should be amended to permit a District Court judge, and possible also a magistrate of the Local Court to review a previous bail determination by the Supreme Court relating to a person actually appearing before him or her for trial or sentence, where the judge or magistrate is satisfied that special facts or special circumstances justify such a review.
This suggestion has formed the basis of the amendment proposed by the bill. The Government has included in the bill provisions which will also give the power of review to the Land and Environment Court and the Industrial Court as criminal proceedings before those courts may also be affected by bail decisions made by the Supreme Court. Importantly, the power of review may be used at any stage of criminal proceedings, not only during trial or when considering sentence. There are two reasons for this: special facts or special circumstances which would justify review of bail might arise at any time. Second, it is appropriate that the power of review should also apply to committal proceedings. The Government recognises the superior status of the Supreme Court in relation to bail decisions and wishes to preserve that court's power to review any bail decision made by any court. The bill does not restrict that power. A person dissatisfied with a lower court's use of the power of review will still be able to apply to the Supreme Court for review of that decision. What the bill does is protect the community by allowing lower courts to refuse bail or impose stricter conditions on bail when the situation requires it, notwithstanding that an accused person has, during an earlier stage of proceedings, been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
Very soon I will announce something which I know is of interest to many members of this House, that is, an extensive review of the Bail Act. A discussion paper should be available within the next week for circulation and wide promulgation in the community so that in the case of honourable members who frequently have bail matters referred to them for consideration, which eventually arrive on my desk, those matters might be reviewed comprehensively. Indeed, I would invite all honourable members to
Page 3053
look back through their files, at complaints they have received from constituents regarding bail applications, leniency or stringency of bail, so that, when the discussion paper becomes available, they will be able to participate in that review. The particular amendment which I am now introducing relates to a very specific purpose and is a matter of the utmost urgency, a matter which has been drawn to my attention by the Chief Judge of the District Court. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts) [8.4]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill represents an important social reform. Its purpose is to create a permanent register of stillbirths; to provide for the formal recognition of a child who is stillborn by providing for the issue of a certificate in relation to the child; and to amend the definition of a stillborn child to accord with the definition used for medical purposes. The substance of these amendments was contained in recommendations by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its report, "Names - Registration and Certification of Births and Deaths", published in December 1988. Currently the Act obliges the Principal Registrar to register stillbirths, but the manner of registration is discretionary. The existing practice is to include the birth in the Birth Register Index with a notation of stillbirth. This so-called "stillbirth" register is not a permanent public record. It consists of all relevant documents lodged, forms of registration of birth and of death, medical certificate of course of perinatal death, which are kept in alphabetical order at the Sydney Registry, and in notebook form in local registries.
No birth or death certificate is issued, but an acknowledgment of notification of a stillbirth may be sent to parents on request. The Act states that records may be cancelled or destroyed after two years but current registry practice is to retain records for five years. The reason for this policy lies in the fact that the compulsory registration of stillbirths commenced in this State in 1934 to enable reliable data to be collected for medical research into perinatal death. For the purposes of the Act, the child was deemed to have been born alive and to have subsequently died. The administrative purpose of registration does not recognise any function to cater for the needs of the public. However, there is no real reason why the registration system should not serve a dual function, as it does in all other cases. Quite understandably, a great deal of dissatisfaction about the current practice has been expressed by the parents of stillborn children who have an important personal need and a desire for the formal recognition of the birth of their child. In its report, the Law Reform Commission noted that it had received submissions from medical and social work professionals which supported this view.
The argument that the appropriate recognition of the loss of an expected child helps parents in the grieving process was also put to the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales in a submission by the Stillbirth and Neo-natal Death Support Group, known as SANDS, whose important work in this area is well known. I am advised that
Page 3054
representatives of SANDS intended to be in the gallery today to witness the introduction of this legislation, which is of special significance to them, and I certainly pay due acknowledgment to their efforts. The amendments contained in schedule 1 of the bill remove the distinction between the official recognition of a child who is stillborn and a child born alive. The register of stillbirths will be kept in the same way as the register of births, and will be permanent. The register will not be public, but a certified copy or extract of the information entered on the register will be available according to the same policies as are now applied to the registers of birth. Thus parents and siblings will be able to request a certificate of stillbirth registration.
The bill also amends the definition of stillborn child so that it is consistent with the medical definition, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission. The present definition in the Act refers to a child "who did not breathe after delivery". The medical statistical definition is "whose heart did not beat" after delivery. Apart from this, both definitions refer to a child who is of at least 20 weeks gestation or at least 400 grams weight at delivery. In its report, the Law Reform Commission noted that the definition for registration purposes has altered, over time, to reflect changes in the medical view of viability of children at birth. It is clear that the purposes of registration relating to the collection of medical statistics and medical research will be better served by incorporating the medical criterion in the definition. At the same time, the needs of parents of a stillborn child will still be met. Consequential amendments are made to certain provisions of the Act to achieve conformity between the registration of stillbirths and the registration of births.
Importantly, a provision is included in the bill so that a stillbirth registered before the enactment of the bill will be treated as having been registered under the amended provisions, so that, for example, parents will be entitled to obtain a certificate of registration. It is not without some irony that I introduce this piece of legislation when, approximately half an hour ago, I was advised of the death this morning of the baby born to my step-sister yesterday in Brisbane. I can well understand the grief felt by parents in that situation, and by grandparents - indeed, by whole families. I have no doubt that the introduction of this particular piece of legislation will help to provide some emotional support for people caught in that very difficult situation. I believe these positive reforms will have general support and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.
CONSUMER CLAIMS TRIBUNALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts) [8.10]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Consumer Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act 1987 to promote greater efficiency and accountability in the operation of the tribunals and to rectify certain deficiencies in the wording of the Act. The consumer claims tribunals in New South Wales were established in 1974. Their purpose was to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between consumers and traders in the
Page 3055
quickest, cheapest and least formal manner possible. This is achieved by restricting legal representation and appeals, prohibiting both debt recovery action by traders and the awarding of costs, and by waiving rules of evidence. The tribunals help to alleviate pressure on the court system and offer a service which allows referees to mediate in the settlement of a claim before handing down an order. The range of orders possible is wider than that available in the courts.
Since 1974 the Act has been amended and it was revised in 1987. The former narrow definition of consumer claim has been broadened so that small traders - suppliers of goods and services - may be claimants in respect of their consumer purchases. The monetary jurisdiction is now $6,000. This will rise to $10,000 to keep pace with present day costs of goods and services. Disputes which may be heard before tribunals relate to such issues as faulty goods, unsatisfactory professional and trade services, insurance claims and various disputes with disabilities. In 1989 the building disputes tribunals were set up to provide a specialist building disputes jurisdiction. They operate within the organisation of the consumer claims tribunals. The amendments before the House will apply equally to the building disputes tribunals, with certain minor changes being made to cater for their specific requirements. The need for the present amendments was established during a review of the tribunal system carried out by consultants Peat Marwick Hungerfords and the law firm Clayton Utz. This was followed by release of a discussion paper and the call for submissions from the public. The level of satisfaction with the operation of the tribunals appears to be high and the present amendments are not a departure from their basic philosophy. They are more in the nature of a tidying up in order to improve the functioning of the system.
The principal changes lie in the areas of extension of consumer, clarification of the procedure for lodging claims, provision of written reasons for orders, limited award of costs, and the imposition of interest on unsatisfied orders. An extension of the jurisdiction of the tribunals is proposed to include public companies limited by guarantee. The present Act already allows use of the tribunals by certain classes of company: exempt proprietary companies; bodies corporate under strata titles legislation; and a company that owns an interest in land, and has a memorandum of articles of association conferring on each owner of shares in the company various rights. At present the lodgment of claims by all other types of company is ruled out. A case has been made for the inclusion of public companies limited by guarantee. These are public companies which, although classified public, are not listed on the stock exchange and do not have a share capital. Members of such companies guarantee on joining to pay a certain sum of money in the event of the company being wound up. Such companies are usually sporting or social clubs and their profits must be put back into the club or distributed to members. This extension of the jurisdiction is seen as a matter of equity.
It is anticipated that it will be used only by smaller bodies and that the larger and more affluent groups will continue to use lawyers rather than the tribunal. The clarification of the lodgment procedures for claims is a further move towards administrative efficiency. Because there are a number of places, such as regional offices of the Department of Consumer Affairs, where regional tribunal claims can be lodged and there are a number of staff who deal with the process, it is important to specify the point in time at which a claim is formally lodged. This became an issue because of a legal dispute which arose over which lodgment had precedence, when claims were lodged both in the Local Court and the tribunal by opposing parties. Items (10) and (11) of the bill relate to the provision to clients of the tribunals of written reasons for referees' decisions. At present there is no obligation on referees to provide either verbal or written reasons, although it is customary for referees to give oral reasons to justify their decisions. The
Page 3056
intent is to require referees to record and furnish brief reasons for their decisions, such record to be available to clients on payment of a fee and on lodgment of an application within a set period.
To date, tribunals have had no power to award costs. The proposed amendment represents a slight relaxation of this position for two particular situations. The first concerns the obtaining of expert advice or evidence. The situation may arise where, for example, there is a need to conduct tests to prove certain classes of claim, such as those involving dental work or dry cleaning. At present some clients organise tests of their own volition, and their own cost, and there is no reason why this should not continue. However, in cases where such tests are necessary and there is no prior action by the parties, the tribunal may award costs for reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining that advice or evidence. The other situation is the need to deter the lodgment of frivolous or vexatious claims, or the failure of a party to attend a hearing or rehearing unless the tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient reason for the party to attend. Though these are not common occurrences, it is appropriate that referees have the means at their disposal to deal with and deter such behaviour. A maximum daily attendance rate will be prescribed to limit such costs.
The mechanism to enforce compliance with tribunal orders has been improved. Clients have to seek satisfaction of overdue monetary orders through the Local Court. This additional step strengthens the process and gives a financial advantage to slow payers. The amendment will allow the interest component of an unsatisfied order to run from the time of lodgment in court rather than 21 days later. This arrangement should encourage more prompt settlement of such debts. Further minor changes have been made to clarify certain parts of the Act. The definition of goods has been expanded to specifically exclude real property, and the section concerning the finality of a tribunal order has been reworded to indicate the possibility of renewal of claims and of appeals to superior courts on the grounds of denial of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. In short, the bill contains a package of measures which are intended to eliminate problems of interpretation that have arisen. We seek to make the Act more accessible to the public, while increasing the effectiveness and accountability of tribunals. These changes should enhance the operation of a service which already has a significant reputation in our community for providing excellent service at low cost for resolution of issues that perplex many consumers. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.
COAL INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr YABSLEY (Vaucluse - Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism) [8.18]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The object of this bill is to amend the Coal Industry Act 1946 to give effect to an agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments to restructure the Joint Coal Board; to remove certain of its regulatory function; and to modernise its financial arrangement.
Page 3057
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! I call the member for Ashfield to order. The Minister for State Development has the call. The Minister will continue his second reading speech.
[Interruption]
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism to order. I call the member for Ashfield to order for the second time.
Mr YABSLEY: The Federal Government will be introducing its parallel bill to the Commonwealth Parliament during the current parliamentary session. The Joint Coal Board was established in 1947 under the parallel Commonwealth and New South Wales Coal Industry Act to provide means for securing and maintaining adequate supplies of coal throughout Australia and for overseas trade; the regulation and improvement of the New South Wales coal industry; and other matters relating to the production, supply and distribution of coal. The board was given extensive powers over industry development, mining, employment and marketing, consistent with what was considered appropriate for the post-war period. Since then, the industry has changed many ways, and many of the board's powers have long been unnecessary and unused.
The transformations brought about by market changes and developments in technology are illustrated by some comparative statistics. In 1948-49, total production of coal in New South Wales was 12 million tonnes. In 1990-91 the figure was 80 million tonnes. In 1948-49, exports overseas totalled 33,000 tonnes compared with 51 million tonnes last financial year. In 1948-49, New South Wales electricity generation and metallurgical industries consumed 4.5 million tonnes - 38 per cent of State consumption - and rail transport 1.5 million tonnes. By 1990-91, the former accounted for well over 95 per cent of the State's consumption - a total of 27.5 million tonnes. Productivity, too, has increased dramatically, for many reasons, including technology and industrial relations. In 1948-49, output of raw coal per man-shift from underground mines was 3 tonnes, compared with 17 tonnes last year. Productivity is now expressed in output per employee per hour or per year.
In October 1990, the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments engaged Mr Bryan Kelman to undertake an independent review of the powers, functions and activities of the board. Based on Mr Kelman's review and subsequent consultations with industry parties and the United Mineworkers Federation of Australia, both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments agreed that the board's functions and activities would be rationalised and refocused to concentrate on those areas where it has demonstrated a record of performance. The decision to refocus the board's powers and role in the industry will remove unnecessary duplication of functions between the board and the Department of Mineral Resources.
The bill provides for the board to continue its powers, functions and activities in the following areas: the administration of the coal industry workers' compensation scheme; the provision of coalminers' occupational health and rehabilitation services, including the provision of preventative medical services, monitoring workers' health and investigating related health matters; the authority to require mine owners to do things, or refrain from doing things, to protect workers' health; the promotion of the welfare of current and former workers in the industry, their families and communities in coal mining areas; the collection, collation and dissemination of accident and other statistics related to the health and welfare of workers engaged in the coal industry; the provision of advice
Page 3058
and information to Ministers and others on coalminers' health and welfare; the referring matters of safety to the Chief Inspector of Coal Mines or to Ministers; the provision of international training-education courses in coal under the auspices of the Australian aid program and international development agencies; and the collection of industry statistics until such time as both the Commonwealth and State Ministers otherwise direct.
The board will also continue to monitor, promote and specify adequate training standards relating to health and safety for mineworkers until such time as effective alternative arrangements are operating to the satisfaction of portfolio Ministers. Both Governments have recognised the very valuable work the board has done in relation to coalminers' health and welfare. The board will therefore continue to monitor dust levels in mines until the industry parties can satisfy Ministers with portfolio responsibility that there are suitable and effective alternative arrangements which may warrant a transfer of this function. The effect of the bill is to remove unnecessary duplication of functions between the board and the State Government and to bring to an end the board's powers, functions and activities in a number of areas, namely: control over the rate of development of the coal industry in New South Wales, particularly attempts to match supply and demand; and coal resource utilisation, mining, marketing and management issues within the State. Future board membership will formalise the current arrangement, which is an independent chairperson, an employees' representative and an employers' representative. However, the terms of appointment will be changed. The Act provides for a maximum term of appointment of seven years on a full-time basis for all board members. The bill will amend this to a maximum of three years on either a full-time or part-time basis. As it stands now, policy direction to the board can only be issued from the Prime Minister in agreement with the Premier. The bill will place the board under the direct control of the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers. Provisions have been made in the bill to improve the board's standards of accountability in line with contemporary practice.
From 1992-93, the board will become largely self-funding for its continuing operations. The workers' compensation insurance, health, and welfare activities will be funded from existing resources accumulated by the board and from future premium and other income. The other functions will be operated on a cost recovery basis. In 1991-92, the New South Wales share for the board's operations is $2.271 million. This includes funding for the Coal Industry Tribunal which has previously been provided through the board. Funding for the Coal Industry Tribunal will continue, and is estimated at $570,000 for 1992-93. The reforms to the Joint Coal Board embodied in this bill will ensure continuation of its high standard of delivery of services to employees in the New South Wales coal industry. The health and welfare of industry employees will in no way be compromised by this reform. Both governments believe that the elimination of overlap with State activities and bringing the operations of the board into sharper focus will assist the efficient operation of the State's most import export industry. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr McBride.
STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Mr Whelan: On the question of leave, I indicate - not to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier, but to the Minister who previously spoke, the Minister for State Development and Minister for Tourism - that in
Page 3059
future leave will not be granted unless speeches are made available to the Opposition. There are courtesies and traditions that apply. Ministers have been asked to supply speeches, and all we require is a copy of them - nothing more. Leave is granted on this occasion to enable the Minister to make his speech. He is a very courteous Minister. If Ministers do not supply the Opposition with copies of their speeches, we will not grant leave.
Second Reading
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier) [8.29], on behalf of Mr Greiner: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Stamp Duties Bill now before the House ensures that loan security duty is payable where loan securities are transferred between lenders at the instigation of the borrower; simplifies the payment of the fee on cancelled agreements; allows agreements which have been varied to be stamped at the final purchase price; clarifies the provisions relating to loan securities which are used to secure bill facilities; exempts from stamp duty conveyances pursuant to separation agreements as defined in the De Facto Relationships Act; tightens the trust provisions to ensure that ad valorem duty is paid at least once on the original trust property or the re-investment of that property; provides the Chief Commissioner with the authority to refund stamp duty under certain conditions; relaxes the requirements to obtain concessional rates of duty on conveyances of property to trustees; provides a concession where shares are transferred to trustees; exempts from conveyance and loan security duty community tenancy scheme tenants who purchase their own home; exempts from duty any additional loan security taken out to further secure the obligations of first home purchase participants, community tenancy scheme tenants and Department of Housing tenants; provides for relocatable home sites to be granted the same concession as residential leases; provides for the refund of stamp duty paid on a motor vehicle certificate of registration where the vehicle has been previously stolen prior to purchase and is repossessed; provides for the stamping of a document by the Chief Commissioner to be regarded as an assessment; and makes a number of other miscellaneous amendments.
The Stamp Duties Act currently provides that where agreements are rescinded or annulled the ad valorem duty payable on the document is to be refunded less a fee of $25. However, agreements are often rescinded before they are lodged for stamping as there is a two-month period after the date of signing when an agreement may be stamped without penalty. The process of having taxpayers pay the stamp duty on an agreement in the above circumstances and subsequently receive a refund, less the administration fee, is inequitable and onerous. The bill will allow for agreements which are rescinded or annulled within two months of signing and which have not been stamped to be chargeable only with the administration fee of $25, subject to the lodgment of satisfactory evidence as to cancellation. At present, the Stamp Duties Act provides that stamp duty is assessed on documents in the form in which they are first executed. Where there is an instrument of variation increasing the purchase price, stamp duty is payable on the higher amount but, where there is an instrument reducing the purchase price, the duty is still payable on the initial purchase price. This practice is inequitable and the bill will provide that prior to settlement an agreement may be stamped with duty calculated on its final purchase price where there is an instrument of variation reducing the initial purchase price.
Page 3060
Under current legislation, conveyances of property made in accordance with a court order under the De Facto Relationships Act are exempt from stamp duty. However, couples terminating their de facto relationship who choose to enter into a separation agreement, as provided for in the De Facto Relationship Act, rather than obtain a court order, are not eligible for exemption from stamp duty. This is inequitable as couples entering into a separation agreement usually choose this option to settle their affairs as it is considerably less expensive than obtaining a court order. The bill will provide for an exemption from stamp duty on a separation agreement, and any documents pursuant to it, when evidence is produced to indicate that the parties to the de facto relationship have terminated that relationship at least three months prior to the lodgment of the documents for stamping. This amendment will bring the provisions relating to the transfer of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship more into line with those relating to marriage breakups while at the same time ensuring that separation agreements are not used to convey property when no termination of the relationship is contemplated.
Under the current provisions, nominal duty is assessed in respect of an instrument of appointment in favour of persons specially named or described as the objects of a power of appointment contained in a conveyance, on which ad valorem duty has been paid, or in a will. This concession should only apply where ad valorem duty has been paid on the conveyance establishing the trust or power and that property, or a direct re-investment of the proceeds, is being conveyed to the appointee or beneficiary. As an anti-avoidance measure, the bill amends the trust provisions of the Act to ensure that ad valorem duty is paid at least once on the original trust property or the re-investment of that property. The Crown Solicitor has advised that the refund provisions for overpaid stamp duty require clarification. Furthermore, the Crown Solicitor has suggested that the provisions for objections to assessments need strengthening to provide an explicit authority for any refund necessary following a decision on an objection.
In order to ensure that all refunds from stamp duty can be properly made, the Stamp Duties Act is being amended to provide the Chief Commissioner with authority to refund overpayments of duty within two years of payment, subject to a discretion in respect of duty paid by a taxpayer and then passed on to its customer and to provide that a refund shall only be made if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that the customer who ultimately paid the duty will receive the refund. It will provide the Chief Commissioner with authority to appropriate duty where duty has been overpaid on one transaction and underpaid on another. It will provide the Chief Commissioner with authority to reassess the duty payable within two years of the date of the original assessment. It will provide for amendment to the objection provisions to provide an authority for any refund necessary following a decision on an objection. It will provide that no refund should be payable if the assessment or return payment was made in accordance with the Chief Commissioner's interpretation of the Stamp Duties Act at the time of the assessment or return payment.
Bill facility arrangements are frequently used for providing financial accommodation to large borrowers and a financier will accept or endorse a bill of exchange for a customer to facilitate a sale of the bill to a third party. A loan security instrument is given to protect the exposure of the financier. There has been some argument that the current bill facility definition is deficient and does not encompass the types of transactions for which it was originally intended. The bill amends these provisions to clarify where duty is payable and ensure that there is no revenue leakage due to varying interpretations of the Act. Loan security duty is payable by the borrower
Page 3061
on advances of funds made under or secured by instruments such as mortgages and company charges. As a general rule, when a borrower refinances through another lender, the borrower will give that lender a new mortgage and ad valorem duty is payable on the amount advanced by the new lender. However, there are a number of different methods used in the practice of refinancing which result in differing levels of stamp duty liability. Because of this and the potential for loss of revenue, the bill will amend the principal Act to ensure that loan security duty will be payable except where the transaction is instigated by the lender. The current exemption provisions in respect of refinancing by primary producers will not be affected by this amendment.
In 1982 the Stamp Duties Act was amended to prevent the widespread avoidance of conveyance duty through the use of trusts and creative conveyancing practices. These amendments have been effective in controlling avoidance practices, however, they have placed restrictions on transfers to new or additional trustees particularly where non-profit organisations or clubs are involved. The current provisions require that, in order to attract nominal duty, conveyances reflecting changing trustees must be, among other things, pursuant to a specific document which is liable to nominal duty. Many small organisations, such as clubs, do not execute documents reflecting changes in trustees but record them in other forms, such as letters or meeting minutes, thus falling outside the current concessional rate requirements. The bill relaxes this restriction to allow the concessional rate of duty on a conveyance which is pursuant to any instrument recording the appointment of new or additional trustees or the retirement of existing trustees.
This amendment will also benefit trustee companies who hold securities and other assets for clients as they will no longer be required to execute documents which attract nominal duty in order to gain a concession from the ad valorem rate of duty when changing trustees. The bill will also amend the trust provisions to allow for marketable securities to be transferred to a trustee without the payment of ad valorem duty provided that the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer was not effected to change the beneficial ownership or in contemplation of the change in beneficial ownership in the marketable securities. Also, marketable securities held by a manager or trustee will be able to be transferred to a custodian without incurring ad valorem duty, enabling the commercial practice of nomineeing shares to operate more freely on those securities with a New South Wales nexus. It is expected that there will be no significant effect on revenue as a result of these amendments.
For some time there has been some doubt as to whether community tenancy scheme tenants are eligible for the exemption from stamp duty available to Department of Housing tenants on the purchase of a property and the associated mortgage. While community tenancy scheme tenants must be on the Department of Housing waiting list for accommodation and are eligible for low interest loans, if they wish to buy a property they are not strictly Department of Housing tenants and therefore do not fall within the exemption provisions. This situation has placed community tenancy scheme tenants at a disadvantage to those already living in Department of Housing rental accommodation when purchasing a home. In order to overcome this anomaly, the Premier and Treasurer approved of the Stamp Duties Act being administered on the basis that community tenancy scheme tenants be given the same concessions as Department of Housing tenants. The bill amends the Stamp Duties Act to validate this variation to statute.
The Stamp Duties Act currently provides that a loan security taken out by a participant of the First Home Purchase Scheme is exempt from loan security duty. Likewise, a tenant of the Department of Housing or a Community Tenancy Scheme is also eligible for an exemption from stamp duty on a loan security taken out to purchase
Page 3062
a property. However, some lenders to these purchasers require additional security for the loans made, which is usually a loan security over another property such as a parent's home. Under the existing provisions of the Act, such an additional loan security attracts full loan security duty, creating an inequitable situation. To overcome this anomaly, the Premier and Treasurer approved of the Stamp Duties Act being administered on the basis that any additional loan security to secure a loan obtained by a participant in the First Home Purchase Scheme or a tenant of the Department of Housing or a Community Tenancy Scheme, is exempt from stamp duty. The bill will amend the Stamp Duties Act to validate this variation to statute.
Under the current provisions of the Stamp Duties Act residential leases not exceeding five years are exempt from stamp duty and there is a general exemption from duty on leases where the annual rent does not exceed $3,000 per annum. However, there are no similar provisions for the lease of relocatable homes and home sites. While some of these leases may fall within the above categories, many others would not. As a result of concerns raised by my colleague the Minister for Housing in respect of this issue, the Premier and Treasurer approved of the Act being amended to extend the current exemption for residential leases for a term of no more than five years, to include a lease of a site or a relocatable home in a caravan or relocatable home park where it is to be used as the principal place of residence of the lessee.
Stamp duty is payable on the issue of a motor vehicle certificate of registration as a result of the purchase of either a new or used vehicle. However, instances occur where persons have purchased motor vehicles which were stolen prior to that purchase. Persons who buy motor vehicles from licensed dealers obtain a guarantee to the title and can recover the purchase price if the vehicle is subsequently found to have been stolen, but there is no provision in the Stamp Duties Act for these persons to obtain a refund of the stamp duty paid on the motor vehicle certificate of registration. The bill will amend the Act to allow for the stamp duty to be refunded within one year from the date of purchase if the vehicle is repossessed from the current owner as a result of having been previously stolen. Under the current stamp duty provisions, documents stamped by the Chief Commissioner can be liable to further duty, if a court subsequently disagrees with the Chief Commissioner's stamping. In order to provide better protection for taxpayers, the bill will amend the Act to provide that the stamping of a document by the Chief Commissioner is to be regarded as an assessment and it cannot be questioned unless there is an objection or appeal against it. The bill will make a number of other miscellaneous amendments to the principal Act. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr J. H. Murray.
SUPREME COURT (VIDEO LINK) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River - Minister for Justice) [8.45]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will permit certain court appearances in the New South Wales Supreme Court to be made using video facilities. These electronic appearances will routinely occur in bail review proceedings during a pilot program to be conducted in the Supreme Court.
Page 3063
Under this arrangement, bail review applicants who are in custody at the Long Bay Metropolitan Remand Centre will attend court without actually leaving the secure environment of the remand centre, by using video link facilities. At the outset I wish to clarify that the procedure authorised by this bill does not involve the use of video-taped appearances. All appearances using the video facilities will be live. The word "video" in this bill carries its wider meaning, and refers to a two-way, audio-visual communication link between two separate locations, using live televised images. The importance of this bill lies in the significantly reduced security risks to the community which will ensue from its implementation.
Worldwide, it is recognised that transporting prisoners from one secure location to another is a process of inherent risk to the transporters and to the community generally. The transportation process presents a number of problems, and is therefore considered the weakest link in the chain of security precautions taken in respect of prisoners. There are many examples of breaches of security occurring during prisoner transportation. As recently as March of this year, a dangerous prisoner escaped from custody while being transported to the Downing Centre for a court appearance. This incident occurred in a busy suburban street and involved the use of firearms. The community was at risk when the escape took place, and continues to be at risk while the prisoner is at large. Opportunities for exploiting the security weak link must be kept to a minimum. Reducing the need for attendance at court, by permitting electronic appearances to be made, is one very effective means by which this may be achieved.
Apart from security aspects, implementation of this legislation will offer other advantages. For one thing, electronic bail review applications will be less disruptive for the remandee, as transport van schedules will no longer dictate movements. Confinement in unconvivial, and often overcrowded holding cells at the court will also be avoided. The court will benefit by avoiding time wasted as a result of delays in applicants arriving at the court complex, or being escorted up from the holding cells. Some of the corrective service officers that have, until now, been engaged in escort and guard duties may also now be freed for other duties. Eventually, if the program is extended, it is expected that significant cost savings will accrue from the reduced demand for prisoner transportation and security escorts. The concept of electronic appearances before a court is not a new one. Indeed, as a result of legislation passed by this House in 1990, child witnesses in sexual assault cases are now able to give their evidence from a room away from the courtroom, using closed-circuit television facilities.
Electronic court appearances have also been successfully used for some time in many American jurisdictions. In many American courts, such appearances have become an accepted, and supported, practice in a wide range of proceedings. A program for bail hearings involving electronic appearances has also been operating in the Melbourne Magistrates Court since 1989. The pilot program for electronic appearances in the New South Wales Supreme Court is therefore not without precedent. Notwithstanding the successful precedents in other jurisdictions, any proposal to replace traditional court appearances with electronic appearances must be approached with caution. It is imperative that care is taken to ensure that such proposals do not compromise the rights of the accused, and do not inhibit the fairness and efficiency of court proceedings. The need to protect the interests of the person before the court, and to preserve the integrity of the court proceedings, is accommodated fully in the Supreme Court (Video Link) Amendment Bill. Firstly, this bill prescribes minimum standards for the quality of audio-visual communication between the court and the remote location. As demanded by proposed section 100B, the quality of sound and image to be produced by the video-link facilities will be equivalent to the standard that we expect of a commercial television
Page 3064
broadcast. Under the legislation, the equipment will be required to comply with certain Australian standards which will be specified in the regulations. This will enable clear, unimpeded communication, both aural and visual, between the participants at the two locations.
The bill also provides other important guarantees and safeguards. For example, the guarantee contained in proposed section 110C will ensure that a bail review applicant's access to legal representation and advice is not adversely affected by an electronic appearance. Pursuant to this provision, secure telephone and facsimile facilities will be provided at the court and the Metropolitan Remand Centre to permit confidential communication between remandees and their legal representatives during, prior to, and after the proceedings. Furthermore, proposed section 110A provides that in all cases, the presiding judicial officer may order the applicant to be brought into the courtroom, should the interests of justice so demand. This will ensure that the new procedure is sufficiently flexible to deal with all matters in a manner acceptable to a court.
The integrity of proceedings in which electronic appearances are to be made is further protected by the attention that this bill pays to ensuring high sound and picture quality, and by the deeming of the remote location as a part of the courtroom, and therefore within the jurisdiction and control of the presiding judge. The positioning of cameras, microphones, and other equipment is obviously a matter to which careful attention must be paid in implementing the pilot project. As closely as possible, the video link facilities will simulate the perspectives that arise from a traditional court appearance. This will include providing the public gallery with a view of the applicant, and giving the applicant the opportunity to see family and friends who may be in the courtroom. The pilot program will have an effective life of two years, after which it must be reviewed. Proposed section 110G of the bill requires that the pilot program be adequately assessed, and that this Parliament be properly informed of the operative effect of this legislation. In the result, the pilot program and electronic court appearances, generally, will remain under close scrutiny until such time as they are proven to be effective.
I should advise the House that this pilot program has the complete support of the Chief Justice of New South Wales. Consultation has also taken place with both prosecution authorities and the legal profession to ensure that, in its implementation, the program will have the greatest possible support and co-operation from all key players in bail review proceedings. In this regard, I note that the bill as it now stands has been substantially altered in order to address some of the concerns expressed during these consultations. Significantly, the bill provides for electronic appearances only in the context of the pilot program, and guarantees that the pilot will be evaluated before any decision is made to make it a permanent feature. Drafting of the bill in these terms has been a response to the consultation process. It is because this bill provides the means by which prisoner security can be maintained, and unnecessary exposure to risk avoided, without any jeopardy to the rights of the accused, that I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.
PRISONS (SEGREGATION) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River - Minister for Justice) [8.54]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Page 3065
The Prisons (Segregation) Amendment Bill 1992 is designed to provide more effective and accountable use of segregation in New South Wales correctional centres. The bill proposes amendment to the Prisons Act 1952. The intent of these proposals is threefold: firstly, to introduce more stringent requirements for the administration of segregation orders; secondly, to devolve ultimate authority and accountability for approval of segregation to the Commissioner of Corrective Services; thirdly, to address matters raised by the Office of the Ombudsman. The amendments are being introduced simultaneously with a review of departmental policy on segregation. They are consistent with the findings of the 1991 review of the structure of corrective services by the Office of Public Management, which found that the department had evolved into a highly centralised administration. It subsequently recommended that responsibility and accountability should be devolved to the lowest appropriate level of operational management.
Before detailing the specific features of each amendment, it is appropriate to offer a brief explanation of the concept of segregation. Segregation is the detention of an inmate away from all other inmates or in association only with such inmates as determined by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. There are two types of segregation: administrative segregation and protective segregation. Inmates are placed on administrative segregation for the safety of another inmate or officer, or for the security or good order and discipline of the institution. Protective segregation, or protection, as it is more commonly termed, is normally provided at the request of the inmate, for his or her personal safety. Segregation is not intended to constitute any form of punishment or retaliation. Rather, it is an important management tool in providing for the safety of officers and inmates and for good order in the correctional system. The Department of Corrective Services has a duty of care towards inmates throughout their sentences and a responsibility to the staff employed in correctional centres. To fulfil these obligations a wide range of management options, including the ability to segregate inmates, is essential.
I will now turn to the specific features of the amendments. The first amendment seeks to address the situation of inmates who may request protective segregation upon reception into custody, or those for whom the court may so order. It will also allow for the administrative segregation of inmates, for the purposes of good order and discipline or officer or inmate safety, immediately upon reception. The Ombudsman has rightly noted that present provisions imply that situations requiring the segregation of an inmate occur only after an inmate has been in custody for some unspecified period, which does not provide for those inmates requiring placement on segregation orders before they have associated with other inmates. Rewording of this section as proposed will afford a more appropriate provision.
The second amendment proposes removal of the need for ministerial authority to approve extensions of segregation over six months, thus effectively devolving authority to the Commissioner of Corrective Services. Under present provisions superintendents have the power to authorise segregation for up to 14 days. Authority to approve further periods of up to six months lies with the commissioner, who has power under the Prisons Act to delegate this function where appropriate. Only the Minister has the authority to sanction periods of segregation past six months and he has no such power of delegation. The Minister, therefore, has sole discretion in this matter. Let me stress that only in the New South Wales correctional system does the Minister have such authority with regard to segregation. In all other Australian States segregation is the responsibility of senior departmental staff, as are all other operational matters, and this is as it should be.
Page 3066
Responsibility and, more importantly, accountability must be in operational hands. This is simply sound managerial practice. Managers should be allowed to use their experience to manage. The New South Wales Government's policy calls for a move away from centralised authority back to this type of "hands on" management.
The segregation of an inmate for any length of time, and particularly for extended periods, is a decision requiring close consideration and supervision. Transfer of the ultimate responsibility in this matter to the Commissioner of Corrective Services would more effectively provide the requisite knowledge of individual situations and their ramifications for the correctional system and the appropriate level of supervision. Given the more stringent requirements proposed in these amendments, ministerial involvement in segregation would become a redundant exercise. Devolution of this authority to the commissioner would bring New South Wales into line with other Australian States in this regard. Further, it is consistent with the principles on which the restructuring of the department is based and with New South Wales Government policy relating to management in general. Due to the need for strict oversight of the use of extended periods of segregation, the commissioner will not delegate authority to approve extensions over six months.
The four remaining amendments are responsive to recommendations made by the Office of the Ombudsman following extensive review of departmental segregation practices, particularly in relation to extension of periods of segregation. Before looking at these amendments in more detail I take this opportunity to note the importance of independent bodies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, in oversighting the activities of government. Such non-partisan comment serves as an invaluable safeguard against complacency and ameliorates some of the difficulties inherent in self-regulation. The recommendations of the Ombudsman essentially called for the creation of more stringent legislative provisions for the administration and extension of segregation orders and a review of departmental policy on segregation, which has been undertaken. Briefly, the amendments propose, firstly, that the commissioner may only order or extend an inmate's segregation for a maximum period of three months at a time. Secondly, on each occasion the extension must only be for reasons of safety, security, good order or discipline or be based on an inmate's written request. Thirdly, both the original direction for segregation and any direction for extension must be given in writing and must include the grounds on which they are based.
Effectively, these amendments will provide regular mandatory review of all extensions of segregation and introduce a mechanism for accountability, which is lacking in present provisions. The existing provision entails a degree of review at the onset of a period of segregation but does not provide for any subsequent or periodic review. It is a fundamental feature of departmental correctional policy that inmates spend the minimum time necessary in segregation. To this end a number of special management programs are being implemented throughout New South Wales to ensure that segregation is used only where appropriate. These programs are based on the principles of unit management in which officers and inmates interact closely to identify and address inmate problem areas.
It is expected that the implementation of such management options will, over time, considerably reduce the need for segregation in the State's correctional centres. Nonetheless, there will continue to be cases where, for whatever reason, segregation on a longer term basis will be necessary or desirable. I am confident that these amendments, supported by firm departmental policy, will ensure that segregation as a management option is appropriately and responsibly utilised to enhance safety, security and good order in the State's correctional centres. I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Doyle.
Page 3067
CHILDREN (CARE AND PROTECTION) (CHILD EMPLOYMENT) AMENDMENT BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Minister for Health Services Management) [9.3]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Children are this State's most precious asset. They constitute its future leaders, entrepreneurs and work force. The ability to participate in employment today provides them with unique opportunities to develop a positive orientation to work and a broader understanding of the role both of work and of particular occupations within the work force. If it is ensured as a positive experience, this employment can create within them a spirit of independence and, in some instances, the ability to make more informed career choices. This experience has benefits for both the individual and the work force as a whole. The opportunity to take part in film and theatrical productions is a very exciting and rewarding experience for a child. But how do we allow children to take advantage of these opportunities without exposing them to health and safety risks?
I am aware of instances in the entertainment industries of children having worked 12 and 13 hour days, and of children suffering distress and illness through being exposed to extremes of temperature. There has also been continuing public concern about the safety of young children engaged in door-to-door selling. The Department of Community Services has had several complaints regarding children as young as nine and 10 years selling sweets in this fashion, often with very minimal and inappropriate supervision. There is, therefore, a need to ensure that these employment opportunities are provided without risk to the child's physical and emotional well-being and, additionally, that any mechanism for ensuring the safety of children while employed is provided in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
The responsibility of employers to provide safe working conditions for children in their employ and the responsibility of parents to be effective advocates for their children while in employment are key elements of this bill. The employment of children is currently controlled by sections of the Child Welfare Act 1939 and clauses of the Child Welfare Regulations 1940. It has long been apparent that many provisions of the Act are inconsistent with prevailing community attitudes and with the legitimate requirements of businesses seeking to employ children. In particular, the requirement that children aged 15 years be licensed is contrary to the ability of children to leave school at 15 years and engage in employment. Children under seven years of age cannot be employed on schooldays or any Sunday. Also, under the current provisions relating to street trading, only boys are permitted to be licensed to sell newspapers. This is obvious discrimination on the basis of gender which no government would endorse. The result has been that for many years most of the provisions of the Child Welfare Act 1939 which relate to children's employment have not been observed or enforced.
The provisions of the Child Welfare Act also focus on the licensing of the individual child. In practice the parent of each child would be required to apply for a licence for that child each time he or she is employed. In reality, the employer makes an application for a licence for each child that he or she employs. This creates
Page 3068
considerable paperwork for the employer and a cumbersome administrative process within the department responsible for the processing of the applications. There are two major changes proposed in the children's employment amendment bill. Firstly, the employer rather than the child is to be authorised. Secondly, the main requirements made upon the employer will be set out in regulation and in a code of practice. This authorisation of the employer to employ children is both logical and practical. The area of concern in the employment of children is the conditions under which children work. This includes consideration of the nature of the work to be performed, the hours to be worked, the age appropriateness for the activities and the provision of nourishment and appropriate attire. It is therefore more rational that the person who is in the position to control and determine such conditions should be the one whose suitability is assessed rather than each individual child who is to be employed.
The employer's signed commitment to comply with the code of practice will be a major consideration in the granting of an authority. This provision will place the responsibility for ensuring a safe working environment for children clearly with the employer. The authorisation of the employer, rather than the child, will lead to a reduction in paperwork required of employers and by the department. Under the current system, if the producer of a television series requires 50 child actors in the course of a year, he or she would make 50 applications and the department would issue 50 licences each with differing time periods and conditions imposed. This bill proposes that one authority be issued to the employer who, during its period of validity, may employ whatever number of children he or she requires. Authorities will be valid for a maximum period of one year. This provision is consistent with the Government's better management approach and will result in considerable resource savings to both employers and the department.
While the bill places responsibility upon the employer for maintaining conditions of employment which meet the requirements of the code of conduct, it does not detract from the parent's ongoing responsibility for ensuring the physical and emotional well-being of the child while in that employment. The bill makes it an offence for a person, be that the employer or the parent, to allow a child to be employed in circumstances where the child's physical or emotional well-being is put at risk. The bill places responsibility clearly with the parent for the removal of a child from employment situations in which the child is placed at risk. Should a parent fail to do so when requested, the child would be considered to be at risk within the provisions of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 and appropriate action will be taken by the Department of Community Services.
Two types of employment which require the employer to be authorised have been specified in the bill. They are: first, any employment situation where the child is involved in entertainment or an exhibition; or, second, offering anything for sale from door to door. Other areas of employment can be prescribed by the regulations but it is the Government's intention to extend those provisions only where there is clear consultation as required by the Subordinate Legislation Act. Certain types of employers will be exempted from the need to be authorised under the provisions of the bill. These would include registered charities, which will be required to comply with the provisions of the Charitable Collections Act or its successor the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991. These exemption provisions will provide sufficient flexibility to prevent children being employed in inappropriate circumstances while not being prohibited from normal pocket-money raising activities such as washing neighbours' cars.
In keeping with the profit-making purpose of employers and the Government's policy of rational business management, the bill provides the employer to be charged an economic fee for the issue of an authority. The employer will be liable for only one fee
Page 3069
during the life of the authority and will be able to employ a number of children as required. The fee charged will fall within a set range and will be determined on the basis of the anticipated monitoring costs to be incurred by the department. Determination of these costs will include the proposed number of children to be employed, age of the children and previous experience of the employer. There is also a provision for the remission or waiver of fees, where appropriate. The major regulatory functions will be performed by a code of practice to be developed in consultation with industry groups. The code will be educative rather than prescriptive and will outline the policies and principles that underlie the guidelines it will contain. One element of this code of practice will outline the rights and responsibilities of parents of employed children. It is expected that each employer will be required to provide this document to the parents of every child to be employed. This requirement will encourage parents to be effective advocates for their children in any situation where they believe their children's interests are being compromised. It is further anticipated that this clarification of parents' roles in protecting the interests of their children will lead to improvements in the safety and welfare of employed children. Information on the proposed changes to children's employment will be given to interested parties in the period prior to debate on this bill to encourage further community awareness of the content of the bill and provide opportunity for public comment.
The approach to children's employment encompassed by this bill provides clear benefits to children, parents and employers. It places the responsibility for the provision of a safe working environment for children with the employer and parents of the children concerned. It requires less departmental intervention and reduced resource input for both the employer and the monitoring body. Its intention has been widely canvassed with employer groups and many of the conditions of the draft code of practice, such as the imposition of special conditions regarding the employment of children under 12 weeks of age and a four-hour daily working limit for children under school age, have been implemented for over three years under the existing legislation. It is the Government's view that this legislation deserves the support of every member in this House. I commend the legislation for the consideration of honourable members. I table a detailed explanation of the provisions of the bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.
INTERNAL AUDIT BUREAU BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9th April.
Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [9.14]: The relevance and need for some form of internal performance review mechanism has been recognised by most government authorities. In New South Wales performance review mechanisms have taken several forms. Firstly, internal inspectorates and also management consulting groups, which seem to have got a bit of a run on since 1988, usually concentrate on reviews of the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of systems and organisations, and in many cases assist management in implementing improvements. There are also internal audit units which may be restricted to reviewing financial regularity and compliance, or may be extended to provide reviews of effectiveness, efficiency and economy. For reasons of independence, these audit units do not usually assist in implementing improvements. The essential features of internal audits are that they provide a service to management. They also provide assurance to management that the internal control and management
Page 3070
information systems that have been put in place are adequate and working, and give early warning of any breakdowns in control. However, they are not substitutes for sound management planning and decision-making, but rather provide added safeguards to management accountability.
I would place on record that the father of the internal audit system in New South Wales, as we have it within the State Government bureaucracy, was the late Ken Booth, a former Treasurer in the Labor Government. Honourable members would realise that in 1982 the Public Accounts Committee undertook a review of internal auditing within the public service system, and reported to Treasurer Booth. Consequently, in 1983, he amended the Public Finance and Audit Act to include a provision which made it compulsory for chief executives to establish an internal audit function within their organisation. Ken Booth was a man ahead of his time. As I understand it, New South Wales is still the only State that gives statutory recognition to internal auditing within the public sector.
The impact of this bill will improve the current situation. The purpose of the Internal Audit Bureau Bill is to bring the operations of the Internal Audit Bureau on to a commercial footing by freeing it from the constraints of the Public Sector Management Act. Since 1983, however, some of the small organisations have been unable to sustain an internal audit unit of an appropriate size or calibre to provide a fully professional service. To meet their needs, Treasury created, by administrative action, an Internal Audit Bureau of New South Wales to provide the internal audit function to these smaller public sector organisations or to supplement the internal audit functioning bodies which had their own units but had additional workload and required a special audit to be carried out. I understand the current bureau is administratively lean. Of the 18 staff 16 are full-time auditors. Only the director, who undertakes marketing, client contact and tendering, and the director's secretary do other than audit work. The Opposition believes that the creation of a small statutory authority along the lines of or similar to the Treasury Corporation is the way to go. We support the bill.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier) [9.18], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
CANBERRA ADVANCE BANK LIMITED (MERGER) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9th April.
Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [9.20]: The purpose of this legislation is to give statutory effect to the merger of the Canberra Advance Bank Limited with the Advance Bank Limited. The Opposition supports this merger. Though the activities of Canberra Advance Bank are, I understand, physically located within the Australian Capital Territory, it conducts business through a number of branches located in New South Wales. This includes lending in respect of property located within the State. The Canberra Advance Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Advance Bank, having been created in 1986 following conversion of the Civic Co-operative Permanent Building Society to corporate status. The legislation is similar in concept to previous merger Acts,
Page 3071
especially the procedures which were followed last year in connection with the merger of the ANZ Bank and the National Mutual Royal Bank for which the Opposition provided support. I support the bill.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier) [9.21], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
TOTALIZATOR (AMENDMENT) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9th April.
Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.21]: The Opposition has no objection to this minor amendment which seeks, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, to reduce from 14 days to seven days the time for which commission is paid, including commission and amounts resulting from rounding down. The declared dividend and unclaimed dividends and refunds must be paid and certain returns lodged. The Opposition interprets this minor amendment as an administrative matter to enable an efficient programming of totalizator bills. As my colleague the honourable member for Charlestown will indicate when he addresses the House, the Opposition will not divide the House on this bill.
Mr FACE (Charlestown) [9.22]: I lead for the Opposition, which will not be opposing the bill. The proposed amendments will reduce from 14 days to seven days the period available to racing clubs and the Totalizator Agency Board to pay the Government its share of commission and fractional moneys from the operation of totalizators. Provision is made in the Totalizator Act for totalizator commission to be paid within 14 days of the relevant race-meeting. At the time of introducing legislation to provide for on-course totalizator operations in 1916, the systems used for such operations and the administrative procedures for balancing cash transactions, producing return forms and delivering the same with the appropriate payment to the Crown were, by today's standards, cumbersome and time consuming. The use of computers in all phases of totalizator operations, the availability of direct banking and the electronic transferring of funds provides racing clubs and the Totalizator Agency Board with the means to more quickly meet their tax obligations. In turn, this provides the Government with the means of collecting revenue in a more efficient and timely manner.
At present bookmakers are required to pay their tax to the Crown within seven days of the relevant race-meeting. This amending bill will bring parity. As I understand from the Minister's advisers, in the first year of operation the proposed amendments will have the effect of generating 53 weeks of payment, amounting to $5.7 million. Thereafter, of course, 52 weeks' payment will be received and no further increase in revenue obtained. The Government's recommendation is that this revenue, coupled with other savings achieved in the portfolio, should be utilised for the retention of the capital assistance program over the next two years. The abolition of that particular program was identified initially by the Government as part of an overall reduction in the level of the portfolio's allocation. It is to the Minister's credit that he responded to the observation at the time. Probably he had pressure from within his own party to do something about
Page 3072
the retention of the capital assistance program for sporting projects in various electorates. The announcement of the abolition, together with other measures within his department, effectively left him with a department without any money. There is no doubt that the Government review was far too stringent.
The capital assistance program was designed by the late Ken Booth. Tribute has been paid to him for his efficient administration of the Treasury. He was really the first Minister for Sport and Recreation who effectively did anything for the portfolio. Prior to that it was a ministry for sport in name only. In the early days of the Wran Government Ken designed a system of capital assistance that brought about the upgrading of facilities throughout the State that were certainly lagging behind those in other States. I have told the Minister that the Government should proceed in a bipartisan fashion to provide capital works of a regional nature. When I speak of regions I include western Sydney, Illawarra and Newcastle. Facilities in those areas do not meet the degree of excellence that they should. There is a real need for the Government, and certainly it has been Opposition policy for some time, to provide a regional program to implement some projects of sporting excellence which are quite beyond the financial capability of local government or other groups. This legislation should have been introduced some years ago. There is no reason the money should not be collected. I have heard of no groundswell of opposition from the racing fraternity against the measure. I support the bill.
Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [9.27]: In general I subscribe to the requirements of this legislation because of the changes that have occurred over the years. I have seen totalizators go from manual operations to sophisticated computers. In the early days different arrangements were made and in all probability different arrangements for registration still exist between racing clubs and totalizators. It was not uncommon for totalizators to act as agents or providers of machinery and equipment, and place the onus on clubs to make payments to Treasury. Given the technology that has evolved in the past 30 years it is not unreasonable that the time period to pay commissions be reduced from 14 days to seven days. If in the future the Minister seeks to further reduce that time period I ask him to remember that country clubs do not have available to them the sophisticated equipment that metropolitan clubs have.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and Minister Assisting the Premier) [9.28], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ashfield, the honourable member for Charlestown and the honourable member for Cessnock for their support.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
STATE ROADS (TOLL WORKS) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 9th April.
Mr LANGTON (Kogarah) [9.30]: The Opposition will not be opposing the State Roads (Toll Works) Amendment Bill. The bill, as the Minister showed very clearly in his second reading speech - which was one of the briefest on record - amends the existing Act which states that the Minister may declare a toll work within Sydney, Newcastle,
Page 3073
Wollongong or between Sydney and Newcastle, or between Sydney and Wollongong. It is quite obvious that as a result of the Coroner's inquiry into the dreadful bus crashes on the northern roads of New South Wales, there has been genuine concern, a pressure for this Government to do something about fixing up roads in New South Wales generally and, in particular, the Pacific Highway. I am sure members are aware of what I am talking about. It is necessary to amend the existing legislation to provide that the Government, the Minister of the day, has the power to declare toll works outside the areas of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong, to include other roads and, obviously and specifically, the Pacific Highway.
Let me put on record the Labor Party's position on tollways because, although we have been very clear, it appears that the Deputy Premier has not been able to grasp the policy. The Labor Party is not opposed to the principle of tollways. We acknowledge that there are basically only three sources of funding for roads - petrol tax, the weight tax from registration fees, and money that comes from the Federal Government. The Opposition also acknowledges that the petrol tax component is down at the moment because fewer kilometres are being travelled. Because of the current economic climate fewer vehicles are being registered, therefore the income from registration fees is down. There will always be a demand from motorists to spend more money on roads. The two matters - funding and funds - regrettably, do not meet in the middle. Therefore, it is sad but true that there will be need in some areas of the State to finance major works such as the upgrading of the Pacific Highway to a four lane divided road by making that a toll work.
I repeat, the Opposition is not opposed to the principle of toll works such as that because, unlike a lot of other enterprises embarked upon by this Government, ultimately the ownership of that road will revert to the Government and to the people of New South Wales. It will not be sold off for ever. Once the loan which has been taken out to build that road has been repaid, the ownership will revert to the people of this State. However, the Opposition is opposed to the construction of toll works in urban Sydney where there is not a viable or reliable public transport alternative; where the people need to use those roads on a daily basis to get to school, work, the shops, the senior citizens centre or elsewhere. The Opposition will remain totally opposed to tollways or tolls being imposed upon urban roads in Sydney although we do not oppose the principle of tollways generally. In fact, our position is not all that much different from that of the National Roads and Motorists Association. The NRMA policy on toll roads states:
The imposition of tolls should be seen as a last resort for financing major improvements to the road system which cannot be financed from existing road funds due to the impact such finding would have on other priorities. For tolls to be imposed the following criteria should be satisfied.
Let me interpose. What I am about to say is exactly the Labor Party policy.
Any alternative _free' facility alongside or in close proximity to the proposed toll facility be retained and adequately maintained depending upon road user demand relative to maintenance costs.
The Opposition believes there should always be, in every case where there is a tollway constructed, an untolled viable alternate route. If I may verbal the Deputy Premier's advisers, they have told me that that is the policy of the current Government. I shall be very happy to have him confirm that in his response. So we are not opposed to the principle of tollways. We understand that if there is to be a dual carriageway on the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border, realistically that will be achieved only by it being a tollway. The Opposition is not opposed to that so long as
Page 3074
there will be an alternative route which is untolled. With those safeguards the Opposition does not oppose this bill.
Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [9.35]: I strongly support this amendment, which will enable the construction of tollways in rural New South Wales. I support it particularly because it is an issue which has been of some interest to me as it is, I am sure, to a lot of National Party members on the northern coast of New South Wales. My interest dates right back to my very first speech in this House on 23rd August, 1988, when I was talking about the need to reduce Government debt and to look for new ways to improve the financial situation of the State, and said:
We, as legislators, need to engage in some creative lateral thinking. In this respect I applaud the Government's initiatives involving more private involvement in public infrastructure, such as increasing the number of private tollways on major traffic routes. A successful implementation of these policies not only will reduce the burden on the taxpayer, but also I believe, will enable a quantum leap in bringing forward many projects that would otherwise have been slow to materialise under conventional methods of public funding through increased public borrowings.
People who have lost their lives on the poor roads in New South Wales would, if they were able, implore us to embrace any new measures that would make for better roads and reduce the human suffering resulting from the unacceptably high road toll. The private sector has demonstrated in the past five years or so an increasing willingness to develop, construct, and finance public infrastructure - often in ways that are innovative in terms of the technology employed and the financial arrangements developed.
That was part of my maiden speech in August, 1988. The House will appreciate that this is something really quite close to my heart. I believe we should all have objectives in our parliamentary careers. Certainly one of my objectives before I leave this place will be to see a dual carriageway constructed between Hexham and the Queensland border. A number of benefits will flow from this amendment, probably in four categories. The first will be the financial benefit and the result of that financial benefit, the bringing forward of projects such as the dual carriageway from Hexham to the Queensland border. Secondly, there are safety issues, and, thirdly, there will be a reduction in travel time and fuel consumption. Fourth, we will have the economic benefits that will accrue from the construction of toll roads, particularly the Pacific Highway, as a dual carriageway. I want to deal first with the question of bringing forward road projects by many, many years which, of course, will occur as a result of the introduction of tollways. To get this into some sort of perspective, if we were to continue with the current level of funding we would not have a dual carriageway from Hexham to the Queensland border until 2020. This Government has increased the amount of funding to the Pacific Highway by a factor of three in the time that it has been in office. The Federal Government has recently classified the Pacific Highway as a national arterial road and will be putting funds into it. Despite the increased level of funding, on current funding levels there could not be a dual carriageway from Hexham to the Queensland border until the year 2020.
At the moment we are looking at a road 725 kilometres in length and there is about 35 kilometres of dual carriageway. Under the current levels of funding, which are three times more than they have been in the recent past, by the year 2000 there would only be about 140 kilometres of dual carriageway. Quite clearly, if we want to have a dual carriageway and we are going to use existing methods of funding, we would not see the completion of the project until the year 2020. This type of amendment, which provides for the opportunity to introduce a tollway on that section of road, could provide a dual carriageway by the year 2000. I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House would be pleased if that were to come to pass.
Perhaps we would not need to look at the tollway proposal - leaving aside
Page 3075
increased borrowings and taxes - if we were getting the right amount of money from the Federal Government through the Federal fuel excise. Honourable members may be interested to know that my grandfather, Sir Earle Page, when he was Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia in the 1920s, introduced the Federal Fuel Excise Hypothecation Bill which was designed so that Federal excise duty would be put into road construction. If honourable members opposite knew the history of this issue, they would know that my grandfather, who was the leader of the Country Party and Treasurer at the time, introduced the legislation. It was passed by the House, with the support of the Labor Party - not with the support of the equivalent of the Liberal Party then.
[Interruption]
They did funny things in those days. The Country Party could see the huge benefits to country people of the allocation of Federal excise duty to road construction. It would improve infrastructure, business and export opportunities and create employment. Also the Labor Party realised that a massive road building program in the country would benefit trade unionists and workers at the time. The purpose of that legislation was that 100 per cent of fuel excise was to go to road construction. The Federal Government has gradually whittled away the amount of the Federal excise duty going to roads, particularly during the Second World War when there were higher priorities. I do not think anyone in this Chamber would regard the present situation as very satisfactory. The Federal Government collects about 28c a litre in a Federal excise duty but we get a miserable 6c back - roughly 20 per cent of what is paid by the motorist in Federal fuel excise.
Despite the fact that tonight we will create an opportunity to raise money from the private sector to build new roads, it is high time the Federal Government reviewed its policy on the amount of money to be put into roads. I strongly urge the Federal Government not to use what we are doing in New South Wales as an excuse to further reduce the level of road funding generally to the State of New South Wales. The reality is that economically we will not be able to fund roads through private sector involvement and tollways unless a certain level of traffic is sustained. Some important roads in the west of the State will never have the traffic volume necessary to make tollways economically viable. It is likely that such roads as the Pacific Highway - roads which have fairly high traffic volumes - are suitable for the tollway concept. For ever and a day - certainly in the foreseeable future - we will have to subsidise from the public purse roads which have less traffic but which have a more important contribution to make to the export effort of this country. That is quite a legitimate approach.
Consider the funding of tollways, particularly as it relates to comments made by the Federal Treasurer in his One Nation statement. It is very encouraging that the Federal Government has at last decided that it is prepared to offer some tax concessions to private operators who want to build tollroads in Australia. Interest has been expressed with regard to land transport and electricity. However, as the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads so ably pointed out to the Federal Minister for Land Transport, Mr Brown, two weekends ago at the Australian Transport Advisory Council conference in New Zealand - a meeting of all roads Ministers in Australia, Commonwealth, State and Territory, with New Zealand as a guest participant - a number of matters still need to be clarified about taxation incentives that will be offered to private operators. That involves the overall problem of every project having to be assessed individually by the Commissioner of Taxation in terms of the allowability of deductions and so on. It seems to me unsatisfactory that we cannot come up with a set of guidelines
Page 3076
for people to follow, rather than there being an open-ended arrangement whereby private operators are told to put up a proposal and then to ask the Commissioner of Taxation whether certain claims will be allowed.
The Deputy Premier referred also to the infrastructure bond proposed by the Federal Government. It is considering a 10-year period for the infrastructure bond. The reality is that most projects will be of 20 or 30 years duration. Therefore - using the concept of the infrastructure bond, which is inherently good - the operator will have to refinance projects at least once, and maybe twice, during the life of the project. No one in his right mind would feel comfortable about going into a contract of 20 or 30 years duration and having to refinance, with all the uncertainty involved. Finally, there must be a closer arrangement arrived at between what will be allowable for depreciation purposes and the length of the project being put forward. For example, it is ridiculous to have a 2½ per cent depreciation rate over 40 years when, in fact, the project will be completed in only 20 years. There needs to be a bringing together of the depreciation rate and the life of the project. The Federal Minister for Land Transport seemed to indicate that he was prepared to take on board the comments of the Deputy Premier. I am sure that he will, but I hope that, having established the mechanism through this amendment, we will then be able to provide the appropriate taxation mechanisms to enable private investors to put forward their proposals. We know from the calling for expressions of interest last year that a number of people are interested in investing in a dual carriageway for the Pacific Highway from Hexham to the Queensland border.
There is a misconception that the toll would not be abolished when the project is paid for. It will be abolished, and the ownership of the tollway will revert to the people of New South Wales. Motorists will also be given a choice of roadways. People will not be compelled to travel on the tollway. There will always be an alternative route. Apart from the funding benefits that I have mentioned and the consequent bringing forward of the completion of the project from the year 2020 to the year 2000, or thereabouts, there are also safety benefits. The separation of traffic will be of huge benefit. Though the level of road fatalities is the same today as in the 1950s - and that is certainly commendable - the level is still too high. We still have to do everything we can to reduce the number of road fatalities. With a dual carriageway, the distance to be travelled from Hexham to the Queensland border will be reduced by about 100 kilometres. Travel time will be reduced by three to four hours. Fuel consumption will also decrease. It will provide a fast and reliable connection from Ballina to the Gold Coast, Newcastle and Sydney. It would definitely have a beneficial effect on the tourism industry of Ballina and Byron Bay.
Further, diversion of unnecessary through traffic would improve the amenity of the area for residents and enhance its attractiveness for holiday makers seeking the more relaxing holidays that Ballina offers. Finally, the Richmond Valley, which comprises the towns of Ballina, Lismore, Byron Bay and Casino, has tremendous potential to develop into a significant regional centre. A high-speed road from this region would reduce travel time to the Gold Coast to less than one hour. Tremendous benefits will accrue from the building of toll roads in rural New South Wales. I strongly support the bill and I congratulate the Minister for bringing it forward at this time.
Mr PRICE (Waratah) [9.50]: I support the bill and reiterate, as the honourable member for Kogarah said when leading for the Opposition, that the Government's policy and the object of the measure is to amend section 46 of the State Roads Act 1986. I wish to highlight one point in the National Roads and Motorists Association policy on the development of toll roads by private enterprise. That relates to the cost of road
Page 3077
maintenance during the repayment period, assuming the availability of a sinking fund or funds and depending on the breakup of a job. I also assume that at the time of the handing over of a road any residue in a sinking fund or funds would be available to the Government as a readily available maintenance pool for public roads. I emphasise the need for an alternative free road alongside any toll road. Hexham Bridge on the Hunter River is in the Waratah electorate. Traffic coming from the National Highway passes through the villages of Minmi, Beresfield and Tarro on the New England Highway before reaching the Hexham Bridge. The Roads and Traffic Authority is negotiating with federal authorities for the upgrading of that portion of the New England Highway between John Renshaw Drive at Beresfield and Tarro near Hexham and for an interchange to be built at the village of Tarro. The main reason for that proposal is that a number of deaths have occurred in that area over the years.
The intersection between Anderson Drive in Tarro and the New England Highway is the worst accident black spot in the Hunter Valley. I estimate that about 32 people have been killed at that intersection in 28 years. That is disastrous. I hope that the State Government, through the Minister, perseveres with the Federal Government to ensure that full funding is available for that interchange, which ultimately will become the connector to the Pacific Highway. Another important toll road bypass facility should be considered for the area between Tarro, Beresfield and Raymond Terrace. The existing county and country roads network that runs through the villages of Beresfield, Woodberry and Millers Forest is subject to periodic flooding, especially at Millers Forest. The Government should note that, though a toll road will enable through traffic to continue unimpeded upon payment of a fee, access to an alternative free route should be available at all times. Therefore some expenditure from State reserves will be required to ensure that flood prone areas are upgraded sufficiently to allow greater access, especially during floods, than is presently being enjoyed.
The Government should acknowledge the need and cash impact of additional free roads. People paying road and petrol taxes expect more than toll roads. The Waratah electorate and other electorates along the length of the highway will be affected by toll roads. Honorable members representing those electorates will seek special consideration as toll roads are developed. I support the toll roads concept, especially for the Pacific Highway. I look forward to improved safe traffic access between Newcastle and the Queensland border and to easy free access parallel to any toll roads that may be built, within the spirit of the proposed legislation. I hope this program will be undertaken as soon as possible in the interests of continuing improvement in roads and general driving safety. Tragic accidents have occurred at a number of locations on the Pacific Highway. Though the Roads and Traffic Authority is doing everything possible in this regard, I tend to agree with the Government that New South Wales never seems to receive enough money for State highways from whichever government is in power in Canberra. That quandary is not likely to change in the short term and this State must act on its own. I believe the program outlined by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads satisfies that requirement, but other needs must be taken into account so that free and unimpeded parallel access is available at all times. I support the bill.
Mr BECK (Murwillumbah) [9.57]: I support the bill introduced by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads and congratulate him for his forethought in seeking to redress neglect of this State's roads over many years that should have been attended to by previous State and Federal governments. The bill provides for toll roads to be built throughout the State but I wish to concentrate on what is proposed for the Pacific Highway between Hexham and the Queensland border. The Pacific Highway is one of the most used roads in this State apart from those in the metropolitan
Page 3078
area, and many tourists travel on it. The areas between Hexham and Tweed Heads are growing rapidly and are popular with tourists. A dual carriageway needs to be constructed from Hexham to the Queensland border. The only way to achieve that is by the construction of toll roads. Alternative roads must be built in conjunction with those toll roads to give travellers a choice. The Deputy Premier said that such a facility will always be available and that people will not be compelled to use only the toll roads. Tweed Heads in the Murwillumbah electorate is one of the largest growth areas outside the metropolitan area. Major road improvements in that electorate include the Tweed Heads bypass and the proposed Chinderah bypass. I do not believe that bypass projects for Murwillumbah and other areas will be possible unless toll roads are considered. One proposal is for a toll road from Chinderah through to Brunswick Heads. That toll road must not jeopardise this State's viable sugar industry and the livelihood of farmers.
The Deputy Premier and all honourable members are aware of this country's tariff problems and their effects on sugar cane farmers. Sugar is a vital domestic product in this State. I want to get that point across to the Deputy Premier not simply as a sweetener, and I hope that he keeps that in mind. Had the Federal Government provided more funds, the road could have been provided in other ways. Provision of a tollway between Hexham and Queensland will reduce the distance by 100 kilometres and the driving time by three or four hours, which will be of great importance to the area. People will be more likely to travel through to the Gold Coast. Coolangatta airport is now the sixth largest in Australia. Road improvements under the Greiner-Murray Government will benefit the area. Members have agreed to curtail their speeches so that all North Coast members will have an opportunity to speak. I have pleasure in supporting the legislation and look forward to its implementation as soon as possible.
Mr ZIOLKOWSKI (Parramatta) [10.1]: I am grateful to have the opportunity tonight to address this short but significant bill and in doing so to expose the lie that is being peddled by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads and a number of members opposite about the Labor Party's position on privatisation and in particular private toll roads. The House would be aware of my continuing campaign against the unfair toll tax which this Government is imposing on the residents of Parramatta and western Sydney, a campaign waged in particular on behalf of those motorists who have no alternative to using the F4 and F5 tollways. This House should also be aware that the Minister and the Government are claiming that the Labor Party's opposition to private toll roads is based solely on ideological grounds. The Government is claiming that our opposition to privatisation is a blatant objection to private sector involvement in what have traditionally been seen as areas of government responsibility. This is simply not the case. The Labor Party does not object to privatisation per se. Indeed, there are many areas in which private involvement in the public sector can be seen to be most beneficial to all concerned and should be considered. This can be demonstrated tonight in that the Opposition will support the bill. The Government has been told of the Opposition's attitude on a number of occasions. It is fully aware that the Labor Party would not object to private toll roads being constructed providing a realistic alternative untolled route is available to motorists.
Mr W. T. J. Murray: What is wrong with Parramatta Road?
Mr ZIOLKOWSKI: I will tell the Minister about that later. Inasmuch as the bill will allow for the construction of new roads which comply with this condition, it is deserving of support. However, the Government has to acknowledge that it has a responsibility to provide the basic roads infrastructure necessary to support community use. If private toll roads have a place, it is to supplement existing State infrastructure or
Page 3079
to offer alternatives to State infrastructure. Private toll roads should not be allowed to replace State infrastructure and no motorist should be forced in any circumstances to use a private toll road. Anyone who has travelled along the Pacific Highway, particularly in the far north of the State, would be aware of the potential benefits offered by a new route in the area. At the very least these need to be explored. A new route is essential to tourism and the long-term viability of the road transport industry, with which I have had a long association. As stated, as long as an alternative route which is not subject to a toll is available to motorists, such a proposal in all probability would be worthy of support. However, this is not the case in western Sydney. The existing sections of the F4 were constructed not as an alternative route from Sydney's west to Sydney. This road was not built or intended to supplement -
Mr W. T. J. Murray: On a point of order. The House is debating toll roads outside the city of Sydney. I ask that the honourable member return to the scope of the bill.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! Does the honourable member for Parramatta wish to speak on the point of order?
Mr ZIOLKOWSKI: I shall await your ruling, Mr Acting-Speaker.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The bill clearly deals specifically with toll roads outside the city area. Therefore, I ask the honourable member to confine his remarks to the ambit of the bill.
Mr ZIOLKOWSKI: The circumstances which exist in Sydney and other parts of metropolitan Sydney are not universal. It would have to be acknowledged that, given the conditions mentioned by the Opposition tonight, it would be possible to establish a private toll road that does not raise the questions of unfairness and injustice that arise with the two toll roads presently under construction. I only hope that the licence that this bill will provide to the Government for the exploration of the much needed privately funded road alternative outside the centres of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong will not be abused in the cynical manner in which it has been in Sydney's west.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.5]: I have great pleasure in supporting this bill, which will allow toll roads to be no longer restricted to Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. This is an initiative of the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads, a member of the National Party. He has decided that because of the lack of funds for roads during the 12 years of the previous State Labor Government, and the nine years of the Federal Labor Government, toll roads are needed. I refer specifically to the Pacific Highway, which runs through my electorate. The current roads program for the Pacific Highway of $300 million announced in October 1990 consists of approximately $170 million of State funding and only $130 million of Federal funding. The State and Federal Labor governments have consistently reduced funding for North Coast roads. Many of the horrific accidents on the North Coast have been attributed to the black spots on the Pacific Highway. Sufficient funds have not been provided to eradicate those black spots.
This bill will allow private sector involvement in roads on the North Coast, specifically from Newcastle to the Queensland border. The trip from Coffs Harbour to Sydney could be reduced by one and a half to two hours. My constituents would welcome being able to pay a toll on the new road to gain such a saving, because these days time is money. The travelling time to Brisbane would also be shortened. The
Page 3080
previous State Labor Government and the present Federal Labor Government talked a lot about the Pacific Highway but did absolutely nothing. In the One Nation package not one cent was allocated to the Pacific Highway over the next 12 months. The total allocation for New South Wales roads in the One Nation package is $40 million odd, of which $20 million has to be supplied by the State Government. This is totally hypocritical. The Federal Minister for Land Transport, Mr Bob Brown, has come into my electorate and reannounced projects five and six times, totally ignoring the fact that the majority of the funding of the projects being announced is being supplied by the State Government.
The New South Wales Minister for Roads has provided the North Coast with a lot of money for roads. In my electorate $12 million is to be spent on roads this year. But more funding is needed. It is a fact of life that it is necessary to attract funding from the private sector. Only by passing this amending bill will the money be able to come forward. Coffs Harbour, situated half way between Sydney and Brisbane, attracts a lot of tourist traffic. In the past tourists from the city have had the benefit of large sums spent on roads in city areas. Their use of our roads causes great damage but funding is not being provided to rectify the damage. Private toll roads will increase tourism, open new markets in agriculture and give the service and manufacturing industries the opportunity to expand. This legislation will be a great boon to the North Coast. It will be widely welcomed by the people in the Coffs Harbour electorate. I commend this bill to the House and thank the Deputy Premier for his interest in the North Coast.
Mr HATTON (South Coast) [10.9]: I am pleased that this bill has been introduced. When it was first mooted, I was asked about it in my electorate and I said I thought it was a good idea. Because of the drastic cuts to road funding made by the Commonwealth Government, it is inevitable that New South Wales will have to go more and more towards toll roads. Wherever possible I would like to see an alternative for those who do not wish to pay the toll, as has been the case with the Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong network. However, I understand that such alternatives are expensive. Undoubtedly a toll road will funnel more and more people into the South Coast and into Shoalhaven city, which has the largest tourist visitation of any city in New South Wales because of its close proximity to Sydney and its magnificent beauty. Because it has no rail services, the South Coast relies totally on the Princes Highway. That highway is narrow, has bad grades, bad alignment and trees are growing close to its edge. It has been written up a number of times by the National Roads and Motorists Association.
However, I would be less than fair if I did not thank the Minister and the Government, as I have done on every occasion when work has been done on the Princes Highway. I emphasise the years of neglect under Labor, particularly under Minister Brereton, who totally ignored the Princes Highway and left a backlog of work for the present Government to address. It has sincerely tried to do that. Because of the State Budget constraints, this year and next year will be lean years for roadworks. However, recently I had a discussion with the regional manager, Mr Lamb. He informed me that approximately $2 million is available to be spent on the northern approaches to the Tomerong bypass. If the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Brown, had not dudded the South Coast, the Tomerong bypass would have eventuated. It was given a high priority by the New South Wales Government and construction was ready to go. Mr Brown did some pork-barrelling in relation to certain Labor electorates and moved money away from Tomerong. The bypass will now require about $18 million of additional funds. According to Mr Lamb, when the northern distributor is built in Wollongong it may be possible to divert some money to the Princes Highway - I am hopeful it will be as much as $12 million - to make a real start on the bypass proper and to address the problems at Myrtle Creek.
Page 3081
Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [10.12]: People all over New South Wales are crying out for better roads. The Government would like to meet their expectations and provide those roads but, of course, the money is just not available. As other speakers have said, the Commonwealth Government keeps cutting back the funds allocated to this State in particular and, as a result, the New South Wales Government cannot allocate as much money to roadworks as it would like. It seems ridiculous to me, as I am sure it does to almost everyone else, that at present the Government can only permit toll roads to be built in Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong or between those cities. The measure in the legislation is desperately needed and will provide great hope for the future to people in country areas. The Pacific Highway and the Princes Highway would lend themselves admirably to the construction of some sort of toll road system. I realise that if government funding only was available, the Pacific Highway could not be upgraded until the year 2030. That is far too long to wait.
In the past the problem with roads has been that the government of the day has let the road system run down and the present Government is faced with the problem of trying to catch up. If there is any hope at all of improving the Pacific Highway by the turn of the century, toll roads are certainly the answer. Much has been said on the other side of the House about the need to provide alternative routes. The Minister has clearly stated that at every location where a toll road is built in country New South Wales, the Government will ensure that there is a viable and satisfactory alternative route. I am pleased to hear that the Labor Party has no objection to private enterprise involvement in the provision of government services. That is good news to me. I am pleased to hear the Opposition has no concerns about the provision of toll roads. I was beginning to think that the last two bastions of socialism in the world were the New South Wales Labor Party and Cuba. It is good to know that is changing. Judging by what has been said in the debate, only Cuba will be left. It is encouraging to hear that the Labor Party is beginning to look ahead into the next century. That is good for New South Wales and good for the Government. I commend the Minister on this forward-thinking program. It is good news for everyone in country New South Wales. I support this amending bill.
Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.15]: I support the State Roads (Toll Works) Amendment Bill. I commend the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. When he introduced this legislation, unfortunately my mind went back to 4.30 a.m. on 22nd December, 1989, when I attended the horrific bus crash at Kempsey in which many lives were lost and many people were injured. Although that accident occurred on a relatively good section of the Pacific Highway, the only way a head-on collision such as that, or the Grafton truck and bus collision, could be avoided was by the provision of a dual carriageway. I had a flashback to that unfortunate accident and I then realised how great this legislation was. On 13th April Senator Stephen Loosely and I, on behalf of the Federal Minister and the Deputy Premier, performed the opening ceremony of a new section of the Pacific Highway between Frederickton and Kempsey. At that ceremony I called on the Federal Government to clarify taxation, depreciation allowance incentives and the bond system in order to facilitate the construction of private tollways along the Pacific Highway in rural New South Wales.
The legislation makes possible the construction of toll roads in country areas. As has been said, at present the Government can only permit the construction of toll roads in the Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong area. I should like to refer to what was said by the honourable member for Parramatta when he attacked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads and the Government. I would like to remind
Page 3082
him that his Government, a Labor Government, was responsible for the construction of the F3 Tollway on the Pacific Highway from Hornsby to Gosford. Although that tollway had been paid for, the Labor Government still maintained the toll.
Mr Price: The honourable member for Gosford has been delighted ever since.
Mr JEFFERY: The only freeway the honourable member for Waratah has at present is between his ears. Even though the tollway had been paid for, the Labor Government maintained the toll and put the funds into local roads in the Gosford area. Honourable members should ignore the rubbish spoken by the honourable member for Parramatta in this debate.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Merton): Order! The honourable member for Oxley has the call and will be heard in silence.
Mr JEFFERY: The Prime Minister's recent economic statement shows that the Federal Government has also embraced the concept of private enterprise involvement. I repeat that the Prime Minister will need to clarify the depreciation allowance and the bond system before involvement in tollway construction is attractive to the private sector. In America private tollways were constructed by the private sector and have reverted to the public sector. I was speaking with an agricultural attaché who opened the Kempsey show today and he indicated that Americans think that was a great thing. A tollway along the Pacific Highway would cost in excess of $400 million. The construction of such a tollway would create thousands of jobs. Tourism on the North Coast of New South Wales would benefit greatly. It would kickstart Australia's economy and, of course, New South Wales would be the major beneficiary.
To some extent the involvement of private enterprise has been criticised. People have asked why the Federal Government should give a depreciation allowance and taxation incentives to foreign companies or even Australian companies to encourage them to build such a tollway. The taxes paid by the workers who would fill the thousands of jobs created and the tourist income derived from the resulting infrastructure would be of great benefit to this country. As has been mentioned by other speakers, if this program could be commenced now with the co-operation of the Federal Government it would be completed in eight years, in other words, by the year 2000 or shortly afterwards. As a result of this measure, a four-lane divided carriageway will be provided many years sooner than would be possible by other means.
The Pacific Highway Accident Group which is located in Kempsey for the area of the North Coast, a very worthy group, suggested there should be another study, that the Federal Government and the State Government should reinvestigate Pacific Highway upgrading. The time for studies is over. The people of my electorate do not want hints or foot thick documents and other studies; we want action. We want it now. The legislation which has been introduced will allow that to happen. I congratulate the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads. I look forward to the support of the Labor Party - as has happened here tonight - not only from New South Wales but from the Federal area. I have written to Senator Stephen Loosely. At Kempsey he said he supported the concept. I want to see that in writing now from him and from the Prime Minister. Let this Government get on with the job and build this private tollway which will be of great benefit, not only to New South Wales but to Australia.
Page 3083
Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [10.21]: I support the State Roads (Toll Works) Amendment Bill. Of particular benefit to my electorate of Myall Lakes is the proposed tollway between Coolongolook and Bulahdelah, which was one of the first proposals mooted by the Government within weeks of the 1988 election. The then assistant Minister for Transport, Matt Singleton, consulted me on it. That area contains the notorious O'Sullivan's Gap and Wootton Bends, which are Nos 1, 2 and 3 black spots in country New South Wales for deaths and maimings. Anything that can be done to alleviate that problem by implementation of toll roads would be most beneficial not only to my electorate but to the whole of New South Wales and the travelling population of Australia.
There has been a preponderance of heavy vehicle accidents within that area. A lot of those accidents were as a result of the existing condition of the road, the way it is cambered, the curves. Many heavy vehicles carry toxic material which, when the vehicles go off the road, flows into the water systems and water tables and creates a great deal of concern within my electorate. The proposal for the Bulahdelah-Coolongolook area is for a significantly safer grade. It will be a sweeping road where the trucks can travel at their speed and cars will be able to maintain their speed. It will contribute to an approximately two-thirds reduction in accidents in that area. Naturally, it would be of benefit to my electorate from a tourism point of view because one of the proposals for the tollway is an interchange with the Lakes Way, eliminating some dangerous areas over the Coolongolook and Meyers Ranges. These are very winding and narrow roads which are difficult for larger vehicles or caravans to negotiate - indeed, also for motorists who are not familiar with that sort of driving.
Finally, I believe it is very important to the people in my electorate to have an upgraded road because they have suffered for many years as a result of the present alignment of the Pacific Highway. But for this legislation, this work could not be anticipated because, quite simply, such work could only be carried out in Sydney, Newcastle or Wollongong, or in connecting those two latter areas to Sydney. I echo the call to the Prime Minister to listen to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads and to do what he can to facilitate the private sector entering into the building of the toll road within my electorate. Quite simply, too many people are being killed on that particular section of road.
Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Roads) [10.24], in reply: I thank honourable members, both Opposition and Government, for the contributions they have made to debate on this very important piece of legislation. I thank the Opposition for its support. The major issue throughout the debate concerned the availability of an alternative route. There will be no toll road built in New South Wales unless there is an alternative route. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.