Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 10 March 1994, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 3 March.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [9.0]: Prior to the adjournment of this debate last week I said that, although the Government has some sympathy for the concerns raised in this bill, this is not the way to rectify the problem. The bill has many flaws, some of which I emphasised last week. Under proposed section 154(5) the liability of the head contractor is to be extended by the inclusion of a definition of wages to include all wages and entitlements under any award and all matters, or other money that has accrued in relation to those wages and entitlements. Currently, section 154 relates only to wages, not entitlements. The proposed amendment, therefore, will be an important extension of the liability of a head contractor under section 154. However, the definition of wages will cut across the meaning of that term when used elsewhere in the Act. The proposal will also place the head contractor in the impossible position of having to know the wages and entitlements of each employee of a subcontractor, especially in view of proposed amendment of subsections 154(2) and (4).

Present subsection 154(2) makes it an offence for any person to knowingly make or sign a false statement that no wages are due or owing by that person in respect of any work. The proposed amendment to that subsection would extend it to cover a person who knowingly receives and acts upon such false statements, being the head contractor. Yet, how would a head contractor know if the statement is false? The penalty proposed for a breach of subsection 154(2) is draconian. The maximum penalty would be increased from 20 penalty units or $2,000 to 1,000 penalty units or $100,000 for a corporation and to 100 penalty units or $10,000 in the case of an individual. This level of penalty is entirely out of proportion with the scheme of penalties under the Act. If an insolvent subcontractor employer were to be obliged to pay a penalty for such draconian levels there would be little if any money left to pay other creditors. This would eliminate any possibility of employees being able to recoup any unpaid wages or entitlements from their employer. Consequently, the level of penalty is counter-productive and hurts the very people the bill supposedly seeks to protect.

Despite the dramatic increase in penalties there is no defence provision inserted for head contractors. As proceedings would have to be commenced in the Industrial Court due to the level of penalty, the cost of proceedings would be increased, especially for bona fide head contractors, who would have no option but to defend any proceedings. The proposed legislation is bad law. It is vague, impractical and discriminatory against head contractors, and fails to provide a meaningful method of recovery for employees of subcontractors who have not been paid their full wages and entitlements. The bill transgresses into the law of corporate insolvency, which is an area of Commonwealth jurisdiction, and contravenes the heads of agreement which underpin the Corporations Law. The proposed level of penalty is excessive and will be counter-productive for the very people it supposedly seeks to assist. In this House on Tuesday I announced that there would be a review of section 154 as it relates to the clothing industry. I am prepared to undertake to the honourable member for Londonderry that I will ensure, in that review, that we deal with matters concerning the people involved in the building industry and subcontractors. That is the better way to approach this issue, rather than to introduce a bill which is not only bad law but is entirely impractical.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [9.4], in reply: The Minister, like other Fahey Ministers, does not understand her own portfolio. The Minister has no comprehension of industrial relations; if she has, she does not comprehend what the bill is about. An old Sioux Indian saying is, "Judge no man until you walk in his moccasins". I advise the Minister not to judge the proposed legislation until she knows what it is all about. This bill is frontier legislation. For the first time since Captain Cook arrived we have taken a subject out of the too-hard basket and have tried to do something about it. The proposed legislation will bring justice and fairness to the workers of New South Wales. It will stop exploitation. Earlier this week the Minister spoke in this Chamber about exploitation of workers in the rag trade.

Exploitation of New South Wales workers has been going on day in day out, week in week out, since the start of time. The Government has done absolutely nothing and has not lifted a finger to stop what has been going on. In March or April last year in this Chamber the Premier stated, "I support security of payment for workers". He also said that security is not in place in this State because of the Federal Government. The present State Government is great at blaming other people. In this case the Federal Government got the boot from the Premier. The bill has bipartisan support. Prior to the Dionfield incident referred to by the Minister, to which I referred in my second reading speech, we formulated a petition which was widely canvassed. The petition stated:

Page 505

We the undersigned call upon the New South Wales Government to properly address the problem which occurs when companies go into liquidation. In particular, we call on the New South Wales Government to make the necessary -

Mr Humpherson: On a point of order: the honourable member for Londonderry should be responding to arguments raised by the Minister in her speech. The honourable member is seeking to introduce new information. There is only one Government speaker on this issue. Little of what the honourable member has raised in reply so far has any relevance to the comments made by the Minister. I ask that the honourable member for Londonderry be drawn back to replying to the Minister's comments.

Mr Gibson: On the point of order: that is absolute rubbish. What I am speaking about was referred to by the Minister and by me in earlier debate in this House. The honourable member for Davidson knows nothing about the topic I am addressing. He was not present in this Chamber during the debate and would not know about it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Londonderry and all honourable members would be aware that reference can be made in reply only to matters raised during debate and that the reply is not an opportunity to introduce new material. I warn the honourable member to stay within the strictures of that ruling.

Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is exactly what I am doing. The petition called for security of payment for workers. A reading of Hansard shows that it has been mentioned many times so far in debate. That petition was signed by none other than John Hewson, the Federal Opposition leader. He thought so much about security of payment for New South Wales workers that he also had his wife Caroline sign it. John Howard also signed it.

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: I have no recollection of mentioning either the Federal Leader of the Opposition or his wife or any petition. I do not understand how the comments made by the honourable member for Londonderry are relevant to what I said. I ask that he be drawn back to addressing my remarks and not introduce new material, which he is doing.

Mr Gibson: On the point of order: Mr Speaker, if you care to look at Hansard, you will find that the Minister is totally wrong once again.

Mr SPEAKER: Will the honourable member for Londonderry tell me which section of Hansard he is referring to?

Mr Gibson: I am referring to the speech of 22 April 1993.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment is perfectly correct. The honourable member may not raise that matter in this debate.

Mr Gibson: Further to the point of order: this bill -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will not canvass the ruling. He will deal with matters raised by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment in this debate.

Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This debate started in this Chamber on 22 April 1993. The Minister's contribution to the debate -

Mrs Chikarovski: On a point of order: the debate on this bill in relation to my speech started in this Chamber last week. As I understand the rules of this House, the honourable member for Londonderry is entitled to reply to remarks made by me during that debate, but not about matters raised last year. Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule that the honourable member has to respond to what I said, not to what someone else said on 22 April 1993.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Londonderry is under a delusion that he may refer to several other debates. He cannot. He can only refer to the matters raised in the debate on this particular bill. Therefore, the only matters the honourable member can address in reply are those mentioned by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment in her speech just completed on this occasion.

Mr GIBSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has said very little in this debate. In fact, one could write on a piece of confetti all she has said in this debate. That is how little her input has been. The Minister's contribution to this debate would have to be one of the most confused, contradictory and inaccurate contributions I have heard in this Chamber. The position the Minister has taken is very disappointing, to say the least. I expected a bit better from her, but I suspect that she has been given instructions from others in the party and their big builder friends.

The Minister says that the Government is sympathetic to the plight of employees who, through no fault of their own, stand to lose their unpaid entitlements. The Government claims to be sympathetic, but what has it done about the matter? The Minister has said that the Government totally opposes the bill. If the Minister is sympathetic why did she not move some worthwhile amendments? Perhaps that would be beyond the Minister because she knows very little about the subject-matter in hand. The Government claims to be sympathetic, but it is not sympathetic enough to do anything about the problem. That makes a mockery of anything the Government says.

Despite the large number of workers who have missed out on security of payment over the past four years in particular, the Government has not sought to provide any remedy. The State Government kept
Page 506
saying that it was a Federal issue. That is the greatest cop-out of all time. We hear that sort of claim made in this Chamber all the time. The Government has been in office since 1988 and it has done absolutely nothing about this. The Premier has said that he agrees with security of payment. What has he done about it? He has done the same as he has with most problems raised in this Chamber: absolutely nothing. To blame the Federal Government is an absolute nonsense.

The Federal Labor Government has made some very major changes to tax priorities, and the Minister knows it. One change has been a director's liability for tax, but she may not know too much about that. Here is a State proposal that will help the employees for whom the Minister says she has sympathy. What does she do? She walks in here and opposes the bill outright. She raises supposed problems with the bill, rather than putting forward constructive amendments that might help the workers in New South Wales. Not every worker in New South Wales is a Labor supporter; a lot of workers support the Liberal Party. They would be very pleased to know that the present State Government is not worried about workers, and not making sure that they have security of payment.

The Minister says that section 154 of the Industrial Relations Act and its predecessor were seldom used. That is how little the Minister knows - that statement is totally false. It may not have been used often in the courts, but it certainly has been used regularly outside the courtroom, particularly in the building industry. It has happened many hundreds of times. In this Chamber the Minister has said that that is false, which proves that she knows nothing about the portfolio she tries to administer. In the building industry the parties often have been prepared to go beyond the current section 154 in order to provide greater equity and justice for employees.

Unfortunately, the State Government has been pressuring employers and intimidating the union through the building industry task force to stop this justice occurring. It does no good for the Minister to sit there shaking her head; she knows that is the fact. This was the case in the Stuart Brothers-Dionfield dispute, to which the Minister referred. It is 100 per cent true. Stuart Brothers, a major builder, with the backing of the State Government and the task force, refused to pay the unpaid money owed to Dionfield workers. They even refused to pay - and to this date still have not paid - the money clearly owing to the workers under section 154. Stuart Brothers knew for a long time that Dionfield was going bust.

Stuart Brothers even participated in contracts being transferred over to a new $2 company, Dionfield Australia. The Minister was right when she mentioned Dionfield Australia. Stuart Brothers hid behind the statements from Dionfield that wages were paid to its workers even though they knew full well that this was not the case. Stuart Brothers got the benefits of the workers' labour on their site, but they did not contribute 1¢ towards the workers' unpaid entitlements which related to the same work. The Stuart Brothers case is a prime example of the need to upgrade this legislation. This is frontier legislation. At least the Labor Party has been prepared to bite the bullet and show where it stands. The Minister should have been here in 1991 when the industrial relations debates went on in this Chamber for many months.

Mrs Chikarovski: I was here in 1991.

Mr GIBSON: The Minister should know a little bit more about the portfolio she tries to administer. The Minister stated that the proposed amendments are a sledge-hammer approach. She said that they are incompetent and draconian. The Minister uttered three words many times in her speech: incompetent, draconian and sledge-hammer. It is absolute nonsense. The first aspect she considered as fitting of this description is that the current written statement required by section 154 should be in a prescribed form. How draconian! How shocking! It is fair and just, and the Minister knows it, as does anyone who knows anything about industrial relations.

The current section 154 requires a written statement to be made by a subcontractor stating that all wages owing have been paid. Unfortunately, in the Stuart Brothers-Building Workers' Industrial Union dispute the written statements became the source of a debate as to whether their contents were sufficient to protect Stuart Brothers from liability for unpaid wages. That is what they hid behind, and that is what this bill will stop them from doing. A prescribed form would overcome such difficulties. Further, it is in the interests of the builders for there to be a prescribed form to avoid any such debates.

The Minister falls down badly in her knowledge of her portfolio with respect to the signed statement. I have spoken about a prescribed form. The Minister spent a lot of time in her speech criticising me because I have put up this bill and there is no prescribed form. She said that the bill shows a weakness because there is no prescribed form. That is where the Minister shows a total lack of knowledge of her portfolio. The Industrial Relations Act has several mechanisms to follow when putting forward a prescribed form. Does the Minister know anything about section 749? A prescribed form can be achieved by way of regulation, as it has been already many thousands of times. Has the Minister ever had a look at section 313? That section states that prescribed forms can be made by the rules of a court. The registrars of the commission or court will easily be able to follow through this simple mechanical exercise, which is all it is.

When the Government put through its industrial reform in 1991 that is exactly the way it was put through. Out of that industrial reform there must have been at least a dozen prescribed forms that were
Page 507
never shown to the Parliament. They were never put through as legislation, because the Government does not do it that way. The Minister falls down badly because she knows absolutely nothing about industrial relations. The proposal is not dangerously incompetent, as the Minister says. It is the Minister and her advisers who are dangerously incompetent. The Minister should find different advisers because her present advisers have sold her down the river this time. If the Minister's major concern relates to the prescribed form, why does she not put in a prescribed form about legislation? Where is her legislation? She has been a Minister and has been in the Parliament for long enough to know her responsibilities. The Government has been in office since 1988. Where is the Minister's proposed legislation to support workers in New South Wales? It is nowhere to be seen and it will not be seen. The biggest flaw in the industrial package that was put through in 1991 was the lack of support for security of payment for workers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment to order.

Mr GIBSON: She did not want it at any stage, nor did the Premier or the Government. The reason she did not want it was because she was looking after her big mates in the building industry.

Mr Richardson: On a point of order: the honourable member for Londonderry is addressing the Minister across the table. He is not speaking through you, Mr Speaker. He should properly address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Gibson: On the point of order: there is no point of order. The honourable member for The Hills made a comment that is not even worth discussing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is always debatable whether or not the restriction to speak through the Chair means that the member has to face the Chair all the time. Particularly in these enlightened days of the televising of proceedings in the Chamber, I notice a tendency by some members to look away from the Chair, perhaps more than they should. However, of greater importance is the general intention and direction. In that respect the honourable member for Londonderry was speaking within the tradition of the House.

Mr GIBSON: I notice that Ministers keep looking at the television cameras and often I think the Speaker of the House should move to where the Serjeant-at-Arms sits. I thank the honourable member for the contribution he has made to the debate on my private member's bill. The Minister said the proposed penalties are draconian. Under the present Act the penalty is a $2,000 maximum fine. We are referring to companies involved in construction where hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business and jobs are on the line. Does the Government think a $2,000 fine would be a deterrent to a company involved with a $200 million construction site? If it does, I will be waiting with bated breath to see what legislation is brought in to protect the workers. This bill takes a realistic attitude to penalties in these circumstances. Instead of a $2,000 maximum fine, the bill will provide for a fine of $200,000.

Mrs Chikarovski: That is draconian.

Mr GIBSON: It is not draconian; it happens to be a deterrent. It would be all too easy for any of these building companies to say they have got a written statement, knowing it is false: even if they are proved guilty they will receive only a $2,000 fine. It is a bit like Merv Hughes getting a $400 fine for chasing someone with a cricket bat. It is an absolute nonsense and makes a mockery of the law. That small penalty is no deterrent whatever. This legislation is frontier legislation. I thank the Labor Party for having the confidence to support such legislation. For too long workers in this State have not had the proper protection that they should have.

The Minister says this legislation is draconian; I say it is probably the best legislation ever brought before this Chamber in relation to security of payment for workers. If it is not, she should produce legislation that is better and she should show me any legislation that has ever been fairer. This legislation tries for the first time to give security of payment to workers. The Minister mentioned Dionfield and the workers on the construction site of the TAFE college at Richmond. Why should 40 workers put time, effort and money into a construction site to find out that suddenly Dionfield has gone into liquidation? If Dionfield goes into liquidation, no worker is paid.

Under the old law before 1991, as the Minister well knows, the principal used to pick up the tab, but because of the industrial legislation that passed through the Parliament in 1991 no one is responsible now. No one is legally held responsible to pay the workers for the work that has been carried out. Stuart Brothers, the principal involved in the job at Richmond, agreed that the workers did the job and should be paid, but that company is not prepared to pay the workers. A payment to the workers could have been handled in the form of an ex gratia payment, but they are scared of the State Government because it would create a precedent. Turning the clock back some years, workers had some form of come-back against wages that were not paid, but if the company at Richmond paid the workers it knows the State Government would take it off the preferred tender list, and its business would suffer.

As a result, Stuart Brothers and other companies can sit there for ever and a day and deny the workers pay for the job that has been carried out. All their entitlements go by the board. After 18 months, the workers at Richmond are still waiting for wages to be paid. Because of the Government's legislation, Dionfield Pty Limited has been legally cleared. It is in the clear because it has taken out a $2 company and called it Dionfield Australia. The Minister for Industrial Relations and the Government tell the workers of New South Wales that Dionfield will be allowed to continue with its $2 company and the Government will ensure that workers do not have to be paid. This legislation will stop that occurring. Is it terribly draconian to think some fairness and justice will be given to workers in New South Wales who deserve it?

Page 508

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Dr Macdonald
Mr Amery Mr McManus
Mr Anderson Mr Markham
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Martin
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Mills
Mr Bowman Ms Moore
Mr Carr Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Doyle Mr Neilly
Mr Face Mr Newman
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
Mrs Grusovin Mr Price
Mr Harrison Mr Rogan
Mr Hatton Mr Rumble
Mr Hunter Mr Scully
Mr Iemma Mr Shedden
Mr Irwin Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Thompson
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mr Langton Tellers,
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Causley Mr Petch
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mrs Cohen Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mrs Skinner
Mr Downy Mr Small
Mr Fahey Mr Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Souris
Mr Glachan Mr Tink
Mr Griffiths Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Yabsley
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr Morris Mr Jeffery
Mr W. T. J. Murray Mr Kerr

Dr Refshauge Mr Baird
Mr Whelan Mr Hartcher
Mr Ziolkowski Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.


Debate resumed from 21 May 1993.

Mr IRWIN (Fairfield) [9.36]: The payment of dividends by government trading enterprises is not an issue with this bill. It is accepted that dividend payments impose a beneficial financial discipline on government trading enterprises. The object of the bill is, however, to regulate the imposition of what are termed special dividends. In its report No. 60, tabled in April 1992, the Public Accounts Committee defined three distinct types of dividend. They are, first, a normal dividend: a return the Government expects from the profits of an agency; second, a special dividend: an additional return, which may exceed available profits but is not an "other capital return" type of dividend; and, third, other capital return: a reduction in the amount invested in an agency, that is a return of all or part of the original capital contributed. The committee noted that special dividends should normally be paid only out of realised profits. However, in some circumstances Treasury considers it appropriate to call upon the asset revaluation reserve. Treasury outlines two conditions for the use of this notional reserve for dividend payments, as follows:

(a) the carrying value of the non-current asset to which the asset revaluation reserve relates, must be based on a reliable, bona fide valuation and must not be expected to decline substantially in value in the long term or be subject to major short term fluctuations, and

(b) the payment of a dividend from the retained profits/accumulated surplus account following a transfer from the asset revaluation reserve must not place the agency in cash flow difficulties - that is, the agency must have sufficient cash resources available to finance its operational cash needs (including asset replacement and loan repayment when required) and growth plans, if any.

There needs to be vigilance to ensure that these conditions are adhered to in practice. Let us look at the record. Last year the Water Board was stripped of an amount of dividend which was totally unrelated to its financial performance. As became clear from the letter of resignation of the former chairman, Mr David Harley, the $100 million special dividend approximated the $100 million raised by the special environment levy. But that was not the only dividend levy placed on the Water Board; that year a further $100 million was also levied, with conflicting argument from the responsible Minister and the then
Page 509
Treasurer as to whether it represented a dividend or the purchase of assets. This example underlines the need for the regulation of the payment of dividends by government trading enterprises. The legislative basis for the payment of dividends was introduced by the previous Government and is to be found in section 59B of the Public Finance and Audit Act, which provides in subsection (2):

(2) Notwithstanding any other Act, the Treasurer may at any time require a prescribed statutory authority to pay to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, at such times and in such a manner as Treasury directs, such amount by way of dividend as the Treasurer may determine and notify to the statutory authority.

The Act as it stands does not prescribe how a dividend is to be assessed. That has been the subject of Treasury dictates as set out in Treasury policy circulars. In the financial distribution policy issued in August 1992 Treasury stated:

The financial distributions made by GTEs comprise the following: payment of a credit rating based fee on outstanding debt guaranteed by the Government, dividend payments and, where applicable, Commonwealth taxation equivalent payments (the latter two comprise what is termed the pre-tax profit distribution.)

In addition, GTEs make interest payments on outstanding debt. It was further articulated that government trading enterprises are subject to the following: first, a target return on equity, that is, total assets less total liabilities calculated on a nominal, before company tax basis equal to the prevailing return on a 10 year Commonwealth bond plus the unique risk premium for each GTE; second, a target return on total assets calculated on a nominal before company tax basis equal to the GTE's prevailing weighted average cost of capital; third, a target pre-tax profit distribution to the Government of at least 50 per cent of the pre-tax profit; that is, net operating profit. The pre-tax distribution will be calculated on the basis of dividend only if the GTE is not in the taxation equivalent payments regime and taxation equivalent payments plus dividend if the GTE is in the taxation equivalent payments regime. The current policy therefore sets a target dividend for GTEs at 50 per cent of the pre-tax profit; that is, the net operating profit. Professor Bob Walker of the University of New South Wales, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 February 1993 described the effect of this policy:

The approach of the Premier and Treasurer, Mr Fahey, to GBEs is even drier than Greiner's. Last August, they announced that GBEs are to aim at a target rate of return on their "shareholders' funds", and to pay 50% of their profits as dividends.

That regime may seem very harsh for those GBEs which need to invest in new infrastructure, but at least it provides some certainty.

That approach should now be seen in the light of moves by the Government to contract water treatment plants to the private sector. It is fair to say that the money to be taken from the Water Board in dividends might well have financed the construction of those plants. In a number of cases work is being contracted out to the private sector because the Government does not have the capital to provide it. Yet by stripping the capital of government business enterprises by way of special dividends the Government is denying them the opportunity to provide those facilities themselves. While setting the dividend at 50 per cent may be argued to be too high, the real issue is that of special dividends. Professor Walker went on to say:

The Fahey Government is making unheralded demands for special dividends. This is unsettling for Government appointed boards of GBEs, and disruptive of business plans.

The issue of special dividends is at the heart of this legislation. It is a thorny issue for the Government. Last year we witnessed a grab by the Government for a further $100 million from the Water Board. It was not just the initial special dividend. But in a sham exercise Mr Webster attempted to explain this as a transfer of assets including the Alexandria Canal and the Bonnie Doon golf course. In a letter to Mr Webster dated 10 September 1992 the Premier ordered the Water Board to amend its accounts to ensure that the $100 million was not linked to any purchase of assets. Clearly, the Premier of the day saw the proposed transfer of those assets as an absolute sham. Ownership of a golf course could hardly be seen as a core asset of a government trading enterprise. At least the Premier saw the folly of the sham asset sales. Such a move would have been completely against any attempt to impose discipline on the Water Board. The Public Accounts Committee, in its report on dividends, identified this issue, stating:

A major reason why the entire process gathered pace in the 1980's was that by then the inefficiencies apparent in some authorities had become undeniable. Principal among these was a marked excess of capital resources. Underutilised plant, equipment and buildings, inherited facilities now redundant and lying idle, were not "earning their keep", and the authorities responsible for them required a continuing flow of subsidies if only to cover maintenance costs. The drain on Consolidated Fund represented by these subsidies made it imperative that some form of discipline be applied. The payment of dividends was felt to be one such discipline.

If dividend payments were to improve the asset management of GTEs, the transfer of unproductive assets such as golf courses would be seen as indefensible. Wisely, the Premier refuted the asset transfer claim in this case. The bill provides that asset purchases be referred to the Auditor-General, who is to investigate and report to the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament as to whether the purchases involve a fair price for the economic benefit to the authority. On that basis the Auditor-General and the Parliament would have had difficulty finding that there was some economic benefit to the authority from its purchase of the Bonnie Doon golf course. The issue of dividends must also be considered in the light of the activities of the Government Pricing Tribunal. The recent report of the tribunal "Paying for Electricity" identifies dividends as a factor in the price structure. The report states:

The NSW Treasury's financial distribution policy has formalised rate of return targets for public enterprises and the calculation of dividend payments to the Government.

Page 510

The report concludes:

In considering any changes to tariffs which affect profits, the tribunal will need to address the implications for dividends.

Clearly, the Government Pricing Tribunal considers the effect of dividends - and special dividends as well - in the context of the ability of the Government to levy special dividends. The ability to apply those to government trading enterprises must be seen as flowing directly through to the tariffs charged by government trading enterprises, as acknowledged by the Government Pricing Tribunal. So there is a direct link between the special dividends levied by the Government and the price consumers have to pay for commodities such as water and electricity. The Public Accounts Committee, in its report on dividends, proposed that the Treasury articulate and implement its dividend policy with greater openness and transparency. The issue of special dividends was not considered as fully as it might have been, given the subsequent experience with the special dividends levied on the Water Board and Prospect Electricity. The Curran committee inquired into the then Prospect County Council and subsequently imposed a $400 million special dividend on Prospect Electricity.

The Curran report was severely criticised by Dr Bob Walker. He made a scathing attack on the Curran committee. He said that its findings relied on the work of consultants but the committee did not disclose what the consultants were asked to investigate and the report of the consultants was not made available. In his comments on the report he pointed out that in effect the Curran committee was a star chamber. In his words, its investigation was "seriously deficient" in its examination of the finances of Prospect Electricity. Yet on the basis of that report the Government levied a $400 million special dividend on Prospect Electricity. This is nothing short of raiding the pharaoh's tomb. The Government, to satisfy its own revenue requirements, raided a government trading enterprise on the basis of a report which, in the words of Dr Bob Walker, was seriously deficient in its assessment of Prospect Electricity. The raiding by the Government of government trading enterprises, forcing them to pass on the cost of those dividends to their consumers, as the Government Pricing Tribunal acknowledges, will have grave consequences for the people of this State.

It is nothing short of a form of taxation, which this Parliament does not endorse. The bill seeks to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act to require dividends to be calculated in accordance with a predetermined formula prescribed in the regulations, especially in relation to special dividends. Where there are such bogus transfers of assets the Auditor-General should investigate those transfers and report to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Parliament on whether the price paid for them bears any relationship to the value of the assets of government trading enterprises. I believe this approach is entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and the need for government trading enterprises to have greater certainty in the assessment of their dividend obligations. The bill will preserve the principle of the Government applying financial discipline on government trading enterprises, but it will allow greater transparency in dividend policy and allow government trading enterprises to better plan their capital requirements. I support the bill.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [9.51]: Some years ago as a member of the Opposition I served on the Public Accounts Committee and considered the sorts of issues that are being debated today. In the past decade New South Wales has set the agenda for reform of government trading enterprises, not only for this State but nationally. New South Wales is the State to which all other States and the Commonwealth look for government trading enterprise policy in Australia. New South Wales has set the agenda. The Opposition, through this legislation, proposes a fundamental attack on that agenda: a critical dismantling of key provisions in government trading enterprise policy. We make no apology for the fact that in the current Budget government trading enterprises are contributing approximately $1.1 billion to provide this State with essential services. I am talking about services like schools, hospitals, police on the beat and roads. The contribution from government trading enterprises has increased from about $150 million eight years ago to $1,100 million this financial year.

We make no apology for that because, over the past six years - the time in which we have been in Government - we have reformed government trading enterprises and made them more efficient. We have certainly trimmed off a lot of the fat, which has been part of the history of politics in New South Wales. We on this side of the House have delivered long overdue reform. That is acknowledged not only in New South Wales but right around the country. It is acknowledged even by the Federal Labor Government and by those who are politically opposed to us. In this area, above many others, we are perceived to have performed, to have delivered the goods. To put it bluntly, we have taken $1.1 billion from government trading enterprises this financial year. What is the alternative? There are really only two: first, to raise taxes and, second, to cut services. We could have said, "No, we will not take a dividend from government trading enterprises this year," or, "We will take some kind of formula dividend and scale down dividends such as is proposed by the Opposition". If we had done that, it would have required the Government to close schools and hospitals, to reduce the number of police on the beat, to stop our road construction program and to cancel a whole lot of community services across the board. That was one alternative. We have not done that.

We have said, "The schools should remain open. The hospital reconstruction program that this Government embarked on six years ago should be continued and relocated to principal areas of need. The roads of this State, which were so neglected over 12 years by the previous Labor Government, need to
Page 511
be upgraded". We were not going to walk away from those things. We have also said, "Community services should continue and the matching grant for the home and community care program should continue". We were not going to cut those services; nor were we going to increase taxes. But we did say to government trading enterprises, which we have made perform more efficiently, "We are going to take a dividend from you". Why is the Government going to do that? Since the establishment of democratic government in this State in the middle of the nineteenth century the people of New South Wales have been investing in what are now known as government trading enterprises. Our State has been putting money into things like the provision of water, electricity and so on. We are now saying, "We the investors, the taxpayers of New South Wales, want some of the dividend back". I know that Opposition members will drag a red herring across the path and say, "But can you not get it back anyway if there is a fairly radical reduction in electricity prices?"

Let us look at the way electricity and water are structured in this State. The whole State has been contributing to this infrastructure for over a century, but only parts of the State get a benefit from particular instrumentalities, from Prospect Electricity, or from the Sydney Water Board. The whole State has been contributing to the Sydney Water Board but not everyone obtains water from the Water Board. Principally, country areas are missing out lock, stock and barrel. They miss out right across the State, especially in relation to water and electricity. We, as the managers elected by the people of New South Wales, make no apology for saying, "We will take a dividend from those successful government trading enterprises and put it back into the provision of essential services for taxpayers". That is a decision which we, as the Government, take.

If we get it badly wrong there is a price to pay. The electorate gets a chance on 25 March next year to make a decision as to whether we have got it right or wrong. That is the way it should be. It is ludicrous to try to limit the discretion of government, the management capability of government, or the flexibility with which governments are empowered to make decisions on behalf of their citizens in this way. Today the Opposition is proposing the worst type of John Cain economics - the Victorian John Cain: the man whose economic policies are so discredited right around this country, whose economic policies have brought Victoria to its knees. Only after years of reconstruction will that State be rehabilitated. It is exactly that model that the Opposition puts forward to this Parliament. We should not fall for it for a second.

The Opposition bill proposes a number of amendments to the Public Finance and Audit Act. These changes are not only poorly thought out but represent a fundamental attack on the ability of this Government - indeed any government - to implement budget strategy. As honourable members would be aware, dividends paid by government trading enterprises are a key element in ensuring that this State retains its triple-A credit status. For those who believe we can take that for granted, only two States in this country have triple-A status - New South Wales and Queensland; all other States would like to have that status. If we lose our triple-A status, it could cost us anywhere between $60 million and $100 million in additional interest payments.

Government trading enterprise dividends enable the Government to continue to reduce the Budget deficit while at the same time not sacrificing social and community services or raising new taxes. The Opposition bill will greatly impair the Government's successful and responsible program of reforming GTEs and thereby put at risk millions of dollars of dividends. By doing this, the Opposition bill will restrict the Government's fundamental right to take those measures deemed appropriate to run a budget. The Opposition is once again out of step with mainstream political thinking by advocating what its Federal colleagues are so adamantly saying is a breach of the convention, namely, not allowing the government of the day to get on with its budget.

Before I comment more specifically on the gross and total shortcomings of this bill, let me remind honourable members of the success of the Government's GTE reform program and the benefits that have flowed to the people. Since this Government came to office in 1987-88 productivity in the major GTEs has improved by about 50 per cent; price increases have been at less than the Sydney inflation rate - that is, real price decreases have occurred; the total level of debt has decreased; and, significantly, GTE dividends have grown from less than $200 million to about $1 billion. I make no apologies for the increase in dividends. It signals the exceptional improvement in the commerciality that GTE managers have introduced into their businesses and it has been a key element in this State retaining its triple-A rating. The Opposition bill will put all of this at risk.

I turn to the specifics of the bill. Basically, three changes are proposed: first, introducing a strict formula prescribed by legislation for determining dividends; second, restricting capital repayments by GTEs to repayment of "capital indebtedness of the authority arising from financial accommodation provided to the authority"; and, third, introducing a complicated bureaucratic and costly reporting process whenever an authority purchases from the Crown an asset valued at over $1 million. Let me turn to each of those specifics. The Opposition bill proposes that dividends be determined in accordance with a formula prescribed by legislation; that different formulas can apply to different authorities; and that a formula can be based on any prescribed basis.

The Opposition's formula approach is completely unspecified, leaving open the opportunity for dividends to be based on non-commercial criteria, which ultimately could harm the financial position of the GTE and the consumer. Dividends should be paid out of profits, as is the case in the private sector and as is specified in this Government's existing dividend
Page 512
policy. Dividend targets should be set in the context of the profitability of each individual GTE, in other words, on a case-by-case basis. Dividend targets, negotiated with individual GTEs and agreed to in an annual statement of financial performance, is a key feature of this Government's existing dividend policy.

In its April 1922 report on dividends made by statutory authorities to the Consolidated Fund the Public Accounts Committee recommended against a fixed formula approach to dividends. That bipartisan committee had it right in 1992; it looked at all the evidence, took into account all of its experience and accumulated observations and came down against a fixed formula approach to dividends. The PAC recognised that dividends need to be set on a case-by-case basis. The Federal Government's dividend policy announced in last year's Budget is basically a copy of the New South Wales policy where dividends are based on a target of at least 50 per cent of pre-tax profits.

As I said at the outset, a clear warning against a fixed formula approach is what happened to authorities in Victoria under the Cain Labor Government. The Victorian Labor Government adopted a fixed dividend formula of 4 per cent of current revalued assets, regardless of the profit position and future requirements of authorities. The Victorian authorities had to borrow money to pay dividends that were based on increasing asset values, and this led to high unsustainable levels of debt for Victorian authorities. The Opposition's bill proposes that a repayment of capital can only be made by an authority to discharge indebtedness arising from financial accommodation provided to the authority. This proposed amendment is nonsensical. Any debt raised by an authority will, by definition, have to be repaid. The effect of this proposed amendment would have dire consequences for the ongoing commercial operation of government authorities.

For example, if an authority sold surplus assets, the Government would be unable to remove that cash from the authority; or, if an authority had surplus cash flow and built-up cash reserves, the Government would be unable to take cash out. The capital structure - the mix of debt and equity - of many GTEs has arisen from historical and past political reasons, and not from commercial reasons. In many cases authorities have too little debt because the cost of equity has been ignored. This proposed amendment would make it impossible for the Government to structure commercial debt-equity mixes by gearing up authorities. Therefore, this will severely curtail their commercial reform.

The third proposal of the Opposition bill is that any asset valued at over $1 million purchased by an authority from the State is to be subject to the Treasurer notifying the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor-General reporting to the Public Accounts Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee reporting to the Legislative Assembly on whether a fair price was paid to the economic benefit of the authority. This proposal is sheer madness. It is the sort of bureaucracy of which Ceausescu would have been proud because it is going to waste resources as they have never been wasted before. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. Significant asset purchases are recorded in the annual reports of authorities and the Auditor-General audits the accounts - information that is already dealt with.

A $1 million threshold is far too low for most Government businesses where individual assets can be worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. A $1 million threshold will tie up an army of clerks and accountants poring over this type of information. An entire department will be required to deal with this sort of nonsense. Obviously the Opposition proposes major growth in the public sector to monitor this type of nonsense legislation that its members want in this State. Opposition members are not content to consider what happened to the Cain Government; they want to replicate the same result in New South Wales and they want a recovery led by the public sector comprising an army of clerks set up by the honourable member for Drummoyne.

This is one of the most "Looney Tunes" proposals ever put forward by the Opposition or by the honourable member for Drummoyne, who really should know better. In the time he has been in this Parliament he should have picked up a few tricks; he should recognise that this Government has set the agenda on government trading enterprises. But not the honourable member! He has dragged up this populist notion that he thinks will go down well in the electorate. The first thing the Opposition members would do, if they ever occupied the Government benches and this bill was in place, would be to get rid of it. They would not have a bar of it.

The Opposition would not limit itself - no government in its right mind would limit itself - with this type of inflexibility. However, that is exactly what the honourable member for Drummoyne is proposing today. The bill fails to explain what happens if the Public Accounts Committee deems the price paid for an asset to be unfair. For example, how is unfair defined? The bill fails to explain how the Public Accounts Committee would determine the economic benefits accruing to the authority. Surely this is management's job. If management gets it wrong, if the Government gets it wrong, then the electorate changes the government. If the Government is not managing the economy properly, at the next general election the people of New South Wales would put in a different government. That is the check and balance.

Meanwhile, the people want the Government to govern. The people want the Government to get on with the job of managing the State's economies, reducing debt, and ensuring that government trading enterprises perform more efficiently. Certainly that has been one of the main thrusts of this Government. Every sign from the Opposition over the past six years indicates that efficiency is not one of the Opposition's great preoccupations. It is not something
Page 513
that the Opposition would spend much time on. It would be happy to repeat the Victorian experience, to repeat the financial disintegration that occurred under the John Cain Government.

Mr Cruickshank: That is the hollow log mentality.

Mr COLLINS: The Opposition would be quite happy to have hollow logs. When I served on the Public Accounts Committee that committee frequently observed the use of hollow logs by the Labor Government, of which the honourable member for Drummoyne was a member. I am sure the honourable member would like us to forget all about that. That process has been virtually eliminated in this State. This Government has put in place major changes, with beneficial improvements, in the process of government accounting in New South Wales, despite the odd snipe from Professor Walker. The Opposition's bill is plainly flawed. It fails to address the reality of our commercial GTEs. It puts at risk the very significant reforms that this Government has achieved to date.

The State has set the agenda for the reform of government trading enterprises. Fundamentally this bill introduces untenable restrictions on the legitimate exercise of power by an elected government to run its budget. I am pleased that the honourable member for Manly has entered the Chamber to hear this point: the bill sets in place untenable restrictions on the legitimate exercise of power by an elected government to run its budget. If the Government gets it wrong, the solution is in the hands of the electorate. The electorate wants to know that the Government can do what is necessary to manage the economy properly, and that it will take an holistic approach to that process. That is precisely what this Government proposes, rather than having a fragmented, disjointed and gradual disintegration of our economic achievements, as proposed by the Opposition.

This is unquestionably the most fundamental attack introduced by the Opposition since May 1991 on the ability of this Government to run its Budget. If this bill is approved by the House, any costs to the State of the implementation and enforcement of this legislation will be a direct cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales. Those costs would be quite significant. This is Cain-style economic engineering, 10 years too late. The rest of Australia has learned its lesson. The rest of Australia is following this Government's lead on GTEs, yet the Opposition proposes this giant leap backwards. The bill must be opposed: it must be rejected by this House. On behalf of the Government I make it perfectly clear that this bill is completely and utterly rejected by the Government.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [10.14]: The object of this bill is to amend the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 to require dividends payable by the principal government trading authorities to be calculated in accordance with a predetermined formula prescribed by the regulations. The bill also provides that asset purchases from the State by those authorities are to be referred to the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee if the payment is more than $1 million and does not represent an official dividend or a repayment of capital. A report is to be made to Parliament on whether the payment made for any such relevant asset purchase is a fair price for the economic benefit to the authority.

The beneficiaries of this legislation will be the families of New South Wales; the pensioners, small business people, and people generally, because it will outlaw special dividend rip-offs from State business enterprises. The bill will limit dividends from government business enterprises paid to the Government. It will end the Government's dividend raids through special dividends on bodies such as the Maritime Services Board, State Rail Authority, Pacific Power, the Water Board and so on. The bill provides that if asset purchases from the State by government business enterprises are more than $1 million, that must be reported to the Parliament. The Government will be forced, when it wants to draw funds through State dividends, to bring in special taxing legislation. The Government has been hiding its inept financial management by using government authorities as de facto tax collectors.

This bill will help keep the government of the day honest. Raids on bodies such as the Water Board are particularly insidious for their effect on ordinary people. For example, pensioners are being hit for water bills in the order of $160 or $170, or more, with only $4 or $5 being for actual water usage. This bill will put an end to the large price hikes for water and electricity and will greatly benefit small business, which is already hit hard by excessive costs. This bill will mean that if the Government wants to raise taxes, it must seek approval of the Parliament. This legislation will also stop raids such as the $740 million dividend pulled out of Sydney Electricity, as it then was, last year. It is only through these raids that this Government is surviving. I will quote from the Financial Review of 8 March, under the headline "NSW ready for third wave: price cuts". The article states:

Government utilities in NSW are preparing to launch the third wave in their 10-year program of competition reform: price cuts for private business.

The NSW Treasurer, Mr Collins, yesterday released the annual performance survey of State Government businesses which includes a target to almost halve the sector's work force by the end of fiscal 1996.

The report continues:

Yesterday's progress report on work force rationalisation reported that the utilities had reduced their employment level by 36 per cent between fiscal 1987 and fiscal 1993.

Further in the report it is stated:

In the seven years to 1992-93, the aggregated operating income result for those major business areas rose from a $289.5 million deficit to a $960 million surplus.

The Government businesses contributed $955.7 million of that fiscal 1993 profit in dividends and tax equivalent payments to the NSW.

By the end of this year the cash handover is expected to rise to about $1.1 billion.

Page 514

More than $1 million is currently being ripped out of public utilities to cover this Government's mismanagement and fiscal ineptitude. The bill also provides that the dividend of government trading enterprises is not to exceed the dividend calculated in accordance with the formula prescribed by regulation. The bill provides that different formulas may be set for different authorities but the Government will not be able to camouflage special dividends through bogus asset sales or capital repayments. If the Government wants to draw extra funds from government trading enterprises, it will have to do so by means of special taxing legislation that will need the approval of the Parliament. In other words, the role of GTEs as tax collectors will be fully exposed.

The special dividends which are so much a part of the Government's operations will be exposed for all to see. The Government's practice of creaming off funds from government trading enterprises is regarded as a painless method of raising funds, but eventually the people of this State will have to pay because there is no way in the world that county councils, Pacific Power and so on, can carry out the necessary maintenance programs and pay dividends on top of that. There was a reference by the Treasurer a few moments ago to the hollow log mentality. The way the Government has been operating is an example of raiding the hollow logs for short-term gain. In the long run maintenance cannot be put off. Raids on Prospect Electricity will result in power facilities throughout the State regularly failing and there will be breakdowns and power cuts. For example, in the Riverina and western Sydney no maintenance on infrastructure will be carried out because the government trading enterprises are being asked to tear the heart out of their industry and give it to Treasury.

If the Government's golden geese - the Water Board and the electricity authorities - are to act as monopolies, they should be able to operate effectively and efficiently. At the moment those industries are creating very strong cash flow and they are both top earners for the Government. New South Wales Government figures for the past two years reveal that the Sydney Water Board has produced rates of return on assets and shareholders' equity of 3 per cent to 4 per cent, but it must be remembered that not all government accounting procedures show in the real light what the return is. In part, these low rates of return reflect the impact of write-ups which have increased the book value of the Sydney Water Board's infrastructure assets. Write-ups have increased the denomination on the rates of return of assets or equity and have also had many other effects, allowing the Government to introduce higher charges. I quote an excerpt from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of November 1993, by Bob Walker, a fellow I know the Government admires. He said:

Yet, additionally, the Fahey Government is making unheralded demands for "special dividends". This is unsettling for Government-appointed boards GBEs, and disruptive of business plans. The Sydney Water Board's chairman, David Harley, resigned last year when the SWB's payment of $100 million to Treasury during 1991-92 (which the board believed was in exchange for assets held by the Department of Public Works) was retrospectively described as a "special dividend".

Harley's resignation letter (obtained under Freedom of Information legislation by the ABC's 7.30 Report) expressed concern that the $100 million approximated the funds raised by the SWB's Special Environmental Levy. What has largely been overlooked is that the Fahey Government has demanded and received a second $100 million from the SWB. In other words, the SWB has been stripped of $200 million in special dividends over two years.

Virtually every day constituents come into my office complaining about being used as milch cows by the Government. Water rates, electricity bills and so on are now no longer accounts for services delivered or services rendered; in fact, these very basics of life are now a means of imposing and collecting extra taxes from the general population. It is an insidious means of tax collection. It is unfair and regressive and it is the flint-hearted user-pays system taken to outrageous lengths. I support the bill.

Mr ZAMMIT (Strathfield) [10.24]: I do not want to take up too much time of the House on a bill which, frankly, has been put together very loosely with no specifics; a bill that says there must be a fixed formula approach, yet the Opposition has not specified what dividend percentage it wants. It is very strange that the honourable member for Fairfield, who has spoken on this bill for the Opposition, is now not in the Chamber. I notice also that the honourable member for Illawarra, who was in the Chamber, has now also gone. Both were members of the Public Accounts Committee that discussed the matter of dividend payments and issued a very structured report in April 1992. That report detailed the public hearings by a committee that sought very detailed information from the Government, from the public and from the instrumentalities - that is, the statutory authorities.

Honourable members will note that one Opposition member who is also a member of the Public Accounts Committee has spoken in favour of the bill. Obviously another Opposition member intends to speak to it. At no time did those honourable members state that they disagreed with the findings of the Public Accounts Committee as presented in the report. I am pleased that the Treasurer mentioned the report of the Public Accounts Committee in his very detailed rebuttal of what will - if this legislation goes through this House - cause enormous problems for the triple-A rating of this State. There are hidden dangers - dangers that the honourable member for Drummoyne should be aware of. He was a member of the Public Accounts Committee and this report would have been available to him. It certainly would have been brought to his notice by members of that committee. I will read from page 83 of the report because it is indicative of the problems that will be faced if we go down this road:

Furthermore, and most importantly, most GTEs provide an essential public service which private companies do not. Because of this, great care and sensitivity must be exercised to ensure that the quality and general public availability of the service not be unacceptably compromised by the need to pay a dividend.

Page 515

I will repeat that last section, "compromised by the need to pay a dividend". The report goes on to say:

As a result, it is all the more imperative to take a well designed case by case sensitive approach to dividend policy, rather than advocate a blanket, unvarying and undiscriminating general series of measures.

I want to touch briefly on a couple of points made by the Opposition in regard to the payment of dividends. I refer specifically to the so-called special dividend to which Opposition members referred. They mentioned the $100 million special dividend paid by the Water Board in 1992-93, and the supposed implications for prices and future systems maintenance. I do not know how many times it has to be reiterated that the $100 million paid in 1992-93, to which the Opposition continually refers, was a bona fide payment for asset purchase, in which both the Valuer-General and Auditor-General were involved.

Before I go into detail I should put on the record the following two relevant points. The Budget Papers clearly show that no special dividends are being contemplated from the Water Board. The independent Government Pricing Tribunal sets the dividends the Water Board must pay to ensure that there is no monopoly taxing. All government trading enterprises are ultimately underwritten by the New South Wales Government against the risk of failure through explicit, and of course implicit, guarantees. Dividends represent the return to the shareholder, that is, the Government and the people, on its equity investment in government trading enterprises, just as interest payments represent the cost of capital finance by debt.

The normal dividend paid by the Water Board in 1992-93, based on the 1991-92 profits, was $70 million. After including the $100 million payment for assets purchase the total contribution was $170 million, a 1.5 per cent return on the Government's equity - substantially below the Commonwealth 10-year bond yield for 1991-92 of about 9.9 per cent. That is an important point. I will say more about the Water Board in a moment. As the Treasurer mentioned, it should be recalled that a similar path to that proposed by the Opposition was taken by the Victorian Labor Government, which decided that there should be a 4 per cent dividend. That meant that the Victorian government trading enterprises had to borrow to pay the dividend. The borrowings added to the cost of running that Government's operations. Victoria had a huge problem, which led to the fall of the former Labor Government and left the Kennett Government to sort out the problem.

In this debate Opposition members have spent a good deal of time speaking about the Water Board. Of the $170 million paid in 1992-93, $48 million was returned to the board so that it could meet its community service obligations. Nothing can be done about that; it is an important part of government policy to meet community service obligations. In addition, $14 million was returned as contributions to the statutory environment trust. Hence, the net contribution to the Government in 1992-93 was $108 million. The 1993 gross tax equivalent, which is at the rate of 39 per cent, and dividend contribution from the board is estimated to be $73.8 million. In addition, the board is projected to make a $13 million contribution to the environment trusts. The resultant return on the Government's equity is therefore less than 1 per cent - roughly 0.7 per cent - again substantially below the Commonwealth 10-year bond yield for 1992-93 of about 8.4 per cent. The Opposition would force the Water Board to borrow money to pay dividends. As a result prices would skyrocket. As the Treasurer said, the price increases for government trading enterprises are below the consumer price index rate in New South Wales. That is a tremendous achievement by Government, the Treasurer and Treasury.

I should say more about the Water Board, as members opposite obviously will refer to it. I hope they listen to what I say, because what they have said in the past has been totally wrong. It is imperative that they do not do anything that will affect the State's triple-A rating. The net contribution for 1993-94, after taking into account community service order funding, is estimated to be around $5 million. The substantial reduction is attributable to the absence of the $100 million special payment and higher CSO payments as a result of the Government implementing the Pricing Tribunal's recommendation. In June 1993 Standard and Poor's, the rating agency, highlighted the board's strong cash flow position and its ability to fund capital works with little reliance on borrowings. The board retained a triple-A rating in that review. The Opposition would put all of that at risk.

I do not need to go into much more detail about the bill. I have tried to find a reason for the Opposition introducing this bill, but have not been able to do so. I read the second reading speech of the honourable member for Drummoyne but it does not make sense. There is a political twist to all of this. I have no doubt that one of the greatest achievements of the Greiner and Fahey governments has been the turnaround in government trading enterprises. The Treasurer mentioned that when the coalition came to office in 1988 government trading enterprises paid a dividend to the people of New South Wales in the vicinity of $150 million. Last year that dividend increased to $1.1 billion without there being any reduction in the provision of services. It is hoped that next year it will increase even more, perhaps to $1.2 billion.

The Opposition brought forward this bill in an attempt to damage the standing of government trading enterprises, to damage their credit rating and the credit rating of the Government. Opposition members believe that they will then be able to tell the people of New South Wales that the Fahey Government has lost its triple-A rating. If that happens, I wonder whether they will disclose that the triple-A rating was lost because the Labor Party introduced this bill to damage the standing of government trading enterprises and the triple-A rating of the State. If that occurs, the cost to the Government and the people of New South Wales will be between $50 million and $100 million; I have
Page 516
heard it said that it could be that an additional $150 million will need to be found to pay for the Opposition's proposals. The Treasurer was right when he said that the bill should be opposed in the strongest possible terms.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [10.37]: I shall comment first on the Treasurer's remarks. His contribution was a fine example of sophistry, consistent with his stature in the legal profession. I have heard the honourable member for Smithfield say a number of times to honourable members opposite that they should not give up their daytime jobs. I am certain that the Treasurer's daytime job is secure after today's performance. He said that somehow the bill attacks vital services, will prevent roads, schools and hospitals being built and keep police off the beat. We are aware of the Government's track record in those areas.

Mr Collins: It is excellent.

Mr McBRIDE: The Minister says it is excellent.

Mr Kerr: The honourable member admits it?

Mr McBRIDE: No. That is another example of the good humour of the Treasurer. He said that the bill was rubbish, that it was ludicrous. I do not believe that it is. Anyone who approaches this bill purely on an analytical and accountancy basis - as I am sure the honourable member for Murrumbidgee will - will realise that it makes a lot of sense. The proposals set out in the bill are common practice in all business enterprises throughout the private sector. It is garbage to suggest that the Government is a government of good management and sound business practices, as Government members have been telling us for six years. They have said that government is really a business. When the Opposition tries to put the same strictures on the Government as it puts on business, Government supporters say that is not appropriate.

The Treasurer was not happy with that and had to go further. He said that local water and electricity prices of regional supply authorities would somehow be higher because of this bill. We have our own water supply at Wyong and I shall refer to that later in my speech. The Treasurer also said that somehow New South Wales would lose its triple-A rating and that somehow implementation of the bill would reduce that rating. He also said - I like this - that it would destroy the Government's flexibility. Paul Lyneham's lexicon of parliamentary speech to be published next year will have a new entry along these lines, "According to the Treasurer of New South Wales, flexibility means in this case the ability to rig the books at budget time". We are trying to do away with that approach by means of the provisions in the bill. The objectives of the bill are clear: to keep governments honest and to stop governments raiding government trading enterprises to disguise financial mismanagement. This Government rose to power in 1988 on the promise of managing the State better.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee should do something for business in that electorate. As the Treasurer says, the electors will decide the fate of the Government at the next election. I will be interested to see what they do to the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for his lack of interest in private enterprise. The simple fact is that the Government found itself in a financial hole and started casting about for hollow logs to prop up its financial reputation. Further increases in taxes would have destroyed the Government's reputation overnight. The answer the Government found was government trading enterprises, and it moved with the speed of Harvard-trained corporate raiders reaching into the cashbox of government trading enterprises without any concern for the financial viability of these organisations, their financial stability, their long-term planning or strategic plan.

The bill is about rescuing this State from the irresponsible and financially unaccountable behaviour of the Government. The bill is about making government, both this Government and future governments - the Labor Government after the next elections - accountable for their financial mismanagement. Labor will sit happily with the provisions of the bill. The bill is about making this Government and future governments publicly accountable to the people of New South Wales for their actions. This Government has continually trumpeted its financial ability and management skills. The bill is about putting this Government and future governments and their financial ability to the test, the test being public scrutiny of the Parliament and by the people of New South Wales. The bill provides for a necessary parliamentary process which will review the financial integrity of government in this State.

There are basically three parts to the bill. First, dividends are payable according to an appropriate formula. Second, assets purchased from the State by authorities greater than $1 million are to be referred to the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. Third, a report is to be made to Parliament advising whether the asset purchased is a fair price and is economically realistic. The logic of the first part of the bill is self-evident to any person with experience of business and management. The current situation relating to government trading enterprises is without precedent. That large organisations such as Pacific Power, the Water Board, the Maritime Services Board and the State Rail Authority, to name a few, should be in a situation that forward planning operations and financial planning should be subject to the whim of the government of the day is totally contrary to the principles of good management. To use 1993 budgetspeak, it would be like pay-as-you-earn workers knowing their income but not knowing their tax obligations for next year until next year. How could anyone in those circumstances consider a purchase or future purchase and related items. Simply put, the current situation in which government trading enterprises are placed, that is, not knowing the nature or size of future dividend
Page 517
payments, is fundamentally wrong. The proposal by the Opposition seeks to rectify the situation and clearly deserves the support of the whole Parliament.

The second part of the bill relating to asset purchases is again self-evident. I will not walk through in detail the whole sorry saga involving the Water Board and this Government. Parliament is well aware of the sleight-of-hand involving the Premier trying to dress up a raid on Water Board funds of $100 million as an asset transfer. It was a rort, and a rort that would have been repeated and repeated ad nauseam except for the vigilance of the Opposition, the shadow minister and the integrity of the Government-appointed Chairman of the Board, Mr David Harley. This rort was a process of this Government endorsed by the current Premier. Clearly, the Water Board-Treasury asset scam should never be repeated. The only to way to stop this rort is to support the proposal put forward by the Opposition to make government accountable. That proposal deserves the support of the whole Parliament.

The third part of the bill requires that such asset purchases be reported to the Parliament, that the price is fair and that there is economic benefit to the authority. Again, what objection could be raised to this proposal? Is it not the role of Parliament to ensure that government assets are fairly priced when sold? When government trading enterprises make such purchases, is it not the role of Parliament to ensure there is a benefit to the authority? The merit of this proposal is self-evident and deserves the support of this Parliament and of its newer members. I would now like to make some general comments on government trading enterprise dividends and their indications both now and in the future. But with the current regime, who is safe in the future?

I address first the increasing dependence of budget receipts on GTE dividends. There is no doubt Nick Greiner discovered a goldmine. In 1986-87 only three authorities paid dividends. By 1991-92, 16 authorities paid dividends. There are new contributors every year. By 1992-93 contributors had increased to 22, seven times the number in 1986-87. Though the Budget Papers claim that receipts from GTEs will decrease beyond 1993-94, who would believe the Government, given its track record? It should be remembered that Prospect Electricity was not included in the 1992-93 estimate and was raided for $75 million that year. How can business or anyone operate under a regime that does not let them know their liability? Basically, they are at the whim of the Government. Similarly, Graincorp was raided. Even more alarming is the increase in dividends from $129 million in 1987-88 to $1.115 billion in 1993-94.

There is no way the Government will walk away from this el dorado to prop up its waste and its management while it remains unaccountable. So far the State Government has been indulging in a backdoor exercise in asset stripping to make its balance-sheet look better. The sort of unrestrained business activity that existed in the private sector in Australia during the 1980s threw the national debt into a tailspin and left the economy battered for nearly a decade. Most of the dividends for 1993-94 come from monopolies such as Pacific Power, Prospect Electricity and the Maritime Services Board. In fact, Pacific Power contributes in dividends and tax equivalents about $500 million. Prospect Electricity contributes $100 million. The Maritime Services Board contributes $92 million, and Sydney Electricity contributes about $55 million.

Of more concern is the financial dependence on the electrical power sector given the prospect of a national grid in the near future. Of estimated receipts of $1.114 billion, about 58 per cent of income comes from Pacific Power, Prospect Electricity and Sydney Electricity. That is, 58 per cent of all income of government trading enterprises comes from the power industry. With the prospect of a national grid in the near future, this will be radically changed. Clearly, this scale of milking cannot continue and the Government will be forced to cast the net even further in future given those changes. What areas of government would be safe as the existing gold seams peter out? I add that I am making no reflection on the Treasurer.

Perhaps our police force could be put on a commercial footing with, say, advertising on the backs of patrol cars or the front fences of police stations, and perhaps even through dreaded quotas. As the Government continues to stumble and bumble along it becomes increasingly desperate to cover its financial blunders. Where will it all end? The Treasurer is left to prop up a failing Government. I am not joking. For example, five years ago who would have thought McDonalds would be underwriting school sport and Coca-Cola would be dictating canteen food policy? That has to be an embarrassment to everyone. What next? Advertising on the back of school uniforms? The Government has absolutely no shame when it comes to money. Clearly, some criteria has to be set on dividends, and that is what the bill is about. Government dividends have to be bedded down separately within the management plans of government trading enterprises and properly reviewed by Parliament. Otherwise, why have a Public Accounts Committee?

The Premier, by his actions when he was Treasurer, agrees with the objectives of this bill. In August 1992 he announced that GTEs are to aim at a target rate of return on their shareholders' funds and to pay 50 per cent of their profits as dividends. He said there should be a formula, and the Opposition says there should be a formula. The Premier recognises the need for some sort of formula for dividends to remove the current uncertainty. However, the formula proposed by the Premier takes no account of the circumstances of each trading enterprise and its needs. For example, the Hunter Water Corporation faces enormous infrastructure renewal costs. Areas of the reticulation system in the south are double dosed with chlorine to account for the age and decay of the pipe network. Yet the Hunter Water Corporation is scheduled to pay $12 million this year, which is almost four times the estimate included in last year's budget.

Page 518

Last year the amount of $4 million was forecast, but the figure has now reached $12 million. What sort of enterprise can operate with those sorts of guidelines set down by this Government? One must ask why, and the answer is simple: this is management at its absolute worst. Further down the line when renewal works are inevitable, the Hunter Water Corporation will be forced into the finance markets to fund these works and accordingly prices will rise. The Hunter Water Corporation is another example that once this Government gets its hands on the cash-box there is no way of prying them loose. This short-term thinking will clearly leave the New South Wales public with a long-term problem for the future, when ratepayers will have to reach deeper into their pockets for infrastructure renewals.

Considering the Government's appetite for GTEs, the Central Coast water supply system is clearly in the sights of the Government for a raid. The former Premier, Nick Greiner, had this prize in his sights because of the relative newness of the infrastructure and the fact that efficiencies of the system were being passed on to ratepayers. The former Premier then wanted the Central Coast system transferred to the Hunter Water Corporation, where he already had access to the till, so he could reach into the Central Coast's cash-box. The Central Coast is growing at a rate in excess of 4.5 per cent per annum and new areas are constantly being developed. A Greiner raid would have resulted in increased costs being passed on to ratepayers in the Central Coast.

I would be interested to know the attitude of our rural free traders if the Government were to reach into the cash-boxes of its local water supply systems. In this Parliament last year we heard their attitude to the proposal that the Government should get hold of the cash-boxes of their local power distributors. This uncertainty as to dividends clearly needs to be resolved and regulated, and this is the objective of the bill. I would now like to comment on the latest scam by this Government, the so-called special dividends. In 1991-92 there was a $100 million Water Board special dividend to justify a rather dodgy asset transfer from the Public Works Department to the Water Board. This special dividend neatly equated with the $100 million special environmental levy. [Time expired.]

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [10.52]: On 21 May 1993 the honourable member for Drummoyne introduced the Public Finance and Audit (Special Dividends) Amendment Bill. The honourable member for The Entrance has made all sorts of comments about this. One of his comments was that the Government rigs the books in relation to GTE dividends. That comment illustrates how little he understands the workings and the accounts of a company. Perhaps I should point out to him that New South Wales has an Auditor-General, and such a statement is a direct attack on the integrity of the Auditor-General. His arguments, however, are destroyed by his lack of knowledge and logic. I should point out to the honourable member for The Entrance the three points of the bill.

Mr McBride: I have never seen you so cranky.

Mr RIXON: When the little boy in the Opposition settles down and is ready to listen, I shall proceed. The first point is that the dividends paid by the government trading enterprises are to be determined on the basis of a strict formula prescribed by some regulation. This bill suggests that dividends should be based on some strict predetermined formula.

Mr McManus: Why not? What is the problem?

Mr RIXON: No business operates in such a way. Each business considers profitability and the way it is operating before it determines dividends. Currently, section 59B(1) of the Public Finance and Audit Act provides that the dividends will be calculated by applying a rate, determined by the Treasurer, to the assets of the GTEs. In practice this has meant that the Government, under its financial distribution policy, has been able to initiate dividends with GTEs within a commercial framework related to profits. The Government's approach is based on its use of private sector benchmarks. The minimum dividend for New South Wales GTEs has been a distribution of 50 per cent of profits before tax.

I realise that members of the Opposition like to have as little as they can to do with their Federal colleagues, but it is interesting to note that their colleagues in the Commonwealth Government recently followed the New South Wales Government lead simply because it makes good common sense and it works. Under that lead - the New South Wales Government lead which introduces a profit-based dividend policy - the Commonwealth is applying that policy to Commonwealth GTEs from 1993-94. The Commonwealth has adopted a benchmark dividend of 50 per cent of profits after tax. It tried to copy a good idea but managed to get it wrong. That equates to approximately 66 per cent of pre-tax payout, which is considerably greater than the New South Wales minimum dividend.

In effect - and this is the point the Opposition needs to understand - the Commonwealth has followed the State's lead by introducing a commercially based approach involving the adoption of a profit-related dividend benchmark. By contrast, the Opposition suggests something fixed by some unspecified formula, something it will pluck out of the air when it is elected to Government, leading to disastrous results with our financial arrangements. The Opposition will pluck something out of the air in an endeavour to get itself out of trouble, just as the previous Labor Government did. This would leave the door open for the application of non-commercial criteria which could ultimately disadvantage business and consumers.

Of course, it would be of great advantage to the Opposition's financially wrecked State budget. For example, a dividend based solely on a fixed return on assets or revenue would take no account of the underlying profitability or cash flow requirements of
Page 519
the business and could easily result in spiralling debt costs as that business borrows to meet its capital requirements and to pay the dividends specified by such an irresponsible government. This occurred in Victoria when the mates of the Opposition were in charge, when the dividend formula was based on fixed return on assets valued at current cost, regardless of profits. A fixed dividend had to be met through increased borrowings, which were used to fund unsustainable recurrent expenditure. A prudent dividend policy must retain the flexibility to deal with the specific circumstances of GTEs as they arise.

The second point in the bill proposes that capital repayments be restricted to repayment of the capital debt arising from the financial accommodation provided by the Government to the GTEs. The concept of "repayment of capital" being linked to a financial accommodation is contradictory, given the normal meaning of these words. "Capital" refers to contributions made to a business by its owners whereas "financial accommodation" refers to the raising of money through indebtedness. The two are quite different.

Mr McBride: Did you teach economics?

Mr RIXON: I taught a number of people who often were very difficult to get through to. I am sure on this particular occasion I have a similar class in honourable members opposite. Of course, just as I was always very successful as a teacher and I enjoyed teaching those people, I am enjoying teaching members opposite. One thing I learned in those days was that if you used small words and spoke slowly, sometimes the class would be quiet, and would listen and learn. I am sure a similar situation could be helpful here.

Mr McBride: Is it right that you did not teach economics?

Mr RIXON: Let me explain: ultimately all debt has to be repaid. Am I using simple enough terms?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Tink): Order! I call the honourable member for The Entrance to order. Having had an opportunity to take part in the debate, the honourable member should listen to the honourable member for Lismore in silence.

Mr RIXON: First, debt has to be repaid. Second, investors should be able to obtain a return on their capital, particularly funds arising from the disposal of surplus assets. The Government's approach is that dividends must be determined in the context of an agreed capital structure, debt-equity mix, which protects the interests of the GTE while at the same time seeking to achieve an appropriate level of return for the owner. Treasury and the Government Pricing Tribunal have worked together on developing an approach to determine appropriate capital structures for government trading enterprises. The proposed amendments that have been put forward would render completely unworkable this key discipline on dividend requirements by Government; if GTEs cannot make capital returns as required, they will not be able to maintain an appropriate capital structure based on commercial benchmarks. That is what this issue is all about, commercial benchmarks. For example, the proposed amendments would prevent the Government from receiving any cash surplus to the needs of GTEs or derived from the sale of surplus assets. It does not make commercial sense for GTEs to retain surplus cash or to automatically retain cash from the sale of assets which, perhaps for historical reasons, are held by the GTEs and which, say, are being sold to restructure the business to make it more commercially orientated. These assets may have originally been funded by a range of measures, including taxes and government guaranteed borrowings or whatever.

The third point is that this bill proposes the establishment of elaborate reporting requirements for asset purchases by GTEs from the State which are valued at more than $1 million. Let us just look at that third proposal. Under the Opposition's proposal the sale and transfer of assets that occur as a normal part of business within or between government agencies would be captured under an elaborate reporting arrangement involving the authorities, the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasurer. This in itself would impose significant additional costs for no tangible benefit. So, although the Opposition talks about the proposal being of benefit to our pensioners, our families and our battlers, in actual fact the provisions that they are putting forward impose additional costs on the very people they allege they are proposing to protect.

It has to be said that such sales and such transfers are already quite transparent. For example, the $100 million purchase by the Water Board in 1992-93 involved the valuation of the assets transferred being audited by the Valuer-General and the Auditor-General. The asset purchase will be recorded as such in the finalised accounts of the board's annual report, and the transfers have been gazetted. Other points need to be raised. Contrary to what the member for Drummoyne specifically said, prices for small business consumers for both water and electricity have actually fallen in real terms. I emphasise that for the benefit of those slow learners on the Opposition benches.

Mr McManus: Talk about the battler.

Mr RIXON: Let us talk about the whole matter generally. More generally, the index of New South Wales State Government charges has risen by less than the CPI from 1988-89 to 1992-93. That is very much in contrast with what happened in the years when Labor was in office. The very people who claim they were supporting the battler actually foist on to those people increased costs far in excess of what the present Government has done. Members of the Opposition had better start changing their whole advertising structure. They are not looking after the battler at all; they are seeking to impose costs on the battler.

Let me say in conclusion that some points need to be made. The bill will, if passed into law, seriously undermine the integrity of the commercial framework which the New South Wales Government
Page 520
is developing to improve the efficiencies of New South Wales government trading enterprises. So if the bill passes into law it will actually do the opposite of what the Opposition has suggested. Second, the bill runs counter to accepted commercial principles and could result in the application of non-commercial criteria to dividend determination, thereby adversely affecting the financial position of individual GTEs and hence ultimately affecting New South Wales taxpayers and consumers. I repeat: it could adversely, badly, affect the taxpayers and consumers of New South Wales. The Pricing Tribunal is explicitly directed to protect consumer interests in relation to GTE prices. Finally, the decision by the Commonwealth Government to introduce a dividend policy for Commonwealth government business enterprises similar to that of New South Wales lends support to the New South Wales Government's approach. I say loudly and clearly that the Federal Government colleagues of honourable members opposite support what New South Wales is already doing. Why are New South Wales Labor members going counter to their Federal colleagues? Why are they trying to add to the costs of the battlers in New South Wales? Members opposite ought to be trying to help the battlers and not burden them with some crazy mixed-up scheme of the New South Wales Labor Party. I oppose the Public Finance and Audit (Special Dividends) Amendment Bill.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [11.7]: I congratulate the shadow minister on bringing this bill forward. I congratulate also the Treasurer and Minister for the Arts on his achievement in hoodwinking his own compatriots on that side into believing that what the Opposition is putting up is unfair to the Government. The fact is that we are asking the Government to bind itself to demands it makes of everyone else: accountability, credibility, fairness to the community. Those are the three principles in the bill under discussion today. These are ideals that this Government continues to espouse should be adopted by business, the community, the Parliament and almost every other organisation. What could possibly be wrong with the Opposition asking the Government to show that dividends are levied on a fair and equitable basis?

What is wrong with introducing a bill requiring the Government to be accountable to the community? Is that not what we are here for? It should be the policy of all governments to raise taxes fairly and equitably. This bill does not suggest that the Government should not attempt to raise income or that it should do without. It states that income should be raised in a fair, decent and honourable manner. That is not happening with the Liberal Party-National Party Government in this State. This Government is ripping off government trading enterprises which have operated well for decades. For 14 years I was a proud employee of the Sydney Water Board. I helped the State Government to raise taxes fairly and equitably. At that time everyone was proud to work for the Sydney Water Board. The Minister responsible for the Water Board should talk to some of its staff to determine what morale is like. This Liberal Party-National Party Government destroyed in record time - in a period of four years - a structure for which I worked so proudly for over a decade. In four years it destroyed the financial structure of the Water Board, the Electricity Commission - Elcom - and the Sydney County Council. This Government has destroyed many organisations. The morale of employees is now unbelievably low.

Eighteen months ago this fact was pointed out by the Chairman of the Water Board, Mr David Harley - a gentleman not of our ilk. Mr Harley was a Government employee - a mate of honourable members opposite. The Government said to Mr Harley, "Run the show". He took a look at what the Government was doing and pulled the pin. He got out, but before he left the sinking ship he wrote a scathing letter - which we have managed to obtain under freedom of information provisions - about people in the Government. The Government, which is run by clowns, is destroying the future of New South Wales. Over a period of two years the Government has taken $200 million from the Water Board, which is probably the money that was raised through the environmental levy.

The Illawarra region could have done with that $200 million. A sewage outfall at Bellambi, which channels most of the sewage from the northern suburbs of Wollongong, spews that sewage 50 metres off a beach. The Illawarra region could have done with a bit of that $200 million to fix up that problem. What did the Government do with that $200 million? It used it to build a racetrack at Eastern Creek. People are swimming in sewage, but this Government is using money to build a racetrack. That highlights this Government's priorities, its accountability, its credibility and its fairness to the community. It is disgusting!

What about the Government's promises to build sewerage facilities in small places? When I was the member for Burragorang some years ago, the Water Board, on behalf of the Government, called community meetings at Picton, Thirlmere, Otford and Stanwell Park. People in the community were told that the money derived from the environmental levy would be used to provide sewerage facilities. I would like a list, if possible, of the places where the Government has provided those facilities. I do not believe it has, because it took the money that was raised through the environmental levy and gave it to a racetrack entrepreneur. That is where the money has gone. The Government thinks it is fooling the people of New South Wales.

As I said earlier, the Opposition is not asking the Government to go without; it is simply asking the Government to ensure credibility in its deliberations. A former member once referred to Eastern Creek as "A black hole from which the Government would never crawl out". Eastern Creek is being referred to constantly in issues such as this. The people of New South Wales realise that the $200 million that was raised through the environmental levy has been used
Page 521
for other purposes. It went into creating a black hole from which this Government will never get out. I wish to deal now with a matter that is close to my heart - the Electricity Commission and electricity distribution centres in this State. Recently I contacted Illawarra Electricity. Between 1987 and 1993 I was deputy chairman of Illawarra County Council, as it was then known. I was very proud to represent that organisation, one of the only organisations in New South Wales that stood on its own and said that it would give rebates to pensioners.

That is another organisation that this Government has destroyed. This year the Government asked Illawarra Electricity to pay $3.4 million in dividends. This Government wants to rip off a small county council that is working well for its community. The honourable member for Lismore referred earlier in debate to fairness and justice for corporate bodies. How can this Government ask any company to give 70 per cent of its profits as a dividend to the Government? That equates with a small electrical store selling a refrigerator and giving the Treasurer 70 per cent of the proceeds in tax. Where is the fairness in that? Next year Illawarra Electricity will have to give 70 per cent of its profits to this Government.

Mr Harrison: It is theft.

Mr McMANUS: It is theft. It is interesting that Government members who speak in this House say, "We are living in hard times. The Government needs this money".

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Cronulla should visit Bundeena. People in that area are looking for him. He is in real trouble. I will be visiting Bundeena soon and I will be telling people in that area that the honourable member for Cronulla is a hopeless member of Parliament; he will not even represent them. I cannot comprehend why every Government member who has contributed to the debate today has said, "We need to distribute this money to other areas in this State". Some Government members have boasted that there is a $400 million budget surplus and that this will increase to about $1 billion before the next election. If all this money is sitting in the Government's coffers, why are Government members saying that the Government does not have any money? They are saying, "We have to recoup money from government organisations because we are nearly broke".

The Government has cut back on capital works in order to save money. It has a $400 million Budget surplus. It has all this money but it is still saying, "We need more money". The Government is headed down the privatisation path. At one stage organisations like the Water Board were service providers. They looked after pensioners, tried to keep rates down to a reasonable level and, at the same time, tried to conserve water. The Government has turned the Water Board into an advertising agency. Consumers are paying double the amount of water rates than previously and there is less staff to police water conservation.

Every time I receive my water rates I also receive a glossy pamphlet that tells me how to save water. I wonder how much the glossy pamphlet cost? Does the pamphlet lead one to conserve any water in the long run? People are so horrified with their water bills that they do not have any interest in reading the glossy pamphlet. The Government must understand that this bill will not stop the Government from raising funds. It is a bill that will raise a substantial amount of money for the Government in an appropriate, fair, honest, decent and accountable way. No one on the Government benches should be disagreeing with that principle because it is the same principle expected of businesses and residents in this State.

I congratulate the shadow minister on bringing forward this much needed initiative. It will stand the Opposition in good stead for a return to government at the next elections. The principles of fairness and accountability that the shadow minister puts forward is exactly the policy of the Australian Labor Party in this Chamber. The Opposition will not allow this Government to continue to rip off the people of this State under the pretext of needing more money. The ALP will not allow this Government to rip off the people of this State to build structures for itself, such as Eastern Creek, that are not a necessity. The Opposition will not allow this Government to get away with promises of sewerage facilities to the people of this State and then turn around and break those promises as quickly as they are made. I congratulate the shadow minister and support the bill.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.21]: Yet again on a Thursday we have another ad hoc approach by the Australian Labor Party, bringing in another bill which at the end of the day will achieve absolutely nothing. It will meet the fate of many that have gone before. Honourable members talk about financial discipline. It really is a joke that this mob opposite has been preaching to the House on financial discipline for the last hour or so. Let us look back at the financial discipline that Labor exhibited when it was in government up to 1988. What a farce, what a great deficit, what a great burden Labor administrations left for the citizens of New South Wales. It was an absolute necessity that a change in government occurred.

It is only since the change of government that discipline has been applied within the private sector, the public sector and the government trading enterprises. Opposition members do not acknowledge or understand that situation. The Opposition fails to understand that that discipline is not an end in itself, it is a means to achieving an end. It is a means to having a public sector that is efficient and operating at a minimal cost in the most productive fashion. As a result of that the charges paid by consumers for utility services are being minimised. So the public wins in two respects: the charges that they pay are reduced or minimised, and their subsidisation of inefficiency, typified by this mob opposite, is reduced. The subsidy paid by the people of this State for many years will be reduced or eliminated.

Page 522

This bill has been poorly thought out. Ultimately it will be ineffective in achieving its alleged objectives. This Government's achievements through rationalisation, efficiencies and disciplines introduced in the past five or six years have enabled this State to maintain its triple-A credit rating. If the tables had been the other way round that rating would have been lost. We would have the problems typified in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria if this mob had had its way and were sitting on this side of the Chamber. The deficit has been controlled, we have an efficient public sector and the annual budget has been brought under control.

Earlier speakers referred to hollow logs, alleging that the Government is pulling money out of hollow logs by the means of taking special or normal dividends. The hollow logs that Labor administrations drew their funds from were not achieved through discipline or a sensible approach to managing the finances of this State; they sold off the assets. Labor sold off land across Sydney. Some of the essential road corridor lands in a number of areas, which were critical to maintaining a public transport system, were sold off, handicapped all future governments in their efforts to provide an integrated transport system for Sydney. There has been a real reduction in power costs as a result of reforms and efficiencies gained within Pacific Power. Special or normal dividends are, in part, a financial discipline. Efficiencies that have been brought in at Pacific Power have seen a real reduction in the costs borne and passed on to consumers. These efficiencies have placed New South Wales in an excellent position relative to other States. When we have a national power grid we will be an exporter of power and New South Wales will have benefited from those reforms which, if the Labor Party had been in government, we would not have benefited from.

Mr Price: The coalition has not built a power station since it came to government.

Mr HUMPHERSON: This State has a surplus in power generation ability. However, that in itself does not mean that we can export power to other States. It is only through the efficiencies and reductions in the work force and increases in efficiency on the operation of that work force that sees this State in the position to produce and supply power at a lower cost. An alleged doubling in water costs was mentioned. Everyone in Sydney now has a greater control over their water bill. Complaints have been made about the advertising and educational information directed to consumers. That information allows people to identify how they can control the charges that they pay for water. People now know that they are paying 65¢ a kilolitre for water and know that a reduction in the amount of water used on their gardens will influence their water bills.

The Opposition fails to acknowledge that the efficiencies that have been gained in the power sector should be reflected in the water sector also. Mention has been made about the $200 million withdrawal of special dividends from the Water Board. No one has acknowledged that that was surplus working capital. The Macquarie Bank in its report acknowledged that there was a $200 million surplus of working capital in the Water Board. Let us get away from the allegations of increased charges being passed on to customers and allegations that the capital works program has been jeopardised and allegations that there has been a redirection of the special environmental levy. None of that is true.

There was a surplus of $200 million within the Water Board, identified by the Macquarie Bank. That money has been transferred to the benefit of the public of this State to reduce the deficit and the annual budgets of those two successive years, to ensure that there is a minimum need for the Government to draw on external loans. I return to the normal dividend process. There is involved in that process a discipline that will ensure, in all government trading enterprises, that management focuses on providing services at least cost to the public. The normal dividend process draws on and encourages those organisations where there is not a community service order funding involved, to operate at the most efficient manner to achieve a surplus. That normal dividend is taken out of that surplus as a percentage. That is quite different from what occurs in Victoria, which has an arbitrary system based on an arbitrary value. That system has resulted in excessive dividends being paid by some government enterprises, to the point where they are now having to borrow to pay the dividend. That is not the case in New South Wales. This bill does not specify the formula that should be applied; it is silent on the formula. The bill does not address the difficulties of arriving at a formula to achieve its objective. During the debate much has been made of the essential support of Professor Walker.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! It being 11.30 a.m., pursuant to sessional orders the debate is interrupted.


Mr J. J. AQUILINA (Riverstone) [11.31]: I seek leave to amend the notice of motion standing in my name. Certain matters have arisen since I gave notice of this motion last Tuesday that would make it worth while to amend the motion to include the terms of reference of the inquiry announced by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and the sacking of Mr Lambert.

Leave granted.

Mr J. J. AQUILINA: I move:

(1) That this House calls on the Government to immediately establish a fully independent inquiry, to be conducted by persons other than members of the Board of Studies, into the operations of the Board of Studies and the circumstances surrounding the decision of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to sack Mr John Lambert as President of the board.

(2) That the terms of reference of the Minister's existing inquiry be amended to include the circumstances surrounding the sacking and the relationship between the Board of Studies and the Department of School Education.

Page 523

(3) That a report of the findings and recommendations of this inquiry be tabled in this place no later than 1 May 1994.

The House must pass this motion, to rebuild public confidence in one of the most important statutory bodies in New South Wales, the Board of Studies. The board is responsible for the welfare and livelihood of one million students in this State and for the higher school certificate, one of the most important credentials for public testing in this country. As honourable members hear repeatedly from the Government side of the House, the higher school certificate is a credential that is achieving worldwide acclaim.

It is important to establish public confidence in the Board of Studies and once again rebuild public confidence in the members of that board and its endeavours. Also this body sets subject curricula for more than one million students and has responsibility for the higher school certificate and other curriculum activities in the State. The education community has been horrified by the Minister's handling of this affair. There is no greater sign of this than the unity ticket between Dame Leonie Kramer and the Teachers Federation condemning the Minister's decision. I never thought that day would ever come. Public confidence in New South Wales education demands an inquiry that is, first, fully independent - not a half-hearted inquiry such as the Minister has announced - second, deals fully with the reasons for Mr Lambert's dismissal; and third, makes them a matter of public record, because public accountability is at stake. The inquiry must report back to the House in a timely fashion.

The need for an inquiry is obvious. I shall refer briefly to recent events that highlight the need for the inquiry. The Ombudsman's report into the Barnes affair shows serious deficiencies in the board's capacity to investigate allegations of that nature. In many ways the Barnes affair brought the whole matter to a head and put the focus on an issue that has been brimming over for almost three years - the tug of war between the Board of Studies and the Minister and between the Department of School Education and the Minister. The bungling of the handing over of higher school certificate results to the Universities Admission Board is another incident. Earlier this year many young people were disadvantaged because of that bungling.

I refer also to the bungling of the K-6 curriculum, both in regard to its release and charges for support documents. The most compelling reason for having an inquiry is the need for the public to be given a full explanation for Mr Lambert's sacking. It is not good enough simply for Virginia Chadwick to know. The public has a right to know; the people of New South Wales, school students and those in education circles have a right to know. The editorial in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald asks, "Why single out Mr Lambert?" We need to know all of the reasons. What are the "range of problems," the "variety of matters" and the "irretrievable differences" to which the Minister in the other place referred so cryptically.

The explanation given by the Minister on Tuesday was utterly pathetic. All she said was that she wanted to bring Mr Lambert's retirement forward. She should tell us why. When asked why he was sacked, Mr Lambert said, "I do not know any reason why". The Minister said, "I took advisings through the day", and again I refer to Hansard for the Legislative Council of 8 March. Obviously the Minister did not take any advising from anyone in the education community. She did not consult Professor Tony Gibbs from Macquarie University, Professor Dame Leonie Kramer, Associate Professor Terry Gagen of the maths syllabus committee, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations, which she is wont to consult so frequently on many other matters - and appropriately so. She did not consult the New South Wales Teachers Federation or members of the Board of Studies, its staff or its syllabus committees. With so many in the education community opposing the decision, from whom did the Minister take advisings? With whom did she consult on this matter? The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald today states:

There are too many unanswered questions concerning the decision of the Education Minister . . . to sack the president of the Board of Studies . . . What are "the irretrievable differences"? . . . Why was the decision made now when there is an investigation taking place . . . Does the minister have a replacement for Mr Lambert? . . . why is Mr Grimshaw part of an inquiry into the activities of an organisation when he serves on that organisation? . . . why has Mrs Chadwick anticipated the findings of the inquiry into the board's activities? What happens if Mr Lambert receives an endorsement from the inquiry?

Will the Minister reinstate Mr Lambert? As the editorial says, "Mrs Chadwick has failed to deal adequately with this matter." The sacking of John Lambert is a shameful affair, both in the manner of its execution and for what it says about the Minister's failure to take responsibility for her portfolio. Last week she defended the board and its president. This week she sacked him over the car phone. She needed a scapegoat; she needed a sacrificial lamb; she needed to deflect criticism from herself. This inquiry must be completely independent. It cannot succeed in rebuilding public confidence in the board if it is tainted by the presence of a member of the board, namely, Mr Warren Grimshaw. I have no personal reservations about Warren Grimshaw, but he is being placed in an impossible position, being so close to the Minister, the chief executive officer of the ministry, and also being a member of the board. There is no way that any inquiry of which he is a member can provide public confidence in the outcome of the inquiry. There is no way for there to be a public perception that the inquiry is totally impartial. The appointment of Professor Michael Birt and Mr Eagleton is to be applauded, but again it is not enough to make the inquiry independent as long as Mr Grimshaw remains involved.

I turn now to the terms of reference of the inquiry. I agree with the existing terms of reference, but they do not go far enough. They have not been released publicly, and I am grateful that I have been able to obtain the terms of reference that I am sure
Page 524
Government members have. I inform the Minister that I am precisely aware of the terms of reference that she may announce later today. As a minimum the following terms should be added: the full circumstances surrounding the Minister's decision to remove the President of the Board of Studies; and the relationship between the Board of Studies and the Department of School Education. This inquiry should clearly explain the full range of problems the Minister has referred to, the mysterious claims of irretrievable differences, the ongoing friction between the Board of Studies and the Department of School Education, and the appropriate role of the Minister in controlling the board, short of sacking its president. The inquiry should also report by 1 May. This is a matter of extreme importance to the young people of New South Wales. The inquiry also should reveal how to bring about an end to the tug of war between the Department of School Education and the Board of Studies. [Time expired.]

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove - Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment, and Minister for the Status of Women) [11.41]: The honourable member for Riverstone cannot be serious; he must be joking. He has today accused the Minister of somehow undermining confidence in the Board of Studies. The only person who has managed to undermine confidence in the Board of Studies is the honourable member for Riverstone, by his constant attacks on the Minister, the board and the education system generally. If anyone should stand up to the people of New South Wales and say, "I am the one who is causing the trouble", it is the honourable member for Riverstone, and he should bear that in mind.

The honourable member for Riverstone has asked that the Government establish a "fully independent inquiry into the operations of the board and into the termination of Mr Lambert's contract". How much more independence could the honourable member seek? Does he mean that the Government should establish an inquiry using people of the highest integrity, renowned for their independence, and ask them to consider the matter? Is this what a government established, fully independent inquiry means? Surprise, surprise, it is already happening! Members are well aware that the honourable member for Riverstone is once again wasting the time of the Parliament, and the Government is wasting time explaining to the honourable member that the inquiry he is seeking is already under way.

I suspect that the real reason behind the motion is that the honourable member is questioning the independence and integrity of the people involved in the inquiry. I shall inform the House who is conducting the inquiry. The inquiry was established on 28 February following the Ombudsman's report on the Christopher Barnes case and the board's decision to award the higher school certificate to him. The inquiry will be conducted by Mr Harry Eagleton, a former deputy director-general of the Premier's Department, and Mr Warren Grimshaw, Executive Director of the Ministry for Education and Youth Affairs. In addition, management consultants Cullen, Egan and Dell are providing assistance to further ensure the independence of the inquiry processes.

Mr Warren Grimshaw has written to the Minister informing her that for the term of the inquiry he will not be acting on the board, attending board meetings, or looking at board business in his ex officio capacity as a member of that board. He will not be involved in the board during the duration of the inquiry. In addition to ensuring the complete openness of this inquiry, the outcome in the first instance will be referred to Professor Michael Birt, formerly the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. Professor Birt will subsequently submit final recommendations direct to the Minister. Is the honourable member for Riverstone seriously questioning the integrity of Harry Eagleton, Professor Michael Birt and independent consultants Cullen Egan and Dell? These people are held in high regard within the community. Is the honourable member suggesting that those people cannot conduct an independent inquiry? The only person who seems to be questioning that integrity is the honourable member for Riverstone.

Harry Eagleton recently retired after an outstanding 40 years' service in the public sector. During this time he served under conservative and Labor governments, including 10 years under the Wran Government. The honourable member for Riverstone could hardly question the independence or integrity of Mr Eagleton. Likewise, Professor Michael Birt held the position of Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales for 11 years and prior to that was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wollongong for eight years. He is held in the highest regard in educational sectors and among the wider community. Surely the honourable member could not be attacking the integrity and independence of these people merely to score cheap political points. The firm Cullen Egan and Dell is one of the largest and most respected management consultant firms in Australia. Is the honourable member also doubting that firm's independence and integrity?

The motion seeks that the findings of the inquiry be tabled by 1 May, and I understand that is still in the amended motion. The inquiry already under way is due to report to the Minister by 30 April. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that she is happy for the report to be made public. She has already given that commitment and is happy to honour it. Therefore, the question of tabling the report is superfluous. In relation to the second aspect of the motion, the removal of Mr Lambert, much has been made about the announced termination of Mr John Lambert's contract as President of the New South Wales Board of Studies. The Minister has acted quite properly in accordance with part A, section 42O, of the Public Service Management Act. This Act states quite simply that the Governor may declare an executive officer who is removed from an executive position under subsection (1) to be an unattached officer in the public service, a teaching service, or another service of the Crown as the case requires.

Page 525

The honourable member for Riverstone has said that the Minister should make public the reasons. The Minister has stated quite clearly that irreconcilable differences between the president and herself have led to the termination of Mr Lambert's contract. This is quite within her powers and role as Minister and, most important, is for the benefit of schools, students and the education portfolio generally. Through this motion the Opposition is attempting to score shabby political points on an issue on which it has backflipped time and again over the past two weeks. Last week in relation to the Christopher Barnes affair the honourable member for Riverstone said:

The Ombudsman's report shows that the board was systematically resistant to any independent review of its decision continually slowing the Ombudsman from coming to his final conclusions and questioning his jurisdiction to be conducting his inquiry.

The honourable member for Riverstone also last week quoted the Ombudsman's report as follows:

This investigation has raised serious doubts about the board's capacity to properly carry out this investigation but, far more importantly, the board in its conduct and its submission during the investigation has shown itself to be so intent on preserving a predetermined advisorial position as to have forfeited any confidence in the board's ability to objectively assess and reach a fair judgment on evidence before relating to Barnes' case.

The honourable member for Riverstone also questioned the effectiveness and efficiency of the Board of Studies and its capacity to be able to administer its jurisdiction properly. Mr John Lambert was the president of that board and took full responsibility for its actions. The honourable member attacks the integrity of the Minister and says that she has not acted properly in dealing with this matter. How hypocritical can he be? All he has done is show instant support for Mr Lambert, and such support is nothing more than opportunistic and transparent. Frankly, the House has had enough, as have the education community and everyone in the State. We are fed up with the Opposition trying to score cheap political points on education when instead it should be commending the Government on its education policies. A fully independent inquiry is under way into the Board of Studies and will be finalised by 30 April. During the currency of its reporting Mr Warren Grimshaw will not participate in meetings of the Board of Studies or act in any way in his ex officio capacity on that board.

The inquiry will look at and determine all matters raised in the Ombudsman's report into the Christopher Barnes case, which has been considered and its recommendations dealt with. A further review is under way in relation to cheating procedures in higher school certificate examinations. How many times do the facts have to be restated? How much more time will be spent in pointless discussion of the same issues? The motion is a frivolous attempt to divert the business of the House and of the Government yet again. Members on this side of the House do not believe that the Minister for Education in the other place has acted in other than the most correct and proper way in the interests of the people and children of this State to ensure a quality education system - and that includes accountability in all its forms. Members on this side of the House will not support the motion. I reject entirely, as I did last week, any suggestion that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Minister for Tourism and Minister Assisting the Premier in the other place has acted in any way inappropriately. I reject the motion.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [11.51]: There are too many unanswered questions concerning the decision of the Minister for Education, Mrs Virginia Chadwick, to sack the President of the Board of Studies, Mr John Lambert. One has to ask what are the irretrievable differences between Mr Lambert and Mrs Chadwick. On looking for the answer from Mr Lambert it becomes apparent that he does not know why he was sacked. The decision to appoint Mr Warren Grimshaw, a member of the board, to undertake an investigation of the Board of Studies is similar to appointing Dracula to study the blood bank. This matter has been conducted in a most unprofessional and high-handed manner. More important, did the Minister have a replacement in mind when she made her call on her car phone at five o'clock that afternoon? If so, will the board continue its statutory arm's-length relationship with the Minister?

The dismissal of John Lambert is most unfair. It cuts across all basic tenets of justice and Australians' belief in a fair go. The Minister might not think Mr Lambert should be given a fair go, but the Opposition does. Other Ministers have adopted similar attitudes over recent years. That is one reason for senior executive service payouts of more than $25 million. This is a classic example of the high-handed attitude of Ministers to the public service. Although the Minister has announced an inquiry, she has decided to shoot Mr Lambert before the trial commences. This whole episode has blown the lid off the Minister's real intentions. She wants to be involved politically in the workings and functioning of the board. The board was not set up for that purpose. The Minister has the portfolio and is responsible for carriage of policy. The board has the job of implementing that policy.

Under these circumstances the Minister is saying she also wants to be the public servant. Under the Westminster system of government, that is unacceptable. The genesis of this dispute is in the Metherell Education Reform Act of 1990. At the time the Opposition predicted that if that legislation passed the board would be politicised. That happened last week; hence the heated debate in this House. The board's charter seems straightforward enough: to determine what should be taught in schools from kindergarten to year 12. A competent, highly regarded professional public servant, in proper Westminster tradition, decided to stand on his professionalism. He said: "It is my job as a public servant to implement that policy. I believe we have a competent board of 23 members to advise me on this. I am a part of that board. My job is to go out and follow through on its recommendations". The
Page 526
Minister said, "No, I know more about spelling, arithmetic and geography than you. More importantly, I want to tell you what kids have to be taught in school".

The implication is that if Ministers interfere to that extent in the workings of a board, future Ministers will continue to politicise the board and might decide that the word socialism cannot be used or that the coalition's name must appear in every document. In this State a tradition has been observed of never interfering politically in a curriculum. That tenet has been observed by all governments. The Minister has decided to turn that tradition upside down. She wants to interfere in the workings of the board. The head of the board has said, "That is not your job". Obviously, a conflict exists. Minister Chadwick could not cope with the professionalism of the public servants, so she took to the telephone. More than 200 of the 230 board staff - all professionals - signed a petition objecting to the Minister's high-handed actions. That is unheard of in this State. [Time expired.]

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [11.56]: The motion is pure politics. The shadow minister has demonstrated time and again that he is lost in the past - and he loses again today. I have in front of me the terms of reference announced by the Minister on 2 March. Each of those terms of reference go exactly to what the honourable member wants today. If the motion is passed today, it will duplicate what is already in place, calling to question experienced and independent members of a committee which is already inquiring into the matters about which the honourable member has sought investigation. The motion gives those opposite an opportunity to trumpet around the State their claim that they set up an inquiry. An inquiry has already been set up. A number of inquiries and even independent checking procedures are in place. It is a political nonsense for the Opposition to call on the Government to do what it is already doing. I wish to read the terms of reference to reassure other honourable members that the Government is already acting on what the shadow minister says it should act on. The terms of reference are as follows:

1. The scope and appropriateness of activities presently being undertaken by the staff of the board, having regard to the Education Reform Act 1990 and the responsibilities of other agencies within the portfolio.

2. The nature of the relationship between the board and its support staff, and the effectiveness of management structures to achieve the goals of the board.

3. Accountability mechanisms to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the staff in delivering high quality support to the board.

4. Such other matters which may be relevant to the effectiveness of the administration, professional and operational support to the board.

The review will also take into account another inquiry being conducted into the recommendations of the Crown Solicitor in proceedings relating to malpractice cases. That inquiry is considering questions about the highly questionable investigation in the Barnes case, as revealed in the Ombudsman's report. Members opposite say that Warren Grimshaw should not be part of the inquiry. He acknowledges that, as the Minister informed the House earlier. I have just been advised that Mr Grimshaw has resigned from the inquiry. That goes to the question raised by the honourable member. Mr Grimshaw, for the sake of appearing exactly as he is - fully independent - and for the sake of appropriate procedure and to ensure unquestionable independence, has withdrawn from the inquiry. I do not think he needed to resign, but to reassure honourable members I can inform them that he has done that this morning. Honourable members opposite should know also that the inquiries are being conducted by people whose independence must be beyond question.

If this House sets up the inquiry proposed by the shadow minister, the honourable member for Riverstone, a check of members of that inquiry would reveal the very people already doing that job. These are the sorts of people the House would select if it were setting up an inquiry. I fail to understand why, for other than political reasons, the honourable member for Riverstone would want to question their independence. Harry Eagleton is in charge of the inquiry into the administration and structure of the board. That inquiry will consider whether the board is carrying out its core business and will look at administration and support structures. The honourable member for Drummoyne suggested that if the community expects the Board of Studies to impose certain standards in relation to core educational requirements, with a return to basics, for example in the grammar section of the new syllabus, and if difficulty arises getting that message through to the board, one would first need to question the chief executive officer. That is one of the irretrievable differences that led to his sacking. Second, why would not the Minister say to the board, "This is what the community expects you to do on our behalf"?

It is ludicrous to suggest, as the honourable member for Drummoyne suggested, that the board should not take account of that. The Crown Solicitor is conducting an inquiry into the way the board investigated the cheating allegations against Christopher Barnes. Serious questions have been raised by the Ombudsman about John Cook and independent legal advice is being sought by the Government as to whether prosecution and disciplinary action should proceed against John Cook.

What else would the Opposition have the Government do? It is a nonsense to suggest that an inquiry should not proceed along the lines of the inquiry set up by the Minister. The Minister will assure the Legislative Council today that she will table the findings of the inquiry and in fact welcomes a full public debate. That is all the motion seeks from the House. If the Government supports the motion, it will simply give the Opposition a political platform. The Government is not about politics, it is about the efficient administration of New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Page 527

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [12.1]: This motion contains 116 words - 13 closely typewritten lines. Is it any wonder that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is a mother and a former teacher, urges that in New South Wales we need to get back to basics and teach a little of the three Rs in our schools. The motion itself is confirmation of the Minister's actions. The interest of the media and the Opposition in the Christopher Barnes case has brought squarely into the spotlight the procedural and administrative practices of the New South Wales Board of Studies bureaucracy. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has acted swiftly in directing that a review take place, and that review has been outlined by my colleagues.

I should state again for the benefit of members of the Opposition that the statutory board itself is not being reviewed - not its representation or functions as outlined in the Education Reform Act. It is patently obvious that there is no need for another review. The Opposition should stop wasting the time of this House and of the people of New South Wales. I recall at the end of last year we went through the pointless exercise of putting forward a pointless motion relating to amending violence legislation. At that time the Opposition once again was calling for measures which were already in place.

The removal of Mr Lambert is another matter for the Minister. Governments, not bureaucrats, are elected. The role of the public service and of the bureaucrats employed in the senior executive service of the public service is to implement the policies of the government of the day. If the working relationship between a Minister and his or her most senior bureaucrat breaks down, the efficiency and effectiveness of the department concerned is affected. The Daily Telegraph Mirror should be studied closely by some members of the Opposition. The Editor of the Daily Telegraph Mirror outlined the situation most eloquently in the editorial of 9 March 1994. I am pleased that the back-to-basics approach is being reintroduced. The editorial states:

No government service is more important than the provision of education . . .

I am sure the shadow minister for education would agree 100 per cent, as would all honourable members who were previously teachers. The editorial continues:

. . . and no government is likely to survive long if it devotes insufficient attention to education issues, education budgets.

Every parent would agree with those statements. The editorial states further:

Equipping our children with living skills, giving them an understanding of their cultural inheritance and providing them with adequate vocational training is a duty which each generation owes to the next.

Giving our children access to learning is not only their birthright. It is also an investment in the future, and if we are less than totally committed to educational excellence, we put at risk our chances of future prosperity.

Motions are put forward, as they have been today, by people who did not get back to basics. The editorial continues:

Against that background, the schism between the ministerial office of the NSW Education Department and the Board of Studies, arguably the department's most powerful policy determinant, is intolerable.

The editorial is completely correct. It continues:

Following Education Minister Virginia Chadwick's announcement yesterday that she had dismissed the president of the board, John Lambert, it became apparent that the relationship between the two had broken down completely.

Citing "irreconcilable differences" as her reason for terminating Mr Lambert's contract, Mrs Chadwick indicated a number of areas of concern affecting the Board of Studies, including the botched handling of HSC student Christopher Barnes, who was wrongly accused of cheating in the exam and wrongly denied his HSC.

Elected representatives are responsible for the situation, not bureaucrats. [Time expired.]

Mr J. J. AQUILINA (Riverstone) [12.6], in reply: The drama in relation to this matter continues to grow even as we debate this matter today. The terms of reference of the so-called inquiry announced by the Minister three days ago have not been publicly released at this stage. I obtained a copy other than by way of public release. I did not bother reading those terms of reference. I was limited for time and I knew that either the Minister or the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai would do me the courtesy of reading them. However, I wish to add points 5 and 6 which are part of the terms of reference I have sought to introduce.

The other issue which has been raised by way of clandestine announcement during the course of this debate is that Mr Warren Grimshaw has retired from the inquiry. It is not good enough for a member of the Government to tell us, in the middle of his five-minute speech that he has been handed a note stating that Mr Grimshaw has retired from the inquiry. Is this how Government is run in this State: someone, who will remain anonymous, hands a note to a Government backbench member - he is not even a Minister, though no doubt he wishes he were one and perhaps some day he may end up being one. That Government backbench member then announced to the Chamber that Mr Grimshaw has resigned. This is even more alarming, because it is another instance of the Minister shooting from the hip, making policy on the run, making decisions on the run.

I do not know where the Minister is at the moment, perhaps the message came by way of the Minister's car phone. This matter is far too important to be treated in the casual way in which the Minister is treating it. It is far too important to have terms of reference of important inquiries selectively released to Government members. It is far too important to make decisions on the run about who will or who will not head the inquiry. It is far too important to reduce the matter to the simple issue of an irretrievable break-down between the Minister and a senior public officer, albeit the President of the Board of Studies.
Page 528
The issue is far more than a matter of irreconcilable differences or irretrievable break-down. As the educational columnist for the Daily Telegraph Mirror reported, this issue is not one that has just arisen; it is an issue that has been fermenting for a long time. Her opening sentence in a full-page article of 9 March states:

After three years of fermenting in the dark, the lid has been lifted on the trouble with the Board of Studies.

That is precisely what is happening now and why a fully independent and public inquiry is needed. It is not merely an issue of a Minister not having confidence in the President of the Board of Studies. What is at issue is the constant tug of war, the tussle which has taken place over the past three years between the Minister and the Board of Studies and even the Department of School Education and the Board of Studies. The future of public education and, indeed, private education in New South Wales is at stake. Constant aggression and constant problems should not continue to arise. We cannot afford to have this continual tug of war between the Minister and the Board of Studies. Indeed, what the Minister has announced by way of the inquiry and the terms of reference does not go to the heart of the issue. Nowhere in the terms of reference read out to the Chamber by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is there any mention made about resolving the tensions between the Board of Studies and the Department of School Education or indeed the tensions between the Board of Studies and the Minister. Nor is there any reference to the legislative link that exists between the Board of Studies and the Minister, the inappropriateness of that legislative link and whether the Minister three years ago - [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Mills
Mr J. J. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr Bowman Mr Moss
Mr Carr Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Doyle Mr Newman
Mr Face Ms Nori
Mr Gaudry Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gibson Mr Price
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Mr Harrison Mr Rumble
Mr Hatton Mr Scully
Mr Hunter Mr Shedden
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Irwin Mr Thompson
Mr Knight Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mr Langton
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Davoren

Mr Armstrong Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Petch
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mrs Cohen Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Souris
Mr Griffiths Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Yabsley
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr Morris Mr Kerr

Dr Refshauge Mr Baird
Mr Ziolkowski Mr Hartcher

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [12.21]: I move:

That this House affirms its allegiance to the Crown.

In 1993 a similar motion was moved in response to actions by the Australian Labor Party, the republican movement and, on occasions, members of the Government, which I believe has undermined the confidence of constituents in members of Parliament and their allegiance to the Crown. Reference is made in the Constitution Act and the Oaths Act to allegiance to the Crown. Under the Oaths Act there is no mandatory requirement for members of Parliament to reaffirm their allegiance once they have taken an initial oath. I draw the attention of honourable members, first, to section 12 of the Constitution Act 1902, which states:

No Member either of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly shall be permitted to sit or vote therein until he has taken and subscribed before the Governor, or before some person authorised by the Governor to administer the same, the oath of allegiance in the form prescribed by the Oaths Act 1900.

I draw the attention of honourable members also to section 10(1) of the Oaths Act 1900, which refers to the Executive Council and states:

The oath of allegiance, the official oath, and the Executive Councillor's oath shall be tendered to and taken by every member of the Executive Council before he enters upon the discharge of the duties of his office.

Page 529

Section 11(1) of that Act states:

If any such officer as aforesaid liable to take any such oath declines or neglects when the same is duly tendered to take such oath, he shall, if he has already entered on his office, vacate the same, and if he has not tendered on the same be disqualified from doing so.

Subsection (2) of section 11 states:

No person shall be compelled in respect of the same appointment to take the same office to such oath more than once.

I recognise that legality. Many eminent Australians recognise that the allegiance of the Parliament to the Crown is mandatory in the performance of its duty. I wish to refer to a statement made by Professor Lee, an eminent Australian and retired Supreme Court judge. His words are relevant to this motion. He said:

There is disquiet about the position of members of Parliament in their allegiance to the Crown. Recent events cast doubt in the minds of the public that members do recognise the responsibility of their oaths of allegiance which should be binding on all members.

He went on to say:

It is appropriate that the Parliament should reaffirm its allegiance to the Queen whenever the Queen is Queen of Australia.

I mentioned in earlier debate the destabilising process. The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bob Carr, introduced legislation in this House which related to the oath of allegiance. That in itself had a destabilising effect on this Parliament's allegiance to the Crown. We recognise the legality of that in the Constitution Act and the Oaths Act. There is nothing binding in the Constitution Act or the Oaths Act which makes it mandatory for honourable members to vote in favour of this motion. However, given public disquiet regarding the allegiance of individual members to the Crown - I believe many people in this House will attempt to prove this - there is a moral and ethical case for members to affirm their allegiance to the Queen, the Crown and the Constitution. The Parliament should not turn its back on the Crown. Honourable members will be given an opportunity to affirm their allegiance to the current system of government.

When the Leader of the Opposition introduced the Oaths and Crown References Bill on 4 March he sought to remove reference to the Crown and, supposedly, to modernise language in the Parliament. He sought to remove such titles as Crown Land Office, Crown Advocate and the like. This act and others by the republican movement are designed to denigrate the office of the Crown and to have a destabilising effect on the confidence of New South Welshmen in their members of Parliament, in their representation and in their allegiance to the Crown and the Constitution. I moved this motion to provide every member with an opportunity to affirm his or her allegiance to the Crown, the Constitution and the Act. I said earlier that Mr Justice Lee, an eminent Australian and a person widely recognised for his understanding of constitutional law, referred also to recent changes to the Local Government Act. All honourable members would be aware that there is no requirement in the Local Government Act for people to swear allegiance to the Crown. That has also gone a long way towards destabilising the confidence of people in the Parliament and its allegiance to the Crown. Mr Justice Lee said:

Until recently aldermen and councillors were required to take the oath of allegiance. However, the 1993 Local Government Act makes no reference whatsoever to the requirement for aldermen and councillors to take the oath. This is yet another foundation for the contention that Parliament should affirm positively its allegiance to the Queen as promised when taking initial oaths.

Many people would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm faith in a system which has served Australia since settlement. Honourable members should take note of a number of achievements in regard to the Australian Constitution. Australia possesses one of the world's most successful constitutions. Indeed, Australia is one of the world's oldest democracies. The year 2001 will mark the centenary of Australia's Constitution. We should be celebrating our constitutional achievements. Instead, the lead-up to the year 2001 is likely to be a period of constitutional uncertainty and division, created by the Prime Minister.

The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Republican Movement have launched a major campaign to establish an Australian republic by the year 2001. Those advocating a republic are not able to promise greater independence for Australia, any material benefit, or any improvements in democratic rights or liberties. Under our Constitution, Australia has achieved a stability, national unity and security matched by few countries. Australia will want to defend its great Constitution. Australia's constitutional monarchy has two distinct elements: a monarch as its head and an Australian Governor-General as the fully independent holder of Crown authority. In this way Australia's Head of State is a unique institution which has created, in John Howard's words, "a Crown republic offering the best of both words".

The Queen is the Queen of Australia, a separate and distinct position from other roles as the Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and other countries. The Queen's executive powers in Australia are independently exercised by the Governor-General. The office of the Governor-General provides a fully independent head of State, rich in tradition, incorporating all of the powers and constraints of a constitutional monarchy. This monarchical system is combined with the concept of a non-heredity fixed term office desired by the republicans.

Australia is arguably the oldest democratic constitution when full adult suffrage and the right of women to stand for Parliament are the tests. The Constitution, which came into effect on 1 January 1901, was drawn up in Australia, by Australians. The Australian Constitution received popular endorsement from the people in a series of referendums. There has been no other referendum
Page 530
since that time which has in any way questioned the Constitution of Australia. Other democratic constitutions, such as those of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and New Zealand, were not endorsed by popular referendums. Each of the six Australian States has a constitutional monarchy with a separate relationship to the Crown. During the 1975 constitutional impasse, which still irks many Opposition members, it was the Queen who strongly asserted Australia's independence. The Queen made it quite clear that the Governor-General exercised independent power in this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [12.31]: The parliamentary Labor Party supports this motion. It is with much pleasure that, on behalf of the parliamentary Labor Party, I affirm each and every member's allegiance to the Crown. This motion is a clumsy attempt to score a point. Every honourable member knows too well that there is a technical requirement to comply with section 12 of the Constitution Act, which states:

No member shall sit or vote until an oath of allegiance in the form prescribed by the Oaths Act is taken out.

Every member is required to do that by the oath, which states:

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

The honourable member for Monaro referred to the monarchy and referred to the Crown. I do not think he appreciates the difference. There is a difference. For the benefit of this debate, I will assume that he believes they are one and the same thing. The amendment to the Oaths Act which the Leader of the Opposition proposed in the Oaths and Crown References Bill, as indicated by the honourable member for Monaro, sought to change that oath of allegiance to Her Majesty to one expressing:

Under God I pledge my loyalty to Australia.

Unbelievably, members of the Government opposed an oath which expressed loyalty to Australia. There was an amendment to that bill which provided that there be a choice: a choice of expressing loyalty to Her Majesty, or to Australia. The Government opposed that amendment. The honourable member for Monaro also referred to the Local Government Act. I am at a loss to know who he thinks is to blame. It was the Government's bill which went through years and years of negotiation.

[Interruption]

It was a bill proposed by the Government. If the Government wanted local councillors to express loyalty to Her Majesty, the Government got it wrong. It should have included that in the bill. I am happy to support an amendment to the Local Government Act which provides for councillors to express loyalty to Australia. I would be delighted to do so. In fact, if the Government does not do that, I will put to my party room that we ought to have a private members' bill approved and put up. Then I will seek the support of the honourable member for Monaro. I see the Government's bill as a further step in the evolution down the road towards a republic. This Crown Republic nonsense, I have to say to the honourable member for Monaro, is an exercise in John Howard sophistry which I think is absolutely lost on the majority of the community. So do not talk about this Crown Republic nonsense; the majority of the community would be totally confused about what it meant. That is an ineffective way of trying to establish that we are already a republic. It is nonsense.

It is one thing to express allegiance to Her Majesty, which we are technically required to do. We do it today; and we affirm that allegiance. It is also quite appropriate to question whether we should change the method of becoming a member of Parliament and whether the Constitution Act and the Oaths Act ought to be changed. In my view the allegiance, as it now stands, is an historical anachronism. I know the honourable member for Monaro would accept this, but of course he is locked in the 1950s. His notion of what Australia is now, is not the case. In his mind it is the white Australia policy, the reds under the beds, unbridled slashing of forests, the hoisting of the flag to the heavens. He has to wake up; times have changed. The move to a republic is a natural evolutionary process. One only has to look at the history of this country from 1788 through the setting up of the court structure, self-government, Federation, the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Acts of 1986. We are going forward. We have effective independence; what we want is symbolic independence. Some of the monarchists claim that to establish a republic would be to establish a dictator. Anyone who thinks that should read our Constitution and look at the reserve powers of the Crown.

Mr Kerr: You want to change the Constitution?

Mr SCULLY: We are going to change the Constitution by establishing a president of Australia.

Mr Cochran: Regardless of what the people say.

Mr SCULLY: If the people do not want it, we do not get it. It is as simple as that. The honourable member knows that. What worries me is that the honourable member for Monaro has put up this motion because he believes that there is some magic in the Crown, that somehow it is a guardian angel that descends from the heavens to protect us all in this maternalistic or paternalistic way, and we will all be looked after. It worries me because the knowledge of history of honourable members opposite is abhorrent. Anyone who has any understanding of the British Crown through the centuries will know of the brutality, violence, injury and repression of the British which was exacted upon them by the Crown.

The rights that we have acquired through the British people have not come from the Crown; it has come from the people. I suggest the honourable member looks at history books before he lectures to this House about our rule of law, our right to a fair
Page 531
trial, our democratic process and freedom of speech. Somehow the guardian angel Crown has come down from the heavens and has given it to us. An absolute absurdity. We have those concepts in this country because the Australian people accept it, they want it and they ascent to it. It has nothing to do with whether we have a Crown.

Government members also assert that the Crown protects us if there is a coup. Honourable members should talk to the people in Grenada and in Fiji and ask them where the Crown was when there was a coup in their countries. It is a nonsensical argument. She is not involved in that political process, nor ever will be. Let us look at the relevance to Australia of Britain today. This is no reflection on Britain; good luck to the British people if they want a Crown. Look at the trade figures, the exports and imports. Britain was very important to Australia 100 years ago. Between 70 and 75 per cent of exports were to Britain; now it is only between 5 and 7 per cent. As to our cultural links, we are not the anglo-celtic dominant culture that we once were. We are a thriving multicultural society. I know the honourable member for Monaro would like to see us as a little Britain in the south seas, but he ought to bear in mind that when Her Majesty travels abroad she represents Britain, not Australia.

That is no criticism of her. We are here to express our allegiance and are happy to do so, bearing in mind that the process of selecting the British Head of State is not something with which we identify: the Head of State must be Anglican; it is hereditary; the first-born male. I know that the honourable member for Barwon loves the pomp and pageantry, but most Australians do not identify with them. For the benefit of members opposite who have played too much football without wearing helmets, I shall give a simple analogy so that they understand the procedure. Liken it to a child. I know that the honourable member for Barwon has children who have left home, and I am sure that he shed a tear or two when they did. This is no different. A country maturing into adulthood is no different from a child leaving home. When children leave home parents do not say, "They have ratted on us", or, "They have thrown spit in our face." That is nonsense.

Members on this side of the House value their inheritance; they value the rule of law this country inherited from Britain; they value the language, the culture and all of those things that the British people have given us. And they will continue to value them. But Australia has grown up. It is time for this country to mature. Today members express allegiance to the Crown, but I assure members opposite that when the Labor Party comes to office, number one on my agenda will be these relics that they hold dear. It will give me great pleasure to see their discomfort as I pull down those relics and we have a system whereby -

Mr Cochran: No referendum?

Mr SCULLY: There will be a referendum where necessary. We will abide by statutory and constitutional processes that are required to entrench a republican form of government in this State. We are honest and upfront about that. Members opposite will squirm in their seats as it is done. They will come kicking and screaming into the year 2000. I will not sit by and let them have the Queen open the Olympic Games. How can they suggest to the people of New South Wales that that should happen. This is a modern nation that is independent in the world and must have its own Head of State to open those Games. If members on the Government benches are true loyal citizens of the State, they will support my sentiments as they share with me allegiance to the Crown. [Time expired.]

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon) [12.41]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Monaro. The honourable member for Smithfield resorts to the use of a referendum when it suits him but then uses the term "we" when he speaks about members on the Opposition benches. I wonder how many members of the Labor Party belong to the Carl Scully "we". The word can have various meanings. The affirmation of allegiance and the oath of allegiance taken by swearing upon the Bible are traditional forms of ensuring that the Parliament has checks and balances so that the people of the nation cannot be subjected to the excesses of a government of the day or the excesses of Executive Government.

The honourable member for Smithfield used the phrase "unto God, allegiance to Australia". Many members on his side of the House refuse to accept the expression "unto God" and take an affirmation rather than an oath on the Bible. The process of denigrating the oath of allegiance continues. The honourable member for Smithfield and some of his colleagues have turned away from that oath; they deny that there is a higher authority in the process of government and refuse to acknowledge that there is a higher authority in life. By taking an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown members acknowledge the position, not the person. The office of Prime Minister and the office of Premier are positions of authority. Those positions are respected, not necessarily because of the persons who hold them. The procedure for the continuation of those positions is critical for the future of the nation. The Crown has the overall capacity to protect the interests of all people against the excesses of any individual Prime Minister or Premier.

By affirming or swearing allegiance to the Crown we acknowledge that the incumbent of the position is not there at the whim of the people. Probably the greatest deficiency in the republican debate is that its proponents fail to realise that the person who is the Crown is not determined by the way the wind might be blowing at any given time. The titular head of the democracy in which we live is not subject to change at anyone's whim. The Crown remains the same though the government of the day may change. That promotes certainty about the future. It is interesting that the most vociferous of the
Page 532
protagonists in the republic debate are those from the extreme left-wing of the former communist association, and the honourable member for Smithfield fits well into that classification. The contributions of failed Fabians are apparent in many of these debates. The processes and procedures of today must be maintained. They relate to a past, but it is a proven past. [Time expired.]

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [12.46]: On behalf of the New South Wales Labor Party I affirm support for the motion. I am concerned that the honourable member for Monaro is trifling with the House. Every honourable member of this House has sworn allegiance to the Queen.

Mr Chappell: Some of us meant it.

Mr McBRIDE: I do not know whether the Minister had his fingers crossed at the time. We have all sworn allegiance to the Queen. When the new member for North Sydney came to this place she swore allegiance to the Queen, as did the honourable member for Monaro, and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I do not know about the honourable member for Camden.

Dr Kernohan: I did, and I meant it.

Mr McBRIDE: This debate is a waste of time. The Opposition supports the motion, as do members on the other side of the House. Honourable members should be debating major issues that are of concern to the State. One of the major issues confronting the Parliament relates to wilderness areas. That matter confronts people in your electorate of Monaro, people in your electorate of Coffs Harbour, and people in -

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr McBRIDE: Government members had an opportunity to debate the declaration of wilderness areas but they shrugged it off. They also had a chance to debate an issue relating to national parks. What happened in that regard? Again they shrugged off that opportunity. There are issues relating to forest -

Mr Fraser: On a point of order: my understanding is that the motion relates to the swearing of allegiance to the Crown. I fail to understand how wilderness nominations or national parks have any relevance to that motion. I suggest that the honourable member might be directed to confine his remarks to the motion.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. Though the debate on allegiance to the Queen has a wide parameter, the member should return to the leave of the motion, bearing in mind the short time he has to speak.

Mr McBRIDE: My point is that this is not a major issue and should not be before the Parliament, given other major political issues confronting the Parliament at this time. Perhaps Government members should swear an oath of allegiance to the Minister for the Environment indicating their support for him and the Premier.

Mr Fraser: On a point of order. Mr Deputy-Speaker, your ruling was quite clear. The Minister for the Environment and the wilderness debate are not part and parcel of the motion before the House. The thrust of the motion is allegiance to the Crown. The honourable member for The Entrance should indicate his support for the motion and seek at another time to bring on a motion relating to wilderness or national parks. At the moment he is outside the leave of the motion.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I ask the member for The Entrance to return to the leave of the motion. He is drawing a long bow in trying to link the Minister for the Environment and the issue of wilderness areas to the question of swearing allegiance to the Queen. In the little time the honourable member has remaining to speak he should address the motion.

Mr McBRIDE: Notice of Motions (General Notices) contain 17 notices of motion; 15 by the Opposition and two by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Monaro - a total four lines from Government members in a 6½ page document. Honourable members have all affirmed allegiance to the Queen; we cannot hold office unless we swear allegiance to the Queen. Going through this charade is wasting the valuable time of the Parliament when it could be purposefully used for major issues confronting this State. That is what I am saying. Government members should consider taking out an oath of allegiance to the Governor. Australia, as with any living organism, must change and adapt as times change. [Time expired.]

Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [12.51]: When I was elected as a member of this House I never thought I would have to debate the subject I am debating today. The reason we are debating this motion is obvious. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to change the system and change from constitutional monarchy to a republic. One reason given is that Australia now has a diverse multicultural society. One asks why migrants come to Australia. They migrate here because they enjoy our way of life, the standards, laws and conditions that have been developed because of our Constitution and the constitutional monarchy. Migrants have left places where different laws apply and where there are republics and dictatorships. They have come to Australia because of the freedom Australians have gained through our Constitution. For the information of honourable members opposite who wish to get rid of the oath to the Queen I point out that the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, quite a respected international body. The Commonwealth of Nations comprises more than 40 member nations. Only the United Nations is more multicultural and more multinational. The Queen is respected and is part of it.

Mr McBride: As you are.

Dr KERNOHAN: That is dead right. The alternative to retaining the oath of allegiance to the Queen and our Constitution is a republic. Many believe that democracy and republic are synonymous,
Page 533
but they are not. The Macquarie Dictionary defines democracy as "Government by the people"; only definition No. 3 spells out the difference between a republic and a democracy, namely, a republic does not have an hereditary leader. That is the only difference. There is no logical connection between these terms. Two of the strongest republics in the past 50 years were Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; they were certainly not democracies. At the same time some of the most stable democracies had monarchies, for example, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries.

It is noteworthy that not many countries have been continuously democratic for the past 40 or 50 years - since World War II, at least. Only 21 countries have been continuously and fully democratic during that period. Four of these were former colonies of Great Britain and the fifth was the United Kingdom itself - one-quarter of the long-term stable democracies in this world have been developed by the United Kingdom, and have constitutions similar to ours. It is interesting that the oath that Parliamentarians must take, believe in and support, has been changed for our new citizens. The honourable member for Smithfield mentioned this. I ask him and other Opposition members why the Federal Government did not give the people the choice of making an oath of allegiance to Australia or to the Queen. We are still a constitutional monarchy - we are not yet a republic - and our new citizens are denied freedom of choice. This is what our constitutional monarchy is all about; it allows individuals the right to say that we are not happy with the system; it should allow freedom of choice. [Time expired.]

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [12.56]: Parliament has heard comments by the honourable member for Smithfield in relation to our oath of allegiance. Honourable members do abide by that oath. However, it does not involve morals or ethics when affirming an oath or allegiance. It is to do with the constitutional system under which we establish various institutions. If the decision is taken that Australia will no longer be a monarchy, this will not mean disintegration of the office of the Crown. One should question the motives of the honourable member for Monaro in bringing this motion before the House. He makes allegations against the monarchy and says that the history of the monarchy has been great. I quote what Shelley had to say about George III:

An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying king.

John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, 1647-1680, said of Charles II:

Here lies our sovereign lord the King Whose word no man relies on, Who never said a foolish thing, Nor ever did a wise one.

A merry monarch, scandalous and poor.

John Byrom said:

God bless the King! - I mean the Faith's Defender; God bless (no harm in blessing) the Pretender! But who Pretender is, or who is King, God bless us all! - That's quite another thing.

That was a quote to an army officer in 1705. The honourable member for Monaro regards the monarchy as the pinnacle of all things. But, it is not the monarchy; it is the institution that the monarchy represents, our legal institution, our political institution and the Westminster system. They came about not with the support of the monarchy, but in spite of the monarchy. The Constitutions of Australia and of this State were drawn up by Australians for Australians, and leading members of the Irish community in this country played an integral role in drawing them up. Edmund Barton was a descendant of an Irish family. The Irish are ethical people. In the early days Irish people came to Australia as free immigrants or political prisoners. They owed nothing to the monarchy, they remembered their struggles, yet they supported the legal and parliamentary institutions that arose out of the 1688 Act of Settlement. I support the Oath of Allegiance. Australia is not a republic and still forms part of the Commonwealth.

Motion agreed to.


Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [1.0]: This report relates to a regulation that was the subject of a disallowance motion by the honourable member for Manly on 19 November 1993. Although the motion was not successful, the honourable member accurately pointed to a major problem associated with that regulation and indeed the entire body of local government regulations that were gazetted in the middle of last year. He said that the regulation substantially continues the same standards that applied before the repeal of the Local Government Act 1919 and represented a lost opportunity to review and remedy any defects in this area of regulation where little had changed for 20 years. At that time the honourable member for Moorebank, a member of the Regulation Review Committee, foreshadowed that the committee was examining the regulation and would report on the matter to Parliament. The report I have tabled shows that the clear intention of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 to compel the periodic review of all regulations by means of the sunset and regulatory impact statement requirements of that Act has been evaded by these local government regulations. All we are asking is that the department explain the reasons for its decisions.

The regulation is largely a set of administrative procedures followed by provisions which apply particular parts of standards which are adopted in New South Wales and Australia generally. The RIS accompanying the regulation quite explicitly states that the standards were not assessed as to their costs and benefits. It says, first, that the new regulation largely recreates existing standards because there needs to be time for councils to adapt to the introduction of a new system of local government and that the simultaneous introduction of new standards would have created enormous administrative difficulties. Second, it states that because the review of standards and codes of
Page 534
practice would involve other departments and outside bodies it was not practicable to complete such an undertaking as part of this stage of the local government reform process.

As indicated in the report, this statement misses the point of the RIS. While a new regulation must be prepared under the sunset clause provisions, it does not of itself require the preparation of new standards. What the Act requires is the assessment of whatever standard - new, old or modified - is adopted in the regulation; in other words, an explanation of why the decision was made. The assessment would have been one means of determining whether revision of the standards was impracticable. At the time Dr MacDonald moved disallowance of this regulation he took the view that disallowance would not leave a vacuum in standards of safety applying in plumbing and drainage.

This was not incorrect, as the honourable member for Moorebank said at that time. The earlier ordinances which applied to the standards had been separately repealed and would not be revived on the disallowance of this regulation. The view put in the RIS that maintenance of the status quo with a few minor amendments would be sufficient is quite contrary to the Subordinate Legislation Act, where the do-nothing option forms the basis for assessment under section 5 and schedule 2 of the Act. While in the interests of public safety it might be found inappropriate to do nothing in this case, to have no standards prescribed, the present standards, or part of them, may themselves be found to place at risk public safety on a proper assessment and comparison of alternatives such as standards in other States.

Such an assessment would be particularly appropriate with respect to the New South Wales Code of Practice of Plumbing and Drainage, which contains provisions which vary Australian Standard 3500, the National Plumbing and Drainage Code, as well as additional provisions applicable in New South Wales alone. In the Minister's response to the honourable member for Manly he indicated that the regulation would not pre-empt any Government reforms that might later be proposed as it was not a static instrument and that an amendment could be made as a result of general government reforms to the water industry. While it may be the case that other reviews are proceeding at the time of the review of a regulation under the Subordinate Legislation Act, they cannot detract from the statutory review required under that Act.

Indeed, these miscellaneous reviews can be accommodated within the provisions of section 11 of the Subordinate Legislation Act, which permits the Governor to postpone formal assessment for between one year and a maximum of five years. This procedure was specifically designed to accommodate the local government regulations. By not following this procedure the Minister has effectively reintroduced the old standards, which could now legally go without mandatory assessment for up to 10 years, given the five-year sunset provisions plus potential postponement of repeal for an additional five years. The Minister should have considered the option of making the present regulation a transitional regulation with a one-year sunset clause.

The level of assessment required under the Act is not an impossible one to comply with. Only realistic options need be assessed as far as is reasonably practical. It does, however, require that the substantive matters in the regulation be assessed, and they would have included the standards referred to. I have obtained from the Parliamentary Library copies of the relevant standards that are now enforceable under this regulation. I produce them to show the House that they comprise more than 500 pages. They have not been formally examined under the Subordinate Legislation Act, though they represent the working parts of this regulation. The committee accordingly recommends that a supplementary impact statement be carried out by the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives within four months from the handing down of the report of the current Joint Select Committee upon the Sydney Water Board. This will enable the department to have regard to the recommendations of that report. The regulatory impact statement should fully assess the regulation and develop alternatives. A full consultation program should also be undertaken after the preparation of the RIS as this has not yet been done properly in relation to the regulation.

The report concludes by drawing Parliament's attention to the committee's tenth report to Parliament and the fact that its recommendations have not as yet been implemented. That report is relevant to the present circumstances as it concerns the case where standards are incorporated by reference in regulations. The report made recommendations to improve their availability to Parliament and the public. It also recommended that section 42 of the Interpretation Act be amended to enable the disallowance in whole or in part of any publication that had been applied, adopted or incorporated by statutory rule. The Attorney General, in his response of 4 February 1991, substantially agreed with the report. However, he said that before any action was taken the Parliamentary Counsel should prepare a full list of codes currently incorporated in New South Wales legislation. I understand that it has not been possible to prepare this list and accordingly no substantive action has yet been taken to implement the report. The legal position as outlined in the current report is that Parliament cannot disallow even one page of the standards unless it chooses to disallow the whole regulation. This of course was negated on the occasion of the disallowance motion by Dr MacDonald, and that points to the need for the Attorney General to take immediate action on the recommendations in the committee's tenth report. I commend the report.

Report noted.

Page 535

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [1.9]: This report is on another important local government regulation which has not been properly assessed as required under the Subordinate Legislation Act. The regulation deals with matters that local councils must take into consideration when making a decision in relation to applications for approval of activities, including erection and installation of buildings. Clause 52 of the regulation states that subject to the specific provisions of the regulation, all matters relating to the construction, maintenance, management and use of a building are to be governed by the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. That code was drafted by a joint State and Commonwealth body and contains detailed requirements relating to all aspects of building construction and design.

I have with me the standard service on that code which incorporates its full text. There are many hundreds of pages of technical requirements that must be complied with under the Building Code of Australia. Not all provisions of the Building Code of Australia have been adopted by the States and Territories; each State has produced a range of variations to the code. In a few cases a provision of the code has been entirely deleted with no substitution. A significant deletion so far as New South Wales is concerned is part G-5, which relates to construction in bushfire-prone areas. I briefly read from the text which describes this part:

Bushfires are not uncommon in Australia, in every State. However, there are areas where such catastrophic fires have been experienced, and may well occur again, that the authorities have taken action to declare such areas "bushfire prone", making it mandatory to implement those actions considered necessary to preserve life and property.

This clause applies to all buildings of classes 1, 2 and 3 making ignition of flammable materials by embers less likely. The Australian standard quoted in this clause, AS 3959, sets out those actions compliance with which would satisfy the local authority in relation to the owner's responsibility.

There has been recent criticism in the press of the decision in New South Wales to delete that part of the BCA which was designed to protect homes from bushfires. In a newspaper article published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 January 1993, a copy of which appears in the appendix to this report, a spokesman for the Minister is reported to have said that the national code provisions were inflexible and were not considered to cover all the issues that needed to be taken into account. This subject should have been examined in the regulatory impact statement required for the regulation under the Subordinate Legislation Act. However, the regulatory impact statement produced for the regulation specifically excluded the assessment of the code.

The regulation came into force on 1 July 1993, so it covers building approvals after that date. The controls preceding this regulation were contained in ordinance 70 under the Local Government Act 1991, which also adopted the Building Code of Australia with similar exceptions. The committee previously questioned the lack of assessment of this ordinance. The RIS for the regulation has been prepared in a similar fashion to the Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1993, which the committee dealt with in its report number 25. Only general options were identified and, as with other standards, the BCA was specifically excluded from assessment. The cost-benefit assessment, like the other regulations, is confined to a purely narrative description of the options without any quantification of cost and benefit.

The Australian Chamber of Manufactures, in its submission on the RIS, while applauding the streamlining of the approval process, expressed its concern that the RIS did not include appropriate economic analysis to assist in identifying the best option. It encouraged the Minister to reassess economic issues associated with the regulation. It was concerned at the lack of economic rigour in the RIS. The Chamber specifically advocated a cost-benefit analysis for the Act, regulation and standards. This submission goes to the heart of the defect in the RIS. In its response the department said the RIS was primarily concerned with assessing the cost and benefit of procedures required by the regulation, rather than the technical standards called up by the regulation. The department said that cost effectiveness was, in fact, a principle observed in developing the Building Code of Australia.

While cost effectiveness may have been observed in preparing the standard, my committee is not aware of the issue on that ground by the Attorney General of any exception from the preparation of an RIS under section 6 and schedule 3 of the Subordinate Legislation Act. By not following the procedure laid down in the Subordinate Legislation Act the Minister has effectively reintroduced the old standards, which could now legally go without mandatory assessment for up to 10 years, allowing for the five-year sunset provision plus potential postponement of repeal for an additional five years.

My committee accordingly formed the opinion that the RIS failed to properly assess the cost and benefit of the regulation and its alternative. In particular the Building Code of Australia, including the State variation, had not been compared with other options to determine which was in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. The committee has recommended in its report that a supplementary impact statement be carried out to fully assess the regulation and its alternatives and that a proper consultation program be undertaken. The committee notes that as a consequence of this report the Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports has announced that legislation dealing with fire hazard reduction and fire management and control will be introduced into Parliament this session. This will centralise the responsibility for bushfire control within the Bushfire Council. I assume that a concomitant of this proposal will be full assessment and public consultation on any construction standard for bushfire-prone areas.

Page 536

The committee is heartened that such prompt action is being taken by the Government in response to this report. All too often no response is made to committee reports. In this regard I would like to conclude my remarks by mentioning a disturbing matter that should be taken up urgently by the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. It is a waste of time for my committee and for other committees of this Parliament to devote our resources to the preparation of these reports when there is no obligation on departments, through their Ministers, to address the issues raised in them. There is no more respected foe than government inertia. It has defeated thousands of recommendations made to this Parliament in the past.

We can change the situation by a slight amendment to the standing orders. I understand several approaches have been made by committees such as the Public Accounts Committee to have such a change made, but the matter is never placed on the agenda of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee. I ask the Speaker, as Chairman of that committee, to take the matter in hand. I am sure he does not want to see a continued squandering of the Parliament's resources in the way that is now taking place. Committees cannot be expected to justify their existence simply by being there and making reports which, in cricketing terms, go through to the keeper with no stroke played. I commend the report.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [1.16]: Having read this report and having listened to the comments made by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, it is now obvious to me that the Regulation Review Committee has stepped out of its weight division and believes that it is the policy setting committee for this Government. Let me remind the chairman and members of that committee that it is not, that it was never intended to be, and that it never will be. There is no doubt that the committee is dedicated and devoted to its charter, and I commend it for that. But it is a pity that the members of that committee do not understand what that charter is. Its own constituting Act places several restrictions on the committee, and I would like to remind it of them.

Section 9 of the Regulation Review Act specifically provides that the functions of the committee do not include an examination of, inquiry into or report on a matter of government policy. This committee report is about the Building Code of Australia. What we do with that code is government policy. It is astounding that this committee has been so misdirected and that it could waste so much time and resources in examining and reporting on a matter that is not its responsibility. In the case of the Building Code of Australia, the Government made a specific policy decision in 1989 to adopt the code as the technical basis of building regulations in New South Wales. The decision followed and reinforced government policy adopted and pursued by successive State governments since the 1960s. That is to develop in collaboration with the other States and Territories and the Commonwealth, an economical and practical set of building regulations which would apply uniformly across Australia.

There are significant benefits in implementing a uniform system of technical building requirements, both in terms of building costs and public safety, to the industry and to the public. Building costs and public safety were a major motivating factor in the move to develop uniform nationwide building regulatory requirements. We are committed as a matter of policy to the adoption and implementation of the Building Code of Australia. This month the Government will sign a new agreement relating to enhanced arrangements for the implementation and operation of uniform building regulations. The BCA recognises technical variations in building requirements in particular situations as between States, but these variations have been significantly reduced by continuing evaluation and review. Today those variations are minimal.

The concerns of industry have been taken into account and the Australian Building Code Board is undertaking a five-year fire code reform program, for which $1 million is being allocated annually. The Regulation Review Committee made comment on the fact that New South Wales has not adopted the Australian standard regarding the construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas. The Government did not adopt that standard for one very good reason: the Building Regulation Advisory Council recommended against it. Who is on that council? The Building Owners and Managers Association, the Australian Institute of Building, the New South Wales Fire Brigades, the Sydney City Council, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the Public Works Department, the Master Builders Association, the Royal Australian Institution of Architects, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Housing, the Department of Health, the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, and the Institution of Engineers of Australia.

As late as 16 November last year the Department of Bushfire Services wrote to the Building Regulation Advisory Council stating that further research was requested before the standards fully addressed the hazards associated with construction in bushfire-prone areas. The best brains available could not recommend that we adopt that standard. However, the Regulation Review Committee takes upon itself to question these people and their recommendations. Not only does it question their decision; it criticises me and my department for not doing a regulatory impact statement on a standard which the Government was not going to adopt. That standard is totally unacceptable for technical reasons. So here we have experts telling us one thing and a group of politicians telling us another, playing bureaucratic games for the sake of attempting to have the rest of us believe that they are important. The Regulation Review Committee is important when it reviews regulations but it is irrelevant when it comes to establishing regulations and policy. This report about the BCA is clearly without foundation and I reject it.

Page 537

Mr YEADON (Granville) [1.21]: What an extraordinary performance we have just witnessed from the Minister for Local Government. He castigated the members of the Regulation Review Committee about how they fulfil their function and intimated that the committee has no idea how to conduct itself, when clearly the Minister for Local Government has not got a clue about how the committee works. That is clear from what he put to the House today. The Regulation Review Committee does not care what the Government ultimately adopts as regulations in this matter.

What the committee is concerned about is that the proper processes are undertaken in reaching a policy decision. As the Minister correctly points out, the committee has no role with regard to policy. We are always conscious of that, and we are always conscious that we must follow the requirement of the Act which governs our committee, which is to look at the processes that are involved. In this case the appropriate process is that a proper and adequate regulatory impact statement be prepared. The Regulation Review Committee is making it very clear to the Minister for Local Government that that process has not been followed in this instance, and that is why the Minister is in this predicament. Does one need any more evidence of that than the press release attached to report No. 26 of the Regulation Review Committee, which states:

The Minister for Local Government, Mr West, was unavailable for comment. A spokesman for his department said the code was not adopted because it was inflexible and not considered to cover all the issues that they needed to take account of.

That is exactly what a regulatory impact statement is all about: to ascertain whether the regulations that are being proposed are proper, adequate and right in the circumstances. That process simply was not followed, and that is why the Minister for Local Government is in this predicament. There is no point in the Minister castigating the members of the Regulation Review Committee. Rather, he should go back to his departmental officers and kick a few backsides because they have not done their job properly, and because they apparently continue to mislead their Minister about his proper responsibility and the proper responsibility of his department.

It was not the Regulation Review Committee that put forward the regulation; the regulation comes to us for examination. We are then automatically brought into play to ensure that the process has been followed adequately. We did not bring it up; we did not say to the Minister, "You have got to adopt a national code". The committee has no role in these substantive issues. It is the experts who decide, but the committee has to ensure that all the experts, the community, and everybody that may be impacted upon by a regulation, has an opportunity to put their point of view forward so that a proper cost benefit analysis can be undertaken to ensure that when a regulation is made and is put in place it will be for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. That is what we are here for and we will not resile from that role, because that is the role of the Regulation Review Committee. It is high time that the Minister for Local Government and other Ministers and their departments fully understood the role of the Regulation Review Committee, because we will not be backing off - and there is no point in these people trying to shoot the messenger.

Report noted.


Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [1.24]: I am delighted on behalf of the Staysafe committee to present the twenty-fifth report of the Staysafe committee, which examines the nature and operation of the offence of culpable driving under section 52A of the Crimes Act 1900 as it applies in New South Wales today. The Staysafe committee has determined that the current offences relating to grievous bodily harm or death arising through the use of a motor vehicle are not sufficient, and that new offences or amendments to existing offences, and the abolishment of one offence, are required. The offence under section 52A should be renamed to clearly establish that the charge relates to dangerous driving that causes the death of or serious injury to another person. The new offences should be named "dangerous driving causing death" and "dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm". The committee found in the course of its evidence that the general community is still not aware of what is involved in culpable driving and we fail to see how there can be an adequate deterrent if the broader community of drivers in New South Wales still do not understand what is meant by culpable driving.

The existing maximum penalties under section 52A are considered to be manifestly inadequate. Further, they do not fit well within the maximum penalties available across the range of offences available in New South Wales to deal with the various kinds of criminal behaviour arising from driving or the penalties available in other jurisdictions. The Staysafe committee found that the penalties for a conviction for culpable driving in New South Wales were among the most lenient penalties for dangerous driving of any State in Australia. The Staysafe committee has determined that the maximum penalties for offences under section 52A should, in effect, be doubled. The maximum penalties should provide for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years - up from five years - where the death of another person has resulted from the driver's actions; and a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years - up from three years - should be imposed where grievous bodily harm has been caused to another person as a result of the driver's actions.

In addition, the Staysafe committee believes that legislative provision should be made for what we have termed aggravating circumstances, including a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 0.14 grams per 100
Page 538
millilitres, speed in excess of 45 kilometres per hour over the limit, or where a death or serious injury results from a crash involving a vehicle attempting to escape a police pursuit. There may be further elements which may be considered as aggravating, but we have left this for the consideration of the Attorney General. The Staysafe committee recommends that when aggravating circumstances are present the maximum penalties should be increased to imprisonment for 14 years in situations where a death has resulted from a driver's actions, and imprisonment for 11 years where grievous bodily harm has been caused by a driver's actions.

A series of important recommendations made by the Staysafe committee concern the terminology used to define an offence under section 52A. A number of words and phrases should be examined and amended in a number of subsections so as to clarify issues at common law. The existing offence of wanton or furious driving under section 53 of the Crimes Act should be abolished, and the existing provisions regarding acts of negligent driving should be amended to provide for increased penalties available to the courts where an act of negligent driving causes the death of another person, or where negligent driving causes grievous bodily harm to another person. The committee during the course of its hearings also became extremely concerned about the lack of support given to victims' families - those left behind to suffer the tragedy of what has occurred to their family member.

In that regard the Staysafe committee noted with approval the development by the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services of appropriate policies and procedures to assist those who experience the tragedy and loss associated with road crashes, and the legal processes subsequent to the crash. I encourage the Minister and others in government circles to pursue this with some vigour as it is something very close to the hearts of most, if not all, members of the Staysafe committee. The Staysafe committee also believes that there is a need to develop clear, easily understandable messages for the community about what constitutes driving dangerously. The messages should match our everyday experience as drivers and road users. The sight of a motor vehicle crash can raise particular and unique challenges to the effective investigation of the circumstances giving rise to the crash. Staysafe supports the continued deployment of the accident investigation squads across the State's police regions. The committee appreciates that financial considerations are involved but supports, so far as is practicable, the deployment of accident investigation squads, and believes some emphasis should be given to it.

The Staysafe committee also identified a need for an appropriate training program and promotional structure to allow police officers to develop their policing skills and further their careers through service with an accident investigation squad. There is a need for further co-ordination between the agencies involved in motor vehicle crash investigations. That would ensure that the most effective use is gained from the resources devoted to support the investigations. Further, government agencies should ensure that the reasons for decisions not to prosecute a particular offence charged should be clearly explained - and I stress clearly - to road crash victims and their families, particularly in those circumstances where the prosecuting authorities no bill all criminal charges pending against a driver.

The Staysafe committee has made 22 recommendations in the report, spanning areas such as the investigation of road crashes, prosecution policy, penalties and sentencing, victims support, communication strategies and legal issues in respect of dangerous driving. The recommendations carry the unanimous support of all members of the Staysafe committee. The committee wishes to acknowledge the many people of this State who made submissions during the inquiry. Those submissions were very valuable in assisting the committee to determine the recommendations it has made. Sadly, many of those submissions made mention of death or serious injury to a loved one, be it a son or daughter, husband or wife, mother or father. It is apparent that this State has carried an enormous burden arising from the road toll over past decades. This social cost cannot be estimated; it can only be acknowledged and efforts made to respond to the earnest and heartfelt concerns that something be done to reduce dangerous driving and its consequences.

I wish to thank the staff of the Parliament who assisted the Staysafe committee in its inquiry. The committee staff - Mr Ian Faulks, the director, Mr Gary O'Rourke, Ms Vanessa Lovett, and Ms Fiona Gow - provided the committee with great assistance and the committee members acknowledge their hard work and dedication. The Staysafe committee also acknowledges the most valuable discussions and comments on legal interpretation that it received from Mr Tony Clark, the bills digester of the Parliamentary Library, who leaves the Parliament today for work elsewhere. I would like to express my personal gratitude particularly to the Staysafe secretariat and Mr Tony Clark for many hours spent going through the issues involved in this report, and the very valuable contribution each of them made to the final report. The committee further acknowledges the assistance of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the staff of the Parliamentary Printing Service in the preparation of transcripts of evidence and the production of the final report. As chairman I wish to thank all my fellow members in this Parliament who devote their time and effort to the work of the Staysafe committee

I consider it a privilege to have served for the best part of two years as the chairman of Staysafe. Every member of Parliament who serves on that committee is dedicated to the work of the committee, no matter whether they are members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Party. They are as one in doing what is best for the people of New South Wales, for the drivers and for all who use the State's roads. It has been an eye opener for me to see
Page 539
just how well a bipartisan committee can work when there is a real spirit of common purpose and camaraderie. I earnestly thank each of those members, from both sides of the House, and I look forward to continuing to work with them. This Parliament and the New South Wales community benefit from the caring intent that each member of the committee displays when examining the road safety issues that affect the lives of so many. Finally, at times when I was swaying one way or the other, the personal dedication and involvement of the honourable member for Cabramatta in relation to this particular report was invaluable. I thank him and the other members of the committee for that.

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [1.34]: I commend report No. 25 of the Staysafe committee relating to an examination of the provisions of the Crimes Act that deal with dangerous driving. I particularly commend the address of the chairman that so comprehensively covered the details of the report. I believe this report will have a significant impact not only on future charges and convictions with respect to dangerous driving, but - once the Attorney General has implemented amendments to the Crimes Act and we see them as law - also on the many drivers on our roads who virtually use vehicles as tools of destruction and death. It will have an impact on people who will realise that there is a penalty, a price to be paid. The ultimate price paid in the case of this report coming to fruition was the death of a young boy, Benjamin Cox, in April 1992. It will be two years in April since his death. It is rather sad that the New South Wales court system is such that the person convicted, Mr Winner, has not yet been sentenced in respect of that offence.

I also wish to thank the Staysafe committee staff, Vanessa Lovett and Fiona Gow, and particularly the technical officer, Ian Faulks, for his expertise and capable handling of the report, and Gary O'Rourke, who originally gave me the statistics concerning the year 1990 and the culpable driving convictions that so horrified this Parliament. The committee has had two years of involvement in this investigation; it has received 80 submissions and it has interviewed 35 witnesses. I suppose one of the most difficult aspects was that many of the witnesses were relatives of the victims and were relating the incident of someone having been killed, conveying to the committee their anguish and concern. One aspect that stood out was the perceived insult to the death or injury as represented by the penalty imposed by the court, and the increased anguish of the family, as part of the mourning process, when they discovered how little relevance the penalty had to the crime.

The report contained some other significant points. Recommendation 2 related to training programs for police recruits in accident investigation; and enhancement of the capability of highway patrol vehicles. Highway patrol vehicles and other vehicles have a random breath testing capability and the committee has recommended that they also be fitted with kits to deal with accident investigation. Recommendation 13 is significant. It seeks to revise the road users' manual and other educational material related to driving and road safety in order to incorporate advice to drivers on possible legal outcomes and penalties associated with involvement in a crash. If people seeking to obtain a licence understand that 10 years is the penalty for causing death on the road by driving dangerously, seven years for causing injury, and 11 years or 14 years for aggravated factors related to the accident, they will certainly think twice about being drunk and killing someone on the road, or escaping from police custody, going through a red light and killing people needlessly. They will think twice about that. It is in the early years when people first obtain driving licences - the probationary period - that this message must be clear. If these recommendations are accepted the message will be that a price has to be paid and that the penalty will fit the crime.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.39 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Premier, and Minister for Economic Development) [2.15]: I move:

That this House extends to Mrs McGowan and family the deep sympathy of Members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained by the death of Brian McGowan, a former Member of this House.

It is with regret that I move this condolence motion to mark the passing of Brian McGowan, former member for Gosford, and to offer the deepest sympathy to his family. Brian McGowan was born in 1935 and grew up in the inner city suburb of Stanmore. At the age of 13 he took his first job singing with the touring Italian opera company. He left school at the age of 14 and worked as an office boy and then as a truck offsider. He later sat for the PMG entrance examination and became a telephone technician in training until he entered national service. He then worked as a tram conductor and a professional fireman. Graduating from Fort Street evening college in 1956 Mr McGowan gained a scholarship to Wagga Wagga Teachers College. He was appointed to Tocumwal Primary School in the mid-1960s, completed a bachelor of arts degree at the University of New England and was transferred to Nowra High School.

In 1972 he was promoted to The Entrance High School to take up the position of English and history master. As a member of the Independent Teachers Association his continuing support for his teaching colleagues was well known. Mr McGowan first stood for election for the seat of Gosford in 1973, but he was unsuccessful. However, he was successful in 1976 and held the seat of Gosford until 1988. While in Parliament he was concerned with social and educational issues. His abiding interest in and commitment to education issues was well known both to his electorate and to all members who served with him. He was a member of the Joint Select Committee on Drugs and he was Chairman of the Legislative Assembly Select Committee on the School Certificate.

Page 540

In 1976, in his maiden speech to Parliament, he raised concerns about the problems associated with growth in his electorate. He brought to the attention of Parliament the difficulties that arose when a medium-sized country town surrounded by tourist villages grew into a large, urban conglomerate. I served with Brian McGowan from 1984 to 1988. He will be remembered and respected by members from both sides of the House. The sad passing of Brian as a relatively young man is a sobering reminder to each of us in this House of our mortality. I will certainly remember Brian as a man of gentle nature and friendly disposition. He always extended to me courtesies both in and out of this Chamber and conducted himself, as a member, with dignity at all times. I express the condolences of this House, as well as my personal condolences, to his widow and family.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [2.18]: It is with great sadness that we note the passing of Brian McGowan, a friend and a man of cheerful disposition and real commitment, especially to education. His career parallels the success of the last Labor Government. He was elected in 1976, the year Labor formed government in New South Wales. Like the parliamentary majority of that first Labor Government - one seat - his election victory was by the slimmest of margins, a mere 74 votes. He was an energetic young member of an energetic young Government. In 1978 he was one of many Labor members who made the first Wranslide part of his personal success. In his case he turned a 74 vote win into a remarkable 7,100 vote majority. Such a result after only two years, on the same boundaries of course, is confirmation of his hard work and diligence as a local member of Parliament.

The key to his success was that he worked very hard in the area. He had enormous common sense, he understood people's needs and he had a real affinity with the Central Coast. After his defeat in 1988 he became active in local government on the Central Coast, something in which he was involved until his death. He had a passionate interest in the bread and butter issues of State politics - education, the environment and other social issues. In his first year in Parliament he was appointed to the Joint Select Committee on Drugs. In 1979, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the School Certificate, he recommended bold future directions for education in New South Wales. The committee undertook the first comprehensive review of the operation of the school certificate since its creation by the Education Act 1961.

He established that the school certificate was an educational award that deserved great credibility, and recommended a wide cross-section of additional subjects to be taught in schools. As the Premier mentioned, he trained as a teacher in both primary and secondary schools, although he participated in a diverse range of jobs during his life. At the age of 13 he worked with the touring Italian opera company and, after leaving school, worked as an office boy and a truck offsider, and trained as a telephone technician. He entered national service and later worked as a tram conductor and a professional fireman. He will be remembered by all Opposition members as a man of cheerful, lively disposition, full of common sense. He had a commonsense appreciation of his electorate and its needs. He will be remembered for his commitment to the improvement of education. He understood that education was a key to equity and greater fairness in our society. He loved the region he represented and he loved the process of democratic politics. He was a fine, friendly and funny man. We are immensely saddened by his passing.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports) [2.21]: On behalf of the National Party I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing sympathy to the family of the late Brian McGowan. As has been said, Brian McGowan could be best described as a typical local politician who loved his occupation. He liked his fellow man and was respected by his peers in this place. That in itself is fair testimony of the man. Many people go through this place without achieving what Brian was able to achieve. Brian McGowan, in his role as a parliamentarian, did not play the man; he played the policy and participated in the process of government to the utmost. He worked hard and was always available for a friendly word. Anyone wanting to discuss something in private with him could do so. He performed his duties well, was sensible, and always did his research. If more members modelled themselves on Brian McGowan, society would be better off. On behalf of the National Party, I extend sympathy to his family.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [2.22]: I entered this House the same year as Brian, after the May 1976 State election, which was the year that Neville Wran became Premier of New South Wales after 11 years of Liberal Party-National Party Government. The result of the election hung in the balance for almost a fortnight, and it was Brian's achievement in winning Gosford by the narrowest of margins - actually, it was by 74 votes - that enabled Labor to form government after 11 years in Opposition. As one can imagine, it was a time of high drama for two weeks with the balance favouring the Government of Eric Willis one day and the Labor Opposition the next. And so it went for weeks with the media spotlight becoming white hot.

Throughout it all, Brian McGowan remained calm and unflappable as rumour followed speculation, fuelled by hyperbole. That is how I should like to remember Brian: his ability to keep cool under immense pressure. A true reflection of him was a quiet, yet very determined, achiever. He was a calligrapher of renown and he also was a gifted speaker. I remember a speech he made in the House, which I have extracted, when the former member for Gordon, Tim Moore, moved a motion to establish a select committee to inquire into the activities of an organisation known as the Children of God. That group had some fundamental beliefs alien to
Page 541
Mr Moore and he had some allegations he wanted to raise. Brian McGowan spoke in that debate and made it clear that, as many would say, there was no substance to Tim Moore's allegations. Brian McGowan finished his speech with these words:

What prima facie evidence is there that we should set up a committee of inquiry? None has been presented. If theologically a man is either an ape or an angel, then I take my place with the angels.

He was a gifted speaker. His contributions after the dust of that hard-fought election had settled were of a like quality; namely, hard work, a firm purpose, and an emphasis on common sense which culminated in the long overdue reforms to the New South Wales education system through his work on the McGowan report. This report effectively modernised parts of the New South Wales education system and set new standards that remain in place today, more than a decade after Brian completed his massive work. Along with the honourable member for East Hills I was pleased to be on that committee. Brian McGowan was a diligent member both here and at the grass roots level in the Central Coast electorate, where he was immensely popular and widely admired. He was a nice bloke and a loyal colleague, and he will be missed by all who knew him.

Mr FACE (Charlestown) [2.25]: I extend my personal condolences to Margaret and her children on the sad passing of Brian McGowan after a relatively short illness. In the week his illness was diagnosed I happened to run into him in the Parliament, and in his usual cheerful way he said, "Well, that is what will happen. I will do my best with it. I will live with it and make the best of every day until the finish". He did just that over the Christmas period in making things easier for his family and enjoying that period with them.

Brian McGowan was immensely proud of all his children. I had a special relationship, as did my wife, with one of his daughters who was in the police force. Brian was immensely proud of her achievements. Brian had a laugh that will always remain in one's memory; it was one of those things he could not quite contain. It was unique to him. He also had a great sense of humour. When he discovered that some time ago another McGowan, who wore a watch and chain, was a rather successful politician in this State, Brian also decided to wear a watch and chain. He regarded it as a humorous talking point. That is the sort of fellow he was.

His humble background during those early struggling years made him a gifted local politician. He was held in high regard by all members who had electorates in the Newcastle and Central Coast region. Brian moved into the area from Nowra. He must have impressed a considerable number of people almost immediately because soon afterward he gained preselection for what was to be the new seat of Gosford. In 1973, in the late hours of the night, former Premier Willis brought into the House - he was then the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party - a bill to increase the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly from 96 to 99. Gosford was one of those new electorates. With Keith O'Connell moving over to the seat of Peats and Harry Jensen going to the seat of Munmorah, there was an opportunity for Brian to become a member.

From the day in 1973 when Brian failed to win the seat of Gosford - and a fellow called Malcolm Brooks became a member of this place - he worked hard. By the time the next elections were held in 1976 he had become a well-known identity throughout the rapidly growing Gosford community, in which incredible development had taken place, putting pressures on roads, transport and schools. All this he described graphically in his maiden speech. Brian McGowan took a deep interest in these matters and that is probably why he was successful. He made history as the Labor member who won the seat that clinched victory for the Wran Government. I remember being in Gosford with Vince Durick and the late Ken Booth when the news broke of the 74-vote win. That, coupled with the news an hour before that Hurstville had been won also, ensured that Labor had won office.

As the honourable member for Ashfield said, at no time did Brian McGowan become perturbed. Even under immense pressure he was unflappable. I pay tribute to Margaret McGowan. She must feel a great loss, because she and Brian did many things together. They were interested in a variety of activities. Many members of Parliament serve their electorates well all of the time but some have special interests that coincide with their electoral duties. Brian McGowan had associations with many organisations. He had a keen interest in theatre. At 58 he was far too young to pass away.

On behalf of members who represent electorates in the Newcastle and Central Coast area I pay tribute to him for his considerable contribution to the State and the area he represented so well. His views are encapsulated in his maiden speech. Apart from the McGowan report Brian will be remembered for being one of the few members of Parliament who in those early days wanted electronic media coverage of the Parliament, a proposal that was not especially popular at that time. In his maiden speech he said:

While I am a member of the Assembly I shall not cease to advocate electronic extension of the public gallery and an increase in the continued reporting by print of this Her Majesty's Legislative Assembly.

Brian McGowan had strong views on that subject and continued to maintain them throughout the period during which he was a member of this place. At that time his words fell on deaf ears. He lived long enough to see that come about to a degree. I extend to his wife and his children my sympathies and those of the members representing the Central Coast and Newcastle areas.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [2.31]: I join with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members in speaking to this condolence motion. On behalf of my family I pass on to Brian McGowan's wife, Margaret, and his family our
Page 542
condolences. Brian was a close friend of mine while he was a member of this House. Regrettably most friendships that begin in this place do not last beyond the time when a member leaves or, as happened in Brian's case, is forced to retire. After he left the Parliament we met on only the odd occasion. Nevertheless, I like to think of him as a friend and former colleague.

Brian had a uniqueness about him. He did his politics in his own way. He was never afraid to speak out or to ruffle the feathers of the bureaucrats or interest groups if they happened to disagree with his point of view. He was a sceptic, though I am not sure whether he was a member of the Sceptics Association of Australia; nor am I sure of his religious views. Whatever is beyond this life Brian will know of it now. He had a wonderful style of handwriting. He wrote copperplate with a distinctive flat-tipped pen. He would answer the correspondence he received from his constituents in his longhand style. That is a gift one does not often see in these times, and I doubt whether many members would reply to their constituents in handwriting, let alone that style of writing. At times he wrote on high-quality parchment paper.

Among the other occupations Brian held, and which have been referred to, was that of schoolteacher. He never quite forgot that background. I well recall his showing me a letter from a constituent who was advocating the reintroduction of the death penalty. As a former English master Brian had gone through this letter, which consisted of two or three pages, painstakingly with red pen, marking all the spelling errors. At the end of his reply to his constituent he wrote:

Yes, I think there is merit to the death penalty, but I think it should be brought in only for those people who cannot spell properly.

As has been mentioned, Brian McGowan was chairman of the Select Committee on the School Certificate. I served also as a member of that committee, as did the honourable member for Ashfield. As chairman, he had to wait some time before the recommendations of that committee were implemented. That is not unique for committee reports of this Parliament. At the time I served as a member of that committee I also chaired a government inquiry into the four-term school year. I had to wait eight or nine years before the recommendations made in that report were introduced. Brian did not have to wait that long. Another committee of which I was chairman, which has the unmentionable name, was brought down 10 years ago, as I was reminded yesterday by the Treasurer. Some day someone will dust that report down and perhaps look at the recommendations and implement them. Brian was unique. It was an honour and privilege to have known him. It is with sadness that we are gathered today to support this condolence motion. I join with all honourable members in expressing to Brian's family our sincere sympathies.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [2.36]: Last week the House paid tribute to Ted Humphries, who was the member for Gosford from 1965 to 1971. We now bid a sad farewell to Brian McGowan, who represented the electorate of Gosford from 1976 to 1988. Like many working-class people who were born in the depression year of 1935, Brian McGowan faced the challenge of improving himself through education. He responded nobly to the challenge and succeeded in meeting it. The Premier has recounted to the House the long list of careers he followed in his desire for self-education and self-improvement. His early years of struggle led him to take a keen interest in social reform, an interest he shared with his wife, Margaret. They were married in the early 1950s and, being a fairly impecunious young couple, they decided to spend their honeymoon at a youth camp sponsored by the Eureka Youth League. They were not aware in those days of the strictures of communist morality, and when they went to the camp of the Eureka Youth League, despite the fact that they were married, they were assigned to separate quarters, for males and females, unable to have any contact with each other for the two weeks that they spent at the youth camp.

Brian was always ready to offer advice and assistance, and he readily offered both to me. Some of the advice he gave me I followed, some I chose not to follow, but it was always given in a friendly, good-natured way. I remember when I was elected in 1988 as his successor for the seat of Gosford I met with him for the first time as the new member. He said, "Let me give you one piece of advice which I hope you will take seriously". I said, "What is that?" He said, "Get your children out of the State's schools." I said, "Why is that, Brian?" He said, "Well, if I know Terry Metherell and if Terry Metherell does one-half of what he promises to do, the schools will be in an uproar in a few months". Brian was very observant about the impact of change in our society.

Brian McGowan was a person of rare courage and he demonstrated that courage in a political and personal way. Politically he demonstrated it in the battle that he waged with the Teachers Federation because he thought its views were "anti-semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant". Whether that was right or wrong, he was prepared to fight that battle and not simply lay down and surrender, even though he was a schoolteacher and was involved in Labor Party branches that had many teachers who were members. He fought with great courage. In the years preceding 1988 I used to go out door knocking. I would knock on a door and when the doors opened, as soon as I said I was the Liberal candidate they would say, "I have never voted Liberal in my life but I am voting for you". I would say, "Are you a schoolteacher?" and in many cases the response was yes. An article published in the Teachers Federation journal at about that time described Brian as a class traitor. If he believed in something, he stood up and fought for it.

In a personal sense he was a man of great courage. He faced his battle with cancer openly. In October last year he acknowledged in a local paper that he had severe, inoperable cancer. He said, "I
Page 543
acknowledge the fact that I am not destined to lead a long life". He was open and courageous about everything and, as the Deputy Premier said, in many respects he was a role model. Brian McGowan was born in the depression years. He believed strongly in the ideal that governments can achieve and help ordinary people in their lives. He was a man of deep social conscience and responsibility. He looked after ordinary people and did his best by them at all times. He was political, but not opportunistic; he was witty, but not cynical. He was a fine representative of the people, and I send my condolences to his wife, Margaret, and to his family.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [2.41]: I join with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and my fellow members in offering condolences to Margaret and her family. It is sad that one sees the full tapestry of people's lives only when they die. Until now I had seen only a small part of Brian's tapestry. I knew Brian as a fellow teacher at Nowra High School. I knew of his activities in Shoalhaven prior to being elected to this House. He was well respected and took an active role in the local Australian Labor Party branch and in council matters. He took a keen interest in Federal and State politics and was a prominent member of the Teachers Federation. I was a teacher of agriculture at Nowra High School and he was on the English-history staff.

He had a reputation as an excellent speaker and he possessed a wonderful sense of humour. He had a keen sense of history and community values. He was able to relate well to students because of his wide experience of life. Many teachers tend not to have that worldly experience, and when a teacher enters the system one realises immediately through discussions in the classroom, debates and participation in the community, that a particular teacher has something special to offer to the community and to the school. I was saddened to learn that Brian had passed away, though I was not aware of his passing until I was informed by the honourable member for East Hills on my way down to the Chamber this afternoon. I endorse the remarks of other members and can add little to what has been said. However, on behalf of my constituents, teachers and many others who had the honour of knowing Brian, I place on record my condolences and appreciation to Margaret for a life well lived and a contribution well made.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [2.43]: On behalf of myself and my wife, Doreen, I should like to support the comments of the Premier and other parliamentary colleagues in relation to Brian McGowan. I listened closely to the remarks of the Minister for the Environment concerning the minor administrative problem experienced by Brian on his honeymoon. Knowing Brian as well as I did, I have no doubt that he quickly solved that problem. He was a man of exceptionally good humour and a man whose friendship was valued.

In company with the honourable member for Ashfield, I came into this House as the member for Blue Mountains after the 1976 elections. Brian was a great and steadying influence. He liked to smoke his pipe. I saw examples of the letters he wrote to his constituents. I must admit those letters were most difficult to decipher, but his handwriting was copperplate, and it was a first-class method of letting his constituents know that he cared about them. Brian McGowan was a very kind person who was admired by everyone in the Parliament. I, too, was saddened to learn of his passing. I extend to his wife and family, on behalf of my wife and myself, our sincere sympathy.

Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [2.47]: I join with other speakers in supporting the condolence motion to Brian McGowan. I first met him in the lead-up to the 1976 elections, when the other members mentioned won their seats and I did not. The first time I saw Brian he had a most wonderful beard. I shall not tell of the circumstances under which he removed the beard, but those of us who know remember it with some humour, as I am sure he would. Many have spoken of his skill as a local member. Gosford police station is testimony to that skill. Gosford, which used to be a poor relation to Hornsby in the policing structure, became a district in its own right entirely through Brian's representations. He did not confine his skills to that particular field but used them on a broad range of issues.

He was not only a committed representative of the people who had elected him but also a most forceful advocate. Brian had an ability to speak with great talent on a wide range of subjects. When Brian was aroused by or committed to an issue he was an awesome speaker and few members on either side of the House could get the better of him. I had many conversations with him late at night. Brian enjoyed a good meal and a good wine. He was Brian at his best when he opened up and talked about issues. I recall saying to him that he was his own worst enemy. It would be fair to say that in my time in the Parliament Brian McGowan was probably the most talented person not to have made the front bench. That had nothing to do with his ability but with his greater commitment to what he was doing and the issues he was pursuing. It was Brian who made the decision not to pursue that position to the extent others had. I recall how proud he was when his daughter joined the police force. I recall how proud he was of his family. The Parliament has been the poorer for his defeat: the world is the poorer for his passing.

Mr SPEAKER: Will honourable members please carry the motion by standing.

Members and officers of the House standing in their places,

Motion agreed to.



Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Did the Minister for Police yesterday repeatedly tell the House that no formal quota system exists for the issuing of fines? Can the Premier confirm this? If not, what action will he take?

Page 544

Mr FAHEY: I have spoken to the police Minister about the matters he mentioned in the House yesterday. He has confirmed that what he indicated in the House yesterday is in fact correct.


Mr BLACKMORE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. The Minister would be aware of an allegation made yesterday about a quota contained in an enterprise agreement involving parking police. Has the Minister received advice from the Commissioner of Police about that allegation?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for his question. I am happy to set the record straight once and for all. Following the disgraceful allegation made by the honourable member for Liverpool yesterday that a Police Service enterprise agreement contained a quota, I sought the advice of the Commissioner of Police. I now seek leave of the House to table the enterprise agreement between the Commissioner of Police and the Public Service Association of New South Wales.

Leave granted.

The commissioner has also provided me today with written confirmation that there are no quotas in the parking patrol. I seek leave of the House to table that letter.

Leave granted.

That proves that there are no quotas and that the honourable member for Liverpool has misled the House.


Mr ANDERSON: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. Did his Government in 1988 direct police not to caution juveniles but to charge them with car stealing offences? Did his predecessor describe the offence as too serious for the use of cautions? Why has the Minister reversed that policy?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, and I disagree with my predecessor.


Mr D. L. PAGE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister for the Status of Women. Can the Minister inform the House about negotiations between the Government and building unions in New South Wales? Has an agreement been reached which will provide reforms for the industry in this State?

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: I thank the honourable member for Ballina for his question, for I know that he, representing a growing area, is particularly concerned about the building industry and any attempts by the Government to reform that industry. I am pleased to advise the House that the New South Wales Government has reached agreement with the national and State branches of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, better known as the CFMEU. The agreement released today by me and the national secretary of the CFMEU, Mr Stan Sharkey, has been described by the media as a landmark agreement. I would say that the agreement goes further than that, for it now provides a foundation for a strong and growing building industry in this State. That is not only my view. I quote in part from two press statements which have been released today:

"With the recession ending, this agreement offers the promise of a secure stable building industrial relations climate in NSW. That's great news", Mr Easson said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coogee to order.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The press release continues:

This agreement will be a model for reform in the industry across the country.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: It also states:

I'm very optimistic that only good can come from this agreement - including a confident environment for investment in the building and construction industry.

Those quotes are from Mr Michael Easson of the Labor Council of New South Wales. A media release from the Master Builders Association states:

Quite clearly this agreement will pave the way for lasting reforms in the building industry.

For the first time in New South Wales an agreement exists between the Government and the unions which aims to build a longlasting reform in the building industry. The agreement is designed to improve productivity in the building and construction industry, to make the industry more competitive, and to do away with the archaic work practices that have existed in the building and construction industry for generations. Under the agreement the building unions have given the Government and the people of New South Wales a number of clear undertakings and commitments to address a wide range of issues, including no ticket no start provisions, lost time, dispute settlement procedures, and other concerns identified by the Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry in New South Wales. The unions have agreed to continue their own internal reforms, to co-operate with the Government on a number of important areas such as occupational health and safety and training opportunities, and to support the concept of voluntary unionism. The Government has agreed to normalise relations with the building unions and to not proceed with lodging deregistration papers in the courts provided the unions comply with the agreement.

The agreement is a lengthy and complex document. It will be monitored by a five-member committee, to be headed by an eminent person to be appointed within the next few days. The committee
Page 545
will comprise two representatives of the Government, one from the building unions, and one from the New South Wales Labor Council. This agreement is another step in the Government's unshakeable commitment to reform the building and construction industry in New South Wales, to ensure that this State has an effective, efficient and competitive industry. This agreement will pave the way for major reforms in what is, after all, one of the largest employers in New South Wales, if not in Australia.

Before I conclude I put on the record some of the achievements that have been gained in this State following the release of the royal commission's report. Since the release of the report there has been a 10 per cent reduction in building costs, representing savings worth several million dollars a year to private organisations and to the taxpayers of New South Wales. Time lost through industrial disputes in New South Wales has been reduced from 14 per cent to 2 per cent. The Government has recouped repayments totalling more than $6.7 million in improperly obtained special fees and unsuccessful tenderers' fees.

This agreement, therefore, is the next step in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. It is truly a victory for common sense. It is a victory for the industry also, and one that has been welcomed by all parties in the industry. I conclude by placing on record my recognition of the work carried out by those involved in this long and complicated negotiating process. I refer not only to Mr Sharkey but also to Mr Michael Easson from the Labor Council and to the head of my department, Dr Col Gellatly and the other members of the Government's negotiating team. Once again, the Government has shown that when it comes to industrial reform, this Government - the Fahey Government - is delivering, which is more than can be said for the bunch of losers on the Opposition benches.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Stephens to order.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: The Government is committed to reforming industries in the State in all areas.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order.


Mr GIBSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. Why did he this morning order the removal of a sign on the corner of Darlinghurst Road and William Street? Did the sign state "Police are currently targeting parking"? Did this occur shortly after the honourable member for Bligh raised serious concerns about the issue of parking tickets in Kings Cross?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for his question. I have absolutely no knowledge of the incident whatsoever.

Mr MORRIS: I address my question without notice to the Minister for the Environment. Has the Minister received the draft report by independent environmental consultants into the Castlereagh Waste Disposal Depot? What are the findings of the report?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Blue Mountains to order.

Mr HARTCHER: I thank the honourable member for Blue Mountains for his question and for the interest he takes in the environment in western Sydney, an interest that is obviously not shared by the honourable member for Blacktown, who never asks any questions in this House about the environment - not even about western Sydney.

Mr Hunter: Because we know you know the answers.

Mr HARTCHER: As the honourable member for Lake Macquarie says, the reason they do not ask is that they know I know the answers. I am very grateful to the honourable member for Lake Macquarie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lake Macquarie to order. I call the honourable member for Cronulla to order.

Mr HARTCHER: Yesterday I was handed a draft report on an independent examination into the Castlereagh Waste Disposal Depot facility. That report, prepared by an international firm of consultants, has been in the making for two years and has cost almost $1 million. I welcome the report.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order.

Mr HARTCHER: I am pleased to say that the report found no serious contamination at the Castlereagh depot and no evidence that contaminated groundwater had moved beyond the depot boundaries. The Government has undertaken massive and extensive testing of the Castlereagh Waste Disposal Depot. It is probably the most tested area of land in Australia. The Government's action of analysis, careful research, and full community consultation over the past six years has to be compared with the record of the previous Government and the previous Minister for the Environment.

[Interruption]

Honourable members are calling out, "Who was he?" He is well known in this House - the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Blacktown has said things about Castlereagh in the past and in 1989 she spoke about Castlereagh and Bob Carr's record there. She said, "The depot was
Page 546
operating the whole time we were in government and we did virtually nothing about it". That is what she had to say about her leader, the then Minister for the Environment. But the honourable member for Blacktown went even further. In 1988, again speaking about Castlereagh and her leader's role as Minister for the Environment -

Ms Allan: How far do you want me to go?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the third time.

Mr HARTCHER: - the honourable member for Blacktown said, "There is no doubt that before 1988 a number of poor decisions were made about its continuing and future operations". Who made those poor decisions about the continuing and future operations of Castlereagh Waste Disposal Depot?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order.

Mr HARTCHER: Who was the Minister under whom the amount of liquid waste that went into Castlereagh increased by 33 per cent?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order.

Mr HARTCHER: He may not be able to get over 30 per cent in popularity but he was good at getting the figures up as far as liquid waste volume went. He may be 24 per cent to the people but down at Castlereagh he is Mr Thirty-three Per Cent. Under this Government we are now sending to Castlereagh less than one-fifth of what was sent by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for the Environment. Mr Speaker, as a member representing an electorate in this area, I am sure you would join with the rest of the House in being pleased with the Government's record of achievement in this respect.

The stage 2 audit, which was released last night to the community monitoring committee, found minor contamination in an old section of the depot. This study found that out of about 200 monitoring bores testing groundwater and surface water only three are contaminated. Interestingly, the contamination is found to be consistent with chemicals such as benzene, phenol, greases and organic acids. I say interestingly because this Government has banned the dumping of those waste materials at Castlereagh. As a result of the commissioning of the Aqueous Waste Treatment Plant at Lidcombe by this and the previous Government, there is no longer the need to dump the materials and there is the mechanism to properly handle them. But there was not that mechanism to properly handle these liquid wastes under the previous Minister for the Environment, now the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Canterbury to order.

Mr HARTCHER: The cells at Castlereagh which now have the contaminate problem are those cells filled at the time when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for the Environment. I would expect the honourable member for Londonderry to acknowledge the fact that it was under his leader that contamination got to be a problem at Castlereagh. More importantly than that is the fact that this report gives a reason for the people of the Castlereagh area to be confident of the security and safety of the waste depot.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Burrinjuck to order for the second time.

Mr HARTCHER: Exhaustive monitoring has found there is no evidence that contaminants are moving beyond the depot boundaries.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Londonderry to order for the second time.

Mr HARTCHER: No contaminated ground water or surface water has left the site and exposed those nearby to risk. The honourable member for Londonderry interjects and he has spoken a lot about Castlereagh. Let me give the House what is probably the best comment he has made about Castlereagh. Honourable members should wait for this and not get too excited. On a radio show he said, "And Chris Hartcher has been fantastic. I must pat him on the back because he is the first Minister that has ever listened to us." What a comment about the Leader of the Opposition, who for four years was Minister for the Environment. He did nothing about Castlereagh, nothing about western Sydney, and he increased by 33 per cent the volume of liquid waste going to Castlereagh. The comment made by the honourable member for Londonderry was, "It has to be a Liberal Minister who listens to the people of western Sydney".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural Affairs to order. I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order.

Mr HARTCHER: In my press release and in my advice to the community concerned I have outlined initiatives of a caring government which will continue to ensure an ongoing monitoring program for Castlereagh.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Cabramatta to order.

Mr HARTCHER: We will continue to test for animal health and human health, and we will continue to monitor air quality, surface water and ground water. We will make sure that the people of that area are not put at any risk by the depot facility, though they were put at risk for four years by the Leader of the Opposition.


Ms MOORE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. In view of the removal of the sign in Darlinghurst Road indicating Kings Cross police are targeting illegal parking, will the Minister direct the police to replace that sign with one that indicates that the Police Service is now targeting drug trafficking, prostitution, street crimes and violence?

Page 547

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for Bligh for her question and I congratulate her on her persistence in bringing to my attention and to the attention of the Commissioner, concerns in her electorate when it comes to policing. She certainly has done that in a very vigorous way. I say to the honourable member for Bligh that I honestly know nothing about the removal of the sign. The honourable member for Bligh discussed that sign with me at 12.35 today. The only contact I had was through my executive staff officer to whom I said, "The member for Bligh has again raised concerns about policing in her electorate. I want to know exactly what happened at the meeting between the District Commissioner and the member for Bligh. I want to know what action was taken to fix the problems raised by the honourable member for Bligh".

In regard to the second statement of the honourable member for Bligh, I will undertake to discuss with the Commissioner the operational needs in that area and to ascertain whether the suggestion by the honourable member for Bligh would be effective in reducing the crime rate in her electorate.


Mr HUMPHERSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Is the minister aware of concerns raised by a group of HomeFund borrowers in Sydney today? What action is the minister taking to advise the group about the HomeFund advisory service?

Ms MACHIN: I thank the honourable member for Davidson for his timely question. The answer to the first part is yes, I did indeed meet this morning, along with my colleague the Hon. Robert Webster from another place, with a small group of HomeFund borrowers who turned up at the back of Parliament House. Some of us may have noticed them. This is more than can be said for the honourable member for Heffron. She did not even bother to meet them as we did. She left them to stand out there on what is a very hot day, abandoned in the midday sun. She does not care. I can only assume she was embarrassed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murwillumbah to order.

Ms MACHIN: Her hysterical and much publicised attempts to whip up a large crowd failed so miserably.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Mount Druitt to order.

Ms MACHIN: In the last few weeks she has told us, "What a big crowd you are going to have out there and I guess it is a shame you cannot get your bill on." The honourable member told us how they were going to fill Macquarie Street. They sent out flyers. We counted the number of people there and I think there were 54 people, including a lot of children. I pay a tribute to those borrowers who did turn up, and who are no doubt disappointed they did not see their so-called mentor. They came in and met with us. I commend them for their politeness and the way in which they put their case. It was very lucid and constructive. If the honourable member for Heffron is as genuine as she tries to make out at public meetings when she has got a somewhat captive audience, I would have thought she would have been out there to meet this crowd, which, after all, she was trying to encourage to come along. Obviously, the numbers were not big enough. There was not a big enough crowd. What a shallow effort!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Premier to order. I call the honourable member for Kogarah to order for the third time.

Ms MACHIN: I have said before, and I think it is becoming increasingly obvious, that the honourable member for Heffron is using these genuine people as puppets for her own political agenda.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order.

Ms MACHIN: I do not really know what she thinks she is likely to gain. Last year she had difficulties with her preselection. Perhaps she is one of the leadership contenders, a matter which was much vaunted a few years ago. That could get her back in the race. It is an open race. It is worth recapping the events of the last few months. Ever since the Parliament negotiated the HomeFund restructuring package in a very lengthy sitting late last year - honourable members would remember and regret the occasion because most were just kept hanging around - the honourable member for Heffron has been like someone whose bubble has just burst. She hated that restructure because it has solved the problems of a large number of HomeFund borrowers. This is the last thing that the honourable member for Heffron wanted. Since then she has spent every moment scheming with her collaborators to sink that scheme.

[Interruption]

She is not getting much support from members in her party, so she has to look elsewhere. People like Mr O'Keeffe authorised a record number of loans in his days and was an enthusiastic advocate for the scheme at the City Central Co-operative, a co-operative that has the highest proportion of poorly originated loans. What a great adviser and advocate for HomeFund borrowers! The honourable member for Heffron has had ample opportunity to participate genuinely in the resolution of borrowers' problems, but she has refused to do so at every turn. All last year she was invited by the HomeFund Commissioner to make an input into his operations and the problems of the scheme, but she provided nothing. I have written to the honourable member on a number of occasions asking for details of borrowers and complaints she has received about them, but she consistently refuses.

Yesterday's excuse about not having the resources to provide me with a briefing was pathetic. I do not want a briefing. All she has to do is fax me
Page 548
letters from borrowers in trouble so I can send them to the appropriate authorities, or she could give me their names and addresses. How am I supposed to deal with them if the honourable member for Heffron consistently refuses to make that information available to the Government? You can call me cynical, which I hope you will not, but I believe the reason is that she does not have many complaints or, if she does, she is afraid the Government might be able to help those borrowers and destroy her little political game.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Campbelltown to order.

Ms MACHIN: We saw the way in which the honourable member for Heffron hijacked a meeting of borrowers at Plumpton about 10 days ago and misled them on how the information service is working. That meeting was meant to be an informal and non-political session for borrowers. Funnily enough, it was hijacked. Last week I proved in this House that all these letters were typed on Mr O'Keeffe's typewriter but were signed by one of the borrowers, Mr Isaacs, who was supposed to be the honest broker for the meeting. When I rang Mr Isaacs' number the answering machine redirected me to Mrs Grusovin and Mr O'Keeffe. How independent and impartial was that?

Even the fliers for today's rally and the questionnaires that were being handed around to and by the borrowers were in Mr O'Keeffe's hand. The real agenda is quite clear. It is not to help borrowers but to cause political mischief for the Government. The honourable member for Kogarah actually agreed with me last week. He called me Sherlock Holmes - for which I thank him - for working that out. I am glad that he conceded that that is the game that is being played. The real agenda is not about borrowers at all. Mr O'Keeffe, the adviser to the honourable member for Heffron, said at the Plumpton meeting - I know this because I have spoken to people who were there - that borrowers should keep this issue on the political agenda because a State election was only 12 months away. How emotive! How fair dinkum is Mr O'Keeffe?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order. I call the honourable member for Coogee to order.

Ms MACHIN: Now the tactic is to bag the advisory service, which has been operating for 23 or 24 days. The funny thing is that anyone who has genuine contact with it, particularly the consumer affairs supervised financial and legal counselling side of it, says what a good job it is doing and how genuine and helpful it is. It is conceded that difficult questions are being asked, but the advisory service is prepared to get back to people. It talks to people time and again. That feedback comes from a wide range of people, including borrowers, but not from the honourable member for Heffron, who still has not sought any information on how that service works, despite my comments in the House last week and despite my writing to her before it was established so we could work out whether it could be improved and what we should do if there were any problems. The silence has been deafening.

It seems that the strategy of the honourable member for Heffron is to starve borrowers of information so they cannot make an informed decision. It was established clearly this morning that borrowers are being lied to and misled by the honourable member for Heffron. I guess her theory is, "She who controls the information controls the people". At this morning's meeting, which went for some time, one borrower said to us that he had been told he was certain to lose his home and the Government could profit from the sale. When one of our counsellors who was present this morning went through the facts with him a very different story was established. Who has been lying to whom?

[Interruption]

Another Labor lie! Members opposite are pretty good at that. It just goes on and on. The honourable member for Heffron cannot help herself. Just yesterday she quoted from a letter that she had solicited from the Financial Counsellors Association, which states:

Dear Deirdre,

In response to your request of 3/3 for information in relation to the role of the association . . . we confirm the following -

Mrs Grusovin: Read the quote.

Ms MACHIN: I will read the quote:

Consumer affairs specifically excluded certain types of training for the counsellors.

I think the honourable member for Heffron quoted a section which said -

Mrs Grusovin: Read the whole letter.

Ms MACHIN: I will table the letter. The letter states:

It was not possible to do financial counselling within the guidelines given to financial advisers - that is, the borrower's overall financial situation was not to be taken into account.

The first part of that letter states:

We were involved in two days' training -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Heffron to order. I call the honourable member for Coogee to order for the second time.

Ms MACHIN: This is the letter from which the honourable member for Heffron quoted.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Oxley to order.

Ms MACHIN: The letter states:

The areas covered in the training were:

How do people get into financial difficulties?

Changes in the relationships.

Understanding who owns the properties.

Knowing the limitations.

I would have thought that was fairly comprehensive.

Page 549

Mrs Grusovin: Read it in context.

Ms MACHIN: I read it in the context of a letter from consumer affairs which went to borrowers and stated:

Thank you for agreeing to provide some training. There are some issues we would like you to cover as part of your input including:

(1) The skills that will ensure that the advice that staff provide is based on an independent assessment of each borrower's position.

Mrs Grusovin: How much training did you give them?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Heffron to order for the second time.

Ms MACHIN: The honourable member for Heffron just hates this. At the end of last year there was considerable -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Riverstone to order.

Ms MACHIN: The honourable member for Heffron just hates to think that this problem might be resolved. That is a really sad reflection on her.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Ms MACHIN: We have established a service that has credibility. Any suggestion to the contrary from the honourable member for Heffron is a real slur on its character. Once again I invite her to see how that service is operating, to give us her suggestions on how it could be improved - as a number of borrowers did this morning - and to tell us exactly what is wrong with it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Coogee to order for the third time.

Ms MACHIN: The Government can see it, the colleagues of the honourable member for Heffron can see it and the media can see it. The honourable member for Heffron is manipulating this issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.

Ms MACHIN: Most important, as was demonstrated by the small crowd of people who turned up this morning, borrowers can see through the honourable member for Heffron, because they are just not responding any more.


Mr NEWMAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services. Was the tactical response group abolished in 1991? Has it now been re-established under another name - the regional support group? What are its duties?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the honourable member for Cabramatta for his question. I assure the honourable member and every member of this House and every member of the public that the tactical response group has been abolished, as he indicated. There is no intention, and there certainly will not be under my administration, to bring back the tactical response group or any similar body. What operational decision are made by the commissioner are proper decisions made after consultation, but there is no intention on the part of the commissioner or myself to bring back the tactical response group. I would like to give an indication of the commitment of the commissioner in regard to this. I think it is very important that I read this letter because there have been many assertions made about the New South Wales Police Service and what has actually been done or said. I received this letter from the commissioner today in relation to an assertion about the way that police operations run. The letter states:

Dear Minister,

I am writing to clarify some inaccuracies in various reported aspects of the enterprise agreement currently in force between the Police Service and the Public Service Association in respect of parking patrol officers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Granville to order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is significant:

This agreement was negotiated between the service and the association and was registered on 24th December, 1992.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Bulli to order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The letter continues:

The key aspects of that agreement were the creation of the rank structure, career paths of patrol officers.

Mr Anderson: On a point of order: the question asked by the honourable member for Cabramatta related to the tactical response group or the regional support group, by whichever name. The Minister is apparently reading a letter about an enterprise agreement with parking patrol officers. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule him out of order. This is about an enterprise agreement, which has nothing to do with the question the Minister was asked.

Mr Griffiths: On the point of order: by way of interjections in the question, aspersions were being cast on the New South Wales Police Service.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services well knows the rules of this House in regard to relevancy of answers to questions asked. I presumed the Minister was making a passing reference in response to interjections. The Minister will either provide the necessary linkage between his remarks and the question, or he will return to the subject-matter of the question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It will be my pleasure to provide that linkage to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Illawarra to order.

Page 550

Mr GRIFFITHS: The question in regard to the tactical response group is another Labor lie, just as this is another Labor lie. I will take one more moment to quote from the letter to link in the Labor lie in regard to that. The commissioner said -

Mr Langton: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, your previous ruling directed the Minister to draw the linkage. He quite clearly has not done that. I ask that the Minister be directed to return to the question he was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police said he would demonstrate the linkage. Until he has done so I cannot rule on it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The commissioner said:

"there is NO official `quota' system, either implied or implicit within the Parking Officers Enterprise Agreement;".

Mr Carr: On a point of order: unless parking patrol officers are now carrying shields and batons, the Minister's answer is absolutely irrelevant to the question asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition must be using powers of clairvoyance which are certainly not possessed by the Speaker. The Minister for Police has spoken only a few words. It still remains for him to show the linkage. I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The commissioner said:

•there is NO sanctioned unofficial system of this type;

•as Commissioner, if I become aware of any unofficial application of such a `quota' system I will take immediate steps to terminate that practice.

Mr E. T. Page: On a point of order: previous points of order were taken when the Minister was quoting from a letter. Mr Speaker, you ruled that he must establish the link. The Minister has made no attempt to do so. All he has done is to keep quoting from the letter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House has been somewhat more orderly today than it has been in the past two days. I would like that position to continue through the balance of question time. I am concerned that submissions on points of order are becoming superfluous to the matters being raised. I will hear the honourable member for Monaro on the point of order and then rule on it. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mr Cochran: On the a point of order: it is apparent that the Minister for Police is establishing a link between the two events. The consistency is that the Labor Party has lied on both occasions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister for Police was endeavouring to draw the linkage between aspersions regarding the police force in one section and aspersions that may have occurred in another section, I believe he has established that link. The Minister will either return to the subject-matter of the question or resume his seat if he has finished answering the question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance in that regard. Clearly that establishes the link of another Labor lie. There is no question, and there never will be a question under my administration, of bringing back the tactical response group. The TRG is gone; the TRG will not be coming back. Another Labor Party lie.


Mr SMITH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Minister for Mines. What benefits will your signing of a memorandum of understanding with South Korea bring to primary producers in New South Wales?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blue Mountains to order for the second time.

Mr CAUSLEY: I thank the honourable member for Bega for his question. It is obvious from the comments from the other side of the House that Opposition members know nothing about agriculture. The Opposition has one member who represents something like a country seat and he visits his electorate only irregularly. There is no doubt that most of the knowledge about agriculture rests on this side of the House. I had the pleasure recently of travelling to South Korea and to China to sign an important agreement with the Government of South Korea. As honourable members would realise, the New South Wales Government has placed very high importance on trying to develop links between the agricultural producers in New South Wales and the markets of Asia.

Long before the Prime Minister discovered Asia we were there, and agencies from this particular Government have been making approaches to companies and to governments in Asia in an attempt to develop the markets that are so necessary for our primary producers and for the economy of New South Wales and Australia. I had the pleasure of signing with the South Korean Vice-Minister for Agriculture, Mr Kim Tae Soo, a memorandum of understanding to establish a joint agricultural food association to promote two-way trade. Honourable members would realise that in most of these countries - not only Asian countries, but in many countries - there are trade barriers, many of them artificial. Of course, the Uruguay Round was seeking to break down these tariffs and trade barriers so that we could have free trade between the countries. South Korea is no different. There is no doubt that the visit, if nothing else, has helped to foster some relationship between the two governments so that we can break down some of those barriers.

I am pleased that the South Korean Government, through its agency the Korean Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Corporation - a government agency - is very keen to deal with the producers of New South Wales. Through Agsell, New South Wales Agriculture has been developing relationships
Page 551
with these companies in co-operation with Austrade and the Australian embassy in those countries so that we can increase trade between the two countries. South Korea is interested in buying our horticulture, our chilled lamb, our beef and our wool in particular. We have negotiated deals on cherries, avocados and mangoes. I know the honourable member for Londonderry would not really understand it, but the fact is that these are very important industries. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour would know that a co-operative has been formed on the North Coast to try to fly out of Coffs Harbour the produce that is produced on the North Coast to many of these Asian countries. It is a lucrative market. The advantage Australia has is with its seasons. When it is winter in Korea it is summer down here.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Drummoyne to order.

Mr CAUSLEY: The South Koreans realise that our modern communications enable us to get fresh fruit and vegetables into their country very quickly. The honourable member for Drummoyne does not understand what he is talking about. We have had high level discussions on agriculture in China.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Cronulla to order for the second time.

Mr CAUSLEY: We had discussions with the Minister of Foreign Investment and Trade and his deputy about developments in China, especially in respect of wool. The Chinese are very interested in buying our wool. They have innovative ideas. One company they have set up, and which they want us to join, envisages that the wool will be processed in China, woven in Scotland and sold in America. That is an interesting combination of countries. That would be of great benefit to our wool industry. Following my negotiations with the Chinese group, a representative of an Australian company will go to China in the next two or three weeks to sign a joint venture agreement. I think we will see a substantial amount of our wool stockpile sold into China and processed. That is a strong prospect for agriculture in this State.

Last year our sales to China totalled $23.8 million. Anyone who understands the new China will realise that it has enormous markets that can be developed, to the great benefit to Australia. Rice in particular has been a protected industry in Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam and other Asian countries. The doors are opening up. The Uruguay Round certainly helped. In Japan mother nature helped also: a typhoon wiped out most of the rice crop. This year we are getting 200,000 tonnes of our rice into Japan. That is a big breakthrough. The interesting fact is that in Japan rice sells for about $A8 a kilo and we can supply it for about $A2. Undoubtedly significant opportunities will open up in that market once we can break down the political barriers. That is the real problem in those countries.

In China's Jiling Province we had negotiations with the vice-mayor. That province is interested in our expertise in beef, especially regarding feedlots. The beef cattle in northern China are of poor quality and the Chinese would like assistance to improve their technology, especially in genetics, embryo transplants and the high-tech areas of genetics in which Australians are expert. We can be of assistance in those provinces by helping them to improve their agricultural production. The benefits to Australia will be that although the Chinese do not eat a lot of meat, if they can be encouraged to develop a taste for beef, unquestionably our industries will prosper as a result of the help that we can give to those Asian countries.

Honourable members should understand the importance of this contact. In Asia I learned that Australians are held in high esteem. That has been of assistance in the negotiations in South Korea and China. The discussions we have had in those countries will ensure that benefits will flow to Australia in the years to come. I have a lot more to tell honourable members about agriculture. I know that the honourable member for Port Stephens will issue a press release that will have no relevance to the matters I have spoken about. That is what he usually does.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There are far too many interjections by members on both sides of the House.

Mr CAUSLEY: Unquestionably the relationships have improved. I mentioned Japan and rice. We have had a great relationship with the Hannan Corporation over a number of years. That company sells our produce in Japan, South Korea, China and Singapore. When I go to their shops in those countries it is pleasing to see Australian cheese, wines and other products on sale. The Hannan Corporation has such a high regard for New South Wales that yesterday I had the pleasure of accepting, on behalf of the Premier, a cheque for $100,000 for the bushfire relief fund. I pay tribute to the Hannan Corporation. Many Australian corporations and companies contributed to that fund, but for an overseas corporation to give $100,000 to that fund merits congratulations.


Petition praying that the House will enact legislation to reintroduce capital punishment in extreme cases of murder where there is absolutely no doubt that the offender committed the crime, received from Mr Windsor.

Petition praying that the Sydney to Canberra CountryLink Coach Service be reinstated, received from Mr Fahey.

Petitions praying that the House review the laws relating to road accident fatality or grievous bodily harm and institute severe penalties, received from Mr Mills and Mr Newman.

Page 552

Petition praying that the House will consider the installation of emergency telephones on the F6 Freeway from Yallah to the north of Wollongong, received from Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that the children's ward of Shellharbour Public Hospital be reopened, received from Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that Royal South Sydney Hospital and Rachel Forster Hospital be kept open, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the present level of services be retained at Coledale, Bulli and Port Kembla district hospitals, received from Mr Sullivan.

Petitions praying that more police be allocated to Warilla Police Station, received from Mr Harrison and Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that additional police be allocated to Woolloomooloo Police Station, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the House legislate to ban totally the manufacture, sale and use of steel-jawed leg hold traps in all areas of the State as they cause great suffering to all animals and birds, both target and non-target, caught in them, received from Ms Moore.


Motion by Mr West agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Report No. 8 of the Government Pricing Tribunal concerning Charges to Councils by the Valuer-General's Office, dated 10 December 1993.

Statistical Return for the By-election held in the Electoral District of North Shore on 5 February 1994.

Report of the Operations of the Tenancy Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1993.

Report of the Total Catchment Management for the year ended 30 June 1993.

Murray-Darling Basin Act 1992 - Schedule D to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement: application of the agreement to Queensland.

Report under section 26 of the Ombudsman Act concerning the decision to withhold the award of 1988 Higher School Certificate - mathematics marks to Christopher David Barnes, dated 17 February 1994.

Report on the Security (Protection) Industry Act for the year ended 30 June 1993.

Motion by Ms Moore agreed to:

That the following Message be sent to the Legislative Council:

Mr President -

The Legislative Assembly requests that the Bill for "An Act to protect certain lands by reserving or dedicating them as, or as parts of, national parks and nature reserves and to revoke the dedication or setting apart of those lands as State forests and for other users; and for other purposes" forwarded to the Legislative Council for concurrence during the third session of the present Parliament and not dealt with because of prorogation, be proceeded with.

Legislative Assembly K. R. Rozzoli
10 March 1994 Speaker

Motion, by leave, by Mr West agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 (Reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption) to take precedence of the Address-in-Reply debate at this sitting.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [3.40]: I move:

That this House requests the Independent Commission Against Corruption to investigate:

(a) allegations that some members of the Police Service of New South Wales have by act or omission protected paedophiles from criminal investigation or prosecution, and in particular the adequacy of major investigations undertaken by the police in relation to paedophiles since 1983;

(b) whether the procedures of or the relationships between the Police Service of New South Wales and other public authorities adversely affected police investigations and the prosecution, attempted or failed prosecution of paedophiles; and

(c) the conduct of public officials related to the above matters.

The investigation is to be conducted with a view to determining the matters referred to in section 13(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.

An interim report is to be prepared and submitted to both Houses of Parliament by 1 October 1994.

At the conclusion of the investigation a report is to be prepared, information passed to other authorities as appropriate and the Commission is to monitor responses to the report's recommendations.

Honourable members will recall that on 18 November 1993 the other place passed a motion calling for a judicial inquiry into police paedophile protection rackets. In an endeavour to resolve the question of which form of judicial inquiry would be the most appropriate to examine the important issues raised by
Page 553
the earlier motion, the Attorney General has been consulting with many of the interested parties, including my Ministerial colleagues, the Commissioner for the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Mr Ian Temby, Q.C., members of the Opposition, and other members of Parliament.

The Attorney General has no doubt that an ordinary judicial inquiry conducted by a retired judge or a senior legal practitioner would not be the most appropriate form of inquiry to deal with the issue of paedophile protection rackets. Such an inquiry would have no coercive powers and without such powers it would not be able to ensure the co-operation of unwilling parties. Unlike other examples of this type of judicial inquiry in recent years, such as the Purnell inquiry and the Nader inquiry, it could not be expected that an inquiry into the activities of paedophiles would be able to receive a level of co-operation which would enable it to carry out its task in a full and thorough manner.

Given that this form of judicial inquiry would not be appropriate in the circumstances of this matter, the Attorney General formed the view that an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry - which would have all the powers of a royal commission and would be able to compel the answers to questions and the production of documents - is the most appropriate form of inquiry to deal with these important and serious matters. An inquiry by the Independent Commission Against Corruption will be able to get to the truth of many of the allegations that have been made, both in Parliament and elsewhere, concerning paedophile networks. What is important in considering the form of the inquiry is that if any of these allegations are found to be substantiated, the Attorney General and other members of the Government will wish to ensure that action is taken to prosecute corrupt persons and to change the practices and procedures which have allowed these persons to operate. The ICAC is perfectly placed and fully equipped with the necessary powers to achieve these aims.

It must be remembered also that the ICAC is not merely an investigatory body with extremely wide powers of investigation. It also has a very important role to play in relation to public education, and advising and educating public authorities on practices and procedures which in any way can be said to relate to or support corrupt conduct. Concern has been expressed by a member of the Opposition in the Legislative Council that there is no guarantee that an ICAC inquiry will hold public hearings. The Attorney General's answer to this is that no doubt the assistant commissioner who is appointed to conduct such an inquiry will very carefully consider the public interest in determining whether all or part of an inquiry should be held in private. Given the sensitive nature of the evidence which is likely to be given before such an inquiry, it may well be appropriate for some of the evidence to be taken in private. This is a matter which the Attorney General considers to be best left to the good sense of the commissioner conducting the inquiry.

Whether some or all of the evidence is or is not taken in public, what must be remembered is that there must be a report to Parliament on the results of the inquiry. This report will be available to the Parliament and will deal with the evidence given at the inquiry. As I have said, the Attorney General is prepared to leave this matter in the capable hands of the inquirer to deal with it in the public interest having regard to all of the circumstances. The proposed terms of reference are very wide indeed. The commissioner is to investigate whether some members of the Police Service of this State have by act or omission protected paedophiles from criminal investigation or prosecution, and is also to investigate the adequacy of major investigations undertaken by police in relation to paedophiles since 1983.

The commission is also obliged to investigate whether the procedures and or the relationships between the Police Service and any other public authorities in this State adversely affected police investigations and the prosecution, attempted or failed prosecution, of paedophiles. The conduct of any public official related to these matters will be thoroughly investigated by the ICAC. Sadly there can be little doubt that there are paedophiles, and there can be little doubt that they have networks or associations which help them achieve their criminal and cowardly aims. The Parliament needs to know whether these persons are in any way protected by police or other public officials, whether the investigations into paedophiles have been adequately and properly handled, and, if not why not, and what can be done to correct this.

Commissioner Temby has said that the proposed terms of reference will provide the commission with the power to investigate all government agencies involved, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, concerning their relationship with the New South Wales Police Service or their procedures in relation to the investigation and prosecution of paedophiles. This is precisely what Parliament and the people of New South Wales need to know: is the conduct of paedophiles being investigated properly and efficiently, with no corrupt practice involved, and can any practices or procedures be improved in this regard? It is the strong belief of the Attorney General that the terms of reference, which were drafted in consultation with Mr Temby so that the commission can undertake the widest of inquiries, are not only an adequate but an entirely appropriate means by which the activities of paedophiles and any networks that exist to foster their criminal conduct may be thoroughly examined and exposed. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [3.48]: I move:

That the motion be amended as follows:

Paragraph (a) after "1983;", add "however, the Commissioner may investigate any matters he deems necessary and relevant which may have occurred prior to 1983;"

This amendment is vitally important to ensure that finally we have a proper investigation of these serious matters. I place on record my concerns about the reference of this matter to the ICAC for investigation.
Page 554
I have believed for a long time that we really need a royal commission to examine the matter. On numerous occasions I have said that a royal commission is needed to expose the extent of paedophile networks and corruption, and to make recommendations to overhaul and improve the system of investigation and prosecution of these types of cases. I do not believe that these changes will occur without a full and open inquiry.

The community must have an understanding of the full extent of the problem. One of the biggest problems with the terms of reference for the proposed Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry is that they are far too restrictive, focusing largely on corruption. Though corruption is of great importance, it is not the only purpose of the inquiry proposed by the Opposition in this place on 18 November last year. On that occasion a motion was carried, with the support of the Independents, calling for a judicial commission to inquire into the operation of paedophile networks. Mr Temby and the ICAC have made clear that under their legislation they will be looking at the possibility of corrupt conduct of public officials. The ICAC does not have the ability to cover the far wider area encompassed by the substance of the motion moved in this House on 18 November last year.

To set the record straight, I wish to refer to debate yesterday in the other place. The Attorney General indicated his belief that the Government thought the most effective way of dealing with the allegations was by way of an ICAC inquiry. I should like to refer during the course of this debate to a number of items of correspondence between the Opposition, myself, Mr Temby and the Attorney General during the past three months. It is clear from a number of remarks in that correspondence that even Mr Temby had some reservations about the appropriateness of the Independent Commission Against Corruption to conduct that inquiry. It is important to note that following carriage of the motion in this House in November, the Attorney General contacted me and said he felt that Mr Temby and the ICAC were the better way to go. At a subsequent meeting Mr Temby produced original terms of reference proposed by him, which the Opposition considered to be far too restrictive and not in the spirit of the resolution carried on 18 November.

There ensued a long series of correspondence on the terms of reference. In the early part of this year, following negotiation with the Attorney General, the Attorney appeared to have accepted some amendments to the original terms of reference. He indicated to the Opposition that he was sending the draft terms of reference to Mr Temby in order that an investigation could be set up. It appeared that the Attorney General had accepted and was quite comfortable with the fact that the Opposition had asked for an extra addition to paragraph (a) of the terms of reference because at that stage Mr Temby had called for 1987 to be the cut-off date. I personally indicated to Mr Temby that I could raise matters relating to 1985 that had some relationship to my electorate, and I thought that 1987 was quite inappropriate.

At that stage the Opposition was content to have the additional rider, "However, the Commissioner may investigate any matters he deems necessary and relevant which may have occurred prior to 1987". It is very important to understand that we are talking about a network - within police circles - of corruption alleged to have occurred over a period of about 20 years. The Opposition believes it is absolutely vital that some links be made to cross this shorter time span. I find it difficult to understand why Mr Temby was so adamant that he did not wish to go back very much further in time. He subsequently agreed to 1983 but he did not wish inquiries to go beyond that. To set the public record absolutely straight, I am afraid that the Attorney General has a very faulty memory because he continued to claim in debate in the other place yesterday that it was I, the honourable member for Heffron, who had originally suggested 1983. The year 1983 was never uttered by me. In fact, it was I who referred to 1985 and the inappropriateness of 1987. Subsequently, I was somewhat reassured when I found that Mr Temby was prepared to go back to 1983. But I certainly find it hard to understand why he wishes to restrict those investigations to 1983 without an ability to go beyond that year, because there is no doubt that many significant and crucial matters that occurred prior to 1983 should be the subject of this investigation.

It is appropriate, therefore, that the amendment be carried in this place today and referred for further consideration by the other place. I am moving the amendment because the time limit placed on this crucial inquiry is far too short to allow a proper understanding of this paedophile protection racket, which began about 20 years ago. Otherwise some of the chief participants in the paedophile networks and the vile protection racket will escape vital scrutiny and exposure. If the inquiry is so limited, the cover-up will be allowed to continue. And make no mistake about it: there has been one gigantic cover-up going on for many years. I have been concerned to ensure that ultimately the truth will out. To illustrate my concerns about that too brief a period I shall restrict my comments to allegations involving only one of the principals in the protection racket, the now disbarred lawyer Ian Marshall-Moore. I assure this House that if a proper time span is not set for this investigation, if it is believed that the investigation is going nowhere, I will be bringing other matters before this House for public scrutiny.

Ian Marshall-Moore admitted during the recent ICAC Milloo investigation that he paid former police prosecutor Mal Spence a $3,000 bribe to have certain crucial records of previous driving offences by Swans football star Greg Smith concealed from the court so that Smith might get a lighter sentence. The basis for this information was not Neddy Smith but the informant in the paedophile protection racket allegations. One of the little-reported scandals to come out of the Milloo report was that despite his admission, the ICAC recommended that Ian Marshall-Moore be given indemnity against prosecution to give evidence against Spence. But a far bigger scandal is
Page 555
that neither the police nor the Independent Commission Against Corruption has acted on the far more serious allegations involving Ian Marshall-Moore which are essential to the paedophile protection racket allegations; yet both bodies were well aware of the allegations. They were obviously far too hot to handle.

The police were informed as far back as 1989 that this clever method of concealing prior convictions was used and probably originated in a devious scheme to protect paedophiles. It is a very lucrative industry. In one case specified to the police, one of Marshall-Moore's clients, a paedophile, was charged with assaulting two little nine-year-old girls at Reef Beach. In that case, after money changed hands, Marshall-Moore and Spence had the man's previous record for similar offences pulled and he received a far lighter sentence. But that was before 1983. So, presumably, if the amendment is not carried in this House today, that matter will not be investigated by the ICAC inquiry. Nor will most of the other very serious matters raised in relation to Marshall-Moore, because they also happened before 1983. In the early 1980s Marshall-Moore formed a company, with the appropriate acronym YES - Youth Entertainment Services - with another paedophile to run discos for youths under the age of 18. What better way to procure boys. That was a lucrative enterprise. Following that, Marshall-Moore joined one of his clients, an enterprising former Scotland Yard detective who opened a high-class boy brothel just off George Street near the theatre complex - not far from here. Some of the clients of this brothel, which had many boys under the age of 14, were well-known citizens in this State.

The former Minister for Police, Mr Pickering, contributed to a recent article in the Illawarra Mercury on Tuesday, 25 January, that appeared not only on the front page but on pages 6 and 7 also. The article referred to an "Unholy alliance between paedophiles and police - Child sex abusers protected". It is interesting to read some of Mr Pickering's comments regarding these matters. I am restrained in what I say in this debate because some matters are about to be brought before the courts. Mr Pickering told the Illawarra Mercury exclusively that he became aware of allegations about the involvement of New South Wales officers in paedophilia in 1989. He went on to say that a police operation also uncovered allegations of police paedophile protection rackets. One of the most disturbing allegations was that senior police were compromising junior officers. He referred to his dilemma with regard to the Speedo and Seabeach operations. The article stated:

Mr Pickering, Police Minister at the time of both Speedo and Seabeach, this week confirmed he knew at the time the allegations against Det Fluit were a political minefield.

In 1990 I attempted to raise certain matters in the House. The then Attorney General, John Dowd, accused me of placing people's lives in jeopardy and of possibly preventing proper investigations being brought to a conclusion. Mr Pickering was most distressed in the other place and claimed that I was jeopardising people's lives. He went to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and held a kerbside press conference. In September 1990 he said he was taking all the information regarding paedophiles and protection to the ICAC for investigation. I attempted to raise these matters with regard to the Fluit case and Seabeach throughout 1990. I was amazed to read that Mr Pickering stated in the article:

The Speedo inquiry was complicated and politically sensitive. The Opposition were starting to get on to it and were becoming aware of the details through the inquiries being made by Deirdre Grusovin. I decided the only sensible thing was to get ICAC involved and oversight the Speedo inquiry.

I asked ICAC to maintain an operational oversight of the paedophile protection inquiry to ensure its integrity of the police investigation.

That was in 1990. And what happened? Precious little! That is why I am concerned about this matter again being referred to the ICAC. It is interesting to note that in debate yesterday in the other place the former police Minister concluded his contribution on this matter by stating:

. . . I hope the ICAC is successful in pursuing this matter further. However, bearing in mind what I have said to the House, I hope Parliament is mindful of the fact that it is asking the ICAC to examine an issue it has already examined.

I am concerned that these matters were referred to the ICAC in September 1990, and that in March 1994 we have seen precious little of the results of the information that was laid before the ICAC. I understand that the ICAC was given an oversighting role, and subsequently attended two meetings in that monitoring role to determine how the investigation was proceeding. I understand that representatives of the ICAC attended meetings on 6 May and in September 1991. However, after attending those two meetings the ICAC officers felt there was no necessity to attend the third or any other scheduled review meeting. In other words, they were apparently quite confident that the police were carrying out their responsibilities satisfactorily in this matter. My concern is that apparently the ICAC was satisfied with the task force inquiry despite the fact that only one paedophile out of 41 identified was imprisoned and no police officer went to gaol. The task force concluded that corrupt practices existed between serving police officers of the New South Wales Police Service and paedophiles.

In view of the fact that the task force concluded that corrupt practices existed, why did not the ICAC play a stronger role in overseeing that investigation? Given its charter on corruption, why did the ICAC not take over the inquiry instead of allowing police to investigate themselves? The Attorney General alluded in the other place yesterday to a suggestion made by an Independent member in this House that there may be some validity in having an investigatory force from outside the State work on these matters. I would like to have seen a little more response to this valuable
Page 556
suggestion from the honourable member for South Coast. The Attorney General, conceding that it may be a valid point, said:

However it is a matter for the discretion of the commissioner who, no doubt, will act accordingly having regard to his knowledge of these comments.

For far too many years we have been involved with these matters with no will from the Government - no will to have the truth finally exposed, to ensure that this whole area is cleaned up. Forgetting the personal human tragedy, think of the social consequences if this sort of corruption is allowed to continue. I find it difficult to understand why the Government and the ICAC have been so adamant in their attempts to restrict the terms of reference for these inquiries. A number of matters which go back beyond 1983 have never been satisfactorily investigated. There should be a discretion for the commissioner to investigate in order to confirm that those links go back beyond 1983, as I know they do. I am concerned that there will be another investigation and a report, but that we may not get to the bottom of this matter. If a royal commission were conducted to focus on the role of police in these matters over the years, we would probably uncover far more than paedophile protection rackets; we would be lifting the lid off Pandora's box.

Some of the allegations I have raised today were known to the New South Wales police as they oversaw the Speedo investigation, and they were known also to the ICAC investigators who were supposed to oversee it. Yet I know certain matters were not included in the Speedo report - which still has not been made public - or in the Milloo police corruption report. That is why I believe that this matter should be investigated by a royal commission, a fully independent inquiry. However, if the matter is referred to the ICAC, if such an inquiry is commenced, it is absolutely imperative that it not be restricted by a narrow time frame and that the investigating body be able to search for material to link matters.

I am pleased, in debate on this matter yesterday in the other place, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile saw fit to support the amendments moved by the Opposition. In fact one amendment was accepted by the Government. That will ensure that an interim report is made to both Houses of Parliament in October 1994. I am pleased that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile were willing to support the Opposition's motion to amend the proposed terms of reference. That is of the greatest importance.

I was rather distressed earlier in this House today when a Minister, while responding to a question during question time, made comments about me and used the term "Bubbles". I am tired of people making references to my concerns about the inadequate investigation and prosecution in the Seabeach "Mr Bubbles" case. I have been denigrated in this House on a number of occasions by members on the Government side of the House. I recall that on one occasion former Premier Greiner, shortly before he left this place, accused me of being somewhat obsessed about some of these matters "ever since the bubble burst". That comment was made in response to a question on a financial matter - I believe it related to HomeFund.

I am tired also of the chorus that frequently issues from some Government backbench members of such ditties as "I'm for ever blowing bubbles" when I rise to speak on any matter. However, I am pretty tough; I have been around for a long time and it really does not worry me too much. Obviously in this Chamber we have got some rather insensitive males involved in the political process who do not want to face up to reality of unpleasant happenings in our community. They prefer to think that such things do not happen. They prefer to deny that such things happen. They do not face up to their responsibilities as legislators to ensure that such serious, criminal practices are stamped out.

I have become used to that sort of harassment. However, I am sad that today a female Minister in this Parliament saw fit, in relation to a matter as sensitive as this, to resort to boys' club type repartee. She made the type of inane comment one would expect to hear in the refectory of a junior secondary school - and more likely a private school. I thought that women politicians were more sensitive. It really saddens me that people, for whatever base political reason, seek to cheapen debate on this matter. Some members of this Parliament have said such matters are above politics. I would like to think that that were so, but sadly it seems that some politicians cannot lift our heads and our sights to focus our attention on the serious problems that have been begging to be addressed for many years.

I shall not take up any further time of the House. I conclude by saying that Mr Temby in his correspondence made it very clear that he was somewhat concerned about the appropriateness of inquiring into some of these matters. I assure the House that in the coming months the operations of the inquiry will be monitored extremely closely. The premise advanced by the Attorney General and in the ICAC press release that in order to protect innocent young children some hearings should be conducted in camera is a little far fetched. I doubt that many of the witnesses in this inquiry would be young children. The people who will be involved in the investigation that we are about to embark on are of a far more mature age; many would be mature men or certainly young men. The sad reality is that under the present law the offence that provides the offender with the least chance of being detected, prosecuted, convicted and gaoled, is child abuse. What we are talking about is slightly different but it has a bearing on some major investigations such as Seabeach. I do hope that the Government will give further consideration to the amendments proposed by the Opposition and that, in fact, consensus can be arrived at.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [4.18]: I am pleased with the bipartisan support for this most important motion. There can be few more heinous crimes that are likely to outrage the community than
Page 557
paedophilia. Therefore, any person accused of being a paedophile would have his reputation destroyed for life. Though the Leader of the Opposition would prefer a public inquiry, I can see the need for caution whether it be an inquiry by the Independent Commission Against Corruption or by way of royal commission. To get to the truth there will need to be extensive investigations prior to any closed and later open hearings.

It is quite clear that the Seabeach investigation was either, at best, incompetent or, at the worst, deliberately bungled. Because matters relating to that investigation are still before the court I do not intend to refer more to that. I do not have first hand knowledge of this activity but I am impressed by the following factors: that Mr Lauer himself in evidence to the police committee was convinced that there was an extensive paedophile racket in New South Wales, built up in layers reaching into our schools and other community institutions; the honourable member for Liverpool and shadow minister for police in this House talked about a paedophile operation of considerable magnitude which stretches across all strata of society - this was also acknowledged by Commissioner Lauer; former police Minister Pickering referred to astounding evidence of police officers actually introducing young police officers in New South Wales to paedophile activities in Manila. Other evidence was given in confidential session to the parliamentary committee which obviously I cannot reveal.

Allegations were made of the recruitment, abuse and the taking advantage of young children, the use of alcohol and drugs and interstate and overseas trade in pornographic films. It is quite a lucrative racket. If there is networking, protection, large amounts of money involved and people who want to protect their reputation at all costs, and if it is true that it reaches across all society - it is true that this matter will cause some members of society revulsion - people have the potential of earning large amounts of money if they are in the law enforcement area and are willing to offer protection. Exactly the same situation applies in drug trading. But in this case the revulsion of the general public and the need for protection are much greater.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption can examine only the role of public officials. This is extremely important if any of the allegations that have been referred to impinge upon the Police Service. It could well lead to the establishment of a royal commission. Frankly, I believe we have reached a situation in New South Wales where we need a royal commission to investigate the New South Wales Police Service. It would do it the world of good. However, I do not intend to speak about that matter at the moment. Police officers have nothing to fear from this; they have a lot to gain. It would be a cleansing process. I, like everyone else, am extremely worried about the costs of royal commissions, the games that they play and the time that their inquiries take. But I can think of very few more important things than corruption or potential corruption in the police force. If potential corruption is involved with paedophilia, no amount of delay or cost should divert this State from taking that path.

Last Friday, in open hearings with Mr Temby of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, I followed up a number of matters. I asked Mr Temby whether he sent police officers or special officers of his organisation who were from Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, or the Federal police, into the police organisation. I asked him whether he had powers and whether he was prepared to use those powers to go straight to internal affairs and say, "We want a thorough examination conducted, for example, of all files which related to how paedophilia in New South Wales had been dealt with". That technique is critical. I have said publicly, and I repeat, that the clouds are gathering around Mr Lauer. A number of members of the committee who did not agree with my minority report are now looking again at that committee transcript and are rethinking what happened in that committee.

Every time I tried to pin the police down on something important the records were not there. I emphasise the fact that hundreds and hundreds of records were not there. Will those records be there if the ICAC sends in police from interstate? The ICAC ought to make people aware of its independence, its competence, its determination and its clinical approach to these matters. If the Commissioner of Police and the Minister for Police are fair dinkum - I am sure the Minister is - they would have no objection to an inquiry; they would welcome it, no matter what the police union says. Investigators should be able to go in, with the power of the ICAC behind them, and seize files, if necessary. They should certainly be able to peruse files within internal affairs. That is where the bodies are buried. I say strongly that I hope my words will haunt those who failed to take notice of them.

If records are missing, I will hold the ICAC responsible. If we establish later that the ICAC missed important evidence because it did not take the advice of someone who has had an interest in police affairs for over 14 years and did not send in police officers to have a look, I will hold the ICAC and the Commissioner of Police responsible. If these moves are resisted by the police union, I will hold the union responsible. I will accuse that union of covering up paedophilia and other illegal activities in the police force. I will do the same with the commissioner, because I feel strongly, as does every decent human being on this planet, about paedophilia. That is how I would like to see the inquiry conducted. I have based my information on 14 years of hard slogging. More recently it has been based on what happened at the police inquiry. Four hundreds items were accidentally wiped off the commissioner's computer, including a copy of "timely and comprehensive advice supplied to the Minister from the commissioner on the Rigg affair" - a statement to be found on page 1201 of the transcript.

Page 558

Inspector Newberry, the commissioner's personal assistant, was the author of a lost document - a pink - to the Minister. He made notes of events on 16 July 1991 from which he prepared a pink. Those notes were lost. The hard copy of the pink was lost, as was the computer readable form. The notes Inspector Newberry kept at that time have either been lost or discarded. The typist who typed the pink is lost in Arabia. All that information is contained in pages 1200 to 1205 of the transcript. A fax outlining events at Milton was allegedly sent to police headquarters on 16 July 1991. Although the original of this document had been copied and sent from Milton, there was no evidence of it being faxed, and no copy of it with the appropriate fax header has been found.

There was collusion in the statements of Ms Zadel of the media unit, Sergeant Barry and Inspector Newberry. They all made the same mistake. They all referred to faxes being sent on 16 July 1992 when it should have been in 1991. They all deny collaborating. Assistant Commissioner Cole, the head of internal affairs, lost his diary. Will Commissioner Lauer, as the former head of internal affairs say, as he did about the Frenchs Forest incident, "I did not know what was going on" and as he said two years after Constable Bourke was stabbed, "I did not know why he was stabbed" and 12 months after Constable Bourke was shot say, "I did not know why he was shot"? The commissioner was caught out in a question without notice that was answered in this House by the Minister. I asked, "Is it normal for a police commissioner to visit a police constable who has been injured in such circumstances?" The reply was, "Yes". I asked, "Did you?" The reply was, "No". I asked, "Why did you not?" The reply was, "Because I did not believe his story at the time".

The commissioner did not believe that the police constable at the time was not aware of drugs at Frenchs Forest police station, and Cole did not tell him. Cole did not tell the commissioner that Myatt had told him that Myatt was involved in this. Myatt should be linked with what happened. That is really disturbing, but it is vital in this issue. Police officers being cross-examined by a police inquiry lost hundreds of documents. The commissioner confidently relied on those people to back up his story but, when he was pinned down, the records could not be produced. We are asking the Independent Commission Against Corruption to depend upon the New South Wales Police Service, the Commissioner of Police and internal affairs to produce records relating to bungled or incompetent investigations into paedophilia in this State. A really worrying factor is whether police in this State are involved in paedophilia activities.

How do we invigilate a police commissioner? The Crime Commission depends upon the co-operation of the Commissioner of Police and the police. The Ombudsman depends on the co-operation of the Commissioner of Police, police and seconded officers. The ICAC depends on the Commissioner of Police, seconded officers and police. Federal police are also involved and there is some assistance from the National Crime Authority. Do honourable members understand the point I am making? If the bodies are buried in internal affairs, if Mr Lauer was the head of internal affairs - which he was - and there was a cover-up, how could anyone reveal that cover-up unless he or she had the courage and commitment to go in, second police officers from interstate, get those records, examine them, ensure that there was no cover-up and establish exactly what was going on?

That police committee, if nothing else, tells us that a Minister of this Parliament can go down the tube while the commissioner can survive, senior police can come before a parliamentary inquiry and lie their heads off and records by their hundreds can disappear. I am rock solid on that. I produced to Cabinet a compilation of the evidence that supports my assertions. I can make that compilation available to anyone in this House to support my assertions. One cannot regard any of these events as matters of coincidence. The committee could not find Steve Brien, who was the real link. I do not want to go into this now. I invite honourable members to read my long speech to this House on the police committee.

Steve Brien was a media consultant. He was just a phone call away, yet the police could not find him. Why? Because he had vital evidence that showed, for the first time, that there was such a thing as an occurrence pad in the media branch. That occurrence pad blew them out of the water. They did not want to find Brien. I can understand the vast and overwhelming majority of police not wanting the Police Service to be associated with paedophilia. It would be a revulsion to this Parliament if any of its members were associated with paedophilia. That would stain the reputation of this institution and its members.

I can understand that there would be a natural resistance in the police force, even among good officers, because potentially there is a lot of money to be made. I said at the beginning of my speech that because of the networking and possible destruction of reputations there would be a cover-up. If officers are involved, we have to get right down to the very heart of this matter before the police committee. They could not produce Telecom details. There was a corrupt specification given to consultants about a proper security system to secure the drugs area where there could be up to $200 million worth of drugs held at any particular time.

After two years the Minister at that time, the Hon. Ted Pickering, had to devise a lock to keep police who might be involved in illegal activities out of that area. He said to the officer who came to him with what I say is a corrupt specification for Honeywell, "If you want to keep your job, get out of here. Do not come up here and ask me to approve that". The specification would have allowed police inside to turn off the surveillance cameras. Anyone could get into that place with a pocket knife. I feel very passionate about this and I speak with real emotion. That was a corrupt specification.

Page 559

Then, of course, there is the evidence that the Minister was threatened by his commissioner. I give due notice to the Minister for Police right now that I will hold him personally responsible if he does not get to the bottom of this. I hold him personally responsible now for not getting to the bottom of this whole charade which passed as evidence before a parliamentary inquiry. I support the bipartisan moves for this inquiry by the ICAC and give due notice that I will be pushing for a royal commission into this and other aspects if I am not satisfied.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [4.34]: My purpose in speaking to this motion is to say that for some time I have been a doubting Thomas about some of the matters raised by my colleague the honourable member for South Coast, but I am a doubting Thomas no more. These terms of reference have been devised after a series of negotiations between the Attorney General, the honourable member for Heffron and others, including Mr Temby, the commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The resolution passed by the New South Wales upper House requesting the Independent Commission Against Corruption to investigate the matter is set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the motion. The Opposition agrees with that motion and believes that the Government should agree to this minor amendment.

In essence, the amendment states clearly that for adequacy or otherwise the reference should include "investigations undertaken by the police in relation to paedophiles since 1983". The amendment states that "the Commissioner may investigate any matters he deems necessary and relevant". The Parliament is not giving a wider term of reference to the commissioner who will be appointed to conduct this inquiry. The success of any inquiry into the activity of paedophiles in this State may depend on the investigation of circumstances or relationships that existed prior to 1983. The Opposition believes that such investigations are relevant and should be undertaken.

I have just been advised that the Government will agree to the amendment - I thank the Government for that. It is essential that inquiries be made into the involvement of public authorities in illegal and corrupt conduct, and this is covered by paragraph (b) of the motion agreed to in the upper House. I refer particularly to people who may have corrupted court cases or hindered the administration of justice. Unless a public inquiry is conducted the proponents of evil in the court system will not be identified.

It is not the fault of this Government or the fault of the former Labor Government, or the fault of any government that corruption exists within our community - and the administration of justice has not been exempt from that form of corruption. We should not shirk our obligation to detect and stamp out corruption. I have no compunction in stipulating that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney General's Department, Crown law officers, court officers, and others employed in the court system should also be included in the reference to the ICAC. But the Government has decided otherwise. The Government argues that they come under the definition of public authority.

One important aspect that has not been covered and is the damaging, critical current underlying this investigation is the question of indemnities. Who gave the indemnities from prosecution, freedom from prosecution for people's criminal and illegal activities? The criminal justice system will reward a paedophile who has preyed on young people and ruined their lives by granting indemnity from prosecution if sufficient evidence is forthcoming to warrant the later prosecution of another person. There are two sides to that issue. The regrettable part about this reference is that the Parliament has remained silent; this supreme legislative body has remained silent about what it should do. For the first time in the history of any nation members should go behind the rationale for the granting of these indemnities.

Until that is done we will not know the real reasons for the granting of indemnities to people who have been found guilty, those who are likely to be prosecuted or are involved in the paedophile network but have decided now to sing. I am somewhat comforted by the fact that the Government, on the insistence of the honourable member for Heffron, has agreed that an interim report should be prepared and presented to both Houses of Parliament by 1 October. At that time, as a result of the evidence taken by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, it may be propitious for the Parliament to take stock of the stage this investigation has reached. One matter that I will be following is the role of those whose evidence has been used and who consequently have been given indemnity from prosecution.

Having made those general comments I shall now refer to an article that appeared in the Illawarra Mercury on 25 January. I congratulate the editor of that newspaper, Peter Cullen, and the journalist Brett Martin, for what must be the most thorough investigation into a detailed, complex and lengthy matter that I have been aware of in my 18 years as a member of this Parliament. The Illawarra Mercury has succinctly given the facts to the people of the Illawarra and those outside the region who have read the article. It has given people an opportunity to understand the gravity of the matter the House is considering today.

My concerns are twofold. The first relates to the matter raised by the honourable member for Heffron and the honourable member for South Coast, namely, the police connection. I was also a member of the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration, which became known as the Rigg affair. I was absolutely horrified by what was given in evidence. Though I was bound to secrecy, the matter has been disclosed in the newspapers and therefore my obligations are no longer current. I learned from the evidence that the principal leader of the paedophiles in New South Wales was a senior detective sergeant who was responsible for the investigation of paedophiles. That information has
Page 560
been made public. I have a great deal of concern about the activities of former police in the State. The investigation will determine the role they have played. My other concern relates to the evidence of children. As the article in the Illawarra Mercury said:

The controversy surrounding Speedo and Seabeach makes observers question whether the Government or the New South Wales police have the will to properly investigate paedophile networks. The terms of reference of the ICAC inquiry focuses on the role of police in protecting paedophiles rather than the paedophile networks themselves.

That is a telling point. Speedo and Seabeach were two important cases, the latter being the subject of a police investigation. I shall now move to deal with an issue that is basic to the failure of the Seabeach investigation, and to what happened following a court case in the New South Wales Supreme Court. As late as Tuesday, 8 March, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the conviction of a man found guilty of assaulting a five-year-old boy on the Central Coast. The Sydney Morning Herald reported the case, and I shall read briefly from the report of what was said by Mr Justice Hunt:

"The police officer appears to have learnt nothing at all of the dangers of contaminating the evidence of very young children by suggestions made to them in the course of an interrogation, dangers which had been so widely discussed following the failure of the notorious `Mr Bubbles' prosecution . . .", Justice Hunt said . . .

"This case illustrates yet once more the dramatic need for the procedures for the interrogation of very young children to be reassessed in order to prevent the contamination and consequential destruction of evidence which could otherwise have been given of criminal activity in this type of case," the judge said.

Since the Mr Bubbles matter we have all been guilty of failure to introduce legislation to protect children, to enable their evidence to be non-contaminated, to be founded on a solid base. Members of both political parties have as a policy the availability of video links to separate children from defendants. In addition to that, the Government and the Opposition have had the opportunity to introduce legislation - though it is difficult for bills introduced by private members to become law - that would give protection to children. The laws of evidence should be reformed. There is a national uniform proposal for an evidence bill that will do things such as abolish dock statements and reform the laws of evidence.

Now is the appropriate time to support children in the court system, so that the validity of prosecutions in which children are crucial as witnesses will not be contaminated, will not be ruined, as occurred in the Seabeach matter and as it was five years later in the case referred to by Mr Justice Hunt on 8 March. In that instance the evidence of a child was contaminated because the police went to the young child and led the child in his or her evidence. A simple proposal can be put forward to ensure that prosecutions are continued, rather than aborted, when the evidence of young children is involved. It is easy to remove the trauma associated with children giving evidence, by having the children in a separate court, by recording their evidence on video, or perhaps having a parent or guardian sitting next to the child while he or she gives evidence. That should be done now. The inquiry should be held in public. The statutory obligation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption is included in section 12 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, which provides:

In exercising its functions, the Commission shall regard the protection of the public interest and the prevention of breaches of public trust as its paramount concerns.

This inquiry, except where it may prejudice a court case or the life of a person, young or old - but particularly the young - should be public. The people of New South Wales, and indeed Australia, should be acquainted with the fact that the inquiry will lead to dramatic changes to the laws of evidence, the way children are treated, proper prosecutions and directions from the police. It should lead to a complete ethical response by the police of the State. The Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration and the Parliament have had experience in examining thoroughly the resultant reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It will require a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That reference is contained in section 13 and has wide application. I do not want this to be a repetition of the recent examination by the Independent Commission Against Corruption of the closed inquiry by the State Treasurer where there was no evidence but only submissions were made. There was not a hearing and the decision of the commissioner was made behind closed doors.

Mr W. T. J. Murray: You change your tune when it suits you.

Mr WHELAN: I have not changed my tune. I have a resolution on it and I will be happy to do something about it.

Mr W. T. J. Murray: But you do not convict someone in a public inquiry.

Mr WHELAN: The inquiry has to be held in public. The public should not be hoodwinked. One cannot have it both ways. The case should not arise where the public is acquainted with what is happening in the community but, at the same time, a closed inquiry is held, submissions are made in private without a public hearing and public input - no legal advisers to argue the case and tear the submissions apart. It is a lame duck, and I do not want the ICAC to become a lame duck on this issue. Would the honourable member for Barwon argue for a judicial inquiry rather than a wider inquiry? The honourable member for Heffron has been urging for the past five or six years that a royal commission should be held. That is probably the proper method by which the issue could be resolved.

However, the honourable member for Heffron and I see it as an interim measure. It is the first step: but we should be looking towards something good coming out of it, namely, reform of law of evidence, particularly relating to children. The main aim of the
Page 561
inquiry should be investigation and report. I am pleased that the Government has agreed to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Heffron. As a result of lengthy negotiations with the Attorney General, the Hon. J. P. Hannaford, the Government has agreed to the text of the motion. It does not fulfil everything I would have sought but it goes a long way towards it. It is the first step of what will be a major investigation in this State and I am delighted to support the motion.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [4.52], in reply: On behalf of the Attorney General, I thank the honourable member for Heffron, the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Ashfield for their contributions to the debate. The Government's view is that paedophilia is an act of cowardly and criminal people. It is a poor society indeed that does not make every effort to eliminate any practice that may in any way aid paedophilia, be it in its commission or in the failure of any public official or police officer to enforce proceedings. Those people must, and will, be called to account.

This is an extremely difficult crime to investigate. Often by definition the victims are not of an age where they will be of great assistance to police inquiries, at least within the context laid down by our traditions and by the confines of our judicial system. Accordingly, it is an ongoing challenge to governments and to society, but one to which they must respond. This Government is determined to respond and, as is clear by the moving of this motion, will make every effort to track down those responsible and those who seek to shield offenders. I refer now to concerns expressed on whether the inquiry should be a royal commission or an inquiry under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The Government believes the present reference is adequate. The commissioner, Mr Temby, made it clear in his evidence to the parliamentary committee on Friday, 4 March 1994, when in answer to a question by the honourable member for South Coast he said:

All I can say, Mr Hatton, is that we are about the best bet you have got. The fact is that we have the powers, they are extensive powers, we exercise them and we keep going until we get as much as we can get.

The honourable member for South Coast asked:

If there were a parliamentary reference to you on paedophilia or some other thing which is extraordinarily sensitive - and I understand your response in terms of closed hearings in that regard -

Mr Temby replied:

Some call it secret hearings, you will have noticed.

The honourable member for South Coast continued his question, to which the commissioner replied:

I am certain that if we get a parliamentary reference on that or any other topic the matter will be pursued vigorously.

The Government has every confidence that the successor to Mr Temby, be it an acting position or a permanent position, will ensure that a vigorous, thorough and ongoing investigation is carried out of this outrageous crime. The Government supports the motion moved by me on behalf of the Attorney General. It accepts the amendment moved by the honourable member for Heffron and I commend the amendment and the motion to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution and requesting the Council to agree to paragraph (a) of the reference as varied from the Council's resolution.


Message received from the Legislative Council requesting that the Workers Compensation Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill transmitted to the Legislative Assembly for concurrence during a previous session of the present Parliament, not having been finally dealt with because of the prorogation of the Legislature, be now proceeded with under the Assembly's standing order in that behalf.


Debate resumed from 9 March.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [5.0]: At the outset I wish to indicate, as many other members have done in their contributions during debate, my great respect for the Governor His Excellency Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair and his distinguished and capable manner in carrying out the duties of his office. I agree not only with my Labor Party colleagues but also with National Party members and many Government backbench members who have deplored the appalling undermining campaign waged by the Premier's minions against Governor Sinclair. That the campaign was finally called off a couple of days ago was a relief to all; that it happened at all was a disgrace.

I believe the Governor would have been severely embarrassed last week when one of his duties at the opening of Parliament was to read the traditional outline of the Government's legislative and financial proposals for this fourth session of the Fiftieth Parliament. Rarely has any Government put forward a program so bereft of policies or so lacking in firm commitments or initiatives. The Government's legislative program of inaction since the last elections will continue, with more of the same in the future. Nowhere is that lack of positive action more apparent than in transport. I have some local matters on that theme I want to pursue but first I want to refer to some remarks made by the honourable member for Manly during his contribution to the censure motion against the Minister for Transport last Thursday. His comments are pertinent to my case. The honourable member for Manly said:

Page 562

It is not vehicles that have ground to a halt but the whole question of a public transport mass transit system.

What transport do we have? The Minister knows that so-called better buses were introduced in 1991. They are now called worser buses. The introduction of that system was hopeless. It met with enormous community opposition. All non-profit services are being cut. In some places in the electorate people have to wait an hour for a bus service. The Department of Transport regards as acceptable to have to walk 800 metre to a bus stop. In certain areas we have no services at weekends. The bus service is a farce, particularly out of peak hours. It has been a disaster.

I could not agree more with those sentiments. They reflect perfectly the situation facing my constituents who live in an area bounded by Rockdale, Kyeemagh and Brighton. Last Wednesday I made a private member's statement on this matter and detailed how private bus service No. 196 was taken over by the State Transit Authority. Instead of matching or improving a service which had been operating for years, State Transit substituted a service known as Route 479, which ignored a large section of the old route. The upshot was, and still is, that many people now find access to the bus either very difficult or just impossible. Because there is no profit in it, the run is cut down.

Commercial viability are the watch-words of State Transit under this Government. If it does not make a dollar, it is not on. What sort of public transport policy is that? Public transport surely is about serving people, but under this Government it is about serving the balance sheet: do not worry about the elderly or the infirm being virtual prisoners, isolated in their own homes, for as long as the new bus route turns a dollar, all is well. That is not good enough for my constituents. I repeat my call to the Minister and State Transit to either restore the old bus route or make major changes to the current route so that needs of people are met, instead of the mean-spirited expectations of professional bean counters. Public transport administration must be imbued with a concept of service to people rather than the present culture of commercial returns over and above human considerations. The Governor's Speech devoted seven sentences to the issue of public transport. It is a sad reflection and a terrible indictment of this Government that after six years in office it still does not have an integrated transport strategy.

Mr West: It does. We have released it.

Mr THOMPSON: The Minister reports there is such a scheme, but in truth there is not. There is certainly a discussion paper circulating, but this is not good enough after six years. In going to the 1991 general election the Labor Party advocated a transport policy which said, on page 1:

The aims and objections of the Labor Government are to develop a fully integrated land transport policy for the State and to set a clear direction for the overall development of land transport policies in New South Wales.

In approaching the next election the Labor Party will announce innovative policies which will give effect to that ideal. Had all previous governments had such commitment to a fully integrated land transport program it is arguable there would be much less need for the mish-mash of freeways and tollways that are cutting a swathe through our suburbs today. Had there been better planning of the transport needs of people and freight in relation to Port Botany and Sydney airport most of the devastation caused by road traffic in my electorate would have been avoided. Likewise, if there had been better urban and transport planning in the vast and still developing Sutherland Shire, a major part of the massive commuter traffic-flow from that region to the city via the Rockdale electorate might have gone by rail instead. It is suburbs in that electorate, such as Bexley, Rockdale, Brighton and Arncliffe, that bear the brunt of this crazy road bedlam.

The Minister announced three weeks ago that the M5 would be extended from Beverley Hills to General Holmes Drive at Kyeemagh. He said the environmental impact statement had identified this as the best option and, according to the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 17 February said, "It is estimated that fewer than 80 homes in the Arncliffe area would be affected by the four-lane thoroughfare". To an outsider that may seem fair enough, but to the people of Turella and Arncliffe it is a long way short of being satisfactory. At the very time the project consultants were undertaking a program of community consultation as a key ingredient of the environmental impact statement process, the Minister, ever desperate for a quick headline or what he thought was a good news story, pre-empted the whole process and so destroyed much of the good will of the local community.

He blithely went ahead and announced the result of an environmental impact statement process that still had a long way to go. The M5 route was now a fait accompli, and people who had not even had a chance to attend one of the scheduled local environmental impact statement meetings found they had been taken for granted. Local opinion did not count for this roads and transport Minister. Since the Minister's pre-emptive announcement I am pleased to note that Rockdale Council met to review the position concerning the inquiry. Quite properly, council decided to oppose the route as proposed and announced by the Minister. Council, like me, is loath to stand by and see a whole community cut in half by this road, nor does it want to see the wholesale demolition of houses, with all the disruption that would bring to the families directly involved and to the border neighbourhood. Nevertheless, council did resolve to support extension of the M5 along an alternative northern alignment.

I wish to put on record some of the key elements of the council resolution supporting a northern route for the M5. I shall quote the eight points council listed: the effects of noise on residents close to the proposed motorway, particularly in the vicinity of Kingsgrove Avenue, Kingsgrove, being satisfactorily addressed; the road being constructed in a tunnel from Bexley Road to the Illawarra railway line and not an elevated structure; access onto or off the motorway at Bexley Road being eliminated; the motorway
Page 563
following the proposed northern route to Tempe Reserve and a cross-over to Airport Drive with access being provided to Princes Highway and Airport Drive; the proposal providing for the construction of a connection from the motorway to Campbell Road along the line of the proposed northern option; the motorway continuing from Airport Road on airport land to General Holmes Drive; adjustments being made to the traffic arrangements on General Holmes Drive to overcome any traffic congestion at that location resulting from the motorway termination; and the inclusion of truck bans or other restrictions to limit the use of existing truck routes through council's area once the motorway has been constructed.

Rockdale Council has also sought urgent meetings with the Roads and Traffic Authority and the consultants to highlight these concerns. If the M5 is to go ahead it must proceed only after full and proper consideration is given to the views and feelings of people who are in close proximity to the proposed route and others who may be affected in whatever fashion. Full and open consultation is the only way to go. For my part I strongly support Rockdale Council's position, particularly that the road be constructed in a tunnel from Bexley Road and should remain in that tunnel until at least the railway line. It must not be built on an elevated structure through Turella and Arncliffe. If the road is built on a structure I understand it will need to be up to 15 metres high. The disruption of noise and pollution from that traffic to residents would be horrendous. An extended tunnel is an absolute must. The tunnel will not only protect the precious Wolli Valley, it will also safeguard the peace of mind and social amenity of the people of Turella and Arncliffe.

I mentioned before that I thoroughly oppose the road going over the route advocated by the Minister which, according to newspaper reports, would affect up to 80 houses. In local terms this is the Flora Street, Valda Avenue and Marsh Street route. Indeed, I applaud the initiative of Rockdale Council and council officers who have closely studied real and viable alternatives for a more people-friendly way of connecting the M5 with General Holmes Drive. Naturally the residents of Kyeemagh are concerned about the effects a major interchange at General Holmes Drive will have on their community.

This has been recognised by the council proposal which suggests ways and means of overcoming any traffic congestion. Another major point of the council's resolution is to propose that access onto and off the motorway at Bexley Road be prohibited. If access and egress were allowed, there would be little or no alleviation of the traffic problems which already beset Bexley North. I refer briefly to railways. The Daily Telegraph Mirror of 1 March 1994 contained a brief report under the headline "Danger on the rails" which stated:

Violence is a major hidden problem on Sydney trains, with bashings, robberies and rapes being committed on weekends and at night, a report by a new watchdog group claims.

But CityRail has disputed many of the findings and says violence on trains is decreasing.

The report by Concerned Citizens Association of Australia says its researchers noted 115 violent incidents while travelling on Sydney trains from October to February.

It lists 12 Sydney stations as being "danger hazard zone stations": Blacktown, Central, Mount Druitt, Rockdale, Wynyard, Burwood, Newtown, Penrith, Strathfield, Campbelltown, Redfern and Town Hall.

I have received many complaints about the activities of gangs and vandals in the vicinity of our railway stations. There are seven stations in my electorate, the biggest being Rockdale, where most of the trouble occurs. The complaints verify the newspaper report I quoted. These larrikins are moved on by police, but they return once the police depart. Graffiti is common despite the efforts of the local council to control it. Surely something more needs to be done to ensure that commuters can travel safely on our trains, and can alight in safety at their local station to wait for buses or a lift.

As far as the scourge of graffiti is concerned, more serious measures must be taken to restrict the sale of spray paint cans. Hefty fines apply to the sale of cigarettes to juveniles. Yet, given the huge community cost and the damage and despoliation caused by graffiti, it is incredible that greater measures are not being taken to honestly and properly address the problem. Some time ago the Minister for Transport announced a priority list of 33 railway stations to be provided with easy access. This program makes railway stations more accessible to the elderly, the frail, the disabled and anyone else who has difficulty negotiating dozens of stairs. I acknowledge that it is not possible to convert every station through this program and that there is a need for it to be done on a priority basis. However, I cannot understand why Rockdale station, which is a public transport hub, is not one of the original 33 stations.

Government and private buses radiate from Rockdale to Kyeemagh, Brighton, Ramsgate, Kogarah, Sans Souci, Dulwich Hill, Arncliffe, Bexley, Kingsgrove, Bexley North, Campsie, Hurstville, Burwood, the airport, Bondi Junction, Miranda, and many other places in between. Rockdale railway station is one of the busiest on the Illawarra line. Rockdale has one of the most senior - by age - populations of all municipalities. There are real and obvious reasons why Rockdale should be on that priority list. I raised this matter with the Minister by way of a question upon notice and I await his response.

The Governor referred in his Speech to issues related to the International Year of the Family and to law and justice. I want to dwell for a time on a matter which is relevant to both these areas. It concerns one of my constituents, Johann Ernst Seigfried Pohl, whom I have spoken of previously in the House. I first met Ziggy Pohl soon after my election to Parliament in 1991. In the time that has elapsed since 1991 I have come to know him very well and I consider myself honoured to have his friendship. Ziggy Pohl spent 10 years in gaol for a crime he did not commit. It took more than 20 years for him to be pardoned and to eventually have the conviction quashed and his record wiped clean.

Page 564

I have previously recounted details of his case to this House and I do not propose to go over it again today. However, I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that even though he has been pardoned, the conviction quashed, and the slate wiped clean, Ziggy Pohl has yet to receive justice. As I said earlier, this case has connotations for the International Year of the Family. Steve Barrett, reporting in the Sunday Telegraph on 9 May 1993, related that Ziggy Pohl was living for the day when he would be finally and fully cleared of his wrongful conviction. He would then be able to visit his elderly mother in Germany and be reunited with her. I do not propose to read that report, but it is a telling story and one which would move most people.

Ziggy's conviction was finally quashed in December 1993, following the passage of the long delayed Crimes Legislation (Review of Convictions) Bill. That occurred only because the honourable member for Wallsend and I introduced private members' bills which forced the Government's hand. If Mr Pohl's mother were still alive he would have been reunited with her and other family members now, in the International Year of the Family. I can certainly imagine and share the disappointment and bitterness of Ziggy Pohl that he never saw his mother as he hoped. I also feel a sense of near despair that this good, decent and honest man will ever receive acknowledgment from the Government, by the payment of a reasonable amount of compensation. He is owed something by a system that locked him up for 10 years and made his life hell for more than 20 years.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders the debate is interrupted.



Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [5.15]: I refer to the Eastern Arterial Road, a continuation of Archbold Road, technically known as secondary road 2043, and specifically the sections of it north of Tryon Road, past Illeroy Avenue, through South St Ives or the suburb known as Barra Brui. On 2 March 1994 a well attended public meeting was organised by the Illeroy Valley Residents Action Group, co-ordinated by a very hard-working and non-parochial person, Mr Jim Pringle. I refer to him as non-parochial because one would normally expect an action group to be opposed to the widening of any road from two to four lanes. However, Mr Pringle and the residents are in favour of a four-lane road, which would not be far from the boundaries of some of the homes that adjoin Arterial Road.

The meeting totally rejected Ku-ring-gai Council's plan No. 93-009 and approved a resolution to adopt a modified version of option A as originally drafted in 1986. As a result of the active work of Mr Pringle and the action group, council has extended the closing date for objections to the plan until Friday, 18 March 1994. After discussions with the Roads and Traffic Authority and considering objections and submissions, Ku-ring-gai Council officers hope to present a final resolution to council by the end of March or early April.

In regard to that part of the road known as road 2043 - Killeaton Street, St Ives - a public meeting will be held on Wednesday, 16 March 1994, mainly for St Ives residents to discuss engineering proposals. I cannot deal in detail with the latter in the time available, and I would like to return to Eastern Arterial Road. Most people have travelled the Pacific Highway from North Sydney to the beginning of the expressway, just beyond Abbotsleigh school. It is becoming a real treadmill. In peak hours it is difficult for traffic to progress at other than a snail's pace. That is why some traffic is using roads such as Eastern Arterial Road to alleviate the congestion.

Action by the council has been delayed because of small minority groups which are not taking a wider perspective of issues that most of the electorate, and indeed through traffic from other electorates, require on an urgent basis. This need has been created because Eastern Arterial Road currently carries over 24,000 motor vehicles a day. That figure is based on a study that was commissioned a couple of years ago. Perhaps some further power should be granted to local councils to make them responsible for managing important programs such as this. But are they the appropriate bodies, given that their parochial interests sometimes limit the wider interests of the electorate and the community?

The traffic flow along Eastern Arterial Road is reaching the stage where it has almost become a second highway. A much wider interest than that displayed by some of council's lobbyists needs to be examined in detail in order to provide that road in the future. I commend the Minister for Transport for his work but suggest that it is not happening quickly enough.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.20]: The honourable member for Gordon is well known for pursuing diligently and determinedly the problem of traffic congestion on arterial roads. He has taken this matter directly to the Minister for Transport, and his liaison with councillor Stephen Pringle, for whom I have great personal regard, is well established. He is to be commended for pursuing this issue as a hard working community-based member.


Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [5.21]: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the difficulties that a large number of Sydneysiders are facing as a consequence of the shambles which is now known as the RiverCat ferry service between Circular Quay and Parramatta. To put it bluntly, Mr Baird has shown this week to be long on rhetoric but short on
Page 565
performance. Nothing underscores this fact more than the newly published RiverCat timetable. We all know the Minister came out with his grand claims that people working in Parramatta will now be able to travel to work by ferry. This may be so but I can assure the House that it applies only to those workers who start after 9 a.m. as the first ferry to arrive at Parramatta is the 8.45 a.m. service.

This Government has spent $9 million on works to introduce the RiverCat ferry service to Parramatta, and people living near the Parramatta River and working in Parramatta would reasonably have assumed that they would benefit from this expenditure. Unfortunately they have not. The pattern of operations assumes that in the morning peak period all people will travel from Parramatta to the city and that very few work in Parramatta. I wonder how many of those work in the Parramatta offices of the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Finance, the Roads and Traffic Authority and youth and community services? A large number of private sector employees are also working at Parramatta.

Although some thought has been put into the timetable for people who start after 9 a.m. as the next ferry is 9.30, it is obvious that this RiverCat ferry service is nothing but a luxury cruise line. More importantly, people living on the southern side of the river have no service at all. Amazingly the timetable does not even accommodate an interchange for passengers at Meadowbank. The scheme had the potential to greatly benefit the people of Sydney but the Minister has played politics and excluded from the service all commuters on the southern side of the Parramatta River.

On a number of occasions in this House I have called on the Government to provide a service for these commuters, and I have pointed out the real need for a wharf at Chiswick. In peak hours during the past few weeks traffic on both Victoria and Parramatta roads has been at a standstill. All this week it has taken up to one hour to travel to the city from Drummoyne, and even longer from Abbotsford and Chiswick. One can get on the plane at Moree and get into Sydney quicker than one can travel along Parramatta Road and Victoria Road in the morning peak hour. It is imperative that a wharf be built at Chiswick; that would do much to take traffic off those two major highways.

The Minister for Transport would no doubt say that an extra stop would slow down the service, and I agree. But why completely ignore the commuters of Chiswick? Perhaps the existence of the marginal seat of Gladesville could have been uppermost in the mind of the Minister when the timetables were drawn up. What the Minister has overlooked is that this decision, which disadvantages commuters from the Drummoyne electorate, will provide an excellent election tool for the honourable member for Drummoyne, who will have as one of his major planks the provision of such a wharf and a better service to Parramatta. I was interested to read earlier this week in the Sydney Morning Herald a letter to the editor from L. Pearson from Carlingford which stated:

The RiverCat from Parramatta to Circular Quay is a jewel in Sydney's crown. Since its introduction last year, the demand for the ferry service has consistently exceeded expectation, but customer service has lagged far behind . . .

The timetable is a shambles.

This is an independent person, not a member of Parliament:

On Sunday, only four ferries are scheduled to run. At the Parramatta terminus, half the crowd (about 200 people) were left standing on the wharf . . .

They spent $9 million to leave 200 of them standing on the wharf:

. . . as the first ferry pulled out at 9.30 a.m. The next ferry was scheduled for 12.10 p.m.

Arriving at the Quay for the return trip (early according to the scheduled time), we spotted an unscheduled RiverCat preparing to leave. Officials refused to let us on. We were told that there might be a RiverCat in an hour; it might run - it depended on the numbers - and "we are doing you a favour trying to put on extra ferries".

Please, spare us the favours. Don't put us at the mercy of officious and unobliging employees . . . Give the public an accurate timetable to work with and provide an adequate service that can cope with the demand.

I call on the Minister for Transport to revise this RiverCat timetable and provide the large number of commuters within the Drummoyne electorate with a direct RiverCat service to Parramatta, and a wharf at Chiswick. The Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs is shaking his head. Here is the timetable, and it shows that there are no ferries running.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.25]: The honourable member for Drummoyne well knows that the Labor Party has had two positions on this ferry. The first was that it never would be built.

Mr J. H. Murray: Rubbish! We introduced it.

Mr PHOTIOS: The Labor Party said it would never ever be built. It did not believe it could be done. It was a scheme that became very much a dream for the Australian Labor Party, but the reality is that Bruce Baird promised it and Bruce Baird delivered it. This Government has spent more than $10 million on dredging the Parramatta River, providing new infrastructure, $2.5 million per RiverCat, four of them purchased, and I think two more arriving shortly, and the timetable is to be expanded accordingly. It is a massive positive vote by transit passengers saying that this service has been an outstanding success. The fact of the matter is that the service is to be expanded, the timetable will be reviewed, as the honourable member for Drummoyne well knows, but for one particular reason: the service has been an outstanding success. That is the service the Labor Party said we should not have, we would not have, and we did not need.

Mr J. H. Murray: The Labor Party never ever said that.

Mr PHOTIOS: The service from Parramatta leaves at 7.50 a.m. The honourable member for Drummoyne knows that full well. It departs at
Page 566
7.50 a.m. from Parramatta and arrives in the city at 8.45 a.m. That service commenced on Monday. The honourable member for Drummoyne well knows that. He cannot read a timetable. He said there is no service before 9 a.m. He should read the timetable. From the city to Parramatta and from Parramatta to the city there is a service which leaves before 9 a.m. He has misled the House. Like his Labor colleagues, of course, he never wanted the service. [Time expired.]


Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon) [5.27]: The whole issue of roads in New South Wales has not altered over the last 10 or 15 years. As a result of the policies of this Government in the past six years there has been a dramatic increase in the funding available for roads, but - as is obvious from the contributions to the Address-in-Reply debate - concern about roads in both country and city New South Wales is as great as ever. The concern that additional roads should be built, the concern that the requirements of the motorists should be met, is increasing day by day. Unless we as the Government of this State contribute to funds for roads, the process of meeting the demand for roads will never be satisfied. A number of members in the Castlereagh freeway debate yesterday spoke of the problems we have in the northwest sector. The State will have to contribute to getting some of the freeways off the ground, but the State has to get the funds to do so. The fact is that the Commonwealth, despite removing the black spot funding, despite its general failure to spend anywhere near the 30 cents it is now taking for every litre of petrol that is sold in this State, and returning only about 5.6 cents -

Mr Price: Why not get the discretional funding put back in the budget? Fifty-two million dollars was taken out of discretional funding at your request.

Mr W. T. J. MURRAY: The honourable member for Waratah is trying to defend the Federal Labor Government, which has screwed motorists to an unbelievable degree. One would think that he would at least want to get a few dollars from the Federal Government. The Federal Government provides a total of $360 million for road funding. New South Wales will receive $52 million in the first half of this financial year and $104 million in the second half. Because of budgetary difficulties at the beginning of this year, road funding had to be channelled into health and education. I have no complaint about that. However, as the budget improved in the first six months of the year I believe that money should now go back into road funding. On 1 July 1994 the $104 million that will become available should also go into road funding.

Many roads in New South Wales need funding. Mungindi, a town in my electorate with a population of 1,000, still has 26 kilometres of gravel road, which is untrafficable in wet weather. That road, which is the responsibility of the State, should receive a generous share of the funding. Productivity from the area is enormous. If the road is bitumened, people will then be able to travel from the south through to Newell, Moree, Mungindi, St George and on to Queensland. Recently the honourable member for Oxley travelled along this road, and I am sure he will vouch for the fact that it requires funding. The regional road program, which is now under discussion, requires additional funding. It is necessary for the Government to recognise these requirements. I ask the Government to ensure that the $52 million allocation for the first half of this financial year and the $104 million for the second half of the year are applied to the road budget.


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [5.32]: I am concerned about the imposition of a dual occupancy directive from the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing upon three small unsewered townships in my electorate of Kiama. The Government's 1993 State environmental planning policy 25, which permits dual occupancies and further subdivisions, subject to minimum area requirements, was intended to alleviate the growing problems associated with urban sprawl. It was obviously intended to apply to the Sydney metropolitan area in principle and not necessarily to unsewered country areas such as Gerringong, Gerroa and Jamberoo in the Kiama local government area. The South Kiama and Jamberoo areas have all recorded strong opposition to these innovations. The Community Association of Gerroa and the south precinct encompassing Werri Beach and the township of Gerringong have expressed unanimous opposition to SEPP No. 25, which has left Kiama Council in a difficult situation.

Such is the nature of the SEPP that legal opinion suggests that appeals to the Land and Environment Court would be upheld in favour of most developers of further subdivisions. Expressed opposition from residents of the unsewered areas of South Kiama and Jamberoo targets the fact that those areas are noticeably expanding their population growth. Concern and anger are aggravated by promises made to a public meeting in Gerringong in 1988 and, later, the major consultancy roles played by the Kinhill report 1990-91, the Dames and Moore report 1992-93 and the many specialised environmental impact studies over this period. In addition, the Water Board and the Public Works Department completed a value management study in 1992. At all stages of these studies there was significant community participation. The reported cost so far has been in excess of $2.2 million.

Despite many assurances given by Ministers and even the Premier at the time, the Hon. Nick Greiner, and although all options have been thoroughly examined, no sewerage works have commenced. At present the townships of Gerringong, Gerroa and Jamberoo have no mainline sewerage. In fact, untreated effluent is carried by tankers from residents' pump-out holding tanks to a 10 metre by 10 metre
Page 567
hole in the sand near the Gerroa waste disposal area. In peak periods up to 1.5 million litres of untreated waste are dumped each day in this pit, which is less than one kilometre from Gerroa. The pit is carefully screened by fencing, but lies only 300 metres as the crow flies - or, perhaps more appropriately, as the fly flies - from the nearest human habitation, the southern council-owned caravan park. With the continual increase in population, expert local opinion is that serious problems are about to develop through the present disposal site being unable to cope with seepage, which could pose a threat to the tidal waterway known as Blue Angle Creek, a tributary of the tidal Crooked River.

This problem would greatly aggravate the constant danger posed through the spread of disease, especially hepatitis, to the nearby community. A further problem faced by residents is the daily stench from household tanks being emptied. It is so bad on occasions that doors and windows must be kept shut until the tanker fills or the wind shifts. In wet periods, the overflow of many pump-out tanks and the seep-away systems of older homes means that life can be on the nose for locals and passing tourists. The prospect of greatly enlarging the number of pump-out tanks and the associated loss of amenity is unthinkable. I call on the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing to suspend the provisions of State environmental planning policy 25 in respect of Gerringong, Gerroa and Jamberoo until the Water Board has completed the construction of adequate and appropriate sewerage schemes in those townships. I acknowledge the assistance given to me by Mr David Johnson, a citizen of Gerroa, who compiled the information which I have brought to the attention of the Parliament this evening. The provision of sewerage facilities in these townships is a dire social and health need. It would be unthinkable to have two pump-out tanks on a normal sized block of land with the proliferation of this type of problem.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.37]: The honourable member for Kiama has demonstrated a great deal of diligence in pursuing this matter in some detail. I assure him that I will pass on his comments to the appropriate Minister to ensure that his concerns are handled sensitively.


Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [5.38]: I wish to raise a matter which has national implications for the life assurance industry. In 1993 Mr Geoff Darmody, a constituent of mine, joined Friends Provident Life as a first option agent. He worked assiduously and became one of the 10 top agents in Australia, achieving the Friends International quality award. In March 1987 Mr Darmody was invited by Friends to an exhibition for accountants at the Sydney Hilton. There he was introduced to Mr Michael Spencer, the creator of the sophisticated software package, the Fothergill financial incentive plan. The package was so good and was so enthusiastically endorsed by Friends management, that Mr Darmody was persuaded to sign up for it.

Friends had invested venture capital in Mr Spencer's company, but had never held shares in it. It hired a consultant to work with Mr Spencer on the system, allegedly promising him 20 per cent of the company, even though it owned no part of that company. So enthusiastic was Friends about the Fothergill system that it was actively recruiting new agents to work with it, although Michael Spencer asked it to go slow because the programs were not fully completed. The relationship between Friends and Fothergill continued to flourish until late 1988. Thereafter, following a change of management, it went rapidly downhill. Friends' own fortunes deteriorated significantly from this time. At the Friends national licensee conference held at St Leonards on 25, 26 and 27 July 1989, Friends was asked whether it was still backing the Fothergill system. Assistant General Manager Bruce Perry replied:

Friends will support Fothergill for the next 12 months as this is the current plan for the following 12 months beginning June 1989.

The licensees were also told that the program would be completed, finally, during this time. It is interesting to note that Mr Darmody had been told in March 1987 that the program was fully operational and ready for business. Based on these promises, Mr Darmody and his wife signed over a second mortgage to Friends so they could obtain more capital to invest in the Fothergill project. The other nine agents who had signed for Fothergill were persuaded to do the same. Three months later Mr Darmody's agency was cancelled for alleged lack of production. Remember: this was the man who shortly beforehand had won Friends' international quality award.

Friends then took action to seize Mr Darmody's home and to bankrupt him. The Darmodys received notice to vacate two days after Mr Darmody's wife had come out of hospital, and when she was still in bed recuperating from her operation. Because of this, six months later Mrs Darmody had to have the same operation over again. In January 1984 agents from around Australia came together in Sydney at Mr Darmody's request and - surprise, surprise - found that all their agencies had been cancelled within six months of one another, generally with no reason given. Most of these people were bankrupted and their homes, which had been required as collateral by Friends, seized.

It seems that there was a complete change in management policy in 1989, and that Friends no longer backed the Fothergill system. Yet the company continued to assure its agents that it was totally behind the system. In fact, as late as October 1989 it was actively promoting the system to its agents. The only reason I have heard advanced for this apparent contradiction was that Friends' owners, Euroko, hoped to sell the operation to Tower Life - which they eventually did - and wanted to maximise its sale price by creating substantial tax losses through terminating agents.

Page 568

If so, this is a clear case of fraud and should be investigated by the police. Michael Spencer fared no better. Friends was white-anting him, refusing to provide updated premium rates for a newly released disability income insurance product so the system could be updated, and starving his company of working capital. On 17 July 1990 Mr Spencer received a letter from Friends' solicitors giving notice of the termination of its agency with Fothergill effective from 10 August 1990. No reason was given. He too lost his house, having been previously coerced into signing a loan agreement using the house for collateral. Had he not done so, his venture capital partner, Friends', threatened to bankrupt him. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I would like to cite also the case of Yvan Duzer, a long-term agent who wanted to retire in mid-1990 because of ill-health. The most valuable asset a life insurance agent can have is, of course, his register of clients. Mr Duzer arranged with two agents to buy his register, based on a formula set out by national sales manager, Ron Povey, in a memorandum dated 31 December 1986. Friends' Provident Doncaster branch then stepped in and said it would buy the register, as it had done several times previously. But that was not good enough for Friends' senior management. Assistant general manager Bruce Perry refused to pay Mr Duzer, who perhaps not surprisingly sued.

Mr Justice Rendt found for the plaintiff and awarded him $42,500 plus interest and costs. Even more importantly, in his summation he said he tended to disbelieve everything Friends Provident had said. So here you have a case of the executives of a company, a life insurance company with a long and proud history and apparently impeccable credentials, lying under oath. Mr Duzer, with whom I have spoken at length, is attempting to have the authorities in Victoria charge certain of those executives with perjury. This case raises a number of questions. What will Tower Life do about the claims made by the victims of Friends? Will it use its policyholders' funds to fight tooth-and-nail in the courts and win because of its superior financial position? Or will it come to the party and satisfy their claims?

I should mention that I have tried to ring Tower Life's managing director, Mr Ken Boag, about these matters, but he has not returned my calls. He was quoted in the Australian Financial Review of 28 February as saying, "We are prepared to look at any claim put before us". I would hold him to that commitment. I would also request that the police fraud squad begin an urgent investigation into this matter.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.43]: The Minister for Police acknowledges the honourable members concern and has given me and the honourable member an undertaking to have the matter fully investigated. Once those investigations have been completed the Minister will advise the honourable member of the outcome of those very important and special investigations.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [5.44]: Since November 1993 I have been making representations to the New South Wales Ombudsman, the Technical and Further Education Commission Board and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs for Mr Frank Wolfe of Rooty Hill on behalf of his son Matthew, who is a student at the Randwick campus of the Sydney Institute of Technology. I will not be naming any persons involved in the allegations. Matthew Wolfe alleges that since a teacher at the college sighted some hunting trip photographs depicting Matthew as a gun owner and hunter - he was photographed with some dead animals - he has been harassed and insulted. Apparently the teacher has a preconceived bias against someone who owns a firearm and goes shooting.

The matter has escalated to the extent that Matthew Wolfe has suffered stress as a result of continued intimidation and harassment. On the face of it, one could be forgiven for thinking that this might be a personality clash between a student and a member of the teaching staff. However, further inquiries reveal that Matthew is not the only person wishing to bring such matters to notice. I am appalled at the way that this matter has been investigated and dismissed by both the department and the Ombudsman's office.

After formal representations were made to the Ombudsman's office, the Ombudsman wrote back to me in early December saying that his department is an avenue of last resort and that I should refer the matter to Dr Ramsey, the managing director of the TAFE Commission. This of course was done. Unfortunately, what I call an in-house investigation was carried out. Despite the fact that I sent a substantial file to Dr Ramsey's office only certain teachers were interviewed. No other witnesses, students and indeed other teachers who supported the allegations were ever interviewed. On 24 January Mr Ken Protas by way of memorandum advised that after interviewing Mr Wolfe and Matthew he interviewed five of the teaching staff about the allegations, who, of course, denied all the charges. Mr Protas said that he found no evidence of harassment by any staff member. He went on to discredit Matthew by concluding that the teacher complained about had to warn Matthew "not to drink before turning up for classes".

I agree with Mr Wolfe's conclusion that this is an obvious put-down designed to discredit him as a credible complainant. The Ombudsman compounded this incompetent investigation by saying in a letter to me on 9 February that he was satisfied that the investigation was carried out in a fair and professional manner. Mr Wolfe's complaint is supported by other students, former students, and even a teacher at the college. Not one of those who have come forward to Mr Wolfe with letters has been interviewed to confirm the allegation. Mr Wolfe wrote to me, in part, as follows:

Page 569

These names and phone numbers below are from past and current students who have been treated badly and harassed by (the teacher named in the complaint) a teacher in the Dental Department at Randwick TAFE.

These students are willing to tell their side of the story to the investigating Ombudsman.

That letter contains the names and phone numbers of all the students concerned. Despite two investigations by the department and the Ombudsman not one of those persons was interviewed. I am not without some experience about how to conduct an investigation, and I know that the first rule of any investigation is to interview all witnesses. In this case that fundamental principle has been ignored. Obviously Mr Wolfe feels that this whole matter has been whitewashed - a view acknowledged to some degree by the Ombudsman. While many people want to give their versions of the events, one student, fearing reprisals, wrote in a letter to Matthew:

. . . you are not alone, suffering from damages and evil actions which occur at Randwick College . . . I am a current student who also suffered, but the only way for me to get through as quickly as possible is to keep quiet.

I know the Ombudsman investigates anonymous complaints against police. I suggest the Ombudsman also investigate this matter. The investigation was inadequate, and I call on the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs to direct that this matter be re-investigated and that all witnesses be interviewed to check the veracity of this complaint.


Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [5.49]: I raise a matter regarding 1080 poisoning in the Upper Macleay region. It has been the practice for certain landholders in the Upper Macleay region to carry out regular wild dog baiting. At the same time similar work is done in the protection board management area. The Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board manages an area from Coffs Harbour in the north to Laurieton in the south, and west to the escarpment. The Macleay Wild Dog Association, through the auspices of the Rural Lands Protection Board, is anxious to carry out 1080 baiting programs in State forests. At a recent meeting of the Wild Dog Association 14 members whose properties either border on or are in close proximity to State forests reported 118 sightings of wild dogs and everincreasing numbers of foxes, feral cats and wild pigs. Further, from a sample of only 200 to 300 stock returns last year it was reported that $90,000 worth of stock were killed by wild dogs in the area.

The longer term position is grave indeed. If property-owners cannot continue to bait in forests, it will be useless going around dropping baits from helicopters as that would be a fragmented run and have little or no long-term benefit. It is vital for there to be a planned run, if it is to be effective. Wild dog numbers have to be continually reduced each year to keep them at a manageable level. If the Wild Dog Association in the Macleay area cannot bait in State forests this year, by next year there will be more pups and further problems for all concerned and for the environment. Early reduction is essential before the pups get big enough to do untold damage.

Over each of the past nine years aerial dog baiting has been carried out in State forests in the Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board area. The northern area of the forest receives attention one year and the southern area in the second year. The reason for that is that it creates a buffer zone. Baiting in State forests is carried out in conjunction with ground baiting by landholders, who bait their own properties up to the forest boundary. A line is taken through a forest area and that provides effective treatment and protection for adjoining landholders. For example, in the Nulla Creek area baits are dropped into the forest and the people in the various valleys place baits up to the forest boundary to get the maximum protection.

The aim of the wild dog baiting is to reduce dog numbers within the board district. It is almost impossible to eradicate wild dogs, but they must be controlled. It is possible to wipe out some feral species, such as pigs, but the only way to control wild dogs is by regular baiting programs. As I said, this year the southern end, which covers the Kempsey-Wauchope forestry region, was to be treated, but because of a technical problem with the environmental impact statement approval for the baiting has not been given. Bait runs are done also in the Taree forestry district, and a letter of approval for baiting in Bulga State Forest and Doyles River State Forest has been forthcoming from the Taree district forester. The only difficulty is with the Kempsey-Wauchope management environmental impact statement which recently has been on public display. I understand that the Minister has a final draft of it.

Apparently there were no problems with baiting until the public display process occurred. The difficulties have arisen since that stage. The board is already licensed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service to take or kill protected fauna. That is a blanket licence issued to all boards and has been extended to 1 October 1995 under the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act. If board members inadvertently kill something that is protected, they will not be held responsible. For example, if a quoll dies in the course of a baiting program, the licence covers the person responsible for accidentally killing a protected species. But a quoll would need to take several baits; it would have to have a real pig-out, as it is a little animal. The same can be said of a chook; it would take 20 times more poison to kill a chook than it would to kill a wild dog, having regard to the relative bodyweight. It would be almost impossible to kill birdlife through baiting. It takes a mix of only 0.01 milligrams of 1080 per kilogram of bodyweight to kill a wild dog. A quoll would have to take 1.9 milligrams of bait per kilogram of bodyweight.

Mr D. R. King of the Australian Agricultural Board, in technical series number 8, has done a lot of work on this matter. It is highly unlikely that any protected fauna would die or take baits. A large
Page 570
number of koalas, scrub turkeys and other wildlife have reappeared in places where there has been aerial baiting, which has restricted the numbers of feral cats and wild dogs, which would have taken the animals. State Forests cannot give permission for the baiting to be carried out and the Minister has not released the environmental impact statement for the Kempsey-Wauchope district. Therefore the Forestry Commission cannot make a decision about the program. I ask the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to examine this anomaly carefully and to allow dog baiting to proceed without delay, because of the devastating consequences for landowners and the environment if the program is curtailed and fragmented for much longer.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.54]: The Minister for Land and Water Conservation regrets that he cannot be present to reply to the honourable member but has given me an appropriate response. Wild dogs can be a problem in the Kempsey-Wauchope area and the Minister has asked me to thank the honourable member for Oxley for raising this important matter. The Minister accepts that the request from the Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board to undertake wild dog baiting over various forests in the Kempsey-Wauchope forestry management area is consistent with current policy and practice.

The honourable member for Oxley said that the final determination from the Minister for Planning on the Kempsey-Wauchope environmental impact statement may limit the aerial baiting program. In his formal written consultation with the Minister for Planning the Minister for Land and Water Conservation has outlined his concern about and opposition to any such restriction. In the absence of any final determination from the Minister for Planning, the Minister considers it reasonable for State Forests to adhere to existing policy and continue dog baiting activity. The Kempsey Rural Lands Protection Board will be advised by New South Wales State Forests that the assistance with this program it has requested will be made available in accordance with past practice.


Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.56]: I make a plea on behalf of a number of employees of the Public Works Department who are currently located at the department's depot at Wallsend, which is scheduled to be closed and auctioned in April this year. I appeal on behalf of the eight sheet metal workers, one operative painter and two plumbers who are employed in their trade capacity, that the Government reconsider the offer of redundancy payments and undertake, by whatever means are available, a reasonable retraining program so that the men can be placed in other jobs within the department. If that could be done and for a short period their salaries were paid at a lower rate, make-up pay could be incorporated in the arrangement so that for a prescribed period these men would be on their existing salaries for a period, as has happened with other employees in similar situations.

My concern is that the department and the Government have a policy of no forced redundancies. These are mature-aged men who have no prospect of immediate transfer to other departments within the service in the Newcastle region, and at this stage have received no offer of suitable retraining to enable them to be redeployed within the department. It is imperative that they be given a commitment. They have been loyal and faithful servants. Their work is specifically associated with the production of stainless steel utensils for buildings under the administration of the Department of School Education. They supply the washbasins, urinals, plumbing equipment and so forth for school buildings from Newcastle to all points north and in the Central Coast region.

My concern is twofold. First, the opportunity for redeployment has not been seriously considered by the Government and, second, if this project group is abandoned, the material required by the various departments that they service will have to be manufactured by way of contract in metropolitan Sydney, transported and then, by way of local contract, installed to the satisfaction of the school or other departmental grouping that requires it. This is a time-consuming exercise. In my opinion it will become an expensive operation, given the acknowledged efficiency of this group of men in their present work and practices. I am concerned also that the depot that is being offered for auction has been inspected by a number of community groups and government departments, including corrective services, the police department and industrial relations.

For a variety of reasons none of the prospective uses of the building will proceed. If this excellent factory building goes for auction it may not reach a reasonable price, given that industrial development in New South Wales is still behind the eight ball. Other alternative uses are possible by way of lease rather than sale. I refer specifically to a joint submission that is on the way to the Minister for Public Works from the Wallsend SkillShare group and the Hunter apprentices group. I understand that a deputation will be headed by the Hunter group apprentices and will have the support of the local office of the Department of Industrial Relations.

I ask the Government to seriously consider whether it should abandon opportunities for the manufacture of the stainless steel components that are currently undertaken on that site by the 11 tradesmen, bearing in mind that the people involved are of mature age and would not be able to relocate easily to Sydney, especially having regard to the great differential in housing costs. If the building is to be disposed of, I ask that serious and sympathetic consideration be given to locating the Hunter group of apprentices at that particular site, along with the Wallsend SkillShare group. This matter is extremely
Page 571
urgent, and I hope the Minister deals with it sympathetically. It is not a wild scheme but an issue that must be addressed by current Government policy.


Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [6.0]: Tonight I speak about an important matter concerning my electorate and The Hills district. When I was first elected in 1988 as the member for Carlingford the predominant issues were transport and roads. In 1994 those issues remain. A special committee should be established to examine the future transport needs of the Baulkham Hills electorate. At present I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads, the Hon. Bruce Baird, and in that position over the past few months I have gained considerable experience on issues relating to roads in my electorate and New South Wales generally. During the past 20 years the environment of The Hills district has changed rapidly. It has undergone considerable development and experienced a population explosion. Roads that were adequate in the 1950s are no loner adequate for the 1990s. Indeed, when the northwest sector is completed it is envisaged that 80,000 home sites to accommodate a population the size of Canberra will be established in the Rouse Hill, Schofields and Kellyville areas. This future satellite city will exacerbate existing transport problems.

Baulkham Hills is a wonderful area in which to live. Many children who have grown up in the district will be keen to purchase land and build homes in the developing areas of the northwest sector. It is my role as local member to do everything possible to ensure that adequate transport facilities are available for families of tomorrow. The special committee will address transport issues and options for this growing area, including a light rail and heavy rail system and improved bus feeder systems to existing railway stations. The Hills district does not have the advantage of a railway service, apart from the Carlingford line, and the only transport available is a bus service. The committee should comprise representatives of the community, transport planners and providers and members of local and State governments. It is essential that the community work with the Government to obtain the necessary transport facilities. The committee will provide an overall transport strategy and make recommendations to the Government for the implementation of that strategy. Many new suburbs will be built to the north of Baulkham Hills and it is essential that plans are developed to provide adequate public transport links for those areas.

It is pleasing to note that last night the House decisively rejected the motion moved by the Opposition concerning the M2 motorway. I acknowledge that the honourable member for Bligh voted with the Government to defeat what would have been an unrealistic situation which would have frustrated the mandate of this Government. The Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice is a resident of The Hills shire and is well aware of the transport problems experienced by his constituents. We should disregard the fact that in the past governments of different political persuasions were negligent in the delivery of appropriate transport initiatives. New concepts must be determined. At a recent public function the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads was sympathetic towards this problem and stated he would endeavour to establish a special committee to examine transport needs for The Hills district.


Ms MOORE (Bligh) [6.5]: Juniper Hall is one of Australia's most important historic houses and is the oldest surviving domestic building east of the city of Sydney. The building, which dates back to 1842, was purchased and restored during the bicentenary at a cost of $3 million. More than two-thirds of this money was public community funding. Ten years later, the building has been leased to a real estate agent for five years for $120,000 per annum. I understand that part of the building has been subleased and the public will have access to it on only four days of the year. The National Trust has offered the community use of an inappropriate basement room, with no ventilation, which has been declared uninhabitable by Woollahra Council health inspectors.

In 1984 the community was up in arms over plans to redevelop Juniper Hall as a shopping arcade, and in March of that year the National Trust announced that it would purchase the property. Juniper Hall was saved because the Paddington Society, the Friends of Juniper Hall, and the local community fought to save it. The purchase and restoration of Juniper Hall was announced in "A Gift to the Nation". Launched by the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, "A Gift to the Nation" was the $5 million National Trust bicentennial program, and its flagship was Juniper Hall. Purchase and restoration of the building cost $3 million. The State provided $750,000, the Federal Government more than $1 million. Woollahra Council contributed $200,000. A commitment was given by the National Trust to council that "a variety of community uses will be incorporated into the building".

An amount of $1 million was provided through corporate and other sponsorship, and $400,000 from a bequest by Leslie Bridal, a Paddington resident and member of the Paddington Society. Ms Bridal told Max Kelly, president of the National Trust at the time, that she wanted the bequest to be spent on Juniper Hall, where she wanted the Paddington Society to have a permanent home. The Paddington Society had also been given a commitment by the Trust that they would be housed in Juniper Hall. I am amazed that the National Trust has taken this action. Juniper Hall, this "Gift to the Nation", funded with public and community money, is being used for commercial purposes, which excludes the community. Surely there must be commercial uses, if we have to have commercial uses, which would allow community
Page 572
access. Is this the economic rationalist face of the National Trust, a body I have worked closely with in all my years in public life up to this moment?

I am also amazed at the trust's attitude to providing community space in Juniper Hall. After assuring Woollahra Council, the Paddington Society and Leslie Bridal that space would be allocated to the community, the Trust has offered space which is uninhabitable. I met today with Else Atkins, executive director of the National Trust, and members of the Paddington community. I asked her to give a public commitment that the lease would be a temporary arrangement and that any future use of the building would provide community access. I also asked her to re-examine the issue of community space and to provide an area which is appropriate and habitable. I consider this is a very important heritage, conservation and community issue. My researcher has spent quite a deal of time trying to track down the Minister responsible. Minister Webster says it is Minister Collins, and Minister Collins says it is Minister Webster. That is perhaps an indication of the importance of the National Trust for the Government. I look forward to some comment from the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice, who is in the Chamber.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [6.10]: As one member of this House with a very keen interest in matters of national heritage, and as one who has visited Juniper Hall in the past, I am disturbed by the remarks of the honourable member for Bligh. Juniper Hall, one of the earliest surviving buildings east of Sydney, is a flagship for our national heritage and is of significant importance to every citizen of New South Wales. Given the limited access to Juniper Hall referred to by the honourable member and the fact that only uninhabitable space has been offered, though a commitment for a variety of community uses had been earlier made, I will draw the matter to the attention of the Premier, who I am sure will refer it to the relevant Minister for investigation. I note that the State Government would share a concern about the use of that facility, given the $750,000 commitment by this State which indicates to some extent a shareholder interest in the future of that site. I am sure the Premier, in referring the matter to the relevant Minister, will ensure that it is properly investigated and a suitable response is brought back to the honourable member for Bligh.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Hazzard) left the chair at 6.12 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council.

Mr Speaker -

The Legislative Council having had under consideration the Legislative Assembly's message of 10 March 1994 concerning a reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that the Council agrees to paragraph (a) of the reference as amended by the Legislative Assembly.

Legislative Council M. F. Willis
10 March 1994 President


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [7.31]: Before the dinner break I was talking about the great injustice done to my constituent Ziggy Pohl. Last Saturday night my wife and I saw a movie called "In the Name of the Father". I recommend that movie to all honourable members. It relates the story of the Guildford Four and is based on fact. It recounts how the British police conspired and the judicial system complied to sentence a group of totally innocent people to gaol, some for life and some for shorter terms. The lifers served 15 years in gaol before they were found to be innocent and were released. One of the principal characters in this miscarriage of justice was Gerry Conlon, who was recently in Australia. I defy anyone to see the movie and not come away with a feeling of revulsion for the blatant injustice involved and a tremendous sympathy and compassion for the innocent victims. Those were my feelings, and I am sure others in the theatre were affected in the same way.

Since I saw the movie I have been stewing over the case of Ziggy Pohl. I have said before and I will say again: I will not let the case drop. I will never give up until Ziggy Pohl is fully and adequately compensated for the injustice he has suffered. The Attorney General has been stonewalling on this case for years. Meanwhile massive compensation settlements have been made in the cases of Blackburn, Gundy, Brennan and others, and quite rightly so. However, the Attorney General tried to fob off Ziggy Pohl with $200,000 last year in what I regard as a pathetic and insulting gesture. I have told Mr Pohl, as I have told this Parliament previously, I will not rest until a full and fair measure of compensation is paid to him. In this case the time for justice is well overdue.

Another matter I wish to raise relates to the great problems that exist in my electorate because of the lack of public housing. The waiting list is more than seven years; it is closer to eight years. The demand is overwhelming. It is plain that the Government is not concerned and is doing nothing about the problem. It is shameful and scandalous neglect. People in my electorate who are in needy circumstances are forced to pay high rents or to live in inadequate, poor housing because there is such a lack of public housing. My electorate has a high ratio of people from non-English speaking backgrounds. It is a true
Page 573
multicultural area where people live in peace and harmony with each other regardless of where they come from.

The real stress in the local community comes not from ethnic differences but from the difficulties experienced by people in obtaining the basics of life, particularly jobs and adequate housing. I make this plea on behalf of those disadvantaged constituents in my electorate: please have an honest look at the hopeless position in which housing waiting lists just keep getting longer; please address the issue with honesty and action. The need is great and the position deteriorates by the day. Action is needed now. In last year's State Budget the Government provided only $7 million in home and community care funding - a real loss of $10 million. It did not provide funding for any new services to meet the needs of people with disabilities and the frail aged. It did not provide additional funds to existing services to meet the ever increasing demands placed on them.

The HACC programs cover a range of services, for example home care, home nursing, Meals on Wheels, respite care and so on. These are only some of the home support services that receive HACC funding and provide the type of assistance that can mean the difference between dependence and independence. The HACC office in Rockdale does a superb job. I am most impressed by the hard working people who run that office. However, they, like everyone else in HACC, are being thwarted by being starved of funds. The people who use HACC rely on this organisation for their independence. Funding cuts affect people who are least able to bear them. The need is there and it should be met through proper and adequate funding.

In the brief time available to me I want to make some remarks on a happier note by referring to a man who, only six weeks ago, was presented with Rockdale Council's citizen of the year award. The recipient of the award was Bill Holna, a resident of Arncliffe who is also the Totalizator Agency Board agent in that suburb. I have known him for several years, having first met him through transacting business at his agency. Bill Holna is one of those people who goes through life doing the right thing, helping those less fortunate than himself, but seeking neither recognition nor reward. I was delighted that the council named him as our citizen of the year, because he is such a decent fellow and certainly a worthy recipient of the honour. In presenting the award to Mr Holna, the Mayor of Rockdale, councillor Ron Rathbone, said:

Mr Holna is a true giver to the community. He has a genuine regard for people of all ages in his community.

From my observations of Bill Holna over the years, truer words have never been spoken.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [7.36]: It is my great pleasure to respond in the Address in Reply to the Speech of His Excellency Rear Admiral Peter Ross Sinclair, Governor of New South Wales, on the occasion of the fourth session of this historic Fiftieth Parliament of this great State of New South Wales. First, I congratulate His Excellency on his re-appointment for a further term of 12 months. I believe this will provide stability and security for the people of New South Wales as we move towards the next general election. In his Speech we were reminded of the importance of financially sound and responsible government. I refer now to the irresponsible and provocative action by protesters in my electorate in blockading a fully licensed logging operation at Way Way State Forest, which is near Yarrahappini, between Macksville and Kempsey. That action does nothing to help the economy.

Mr Hunter: Do you have any HomeFund borrowers?

Mr JEFFERY: The member opposite mentions HomeFund borrowers. There used to be some sense in this place when his father represented his electorate. Perhaps we should bring back Merv. The action at Way Way State Forest is jeopardising investment, jobs and the value adding of the forestry industry. The Government should be concerned to ensure that the concentration on environmental values is balanced against the need to develop our natural resources for the benefit of the community, for jobs, and for other reasons. The Way Way operation is a logging operation in a regrowth forest. The forest has been logged many times before. It is a tribute to the careful sustainable yield management of our forest resources that a 100-year-old forest maintains its valuable product and at the same time the flora and fauna in the area flourish. That is a tribute to the forestry operations in that area.

The coalition Government is committed to good government and I believe it will lead the State into the twenty-first century on a secure, stable footing aided by the groundwork that has already been prepared. Winning the right to stage the Year 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney has given hope to our young people. My daughter was at Circular Quay with many other young people when Sydney's success in the bid was announced. They have been given confidence. New South Wales - the first State in Australia - has been given a new lease of life. The State is coping better than other States with the rapid social and economic changes, which are a fact of life in a modern society.

Not only Sydney will benefit from the Games, but the whole of Australia including country areas, will benefit. In the lead up to the Games many athletes will visit to compete in international events. Competitors will come to Australia to compete and to attend training camps, acclimatisation programs and other associated activities. Many rural sporting venues in my electorate and in inland New South Wales could provide excellent training grounds, cheaper accommodation and a near perfect climate. I can vouch for the fact that my electorate has the equal best climate in the world. The mid-North Coast of New South Wales would be the ideal place to receive great benefits from the lead up to the Games and to capitalise on tourist potential following the Games.

Page 574

Another area incentive is the new $2.5 million developing areas assistance scheme, known as DAAS, which has targeted growth areas of the State. Your own electorate of Lismore, Mr Acting-Speaker, is in a growth area. I am confident our electorates and other electorates in New South Wales will receive some benefit from the scheme. It is important that in this, the International Year of the Family, which was recently promoted by the Premier, the coalition Government is committed to improving the services and lifestyle of our families.

I belong to the National Party, which is very proud of family tradition and strives to ensure that priority consideration is given to the development of policies to support the family unit as the foundation of society. Of course, the family transforms our human instinct for affiliation, for lessons and for the experiences which I believe shape our sense of fairness, justice and responsibility to others. Families teach us the significance of some basic values - trust, respect, tolerance, reliability, honesty and a general feeling for the needs of others. I have four children, and I complain sometimes about the way they leave a mess in their rooms or whatever, but I believe it is tremendous to have the family atmosphere, to be able to rely on and have that regard for one another.

I also believe that the family forms the absolutely necessary basis of society which gives individuals themselves a chance, an obligation, to exercise their social responsibilities and their concerns for the common good. The International Year of the Family provides an excellent opportunity to focus on the importance of the family. I know that the New South Wales Government will be participating fully in that and reviewing thoroughly Government policy and programs in New South Wales which support families. I have always been very strong on law and order.

While on the subject of families, I believe we have to get back to the basics of law and order. It is my opinion that many young offenders could be prevented from leading a life of crime if they were taught respect for the law. We must get back to a situation where there is discipline and respect for the law. I believe in some good old-fashioned persuasion. I suppose many of us in this Chamber realise that many a young bloke would have been saved by a policeman's number 11 boot in the old days. Imagine what would happen if the police attempted to do that today; they would be hamstrung by the interference of do-gooders. If they touched a person, gave him a bit of a backhander and saved him from crime later on, they would finish up in front of the Ombudsman, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or some other inquiry.

Mr Price: Why do you not introduce it?

Mr JEFFERY: I have some strong views and, if I had the numbers, I probably would. I believe the rot started under the Labor Party.

Mr Price: There is nothing rotten in the State of Denmark. The ICAC has demonstrated that.

Mr JEFFERY: No, it happened under Frank Walker, that do-gooder left-winger and former Attorney General.

Mr Price: You are talking about a Federal Minister.

Mr JEFFERY: That does not change the fact that he started the rot in New South Wales. He brought in the juvenile cautioning system. As the honourable member knows, I am an opponent of that type of thing because I believe it has proved ineffective. The kids snub their noses at the law. They can call people names and behave as they wish.

Mr Price: You should encourage the Government to amend the law.

Mr JEFFERY: I will continue to call for changes to law and order and I will continue in the electorate to stand up for the victims and call for firm and effective action against perpetrators of crime, unlike former Attorney General Frank Walker when he was in this Parliament.

Mr Price: That was six years ago.

Mr JEFFERY: It was six years ago.

Mr Price: You are drawing a longbow.

Mr JEFFERY: No, I am not, because there have been improvements since we got rid of your mob from government, and got rid of Frank Walker.

Mr Price: But not enough improvements, according to the honourable member for Oxley.

Mr JEFFERY: All right, I will give the honourable member some positive news from my home town of Kempsey. The Kempsey patrol street operation has resulted in a reduction in street offences of 50 per cent; assaults are down by 30 per cent; and malicious damage has been reduced by 33 per cent. That is to the great credit of the police. I believe that generally, where it is a community problem, people have to stand up and be counted. A very firm police force is essential and we need to back the police in this matter. Now that the honourable member has raised the matter, could I also say that the Kempsey patrol will soon commence alternating operations which will combat the more critical areas, and a combined operation will target juvenile crime - an area that we need to address, and I admit that openly - which I hope will have the same pleasing results as those I have just mentioned.

Mr Price: Do you realise you are giving me some wonderful openings?

Mr JEFFERY: The trouble with members opposite is that they have focused too much on the so-called rehabilitation of offenders.

Mr Price: Do you believe in capital punishment?

Mr JEFFERY: Not enough attention has been paid to the victims of crime.

Mr Price: Do you believe in capital punishment?

Page 575

Mr JEFFERY: I believe that, at the moment, gaols provide motel luxury accommodation and, so far as I am concerned, that is not on. The victims are the ones left to fend for themselves. That concerns me. I worry about the victims, not the offenders. It is time that this State - and all governments, State and Federal - started to give support to the victims of crime. In my opinion, far too frequently the priority is to help the offenders. I want to see legislation introduced that takes into account the victims and their needs, as much as I want to see people brought to justice. Another issue that concerns me relates to light sentencing. I know the police can now appeal against sentencing. Your mob did not have the intestinal fortitude to introduce that.

Mr Price: That is an ungracious comment. I am surprised at you.

Mr JEFFERY: Sorry - the former Labor Government. I take that back, because I believe there should be respect when we speak about these matters. I still want to see more appropriate sentences for those who commit crimes and I am sure the honourable member for Waratah would support me in that. I am deputy chairman of the Staysafe committee, which conducted a number of inquiries. I can report that the committee recommended stiffer penalties for drivers who maim or kill, particularly drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I hope that legislation will follow the Staysafe No. 25 report.

The coalition Government has been impressive in bringing back the Summary Offences Act, legislating for the confiscation of the profits of crime - I believe that is excellent - and, as I mentioned earlier, giving police the right to appeal against the leniency of sentences. These legislative advances in law and order, coupled with truth in sentencing, are just a few of the law and order reforms that have already been achieved, and herald those reforms that the Government hopes to achieve in the future. As I said, the Government is endeavouring to undo years of damage under the former Attorney General, and repair the harm that Labor Ministers inflicted on the justice system in this State.

Mr Price: You are a vindictive man.

Mr JEFFERY: I am not vindictive. To prove that, I will also talk about education. Again, Labor did terrible things in respect of education. The Government is now doing great things in education in the electorate of Oxley and in other areas of New South Wales. I believe very firmly that the future of this country and of this State depends upon our youth. Sound schooling is essential for the development of our younger people and the foundation of a stable economy, and of course the future of New South Wales. The Government is concentrating on schools as the centre of the public education system. I am pleased to say that the maintenance of schools in my electorate has improved immensely and is currently in full swing. The essential maintenance of our learning institutions was sadly neglected under Labor. Consequently, the Government has had to spend millions of dollars to patch them up after the disastrous years of a Labor Government in New South Wales.

New schools have been built at Kempsey, a new primary school has been built at Aldavilla, and a new high school has been built at Nambucca Heads. Many demountable classrooms have been replaced by new brick classrooms. Additional teachers have been appointed and new school bus runs have been introduced, which are vital for country children to get to school. Syllabus development places an emphasis on grammar and excellence, particularly in the early years of schooling. The Government has achieved major improvements in the health area. Although health is always an issue of concern I look forward to a health blueprint being produced. I encourage this Government to plan ahead for population growth along the coast. Planning should be upfront and the Government should not wait until the problem reaches crisis point before addressing it.

As people get older the most important issue they face is health. All honourable members are getting older. The older generation use health services four times more often and for longer periods than other age groups. I suppose it could be said that if we do not have good health we do not have much to look forward to. It is essential for us to have good health. The failing health of people is manifested in the demands that are placed on health services and hospitals, particularly in areas such as Lismore, right along the coast and in the Oxley electorate, where there is a high percentage of retirees and pensioners; 60 per cent of the people living in South West Rocks are retired. That is a large percentage. The success of our health policies in New South Wales must be judged by our health outcomes.

The New South Wales health system must give priority to the needs of people rather than to the system. It is there to look after the people. That is where we have gone wrong in the past. It is incumbent upon us to make every effort to deliver the best possible health services to the maximum number of people in this State. All honourable members would be aware that the health budget is very large. Regional offices on the North Coast have been dismantled. The savings that have been achieved from that will be used closer to home; money can now go back into local areas. The localisation of decision-making, together with the development of the new Port Macquarie base hospital, will enhance facilities at other hospitals in my electorate, such as Wauchope, Kempsey and Macksville. Many surgical procedures and medical treatments will be able to be carried out at smaller hospitals and the new base hospital at Port Macquarie will be left to carry out major surgery and thus reduce hospital waiting lists.

A lot of people from the mid-North Coast used to go to Sydney or Newcastle for operations that could not be performed locally. The new facilities will help people on hospital waiting lists in the electorate of Waratah. Mid-North Coast people will now be able to go to the new base hospital for specialist services. Families will not have to travel such great distances and there will be a better use of the health dollar in this State. In time I believe there will be specialists in nearly every field at Port Macquarie and people will not have to go to Sydney, Melbourne or
Page 576
Newcastle, as they have in the past. The development of health services on the mid-North Coast will see the creation of additional jobs. The home and community care program is another provider of health care. Because of the population growth on the North Coast, funding should be increased to keep pace with development.

Funds are not transferred when disabled people on the home and community care program come to the country. Sometimes those people are removed from the list and are replaced by others, which is only right. However, if the funds allocated to those people were transferred, they would not be discriminated against or disadvantaged. Federal funding to the North Coast has also been reduced. I do not want people in these growth areas to suffer. Obviously, if the population in an area decreases, funding should be transferred to growth areas. This should be done on an age weighted and needs basis. I know that a lag time is creating problems for people on the end of the waiting list, but I hope that those problems can be addressed. I would like to compliment the Governor on many of the matters in his Speech, but time will not permit me to do so. I will not seek an extension of time as I know many other members wish to speak in this debate. I am conscious of the time and the need to give everyone a fair go. I congratulate the Governor of New South Wales, His Excellency Rear Admiral Peter Ross Sinclair, on his Speech. I know he will continue to serve New South Wales with distinction.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [7.56]: I have a number of criticisms about the Governor's Speech. Actually, I feel a little sorry for the Governor. The Speech he presented was from a Government that is starting to buckle under pressure. It has been in office for six years, and we are seeing signs of a tired administration. Initiative is waning. There is very little new material in the Governor's Speech, which he presented on behalf of a tired Government which has run out of ideas. That is reflected on almost every page of the Speech.

On the first page of his Speech the Governor quite rightly heaped praise on bush fire fighters. I join with the Governor in praising those firefighters. My electorate and many other electorates were affected by the fires. Fortunately, only one home in my electorate was lost, and damage to fences and grazing areas was minimal. Nevertheless, the fires did come near a number of villages, particularly Minmi. At present the local population is investigating the prospect of establishing a bush fire brigade or having the New South Wales Fire Brigades boundary extended on the recommendation of Newcastle City Council to enable the establishment of a metropolitan-style fire brigade or fire station. The community has initiated this move. It has the support of the council and both groups of firefighting personnel. It certainly has my support.

Recently I was shocked to read an instruction that was sent by the Department of Conservation and Land Management to all regional directors in the Soil Conservation Service. That instruction covered the use of Soil Conservation Service equipment and staff for bush fire fighting. The department has determined that a scale of charges will apply not only for the use of equipment but also for the use of personnel. That is outrageous! The State heaps praise on these bush fire fighters for the magnificent job they have done, but it then applies charges which must be agreed to before the equipment is used.

For example, if a field supervisor is required, $142 a day must be paid to have him oversee the equipment. I cannot believe that. It reeks of hypocrisy. It seems to me to be blatantly unnecessary. It is like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. We now wait for the cash register to sound, and the fire, or what is left as a result of the fire, is then dealt with. This is not an Opposition fabrication; it is contained in a letter dated 11 January signed by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of the Soil Conservation Service. It is an astounding revelation. I hope the direction is rapidly withdrawn and that the same direction does not apply to any other department that is in any way associated in the future with firefighting or, indeed, any other emergency, whether it be a flood, a fire or a significant tragedy as a result of a road, rail or airport accident. I find it difficult to accept that the Government would be so hidebound and tied to the till that it would require those charges to be paid before action could be taken in an emergency.

The second matter I should like to raise was referred to briefly by the honourable member for Oxley, the school maintenance program. The schools in the electorate of Oxley may be doing very well, but I cannot say the same for schools in the electorate of Waratah. I draw particular attention to the Plattsburg Public School. For many years that school housed the junior population of the suburb of Maryland. Two years ago Maryland was provided with a public school and almost 400 children were transferred. One would think that under normal circumstances Plattsburg Public School would have been left fairly well off with the school population decreasing from about 700 children to about 400 children.

What happened? Some demountable buildings were moved out. After 3½ years some earthquake damage was repaired, a little patching up was done and the school has been left as it was. The school was bursting at the seams. It is a very old school; it was built in the latter part of the last century. It is still waiting for urgent maintenance, and is typical of the schools in my electorate. I would like to think that the Government could be a little more demonstrative in adhering to its advertised policy of having an ongoing and adequate school maintenance program. Most of the primary schools in my electorate have composite school classes. The number of teaching staff has been reduced in accordance with the present formula. Many classes consist of 30 or more students. They range from kindergarten to year 4 and from year 3 to year 6.

Page 577

Every year a number of small schools in my electorate live in fear of losing a teacher or the equivalent of half a teacher because of the movement of two or three children above or below that magic line that determines whether the schools will have sufficient teaching staff. Even worse, of course, is the problem associated with the maintenance staff. If the population of a school drops below a certain number, that school might lose its janitor. The school general assistant will then be given two schools with reduced numbers of students. The school population may be reduced in number but the playground certainly is not reduced in size. If one or two demountable buildings are removed, the area of lawn to mow is greater. What is the department's solution? If a school loses the numbers, the yards and the condition of the school are forgotten and the general assistant is given another school. That seems to me to be a poor way of adjusting the school maintenance budget. School maintenance should be based on the physical area of the school and the number of permanent buildings thereon, not on rather dubious school population figures, which can rise and fall quite significantly. That is particularly the case under the current program of schools issuing prospectuses to try to attract students from other schools, to make their numbers appear a little better and to improve the salary scale of the principal.

I turn to the Governor's remarks about small business. I have only one brief comment to make on that, but it is of concern. I have been advised by a small businessman in my electorate that for many years the Government has maintained a business registration fee of $75. This year the fee has been increased by one-third; it is now $100. That may be a small increase in cash terms, but in percentage terms it is 33_ per cent. Even as a catch-up over a few years for the rate of inflation, that is significantly higher than the Government's policy of no charge exceeding the consumer price index. If that is the way the New South Wales Government treats small businesses, the business people in the community will be unable to get themselves out of trouble, and only those who expect the Government to get them out of trouble will remain. The Government should be concerned about improving the ability of people to think for themselves, allowing them to use their initiative and encouraging them to do so by reducing costs wherever that can be done.

That increase of $25 is a straight grab for cash from small business, the sector that is most expected to improve employment rates in the State of New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia as a whole. The Governor went on to discuss aspects of public sector reform. He said, "This year the Government will introduce legislation to corporatise the Water Board". That is interesting. My electorate is located in the Hunter. As all honourable members know, for more than 10 years the residents of the Hunter have enjoyed - if that is the correct way to put it - user charges imposed by the Labor Government. In many ways that has proved successful in restricting water wastage. It is being applied in part to the metropolitan Water Board, but in Newcastle corporatisation was designed to give the Hunter Water Corporation maximum flexibility in the way it conducted its business. That has not happened.

The Hunter Water Corporation is happy to have the flexibility to discharge staff or make people redundant. But it is most reluctant to enter the area of entrepreneurial risk and assist industrial and residential developments with the provision of services, without the companies involved in those developments having to make massive borrowings to provide facilities that ultimately become the property of the water corporation. That concerns me greatly. I am also concerned about the dividends that must be paid by the Water Board. In the area administered by the Hunter Water Corporation the dividend roughly equates to the amount collected under the environmental levy. Between $10 million and $12 million is currently required to be paid into consolidated revenue. That is very interesting.

Although the Hunter has an environmental levy, there is no environmental improvement program. The levy is merely a blind to cover the cost of the Hunter fringe area sewerage scheme. Any annual surpluses go back by way of dividend to the Government. In Newcastle and the Hunter, residents pays twice. One payment is on a user-pays basis on a rising scale. Rate differentials have been removed so that everyone is on a flat rate. It does not matter whether one is wealthy, one pays the same flat rate. Residents are then expected to pay, through the water corporation, an additional tax direct to the Government by way of a levy. No wonder my colleague the honourable member for Drummoyne has seen fit to put forward legislation to try to control that impost.

Page 17 of the Governor's Speech refers to roads. I have had a reasonable amount of success with the construction of roads in my electorate. In the last several years State and Federal highways have been built and they are excellent roads. Of course, neither the State highway nor the Federal highway is finished; only chunks of them have received attention. One chunk is State Highway 23, minus the Charlestown bypass, in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Charlestown. We are told that construction of the bypass will not commence until 2003. Four lanes of traffic have to merge into two lanes, then the road widens out to four lanes in the middle, and narrows once again to two lanes at the other end. The completion of State Highway 23 from Shortland to Sandgate is dependent on construction of the Charlestown bypass. The earliest that one could expect work on the completion of the highway to commence would be 2005.

State Highway 23 represents $57 million worth of road, four lanes, magnificent surfaces, beautiful bypasses and overpasses, but very poor soundproofing. The reason for that poor soundproofing is that during the construction phase the department saw fit to increase the level of decibels at which it became necessary to provide soundproofing. People were promised one thing when the work
Page 578
started, but when the crunch came and the road was finally finished the decibel rating had been increased. Now a massive argument is raging about how to provide soundproofing so that these residents can enjoy a reasonable lifestyle. A new highway should not destroy the amenities of life; it should improve them. State Highway 23 is an excellent road in some areas, but in the rough areas it is really rough. The battle will continue to try to redress the problems.

There are also problems on Lenaghans Drive and John Renshaw Drive, not to mention complaints about increased traffic flows and resultant increased noise on the New England Highway at Tarro. A classic is Thomas Street on the western side of Lake Road where a new connector has been built between the city access and the motorway. The Roads and Traffic Authority has had to erect nine-feet high brick walls alongside residences in an effort to restrict the noise. These walls are not just a few feet in length. They are hundreds of metres long, but they are not working. The Roads and Traffic Authority and the Minister must set about fixing this problem. The road is just not good enough the way it is.

I now transfer my concern to statements made by the Governor in relation to his Government's health policy. Health is disposed of in four paragraphs of this document. As the honourable member for Oxley said, health is the biggest single spending unit within the Government's Budget. He said that it would be great to see mid-North Coast hospitals improved so that they could take the load off transfers to Newcastle. I do not disagree with that: I think that is great. Many patients are transferred to Newcastle; the new John Hunter Hospital attracts them. Ours is a caring community that is happy to accept sick people and help them, even if that is at the momentary expense of some delay in having local people treated.

For cancer treatment the region has two linear accelerators. One will go out of service soon and will not be operative for at least four months. Linear accelerators treat cancer in all forms. Half of the patient throughput is from referrals from the North Coast - up to the Queensland border - and from the Central Coast and down to Gosford. When that first machine goes down, the second machine will be kept operating for up to 11 hours a day. Honourable members can imagine the stress and strain on staff; imagine the stress and strain on the machine.

If the second machine breaks down while the first machine is shut down for maintenance, an entire population of partially treated people will have their treatment interrupted absolutely, or they will be sent to Sydney - as happened in the olden days. Those patients will have to be carried to the station and carried to taxis, and it is likely that they will vomit on the trains. This situation is almost immoral and something must be done. A standby machine is required in the Hunter. The facility is there to take it; there is room to build the additional bunker and money will be raised by the community. A significant amount is available already from various fund raising groups to pay for the capital cost of the unit itself.

A commitment is needed from the Government to instal another machine soon and to maintain and increase the recurrent funding so that there will be sufficient staff to operate a third unit as a standby unit for some months of the year. It would be wonderful to be able to treat more people, but that is not possible. On 9 March the Newcastle Herald carried the headline, "Surgery suffers as specialist doctors walk out". The John Hunter Hospital has had to cancel three to four operating sessions each week, and a session is four hours long. A hospital with 10 operating wards simply cannot maintain its staff. What is wrong? Why is there not sufficient funding to allow that brand new hospital to function properly? It is a disaster! I have no doubt that it is of great concern to the university's medical school and to the community generally, and in particular to the doctors in that specialty. [Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [8.16]: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Address-in-Reply debate. I congratulate His Excellency the Governor on the extension of his term. I had the privilege of hosting a visit to the Ballina electorate by His Excellency and Mrs Sinclair last year. I am looking forward very much to the next visit on 20 May when the Governor and Mrs Sinclair will come to Brunswick Heads to open the new Brunswick Valley Community Centre. The Speech delivered by His Excellency at the commencement of this parliamentary session outlined the Government's program for the year.

A significant aspect of the Liberal Party-National Party Government program is that it will continue the unequalled commitment to further reform of every facet of Government operations, and it is a program about people, about values and about community. Central to these values is the family. In this the International Year of the Family it is time we shouted from the rooftops our commitment to family values. Being part of a family teaches us the significance of basic values: trust, respect, tolerance, reliability, honesty and a genuine feeling for the needs of others. In a sense, the family is a microcosm of society. Families are about relationships, about moulding character, about developing mutual respect, commitment and support - in fact, the very things that go to building a strong and cohesive Australian society. I believe that it is important for governments to talk about the values for which they stand and which they seek to encourage. It is from one's instinct to care about things beyond self-interest that one's ability to achieve material progress and social justice are fashioned.

If we can raise children to be self-confident yet conscious of the needs of others, we will be well on the way to creating a better and more responsible society. In a society where drugs, pornography, media violence and insensitivity are lamentable realities, our best defence is to nurture confident individuals whose sense of fairness, responsibility and respect for others is at the very heart of our community. This setting of human values and principles as the foundation for the Government's
Page 579
reform agenda is the most refreshing aspect of the program outlined by the Governor. At the end of the day, however, the people of New South Wales will want evidence that our values, our principles and our policies have turned into tangible results. They will want better schools, better roads, cleaner water, better medical services, cleaner air, safer streets, cheaper electricity and so on. I believe that this Government has a tremendous record of achievement in all these areas and deserves to be recognised as the Government in Australia that is at the forefront of making government and its agencies more accountable to the people and delivering better and more cost-effective services to its customers.

The philosophy of the Government is not economic reform for its own sake. The Government's reform of State Government departments and agencies has always been focused on the customers, on the consumers and on the taxpayers of the State. In essence the Government wants to concentrate on core government activity and deliver better government services at less cost to the people of New South Wales. More efficiently run government trading enterprises, for example Pacific Power, enable dividends to be paid to government, which, in turn, can be distributed to core activities such as education and health. It is worth noting that Pacific Power has lifted its efficiency to the point where industry has received two cuts of almost 10 per cent in the price of electric power in the past eight months, thereby reducing business costs and increasing employment across the State.

The Government's reform program on GTEs is the envy of other States. For example, since assuming office the Government has reduced GTE debt by almost 40 per cent in real terms. At the same time GTE charges have risen by 12 per cent, less than the inflation rate for the same period. Not only has the outer budget sector seen improved efficiency and performance under the Government, but the major reforms in education and health, in particular, have delivered lasting benefits to the State. The schools renewal program, commenced in 1989 with an emphasis on excellence and equity, is in its concluding stages. I especially welcome the new emphasis on grammar. The ability to communicate the written and spoken work in a sophisticated society considerably enhances a child's ability to pursue a successful career path and fully develop his or her potential.

In addition, the learning environment has seen many positive changes over the past five years. For example, the capital works program for schools in my electorate has been nothing short of spectacular. During the past six years in the Ballina electorate the Government has built new schools at East Ballina - Southern Cross School - and Ocean Shores. It has redeveloped Ballina primary school and is currently in the process of building new schools at Wollongbar and Clunes, as well as stage two of Alstonville High School and a new high school at Ballina, which will link up with the existing primary school and become the first K-12 school on the North Coast. A high school at Ballina was something that the Labor Government consistently refused to build when it had the opportunity and when the need was great. I am very pleased that it is going ahead and that it will be completed by the end of this year.

In addition, almost every school in my electorate has received an upgrading of some sort, the most recent being an $800,000 upgrade of Mullumbimby High School. All in all, the coalition Government will have spent about $30 million on upgrading or building new schools in my electorate since I was elected the National Party member in 1988. I am immensely proud of these achievements because I believe there is probably nothing more important the Government can do for people than to give them the opportunity to receive a good education and, of course, to be properly looked after when they are sick.

In the health area, again the Government has an excellent record on the North Coast. First, the implementation of the new resource allocation formula will better distribute funds to areas with higher health needs, such as the North Coast, which has a higher proportion of retired and elderly people than the State average. Second, planning for the redevelopment of the hospital at Byron Bay is well advanced and construction will commence soon. The redevelopment should be completed by about March 1995 and it will incorporate a community health centre. I am sure that those who are involved in community health in the community of Byron Bay are very pleased about it because they will have not only twice the floor space for community health that they have now but it will be attached to the main hospital, and will be a more integrated set-up in terms of providing health care generally.

I am hopeful also that the Government will be able to redevelop the oldest sections of Ballina Hospital in the near future, bearing in mind that it has already spent more than $500,000 to create a highly functional and necessary community health centre there. Mullumbimby and District War Memorial Hospital and Byron Hospital now both have local advisory boards under the new district health structure. The new Richmond District Health Board is operating successfully, administering a budget of $101 million in recurrent expenditure - a massive increase from the bad old days under the previous Labor Government. However, there will be a continuing demand in the health portfolio in my electorate and it is pleasing to see that the Government will continue its emphasis on community health care as a means of promoting good health and preventing the development of illness. Prevention is always better than cure and I commend the Government for the direction it is taking.

However I am concerned about the provision of obstetric services at Ballina District Hospital, an issue I raised in the House last week. I believe it is essential for the Medicare rebate for prenatal, delivery and post natal care to be increased significantly to provide some incentive for doctors to be involved in obstetrics. I call on the Federal Government to act on
Page 580
this issue as a matter of urgency. The related question of rising insurance premiums for general practitioners who practise obstetrics is of great concern also and is, no doubt, a factor in the looming crisis in obstetric care, which I believe could bedevil all country hospitals in New South Wales and possibly the whole health system. I was very pleased to hear the New South Wales Minister for Health say, in answer to a private member's statement I made last week on this issue, that he has already spoken to the Federal Minister for Health and that discussions are taking place in an endeavour to produce a sensible and co-operative approach to the problem.

I should now like to speak briefly about roads. It is heartening to note that the horrific road toll of the 1980s has been substantially reduced in recent years, with the 1992 record low of 649 being reduced further in 1993 to 587. It is still 587 too many, but the trend is very encouraging. Therefore, I am pleased that the Government will continue with its publicity campaigns warning drivers of the dangers of fatigue, speeding and drink-driving in the coming year, which will help to keep road safety at the forefront of community awareness. Significant improvements in the State's roads have been a factor in reducing the road toll - it is not the only factor, but it is a significant factor. In my electorate the Government has completed the Ballina cutting project on the Bruxner Highway at a cost of more than $6 million. This project sat idle for more than five years under the previous Labor Government. It completed about $300,000 or $400,000 worth of work, then let it sit for five years, in which time absolutely nothing was done until the coalition Government came to office and completed the project in less than six years. The effect of building that road is that a very dangerous and winding section of the Bruxner Highway has been eliminated and replaced with basically a straight, three-lane road.

The $25 million State funded Bangalow bypass should be completed this year - testimony to the success of the Government's 3 x 3 program. Funding for the Brunswick Heads bypass has been approved and I expect construction to commence later this year or early next year, depending on the planning and land acquisition considerations. Recently the Government constructed an additional passing lane on Springvale Hill at a cost of $800,000, spent more than $1 million on the Pacific Highway at West Ballina and constructed numerous passing lanes on the Pacific Highway in my electorate, the two most recent being at St Helena and Tyagarah. All these projects are tangible evidence of a government that is genuinely concerned to improve the lot of the people on the North Coast of New South Wales. All these projects were pipedreams under the previous Labor administration. It did not need the North Coast seats to stay in government and it ignored them for 12 years. I do not believe that the people of the North Coast will forget that that occurred.

Not only is the Government improving the roads, it is also upgrading the rail system. Wherever possible the Government is endeavouring to get traffic off the roads and on to the rail system. It is very interesting to note that 2,000 fewer semitrailers travel on North Coast roads because of a sugar and cement haulage contract won by Freight Rail. The Government has introduced also the new XPT sleeper cars on the Murwillumbah and Brisbane lines, which have proved to be very popular. Last September, with other members of the Chamber, it was my pleasure to represent the Ballina electorate at the international passenger terminal at Circular Quay for the announcement of the winning bid for the year 2000 Olympic Games. The atmosphere prior to the announcement was quite tense. I do not think the Government was too optimistic that Sydney would win the bid, but when the announcement was made I can assure honourable members that the atmosphere was electric - a tremendous feeling of success.

The Government's successful bid has not only brought international attention to Sydney and Australia, but the winning campaign has engendered a new air of confidence in the whole country, which is bringing enduring benefits in employment, tourism and investment to the New South Wales economy. The State Government deserves a tremendous amount of praise for winning the Olympic Games bid and I congratulate all those who have been involved. Following on the heels of that great win, it was very encouraging yesterday to hear the Premier announce that there has been a tremendous boost to tourism, employment and retail sales in New South Wales.

According to a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Australia is experiencing a fantastic rate of growth in tourism, much higher than that of other OECD countries. For example, arrivals and receipts have increased by 16 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. Tourism is now generating $8.1 billion for the New South Wales economy. My electorate is a beneficiary of the boom in tourism and will continue to be a beneficiary as we approach the Olympics in the year 2000. However, I emphasise that though we are looking for the tourist dollar, we want tourism on our terms; tourism that will not destroy the environment and is compatible with what I believe is the most beautiful area in Australia. The locality around Byron Bay, Ballina and the hinterland will become the most popular non-metropolitan area for tourism into the twenty-first century.

A positive example of the New South Wales economy experiencing strong growth is that retail sales are currently running at twice the national average and twice those of Queensland. It is refreshing to learn that New South Wales is way ahead of Queensland in that regard. The reforms and tough decisions taken by the Government over the past five years have meant that as the economy improves, benefits will not be lost to a bloated bureaucracy. Inevitably the Government will receive extra funding as the State recovers from the recession, and these funds will go towards improving services. More efficient organisations are in place to deliver those services and the dollars will not be gobbled up through inefficiency and waste.

Page 581

I wish to refer briefly to law and order in my electorate. Law and order concerns all honourable members. It is pleasing that in the five years I have been a member of Parliament the number of police in Ballina, Byron Bay and other areas has significantly increased. Ballina police station was converted to a 24-hour police station and its staff complement has increased from 17 to 36 - a move warmly welcomed by local residents. When I was elected to office Byron Bay had 10 police officers; it now has 21, although it does not have a 24-hour police station. Those who keep pace with the media will be aware that Byron Bay experienced problems on New Year's Eve when a number of people, Queenslanders in the main, visited the area, in their words, to trash the town - a term I find totally abhorrent and obnoxious. The community has formed a committee to initiate a series of measures to avoid a similar occurrence next year.

I am pleased that Alstonville has been provided with an additional police officer. An additional officer is now stationed at Mullumbimby. Though my electorate has experienced a significant increase in police numbers, the issue needs to be monitored as further growth occurs. In particular, Byron Bay police station should be a 24-hour station all year round instead of only during the prime tourist time of December and January. A higher than average number of retired people reside on the North Coast, many of whom demand more services than are delivered through the home and community care program. I am sure honourable members support the concept of home and community care, that is, keeping people out of institutions for as long as possible and allowing them to remain in their homes. Many people with high levels of need are coming to the North Coast. When that occurs someone with a lower level of need drops off the bottom of the list - and this is occurring regularly with regard to home and community care. We should examine the concept of portability of hours so that when people move from one area to another they take their hours with them, particularly if they are high-need users. When someone with a 20-hour to 30-hour need migrates to the North Coast, those who require care for only one hour a week are affected.

I implore the Government to ensure that in the round 10 funding that will be announced shortly every effort is made to ensure that the home and community care program is properly funded. Having said that, I realise that this Government has increased funding for the home and community care program by 400 per cent. That is a commendable performance. However, in my electorate, as with other growth areas, such funding needs to be monitored. I commend the Government for its performance, its emphasis on the family, and for including values in its reform agenda. The programs announced by the Governor are positive. I highlight the Government's wonderful record of achievement in the past five years in the Ballina electorate in the provision of education, health, roads and police. I thank all those who have contributed to that effort. My electorate is a high growth area. The urban planning strategy developed for the North Coast will provide guidance for the future. As this is the International Year of the Family, I take this opportunity to thank my wife, Morag, who has been a great support to me in the time that I have been a member of Parliament. Also, I thank my children for their understanding and tolerance in having a father who is a member of Parliament and is never at home. [Time expired.]

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [8.36]: I have great pleasure in replying to the Speech of the Governor, His Excellency Rear Admiral Peter Ross Sinclair, A.C. As I have done in the past I invited a number of close friends to witness the opening of Parliament by the Governor. Normally I would have invited my dear mother, but on this occasion she was in hospital with a broken hip. I invited Antoinette Chapman and Xiao Jig Wang, two very dear friends of mine. They were impressed by the proceedings. However, later at the reception they expressed disappointment, as indeed I did, that though the reception was well catered for, it was segregated. There was a VIP section and a section for backbench members - or the common folk. Respectfully my friends asked where the Governor, the Premier, and Ministers of the Crown were; they wanted to mingle with those people. I draw this matter to the attention of the Speaker and the President for their consideration because I do not think there is a need to segregate members of this House on such a day.

In his Speech, which was prepared by the Government, the Governor referred to the recent bushfires that devastated and ravaged New South Wales. The people of my area and those in the west usually envy those who live in the leafier suburbs of this State. However, on this occasion they had total sympathy with the residents of Chatswood, Narrabeen, Turramurra, Terrey Hills, Cowan, Mount White, Ku-ring-gai National Park, Berowra, Menai, Sutherland, Jannali, Bundeena, and the Royal National Park. I am proud of efforts made by the multicultural mix of my electorate of Cabramatta to provide aid to those people who suffered loss as a result of the bushfires. I took part in launching an appeal to raise funds for that purpose, and the response was fantastic.

Two people from the Chinese community who were a driving force in raising bushfire relief funds were Dr Hoc Ku Huynh and Dennis Duong. David Giang, from the Sunrise newspaper, assisted to organise a dance which raised $3,000 in one night. The Asian community of Cabramatta raised of the order of $35,000 towards the bushfire appeal. Additional money came from other organisations in Cabramatta. I know that the Mount Pritchard Community Club started a fund raising campaign which raised well over $10,000. Many other organisations of various nationalities made donations. I was proud of the way the Cabramatta community assisted those in need. No one has described a bushfire better than H. G. Wells. He said:

A bush fire is not an orderly invader, but a guerilla. It advances by rushes, by little venomous tongues of fire in the grass; it spreads by sparks burning leaves and bark. Its

Page 582
front is miles deep. It is here, it is there, like a swarm of venomous wasps. It shams dead and stabs you in the back. It encircles you so that there is no sure line of flight for its intended victims. It destroys bridges in your rear. It bars the road with blazing trees.

I thank those who responded to the bushfire appeals and I sympathise with those who suffered a great deal, who became homeless and who lost loved ones as they tried to quell the fires. The Governor mentioned family and community services. He announced that there will be special initiatives in this area and that an advisory committee will be established to consult widely on family issues. Home and community care funding is particularly important for my electorate and other electorates in the west.

I have been advised that as a result of the New South Wales State Budget no funds are available under the HACC program to fund new programs or to expand existing programs across all service types. This is the third year in a row that the State Government has failed to match Commonwealth funds for this purpose. Consequently, New South Wales will receive just $7 million in growth funds from round nine instead of $17 million. It appears that New South Wales has the lowest HACC funding growth level of all Australian States and Territories - just 2.4 per cent. I am informed that most of this money will be used to cover mismanaged home care superannuation funds, $5.7 million, and an indexation cost of $1.41 million.

I urge the Government to give every support it can to HACC funding, particularly in the western and southwestern areas. I also bring to the attention of the House the growing need of the elderly in the Cabramatta electorate, particularly the elderly in the Asian community who are new to the area. There is a growing mass of elderly Asian people in the Cabramatta area. The Australian Chinese Descendants Mutual Association is attempting to build an aged hostel, as are the Indo-China Chinese Association and a South American group. Early migrants to the Cabramatta area, such as the Italians, Russians, Croatians and Serbians, have established retirement hostels. However, the last wave of migrants to the area are experiencing some difficulty in this regard. Although the Federal Government has recognised the need, and I think the State Government has also injected some funds for this purpose, the local organisations still need to raise a lot of money. It will be a long time before they are able to adequately cater for the needs of their elderly.

Education and training are referred to on page 3 of the Governor's Speech. Though His Excellency spoke in glowing terms about what the Government is doing, there is still a great need to increase teaching staff in this State, to bring in programs to improve literacy and numeracy in primary schools, to look at increased training in computer education, and to monitor teacher quality. The Governor's Speech referred to tourism and mentioned an unprecedented additional $8.2 million allocation to the New South Wales Tourism Commission in 1993-94. That money is being used to stimulate growth in the domestic and international tourism market for New South Wales. I know that there has been a huge increase in the tourism promotion budget. I also note that the Commonwealth Government has forecast that 20 per cent of all new jobs created in the next decade will be in tourism.

It is also worth noting that of the high number of tourists coming to Australia, New South Wales is regarded as a major destination. In 1992-93 there were 18.3 million domestic overnight visits and 1.7 million international visits to New South Wales, and these generated $8.1 billion in gross expenditure. Of this total expenditure $4.7 billion, or 59 per cent, is attributed to domestic tourism and $3.3 billion, or 41 per cent, is attributed to international tourism. Official figures show that for every 80 international tourists one new job is created, and for every 177 domestic tourists one new job is created.

The Cabramatta electorate, particularly the Cabramatta town centre, has a well-organised tourist association. It is now preparing a five-year plan. It is looking at consolidating its resources to develop Cabramatta's tourist potential. Cabramatta has a large intake of domestic tourists. The result of a recent pedestrian count in the John Street area, the main street of Cabramatta, was 146,000 people - comparable with counts taken in the Parramatta mall and the Bondi Junction mall.

Cabramatta, with its high unemployment, needs tourism to create jobs. It has three main obstacles to that. The first is local government. The local council needs to do a great deal more about cleaning, parking and infrastructure for tourism. Though crime in the area has decreased substantially, much more must be done in that regard. We also need an injection of funds from the Federal Government and the State Government to assist with other programs. I have referred to the law and order problem in Cabramatta on a number of occasions in this House. The Governor said in his Speech that the Government had embarked on a comprehensive reform program designed to make the Police Service more efficient, more open and more accountable. That is important. Last year Cabramatta had an increase in police numbers. The beat patrol was increased substantially.

Unfortunately, there are no visible signs in 1994 of a downturn in street crime or house burglary. Statistics suggest such a downturn, but residents are aware of many unreported burglaries and believe the crime rate to be as bad as it was last year. A strategy needs to be developed for local police to examine the peculiar situation of Cabramatta and its problems. For many years Cabramatta's 2166 postcode, like some other postcodes, has been given a high risk designation by insurance companies. Residents in those areas suffer a penalty rate on their insurance premiums. I have written to the Minister for Police more than once recently advising him that something should be done about Cabramatta's high risk designation, which costs the community a lot of money. Every Cabramatta householder pays an extra insurance levy because of that designation. Every
Page 583
person who insures a vehicle pays an extra insurance levy. The Government and the Police Service should acknowledge that and do something about it. I do not want my constituents to have to accept that designation for another 10 years. The nexus must be broken. I am concerned that those who manage the police force of this State sit back and allow high risk designated postcode areas. The problem should be targeted as soon as possible and something ought to be done about it.

The Governor spoke in his Speech of the need for protection of the environment, the Pollution Control Act, Clean Waters Act and other aspects of the waterways program. The flat rate water charge and the approximate 200 per cent increase in that rate have shocked many residents of Cabramatta. However, no incentive has been given to save water. Jacqueline Tarabay, of 31 Holden Street, Bonnyrigg, wrote to me saying she is an average mother in the district, probably fairly representative of normal housewives, raising a family and trying to make ends meet. She questioned the increase in water rates. She asked me to question whether the Premier knows that housewives such as herself, with children, in her case with a new baby in the house, and washing one to two dozen nappies each day, use a considerable amount of water. She says she does not believe the Government understands the effect the increase in the price of water will have on people like her in Cabramatta.

Urban renewal and infrastructure development were referred to in the Governor's Speech. I shall list Cabramatta's needs. Cabramatta Road needs extensive work as a priority. It is coming along slowly. Elizabeth Drive needs widening. The intersection of Woodville Road and the Hume Highway needs an underpass and an overpass. A pedestrian bridge is needed on the Cumberland Highway outside Canley Heights Public School. Extra flood mitigation work needs to be undertaken in the area. Public housing, for which there is a long waiting list, needs to be increased. The Canley Vale rail overpass needs total modification. A new set of traffic lights needs to be installed at the intersection of Bonnyrigg Avenue and Elizabeth Drive. A pedestrian way and bus terminal need to be designed and constructed at Cabramatta station. The town centre needs a tourist information centre. Canley Vale Road, to the west, needs widening by two lanes. I hope the Government will consider that work as a priority for the future.

The Fairfield area home modification and service section needs an injection of more funds. That service has a very long waiting list and does an excellent job. That service does about 15 to 20 jobs a month and has a waiting list of about 27 people, some with low priority and some with high priority. Many of those jobs will enable people to leave hospital, go to their homes and look after themselves. Some of the work involves rails to help people who have been injured. [Time expired.]

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [8.56]: It is with great pleasure that I speak to the Address in Reply to the Speech of the Governor, Rear Admiral Sinclair, on 1 March. I am heartened to be speaking to such a large gathering in this House and in the press gallery. I pay great credit to the Governor for the outstanding job he has been doing. I am particularly pleased that the Premier of New South Wales has granted the Governor an extension of his term. The Governor has an excellent understanding of issues that affect rural New South Wales. He has a real feeling for country people and the problems they are experiencing. No doubt he has a similar affinity for people living in the metropolitan areas. I compliment him on the service he has given to the State of New South Wales and I also compliment his wife. I agree with the remarks of the honourable member for Cabramatta about the segregation that occurred on 1 March at the opening of Parliament between the Governor and many members of Parliament and their guests. I agree with him that what happened should be looked into, because it did not send a correct message.

I wish to address law and order, regional development, the environment and social issues that impact on the Tamworth electorate and the State. Environmental issues concern many people. Following the recent outbreak of vicious bushfires we witnessed political games with wilderness areas, the Wilderness Act and other environmental issues. I compliment the Government on its environmental efforts over the past year. Not all have been negative. Action has been taken to deal with urban issues that are hard to solve, the blue-green algae problem in the country river systems, sewage outlet problems in country communities and the greater metropolitan areas. Progress has been made on a number of levels. Although it might not be as fast as some people would like, we are still coming out of a recession. Since the last Address-in-Reply debate I have been pleased to see the re-creation, in a sense, of the former Soil Conservation Service in a ministry incorporating responsibility for land and water. This resourced based ministry can deal with the totality of environmental problems in a catchment. In the past there was division, duplication of services and a loss of direction among the variety of bureaucratic bodies which dealt with environmental issues within catchments. I compliment the Minister for Land and Water Conservation on the role he has played in this progressive move, and the Government for its initiatives.

I am opposed to the strict interpretation of wilderness within the Wilderness Act. Since a particular burnt offering was given to the people of New South Wales just before Christmas a number of things have happened that have caused people to learn more about what the Wilderness Act means in its strictest interpretation, what wilderness means to the Australian bush and the ramifications of the removal of human management from the Australian bushland. This has been shown by the nasty fires around Sydney and in other areas of the State. I was a member of a
Page 584
local bushfire brigade for some years and fought a number of bushfires, but not of the extremes seen around Sydney. I am only too well aware of the damage caused by bushfires to structures, the environment, and occasionally to people. Those lessons are to be learned by all of us, irrespective of the political agendas we might be trying to push and the marginal seats we might be trying to win. But, in the end, there must be management of these most beautiful areas of New South Wales.

Although in the wilderness debate over the past few months there has been a degree of bitterness there has been also a growing understanding of how the Australian bush evolved, man's role in that, and the political nature of the Wilderness Ac