Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 4 May 1994, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.



Mr CARR: I direct a question without notice to the Premier. Does the Premier recall a matter that was raised in Parliament last November in which police were accused of not pursuing a child sexual assault allegation? Is there now a police internal affairs report about that matter? Does it reveal that Detective Sergeant Gaspert of Katoomba police failed to properly investigate the allegation and was untruthful during the internal affairs investigation?

Mr FAHEY: I have said on a number of occasions in this House that if details of any particular portfolio area are required, they should be directed to the appropriate Minister. I should have thought that if the Leader of the Opposition were serious about obtaining an answer to his question - and it seems to have some serious implications - he would have directed it to the appropriate Minister. And, of course, the appropriate Minister in this regard is the Minister for Police.


Mr MERTON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads. Is it a fact that the latest survey of rail commuters has shown an increase in demand for off-peak services? Will the Government schedule extra trains to meet this demand?

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

Mr BAIRD: I am glad that the honourable member for Baulkham Hills is seeking information on a genuine survey - a survey carried out by the independent AGB McNair group, rather than the shonky surveys carried out by members opposite.

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

Mr BAIRD: The honourable member for Mount Druitt loves to roll them out almost biannually.

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

Mr BAIRD: A letter in a local Gladesville newspaper from a Mr Ken Hubert stated:

Dear Sir,

Last year we received and answered a letter boxed circular from the Labor Party which asked for our opinion of transport in this district.

As yet we have not seen any report on the findings of this survey, nor any recommendations resulting from it.

He went on to say how excellent bus and ferry services are within the Gladesville area, and that he needs his car less and less. He concluded:

We feel that our State Transit Authority should be applauded for the reliable public transport network they provide.

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

Mr BAIRD: The Opposition puts out its shonky surveys. But even with these shonky surveys they could not make it -

Mr Carr: What are you talking about?

Mr BAIRD: Sit down!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order. I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order.

Mr BAIRD: The Leader of the Opposition has a newfound interest in public transport. When he was being searched for recently - just like Where's Wally - he suddenly came up with his front-page story about 24-hour stations.

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

Mr BAIRD: I have just two things to say about that. First, he had announced the story as part of his election policy for the 1991 election, so it was not really new. Second, trains cease running at 11 p.m. or midnight, and Nightride buses take over. The Leader of the Opposition wants railway stations manned 24 hours a day despite the fact that train services do not operate in the early hours of the morning. The results of the AGB McNair study are clear. The perception survey shows that CityRail receives high ratings in all the crucial areas: 69 per cent of commuters rated station cleanliness highly, 68 per cent said journey times were good, and 69 per cent said they received value for money on the railways. If a similar survey had been taken during the Labor years, I am sure the findings would be very different. I remind honourable members of the red rattlers that were operating at that time.

Page 1881

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

Mr BAIRD: With every feature - rolling-stock, on-time running, graffiti, announcements on stations - there has been a significant improvement.

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

Mr BAIRD: The surveys reflect improvement measured on a year-by-year basis. The continued upward trend shows that not only is the Government saving considerable funds compared with what the Opposition wasted when it was in government, but that consumers are satisfied with the results. The survey shows that 64 per cent of people rated the standard of carriages highly. In fact, 74 per cent of people said they were satisfied with the overall performance of State Rail, and that is a great credit to the employees of State Rail.

I might add that 59 per cent of those polled said that they rated our ticketing system highly, despite the continual knocking of the honourable member for Kogarah. He never knows where he is. One moment he is knocking the system and the next moment he is writing to us saying, "Our Government started the automatic ticketing system in the first place. A previous Premier came up with the idea of automatic ticketing". We never know where members of the Opposition are from day to day, but our consumers have said that our ticketing system is working well. On average, at some stations there is a 31 per cent increase in revenue as a result of the automatic ticketing machines.

As a result of the survey the demand for off-peak services was clear. Today I am able to announce that from 1 July there will be a significant improvement in off-peak services. CityRail has identified a number of regions where extra services are warranted, including the Penrith, Riverstone, Blacktown, main northern and Bankstown lines. This just proves that the Government is best for the west. From 1 July we will provide a 15-minute frequency service between Blacktown and St Marys and Penrith as opposed to the existing 30-minute service. I can see the honourable member for Penrith smiling, so I know she is pleased with this announcement, as are the honourable member for Mount Druitt, the honourable member for Blacktown and the honourable member for St Marys. Everyday there will be about 11,000 additional seats for the people of Sydney's western suburbs. I am pleased to say that services on the Richmond line will also increase. People will be encouraged to use public transport to and from the major residential and business centres of Penrith, St Marys, Mount Druitt and Parramatta.

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

Mr BAIRD: Five additional weekday off-peak services will also run between Riverstone and Blacktown, providing an additional 4,000 seats.

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

Mr BAIRD: I am sure the honourable member for Riverstone will put out a press release congratulating the Government on this announcement. Further, three new services will run on the main northern line from Hornsby to the city via Strathfield after the morning peak. With the growing number of attractions in the city the Government has also agreed to increase off-peak services on the weekends. CityRail will run trains every 15 minutes from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the Liverpool via Fairfield line. This Government is doing it better for the honourable member for Liverpool than his leader did. Service frequency will also be boosted on the Bankstown to city line in both directions during high demand periods on Saturdays and Sundays.

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

Mr BAIRD: I am pleased that the honourable member for Bankstown is nodding his head in agreement. This Government gets it right for the people of the west.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr BAIRD: Weekend services between Gordon and the city will also be increased from four to six an hour between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. In other words, the consumer surveys show that this Government is getting it right for commuters who use State Rail every day. What is more, this Government is making services better. This announcement concerning improved off-peak services will be welcomed by all members of this House, particularly Opposition members.


Dr REFSHAUGE: Will the Premier confirm that Detective Sergeant Gaspert, severely criticised in an internal affairs report, is chief of detectives on the Katoomba police patrol, responsible for investigating the Pascoe threats and the Blue Mountains City Council bombing?

Mr FAHEY: I have said on a number of occasions that matters relating to police inquiries are not matters that I should know anything about.

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

Mr FAHEY: I have full confidence that the police, without fear or favour, will investigate that matter and act appropriately in due course.


Mr ZAMMIT: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer and Minister for the Arts. What is the latest advice that the Minister has received
Page 1882
on the performance of the New South Wales economy in comparison with the performances of other States? How does this compare with recent reports by certain organisations on the State's economic and financial performance?

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member's question is timely. The latest advice I have received on the performance of the New South Wales economy again is extremely positive. It shows that New South Wales has the lowest inflation rate of any Australian State. In the year to March, Sydney prices rose by just 0.8 per cent. The next best performer could manage only 1.6 per cent - twice the New South Wales rate.

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

Mr COLLINS: This dispels the lies peddled by the Opposition that government charges in New South Wales are high. Opposition members know that government charges are a major component of the inflation figure, and New South Wales has the lowest inflation rate in Australia. The "Interstate Comparison of Economic Indicators for April" released by New South Wales Treasury shows that New South Wales also has the highest employment growth rate of any State. Employment grew by 3.9 per cent in New South Wales in the year to March. The next best performer, Queensland, had a 3 per cent growth rate, while the average growth for the five States was only 1.6 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order.

Mr COLLINS: Gross State product rose by 1.9 per cent in New South Wales in the December quarter compared with a national average of 1.2 per cent. These are the key indicators that are used to gauge a State's economic performance. Last week, a six-monthly survey of economists by Price Waterhouse and the University of New South Wales also found that the State's economic and employment growth prospects were sustainable over the next five years. On the financial side honourable members would be aware that the 1993-94 New South Wales budget deficit is now expected to be, at the most, $690 million - a 20 per cent improvement on the original forecast and a 30 per cent reduction on last year's deficit. This is being achieved without any of the accounting tricks to which some other States are resorting. On top of this we have had our triple-A credit rating confirmed again by two of the world's leading rating agencies, Moody's Investment Service and Standard and Poor's.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to order. I call the honourable member for Smithfield to order for the second time.

Mr COLLINS: It is quite clear that New South Wales is leading Australia out of recession. It will be difficult to come up with a more impressive report card on the State's economic performance. But the message is not sinking in for members of the Opposition or, for that matter, their mates in the Evatt Foundation, which the Minister for the Environment referred to yesterday. To that foundation, New South Wales is the tall economic poppy that must be cut down. The Minister for the Environment said yesterday, and it is worth noting, that the original constitution of the Evatt Foundation stated, "Only current members of the ALP National Executive are eligible to become members of the Foundation".

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Premier to order.

Mr COLLINS: That says a lot about the Evatt Foundation, its findings and research capability.

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

Mr COLLINS: The President of the Evatt Foundation is that well-known economic guru some honourable members may remember from the Whitlam era, Tom Uren, a true master of economic theory. Also there are a few other objective people on the national board.

Mr Mills: Tom Uren had a wonderful war record.

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

Mr COLLINS: As the honourable member says, Tom Uren had a terrific war record, but a rotten ministerial record and no economic record whatever. What about the other people on the foundation? Honourable members have probably heard the name Michael Easson. He too is a member of the foundation. The foundation has some real winners.

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

Mr COLLINS: To make sure it has a bit of interstate balance Joan Kirner is a member of the Evatt Foundation. Joan Kirner really knows how to run an economy!

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

Mr COLLINS: Right into the ground! The foundation also has that failed former member Bob Debus as a member. The interesting thing about the Evatt Foundation is what it most admires. Who are the big winners for the Evatt Foundation?

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

Mr COLLINS: The big winners for the Evatt Foundation are the most subsidised areas this country has ever produced: the Australian Capital Territory - where the streets are paved with gold, Queensland and Western Australia are on the list above New South Wales. Taxpayers in New South Wales have been
Page 1883
paying for Queensland and Western Australia since Federation. The Opposition may be prepared to encourage that state of affairs, but honourable members on this side of the Chamber are not. We say enough is enough.

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

Mr COLLINS: One of the authors of the Evatt Foundation report, Dr Peter Botsman, also took to the radio to accuse the State Government of gilding the budget lily, misquoting our own Auditor-General in the process. The Auditor-General of New South Wales today advised me that he is at a loss to understand what Dr Botsman from the Evatt Foundation is talking about. Indeed, in a recent speech - and the Auditor-General when he feels like it can be quite critical of government process - the Auditor-General described as impressive the progress which has been made in public accounting standards in New South Wales. The Auditor-General of this State said:

These advances are impressive: more so because they have been achieved in the last six years or so. And I believe that the whole-of-government accounts for 1992-93 . . . are path-breaking reports.

The Evatt Foundation report also claims that New South Wales growth and employment performances have been particularly poor and that New South Wales is struggling with deficit and debt obligations. Members of the Evatt Foundation must have been asleep for the past six years because they have been describing what happened before the coalition Government came to office, not what has happened since. The other big lie the Opposition is peddling at the moment is the accusation that the Government is a big spender. This Government makes no apology whatever for spending in areas such as health, education, community services and law and order. What about the Opposition's spending commitments? The Leader of the Opposition wants to spend $2 billion to expand the capital works program. The Leader of the Opposition would also have to find a massive capital injection for the postponement of the State Bank sale, which the Opposition proposed. The interest bill on those two items alone would more than wipe out the improvement in the Government's budget deficit this year.

But Bankcard Bob has the solution. Every dollar spent, he says, is a dollar cut. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about cutting more than 10 per cent of budget expenditure - half the health budget - to fund two promises. That is how the ALP priorities stack up. The Evatt Foundation would probably give the Leader of the Opposition a standing ovation, not surprising when one looks at its composition. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to start selecting names from old pop charts to label the Government, then it is time he copped one for himself. He is "The Great Pretender". The Government is not the irresponsible spender, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition are the irresponsible spenders.

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

Mr COLLINS: A triple-A credit rating is not maintained by throwing money away. Governments do not achieve economic credentials of the type New South Wales can boast, or slash projected budgets by at least $200 million, without strong economic and financial management. This Government does not boast a net debt position which is the second lowest in the country - relative to gross State product - by allowing expenditure to blow out. All these games will be lost if the Opposition, with its big spending Bankcard mentality, were ever allowed control of the State's purse again.


Mr WHELAN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier and Minister for Economic Development. Within days of the 1992 Blue Mountains council bombing, did Councillor Carol Gaul report a telephone bomb threat against a constituent to Katoomba police? Is the Premier aware that when she subsequently contacted Katoomba police about the threat, they claimed to have no record of it? Was the officer she dealt with Detective Sergeant Gaspert?

Mr FAHEY: As I have indicated earlier on matters relating to police inquiries, any specifics ought to be directed to the appropriate Minister. I have no knowledge of the details of the inquiries in respect of that matter, any more than I have knowledge of the details of inquiries in relation to matters that have been raised in this House in respect of the honourable member for St Marys - and it is not appropriate that I should know. Clearly the Opposition is leading through the same tired old team. The honourable member for Campbelltown might get a guernsey, as he does every second day, but that is only to get him used to the frontbench seat that he will occupy soon when the honourable member for Liverpool vacates it.

As I have said on other occasions, if the Opposition has matters relating to police inquiries, matters relating to incidents in the Blue Mountains, it should give that information to the police. That offer has been made before. I presume the Opposition has made such information available to the police. The Opposition is stirring along in a manner that was criticised fairly heavily by a former Premier last weekend. He too has some association with the Evatt Foundation. He referred to trial by media and the sensationalising of matters to such an extent that the success of cases before the courts are put in jeopardy. I should have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have taken some notice of that. But then the Leader of the Opposition is not used to taking notice of the former Premier, Neville Wran, because he was given certain advice in relation to his dishonesty and deceit with regard to the Botanic Gardens. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition and the former Premier do not discuss these matters.

Page 1884

Dr KERNOHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health. What action is being taken to prevent breast cancer in New South Wales? In particular, is the Federal Government co-operating with New South Wales efforts to prevent this killer disease?

Mr PHILLIPS: The honourable member for Camden has asked an important question. This Government is committed to ensuring that, as big spending increases on health care occur in New South Wales, the additional funding goes towards those things that make the greatest improvement in health care for the community. One of the most important issues we must address is breast cancer, which is a major and increasing killer of women in this country. The Government can do a great deal to reduce the number of deaths caused by breast cancer. First, it can educate women about the need for regular examinations and screening; second, it can do more research into the disease; third, it can provide more mammography services and make them free for the high-risk target groups in the community; fourth, it can provide the treatment needed when the disease is detected; and, fifth, it can work on the best practices for treatment of breast cancer rather than the full range of available practices.

The Government, in partnership with the Federal Government, has been putting in place a new network of mammographic screening and treatment centres. It should be remembered that more women have been screened in New South Wales than have been screened in any other State. I should remind honourable members also that when the coalition parties came to office in 1988 there was no population based screening program. In 1988, thanks to the commitment of the former Minister for Health, Peter Collins, a pilot screening project was established at Rachel Forster Hospital in Sydney. That was followed in 1991 by the establishment of the Tamworth mammographic screening program and the Newcastle pilot program. All of this was happening at a time when health authorities all around the world were questioning whether this was an effective way to go. New South Wales was very much in the vanguard of pilot testing the screening program to determine whether it was an effective way of tackling this killer disease.

In 1994 we now have seven screening and assessment services which provide screening through 29 fixed and mobile screening sites. By the end of June this year we will have an additional seven screening facilities, bringing the total to 36. The rapid expansion of the program is well on track to achieving its goals, as can be seen from the rapid increase in the number of women being screened. By January almost 124,000 screenings had been completed since 1991. By the end of March the number had gone up to 149,000; and by the end of June this year it is anticipated that 210,000 screenings will have been completed, that is, an additional 86,000 screens over that period. The aim is to screen 300,000 women in the target age groups every year; therefore every two years 600,000 women will be screened. That is the timetable for screening of women in the high-risk groups, between the ages of 50 and 70. Women under those ages can be screened, but that is the target age group.

The programs cannot be put in place unless the money is available and the commitment is made. New South Wales has demonstrated that it has the commitment. Under the State plan, screening of that target group should be achieved by the end of the 1995-96 financial year. That is a tremendous public health program that the New South Wales Government is implementing, and it will have a real impact on the early detection of breast cancer in women, thereby saving lives. Congratulations should go to a particular member of this Parliament and his wife. I refer to the honourable member for Burrinjuck and his wife Gloria Schultz. Often members of Parliament ask for a variety of things for their electorates. That is fine. But every so often members say that they want things for their electorates and that the people of the electorate are prepared to work to get what they want. That certainly has been the attitude of the honourable member for Burrinjuck and his wife. They have raised $365,000 towards a mobile mammography screening program for women in the southwest of the State. They deserve congratulations on that tremendous effort. They did not simply ask the Government to do this or that. They said that they wanted help from the Government but were prepared to help themselves.

One of the difficulties with the breast cancer screening program is that the Federal Government agreed that it would fund the total capital cost of establishing screening centres and that the ongoing costs should be shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the State and Federal governments. The capital cost of putting the new centres in place is $5.8 million. Though the Federal Government made a commitment to fund the whole of the capital cost, the New South Wales Government is having extraordinary trouble getting it to provide its share of the funding. New South Wales could be left with a $2.4 million bill for the capital works. That money will have to come from other health funding. The Federal Government made the commitment to work with the State on this program but has not fulfilled that commitment. A high cost is involved in running the program.

Officers of my department are in the process of trying to recover the funds from the Federal Department of Health. This backing away by the Federal Government serves only to reinforce the impression that it is big on rhetoric about breast cancer but it is not big on action. A prime example is the decision made by the Premier to fund the establishment of a breast cancer institute in New South Wales. At the beginning of March the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister asking that the Federal Government provide funds for the institute to conduct research into the disease. The New South Wales Government is putting up the money to create the institute, the Federal Government said it would
Page 1885
contribute funds, but we are still waiting for funding for this important research. There has not been any response from the Prime Minister or the Federal Minister for Health on this key development, at a time when the Prime Minister's wife is parading around among media representatives telling them how much more needs to be done in regard to breast cancer. We are doing it and can do it faster, but we need the Federal Government, first, to live up to its commitment and, second, to put up the money instead of the rhetoric.

A national approach is the only way to tackle the problem of breast cancer. This is not a New South Wales issue; it is an Australian one. It is not good enough for the Federal Government to make promises about funding commitments for breast cancer research and then to back out. It is not good enough for the Federal Government to allocate only $1.5 million nationwide for breast cancer research and then not to provide any further funding for the breast cancer institute. What happened to the promise? Remember that the Prime Minister said that the Federal Government had a blank cheque-book for breast cancer funding. We are still waiting for the signature to go on the cheque. We want the funding to be committed. I call on the Federal Government to fulfil its part of the bargain and allow us to get on with the job.


Mrs GRUSOVIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier and Minister for Economic Development. Is the Director of Public Prosecutions now considering whether criminal proceedings should be brought against the perpetrator in the child sexual assault matter raised in the House last November. Is Detective Sergeant Gaspert to be reprimanded for his failure to properly investigate? Is a reprimand enough?

Mr FAHEY: I should inform the House, as I have in regard to many other matters concerning this same police officer, that details of his involvement, activities and operations on behalf of the police force are not known to me. I simply say again that if Opposition members were serious, they would ask the Minister for Police or the appropriate Minister about law enforcement or possible proceedings that might be contemplated by the Director of Public Prosecutions.


Mr RICHARDSON: I ask the Minister for the Environment a question without notice. Will he inform the House whether there is any basis to claims by the Local Government Association that there is a shortage of landfill sites in Sydney? What is the Government doing to achieve the target of 50 per cent reduction in waste going to landfill by the year 2000?

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for The Hills has had an ongoing interest in the environment and in environmental matters relating to his electorate. Today outside the Parliament we had the interesting spectacle of the Local Government Association day of rage on waste. What a tremendous success it was! Of the 400 councillors in the city of Sydney only 20 fronted. And what a collection they were! Let us have the roll call of honour. Vic Smith is well known to the honourable member for Bligh. He is the Australian Labor Party candidate for Bligh and the mayor of South Sydney. Vic was there waving his little placard. Dianne Beamer, the ALP mayor of Penrith and, coincidentally, the ALP candidate for Badgerys Creek, was there waving at the cameras.

Also present was Clyde Livingstone, who represents for the ALP that wonderful council in which my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives is so interested - Burwood. Clyde Livingstone is the king of Burwood, the ALP mayor of Burwood. Among them also was Debbie Jenkins, deputy mayor of Sutherland. We remember her because we read on the front page of the Daily Telegraph Mirror of her junket to Cairns. There they were, this roll call of the glitterati of the councils of Sydney, ALP mayors and councillors. What a bunch of failures they were!

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

Mr HARTCHER: They were saying, "I am standing for Parliament in 1995. I want to be on the news tonight". With them, of course, was Alderman Woods, the president of the Local Government Association of New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. I call the honourable member for Penrith to order.

Mr HARTCHER: Of the 400 councillors only 20 were present. Of the 42 councils only nine were represented. Once again it was a roll call of honour of councils such as Leichhardt.

Ms Nori: Hear! Hear!

Mr HARTCHER: Yes, let us hear it for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Port Jackson. I have referred to the representatives of Sutherland Shire Council, Genevieve and Paul. I mention also Randwick, Canterbury and Blacktown councils. Blacktown Council deserves special mention, not necessarily because it is represented here by my good friend the honourable member for Blacktown but because Blacktown Council, of all the councils in Sydney, is the most inefficient and expensive in waste collection.

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

Mr HARTCHER: In fact, it costs three times as much to pick up waste in Blacktown than in any other area in Sydney. That is an ALP specialty: it has all day labour, it is unionised, all the trucks have to be owned by councils and everyone has to sign on with a union ticket before they get the job. Blacktown Council is the good old-fashioned Labor council. I
Page 1886
also mention that excellent pillar of respectability, Marrickville Council. It was not so long ago that an ALP government had to sack Marrickville Council because it had so many brawls and too much violence.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Finally, I refer to Manly Council and Burwood Council. Burwood Council has become a pillar of respectability in local government in this State. If one wants to know what is happening, one goes to Burwood. These were the people waving at the cameras telling us all about government policy. That is interesting because government policy on waste management, in response to the joint select committee, has not been announced yet.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Manly should not worry because Manly Council was represented. I am sure the honourable member is active at Manly Council in explaining government policy. Government policy on waste has not yet been announced. The joint select committee has brought down its report and the Government is considering it.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Local government is so excited as it awaits the Government's decision that it has told the Government what its policy is. It asserts that Sydney is running out of landfill space, the Government is privatising waste services, garbage rates will double and recycling schemes will fail. These were all the messages being conveyed this afternoon. We should consider the facts - unlike the ALP which never lets the facts spoil a good story or a good smear - relating to recycling and waste management in Sydney. Two years ago Sydney faced a serious landfill problem. It had 5.3 years left of landfill space. Now, as a result of government policies - and the honourable member for Manly wishes to know what the Government is doing - Sydney has almost eight years of remaining landfill space and the Government has not had to open up a single new landfill area. That has been achieved by a massive program of waste reduction and recycling.

Mr Carr: That is right. Dump the Pickard papers.

Mr HARTCHER: The Leader of the Opposition, that well-known environmentalist interjects -

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

Mr HARTCHER: Under the Leader of the Opposition Sydney had a 33 per cent increase in the amount of waste it produced. It increased from 2.25 million tonnes to 3.3 million tonnes. That is what the Leader of the Opposition did about waste.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Waste has fallen from 3.3 million tonnes under the former Labor Government to 2.7 million tonnes under this Government. Waste going to landfill is being reduced by 7 per cent per year. In 1993 the total decrease was 19 per cent over previous years.

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

Mr HARTCHER: There is more landfill space and the waste crisis has been brought under control because of active waste management controls introduced by the Government. Not only did councillors parade outside the Parliament today but they also badgered their own councils into spending $16,000 on an advertisement hidden on page 21 of the Sydney Morning Herald. As well, they used council trucks and council property for their own political protest.

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

Mr HARTCHER: They are the ALP councillors who were prepared to instruct council officers to drive to Sydney in council trucks to make a political point. If ever waste has been demonstrated by the Labor Party, that exemplifies it. The waste stream continues to decline under the Government, and it will continue to decline under an active policy of recycling and reuse.

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

Mr HARTCHER: I wish to refer to a few simple facts about waste costs. The nine of 42 representatives from the Local Government Association that participated in the fiasco said that the Government will double garbage rates. Of course, garbage rates are set and collected by councils. As from 1 July councils will be free to make their own appropriate decisions, but 85 per cent of garbage rates are directly attributable to labour costs, machinery or contractor costs. These are the costs over which councils have control. Only 15 per cent of garbage costs are related to disposal of the garbage; that is, 85 per cent of the cost is under the control of the councils and the State Government has an influence on 15 per cent of garbage disposal costs. Any charges passed on to ratepayers occur in the 85 per cent of costs controlled by councils.

Sydney councils currently charge ratepayers more for waste management services than any other State capital. Sydney families are paying one-third more than people in Melbourne and double the charges paid in Adelaide. This illustrates the necessity for more efficiency by councils in the administration of their waste disposal. The Government has addressed that issue with its amendments to the Local Government Act. Under the Government's recycling policy and recycling rebate scheme, recycling has increased. I will provide that
Page 1887
figure for the benefit of the honourable member for Manly. Since 1981 recycling has increased by 74 per cent. I give him full credit because Manly Council is number one. North Sydney Council, Mosman Council and other Liberal councils are all at the top of the performers list.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Councils such as Blacktown Council and Campbelltown Council are way down on recycling targets.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order.

Mr HARTCHER: At present, each year the Government is achieving a 7 per cent reduction in waste going to landfill. If we are able to keep that up, that alone will achieve the Government's target of 50 per cent waste reduction by the year 2000. The Government is determined to introduce further proactive policies to reduce waste in this State, conscious of its determination to look after and protect the environment in every possible way.


Mr J. H. MURRAY: I direct my question without notice to the Premier and Minister for Economic Development. Will the Premier now accept that the failure of police to resolve the bombing of Blue Mountains City Council is a serious failure in solving a major crime? Will the Government hold a full independent inquiry into why police in two years have not been able to solve this matter?

Mr FAHEY: There are ongoing inquiries and I have full faith in the police to carry out those inquiries in respect of the Blue Mountains matter. The only matter I can recollect that I would describe as a failure of police to make inquiries to solve a particular problem related to Botany Council a few years ago.


Mr FRASER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Small Business and Minister for Regional Development. Will the Minister tell the House what effects last year's $467 million Federal Government capital works job creation scheme has had on the growth of long-term jobs in New South Wales?

Mr CHAPPELL: I thank the honourable member for his very timely question. Indications are that jobs for unemployed Australians are very much a top priority for the industry statement due for release this afternoon. As the Federal Government is responsible for the recession that savaged our economy it is not surprising that it feels bound to create jobs for the people it put out of work or for the young people it stripped of any hope of a job. The Federal Government has an unfortunate record of pouring money into job creation and training schemes for little result. One of its most disastrous efforts was also supposedly geared to stimulate economic growth, the now infamous local government capital works program. This scheme involved over $467 million being put into local government job creation schemes just before the last Federal election.

The scheme was intended to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. A recent study by the Centre for International Economics, as reported in last Thursday's Australian Financial Review, found that this scheme generated direct jobs for just over 2,000 people at a record cost of $285,801 per job. By anyone's reckoning, that is a big cost for creating jobs so young people can become expert at painting rocks white and laying pavements. The Federal Government was able to find this vast amount of money to go into largely marginal Federal seats just before the last election campaign.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr CHAPPELL: There can be no doubt that this scheme was a blatant case of pork-barrelling. In New South Wales the first round of offers in this scheme saw $20.7 million to National Party electorates, $4.3 million to Independent seats, $5 million to Liberal seats, and $75.6 million to Labor electorates.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. I call the honourable member for Hurstville to order.

Mr CHAPPELL: In the best tradition of the sports rorts fiasco, this scheme is now being investigated by the Federal Audit Office. The unemployment rate was supposed to be a key factor in deciding who got funds and who did not. Perhaps the Audit Office will be able to tell us why -

Mr Langton: On a point of order: a longstanding tradition of this House is that Ministers are required to answer questions that directly relate to their portfolio responsibilities. I submit that matters relating to administration of Federal Government departments have nothing to do with either the Minister or his department. The administration of Federal grants is not under the jurisdiction of this Minister. I ask that the question be ruled out of order and the Minister be asked to sit down.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would have thought that the honourable member for Kogarah, having been present in this Chamber on many occasions, would be aware of ample precedent for the way in which the Minister is answering the question. I rule the Minister to be in order.

Mr CHAPPELL: Perhaps the Audit Office will be able to tell us why an area like Kiama got over $300,000 even though it had about the same unemployment rate as over 105 other council areas in New South Wales that got nothing. To claim that this scheme did anything for regional development is a joke.

Page 1888

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

Mr CHAPPELL: The industry paper due for release this afternoon will see the Federal Government having another go at solving the unemployment problem. The simple fact is that the Federal Government cannot hope to make an impact on unemployment while it continues to ignore the fact that it must get off the back of small and medium sized business. If the Federal Government recognised this fastest growing sector of the economy and stimulated especially regional business by the release of vital infrastructure funds, then jobs would naturally occur. The whole nation is fed up with the Federal Government injecting huge funds into job creation schemes that give short-term employment and no hope, and with training schemes which train young Australians for jobs which do not exist.

In New South Wales the schemes administered by my department actively assisting small and medium businesses to improve their efficiency and expand have created and retained over 2,500 jobs for a cost of less than $10 million. This is real practical help and sustainable jobs - at the cost of $4,000 a job, not $285,801 a job. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the industry statement today. I, like every other taxpayer, have to hope that Mr Keating has left the politics out and really addressed the problems facing business both in the city and country areas.

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

Mr CHAPPELL: The Federal Government needs to focus on things such as access to capital and relief from Federal taxes and business oncosts. Those are the things that make a difference and can only be tackled by a committed Federal Government. I will soon be releasing a new strategy and a new scheme for assisting small business based specifically on giving small and medium business in New South Wales an even better chance. I am determined that this vital sector of our economy will get a chance to ride the wave of the recovery and create jobs that are the result of genuine business growth, not Government handouts and scheme that are more concerned with votes than employment. Our emphasis is on fostering economic activity, on promoting a vibrant economic climate, on building sustainable business, and on creating real jobs.

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

Mr CHAPPELL: We are not into making work schemes and job training schemes which train young people for jobs which simply do not exist. The Government hopes that today's announcement in Canberra will focus on real jobs for Australians.
[Notices of Motions]

Mr W. T. J. Murray: On a point of order: the notice of motion given by the honourable member for Rockdale includes substantial argument and I request that you rule it out of order.

Mr Langton: On the point of order: the motion framed by the honourable member for Rockdale was a clear statement of fact; there was no argument in it.

Mr W. T. J. Murray: Further to the point of order: the motion gives reasons why the matter should be debated. The honourable member should give notice of the motion and not the reasons.

Mr Thompson: On the point of order: the honourable member for Barwon is in grave error because the notice of motion does not contain argument. It commences with the words, "Views with grave concerns" and makes three statements of fact. There is no argument in that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order taken by the honourable member for Barwon does not have a great deal of merit. I will do as I have done on other occasions; that is, review this matter between now and the time it is placed on the business paper. If I have any concerns about the matter I shall take them up with the honourable member for Rockdale.


Mr Speaker, pursuant to sessional order, laid upon the table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed as at 4 May 1994.


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 a right turn arrow from Macarthur Street be added to the traffic lights at the corner of Macarthur and Thomas Streets Parramatta, received from Mr Langton.

Petition praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry.

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

Petition praying for an inquiry to investigate the continued deterioration of, and associated problems with, the Barwon-Darling Rivers System, received from Mr Beckroge.

Page 1889

Petition praying that the Government act to ensure that the health of older people does not suffer unnecessarily because of long public hospital waiting lists for vital treatment, received from Ms Moore.

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

Petition praying that Wyong Hospital be provided with a fully functioning obstetric and childbirthing facility, received from Mr Crittenden.

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

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

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


Bill read a third time.


Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown) [3.51]: I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 54, this House orders to be laid before it and made public without restricted access, at the commencement of business of the House on Tuesday, 10 May 1994 all documents which show the expenditure from 30 June 1993 to date on office fit-outs and refurbishments by all government departments and agencies.

The Fahey Government is becoming renowned for its profligate waste and propensity for spending taxpayers' money on its own indulgences rather than on the needs of taxpayers. Under Premier Fahey what should be the real priorities of any sensible government in New South Wales receive inadequate and scant attention. The sick linger on ever-increasing hospital waiting lists, schoolchildren are crammed into overcrowded and underresourced classes, motor vehicles crash or break down on inefficient roads, and decent citizens are harassed on the streets or robbed in their homes.

Mr West: On a point of order: debate on Standing Order 54 requires the honourable member who is moving the motion to produce argument as to why these documents should be tabled, and not a litany of debate in this House under the guise of an Address in Reply or a budget debate saying how the money should be spent on other things - indeed, on the papers the honourable member is seeking to have tabled. At this stage the honourable member is going through the shopping list of all the things he thinks the money should be spent on instead of office fitouts, rather than arguing why the standing order should be used for the tabling of those documents.

Mr Knight: On the point of order: were I to spend the entire speech doing what the Minister has accused me of doing, he would be correct in taking a point of order. However, there has always been some latitude for preamble in this House and I would hope that, like other members, I would be able to exercise that today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If there is any latitude allowing preamble to debate on a motion such as this, the honourable member for Campbelltown has probably exhausted it by now. I ask him to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr KNIGHT: The most pressing needs in our community fail to be addressed by the Government because it wastes taxpayers' hard-earned money on the wrong priorities, vested interests and sheer self-indulgence. As the well publicised song indicates, Premier Fahey is a big spender, but he spends on all the wrong things. There can be no better example of this waste of taxpayers' money than what the Fahey Government lavishes upon itself and fat cats in the senior executive service. In just two years the Fahey Government spent nearly $149 million on office refurbishment and fitouts. In 1991-92 the expenditure admitted by the Government was a staggering $74,736,271. Apparently embarrassed by the bad publicity which this expenditure attracted, the Government was more frugal in 1992-93. It cut back to $73,688,209.

Among the more notorious expenditures was that of the Sydney Water Board. At a time when the board is struggling to provide basic services to the people of Sydney, the Government spent $11 million on office fitouts and refurbishing. That scandalous waste of public money was admitted to by the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing as a result of questions I placed on the notice paper in this House. Now, unable to justify these wrongful expenditures, and fearful of the consequences of public exposure, the Premier has decided to draw a veil of secrecy over these types of expenditure.

My colleague in another place, the Hon. Michael Egan, last year sought information from each Minister on the estimated expenditure of office fitouts for the financial year 1993-94. Mr Egan did not even ask for the actual expenditure so far. He made it really easy for the Government by asking for the estimated expenditures - something that should have been able to be extracted from the internal budgets of each department and agency in a little more than the blink of an eye. Not a single Minister responded. They have learned a lesson from 1991-92 and 1992-93 that if the only story you have to tell is harmful you do not give out any information at all. On Christmas Eve - another botched Christmas present from the
Page 1890
Premier - the following answer was provided by the Premier, on behalf of his Ministers, to Michael Egan's legitimate questions:

The administrative cost involved in extracting the requested data is not justified by its public usefulness. Ministers and officials keep a close watch on expenditure on office fit-outs and refurbishments to ensure that they are no more costly than is essential to achieve occupational health and safety standards, and appropriate public convenience, and efficiency.

Let us look carefully at that answer. First, the Premier says the administrative cost involved in extracting the requested data is not justified by its public interest. Who is to be the judge of that? Certainly not the public. What would members of the public know about whether the Government was spending their money usefully? After all it is only their money. What a cynical and contemptuous response by the Premier to the people of New South Wales. Second, he said that Ministers and officials keep a close watch on expenditure on office fitouts and refurbishments and ensure they are no more costly than is essential. First, the public is not entitled to know; second, they do not need to know because the Ministers are such wonderful guardians of the public money. Who could doubt that?

Consider the obvious case: the Minister for Police. He jumps out from watching television in the back of his souped-up assault vehicle come ministerial car, and hops into the police helicopter to visit a Christmas party and hand out a few designer police watches. He is exactly the sort of Minister that we all know would be a tough and vigilant guardian of the public purse when it came to office refurbishment and his own personal comforts. We all have a mental picture of Terry Griffiths sitting on a fruit box behind his makeshift desk shielding himself from the prying eyes of others with a few old sheets hung on the windows and peeling an orange for his lunch.

Mr West: On a point of order: while the rhetoric of the honourable member for Campbelltown may give his colleagues some glee and may raise his stakes in the leadership battle that is occurring within the Labor Party, he is not still debating the relevance of why these documents should be tabled. He has mentioned the answer that was received in the questions on notice paper; he talked about Ministers being diligent in their role. However, the rhetoric of the honourable member for Campbelltown has no relevance to the motion before the House.

Mr Knight: On the point of order: it is perhaps the most relevant thing I have said today - that the Premier has responded by saying, "Trust us. We can be trusted. You do not need the information in the public arena". I am arguing precisely why, with people like the Minister for Police in charge, the Government cannot be trusted and the information is needed in the public arena so that the public can make its own judgment on the costs of these fitouts and refurbishments.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Campbelltown is drawing a longbow in relating his comment to the argument that he purported to be placing before the Parliament. The Chair would have no objection if the honourable member addressed his purported argument, but the line he was taking infringed my earlier ruling that he should return to the leave of the motion.

Mr KNIGHT: Some of the waste incurred from unnecessary fitouts results from foolish attempts to relocate government departments and agencies for party political reasons. Who can forget the farce involving the relocations - plural - of the Department of Fisheries. Remember the old Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Dorothy Lamour comedies, "The Road to Zanzibar", "The Road to Singapore", "The Road to Morocco" and so on. The Deputy Premier brought us his own version, the road to Orange, written by Garry West, produced by Ian Armstrong, starring a cast of thousands and funded by the taxpayers of New South Wales. They even produce a regular newsletter of the same name, The Road to Orange.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Campbelltown is again flouting my ruling. What is produced in other papers has nothing to do with the papers the subject of this motion.

Mr KNIGHT: I have tried to indicate what sort of material was available in 1991-92 and 1992-93, which is exactly why the public demands the real figures for 1993-94. From time to time, indeed as recently as yesterday in this House, Government Ministers boast that they believe in open government. Of course, the reality is that they simply believe in being in government. The Government requires the combined support of the non-aligned Independents and the Labor Party and the use of Standing Order 54 to open up the process of government. That is precisely what needs to be done. [Time expired.]

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [4.01]: I indicated earlier when I took a point of order that the honourable member for Campbelltown is heading towards leadership of the Labor Party. In fact, earlier today, during question time, I heard the honourable member for Campbelltown interjecting when the Premier was talking about his seat and the seat of the honourable member for Liverpool. The honourable member for Campbelltown said to the Premier, "It is your seat that I want". That is a clear signal -

Mr Knight: On a point of order: quite apart from the inaccuracies in the statement of the Minister that I was drawing attention to the vacant seat in Willoughby, which is held by the Treasurer and Minister for the Arts, the Hon. Peter Collins, the Minister seems to have forgotten the point of order he took a few moments ago concerning relevance. He does not appear to be replying to any of the arguments I put before the House. He seems to be off on a frolic of his own.

Mr West: That was my preamble, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the same degree of tolerance as I allowed the honourable member for Campbelltown. The Minister will return to debating the motion.

Page 1891

Mr WEST: I will reply to the specific points raised by the honourable member for Campbelltown. He said that New South Wales Fisheries was moving to Orange. He said what a sad event that was. He said that there may even have been vacant office space because that department moved back. Office space that was originally provided in the Department of Agriculture building in Orange for New South Wales Fisheries has been filled by the regional office of New South Wales Agriculture. It vacated the State Office Block, which enabled the relocation and expansion of the regional office of the Department of Mines. So all that office accommodation has been utilised, which is quite different from what the honourable member for Campbelltown suggested earlier. The honourable member for Campbelltown is on nothing more than a fishing expedition.

I will turn now to what is clearly becoming an abuse of Standing Order 54. The honourable member for Campbelltown and other Opposition members have asked, through the process of notices of motions, for details of government office fitouts. The honourable member does not have the answer he wants. The honourable member for Campbelltown well knows that the standing orders of this Parliament prevent Mr Speaker from directing a Minister in the way he should answer questions. In fact, the standards for answering questions on notice were set by one of his former beloved colleagues, the former Minister for Education and former member for Gladesville, Rodney Cavalier. If honourable members want to read some of the most glorious answers that have ever been given in this Parliament they should read Rodney Cavalier's answers. I suspect that my predecessor, the Hon. Tim Moore, who was Leader of the House and former Minister for the Environment, probably emulated Rodney Cavalier.

But it is not appropriate to use Standing Order 54 to go on a fishing expedition. The honourable member for Campbelltown is really after expenditure relating to office fitouts. He knows that he should do that at budget estimate time. As a result of the reform of this Parliament we have established an estimates committee process. The honourable member for Campbelltown and all his Opposition colleagues can serve as members on those estimates committees. Because of the action of the Opposition in moving a motion today and yesterday the Government has been put on notice. Any Minister who attends estimates committees without details such as this clearly would not be heeding the signals of this Parliament. It is totally inappropriate for honourable members to require all documents in order to obtain that expenditure detail.

The honourable member for Campbelltown, who is a scholar of many things, obviously is not aware of the size of government. There is a total of 124 government departments and agencies and the honourable member for Campbelltown is asking 124 people in those departments and agencies to provide him, before next Tuesday, with all the documentation regarding office fitouts that have occurred since 30 June 1993. What a farce it is for the honourable member for Campbelltown to use Standing Order 54 to do that! If the honourable member is after only expenditure details he should do that at the estimates committees. The Government will oppose this motion because this motion and many other motions are starting to bring Standing Order 54 into disrepute.

The actions of the honourable member for Campbelltown are out of order. This is nothing more than an abuse of Standing Order 54, not just today but on previous occasions. A motion that was moved yesterday requested estimates of the costs associated with tabling documents in relation to the dismissal of and compensation for the former Agent-General. That exercise will end up costing the Government tens of thousands of dollars. One set of documents has gone off to a private security documentation firm and that firm has already said that it will cost in excess of $6,000 to forward those documents. The honourable member for Campbelltown told the Government that it is wasting money on office fitouts when that money would be better spent on hospital and education services.

Yet the honourable member for Campbelltown wants to waste the money of the Government and this Parliament to ensure that the documents he requires are available and copied as he wants unrestricted access to them. The three members in the Chamber most likely will want a copy of those documents. How many other members will want copies? The provision of copies will end up costing the Government thousands of dollars also. Would any Opposition member like to go back to his or her electorate and say that, after this little fishing expedition, this abuse of the procedures of the Parliament, money has been spent which could have been spent on providing extra facilities for schools and hospitals? Opposition members will be held accountable for those costs to the Government. The honourable member for Campbelltown is a total hypocrite for moving this sort of motion and incurring those sorts of costs. It is totally outrageous! The Government opposes this motion.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [4.9]: I am astounded that the Minister for Energy and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives referred to the fact that this exercise would cost thousands of dollars when the Opposition is concerned about millions of dollars. The Minister had the nerve to talk about the cost of photocopying these documents when this Government does not think twice about paying $1.5 million in the Pickard affair. This Government did not think twice about giving $110,000 to Terry Metherell, as that suited its purposes, but it whinges about a few dollars worth of photocopying. It will not wash.

This motion is of great concern to me. All honourable members should support it to ensure accountability and to establish exactly what is going on. On 24 December 1993, before Christmas, the Premier replied to a question asked on notice - the most cynical exercise that could ever be imagined. In my view, the words that were used are classic doublespeak. The Premier is not a man of literary mind. I am sure that the Treasurer and Minister for the Arts, who is in the Chamber, has read 1984. I
Page 1892
suggest that he should have another look at it. The Premier's answer, which is classic doublespeak in George Orwellian tradition, states:

The administrative cost involved in extracting the requested data is not justified by its public usefulness.

That answer should be translated. The Premier would not be able to do it, but I suggest that the plain English translation of this Orwellspeak would have to be, "There is an election in a few months and some of my mates have gone way over the top on office fitouts. If the public knew the real dollar amounts, kiss a couple of marginal seats goodbye". That is really what that statement by the Premier means. The Premier continued:

Ministers and officials keep a close watch on expenditure on office fit-outs and refurbishments to ensure that they are no more costly than is essential . . .

In a translation from doublespeak, the Premier would have to say, "I find the accountability of the democratic process offensive. It is really our money and not the taxpayers'. We are the Government so we can spend up big without being held to account". That is the best translation I can think of for the most cynical answer I can ever imagine being given. It is important that honourable members know just how much money is being spent: $74 million last financial year and $75 million the year before. The reasonable inference that can be drawn, if details are not produced, is that something is being hidden. If the Opposition can draw that reasonable inference, so will the public, I am sure. The Government provided the information in 1991-92 and 1992-93, when there was no attempt not to be accountable. The Government answered the questions the Opposition asked and provided those figures. The Government has not given that information this year.

The Opposition has drawn the reasonable inference that there is something to hide. I estimate the amount involved to be not less than $100 million. On behalf of the people of New South Wales the Opposition would like to know exactly where that money has been spent, how it has been spent and why money is not being spent on health, schools, roads, additional police, et cetera. My electorate is no different from any other and I do not want to see taxpayers' money being wasted on Gucci designer chairs, decor, paintings and lambswool carpets.

Mr Collins: Laurie Brereton did that.

Mr SCULLY: The Minister has been in government since 1988 and he keeps trotting out the excuse that someone in a Labor Government did this and did that. I was not in Parliament then and I am not interested in hearing what happened from 1976 to 1988. The Minister has to account not only for his department; he should ask his mates what they are spending on office fitouts and furnishings. I want to know how much money is being spent in that regard this financial year. I do not want to know what happened previously.

Mr Collins: A mere pittance compared to what the Labor Party spent while in office, and the taxpayers are still paying.

Mr SCULLY: I am not interested.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer will have a chance to speak later in the debate.

Mr SCULLY: That was six, seven and eight years ago. Minister, you tell the Parliament how much your mates in Government have been knocking off from the taxpayers of this State in carpets, paintings and designer wear.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: what the honourable member for Smithfield has just said is tantamount to accusing each Minister in this House, myself included, of a criminal action. The honourable member used the term "knocking off". I ask the honourable member to withdraw that term and apologise.

Mr Scully: On the point of order: that is a way-over-the-top interpretation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw and apologise.

Mr SCULLY: I withdraw any suggestion that the Minister has committed a crime.

Mr SPEAKER: And apologise.

Mr SCULLY: And apologise if that is the inference he was drawing -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no qualification to withdrawal and apology. The honourable member for Smithfield has withdrawn and apologised and that is the end of the matter.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [4.14]: I had not intended to speak on this debate, but by popular request I am pleased to do so. What is being proposed today is nothing short of a monumental waste of time and effort. If the people of New South Wales want to see the current balance of the Parliament being exploited to the hilt by the Labor Party, for no gain whatever in terms of public accountability and fiscal responsibility, this motion should be supported. The Government will oppose the motion because of the claptrap I heard the honourable member for Smithfield burden this House with and put on public record.

The honourable member said, "We do not want to hear about anything that happened pre-1988 because we only want to hear about the last six years that you have been in office". The Opposition is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the New South Wales taxpayers. Why does the Opposition not want to hear about what happened pre-1988? I assure the House that the State Government will be paying for that extravagance for a long time to come. The Government has only just begun the whole recovery process for this State. As I indicated earlier today the Government is bringing the deficit under control and is providing proper financial management in this State.

The Government has the budget deficit under control - down by $200 million this financial year so far - heading towards, at worst, a $690 million budget deficit. How did the Government do that? The Government did not do that by splurging money in the
Page 1893
way it was done when Nick Whitlam was running the State Bank of New South Wales, when he built the Taj Mahal - the nearby State Bank headquarters. If honourable members want to see the opulence that the Opposition took for granted when it was in office, I will gladly open up those premises, which were built as an edifice, a memorial to Nick Whitlam - a man who the Opposition put in charge of the State Bank.

I occupy an office in a corner of the State Office Block. The view from my office is badly obscured because of large concrete blocks which were part of the design of the State Office Block a couple of decades ago. Laurie Brereton, when he was a Minister and had a corner office in the State Office Block, said, "Get rid of them. I want to see the view, get rid of those concrete blocks that impede my view". Laurie Brereton got rid of those concrete blocks at a cost of $100,000 - but it was only money, in keeping with the lifestyle to which members of the Labor Party were then accustomed. This Government has been extremely cautious in its use of premises. Certainly the opulence that is typified by the Brereton and Nick Whitlam era is a thing of the past. This Government will not have a bar of it.

That building stands as an embarrassment, a monument to government waste. If the media want to see what opulence, extravagance, waste and mismanagement look like, I will happily arrange through John O'Neill at the State Bank to have that office building opened up for inspection. An organised tour can be arranged for everyone to see what happens when a government loses perspective, as the Labor Party lost perspective in its 12 years in office. The Government has been in office for six years, and during that time there have been relocations of government offices. I assure the House that those relocations do not involve the gilt-edged, marble-floored options that the Labor Party indulged in while it was in office. All honourable members opposite know that is true - the building is there for everyone to see. The Government opposes the motion as another example of waste and mismanagement. It is a waste of taxpayers' funds and of the time of this Parliament.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [4.19]: The coalition Government is now in its seventh year of office. During that time there have been endless reorganisations and ongoing sagas of Ministers playing games. The former police Minister managed to relocate himself into College Street from Macquarie Street and place his office on the twentieth floor, above the office occupied by the Commissioner of Police. Both the Opposition and the Government have signed the charter of reform. Both sides accept that open government is a crucial and essential part of politics in the nineties. Unfortunately some redneck Government backbenchers have not caught up with the reality of living in the nineties. The Opposition has tried, by legitimate means in this House and through the Hon. Michael Egan in another place, to ask a reasonable question of a series of Ministers. The response from the Premier is: "I am not going to cop this. As far as I am concerned I can do what I like and that's it". These days governments have to be accountable to the public for expenditure on white cars, the ministerial offices, et cetera.

That is what this motion is about and what must be addressed in this debate. The Minister for Energy and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives said that Opposition members, and I assume the Independent members as well, should sit back and accept the drivel that is uttered by Ministers at question time in answer to Dorothy Dix questions asked by Government members and legitimate questions asked by Opposition members. Opposition members patiently put up with the drivel that passes for answers. Nevertheless, the Minister said that under the standing orders the Government should not be expected to furnish the information that has been sought. All honourable members are aware that the Minister for Health has difficulty, for he confuses ambulances with hospitals; the Minister for Energy and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives confuses kilowatts of electricity with killer bees.

Opposition members need to have answers to the questions they are asking and that is why the honourable member for Campbelltown has moved the motion under Standing Order 54 seeking relevant information. In the recent past the present Treasurer was the Attorney General. When he held that office he was not reticent about providing information. For example, in 1991-92 he told us that the Attorney General's Department spent $113,873 on refurbishments and fitouts; the Solicitor General and Crown Advocate spent $2,160; the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions spent $707,232; the Legal Aid Commission spent $255,453; and the list goes on. The Treasurer gave similar figures for 1992-93: the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions expenditure decreased to $240,000; and the Legal Aid Commission spent only $19,852. The Treasurer can give all of the assurances he likes to the Parliament. He is an honourable and well-meaning person, but Opposition members would like to check the figures. They would like to know the numbers. If parliamentary democracy in this State means anything, that is not an unreasonable request.

Over a period Opposition members have raised relevant issues about consultancy fees and senior executive service salary packages. I notice that some senior executive service officers are present in the back of the Chamber today. Opposition members have asked questions also about refurbishment and fitouts of various offices. I have put a series of questions upon notice about the cost of the senior executive service. I know that the information is available from the Office of Public Management, but I keep getting answers similar to that dished out by the Premier to the Hon. Michael Egan on Christmas Eve last. He simply gave the "Yes Minister" answer. This matter involves a large amount of money; we are talking about almost $149 million that was expended over two financial years. Obviously the Opposition should know the estimated expenditure - not the actual expenditure but the planned expenditure - for the current financial year. That is not an unreasonable request. [Time expired.]

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown) [4.24], in reply: I thank my colleagues the honourable member for Smithfield and the honourable member for Wyong for their contributions. Not surprisingly, I do not have
Page 1894
anything to reply to in respect of the matters they have raised. However, I shall deal briefly with a few matters raised by the Minister for Energy and, in a belated appearance, by the Treasurer. It is interesting that the Minister for Energy prides himself on taking the full time allocated to him in any debate. However, on this occasion the material he had to work with did not allow him to do so. In his truncated speech he tried to defend the moves back and forth to Orange by the Department of Fisheries. It was amazing that he should try to defend the circumstances in which New South Wales Fisheries was uplifted from Sydney, taken to Orange, put into a refurbished building there and then pulled out and returned to Sydney. A little more refurbishing was done and then the staff were moved to another location in Sydney, with more refurbishing and fitting out. The Minister tried to justify that by saying that in the meantime the Government found public servants from another department to move to Orange, involving further refurbishment and fitouts.

This is reminiscent of the old hokey-pokey: you put the public servants in, you take the public servants out; you put the public servants in and you shake them all about. It is as much hocus-pocus as it is hokey-pokey. On that subject, it was interesting that the waste involved did not simply include all of the refurbishment and transportation back and forth, but seminars were run at a resort in the Blue Mountains for the staff of New South Wales Fisheries who were going to Orange. The seminars included such subjects as how to deal with bulletin boards, spurious rumours started as notices, and another session called coping with the cold. Apparently none of those courses was a success, because the staff were all moved back to Sydney.

The nearest thing to a substantive point made by the Minister for Energy was that to fulfil the demands of the Parliament, should the House carry this motion under Standing Order 54, the expenditure of money would be involved. He said the Parliament should not ask for anything that costs money. He said it could cost a few thousand dollars to provide on the public record the sort of information that this House might require. He said further that Opposition members should not ask that a few thousand dollars be expended, though on previous evidence in two years the Government lavished almost $150 million on fitouts. If the motion is carried and any of the information that the Government is trying to shield from the public view comes out, the price of photocopying that material will be a pittance compared to what will be saved as a result of that public exposure.

In the end the motion stands on the right of the public to know. That is the big difference between the Opposition and the Government; Opposition members believe that the public has a right to know, and we hope that the non-aligned Independents believe that the public has a right to know; but the Government does not believe, when it comes to any practical implications of the words, that the public has a right to know. The Minister said that it will take time to put the information together. We are giving him time. Earlier today he told us that the Government could not get material from London quick enough to comply with the request of the Parliament in respect to matters relating to Neil Pickard. He said, under pressure exerted by the Leader of the Opposition today, that the material could be here by next Tuesday. If they can get that information from London by next Tuesday, I am sure they can get the information about office refurbishments and fitouts up here from the State Office Block by next Tuesday.

I should deal briefly with the comments of the Treasurer. The two examples he held up were Nick Whitlam, who was not a public servant - he was not employed in a State Government agency in the terms of the motion and is therefore irrelevant - and Laurie Brereton. I know a little bit about the office that Laurie Brereton had, because it used to be Jack Ferguson's office. I worked for Jack Ferguson when he occupied that office. It had terrific, unimpeded views of the harbour. I asked Jack how he got that office. He said that Davis Hughes used to be the Minister, and he came in and spent money to rip out the concrete blocks so that there would be an unimpeded view. Jack Ferguson said he did not want to put the blocks back in, that he should not waste money doing that, and so he would just enjoy the view. It was not Laurie Brereton or Jack Ferguson who did that; it was the Treasurer's predecessor.

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

Mr KNIGHT: I commend the motion to the House.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Moore
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr Bowman Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Carr 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 Dr Refshauge
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 Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr McBride Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Davoren

Page 1895

Mr Armstrong Mr Morris
Mr Baird 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 Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Griffiths Mr Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Clough Mr Fahey

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Mr PRICE (Waratah) [4.38]: I move:

That this House notes as a matter of public importance the need for more stringent guidelines relating to loan applications from civic and other regional organisations to construct major capital works noting particularly the current financial position of the Newcastle Entertainment Centre and its impact on the community.

The problems associated with the capital costs, interest payments and escalating maintenance expenditure have been the source of financial difficulties for many public facilities often promoted sincerely, but without sustainable financial proposals, to support their evaluation. Political decisions have to be made as to the social and economic benefits to a community, with knowledge that the viability is doubtful without sufficient grant of moneys to ensure the debt-free construction. However, this situation does not always prevail, and to demonstrate my concern I shall refer to the saga of the Newcastle Entertainment Centre.

The Newcastle Entertainment Centre, situated in the Newcastle showground, is a valuable and necessary community asset to the citizens of the lower Hunter. I make that perfectly clear. However, the Newcastle Showground and Exhibition Centre Trust is now faced with an escalating interest bill which, if not continually subsidised, will create an impossible repayment structure that will ensure that the trust will never be free of debt. The original $3.5 million estimate of construction when a private operator, the Sellers group, wished to construct a basketball stadium with alternative exhibition use capacity, was ultimately disallowed and the project taken over by the Newcastle Showground and Exhibition Centre Trust.

Compensation of the order of $470,000 was paid to Sellers and the project was subsequently upgraded to a multipurpose exhibition centre. The trust's recommendation to the then Greiner Government was accepted - surprisingly - and finance of the order of $8.5 million was made available and a grand announcement made by the then deputy Premier, Mr Murray, in late 1990. The funding was initially made up of a government grant of $2 million plus an interest free loan of $2.5 million from the Public Reserves Management Fund, with the balance from a Treasury Corporation loan amounting to $4 million with interest of the order of 13.5 per cent.

Tenders to design and construct the building were called on this basis in January 1991. The contract was let to Doran Constructions Pty Limited for the construction of the entertainment centre for $8,134,000, adjusted to $8,339,949 at project commencement. The total finance required for the completed project was no less than $14,160,471. For a project that was initially proposed to cost $3.5 million to escalate to $14.2 million is staggering. It is a relatively small centre - certainly it is a vital centre, but it is difficult to reconcile the increased expenditure. However, it was subsequently revealed that at no time was the Public Works Department, the Government's construction authority, invited to undertake evaluation of the tenders received. I shall speak about this in more detail later.

The project proceeded with minor delays, but because of apparent omission or deliberate non-inclusion the facility fitout necessitated a further two Treasury Corporation loans of $1,730,000 and $3,760,471, both at 11.27 per cent interest. The new financial arrangement included the restructuring of all loan agreements, such that the Treasury Corporation $4 million original loan had its interest set at 12.09 per cent. This made a total of Treasury Corporation loans amounting to $9,490,471 for a facility with a seating capacity of approximately 4,500 people, well below the capacity of a venue seeking to attract the really big dollar events that would normally come to Sydney and would contribute to the revenue required to enable the Newcastle centre to service its debt.

As a result of a series of questions and answers through the notice paper, it became clear that the loan repayment schedule was to commence in 1992, with an amount of $241,800 payable in December that year. The interest payment for 1993 was scheduled to be $350,790. However, the annual report for 1992-93 of the Newcastle Showground and Exhibition Centre Trust reveals that the Government has quietly, but in line with its letter of 13 September 1990,
Page 1896
obtained under freedom of information, contributed an amount of $241,800 to cover outstanding interest. Further examination of the annual report reveals that the Auditor-General, independent auditors Cutcher & Neale and the trust itself indicate, and I quote from the statements of Cutcher & Neil:

As a result of the matter disclosed in the Statement by trustees, the Trust is dependent on the ongoing financial support of the State Government in relation to the non-payment of interest totalling $241,800 due to the State Trade Treasury Corporation prior to 30 June 1993.

Likewise, a statement from the Auditor-General is qualified as follows:

The financial statements are being prepared on the basis that the Trust will continue to operate as an ongoing concern.

The Trust has current liabilities of $475,082 and current assets of $1,055,047. These current assets include an amount of $819,587 which may be used only to service New South Wales Treasury Corporation Borrowings. Thus, current assets available to meet current liabilities amount to $235,460. Operating activities for the year ended 30 June 1993 resulted in a deficiency of $1,386,367 and a net cash outflow of $690,308. This indicates that the Trust will require continuing external assistance in order to meet its operational requirements. To date this support has been provided by the New South Wales Government.

Without external support there is significant uncertainty that the Trust will be able to continue as a going concern. I understand that the Trustees are currently negotiating with the New South Wales Government for confirmation of financial support.

These statements indicate clearly that the original funding arrangements were to say the least adventurous and the then debt for the centre which exceeded $11,490,471 was absolutely out of the range of the trust's earnings when one considers that it was originally anticipated that capital repayments of about $1 million a year were to commence in the 1998-99 period in addition to the interest payments. Why did the Government anticipate that the Treasury Corporation loans would be repayable? If this was a veiled attempt to shore up a politically sympathetic Independent, the decision was a disaster.

A direct result of such contrivance is to transfer the total debt to the Newcastle and Lower Hunter community, which is completely unacceptable. The entertainment centre is perceived as an asset to the region, and I attach no criticism to the trust for its efforts in pursuing the establishment of the facility. However, the Government was in full possession of the facts, although through the Department of Conservation and Land Management realistic appraisal should have indicated that insufficient use would be made of the centre to service the interest and capital repayments.

If such an appraisal was made, why was the department's advice ignored? Likewise, where were the comments of Treasury when this project and proposed financial arrangement were mooted? Why was the Public Works Department not engaged in its usual role to oversight the "preparation and execution of major construction contracts", given that this contract well exceeded $500,000? Why did the Minister's reply to a question on notice on 9 March 1993 advising of public works involvement result in a letter to the editor of the Newcastle Herald on 28 April 1993 from the Director-General of New South Wales Public Works denying the department's involvement, which finally resulted in a revised set of answers on the notice paper dated 29 April 1993 agreeing that public works were not involved?

How can the Government expect to maintain credibility in this situation when the departmental officers concerned are unable to provide the facts, and what chance does this House have of appreciating the problems? Is the House being misled or is the level of incompetence such that even the Minister is supplied with flawed advice? The centre cannot attract the volume of shows, displays or exhibitions necessary to cover costs, pay interest, reduce loans and cope with ongoing maintenance. The first full year's usage of the centre indicates this and that is confirmed by the usage table included in the annual report.

Even allowing for a possible reduction in usage of the centre due to international economic problems, the income anticipated could not service the loan and capital repayments required. Minister, I would draw your attention to a press release issued by the Chairman of the Newcastle Showground and Exhibition Centre Trust Incorporated soon after the Government's intervention to assist by agreeing to pay interest on the Treasury Corporation loans for the next three years and convert the $2 million interest-free loan from the Public Reserves Management Fund to a grant. I quote from the statement:

This relief from interest payments will enable the Centre to be debt free for a 3 year period. This will give us the opportunity to accumulate much needed funds that can be utilised towards the redevelopment of the showground site.

Given the report of the Auditor-General, this is obviously so much kite flying. Temporary relief in the form of loans to cover interest with a massive capital debt still to be repaid is no relief at all and only defers the ultimate solution. Write off the debt now and allow the centre to at least break even on a year-to-year basis after paying its management contract commitment. A significant contribution to the financial difficulty now faced by the trust is the management agreement for operating the showground and entertainment centre complex. Again, no criticism is attached to the successful management contractor, who I believe successfully tendered and negotiated a deal that is obviously beneficial from their point of view. However, the blind acceptance of the trust's legal advice indicating this - [Time expired.]

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [4.48]: In so far as this motion seeks to impugn the State Government's financial management and policies, the Government rejects the motion and its underlying premise. The strength of New South Wales management is fairly recognised in its continuing status as one of only two triple-A States in this nation. This is despite the devastating impact
Page 1897
of a recession instigated by the policies of the current Federal Government. But despite that recession the New South Wales Government has committed itself to reducing its deficit and maintaining the level of State debt. The Government strategy in that regard has been clearly enunciated and has received widespread support. The strategy has enabled New South Wales to operate with a substantially lower deficit than that in Victoria, while having capital outlays in the general government sector some 40 per cent higher than in that State over the past five years.

Very limited numbers of loans are made by the State Government to civic or other regional organisations. Under the Commonwealth-State loan arrangement part of each State's loan allocation is designated by the State to be available to local government. This does not mean that the State makes loans to local government. What it means is that local councils in total are permitted to borrow up to a limit determined by the State. In 1993-94 that limit was set at $184 million. Requests by individual councils to avail themselves of part of that limit are reviewed by the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives, which ensures that borrowings by individual councils do not unduly increase their level of borrowings.

Servicing of debt by local councils is part of their annual costs. Effectively, through the annual rating approval process the State imposes limits on the extent to which those costs can be passed on to ratepayers. The Newcastle Showground and Exhibition Centre Trust is responsible for operation of the Newcastle showground and the Newcastle Entertainment Centre, which was built on the showground site. Approval for construction of the centre was given by former Premier and Treasurer Nick Greiner in 1990. The centre was completed in April 1992 at a total cost roundly of $13 million, including a State Government grant of $4.5 million. The centre enables the residents of the Hunter Region to have a first-class sporting function and entertainment facility. In Newcastle it plays a role that parallels exactly the role of the Sydney Entertainment Centre in the central business district of Sydney.

The centre is the home of the Newcastle Falcons, the region's national basketball team, which generates significant national exposure for the Hunter region and enhances the economy of the Hunter region through associated tourism. Residents of the region, who formerly had to travel a considerable distance to Sydney for international standard entertainment, are now able to enjoy these events much closer to home. This facility has also enhanced the Hunter region's standing as a centre for entertainment for residents of the central, western and northern regions of the State, by reducing travel times to major events. In order to finance construction of the centre and meet start-up costs, approval was given to the trust to borrow $9.49 million backed by Government guarantee.

In July 1993 the Minister for Land and Water Conservation submitted the trust's three-year business review, following the completion of the first year of operation of the centre. The review indicated that the trust was experiencing financial difficulties in meeting interest on loans as the centre was having difficulty attracting bookings from the entertainment industry. These difficulties were not generated by the trust but, rather, were a reflection of the deterioration in the Australian economy arising from Paul Keating's recession that we had to have. The New South Wales Treasury reviewed the trust's financial position and, in view of the projected budget deficit at that time, recommended the provision of interest subsidies. These subsidies will amount to about $700,000 in 1993-94. I find it astounding that a member of the Labor Party from the Hunter would criticise the provision of this facility in his own area.

[Interruption]

By their interjections members opposite are denying that they criticise the establishment of the entertainment centre. The fact is that if this Government had not got behind this project it would not have happened. Honourable members from the region know that. They know that the people of Newcastle wanted that facility. I suspect that all of us of average age in this Parliament have gone to outdoor concerts and on occasion have come away drenched. I can certainly report such an occasion when I attended a concert at Randwick Racecourse about 20 years ago; if ever I needed proof of the value of entertainment centres like this for major events, that was the proof. The Wran Government put the Sydney Entertainment Centre in place.

This Government has said that what is good enough for the people of Sydney is good enough for the people of Newcastle. Therefore there was a commitment to that Newcastle entertainment centre proposal. It is fair to say that if there had not been a commitment from this Government there would not be an entertainment centre in Newcastle at the moment, and there would not be one on the horizon. In 1992-93 the trust hosted 41 events. In 1994 it will host 79 events - an increase of more than 92 per cent - based on confirmed bookings. The Newcastle Entertainment Centre has provided $12 million of economic impact to the Hunter region in its two-year operating history. This injection of funds would not have been possible if the centre had not existed. I think we all acknowledge that in this debate.

The Newcastle Entertainment Centre provides employment for 15 full-time staff and 250 casuals, injecting approximately $1.2 million a year into the Hunter region. That is a significant contribution at a time of high unemployment levels, despite the turnaround we are now beginning to see. In addition, the Newcastle Entertainment Centre has become an important training house for the Hunter's hospitality and tourism industries. The Newcastle Entertainment Centre has provided tremendous social and cultural benefits to the region by bringing to the doorstep of Hunter residents world-class sport, entertainment and
Page 1898
conventions that previously would not have visited the region. We all know that. We all know that this has been an invaluable addition to the infrastructure of Newcastle.

The centre recently hosted the Australian ballet, the Bolshoi ballet, John Denver, sporting events and many other Australian artists and celebrities. It provides a major and even visionary enhancement to Newcastle's infrastructure. We on this side of the House, and I trust on both sides of the House, do not begrudge the people of Newcastle this facility. I reject the suggestion made by the honourable member for Waratah. According to the terms of the motion, more stringent guidelines are necessary. The Government got behind that project and made possible something that otherwise would not have occurred. We have given something of lasting value to the people of Newcastle. I have confidence that in the years ahead the entertainment centre will be used to full capacity. Certainly that is the wish of the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government opposes the motion.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [4.56]: As the honourable member for Waratah said, and I also say, the entertainment centre is an excellent facility for Newcastle. It provides community benefit but it has been left with a debt structure that has become a millstone around the neck of the trust, which is doing its best to make the entertainment centre work. The figures provided by the honourable member for Waratah make clear that the task of repaying the interest on the debt is beyond the capacity of the fundraising efforts of the trust itself and also the fund generating capacity of the centre.

The Minister read quite extensively from the 1993 annual report, which was released in March this year, of the community benefits that do come, and they are acknowledged. That annual report had some very worrying matters within it. None was more worrying than the statement of the Auditor-General that "the financial statements have been prepared on the basis that the trust will continue to operate as a going concern". He detailed, as the honourable member for Waratah said, the liabilities of $475,082 and current assets of $1,055,047 but those assets include an amount of $819,587 which may be used only to service the New South Wales Treasury Corporation borrowings. Thus current assets available to meet current liabilities amount to $235,460 and operating activities at the end of the year, 30 June, resulted in a deficiency of $1,386,367 and a net cash outflow of $690,308. This indicates that the trust will require continued external assistance in order to meet its operational requirements.

To date, it has been supplied by the New South Wales Government. There is significant uncertainty that the trust will be able to continue as a going concern without external support. The problem is the trust's ability to continue as a going concern. The fact is that its current annual interest is $938,490 and it would have to earn, on a 365 day year basis, $2,571 a day above all of its expenses if it is to pay its interest bill. It demonstrated in its annual report that it does not have a capacity to do that. The Greiner Government guaranteed that money. We are saying: take a hard look at the facts; look at the situation that the trust is in; give it the capacity to operate that centre in the positive way that it is doing; but take the debt burden off the trust. Make that a grant to the City of Newcastle so that the trust can get on with the job of providing a great community facility, putting on shows that people can afford, and going on to develop the best possible commercial outcomes there.

Mr Collins: How much was the amount?

Mr GAUDRY: It is $2,571 a day, 365 days a year, above all expenses to meet the current interest bill, which of course will only increase; it will capitalise on top of the loan. I am in agreement with my colleague the honourable member for Waratah that we do not attach criticism to the successful management contractor, who I believe successfully tendered and negotiated a deal that was obviously beneficial from the contractor's point of view. However, blind acceptance of the trust's legal advice indicating that a contract of this magnitude not be referred to the Minister casts doubts on the wisdom of the senior officers of the Department of Conservation and Land Management. There are a number of views as to whether or not the contract required ministerial approval, especially considering that the contract covers the entire complex and the duration of the agreement is 10 years, with a three times five year guaranteed extension arrangement. Surely any Minister responsible would want to be advised when a voluntary trust lets a contract worth in excess of $200,000 per annum in his or her name with the Crown being the ultimate legal entity. Why has the Government allowed this situation to develop? [Time expired.]

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.1], in reply: I am grateful for the Minister's comments and I am equally grateful for the support of my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle in this motion. The Treasurer's figure of $13 million does not tie up with answers I received to these questions. My first question was answered on 22 April 1992 and the figure of well in excess of $14 million was given. That is only a small point but it is one to keep in mind. This is characteristic of all the answers I have received about this project. I have received three different final costs for the contract for the construction of the building, and if the Minister cares to look back through the questions I have raised over the last two years he will find that there are wild discrepancies in many of the answers.

I am concerned as to why the trust's legal advice was accepted blindly without any reference to any government legal agencies. In my opinion, and in the opinion of others who have considered this matter, there was some deception between the department and the Minister of the day. I am concerned, regardless of politics, that that situation should prevail because it reflects badly on our community. Newcastle and the
Page 1899
Hunter region are now faced with paying off a substantial debt. I would like to think the Government would ultimately reconsider that, particularly if the current interest arrangements, which the Government is paying, are capitalised.

I do not know whether that is the case, but if those interest repayments are being capitalised over the next three years it will involve a loan repayment beginning in 1996 which will probably be close to $12 million or $14 million. When will it stop? The trust cannot be responsible for that. I do not want to enter into arguments about how their valuation was assessed, but no matter what the reason is, the result is that massive debts have accumulated. The community is being charged through the ticketing scheme. The Treasurer quoted from a number of passages in the annual report. I would like to quote from the chairman's statement in that report. The report states:

The business has shown, in 1992/3, that it is very capable of operating at a profit, however, the burden of the substantial interest repayments has a significant impact on the Trust's financial resources.

The summary review of operations of the Newcastle Entertainment Centre shows that the centre was open only 42 days in a full year - 42 profit days out of 365 days. It is physically impossible for finance to be raised to service that loan if there is an incumbent debt on the community. No doubt other projects in the area will be affected in years to come. It is an intolerable situation. In terms of the economic factors that may or may not have influenced this project, section 7 of the chairman's report, entitled "Economic or Other Factors", states:

Another factor to impact on the entertainment industry, not only in Newcastle but nationally, has been the increasing trend toward and success of, outdoor concerts. The success of these shows, in view of lower levels of disposable income being committed to entertainment expenditure, has had a direct adverse affect on indoor venues.

That will not change. In fact, that situation will prevail and will probably expand. Section 8, "Management and Activities", reads:

The business operated from a cash flow point of view at a loss, chiefly as a result of adverse economic and industry specific factors as addressed in point 7. As stated previously, the bookings schedule for 1993/4 strongly suggests that a substantial improvement in the Trust's operating profit will be forthcoming next year.

Operating profit is referred to; not indebtedness and inability to pay. The Auditor-General's report, which was released earlier this year, stated:

My audit opinion was qualified to reflect the Trust's dependence on Government support in order for it to continue as a going concern.

In other words, the Auditor-General would not give this operation a clean bill of health unless there was absolute government dependence. No government of any persuasion wants that sort of commitment to a debt that it allowed to be written. Its own departments wrote the debt. The Minister concerned has undertaken that role, it would appear, without a great deal of circumspection or great thought. The problem is recognised by the community in the attendances - [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Motion, by leave, by Mr West agreed to:

That certain standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the following bills, notice of which was given this day for tomorrow, being brought in and proceeded with up to and including the Ministers' second reading speeches:

Building Services Corporation (Amendment) Bill
Bush Fires (Further Amendment) Bill

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [5.7]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill is being introduced at the request of the South Australian Government as a complementary measure to legislation in South Australia for the purpose of facilitating the restructuring of the State Bank of South Australia. Honourable members will recall that the State Bank got into financial difficulties in 1991, necessitating the provision of a rescue package by the South Australia Government as its owner. In February 1993 the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth was prepared to provide special assistance to South Australia to help the State in reducing its current debt burden. In recognition of the Commonwealth's decision the South Australian Premier agreed to recommend the sale of the State Bank as quickly as possible, consistent with achieving a fair market price.

This is something very much to the forefront of this Government's mind in dealing with our own State Bank and its proposed sale. I trust that all honourable members of this House will note carefully the history of the State Bank of South Australia and the genesis of this bill and bear that in mind in the months ahead. The South Australian Government has decided to corporatise the State Bank by transferring some of the assets of the bank to a new corporation called the Bank of South Australia Limited, which I will refer to as BSAL, which is a corporation formed under the corporations law. The assets transferred to BSAL will be the good quality assets of the State Bank which will make the bank an attractive proposition for its proposed ultimate sale to a third party.

A bill to facilitate the corporatisation of the State Bank was introduced into the South Australian Parliament on 23 February 1994. This bill provides
Page 1900
for the transfer of assets and liabilities from the State Bank and its subsidiaries to BSAL. It refers power over the banking industry of BSAL to the Commonwealth so that the bank can come under the prudential supervision of the Reserve Bank as from 1 July 1994. It deals with a number of other matters incidental to the restructuring proposals.

Pursuant to a request made by the then Deputy Premier and Treasurer of South Australia, this bill provides for relief from any New South Wales taxes associated with the transfer of the assets to the newly incorporated bank. Consequently, the measure before the House provides for relief to be given to BSAL from stamp duty, financial institutions duty and debits tax. This concession is to apply for a period of six months from a date which is to be proclaimed. This bill also includes provisions that allow for the vesting of property in BSAL without the need for transfer documents and compels the Registrar General to accept transfers of realty showing BSAL as the vendor when the realty is still registered in the name of the State Bank. Without legislation of this kind the transfer of assets would be very time consuming and expensive. It is impossible to transfer liabilities without the assistance of legislation for that purpose. I wish to table detailed explanations of the bill for the assistance of honourable members. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr J. H. Murray.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [5.12]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will recall that, when I introduced the Electricity Corporations Bill 1992, one of the proposals in that bill was to form Broken Hill Electricity to carry out electricity functions being performed by Broken Hill City. Unfortunately, the Opposition opposed the proposal. Subsequently, when I introduced the Electricity Amendment Bill 1993, it was decided that Broken Hill City could continue to distribute electricity through a subcommittee of council subject to the approval of the Minister. My approval was given subject to the council meeting certain requirements. One of these was that electricity functions should be operated independently through the electricity committee and without interference or influence from council. I received the greatest co-operation from council; however, legally it was simply not possible for council to abrogate responsibility for electricity matters.

Recently I met with the chairman of the electricity committee, the general manager, electricity and the honourable member for Broken Hill. There was general agreement that a new electricity distributor was needed to overcome current legal and operational difficulties. The proposal was supported by Broken Hill City at its meeting on 30 March. I understand that the Barrier Industrial Council and the Broken Hill branch of the Australian Labor Party also support the proposal, with certain provisos. Broken Hill Electricity is to consist of Broken Hill City, Central Darling shire and part of the unincorporated area. The first board of directors will comprise seven persons, five representing Broken Hill City, one representing Central Darling shire and one the unincorporated area. This board will hold office until the next local government elections. In accordance with the undertaking I gave Broken Hill City, the majority of members will continue to be representative of that council. That was also a requirement of the Barrier Industrial Council.

Honourable members will note that the bill contains a provision that future boards of Broken Hill Electricity will consist of five members representing Broken Hill City, one representing Central Darling shire and one person appointed by the Minister to represent customers in the unincorporated area. Broken Hill Electricity will take over the supply area following completion of the Darling electricity scheme. Consumers who obtain supplies as a result of this scheme will be represented on the board of the distributor. Existing staff of Broken Hill City, including the general manager, electricity, who are employed in connection with electricity functions will be transferred to Broken Hill Electricity. Such staff will be employed under current awards, agreements and contracts under existing conditions.

Assets and liabilities of Broken Hill City's electricity activities are to be transferred to Broken Hill Electricity without compensation. If agreement as to the assets and liabilities to be transferred cannot be reached within three months of commencement, the Minister may, after consultation with Broken Hill City, appoint an arbitrator. The costs of arbitration will be borne equally by the two parties. The decision of the arbitrator will be final. I believe the creation of this new distributor is in the interests of all customers in the supply area. I thank the Electricity Committee, Broken Hill City and the Barrier Industrial Council for their enlightened approach to this matter. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Martin.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Hazzard): Order! It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders the business of the House is interrupted.



Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [5.15]: I wish to draw to the attention of honourable members the findings of a seminar held at Concord last Friday which was chaired by the Hon. Franca Arena. The occasion was a meeting of the Australian Labor Party ethnic affairs task force at which submissions were
Page 1901
presented by Indochinese groups, Italians, Greeks, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Spanish and Filipinos as well as local government and community organisations. The major concern expressed by all groups attending that meeting was the high incidence of home robberies and a general lack of security for local residents living in the Concord municipality. A point that was made by all present was that the Concord area is extremely poorly serviced by police, especially in the Concord, Rhodes, Cabarita, Mortlake, Concord West and North Strathfield suburbs.

Residents in those areas have experienced difficulties with adequate policing because of the distance from Burwood and Flemington police stations. More than 40,000 residents live in this area and they have no direct access to a police station. Country members of Parliament would be aghast if they had a major urban centre with a population of 40,000 without a police facility. Most of the residents in the Concord municipality have to catch at least two buses to reach their local police station. Honourable members will be aware that at the end of last year I presented to the Parliament a petition with more than 1,000 signatures calling upon the Minister for Police to establish a police presence in the municipality, preferably in the Central Concord area.

I support the claims made by those residents. Drummoyne municipality, when compared with the adjoining municipality of Concord, which is similar in population and size, has two police stations - Five Dock and Drummoyne. According to recent newspaper articles, Concord municipality is one of the fastest growing areas in the metropolitan region. The advent of the Olympic Games in the year 2000 will require increased security for Concord municipality. The number of industrial sites being rezoned for residential development supports that statement. For example, the Australian Gas Light company site is due for redevelopment for 7,000 units on a 50-hectare area. Mortlake Point will have an additional 50 units; these are being developed at the moment. In Exile Bay, in Hen and Chicken Bay on the old Tanner Middleton site, 200 units are under construction. The Dulux Paint Company site at Cabarita, which has now been closed and where it is proposed to develop 200 to 300 units, is due for rezoning.

The Austral Bronze site in Hen and Chicken Bay will have 177 units. The ARC redevelopment in the Strathfield North area is a site proposed for 300 units. The Mirvac development in George Street, near Concord West, will have 288 units. The Allied Feeds site development in Concord West will have 100 units. The redevelopment in Concord West on the western side of the railway line will include up to 1,000 units. In the next five to 10 years a total of approximately 8,400 units will be introduced into the municipality of Concord. In addition, the State Government proposes urban consolidation which will bring about a 10 per cent increase in the existing population, that is, an additional population of 2,600.

It is a scandal that the Government has failed to preplan a vital aspect of community infrastructure such as the provision of a police station. That police station must be provided. It need not be a multistorey, multifaceted building. In the Concord area a shopfront facility would suffice at the moment. This facility would have room for further development. If the size of the municipality is to double in a 10-year period perhaps a greenfield site should be developed. To date there has been no preplanning. That should be undertaken. I call upon the Minister for Police to investigate this pressing need. Earlier this year the Minister, when replying to the petition I presented, said:

I refer to your petition . . .

At present, the South West Police Region is undergoing a review and rationalisation of District and Patrol Boundaries. Until such time as decisions are made in relation to this review, it would be premature to propose a shopfront police station in Concord.

That review has been completed. Last Thursday honourable members were made aware of the proposals. The Minister continued:

Certainly, the shopfront which operated during 1991 was favourably received by the community who perceived an increased police presence in the area due to its existence.

I call upon the Minister for Police to direct his energies towards establishing a permanent police presence in Concord municipality.


Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [5.20]: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the death on Saturday, 30 April, of Mrs Isabelle Alexander. Mrs Alexander was born in Constantinople on 24 December 1909 and migrated to Australia in 1966. She and her husband, Dr Alec Alexander, established a chiropractic practice in Balgowlah Heights in 1966 and operated it until 1980. During the past 20 years the Alexanders have given generously to all kinds of charities, including the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Salvation Army, and Red Cross. They have been steady benefactors of the large Armenian society on the North Shore. Their generosity enabled the establishment of the Armenian General Benevolent Union Limited cultural centre's Alexander Hall in Yeo Street, Neutral Bay, not far from where I live and in the heart of my electorate.

The centre has been operating for 12 years and is a popular venue for cultural and educational activities, including music, performance and dance. It is well used by young men and women; the 80 young people who conducted a debate at the centre last week are typical. The Alexanders' great interest in young people, children and education was demonstrated in 1981 when they donated $250,000 towards the establishment of the Alexander Primary School at Duffys Forest, which was officially opened by the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Jim Longley, in June 1991. The bilingual Alexander Primary School attracts students from all ethnic groups, not just those of Armenian background, and
Page 1902
will have an enrolment of 200 by 1996. The Alexanders' last project, which benefits the Dee Why and Northern Suburbs districts, was the establishment of the Alexander Nursing Home to ensure quality accommodation for the elderly.

The Alexander family has also contributed greatly to the Armenian Church and various other Armenian organisations. Their passion has spread from the young to the old, and their lifelong savings have been dedicated to benevolent and charitable projects. Although I did not know Mrs Alexander personally, I know many of the institutions that she and her husband helped to found, and members of the Armenian community have been good and loyal friends for many years. Mrs Alexander and her husband, Dr Alexander, are typical of the steadfast members of the Armenian community, which is a close-knit one and in which the family and support for others is noticeably present. An important part of that family, Mrs Alexander, will be sadly missed. I extend my sympathy to Mrs Alexander's family and her friends.


Mr LANGTON (Kogarah) [5.23]: More than 18 months ago I raised in my local paper, the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, the issue of emergency services in Botany Bay being unprofessional and inadequate. A little over a week ago a DC3 aircraft ditched into Botany Bay. Some very fortuitous circumstances prevented the accident from becoming a tragedy. Those circumstances - the fine weather and the fact that it was a weekend - meant that several recreational and fishing vessels were in the area and were able to respond immediately. The first equipped rescue vessels to respond to the ditching were the Maritime Services Board safety tug Ted Noffs and the fast boat Response II. The water police are responsible for arranging and co-ordinating marine search and rescue operations. One problem in Botany Bay is that the water police are on duty only from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. each day, and at any given time could be anywhere from Sans Souci to halfway up the Georges River.

MSB emergency response vessels cannot respond to a distress call without the prior permission of the water police. That could take some time to obtain if an incident occurs between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Had the DC3 ditched in bad weather, had it been a weekday and had it been much earlier in the morning, the response may have been - and probably would have been - much slower. There would not have been recreational craft in the area, the Maritime Services Board would have had to wait longer for permission from the water police to respond, and what was an unfortunate accident could well have been a tragedy. Eighteen months ago I was concerned about the lack of a co-ordinated, planned and trained response to such an emergency. That issue still has not been resolved.

MSB response group vessels are on duty in Botany Bay 24 hours a day, seven days a week; but their crews are no longer trained to respond to such disasters as aircraft ditching into the bay. Until a few years ago Qantas provided MSB emergency response group personnel with training for aircraft emergencies. Today the emergency response group crews are not involved in any training for aircraft emergency. The Maritime Services Board Sydney Ports Authority does not acknowledge that activity as being part of the port's core responsibilities. The Federal Airports Corporation says that it has no jurisdiction outside the airport's boundaries; it is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. It is petty indeed for organisations to be arguing about core responsibilities and jurisdictions when we are talking about people's lives. The third runway means that there will be more and more air traffic in the region. But each and every organisation is unwilling to acknowledge that this will also result in an increase in the risk of accidents.

The crews working in the MSB's emergency response group are committed to safety and willing to undertake training to respond to such emergencies. However, no one seems to want to know about it. One Maritime Services Board employee has been threatened with the sack if he continues to lobby for a formal aircraft response procedure. The maritime subcommittee of the State Rescue and Emergency Services Board consists of representatives of the water police, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the Australian Volunteer Coastguard and the Volunteer Rescue Association. The Maritime Services Board, which is responsible for maritime safety and regulation and which has round-the-clock emergency response vessels, is not represented on this subcommittee. It is plain that within the emergency response group there is a high level of expertise and dedication to duty, which is being ignored by the MSB, the water police, and the Federal authorities. It is appalling that an airport as busy as is Sydney's does not have a thorough contingency plan for aircraft ditching and that there is no co-ordinated training to prepare for aircraft incidents in Botany Bay.

The debate over which organisation is responsible for such planning and training is childish. Why cannot all these authorities get together and devise a strategy? Dedicated and skilled seamen working in Botany Bay are not only prepared to participate in training but want to be trained to respond to such emergencies. The Sydney Ports Authority's obsession with the notion of core responsibility is facile. Someone must take the lead and develop a co-ordinated, workable procedure to be followed in the event of emergency. The skills of the MSB crews must not be let go to waste. The next ditching could happen tomorrow or in a year's time. However, eventually and unfortunately one will happen. The complacency and buck-passing being displayed at the moment is putting lives at risk.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [5.28]: As is his tendency, the honourable member for Kogarah has coloured the story his own way. I am advised by the Minister responsible that
Page 1903
the report of the story in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 28 April is not strictly correct. The Sydney Ports Authority is not responsible for the control and co-ordination of the response to an aircraft emergency at Botany Bay, and that point should be understood by the honourable member for Kogarah. The authority plays only a support role, as is set out in the relevant emergency plan. Honourable members will agree that it is important to have such plans in place.

The Police Service has the primary rescue role in New South Wales. As defined in these plans, the Sydney Ports Authority's role is to provide support in the form of vessels and personnel - utilising the experience that the honourable member for Kogarah acknowledged - when available, and under the direction of the Police Service. The authority's vessels were the first government vessels at the scene of the DC3 ditching on 24 April, arriving 10 minutes after notification of the accident from the Civil Aviation Authority. The port authority's activities were confined at that stage to deployment of pollution control booms as a precautionary measure. The aircraft contained 3,000 litres of aviation gasoline and 200 litres of lubricating oil. The authority's staff continued to monitor the pollution threat until the aircraft was salvaged.

Sections within the Civil Aviation Authority are using this incident to support claims for that authority having its own first response vessels. I agree with the honourable member for Kogarah that we should get it right and get a plan in place. There must be a proper plan, but it is a shame that the honourable member politicised the matter by attempting to dump on the Sydney Ports Authority, which responded quickly to the incident. The authority is more than happy to co-operate in the development and upholding of emergency plans.


Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [5.30]: I speak on behalf of my constituents Mr Bill Wilson and Mrs Jill Wilson, of 71 Severne Street, Queanbeyan, with regard to the unfortunate case of their daughter Jemma. This case is representative of many similar cases across the State. Desperate parents attempt to raise with welfare agencies concerns about the behaviour of their children, but without much success. Mrs Wilson sent me a letter on 18 April - the date is important - which reads:

Dear Mr Cochran,

This letter is a plea from a desperate parent.

Six weeks ago our sixteen year old daughter Jemma left home without our knowledge and moved into a refuge here in Queanbeyan. She was aided in this act by David Blankley who is responsible for the day to day running of Youth Resources in Queanbeyan. She had previously run away in December, but returned home after a week of "time out".

After a confrontation at home I made an appointment for Jemma with Mr Blankley to see if he could help her sort out why she was so angry. He promised me that he would contact me after seeing Jemma and give me some feed back. Mr Blankley did not contact me. My ten year old son phoned me at my place of work and asked me why Jemma was going away in a car with a strange person.

Upon phoning Mr Blankley he told me that Jemma was the client and therefore could not tell me what they had discussed. He told me that Jemma was having time out and refused to tell me or my husband where she was. All he would tell us is that all contact had to be through him, effectively preventing us from making contact with our daughter. I find this outrageous.

The next day I was contacted by Mr Anthony Johnson from the Department of Community Services in Queanbeyan who insisted on seeing my husband or I before telling us where our daughter was.

This sequence of events shocked and angered us both because we had previously spoken with Mary Harris, who is a District Officer with Department of Community Services in December when Jemma went to the School Counsellor and announced that she wanted to leave home. Mary's assessment of Jemma then was that she was immature and easily led and she felt the last place Jemma should go was a refuge because of the bad influences there.

The letter goes on to describe the situation and to make requests of me. I believe there is a desperate need in the community for another step between the dispute in the family home - the confrontation with which we are all familiar - and the community refuge supported by the department. Officers who are involved in the early stages of a conflict should be able to offer accommodation in a foster home to a desperate child, away from the influence of refuges, which quite often have a detrimental effect. The parents involved in this case are of the highest standing. I have known them personally for many years. They are desperate for help. No counselling is available for the parents. The child was first counselled without any consultation with the parents. I am not seeking to apportion blame - in fact, the Wilsons praised Anthony Johnson and Mary Harris - but there seems to be a flaw in the system. I ask the Minister for Community Services to use this case as a test case - the Wilsons have informed me that they would be happy for this to occur - to establish where we are failing in addressing the problems of young people.

Jemma has been before the courts. She has been wandering to and fro between community service facilities in the Australian Capital Territory and refuges in the Australian Capital Territory. She has been in conflict with the law in the Territory as well as in New South Wales. As late as yesterday she pleaded guilty to five counts of fraudulently receiving money. Next Monday she is due to appear again in Queanbeyan Local Court on an unlicensed driver charge. While many would say that she is an irresponsible and uncontrollable child, the problems started on or about 18 April. Many parents in this House and in the community can relate to such problems. The Minister must consider the parents in these situations and consult them at the earliest opportunity. Conciliation between the family and the child must be the top priority of the department at all times.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater - Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing) [5.35]: The concern of the honourable member for Monaro about such issues is genuine. A situation not dissimilar to that raised by
Page 1904
the honourable member led me to initiate a pilot program for intensive family based services to assist families before they break up. The prevention side of the equation has been neglected for far too long in Australia, and New South Wales is a leader with its pilot programs. The Government has also commenced programs for counselling and mediation between parents and teenagers with a view to prevention of family break-up. I will make the relevant inquiries in regard to the specific instance raised today and ensure that the honourable member is provided with a response. This Government has a very proud record on these issues - because of the concerns of members such as the honourable member for Monaro. We are leading Australia with innovative preventive programs, which are the direction of the future. I applaud the honourable member for raising the issue.


Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.37]: I wish to alert the House to a bureaucratic bunfight which is depriving local community groups of vital funding under the Central Coast area assistance scheme. I am told that the dispute involves the Treasury and the Department of Community Services and their respective Ministers, and it has now extended to the Premier himself. Before detailing the source of the dispute and its urgent need for resolution it is essential for me to ensure that members understand the importance of the area assistance scheme to the Central Coast. It is a positive program designed to assist community groups to establish the sort of new services which are needed in developing areas such as the Central Coast. Remember, the Central Coast's annual population growth of 4.5 per cent is the second fastest rate of growth in New South Wales.

The Central Coast is an area characterised by an unemployment rate above the national average, a high density of social security benefit and pension recipients - in fact the Central Coast includes two of the highest figures for local government areas in Australia - disturbing levels of domestic violence, and a lower than average family income. It follows that there are increasing and competing demands on community services. Since the introduction of the Central Coast area assistance scheme under the previous Labor Government the scheme has helped to meet these demands. Each year almost $400,000 in capital, recurrent and pick-up funding has resulted in spending for purposes as diverse as the provision of an incest survivor worker, a drug and alcohol intervention worker, a project officer for disabled children and youth service co-ordinators.

The House will agree that this expenditure plays an important part in maintaining social cohesion by assisting people in genuine need or trouble. Many people would be left isolated and facing the prospect of further distress without the benefits of area assistance scheme projects. It is bad enough that funding has been reduced by 5 per cent in real terms since 1990-91, but pick-up funding under this year's scheme, according to the most recent reports, has been delayed indefinitely. The deadline for applications under the scheme was originally in December last year, but it has since been subject to regular postponements. I understand that at least one local council has been advised that there is no longer a commitment to funding for 1994.

The source of the current dispute is Treasury's effort to off-load pick-up funding to the Department of Community Services. Treasury wants to provide community services with funding for only the program's next four years before handing over all funding responsibilities. The Department of Community Services has resisted any such moves because it fears that it cannot afford to fund the projects, given existing strains on its budget. I have been reliably informed that the matter is now before the Premier for consideration and I have made representations to the Premier requesting an urgent resolution of the dispute.

My chief concern is that the Premier's history on policy issues at the moment - one based on flip-flops and filibustering - will see this dispute drag on. No wonder council has been advised that funding has been delayed indefinitely since the matter has been referred to the Premier. In the meantime community groups seeking funding for necessary projects, such as the provision of a domestic violence worker, have been left in limbo. I mention specifically the position of a domestic violence worker because of its relationship to other government programs recently announced. Only last week the Minister for Police launched a revised campaign to encourage more women to report domestic violence. Everyone would agree that such sentiments are worthy and positive, given the insidious crime of domestic violence. However, those victims who rightly report domestic violence require immediate counselling to ease their emotional strain. Victims who decide to take the brave step and report domestic violence - and the Minister has announced a new campaign to encourage this - should have available to them the services of a domestic violence worker.

At present at least one community organisation on the Central Coast is hoping to improve the range of options available to women seeking counselling for domestic violence by obtaining funding under the 1994 Central Coast area assistance scheme. Without a certain future for the scheme - and a future that is settled immediately - that service will remain idle and women seeking such help will be forced to turn elsewhere. Projects of this nature highlight the need for an urgent resolution of the funding wrangle currently delaying the Central Coast area assistance scheme. I hope the Premier can put aside his indifference to decision-making by assuring community organisations on the Central Coast about the future of the program.

Page 1905

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga) [5.42]: I bring to the attention of the House a matter initiated by the Rotary Club of Wagga Wagga - Kooringal Incorporated - involving a grass roots campaign to promote peace throughout the world, particularly through the Rotary movement. The movement has 40,000 members in Australia, 1.2 million members worldwide and operates in 149 countries or 39 geographic areas. Therefore, it is an ideal vehicle to promote this initiative. In 1991, the then president of the local Rotary club, Tony Quinlivan, initiated a project and two years later, on 23 February 1993, Rotary World Understanding and Peace Day, a large monument - a symbol of peace - was unveiled comprising a globe of the world behind a gold dove. On that day the former President of Rotary International, Royce Abbey, unveiled the Rotary peace symbol and the mayor of Wagga Wagga, councillor Pat Brassil, declared Wagga Wagga the world's first peace city.

One year later, on 23 February this year, Kooringal Rotary Club, with the assistance of Rotary Down Under, launched the Rotary peace badge in Wagga Wagga. It is hoped that this may become an initiative for the international Rotary movement. The objective of the project is to promote, support and inspire peace by encouraging places throughout the world to display the symbol and become towns and cities of peace. It is hoped that the symbol will be sold each year on Rotary World Understanding and Peace Day, 23 February, with the proceeds assisting victims of wars and disasters. The message was spread to the Rotary Convention in Melbourne last year and will be continued at this year's convention in Taipei. The project has had strong support from past presidents of Rotary International, Prime Ministers and world leaders, including Mother Teresa. Wagga Wagga Mayor Pat Brassil and Wagga Wagga City Council have been supportive in every possible way. The Rotary Club of Belfast distributed a video of the project to all 70 clubs in Ireland.

Moscow has indicated that it wishes to take part in the project, and in June Manila will seek to become the first peace city in Asia. Rotarian Geoffrey Little, known as the smiling policeman, has been appointed a special emissary to promote the peace project for the Kooringal Rotary Club in Asia. He travels widely and is doing a wonderful job. I had the privilege of being at a Rotary launch at Wagga Wagga where Geoff Little was a speaker. He is a great public relations man for the police, but as a Rotarian he brought forward a compelling message using the letters of peace. He said that the P represented police in the community; the E represented education; the A represented the army of peacekeepers - the price of peace is eternal vigilance; the C represented community service provided by clubs such as Rotary; and the E stood for the environment, which we should all protect.

Mother Teresa endorsed the project and outlined her views on peace in a message to the club. I was surprised to hear - albeit secondhand - that Geoff Little is required to seek permission to wear his police uniform when he addresses public meetings. I have sought an explanation from the Commissioner of Police, Tony Lauer. I ask for all honourable members, particularly Rotarians, to take an interest in the project and assist with its promotion. I hope that Sydney will become a peace city well before the year 2000. I have sent material to the Sydney Rotary Club, which I hope will take up the cause.


Mr DAVOREN (Lakemba) [5.47]: I wish to refer to cleaning services at McCallums Hill Public School. I have received correspondence in relation to the matter and a copy of the letter was sent to the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Director-General of School Education and a number of other people. After reading this letter I felt it was worthy of some investigation, and I shall release the results to the House. At the outset I emphasise that no complaint is made about the cleaners per se. They do a magnificent job. Indeed, many of the cleaners live nearby, come in early and leave late, without increased remuneration, because they have an interest in the school. Since the contract has been assumed by Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited the time allocated for cleaning the school has been cut to 50 hours per week. This may seem to be more than enough time, but the standard of cleaning required for that school is equal, at its highest, to that required for a hospital, and, at its lowest, to that required for a bank.

The school, unlike most which are single multistorey buildings, is composed of a large number of separate single-storey buildings, and cleaners lose time moving from building to building. Much vandalism occurs in the general area of the school. For that reason school cleaners are required, on entering a building, to close doors to ensure security. As only 50 hours have been allocated for cleaning, the cleaning company has decided that cleaners should work individually. That decision presented a security problem. A conference was arranged between Ken Cope - the Berkeley Challenge branch manager with responsibility for that area - and some of the staff. Mr Cope realised there were problems but pointed out that he had a job to do. He said that Berkeley Challenge had quoted for the jobs, though the quote was lower than it should have been as it was based on an overall estimate for a number of schools rather than individual schools.

The Berkeley Challenge principals had a responsibility to their shareholders to show a profit. The school had cut the number of cleaning hours from 60 to 50 but in a fit of munificence agreed to extend cleaning time by 24 minutes a day. I calculate that to be 120 minutes extra a week, which bring total cleaning hours to 52 a week. The school could decide
Page 1906
to employ more cleaners, but that would bring greater responsibilities and increased costs. Those extra costs would take the school over its budget, and it could not afford that. Last Friday an inspection was conducted by Berkeley Challenge supervisors. The scuttlebutt was that cleaning time would be reduced and that the 24 minutes extra a day might disappear, with extra time coming out of the allocated 50 hours a week. It is all very well for the Government to stand back, beat its chest and say it is saving X millions of dollars, but money should not be saved at the expense of children and teachers. [Time expired.]

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [5.52]: The honourable member for Lakemba said that correspondence has been widely circulated, including to the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services, the Minister responsible. I am sure the Minister will respond.

Mr Davoren: There has been no response to date. I invited her to come down and see what is happening.

Ms MACHIN: I do not know whether the Minister was notified.

Mr Davoren: She was. I am very polite and protocol wise.

Ms MACHIN: Though the Minister is busy, I will certainly convey the honourable member's information to her and draw the matter to her attention. The honourable member for Lakemba is polite, and I realise that he is aware of protocol, so I am not surprised that he has told the Minister. The honourable member in his contribution spoke about the industrial environment but I did not hear him comment on how well the school is cleaned. Surely cleanliness is the real issue. If the Government is getting efficiencies out of the cleaning service, that can only benefit taxpayers. To date such benefits have been significant and look like being part and parcel of a continuing success. I note what the honourable member has said. I assure him that the Chief Secretary will be made aware of his concerns at the earliest opportunity as soon as she returns.


Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [5.54]: I wish to speak about the effect of regulations in the Murrumbidgee electorate, though in doing so I do not speak as Chairman of the Regulation Review Committee. I was approached by Mr Gino Altin of Bruno Altin Pty Limited, septic tank manufacturers of Griffith. He expressed concern about the adverse impact of regulations on his business. I wish to bring this matter before the House because I believe any fair-minded person would have to agree that regulations are affecting areas they should not be, as instanced by the experience of Mr Altin. Responsibility for overseeing manufacturing requirements for septic tanks - now termed waste treatment devices - is administered by several organisations and statutory bodies under part 3 of the Local Government Act Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, and the Local Government Act Local Government (Water, Sewerage and Drainage) Regulation 1993, and codes embraced within those regulations.

The Department of Health approves the appliance provisions and sets the manufacturing standards under clause 75. Since the regulation was enacted the Department of Health, for health reasons, has set a minimum capacity for septic tanks of 2,050 litres. From the time Mr Bruno Altin came to Australia in 1950 he has been manufacturing 1,700 litre septic tanks and has never had a complaint about them. Now he has to manufacture 2,050 litre tanks. In addition, the manufacturer's products are subjected to testing. The cost of testing has to be met by the manufacturer. Mr Altin said to me, "I have a computer-controlled cement batching machine. The only way it can muck up the mix is by running out of product". That does not happen: without product it does not go. What is required is punched in, and from that point the human hand does not touch the mix from which septic tanks are made. There is the initial test before approval to use the mark can be given, and later there are random tests for continuing use of the mark. The Australian Bureau of Standards returns and tests randomly at the manufacturer's expense.

The local council has the responsibility of approving the individual installations. The regulation provides for some discretion on the part of the council although the provisions in this regard are rather vague. Their area of responsibility does not embrace the size of the tank, under clause 75, and connection, under clause 76 and AS 3500 - a code adopted by a regulation. The manufacturing standard is not directly embraced by any clause but in the absence of clear definition the relevant Australian standard is referenced for comfort. Naturally, the manufacturer complies. However, the major manufacturing adjustment, that is, relating to size and manufacturing specifications, since the introduction of the local government approvals regulation, is notable. So far as the manufacturers are concerned, the needs of each respective authority are essential before delivery.

What concerns Mr Altin is that as time goes by more and more regulations which have seriously impacted on his business are coming into force. The substantial cost increases and additional administration lower the efficiency of his business. He had a lady working for him doing administrative work three hours per week for 25 employees. That same lady is now working five days a week filling in government forms and carrying out all the extracurricular activities which are being put upon the business by various government departments. Costs are rising with the regulations. Changes to the regulations which affect his line of business have cost him $11,000. Who pays for that? The Department of Health took the opportunity on the introduction of the local government approvals regulation to revise health requirements affecting septic tanks.

Page 1907

The department decided that the minimum size tank should be of a 2,050 litre capacity. The firm had been making 1,700 litre capacity tanks for 20 years, but to change to manufacturing 2,050 litre tanks required $10,000 worth of new moulds and the other ones had to be discarded. A licence is required. Now that the Department of Health has moved in, this man needs a licence to manufacture his septic tanks. He has never had a licence since he commenced his business in 1950, but now there will be a $1,000 fee payable to the Department of Health. I am not citing anyone in particular, but unless governments are prepared to face up to these sorts of problems small businesses will continue to go under. I must impress upon members that it is the responsibility of Ministers and heads of departments to ensure commonsense regulations are imposed on people, not mandatory regulations from bureaucrats.


Mr A. S. AQUILINA (St Marys) [5.59]: I wish to speak about the proposed Badgerys Creek airport and the Federal Government's most recent decision to fast track development of that airport. Considerable responsibility resides with the State Government to provide infrastructure and extra funding leading up to the Olympic Games. What has happened in relation to Badgerys Creek airport over the past 12 months? It has been a hard game to play, in that local councils, Penrith City Council, Liverpool City Council and the western Sydney councils, via WESROC, the association of western Sydney councils, have been pushing for almost a decade to have that airport fast tracked to international status.

That the Federal Airports Corporation up until even recent weeks indicated that it was not possible to have a sustainable international airport operating from Badgerys Creek - which flies in the face of all the research that has been done by Penrith City Council, Liverpool City Council, WESROC, other private bodies, chambers of commerce and interested people of the community - is an indication that the Federal Government had been wrongly advised by the FAC for some years. I met former Federal Minister Collins and, since then, Minister Brereton. The previous Minister listened far too intently, in my view, to what the FAC had to say, that the airport could not be sustained as an international standard airport before the year 2015.

Western Sydney has a population greater than those of South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory, and therefore it is only natural that it be provided with an airport much earlier than was originally proposed by the FAC. The State Government should ensure that, as the proposal is being fast tracked to ensure that an international standard airport will be at least partially available by the year 1998, whatever necessary infrastructure in terms of transport and road networks and business houses is provided. I put on record the importance being placed by Penrith City Council and Liverpool City Council on State Government funding for such infrastructure. Given that the Olympic Games are coming to Sydney in the year 2000, these matters must be addressed. [Time Expired.]

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [6.4]: I express extreme concern on behalf of two constituents of mine, Mrs Eileen Tritton and her son, Adam. They are concerned specifically about a delay in justice for Adam, who, in March 1992, was the victim of a car accident. In March 1992, Adam Tritton was at Cowan with a group of other young people who were walking home from a dance at a local hall. As they were walking, a car was being driven at speed up and down the roadway. Ultimately, the car ran into the back of Adam Tritton. He clearly was very fortunate not to have been seriously injured - although, of course, he was injured when hit from the rear, and as a result has suffered ongoing stress. As a result of the accident the driver was charged with a series of offences, including driving dangerously, negligent driving, and driving an unregistered vehicle.

When the matter first went to court - and in this regard my constituent is not entirely clear, as the papers are elsewhere - some time in mid to late 1992, the driver pleaded not guilty to the offences. The matter was adjourned in the Hornsby Local Court. I am not in any way reflecting on the guilt or innocence of the person who has been charged with these offences. I ask the Attorney General and the Minister for Police to make sure that every effort is made to ensure that this matter is dealt with expeditiously, because every day the matter is delayed, my constituent - the victim of a horrible accident - is being denied justice.

The matter resumed in the Hornsby Local Court in December of that year but not all the witnesses were heard. I was informed by Mrs Tritton that the case was adjourned. It eventually made its way to the Downing Centre in 1993. According to Mrs Tritton, the other parties did not turn up and their barrister was apparently at another trial. Mrs Tritton was most concerned that neither she nor her son had been informed that there would be any further delay. They came prepared with all the witnesses to the incident. The matter was again adjourned and relisted for March 1994 and my constituent and his witnesses - the young people who had been there at the time - were again sent away. Mrs Tritton was informed that the clerk of the court had ticked the wrong box and the matter was set down for mention, not for hearing. So, again, having prepared themselves, having come ready to give evidence in this important matter, the witnesses were sent away - a further delay.

Of further concern is that the prosecutor in the case has been transferred out of the area - according to Mrs Tritton, to somewhere on the North Coast. I ask the Ministers to ensure that when the case comes back to court finally - and it has been relisted for July - the original prosecutor be present to take this case to finality. One can imagine the concern of my constituents as the months pass. As these young people go about their business their recollections of the incident may become slightly hazy, the prosecutor himself has moved out of the area, and the details of
Page 1908
the case may not immediately come to mind. My constituents are concerned that further delay may mean that justice will not be served. Justice demands that there is a quick resolution of this matter whichever way it may go - and I make no reflection on that. My constituent, a truly innocent victim, must be allowed to finally receive justice.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Hazzard) left the chair at 6.8 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence - Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines) [7.30]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill before the House today serves two purposes. First, it authorises the sale of the fish marketing business of the Fish Marketing Authority to a joint venture company which represents both the catching and buying sectors of the fishing industry. Second, the bill will provide for the decriminalisation of the fish marketing system in New South Wales in three years. I will first deal with the reasons why the Government decided to transfer the fish marketing business to the fishing industry. The Government believes that the fishing industry is capable of managing its own affairs and should be given the opportunity of doing so. It is not a proper function of governments to run fish markets and they are poorly equipped for this.

The recent unsatisfactory financial history of the fish markets shows that governments are not well placed to run businesses of this sort. This is evidenced by the previous Labor Government's mismanagement of the Blackwattle Bay facility, which resulted in the construction costs almost doubling. This left the Fish Marketing Authority with a crippling debt from which it has not been able to recover. It is true that in recent years this Government's initiatives have restored the financial viability of the Fish Marketing Authority to a significant extent. Nevertheless, the arguments for government withdrawing from running fish markets are still valid. Indeed, the improvement in the authority's position has made it a more attractive opportunity for the fishing industry to take over.

I will now turn to the outdated regulations inhibiting the growth of the fishing industry in New South Wales. Currently, the Fish Marketing Authority has power over the marketing of all fish caught and sold in New South Wales. Fishermen must sell their catch through the centralised marketing channels controlled by the authority. The authority has a monopoly over fish marketing in the greater Sydney area. In regional areas, the authority grants monopolies to fishing co-operatives through which fishermen must market their catch. The legislation currently provides that it is an offence to sell fish in any other manner. That means that fishermen who market their catch as they think best are treated under the fish marketing laws as criminals. The Government considers that provisions of this nature can no longer be justified.

There are many reasons why this regulatory system should be removed. Consumers will benefit in the form of lower prices and prospects for better quality fish. This will flow from the increased competition between fish sellers and the removal of unnecessary and costly steps in the marketing chain. Other States have not found it necessary to utilise a regulated centralised fish marketing system. Their retail outlets and markets offer good services and charge low commission rates to attract fishermen and consumers. Why should New South Wales fishermen be held back while their counterparts in other States are given the freedom to manage their own affairs and operate their own markets?

There is substantial evidence that fish markets can operate successfully without government interference. In New South Wales, a minority of fishermen have devised ways of getting around the current laws to sell fish where they know there are customers. The fact that a black market exists shows that the fishing industry wants to take matters into its own hands. Finally, the Government's withdrawing from regulating fish marketing paves the way for the fishing industry to take control of the business and manage its own affairs.

The Government has responded to each of these arguments in favour of transferring the business to the industry and decriminalising fish marketing in the State. It called for expressions of interest and final tenders from the industry to take over the fish marketing business at Blackwattle Bay. This was a way of asking whether the industry was interested in acquiring and managing the business. As a result, a wide cross-section of the industry has united to approach the Government and ask for the business to be transferred to it. Another aspect of the Government's consultation with the fishing industry was the establishment of an industry consultative committee to advise the Government on industry views on deregulation. The industry has accepted the Government's intentions to deregulate the fish marketing system, but requested that implementation be delayed to allow for a period of adjustment.

The Government has accepted industry wishes and the bill before the House delays deregulation for three years. The Government's tender process resulted in three tenderers progressing to the final stage of the tender. These were the fishermen's co-operatives, the merchants and tenants at the Sydney Fish Markets, and a group of licensed South Coast fishermen. The South Coast fishermen failed to submit a final bid, while the first two tenderers formed a joint venture, Sydney Fish Markets Pty Limited, to unite the major players in the industry. The joint venture submitting the bid represents the majority of both the buying sectors and catching sectors of the industry. Each sector of the industry has equal participation in the joint venture. The Government has been negotiating with the joint venture and has been successful in reaching a satisfactory agreement to sell them the business.

Page 1909

In brief, the terms of the agreement are: the Government will retain the freehold land at Blackwattle Bay. The joint venture will lease the site for 40 years with a 10-year option to renew. The joint venture will pay the Government $3 million for the assets and goodwill of the business, plus an annual rental of $1.5 million for the lease of the site. For a limited period after deregulation, any substantial decrease in market throughput will result in a rent reduction. The Government has agreed to assume the debt imposed on the fish markets by the previous Government. The joint venture will offer all the existing 47 staff of the Fish Marketing Authority employment on similar terms and conditions. These jobs have been guaranteed for at least 12 months.

The joint venture accepts the Government's intention to implement deregulation in three years' time. Up to that point, the current regulations will continue and will be administered by New South Wales Fisheries. This allows time for the new operators of the market and the wider industry in general to consolidate and adjust their operations. The bill before the House authorises the sale of the business to Sydney Fish Markets Pty Limited; dissolves the Fish Marketing Authority at the time of sale; provides for the retention of the Blackwattle Bay site in Government ownership; authorises a lease of the site to Sydney Fish Markets Pty Limited; transfers the authority's regulatory functions to New South Wales Fisheries for three years; and deregulates the fish marketing system throughout New South Wales in three years' time.

The Government wants to see a commercially viable and vibrant market at the Blackwattle Bay site. I am particularly keen to see the site developed so that it can realise its full potential as a successful commercial operation, a tourist attraction and an integral part of Sydney life. The joint venture has indicated its eagerness for early improvement of the site. The Government believes that transferring the business to the joint venture will allow the markets to be run by the people who best understand the industry and fish marketing. This is an opportunity to bring the industry together to work co-operatively towards more efficient marketing methods. I am confident that this bill will have benefits for the fishing industry throughout the State, for consumers and for the wider community. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Martin.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing) [7.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the proposal before the House is to amend the provisions of the Gaming and Betting Act to allow licensed bookmakers to accept bets by telephone on a racecourse during the conduct of a race-meeting. Let me say from the outset that this measure is one which the Government is taking with the overall support of the racing industry in this State. All three codes of racing in New South Wales, that is galloping, harness racing and greyhound racing, have indicated support for this proposal. The aim of the proposal is twofold, the first being to assist the viability of the bookmaking industry in this State and the second being to combat the existing illegal starting price bookmaking operators through the provision of a legal alternative.

With regard to bookmakers' viability, honourable members might be interested to note that both the number of bookmakers operating and the total betting turnover held by this group have sharply declined in recent years. In fact, between 1980 and 1993 the total number of bookmakers operating decreased by 40 per cent from 1,113 to 668. Total betting turnover has diminished from a high point of $1,382 million in 1989 to $869 million in the last financial year, and as at 31 March this year a further decline of 11 per cent has been recorded this financial year compared to figures for last year. It is possible that the significance of these declines is not realised by some members who are not familiar with the structure of the racing industry in this State.

I would, however, assure these members that there is general agreement in the industry that any further decline in numbers and viability of bookmakers will have serious ramifications for the industry as a whole. More specifically, this downward trend will have a detrimental effect on race-meeting attendances and totalizator betting turnovers, and this in turn will affect both race club and government revenues. In respect of this Government's ongoing commitment to combating SP betting, the proposal will provide a legal alternative for punters who are unable to attend race-meetings and wish to bet at a fixed price with a bookmaker. I believe that the greatest inroads in eradicating SP betting result from direct competition. A legal telephone betting system for licensed bookmakers will further impact on current SP operators and will assist in their exclusion from the market.

I mentioned earlier the support that the racing industry has expressed for this initiative, and I should now also point out that governments in most other States and Territories have already approved of similar telephone betting systems for implementation in those jurisdictions. In this respect I understand that the system operated by South Australian bookmakers since May last year has resulted in an outflow of racing investments to that State from New South Wales punters. This trend is expected to continue unless a viable operation is established in New South Wales, with the result that significant amounts of potential race club and government revenues will be lost to interstate bodies.

Under the proposed amendments bookmakers wishing to participate in telephone betting will need to apply to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing
Page 1910
for a permit. Any such permission will be subject to conditions imposed by the Minister. I might make mention of two of the major conditions which will be attached to the scheme. The first will prescribe a minimum bet level of a $250 outlay or $2,000 liability. This measure has been agreed to on an Australia-wide basis in order to ensure that there is no significant threat to established TAB betting services. It is a measure which is supported by the bookmakers themselves, as they have insisted for some time now that the market they have targeted is the current illegal SP market and not the rank and file TAB punter.

A further condition will limit the amount of betting market information that bookmakers will be allowed to pass on to their clients. Other provisions of the bill will allow participating bookmakers to advertise availability of telephone betting services and enable authorised bookmakers to make statements about betting odds they are prepared to accept or offer. All calls to participating bookmakers will be made to a PABX or similar system that will enable details of the bets made to be logged and recorded by an attached recording unit. Calls to the PABX will then be diverted to mobile telephones used by bookmakers in such a way as to ensure that the telephone numbers of the mobile telephones do not become known. This will ensure that all calls to bookmakers are logged through the system and recorded.

The PABX and recording equipment will be purchased by, and be under the control of, the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing. As far as revenues from the scheme are concerned, although it is not intended as a revenue raising exercise, it is envisaged that, at the current 1 per cent turnover tax rate applicable to bets made with bookmakers, the Government will receive additional revenue in the order of $1 million in the first full year of operation of the scheme. In addition, the race clubs themselves are expected to benefit from this initiative by a comparable amount through receipt of additional turnover levies as a result of the scheme. These amounts are best estimates provided as a result of comparisons with similar systems operating interstate.

The legislation will provide the imposition of fees payable by bookmakers who participate in the scheme. However, those fees are not intended to raise revenue but will be set at a level to recover costs involved in the purchase of the mobile phones used by bookmakers and other miscellaneous costs. In conclusion, I should mention that the amendments also provide for the powers of the bookmakers revision committee to be expanded to allow the committee to inquire into alleged breaches of conditions attached to the scheme and to recommend the cancellation or suspension of any authorisation to participate in the scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [7.47]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill before the House creates a new offence in the Crimes Act 1900 by enabling the prosecution of public officials for certain existing fraud offences, when all or any element of the offence occurred outside New South Wales and public money or public property is involved. This Government has an interest in, and a duty to pursue, the prosecution of persons who misuse New South Wales funds or New South Wales property whilst outside the State. However, the Government considers that there is presently a significant gap in the scope of the criminal law which needs to be rectified. At present, unless at least one element of the offence occurs in New South Wales, or the offender is in New South Wales at the time the offence is committed, the Government has no power to prosecute the offender.

The Government considers that the existing law fails to deal with those occasions on which the conduct of a public official is no less reprehensible, but no territorial nexus to New South Wales can presently be found. It is destructive to public confidence as well as to the public purse to allow fraudulent behaviour by public officials overseas go unpunished. The New South Wales Parliament's jurisdictional competence to enact laws governing the conduct of New South Wales public officials overseas is now statutorily based. Section 2(1) of the Australia Act 1985 by the Commonwealth gives full legislative power to the Parliament of each Australian State to make laws for the peace, order and good government of that State that have extra-territorial operation.

In terms of the elements of the new offence, the bill adopts the definition of public official in section 3 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. This definition is widely framed and includes the Governor, members of the Public Service, and any person in the service of the Crown or of a public authority. It is considered sufficiently wide to cover the range of New South Wales officials who may be in a position to misuse public funds or public property whilst overseas. A public official will commit the proposed offence if he or she engages in fraudulent conduct which breaches the provisions of section 178BA or 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900. These sections provide for offences in which a person dishonestly gains for himself or any other person any money, valuable thing or financial advantage by deception or by making or publishing a false or misleading statement knowingly or recklessly indifferent as to the truth or falsity of that statement.

The proposed penalty for the offence is five years' imprisonment. That is consistent with the present penalties under sections 178BA and 178BB.
Page 1911
Section 440 of the Crimes Act will permit the imposition of a fine in addition to, or in substitution of, the proposed five-year imprisonment penalty. Also consistent with sections 178BA and 178BB, the new offence may be disposed of summarily under section 476 or section 496 of the Crimes Act, in which a lower summary penalty range applies for appropriate cases. The proposed legislation will prevent public officials from gaining an unfair advantage from the present lack of extra-territorial application of offences covering fraudulent behaviour. Conduct which would have been clearly criminal if committed in New South Wales will now be liable to prosecution. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Martin.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie - Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting the Minister for Roads, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport) [7.52]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

For over 22 years in this State we have had a system of regulation in the home building industry with the primary aim of protecting consumers of residential building services. The basic elements of the system have included licensing those who operate in the industry and providing a form of indemnity insurance for consumers when those licensed operators fail to deliver a product which is complete and free from defects. Sanctions are included in this system to penalise unlicensed operators and to discourage consumers from dealing with unlicensed operators. It may seem like a relatively easy task to make such a system work. After all, the requirements appear simple and there are many other examples of Government and industry regulatory systems which have similar features.

I acknowledge that the vast majority of builders and contractors do the right thing and thus never have been, and probably never will be, the subject of a complaint to the Building Services Corporation or its predecessor, the Builders Licensing Board. To this extent the system has worked. But, as honourable members will be only too aware, there are many consumers whose experience with the home building industry has left them with the conclusion that their builder or contractor did not know or did not care what he was doing or had insufficient commitment to the task of completing the contract in a good and workmanlike manner. There are too many operators still licensed by the BSC who fail to build to an acceptable standard of workmanship or who fail to properly manage their businesses, with the result that consumers are left high and dry when their contractor goes broke. These matters are the targets of the Government's concerns.

Regulation of the home building industry came into existence with the establishment of the Builders Licensing Board in 1971. Before that, the industry had been almost completely unregulated. Much of the impetus for government regulation in fact came from the building industry. The Master Builders Association had been seeking regulation since 1908. It had argued that fewer building and contracting firms becoming insolvent would mean that subcontractors and suppliers would be more likely to be paid, and paid on time. They also believed that problems associated with undercapitalisation, inefficient management of companies and the proliferation of unqualified entrepreneurs could all be addressed through licensing. As a result of these overtures from industry and the unfortunate experience of quite a number of consumers, a parliamentary select committee of inquiry into the building industry was held in 1969. This inquiry had quite a deal to say about what it called the predators who worked in the industry and the raw deal which many consumers had received at the hands of the industry. It recommended setting standards for those working in the industry and licensing those who met the standards.

The Builders Licensing Board was created to be the vehicle for implementing this system. So a course was set which has persisted to this day. Consumer protection would be achieved through industry regulation. Regulation would weed out the incompetents and the predators. Standards of work would improve, fewer builders would go broke and, it must follow, the public would benefit. Some 15 years later, a second parliamentary inquiry was held, this time into the operations of the Builders Licensing Board. This inquiry observed that community expectations had undergone considerable change in the years since the Builders Licensing Board was established. The public were more aware of their rights as consumers, they were better educated on consumer issues and were demanding a greater level of responsiveness and effectiveness from government organisations.

The 1986 inquiry concluded that the Builders Licensing Board had not changed with the times. The inquiry had shown that the board "is not providing the services required by the public and has been slow to recognise changing community attitudes and needs". So the Builders Licensing Board was abolished in 1987 and, in its place, the Building Services Corporation was created. Further reforms were introduced in 1990 with the passage of the Building Services Corporation Act. This legislation was described as the second and final stage of the legislative reforms previously begun with the establishment of the corporation in 1987. The then Minister's second reading speech described the legislation as establishing a one-stop-shop licensing system for the building industry, enhancing insurance protection, particularly for purchasers of owner-built houses, and addressing the many home building problems that occupied centre stage during the 1988 building boom.

Page 1912

The Building Services Corporation came under criticism some two years later with the publication of the report of the Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry. The royal commissioner, Roger Gyles, expressed concern in his 1992 report that, given its primary role as a consumer protection body, the corporation disproportionately represented the interests of the supply side of the industry and had not adequately addressed the needs of consumers. Concern was also voiced about the surplus funds generated by the corporation and the high level of funding for education activities, little of which was seen to provide for consumer education. The royal commission received various complaints about the operations of the BSC. This, coupled with evidence of maladministration of funding by the BSC to the Master Builders Association group apprenticeship schemes, led Commissioner Gyles to find that an external review of the Building Services Corporation was warranted.

The Government responded to this by appointing Dr Peter Dodd as a commissioner to head up an inquiry into the BSC. Dr Dodd was appointed to inquire specifically into the way in which the residential building industry in New South Wales was regulated and administered. The inquiry was given the task of investigating and providing recommendations to the Government on consumer protection in the home building and related services industries. Commissioner Dodd reported to the Government in February 1993 and the report was released as a public document shortly thereafter. One of the principal findings of the Dodd inquiry was that the one-stop-shop approach adopted by the BSC is fundamentally flawed. He concluded that the BSC has put itself in a position of conflict by taking on too many roles - licensing, dispute resolution, discipline, consumer protection, insurance provider and funder of education and training. To quote from Dodd:

The majority of consumers who wrote to me believe that the BSC is biased towards builders; equally, most builders who wrote to me believe that the BSC is biased towards consumers. The frustration of consumers and builders who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a dispute is often redirected to the BSC. The system is becoming more and more unworkable.

Dodd recommended that the key functions of industry regulation and consumer advice, dispute resolution and insurance, be separated. In respect of licensing, Dodd concluded that its existence is not a guarantee of quality. Most complaints against builders are against licensed builders. The current gold licensing system was found to be misleading in that it suggests better than average quality work by contractors when this is not necessarily the case. Dodd also concluded that the present structure of the licensing system is also prone to industry capture by creating barriers to entry. Licensing was recommended for replacement by a registration scheme which would be supported by a compulsory indemnity insurance scheme. With its emphasis on less regulation by Government, the Dodd inquiry saw no reason for the Building Services Corporation to continue its monopoly of the insurance market for the residential building industry.

Dodd considered that insurance for residential building work should be reviewed and privatised. He considered that the lack of price competition and innovation are not in the best interests of consumers or the citizens of New South Wales, and the links with licensing and dispute resolution mean that the BSC is in a position to apply unfair leverage of builders and consumers, a position which would not be available to private insurers. The BSC has been a major funder of education and training in the residential building industry. Dodd confirmed the earlier view of Commissioner Gyles that the bulk of this money has been directed to the supply side of the industry with only a small proportion being devoted directly to consumer education and training. Dodd also found that funding for education and training provided by the BSC needed to be better managed and, if it continued, needed to be linked to overall State labour markets and training needs. Dodd supported the corporation's development of a plain English residential building contract. The contract was seen to hold the key to alleviating many of the disputes which currently occur.

On the issue of consumer protection and support, Dodd saw that the effort being made needed to be overhauled. He challenged the continuation of a strategy which focused primarily on achieving protection for consumers through industry regulation and education. I will touch briefly on a number of other important issues taken up by Dodd. He was critical of the large surplus funds accumulated by the BSC as was, to a much lesser extent, the 1986 inquiry of the Builders Licensing Board. Dodd took up the issue of the role of local government and called for a system of mandatory inspections at critical stages of residential building work. Dodd also believed that the board of the corporation should be restructured, with its membership reconstituted as an advisory council.

After receiving the report the then Minister set up a small task force to consider public reaction to it. The following organisations were invited to comment on the report: the Australian Consumers Association, the Trade Practices Commission, the Building Action Review Group, the Labor Council of New South Wales, Mr John Mant, the Master Builders Association of New South Wales, the Housing Industry Association, the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of New South Wales, the Electrical Contractors Association of New South Wales, the senior referee of the Building Disputes Tribunal, the Chairman of the Commercial Tribunal, the Local Government and Shires Associations, the Department of Local Government and Co-operatives and the Attorney General's Department. The task force included representatives of the Premier's Department, the Department of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training and Further Education, the Department of Housing, the Office of the Minister for Housing, a representative of the Minister for Consumer Affairs, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

The task force reported that, whilst there was widespread agreement about the problems described by Dr Dodd, there were quite divergent views about
Page 1913
some of the solutions he proposed. The task force recommended to the Minister that further research and consultation be undertaken into the feasibility and implications of the Dodd report recommendations. This research and consultation has been under way since late last year and is to continue in two important respects - licensing and insurance, on which I will have something more to say shortly. In the meantime, a number of important changes have been put in place in response to the criticisms of Dodd and Gyles. For the information of honourable members I would like to touch on a few of these changes. The BSC has been separated from the Department of Housing, established as a "stand-alone" organisation, and has been transferred from the ministerial responsibility of the Minister for Housing to the Minister for Consumer Affairs. These actions were taken as the first steps in breaking away from the past, and to make it clear that the primary business of the BSC is protecting the consumer.

The plain English home building contract was launched on 15 December 1993. This document marks a turning point in the approach to consumer support and education from now on. It is also a first for achieving a major consumer initiative without the need for further regulation. The building industry, consumers and Government combined to get this initiative in place. It is a clear demonstration of what is possible through a co-operative approach to common problems. I think, as the past has shown, further regulation and government control are not necessarily the answer. A different approach must be found which engenders commitment by the supply side to service and quality on the one hand, and which establishes a vastly better informed consumer on the other.

Although I am pleased with the initial response of consumers and builders towards the contract, I have asked for the BSC to furnish me with a comprehensive report on its first six months of operation. A great deal of work has been done to refocus the consumer education and advice roles of the BSC. This is an area which came in for particular criticism by Dodd and Gyles. With the co-operation of various consumer groups and individuals, the BSC has developed a consumer strategy - a five-point plan to guide the enhancement of this area over the next two to three years. The consumer strategy is being supported by a substantial increase in funding from the BSC for consumer advice and education.

A thorough review has been carried out of the corporation's funding of industry education and research. Over 80 per cent of the $20 million spent on these activities during the past six years has been expended on some form of pre-vocational training. Whilst the Government maintains its strong commitment to training, this is properly the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment. BSC funds have provided many advantages to industry and to those who participated in the training, but the strategy has failed to address the continuing education needs of the industry. In other words, very little has been spent in support of the corporation's objective of maintaining standards in the industry. The process of deciding the allocation of grant funds has also failed to be competitive, thus giving no guarantee that the best projects have received funding.

Following this review, a whole new education and research program has been put in place, addressing both industry and consumer education needs. Particular emphasis has been given to issues of quality and best practice as a way of lifting industry performance and delivering a better product to consumers. Public advertisements calling for expressions of interest in the program closed on 29 April and more than 60 applications were received. These are now being assessed. Further preliminary examination of the recommendations of the Dodd inquiry in respect of licensing and the privatisation of insurance have unearthed many complex issues to consider. In relation to BSC insurance, very few people in responding to the Dodd report raised strong objections to the private sector taking over this role, provided consumers and the industry were treated fairly by any new arrangements. A task force was set up to investigate the issues and the feasibility of such a scheme.

An interim report of the task force has developed a set of principles and an indicative scheme of insurance. Options have been discussed with a number of private insurers to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a further stage. I have now considered the task force interim report and have instructed that the study proceed to the next stage. I expect the task force will complete its work later this year and I will then be in a position to recommend what changes should be adopted in respect of home building insurance. I accept the findings of the Dodd inquiry that insurance should be separate from the dispute resolution functions of the BSC. It is now a question of how this can best be achieved and the timing of such a change. In the meantime, it will be necessary for the BSC to continue to manage the existing scheme. The way in which this is intended to be done during the transitionary phase will, as far as possible, keep the business of running insurance separate from the other business of the BSC.

Very few people have agreed with Dodd's proposals for the abolition of licensing and its replacement with a scheme of registration, supported by compulsory insurance. Industry overwhelmingly supports retention of a licensing scheme, but agrees that the concept of a gold licence has been heavily debased by the poor performance of some licence holders over the four years since such a scheme was adopted. I understand that it was originally introduced as a measure to encourage persons working in the industry to obtain a licence. The way in which it has been promoted has definitely given the impression that it represents superior quality work. As Dodd pointed out, this is not the case. Consumer groups, whilst critical of the licensing system, are not anxious to see it abolished. It is better than nothing seems to be the view.

Page 1914

There are many misunderstandings about the place of licensing and what it is meant to achieve. The hybrid form of license issued by the BSC, combining both occupational licensing and business licensing, has added to the confusion in people's minds about its role. For 22 years New South Wales has had a scheme of consumer protection which has been driven by licensing. In many other administrations around the world protection of the home building consumer is achieved by other means and licensing registration is only a secondary feature of those schemes. It is not possible overnight to simply abandon licensing as we know it in this State. One of the prerequisites for fundamental changes in licensing appears to be the existence of a successful private sector insurance scheme. To further investigate the reform of licensing I will be establishing a licensing review task force. The task force will consult extensively with industry and consumer groups. Its immediate task will be, first, to identify ways of improving the current system in the short term and, second, to examine the options for more fundamental reform of licensing under a privately managed home building insurance scheme.

Many changes and improvements have been implemented in the BSC over the past six months. An all-out effort is being made to clear up arrears of work, particularly in the investigation and resolution of complaints. It is not unfair to say that many of the corporation's management systems and practices were in need of updating and considerable effort has been made over the past few months to bring the organisation into line with modern business practices. The proposed reforms seek to address the problems of the one-stop-shop approach identified by Dr Dodd. The transfer of BSC insurance to the private sector is a key element in unravelling the conflicts generated by the one-stop-shop approach. As I indicated earlier, work on proposals to privatise the insurance is proceeding and it is intended that these proposals be ready for consideration next year.

The bill introduced today covers the remaining significant areas of reform, namely, dispute resolution, disciplinary hearings, the corporation structure and the Building Dispute Tribunal referees. I will turn first to the provisions relating to dispute resolution. As honourable members may be aware, the system for resolving disputes in the residential building industry has proven to be unsatisfactory from the view of the consumer, the builder and the BSC. The objectives of the proposed changes are to facilitate early intervention by the BSC in disputes; to emphasise mediation as the optional first and preferred means of resolving disputes; and to transfer from the BSC to the Building Disputes Tribunal authority to issue rectification orders. The earlier an attempt is made to resolve a dispute between two parties, the better the prospects of its resolution.

The present system of dispute resolution does not facilitate effective early intervention by the BSC. By the time the BSC can act on complaints the relationship between the parties, more often than not, has reached virtual breaking point and the prospect of a negotiated outcome agreeable to both parties is very slim indeed. Under the present system, the consumer must have informed the builder in writing of a complaint and must give the builder 30 days to rectify the problem. Unless health and safety are at risk, the BSC cannot act on a complaint until the 30-day period has expired.

When the 30-day notification period was first introduced its objective was to encourage the consumer and the builder to resolve their dispute without resorting to formal intervention by the BSC. This objective has not been met. Regrettably, the 30-day notification period has been used as a stalling tactic by many builders, refusing to act on complaints by the consumers unless ordered to do so by the BSC. From the builders' point of view this may seem like good business practice: why fix something that may not require fixing? From the consumers' point of view, the 30-day period is a frustrating delay, particularly as they would have been living with the problem for a lot longer than the 30 days. Add to that the time required by the BSC to help resolve the complaint and honourable members will see that the dispute resolution system falls far short of consumer expectations to have their complaints resolved speedily.

The Building Services Corporation (Amendment) Bill therefore seeks to abolish the requirement for consumers to wait 30 days and so allow the BSC to act on formal complaints from consumers as soon as they are lodged with the BSC. Consumers will advise their builder or contractor in writing, setting out the key details of the complaint; at the same time they can lodge a notification of complaint against the builder with the BSC. The BSC will then proceed to assist the parties to resolve their dispute through mediation or other dispute resolution options that are available to the parties, depending on their choice and circumstances. Mediation, of course, will not be appropriate in some circumstances, for example, where the builder is insolvent or cannot be located. In these circumstances the consumer may proceed to lodge an insurance claim.

Honourable members will be aware of the increasing emphasis being given to alternative dispute resolution methods over the past few years. The BSC approach to dispute resolution from now on, which emphasises mediation rather than litigation, is in line with this general shift in emphasis. The new dispute resolution system will offer incentives to disputing parties to resolve their disputes through mediation. The mediation service will be provided at no charge to the parties and there will be no penalty for not completing mediation successfully. I am confident that many will avail themselves of the opportunity to resolve their disputes through early mediation and in doing so avoid the high costs associated with building litigation. The BSC will provide quality technical advice services to support owners and builders in the mediation process.

Under the present system the BSC has the authority to issue rectification orders to the builder or contractor who fails to act on a complaint of a consumer. The builder must comply with the
Page 1915
rectification order or face disciplinary action by the BSC and cannot have the rectification order reviewed, as is the case in the Queensland system. Rectification orders are at times necessary to finalise a dispute, but their direct link with disciplinary action, Dodd correctly pointed out, places the BSC in the position of having conflicting roles. The bill proposes to eliminate this direct conflict between dispute resolution and disciplinary action by transferring to the Building Disputes Tribunal the authority to issue rectification orders. Where, following the investigation of a complaint by the consumer, the BSC considers that any residential building work or specialist work is defective or incomplete, it may apply to the BDT for an order requiring a contractor to rectify or complete the work.

An application for the issue of a rectification order will be heard by a building disputes referee, in a similar manner to a building claim. Following consideration of the evidence, the BDT will be able to add to, vary or omit any of the items of the work to be rectified or completed. However, the order need not specify the manner in which the work is to be done. A rectification order by the BDT may be conditional on a homeowner or a complainant complying with certain conditions, for example, allowing the builder reasonable access to perform the work. Rectification orders will not be subject to the $25,000 monetary jurisdiction of the BDT and will not be enforceable under the Consumer Claims Tribunal Act. However, failure to comply with the order without reasonable cause will remain a ground upon which disciplinary action may be taken against the contractor.

In addition to or instead of making a rectification order, the BDT may make other orders under the Consumer Claims Tribunal Act, as if the complainant and the contractor were parties to a building claim. Such orders, whether monetary or work orders, will be subject to the $25,000 jurisdictional limit and will be enforceable in the courts. Where a work order is not complied with, the complainant may return to the BDT to have the work order converted to a monetary order, which can then be enforced through the courts. The second area of reform addressed by the legislation is disciplinary hearings against licence holders. Disciplinary hearings under the existing system are conducted by members of the Building Services Corporation, assisted by associate members. Whilst it is appropriate for the BSC as the licensing body to initiate disciplinary action against those who fail to comply with the Building Services Corporation Act, it is not appropriate for the BSC to conduct the disciplinary hearings.

I believe that the members and associate members of the corporation have endeavoured to conduct disciplinary hearings with impartiality. However, as Dodd has so clearly pointed out, disciplinary hearings will always be criticised as being biased if conducted by the BSC. The bill will see disciplinary hearings transferred to the Commercial Tribunal so that they are conducted on neutral grounds. The BSC will still be responsible for initiating disciplinary action. Disciplinary action will not be contingent upon the contractor's refusal to comply with a rectification order. As was recommended by Dodd, the BSC will take into account the overall performance of the licence holder. As disciplinary action is primarily concerned with protecting the public, it should focus on the retention or non-retention of a licence, not on disciplining licence holders for one-off instances of failure.

Following the investigation of a complaint or information received concerning the improper conduct of a contractor or the contractor's fitness to hold a licence, the BSC may prepare and lodge a notice to show cause with the Commercial Tribunal. The notice to show cause will be served on the contractor and the hearing will be conducted before the Commercial Tribunal. The licence holder will be entitled to be legally represented and may call witnesses. The BSC will be a party to the proceedings and will present evidence in relation to the grounds contained in the notice to show cause. The decision of the Commercial Tribunal will be final and appeals may be lodged with the Supreme Court, but only on a point of law. I hope that the residential building industry will welcome these proposals, as disciplinary action will be focused on the important question of fitness to hold a licence and disciplinary hearings will be conducted before a neutral third party.

The third area of reform addressed by the bill is the structure of the Building Services Corporation. The current board structure represents various sectional interests and the relationship between the board and the general manager is a confused one. The bill provides for the establishment of a home building advisory council which will serve as a peak body to advise me on a range of issues in the residential building industry. Membership of the council will be drawn from industry groups, consumer groups and individuals in the community who have expertise or interest in consumer issues or the residential building industry. The council will operate independently of the BSC and will have its own administrative structure to support its operations.

This independence and the broad representation on the council will ensure that it has the capability to provide me with high quality, independent advice and keep me well informed of the views of those in the residential building industry. The current board membership will be dismantled and replaced by a home building advisory council when their current terms of office expire on 30 June. The transfer of disciplinary hearings to the Commercial Tribunal also means that the BSC associates structure will no longer be required. The valuable role played by associates on special qualifications committees will continue, following a review of the committee structure.

The bill also provides for the Chief Executive Officer of the Building Services Corporation to constitute the corporation and be accountable to me as the Minister for Consumer Affairs. The general manager, as CEO, will be responsible for managing the business of the corporation, which is in line with
Page 1916
Dodd's recommendation to overcome the current confused lines of responsibility and roles of the corporation and the general manager. The arrangements set out in the bill will result in a more efficient and effective organisation with clear lines of responsibility between the Building Services Corporation, the Home Building Advisory Council and the Minister for Consumer Affairs.

Let me now turn to the issue of longstanding disputed insurance claims. Consumers with claims under the pre-March 1990 insurance scheme have a right of appeal against decisions made by the BSC in respect of their claims, but this appeal must proceed by way of arbitration. Honourable members will be aware that arbitration as a means of resolving home building disputes has been severely criticised on many fronts. Dodd was critical of arbitration, as was the Trade Practices Commission in its report "Home Building - Consumer Problems and Solutions" released on 20 December 1993. In Queensland, arbitration in the home building industry has been abolished. The bill proposes to give consumers with longstanding disputed insurance claims the right to take the matter on appeal to the Commercial Tribunal. This right is presently enjoyed by consumers who are covered by the current BSC insurance scheme. The bill is consistent with the recommendations of Dr Dodd in this regard.

Appeals to the Commercial Tribunal will be in place of arbitration. To ensure that all claimants are treated equally the bill will allow those claimants who have commenced arbitration to discontinue arbitration without penalty. Claimants will not be required to pay the costs of the BSC but will, however, be responsible for their own costs up to that time. Claimants with longstanding disputed insurance claims have undoubtedly incurred costs or losses as a result of litigation or trying to get the defect rectified. We have an obligation to assist these claimants so that they can indeed take their cases to the Commercial Tribunal. The bill will allow the Building Services Corporation to pay solicitor-client costs where the claimant's appeal is upheld. The Building Services Corporation will not, however, be entitled to seek costs from claimants should their appeal be dismissed. Some consumers have been disadvantaged by delays within the BSC to settle their disputed insurance claims. The bill will allow the Commercial Tribunal to direct the BSC to pay interest on awards where it finds that delay in settlement is attributable to the corporation.

All of these measures will greatly assist aggrieved consumers and will bring finality to these disputes which have remained unresolved for so much longer than is desirable. The availability of the new course of action open to disputants will be widely advertised and it is proposed to provide a period of 12 months within which time such persons may seek reassessment of their claims, and a right of appeal will then lie to the Commercial Tribunal against the decision of the corporation. The authority to issue rectification orders will be transferred to the Building Disputes Tribunal. This brings me to the proposed amendments to the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act.

The Department of Consumer Affairs has reported to me its findings on reviewing the Building Disputes Tribunal. Whilst the tribunal is generally operating satisfactorily, the process of selecting and recruiting referees and the qualifications of referees have led to criticism of the tribunal as being biased in favour of the building industry. It is essential that consumers and builders alike have confidence in the new dispute resolution procedures, and with this in mind the amendments to the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act are sought. The intention of the amendments is, first, to leave the question of qualifications of referees completely open and, second, to eliminate the statutory requirements of the Minister for Consumer Affairs to consult with any person or organisation prior to recommending appointments to the Governor.

These amendments will bring selection and appointment procedures in line with those used for Consumer Claims Tribunal referees. The bill therefore seeks to remove the requirement for BDT referees to have extensive experience in the building industry. This requirement has been interpreted narrowly and has effectively prevented the appointment of referees who have experience in a variety of related fields. Appointments to the BDT should be drawn from a more diverse field than is the case at present. I assure honourable members that in selecting referees for appointment to the BDT I will have regard to their level of experience, knowledge and understanding of the residential building industry, but I will not be bound to appoint only people who have those qualifications. I also wish to avoid making appointments which could lead the tribunal away from its largely non-legalistic approach to the conduct of hearings.

That concludes my comments on the provisions of the bill. I take this opportunity to make a few final remarks about consumer protection in the home building industry. Many different approaches have been taken throughout the world and indeed throughout Australia to the issue of how to protect consumers of residential building services. Many of these systems do not rely on government intervention; others rely partly on the government in providing the legislative framework or a part of the service and others, such as New South Wales, are almost wholly dependent on government intervention. If we were commencing afresh in New South Wales, it is unlikely we would choose today the approach that was decided in 1971. Having had such a system for more than 20 years it is difficult, as honourable members will realise, to totally recast what we now have in favour of a new completely untried system.

The approach being taken by the Government to the reform of consumer protection in the New South Wales home building industry recognises both the need to address the very critical issues immediately, particularly dispute resolution and consumer education, and the need to work through carefully a more fundamental change, particularly reforms to licensing and the privatisation of insurance. This approach will also ensure the greatest level of consultation with all the interested parties. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.

Page 1917

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Georges River - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [8.24]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Between 27 December 1993 and 16 January 1994 the State of New South Wales experienced the most severe bushfires in more than 50 years. The extremely high temperatures and strong winds saw up to 800 wildfires rage across much of the eastern seaboard and, in particular, the Sutherland, Blue Mountains, Illawarra, Hunter, Northern Rivers, Tamworth, Lismore, Dubbo, northern suburbs and Central Coast areas. As a result of the fires, more than 800,000 hectares of land were burnt; 188 residential properties were destroyed, many of them in urban areas, particularly Como and Jannali; sadly four people died, two of whom were volunteer firefighters who did a superb job.

The nature and extent of the bushfires made New South Wales, and in particular Sydney, the focus of attention nationally and internationally. Despite the extent of the bushfires and their severity, life and property losses were relatively minimal. The level of loss under the conditions which prevailed is testimony to the skill, courage and commitment of all those involved - both firefighters and support personnel. While the Government has recognised, and continues to recognise, the efforts of firefighters across Australia, the fact is that the community can never thank them enough. The Government reacted swiftly and responsibly in establishing a Cabinet subcommittee on bushfire management and control, chaired by the Deputy Premier, to review the tragic events over the new year. Honourable members would also be aware that a coronial inquest into the January bushfires is being conducted by the Senior Deputy State Coroner, Mr John Hiatt.

The deputy coroner is being assisted and supported by task force Boyne, a 60-strong police task force which has been established to investigate and report to the coroner on the circumstances, manner and cause of the four deaths, and the cause and origin of the bushfires. The coroner's inquiry will be comprehensive and his final report is not expected before the end of the year. The Cabinet committee released its interim report on 22 March, highlighting the issues that must be addressed prior to the commencement of the 1994-95 bushfire season. It is imperative we do something before the next bushfire season commences. In this regard the committee has made 30 recommendations for legislative and policy changes to improve the State's capacity to prevent and control bushfires. Those recommendations have been endorsed by Cabinet. The most important recommendations deal broadly with the issues of fuel hazard reduction and bushfire management which have been addressed in this bill.

However, before I elaborate on them I remind honourable members that legislation has already passed through this House to increase the penalty for the unauthorised lighting of bushfires, and to protect the employment of certified members of voluntary emergency organisations when carrying out duties as volunteers in a recognised emergency. One of the most significant themes arising from the many submissions received by the Cabinet subcommittee was the ad hoc and inconsistent approach to fuel hazard reduction across the State, which bordered on negligence. Under current arrangements, the Bush Fires Act enables the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee to form district fire committees for any local government area or locality within the State and, in consultation with that committee, to prepare plans for the reduction of fire hazards as well as operational plans setting out the procedures to be followed for the suppression of bushfires.

The main problem with the present system is that the establishment of district fire committees and the carrying out of planning situations including the preparation of plans are not mandatory. Accordingly, there are different approaches to planning and the carrying out of fuel hazard reduction throughout the State. These amendments to the Bush Fires Act recognise that fuel management is fundamental to the control of bushfires. The only means managers have of decreasing the impact of wildfires is to reduce fuel loads by well based fuel management programs. Well documented research has shown that simply halving the fuel load in an area will reduce the impact of a wildfire by up to 16 times, which is quite significant.

The amendments will empower the co-ordinating committee to establish committees, to be known as bushfire management committees, for any part of the State and at least for those areas nominated as bushfire districts. Existing district fire committees will be renamed accordingly. The bushfire management committees will comprise representatives of local government, State Forests, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the two fire services and conservation groups. Each bushfire management committee will be required to prepare draft bushfire management plans prior to the commencement of the next bushfire season, setting out, first, bush fire fighting operational procedures to be followed in the event of a bushfire - otherwise known as a plan of operations - and, second, bushfire hazard reduction measures to be taken on the land for which the committee was established - otherwise known as fuel management plans.

When prepared, those plans must be submitted to the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee, which may approve the plans with or without change. However, the co-ordinating committee will not be able to approve that part of a plan which imposes requirements on a public authority within the administration of a Minister if that authority objects to those requirements. The part of the plan subject to dispute will remain unapproved until the relevant Ministers have considered the issue and decided whether the requirements should be imposed, varied
Page 1918
or revoked. If a draft plan is not prepared on time or is inadequate, the Commissioner of Bush Fire Services may prepare the draft plan instead. The plan will then be regarded as the plan of the Bush Fire Management Committee. To ensure plans are current, there is a requirement that plans be reviewed and updated every two years or such other period as may be prescribed in the regulations.

The mere presence of fuel management plans alone is not sufficient to minimise the impact of bushfires. These plans must be implemented. At present, local councils and public authorities such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests have a general duty under the Bush Fires Act to take all practicable steps to prevent fires and to minimise the risk of fires spreading. In addition, local councils have a discretionary power to issue notices to private landholders or occupiers requiring the burning of firebreaks and other bushfire hazard reduction measures. Because fire risks extend beyond local government boundaries, the Cabinet committee recommended that local councils should not have a discretion when it is necessary to implement hazard reduction works on private land in accordance with the relevant bushfire management plan.

In this regard the amendments will require local councils to issue notices to the owners or occupiers of private land so that bushfire hazard reduction work will be carried out in accordance with the relevant bushfire management plan; and to monitor and report on the carrying out of that work. An amendment to the Local Government Act has been made in this regard. The amendments also place the obligation of carrying out that work on the local council if the person required to do so by a notice fails to carry it out in accordance with the plan. The amendments also grant important additional powers to the Commissioner of Bush Fire Services.

Under this legislation, the commissioner will be empowered to carry out hazard reduction work in accordance with a fuel management plan where a local council or public authority fails to carry out that work. A provision is included in the bill to allow the commissioner to recover costs of carrying out the work from the owner or occupier of the land concerned. In order to resolve any dispute which might arise between the commissioner and a public authority about whether or not hazard reduction work has been carried out in a manner required by the plan, a further dispute resolution procedure has been included in the legislation.

The Ministers responsible for the authorities concerned will decide the issue and their decision will be binding on the parties to the dispute. A related issue to fuel hazard reduction is the issuing of permits under section 10 of the Bush Fires Act. These permits authorise the lighting of fires for the purpose of clearing land containing timber, grass or other vegetation regarded as hazardous. A permit is only required during the bushfire danger period, that is, October to March. The Cabinet committee was informed that some property-owners have experienced difficulty in obtaining a permit because some local councils have required applicants for a permit to meet the requirements of part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act before a permit is issued. This effectively means that applicants would be required to examine and take into account all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of the burn-off. This situation only applies during the bushfire danger period when permits are required. It does not apply outside this period.

It is clear that the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act were not meant to apply to burn-offs by private property owners or occupiers of land. The bill clarifies the position in this regard. Another feature of this bill is that it rationalises the different legislative schemes for obtaining burn-off permits. Apart from the availability of a permit under section 10 of the Bush Fires Act, a permit under section 35A of the Fire Brigades Act is currently required for a fire lit in a fire district if it is likely to be dangerous to a building. A section 35A permit is not required where a permit under section 10 is in force. Section 35A permits are rarely issued these days because of the variety of legislative prohibitions on burning off, particularly in urban areas.

The bill therefore repeals section 35A and provides for all permits to be issued under section 10 of the Bush Fires Act. The issue of permits of the kind formerly issued under section 35A can be made by the local council and the officer in charge of the nearest fire station. Where a local council issues a permit of this type it will be under a duty to notify the fire brigades. Finally, the amendments provide for permits to remain in force for 21 days from the date of issue, unless they are previously revoked or a total fire ban is in force. This will afford permit holders greater flexibility in organising a burn-off and will avoid the inconvenience of having to obtain another permit during that time if a burn has to be postponed for a short period. Notice of when a fire is to be lit will still be required in accordance with the regulations.

I turn now to the other major issue reflected in these amendments and that concerns the co-ordination of bush fire fighting activities. The Chief Co-ordinator of Bush Fire Fighting, who is also the Commissioner of Bush Fire Services, has since 1970 been able to appoint a person under section 41F of the Act to take charge of bush fire fighting operations for any or all local government areas listed in schedule 3 of the Bush Fires Act. Those areas essentially represent that part of the State east of the Great Dividing Range. The benefits of establishing a co-ordinated system of bush fire fighting operations became apparent after the major bushfires experienced in the bushfire season of 1968-69. At that time, there was no system in place to centrally co-ordinate the activities of various independent emergency fire controllers appointed for each local government area affected by the fires, and to manage bush fire fighting resources both personnel and equipment.

Page 1919

A number of local councils situated west of the Great Dividing Range have recognised the merit of allowing the chief co-ordinator to exercise section 41F powers in their areas and have transferred, or are in the process of transferring, to the "co-ordination zone." These councils are: Brewarrina; Coolah; Cowra; Deniliquin; Gilgandra; Gunnedah; Merriwa; Moree Plains; Murrurundi; Quirindi; Nundle; Walgett; Warren; Uralla; and Yalleroi. While the Government recognises that some local councils west of the divide are still doubtful about joining the "co-ordination zone", efforts will be made to encourage them to join. In the meantime, the amendments provide that the powers of the chief co-ordinator under section 41F of the Bush Fires Act can be exercised in relation to a bushfire in a single local government area not included in schedule 3, but only by a person nominated by the chief co-ordinator from the list of emergency fire controllers eligible to be appointed for that area.

When making such an appointment the chief co-ordinator must take into account any representations from the local bushfire management committee as to who should be nominated. In other cases, and in particular when a bushfire encroaches on more than one local government area not within the co-ordination zone, the chief co-ordinator will be able to take charge of the bush fire fighting operations consistent with his powers under section 41F. A further amendment of an operational nature included in this bill is to grant local fire control officers the right to call out bush fire brigades to all bushfires wherever they occur in accordance with an approved bushfire management plan. The basis for the amendment was the Cabinet committee's concern at claims that certain public land managers resisted attempts by bush fire brigades to provide first response to bushfires in some areas of the State.

The Cabinet committee concurred with the view that it is vital that bush fire brigades be able to provide rapid first response to bushfires if bushfires are to be prevented from gaining momentum. At the same time the Cabinet committee agreed that land management agencies should continue to be allowed to determine the most appropriate method of firefighting undertaken on their land in accordance with their land management requirements. It is intended that those requirements will be included in the relevant bushfire management plan. The final substantive amendment in the bill concerns the expansion of the bushfire co-ordinating committee from five to eight members.

Apart from its general planning responsibilities, the co-ordinating committee is the body principally responsible for ensuring that a system is in place for co-ordinating emergency firefighting activities in the eastern part of the State. It currently comprises five members, including the Commissioner of Bush Fire Services, who is chairman, and representatives of State Forests, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigades, and the Local Government and Shires Associations. The three additional members of the co-ordinating committee are to be drawn from representatives of the Bush Fire Council, which is an advisory council to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. However, they cannot be ex-officio members of the council and at least one of them must be an occupier of rural land affected by a bushfire management plan.

The rationale for this amendment is that the co-ordinating committee would benefit directly from the experience and perceptions of those members on the council. Apart from the enormous sense of community demonstrated during the bushfire emergency, the other positive element arising from the tragic events that occurred during January is the opportunity to learn from the experience. The two major lessons that have been learnt and which are reflected in this bill are that there is a need for a more comprehensive and uniform approach to bushfire management planning across the State and to the implementation of fuel management plans. The events of early January have reinforced the view that the key to minimising the impact of bushfires is to monitor and control fuel levels.

Clear examples have emerged which show that the impact of the fires was far less on land which had regularly been subject to hazard reduction compared to land where the management of fuel levels was by and large ignored. The amendments will address this shortcoming by facilitating the establishment of bushfire management committees, in areas where they have not already been formed, to engage in planning activities and the preparation of fuel management plans. The second major lesson to be learnt is that the co-ordination system currently in place for bush fire fighting can be improved and enhanced. This will be achieved by extending the powers of the chief co-ordinator of bush fire fighting in certain circumstances and thereby streamlining command and control responsibilities and the ability to manage and deploy bush fire fighting resources.

The Cabinet committee's work is by no means complete. There is a range of other issues arising from the bushfire operations which are and will be addressed. Among others they include: communications, the use of aircraft and other equipment in bushfire operations, and evacuations and road closures. These issues and others will be dealt with in a further report of the Cabinet committee in due course. I commend the bill, but in doing so, I say that tonight a decision needs to be made. If we do not move to a third reading tonight we are lacking the courage, the commitment and the recognition of the heroism of the firefighters, who have done a superb job. It is clear what needs to be done and we need to make a decision tonight. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Anderson.


Debate resumed from 21 April.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [8.45]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. It is proposed that the Opposition will move a number of amendments in
Page 1920
Committee and it is likely that the Committee will divide on those amendments. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition supports reform of the electricity industry; it is necessary reform. Indeed, about 12 months prior to the 1991 elections the Labor Opposition's policy was the linking up of New South Wales with the eastern States of Australia as part of a national grid network. The Opposition saw the value of such a network. This bill is the result of an agreement arrived at in Hobart earlier this year at a meeting of heads of government. Part of the economic reform program for the nation and the States was the introduction of legislation such as this to give effect to the separation of transmission from generation in our power industry.

The Opposition is happy to support the reforms inherent in this legislation. However, the Opposition is concerned about a number of aspects of the legislation. Though the bill comprises only a small number of clauses, the Opposition envisages significant ramifications for the power industry following the passage of the legislation. Reform of the electricity industry did not come about with the change of government in 1988. The reform process was well under way with the reforms introduced by Peter Cox, a former Labor energy Minister. I point with some pride to his achievements. Peter Cox, following the McDonell inquiry into the New South Wales power industry, introduced a comprehensive and wide-ranging package of electricity legislation.

The McDonell inquiry followed the then Labor Government's determination that the industry improve its efficiency and effectiveness to meet not only the needs of the State's economy but also the expectations and demands of customers. That legislative package represented the most significant development in the electricity industry since the establishment of the Electricity Commission of New South Wales by a Labor Government in 1950. The legislation consolidated the industry's legislative and operational framework along commercial lines. It provided for co-ordination between all sectors of the industry and ensured the more efficient use of the community's electricity assets.

As a consequence of this legislative package Elcom, or Pacific Power as it is now known, is required to prepare a 30-year plan on a three-year cyclic basis, thus improving its efficiency, accountability, performance and overall planning. Equally, the electricity supply industry was made more accountable, and the significant advances we now see in the industry today have, as their origins, the Cox legislative package of 1987. I have referred to that program of the former Labor Government to indicate that the Labor Party had commenced the reform of the electricity industry - a reform that was interrupted by the elections of 1988 after which a new government came to office. The Opposition fully supports any progressive reform that is put forward in the Parliament by the Government that will seek to ensure that the electricity industry serves the needs of its customers and the community generally.

Though the Opposition supports the basic thrust of the legislation, it has grave reservations about what can only be described as the Government's secret agenda: privatisation of the electricity industry. The Minister will state that he is the Minister and that the Government at the moment does not have plans to privatise the electricity industry. But the Minister's assertion, which I am sure he will make in reply, will not stand up against what has become known upon release of documents last year by the Opposition. A privatisation agenda was set in place by Cabinet. The Electricity Commission management itself did not know of that agenda which Treasury put together for the sale of sections of the commission. The Treasurer said, in answer to a question asked in this House by the honourable member for Eastwood when those papers were released by the Opposition on 12 October last year, that the Government's privatisation policy is plain and open - it will privatise an asset when it is in the best interest of the community, that is, when the Government or Treasury believes it is in the best interests of the community.

The Treasurer also stated that the document "says nothing more or less than what we have been saying for more than five years" - that is, what the Government has been saying. He further said that it is about common sense in economic management, that is, the Government's definition of economic common sense and economic management. The Treasurer said the Government recognised the value it has in a range of public sector services, that it recognised that opportunity is open, especially to New South Wales taxpayers, to benefit from more efficient delivery of services, often through the private sector, and that where that will benefit New South Wales taxpayers the Government will consider privatisation.

The documents I refer to are Cabinet documents. A draft white paper entitled "Contracting and Market Testing", produced in August 1993, stated that the Government is firmly committed to applying the strategy and principles discussed in the Cabinet paper on privatisation. The white paper further stated that the Government approach reflects a trend which is becoming national and is common overseas. The document went on to state, under the heading "Action Plans by Public Sector Organisations", that chief executives of State organisations are to develop action plans for the systematic review of all areas of their organisation for opportunities for market testing and contracting, and that these plans are to be reflected broadly in each organisation's corporate plan and reported on in annual reports.

The Cabinet document listed, in attachments, privatisation policies and approaches. The first, under "Purpose of the Proposal", was to establish the objectives and principles that should underlie the Government's approach to privatisation of government businesses. The second, under "Recommendations", was that sale proceeds would be applied to reduce Government debt and other liabilities. The document mentioned preparation of a further program of review of possible privatisation of government trading enterprises by the Government Trading Enterprises Reform Committee, in consultation with Ministers in relevant portfolios, for approval of the Cabinet.

Page 1921

A white paper setting out the Government's privatisation policy, objectives, principles and process to be followed is to be prepared. The draft white paper also states that application of sale proceeds would reduce government liabilities, and that privatisation of government businesses essentially involves conversion of one asset, equity, into another, cash. Accordingly, it would be misleading to show the proceeds of the sale in the Budget as a normal receipt item. For this reason proceeds from the GIO sale were shown as an extraordinary item that did not directly affect the result of the Budget. Similarly, the document states it would be financially irresponsible to utilise proceeds to finance unsustainable recurrent obligations even in the form of increased current outlays or reduced taxation.

Finally, the document lists a whole range of Government enterprises which it proposed to put on the market in 1994-95. Included in that list, with the Forestry Commission and the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, were the electricity generators. According to this document, under the preconditions of privatisation and current status, Pacific Power was established with three separate generating business units and a separate transmission function. An experimental spot market in electricity is being tested, according to the document, and a 1994-95 timing was mentioned as the earliest for the generating company. It was estimated that the proceeds from the program would yield $2.3 billion to $3.1 billion. The document also stated that budget impact was largely neutral in view of the high dividend yield and the level of return being generated in assets.

Can there be any doubt after reading that Treasury Cabinet document that the Government's privatisation agenda is clear for all to see. The Minister will state, as I know he will, that the Government has no intention to embark upon a fire sale or asset sale of the electricity generating or transmission systems of this State. However, I do not believe those assurances can be accepted, much as I accept the word of the Minister. Frankly, it will not be his decision; it will be a decision of Treasury and of the Premier when it comes down to the line. They will decide, in the interests of their budget strategy, to sell off these assets. The management of the Electricity Commission was unaware of the proposals until the Opposition released these documents. Ross Bunyon, General Manager of the Electricity Commission, had this to say in a circular of 1 October 1993:

I refer to a recent circular in the CFMEU re: privatisation, purporting to have extracts of a NSW Treasury minute concerning privatisation of Pacific Power. I wish to advise all staff that I have discussed this with the Chairman and am able to confirm that, as far as the Board of Pacific Power and Senior Executives are concerned, we have no knowledge of this matter.

In addition, the Minister has indicated to the Chairman that there is no consideration of privatisation of Pacific Power by the Government at this time.

The circular also states that "it is important that we continue to work together". There it is. Even the general manager of Pacific Power was unaware of this agenda of the Government for the sale of Electricity Commission assets. Undoubtedly, the need for revenue is the basis of the Government's strategy to sell off the assets of the Electricity Commission exactly as the Liberal Government in Victoria is doing across the border. The agenda is basically an ideological one but it is also driven by the urgent need to gain as much revenue as possible. That agenda has direct implications for the bill.

The Minister referred to my Address-in-Reply speech. I did say, and I stand by it, that the Opposition supports the separation of transmission from generation. The Opposition supports that worthwhile initiative, but supports it conditionally. The first condition is that the separation does not lead to a privatisation agenda. The second condition is that the rights, benefits and privileges of employees must be preserved with any transfer of assets and with the establishment of a subsidiary company. The Minister and previous Ministers have dealt with the Electricity Commission over the years. The difficulty in dealing with that body is that a culture of resentment of intrusion by Parliament or government in the operations of the Electricity Commission has developed. The commission believes that its job is to generate electricity and that Ministers, Parliament and anyone else should keep their noses out of the commission's business.

I recall former Minister Peter Cox being deceived by the then general manager of the Electricity Commission when it came to the operation of the Ravensworth coal washery. The Minister unwittingly and unknowingly got up in this House and misled the House and he had to apologise for that. It was not that the Minister knew he had misled the House; he simply relied on information that was given to him by the then management of the Electricity Commission. I will not delay the House unnecessarily; I simply emphasise the point that I believe the same thing has happened with the answer that I got to the question that I directed to the Minister recently about a coal plant at the Liddell power station.

In the Minister's response, obviously based upon information supplied to the Minister by the Electricity Commission, there was reference to this plant. I had said it was a $34 million plant, and the Minister said it is a $31 million plant. My understanding is that the company concerned - Multicon Engineering Pty Limited - is claiming $7 million in extra payments to compensate for delays in building the plant and modifications to correct faults in the plant design. This will mean that the cost will go well beyond the figure that I talked about.

In my question I mentioned the interruption of normal coal supplies. In his answer the Minister said that the interruption of coal supplies to Liddell power station was not attributable to the failure of the plant
Page 1922
but rather to the coal strike. The fact is that Liddell power station is coaled directly from dedicated mines which operate on a Monday to Friday basis only. During public holidays, weekends, et cetera, mines conveyer maintenance is performed and coal can only be taken from the station stockpiles. The Liddell stockpile is used as the normal and only source of coal when mines are not operating, and that is approximately 30 per cent of the year.

The coincidence of the coal miners strike had nothing to do with the fact that the plant cannot operate during wet weather periods. Only small amounts of rain - in January 50 millimetres - were sufficient to put the station out of action. Bayswater power station has a three-day, covered dry storage area, but it has been affected by wet coal problems when rain has continued for several days. There have been nine further incidents of rain or mechanically based coal plant failures since January which have forced load reductions on the power station. I will refer to some of those.

Mr West: On a point of order: I am loath to take this point of order because I fully appreciate the point that the honourable member is making. But this is enabling legislation to establish subsidiaries within Pacific Power. The matters now being referred to by the honourable member were raised in question time in the last sitting week, and they are the subject of an answer that I gave the honourable member at that time. Those matters have nothing to do with this bill. I appreciate that the honourable member is saying, by way of example, that the advice of Elcom management and others cannot be accepted. However, his remarks go beyond that evidence. I believe he is now trying to debate the information given in response to his original question and is not part of this legislation.

Mr Rogan: On the point of order: I did say when referring to the question and answer that they indicated the type of culture within Pacific Power. I was using this as an illustration and as a lead-in to the general debate upon the legislation to which I will be shortly referring. My reference was to be very brief; I did not intend to go into much detail, much as I would like to. I have about four pages of information to relate to the House, but I would not like to incur the displeasure of the Chair or the Minister by going beyond the scope of the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Hazzard): Order! The legislation before the House is fairly limited. It relates to the establishment of subsidiary companies so that the Electricity Commission can operate its various activities through those subsidiary companies. The honourable member has said that he will not be seeking any further indulgence from the Chair. On that basis, provided he returns to the bill, the matter may proceed.

Mr ROGAN: Naturally, as always, I accept your direction, Mr Acting-Speaker, and I shall not refer to the document further. I simply want to place on the record that there is a rebuttal of the response given to the Minister by Pacific Power. I would have liked the opportunity to refer to some of it in my speech, but I shall abide by the directions of the Chair. The Electricity Commission has had a very bad history of lack of consultation with its work force. The people directly affected, through their representatives, their unions, have not been once called upon to give any indication of their views on this legislation - legislation which will have a direct impact upon their careers, their futures and their job security.

One would have thought that the importance of this legislation to them would have prompted Pacific Power to consult them on the preparation of this legislation. Regrettably, this is part of a sorry saga of the Electricity Commission's failure to consult their work force, and the Electricity Commission has been the subject of criticisms by the Industrial Commission for that failure. I recall the Newvale colliery inquiry and my raising this point about consultation with the Electricity Commission. The commission told me, "We do consult. We brought the unions in and told them what was going to happen". I had to remind the management of the Electricity Commission that bringing someone in and telling them something is not consultation. Consultation means that you seek the views of other people and you seek to have them involved in the decision-making process. If there had been consultation in relation to the Ravensworth coal washery, perhaps it would have been operating today; it may not have been closed down. I now refer specifically to the provisions of the bill. I give notice of the amendments that I will move. I will not detail them now. New section 8B, to be inserted by schedule 1 to the bill, relates to the subsidiary companies and the establishment of these subsidiary companies. New section 8B(2) states:

For that purpose, the Commission may, with the approval of the Minister:

(a) form, or participate in the formation of, a subsidiary company; or

(b) acquire an interest in a company so that, as a result of the acquisition, the company becomes a subsidiary company.

There is concern that this legislation does not refer to a transmission subsidiary company. It is all embracing. What it really means is that any subsidiary company can be established. Indeed, the Minister referred in his second reading speech to this as enabling legislation, which it is. It enables subsidiary companies to be established. Any number of these subsidiary companies can be established and, given the secret agenda - the privatisation agenda to which I referred earlier - there is nothing to stop Hunter Electricity from being hived off the two northern power stations as a subsidiary company. That would be a precursor to the ultimate privatisation and sale of those valuable assets of the State. There is no doubt that if this legislation is passed in its present form, that track will be proceeded down.

Because of those concerns and fears, the Opposition will move that before the establishment of the subsidiary company a regulation must be prepared
Page 1923
which will require at least parliamentary consideration of the regulation, if not parliamentary approval. At the appropriate time the House could, if it so wished, disallow that regulation. In other words, the Parliament would have control of the most valuable assets in the State and of the government trading enterprise with the greatest revenue stream of all government trading enterprises. Therefore, it is appropriate that Parliament should have some oversight and control in the process. Accordingly, the Opposition will propose that an appropriate amendment be made to that section of the legislation. Schedule 1 will insert a new section 8B(3):

The Commission must not, without the approval of the Parliament, sell or otherwise dispose of any interest in a subsidiary company . . .

I foreshadow that the Opposition will seek to have parliamentary approval of the process of any sale or disposal of the assets of these subsidiary companies. The Minister has stated in this House and publicly that it is not his intention to sell off any of the assets of the subsidiary company at this time. I must accept that. The Minister is an honourable man and I have no reason to dispute what he said. This legislation will go beyond this Minister and perhaps beyond the Premier - heaven forbid that they are re-elected next March. The Opposition will move in Committee to ensure the parliamentary oversighting of any disposal of the assets of the subsidiary company and accordingly I foreshadow that the Opposition will move an amendment to that part of the legislation.

I now deal with new section 8B(3). The Opposition will move to delete that part of the section which reads, "so that, as a result of the sale or disposal, it ceases to be a subsidiary company". It is the Opposition's fear that if it is not deleted about 49 per cent of the assets could be sold off, but would still comply with the general provisions of the clause. Further, dealing with the application of certain provisions to subsidiary companies is a new section 8E, which provides that certain sections of Acts referred to in the new section will take effect when the bill is enacted.

There are no freedom of information provisions referred to in the bill. This concerns the Opposition and it should concern the Parliament. It is a move by the Electricity Commission to avoid oversighting by the establishment of the subsidiary company. The Electricity Commission is currently subject to the freedom of information provisions under the Electricity Commission Act, but under this bill it would not be subject to those provisions. The Opposition believes the Freedom of Information Act should apply and accordingly will move to amend the bill to have those provisions apply. It has been a general principle, when introducing legislation, for example, on Sydney Electricity and the Electricity Commission, to provide for the appointment of an employee-elected representative on the boards of those organisations.

The Opposition does not know what the structure of the subsidiary company will be, but it wishes to maintain the worker-elected representative on the board. European nations, which have the best performance in the world economy, have found there is great merit in involving employees at board level of companies. This principle serves two purposes. It enables a flow of information from the factory floor to the board of the organisation, providing board members with a better understanding of the mood, the feeling and the general direction at which the people at the factory floor level want to operate. Second, the employee-elected representative knows the general direction of the board members and therefore can convey that attitude to the work force. This valuable, two-way process is a process in which the Opposition firmly believes. Accordingly, it should be provided for in this legislation. The Opposition will move an amendment to provide for the appointment of an employee-elected representative.

The last matter of concern to the Opposition is the transfer of staff and the rights, conditions and benefits currently enjoyed by those staff. The bill provides some protection of the rights and benefits of employees. It goes so far but it does not go far enough when it comes to all the rights and benefits that these employees currently enjoy. For this reason the Opposition will move an amendment to seek to preserve the benefits, certainly until the Minister has indicated that it is the intention of the Government, at a later time this year, to introduce legislation that will completely separate the transmission company from the Electricity Commission.

Later this year, or at some time during the budget session, the Opposition will examine in detail legislation that contains provisions about employee rights and benefits, working conditions and the like. The Opposition would like the legislation to contain a provision to ensure the protection of those rights and benefits. If a subsidiary company is privatised or goes broke, would Pacific Power have any responsibility for redundancy payments or redeployment? In England, some years after companies were privatised, services were discontinued and employees had nowhere to go. Transfer of staff provisions are specified in proposed new section 8F. Pacific Power employees can appeal to bodies such as the Government and Related Employees Appeals Tribunal. No provision in the proposed legislation states that employees who will be transferred to the subsidiary company will have any right to appeal to GREAT.

Another organisation, Manual Operation Procedures, deals with many matters that are not included in awards. It appears that only employees who have been transferred and not new employees will be entitled to paternity leave. I could refer to other appeal bodies to which employees would have a right of appeal, but they may not be entitled to appeal to those bodies if they are transferred from Pacific Power to the subsidiary company. The Opposition will move an amendment at the Committee stage that will seek to ensure that those employees are redeployed on secondment for the duration of the establishment of the subsidiary company. All their rights, benefits and conditions will continue; they will merely be seconded.

Page 1924

As I said earlier, the appropriate time to look at all the other conditions to which Pacific Power employees are entitled will be later this year when the House is dealing with specific legislation to establish a separate authority. I reiterate that the Opposition wishes to try to prevent any privatisation agenda. The Opposition is seeking parliamentary oversight of the necessary transfer of any assets and the possible sale of the assets of this great organisation. I do not believe that any fair-minded and reasonable member of this House would object to that. For those reasons the Opposition will move amendments in Committee.

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [9.25]: I agree with the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister, the honourable member for East Hills, to the Electricity Commission (Amendment) Bill. The object of this bill is to enable the Electricity Commission to establish subsidiary companies using existing structures of mining operations associated with the Electricity Commission. The Government is entitled to dispose of those structures without recourse to the Parliament. Honourable members know what the group of Elcom companies is like, as we dealt in recent years with sales that have occurred and sales that have been proposed. Inquiries were conducted by a select committee into the proposed sale of Newvale without the involvement of the Parliament.

I would have preferred it if this legislation established subsidiary corporations rather than subsidiary companies. That option is still available to the Electricity Commission. Reference has been made to the reasons behind this legislation. This legislation is a lead-up to the establishment of a national grid. If my memory serves me correctly, in late 1983 or early 1984 the McKinnon report dealt with the shortcomings of the Electricity Commission. It dealt not only with the supply of resources to the industry but also with the problems regarding the generating capacity of industry and, to a lesser extent, the problems associated with grid distribution. I was interested in that report because it referred to access to resource material, such as coal, for generating purposes. The report stated that this could be accomplished more efficiently.

When that report was released it invited responses. I responded to the then Minister of the day, Mr Terry Sheahan, and I advocated the establishment of a national grid. I was interested in ensuring that the people I represented continued mining coal. These days it would cost about $7 billion to build a power station. Economically, it would be common sense to save that sort of money. I took into account the time frames in different States. The power generating industry is about providing power during peak demand periods, which inevitably occur in winter. Back in those days I recall addressing the men at Huntley Colliery and the men at Tallawarra power station. After addressing those men I went to the office of Terry Sheahan and expressed views about how the generating industry should operate.

I can still recall a commitment given by the coalition parties, before they came into office, that Tallawarra power station would remain in operation. Within months of being elected to office the Liberal-National Government broke that promise. The Government made a commitment in regard to Tallawarra power station and the establishment of subsidiary organisations. I do not believe that people in the industry will swallow assurances from this Government. The industry has already been bitten. Once bitten, twice shy. In the latter part of the 1980s and the early 1990s the Federal Government hopped on to the national grid bandwagon and issued a document entitled "Issues and Energy Policy, an Agenda for the 1990s", which was published in June 1991. That document was a lead-up to the legislation with which we are dealing tonight. A lot of good things were espoused in that document. I wish to refer to a few of the comments in that document. One comment was under the heading "Pricing problems":

State based approaches to energy related regulation can add to inefficiencies. State government responsibility extends to, for example, regulation of environmental and safety standards. If controls are not imposed uniformly in each State, they could create de-facto interstate barriers to the free movement of energy resources.

My understanding of this bill is precisely that. The Federal Government at a meeting of the States said it wanted a structure of uniform competitive standards and substandards within each State so that they could participate in an appropriate fashion to supply the national grid. The document, under the heading "Improving the outlook for the industry in the 1990s" stated:

An Industry Commission inquiry into energy generation and distribution has highlighted the major efficiency gains which could be derived from greater competition in the industry.

It is essential that the process of reform not only continue but accelerate in the coming years. A number of public utilities have embarked on commercialisation or corporatisation programs while several are examining the possibility. Prospects for increased private sector participation in the electricity industry are growing. Western Australia, for example, has announced that its next power station will be operated by a private consortium.

Under the heading "Transmission and grid interconnections", that section concludes:

In an open market for electricity, a short term market price would be established with trading in electricity among a wider set of industry participants, including distribution bodies and private generators. The market price would then reflect the value of electricity as determined by supply and demand.

The first edition of Electricity Supply Magazine dated October 1991 contained a comment by George Bates, the then Chief General Manager of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. In his comment on matters raised by the Industry Commission at a national level Mr Bates states:

I would agree with the Industry Commission that the industry overall can be more efficient. We said so in our submission to the inquiry.

However, the IC appears to take little notice of the evidence put before them, particularly the achievements of the SECV, or they would have softened the rather draconian

Page 1925
measures they continue to propose to sell everything off to private industry. This seems to be their solution to everything, whereas there is very little evidence to show that private monopolies in the energy area are any better performers than public ones.

Mr Bates later comments:

The work we have done to establish a commercial climate in the SECV is particularly valuable and our future concentration will be on corporatisation but also particularly on the development of our people from whom our future improvements will derive.

Corporatisation is the message all the way through that document. The bill provides for the establishment of subsidiary companies. As I said initially, the framework or format of those subsidiary companies falls into the same pattern as that in which the State mines were established. That pattern enables this Government to make building blocks out of all the components of the Electricity Commission and flog them off without recourse to this Parliament. To my mind that is not the intent of honourable members on this side of the House. Opposition members would rather there be corporatisation than privatisation to the extent that the Minister has the right to flog off the State's electricity industry.

Why does this bill not provide for a corporatised structure rather than a privatised structure in the establishment of subsidiary companies? The Minister is well aware that the Elcom and Newcom mines are straight-out subsidiary companies with virtually the same format and structure as ordinary private companies. I am concerned about proposed section 8F, which deals with the transfer of staff, because I do not believe that it enunciates appropriately or adequately the entitlements of staff should they transfer from one subsidiary company to another. Honourable members are entitled to know whether there will be a status quo in relation to current salaries and benefits or whether when a transfer occurs there will be a time limitation so that following transfer they will have diminished salaries or entitlements, or a combination of both.

Proposed section 8B(3) provides that irrespective of the structure of the building blocks of the different companies and how they are put together, whether in a grid pattern or a structure consisting of different generators, the Minister will be able to approve the selling off of any asset of the company. The description "any asset" does not relate to the type of structure it might be, whether corporatised or privatised in the context of a private company. The Minister has a right to authorise the sale of anything. No one is worried about small things associated with the Electricity Commission but when it comes to items of magnitude such as power stations, I believe that any prospective sale should have to be ratified by this Parliament. I do not discount the fact that a situation could arise in which the Opposition might think that a sale was desirable, but ultimately this Parliament should have the responsibility of making that determination. I do not necessarily rubbish the bill but I believe protections ought to be built into it, and those protections have been highlighted by the shadow minister. My support for the bill depends largely on acceptance of the amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister. The amendments are pertinent to ensuring that the Parliament has a say in the disposal of any public assets.

Mr BOWMAN (Swansea) [9.38]: My reservations about this bill are similar to those of other Opposition members who have spoken in this debate. Basically they relate to a concern expressed by many constituents that enabling legislation may allow things to occur that would be contrary to their interests, though they may not necessarily be foreseen at this time. That might sound like mindless conservatism but the rate of change of microeconomic reform, which is frequently underestimated in Australia, has left many people disadvantaged, though considerable advantage may accrue to many people in the community. Many people have found themselves unemployed or doing a job that is much less satisfying or pays less than one they had previously. They may not have always been aware of what was about to happen to them and felt that insufficient provision had been made for a reasonably smooth social as well as economic transition from situation A to situation B. Because of these concerns expressed by many constituents, Opposition members are anxious to ensure that the proposed amendments are given serious consideration by the Government and hope that they will be accepted so that there can be enthusiastic and wholehearted support for the bill as amended.

We are not by any means unhappy about the idea of greater efficiency; indeed, we recognise fully that if New South Wales and Australia are to continue to make economic progress we cannot stand still. A national electricity grid is fully in keeping with the ideology of both sides of the House. However, there are, if not suspicions, fears aroused when there does not appear to be provision for freedom of information procedures and the appointment of an employee elected representative to the board. There should be a partnership mode of management whereby the employed join in a co-operative approach to deal with potential problems of change. The protection of transferred workers' rights and conditions has been affirmed as the intention of this enabling legislation. I do not for a moment question the good will or integrity of the Minister concerned. Under the heading of "Transfer of staff" proposed section 8F(2) reads:

The awards, agreements and determinations applying, immediately before the order takes effect, to such members of the staff of the Commission continue to apply to each member of the staff concerned until other provision is duly made.

When that provision might duly be made is a matter of concern and anxiety to people who work in power stations in my electorate and in mines which largely supply contract coal to power stations. It is understood that, in the establishment of a national electricity grid, efficiencies will not be achieved without short-term disadvantages to some. There is a great, and I think very reasonable, concern that these
Page 1926
be minimised and that any consequent difficulties or disadvantages be shared as equitably as possible. Whatever one thinks of the particular proposal of the national Government, it has decided that something has to be done so that the long-term unemployed do not become a permanent underclass in the Australian nation. There is a fear that some of the people dislodged from their positions by the rapid rate of reform in the electricity generation and transmission industry might join the ranks of the long-term unemployed if the process is not managed with that danger in mind.

We think it reasonable that parliamentary approval be sought for the establishment of each subsidiary company. We do not believe that would hold up the process unduly. With all due respect to the Minister, we think it more appropriate and likely to create a greater sense of security and co-operation in employees if Parliament rather than the Minister approves of any sales. I am sure the Minister will consider these proposals and I hope he will accept the foreshadowed amendments. I believe they will not frustrate the intention of the Government. To be fair, if a national competitive policy for the electricity industry is to be implemented the Government has to set up this structure. The people involved often have only a dim understanding of what the process is all about, but have a full understanding of how they would be living if they were disemployed by the process. They are more likely to be co-operative and to make the transmission smooth, and ultimately more effective, if they feel secure.

I accept the good will of the Minister. I ask him earnestly to consider the foreshadowed amendments. I believe that any slight inconvenience caused to administration by the acceptance of the amendments could be easily coped with by the Minister and the department. Acceptance of the amendments would mean that those working in the industry who fear that their futures might be impaired by the process of change, however necessary, would be much readier to co-operate, and other people in the community who may suffer collateral damage from a rate of change socially difficult to adjust to, however economically efficient it might be, would also be very grateful for such consideration.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [9.46]: My comments will be brief. I do not want to be accused of trying to impede the progress of the bill. The Opposition holds grave concerns about certain aspects of the bill and the actions that certain clauses, if passed, would allow the Government to undertake - and what could occur. The object of the Electricity Commission (Amendment) Bill is to enable the Electricity Commission to establish subsidiary companies. It will enable the transfer of Electricity Commission assets to a legally separate network subsidiary. The governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, and the Commonwealth Government, have agreed to put in place the necessary structural changes to allow the implementation of a competitive electricity market in southeastern Australia from 1 July 1995. The Opposition does not oppose this. However, this amending bill is enabling legislation pending a detailed bill foreshadowed during the budget session to establish the grid subsidiary company as a statutory authority. The Opposition has concerns about a number of aspects of the bill. An amendment will be moved to require parliamentary approval for the establishment of each subsidiary company. Proposed section 8B(2), under the heading, "Subsidiary companies", states:

For that purpose, the Commission may, with the approval of the Minister:

(a) form, or participate in the formation of, a subsidiary company . . .

The Opposition believes that is a move towards privatisation of the Electricity Commission by the backdoor. The Opposition will move amendments to provide for the matter to come back to the Parliament for debate and approval. In view of the move to privatise a large section of the Electricity Commission the Opposition will also move an amendment which will provide for the Parliament, not the Minister, to approve sales. Another amendment will provide that the subsidiary companies will be subject to freedom of information provisions. The bill provides for the subsidiary companies to be treated as public authorities, and the Opposition believes that public authorities should be subject to freedom of information provisions. Another amendment will provide for an employee elected representative to be on any board of such a subsidiary company. Again, public authorities should have a worker representative on the board so that the workers' feelings and beliefs are transmitted directly to the board.

The final amendment the Opposition will move will protect the transferred workers' rights and conditions, such as access to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal. Before being elected as a member of this Parliament I worked for 11 years with the Electricity Commission and had the opportunity to use GREAT. The tribunal is important to all workers within the Electricity Commission. Access to the tribunal is a right that workers should have protected and that right should be transferred to the subsidiary companies. The Opposition will move an amendment to that effect. The Opposition is not trying to frustrate the progress of the bill but it has a number of concerns about certain aspects of the bill. I ask the Minister to heed our concerns and agree to the amendments proposed by the Opposition.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [9.50]: I also ask that the Minister take careful note of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition accepts efficiencies being brought into the electricity industry and accepts the concept of a national grid. In fact, the Opposition envisages positive benefits flowing from those changes. However, Opposition members are concerned that some moves by the Government could facilitate privatisation of part or all of the electricity industry. I bring to the attention of the House concerns brought to me by the CFMEU, which represents members in the electricity industry, about the direction being taken by the Minister and the
Page 1927
Government. Though the bill appears at first glance to be brief and unobtrusive, nevertheless it has a sting. A letter dated 2 May from the CFMEU states:

The Minister's second reading speech emphasises that the Bill will enable the creation of a separate transmission company, in line with agreed aspects of electricity industry reform.

I have already referred to that and to the acceptance of the national grid as a positive initiative. The letter continues:

In fact the Bill enables the establishment of any number of subsidiary companies in the Electricity Commission (Pacific Power).

Under the guise of implementing agreed aspects of industry reform, the Government is seeking to put in place legislation that will:

* further the Government's privatisation agenda,

* allow the Minister and Pacific Power to restructure a multi-billion dollar public organisation without any need for recourse to Parliament;

* allow implementation of non-agreed aspects of industry reform without Parliamentary oversight; and

* irrevocably divide Pacific Power and its workforce.

This demonstrates the genuine concerns of the work force, which has been undergoing significant change, and not all workers are in agreement that the change has been positive. I refer to the 1994 edition of Electricity Supply and an article from Ross Bunyon, the General Manager of Pacific Power, referring to the gains. This document demonstrates comprehensively the positive gains in Pacific Power and the need for redundancies and contraction of the work force. The article is couched in neat economic jargon. It states:

The focus has been on team building, upskilling and meaningful work with emphasis on quality and customer service.

That is positive and good. I have taken the trouble to speak with workers in the electricity generating industry. They have expressed genuine apprehension about job security and the privatisation agenda. I wish to refer to some comments that have been made to me. It is felt that a massive difference exists between the people who run the organisation and what actually goes on in power stations; that some of the changes are destroying effective team work that has always been an integral part of the power industry; that in some cases the change has been without logic and demoralising for the work force. I ask the Minister to consider those concerns and to be sympathetic towards the negative feelings of the work force about the legislation and its potential to hive off sections of the industry. At present I understand that Pacific Power maintenance is hived off and is not counted in the equation for generation.

Mr Hunter: They have hard hats that are bright pink.

Mr GAUDRY: Those maintenance workers have bright pink hard hats and apparently they are kept away and do not fit in at the plant with the others. They are not counted in the equation for competitiveness.

Mr Mills: Pink soft hats.

Mr GAUDRY: Yes, but in effect they are still there. Workers are also concerned about the large amount of contracting out that occurs, and this is not counted in the equation either. The workers have these genuine worries about their future in the organisation and fear that the bill has sinister overtones. I am sure the overtones have been addressed by the honourable member for East Hills, the shadow minister, in foreshadowing amendments. He referred to the privatisation agenda and Opposition concerns. That is not a reflection on the Minister for Energy but once this legislation is passed it has the potential for impact beyond the term of the Minister, and perhaps beyond the term of the Government. It could impact on the future of the industry and its move to privatisation.

I refer to the privatisation paper entitled "Government Trading Enterprises Reform Committee Privatisation Policy, Process and Program". That is a Cabinet document and expresses views on electricity generators. Obviously Pacific Power was being set up to parcel up the industry potentially for privatisation. The legislation provides the potential for setting up a whole range of business enterprises within the present structure as subsidiary companies and could easily lead to those being sold off to the private sector, with consequent problems for the operation of Pacific Power and problems for the work force.

I shall refer to the preconditions for privatisation. First, it was pointed out that Pacific Power has been established already with three separate generating business units and has a separate transmission function. Of course, that refers to the Central Coast - the Eraring, Vales Point and Munmorah power stations; the Hunter group - Liddell and Bayswater power stations; and the Western group - Mount Piper and Wallerawang. Those power stations are all operating in a competitive environment but according to workers not all of the equation is as appears in reports. Second, a further precondition is that experimental spot market in electricity is being tested. I understand that is taking place, and also I refer to the national grid. The Opposition accepts and understand the economic rationale for the national grid and the need for all of Australia to be competitive in this area. That says that prior to privatisation full separation of transmission systems, possibly with a separate authority, will be necessary. One of the objects of the bill is to fully establish an electricity market and then create commercial boards for the generating subsidiaries. That object of the bill is achievable, given clear controls.

Previous speakers have outlined the Opposition's approach to ensuring an effective level of control. Ministers do not have an unfettered right to make changes to the organisation outside the scrutiny of Parliament. Such proposals are subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament so that workers rights can be protected and freedom of information provisions applied. Members opposite are urging that this matter be proceeded with immediately. The Parliament must
Page 1928
have control of any changes that occur, workers' rights must be protected, and scrutiny through freedom of information must be included in and not omitted from the legislation.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [10.2]: As I address the bill I am reminded of the French saying "C'est le ton qui fait la musique", which means in effect that it is not quite so much the song you sing but how you sing it. That is a relevant consideration in approaching the bill. For once I am pleased to be able to say that the Minister for Energy has introduced a bill that is broadly in accord with Labor Party policy. I quote Australian Labor Party policy 1993-94 page 31, section 5.6.1, in relation to the Electricity Commission:

A Labor government will:

. . .

(e) encourage more speed into micro economic reform initiatives such as:

(i) interconnection-development of Eastern Australia grid linking New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania;

(ii) fair and equitable tariffs for consumers.

Section 5.7.2(viii) states:

National Electricity Transmission Grid

Press for the full implementation of a National Electricity Transmission Grid. . . .

We are in accord. The Minister and the Opposition know that, hence my introduction to indicate that the Labor Party is broadly in agreement with the State Government and with the Federal Government that a grid of this kind and facilitating legislation are needed. We agree with the song, but the way we sing it may be a little different. Hence the amendments that the Labor Party will move in Committee. Microeconomic reform is dealt with in Labor Party policy. One of the first so-called microeconomic reforms of the Liberal Party-National Party under former Premier Greiner was a promise to keep the Tallawarra power station open. However, within a few months the Government had closed that power station, and at the Huntley mine, where the honourable member for Keira used to work, 500 jobs were lost. The former Agent-General and former Minister suffered a significant loss of credibility over that issue. We do not need such microeconomic reform. I trust that will not happen when the bill is passed. We have to be careful about that. The Opposition is proposing amendments in relation to the way the bill goes about the task that it sets out to achieve.

I, like my colleagues - because I live among those who work in the power and coalmining industries in the Hunter region - have consulted with friends who have looked at the issues arising from the bill. The Minister, in his second reading speech, referred to the transmission assets of the Electricity Commission trading as Pacific Power transferred to a legally separate network subsidiary, and said that was an integral part of ongoing microeconomic reform of the electricity supply industry in New South Wales. The Minister also complimented the honourable member for East Hills who gave a commitment on behalf of the Opposition to legislation to enable the national group to be established. To this end it was proposed to create the legally separated transmission element within Pacific Power by 1 July, that being the initial step towards formal separation of Pacific Power's transmission and generation businesses.

The Minister also said in his second reading speech that the bill requires that all customers and generators of a certain minimum size have guaranteed access to the wires network so that trading can take place. One of the concerns expressed by the rank and file quite independent of any of the unions or any of the official groups - just ordinary working people expressing their opinion on what these things might mean - was that minimum size requires fairly careful consideration because it could exclude small suppliers with excess supply which is supplied cheaply. That was one of the comments made to me and I refer it to the Minister. The Minister in his speech talked about the bill including a provision for the transfer of staff to a subsidiary company.

The Minister drew attention to proposed section 8F, ensuring members that staff transferred to a subsidiary company will not have their working conditions, superannuation, salary or any other benefit altered. My friends to whom I spoke last weekend said that could run into inter-union and award problems such as State and Federal problems, and seniority on-site problems. This sort of concern is reflected by the people who work in the industry, with concerns expressed the way in which the bill might be implemented. I refer to page 3 of the bill, schedule 1, proposed section 8B(3), which provides:

The Commission must not, without the approval of the Minister, sell or otherwise dispose of any interests in a subsidiary company so that, as a result of the sale or disposal, it ceases to be a subsidiary company.

The comment was made that we really ought to have an Act of Parliament on that matter and that the Minister alone, that is, the commission and the Minister working alone, should not have the power to sell off. That comment came genuinely without referral to Labor caucuses, shadow ministers, the unions or anyone else. That comment came straight from the mouths of people who work in the industry. Finally, I refer to page 5 of the bill, under the heading "Transfer of Staff", and to proposed section 8F(1), which provides:

The Minister may by order transfer the employment of specified staff of the Commission to a subsidiary company.

The comment of the employees - and they cannot be blamed given the record on microeconomic reform and how it has been pushed in this country - to me was, "That could be misused to disadvantage employees. That is a good way to get rid of people you do not like". I relate that to the House as a considered comment by friends of mine who work in the industry. I like to relate proposed legislation to
Page 1929
people in the electorate I represent so that I can get genuine feedback from my constituents. I acknowledge the submission I have received from Damian O'Connor on behalf of the Mining and Energy Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Workers Union - the CFMEU. Parts of his letter, which went to other members of Parliament, have been quoted already. One sentence of that letter is relevant to the nature of the amendments that the honourable member for East Hills proposed to move in Committee. It states:

In fact the Bill enables the establishment of any number of subsidiary companies in the Electricity Commission (Pacific Power).

Mr O'Connor - who is present in the public gallery tonight - said to me that the terms of the bill are far too wide, hence the nature of the amendments that will be moved by the Opposition later tonight. While the Opposition supports the general thrust of the bill, it is important to recognise there are amendments that it intends to move that will change the direction of the bill to enable it to be very wide ranging rather than pretending to be specific. The bill states that one of its objects is to facilitate the establishment of a national grid by establishing various companies. But the Government could, if it chose - and it may well choose - go beyond that to dismember the Electricity Commission and break it up into little pieces, to privatise various bits and corporatise other bits, to divide groups of workers into different parts of the commission. The Government could well lose the plot in the end and spoil the whole way the commission has gone about the process of managing the electricity industry in New South Wales. I commend the thrust of the bill and, more importantly, the amendments that will be moved in Committee.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [10.10], in reply: I thank the honourable members opposite for their contribution to this debate tonight. Because of the late sittings last night I did not wish to prolong this evening's proceedings and, therefore, I did not seek speakers from my side of the House. But I do realise that the Opposition members who have spoken in this debate come from electorates many of whose constituents are employees of the Electricity Commission. In that regard, they had a considerable sense of obligation to raise matters of concern. I place that acknowledgment on the record.

The honourable member for East Hills in his speech to the Address-in-Reply debate indicated on behalf of the Opposition that there would be no opposition to these reform measures. I was rather bemused, however, that the honourable member for East Hills suggested that many of these reforms were well under way in the days when Peter Cox was the Minister for Energy.

Though I have not been in the portfolio all that long - however, I understand that I am one of the longest serving Ministers on this side of the House to have held the portfolio - I have come across quite a number of people in the industry who were not all that enamoured with some of the reforms that Peter Cox was undertaking. The recollection of distributors with regard to Peter Cox, and for that matter the Wran administration, is that distributors were used as a milch cow. They were being robbed blind. Every time the Labor Government wanted a few extra dollars it would go straight to those major distributors - Prospect, Sydney Electricity - and, of course, that caused major havoc.

Nowadays the Electricity Commission, which is now called by its trading name Pacific Power, is the eighth largest trading company in Australia. That is to the credit not just of management but to the credit of employees at all levels of the commission. I say that with considerable pride. When Peter Cox was the Minister responsible for the management of the Electricity Commission the company was working at a loss - not a record that one could be proud of. Today that same company is making a return on an asset owned by the people of New South Wales, and that return is contributing to other important areas such as welfare, health services, education, et cetera - right across the board.

I know that there will be members opposite who will say, "Oh yes, but of course you did that by an increase in the BST". If that is the case, why is it that domestic consumers today are paying less for electricity than they were a decade and a half ago? I do not deny the very active role that the ALP in this State played in the important development of this particular organisation in its formative years, at a time when there was a disparate group of generators, a disparate group of distributors, no co-ordination, and no sense of direction. Common sense has prevailed and the groups have been brought together with a common sense of purpose to develop the supply of electricity for the people of this State.

It is important that we remember that part of history. It is also important that we move on and look to the future. I suppose many of those looking to the future are saying, "What we are being told is that at the end of this tunnel is a national grid". I would say in this Parliament, without fear or favour, that a national grid will not work unless Queensland is a part of it. New South Wales has a surplus of generation beyond what is required to meet even reliable and safe standards. Victoria is in a similar position. South Australia is a net purchaser and it seems to have some very cosy arrangement with Victoria. Queensland is in the position of having to consider extra generation capacity. It has recently announced that it is considering taking some generation plants out of mothballs to bring them back on line. That does not engender much hope or confidence. I still live in hope, however, because I believe there is a very strong desire on the part of many to push ahead and achieve - and that is the purpose of the national grid. The Business Council of Australia contends that a national grid will bring about competition, and competition necessarily brings about lower prices. Some might say that I am a little hypocritical but I believe that the Government Pricing Tribunal in New South Wales is achieving more in
Page 1930
terms of reducing prices, far beyond what could ever be expected through the introduction of a national grid and a competitive market, because I believe it is going about it in a proper and orderly way. At recent meetings with representatives of the Business Council of Australia they have told me that Victoria is operating in a wonderful way - that Victoria is leading the way.

I happen to believe that New South Wales is leading the way. I have said all along that I am about getting the structures right. I do not want to rush things through and make a mess of it. I want to be able to sit back when it is all over and say that we got it right and that at the same time we have delivered real reductions to electricity consumers - not only to the domestic consumers by freezing domestic prices, but also to the commercial and industrial consumers of this State. The Industry Commission, in its report of 1991, came out with the grand statement: "We have a very inefficient electricity industry right across the east coast of Australia. We need to bring about change, we need to bring about efficiency and reform, and these are all the gains that we can make".

Mr Rogan: I disagreed with it.

Mr WEST: The honourable member for East Hills says that he disagreed. I do not want to get into that part of the debate; I simply want to say that the sorts of gains that the Industry Commission report indicated could be made have been made by the Electricity Commission throughout its entire organisation, throughout the district network and beyond. The Government has made these changes. The Government is on the positive side of the leger already. It is something of which we can all be proud.

I have had the opportunity to visit coalmines and generating stations. I have spoken to people in my electorate who work at the transmission level. I look them in the eye - as I can look the management of Pacific Power in the eye - and say, "We have achieved this together". That process is important. There is no hidden agenda in the way in which I have approached this industry. I have said, "Let us make this reform, and let us make it together. Let us look to the future and let us not hijack each other's agenda".

The honourable member for East Hills spent considerable time tonight talking about the secret agenda of privatisation. He quoted at length from a document that was prepared by Treasury. During my time in Parliament I have spent a considerable number of years in Opposition. Opposition members clutch with glee any document that seems to reflect a government opinion. They use it for all its worth. I respect that position, which has been taken in the past and tonight.

Mr Rogan: Actions speak louder than words.

Mr WEST: Indeed. A circular has been quoted tonight from the General Manager of Pacific Power, Ross Bunyon, stating that he knew nothing about the document. I did not know anything about it; the Treasurer did not know anything about it; the Premier knew nothing about it. Why? Because a junior officer in Treasury prepared it. The honourable member for East Hills has been in government; he would know that people in central agencies try to think up ideas - they do not necessarily doodle - to be creative when considering who might be potential candidates within a government framework.

I have examined the document carefully subsequent to the honourable member for East Hills gaining possession of it. I did not see the document until he gained possession of it. The document basically refers to potential candidates should the Government want to follow a certain direction. It does not state Government policy. That distinction must be made. The Government has not undertaken a course of privatisation of the various elements. Consistent with the National Grid Management Council, the Government has said it believes that by entering into this competitive market there is capacity for future private sector investment in the generation and supply sections of the industry. I do not back off one iota.

I do not think we will see the day when the national grid sends sparks across wires all over the States, but it will send very real price signals to future investors in generation capacity. It will not detract from the ability or the capacity of existing generators to find their way in the market-place. The day will come in New South Wales and in Australia, as has already happened in Queensland, when there is a need for additional generation capacity. The time has passed when governments should be investing in generation capacity. I do not agree with governments spending dollars on assets; I would rather the dollars be spent on hospitals and schools - areas that, in the majority of cases, will not be run by the private sector. However, the private sector will and can play an important role in electricity generation. The Government intends to get the structure of the energy organisation right. Reference has been made to what is occurring in Victoria. At a meeting I attended with the Business Council, I asked the council who was involved in discussions in Victoria and who ran the agenda. The clear answer was that the agenda is being run by Treasury. In New South Wales, Treasury does not run the agenda; the Minister for Energy runs the agenda. That is the key difference.

Employees, management, everyone involved in generation, distribution, and supply - the whole industry - is concerned about the number of different models that are evolving around the world. Vertical integration models have been introduced in the United States, a break-up has occurred in the United Kingdom, and recent changes have taken place in New Zealand. None of those models is right for Australia. I say to members opposite and to everyone who is involved in the electricity supply industry in New South Wales: let us get it right for Australia; let us examine the models overseas and use those experiences to get it right for Australia.

Page 1931

The Victorian distribution network could almost fit into the area bounded by Shortland to the north, Illawarra to the south, and Prospect to the west, including Sydney Electricity - leaving aside the 85 per cent of distributors in the remainder of New South Wales. New South Wales and Victoria cannot be compared. We must have a system that recognises our unique setup. In the United Kingdom, when transmission and generation were separated, transmission was privatised and distributors were allowed to buy a shareholding in the transmission. That has been a dismal failure and has not sent out any of the right signals. This is enabling legislation. The first stage will create the subsidiary company within Pacific Power, and the next stage will create a separate statutory authority which will own and operate the transmission assets of New South Wales. There is no hidden agenda. Freedom of information and employee representation, as mentioned by the honourable member for East Hills and other honourable members, are important elements.

This enabling legislation will facilitate the formation of a subsidiary company. Freedom of information legislation that applies to the parent company will apply also to the subsidiary company. Opposition members spoke about employee membership on the board. There is an employee member on the parent company, Pacific Power. Anything that is done by the subsidiary company must be referred ultimately to the principal board. Opposition members spoke also about redundancies. The conditions of employees of the subsidiary company, which will be responsible for transmission assets during this interim process, will remain the same as conditions for employees of Pacific Power. The Government will not take away any of those rights - an important matter in this transition proposal. I said earlier that the Government and I have no hidden agenda.

The honourable member for Wallsend referred to discussions he had with some employees. He referred to my second reading speech and talked about my reference to customers of a certain minimum size, which is part of the National Grid Management Council proposal. Opposition members might be aware that Victorians believe that the 10-megawatt provision should be reduced to 5 megawatts. Victorians want to reduce the number of megawatts because they have so few customers who fall into that category. That matter still has to be discussed and resolved. New South Wales is still analysing that proposal. Principally, the Government believes that the original proposal of 10 megawatts is about right, but it will listen to further argument before it resolves the problem. I thank Opposition members for their contributions. There will be discussion on the proposed amendments. The Government will agree to some amendments but will oppose others because they are wrong in principle. If those amendments are lost, I do not believe that the principles and arguments for which Opposition members have been fighting will be lost in the overall scheme.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [10.34]: I move:

No.1 Page 3, Schedule 1(3), proposed Section 8B(2), lines 9-10. Omit "with the approval of the Minister", insert instead "if authorised by a regulation".

I will not unnecessarily delay the House by explaining at length my reasons for moving this amendment. I covered that fairly well in my contribution to the second reading debate. However, the Opposition is seeking by way of this amendment to ensure parliamentary scrutiny of the subsidiary companies. This enabling legislation will allow for the establishment of subsidiary companies. When they are established the Opposition will seek parliamentary approval.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [10.35]: The Government opposes the amendment. As I said in my second reading speech, this legislation is enabling legislation; it is really about setting up a transmission subsidiary and then moving to a total separation of transmission assets. I indicated earlier that I should like the subsidiary company to be established by 1 July. That company would then have to face the regulation test of this Parliament. The Government will determine later the representatives who will comprise the board that is to be established. The Government could be faced with a situation 15 days after the commencement of the budget session where that regulation is disallowed.

Mr Hunter: It would not be opposed.

Mr WEST: The honourable member for Lake Macquarie has indicated that the regulation would not be opposed. I have indicated clearly that I want to establish a separate board. I want to start identifying assets and I want to start preparing the next stage of the legislation to facilitate separation. Because this has to be done by regulation, we have to go through the regulatory impact statement process. It is a pity that the honourable member for Murrumbidgee is not in the Chamber as honourable members would be aware of difficulties that are faced in meeting the stringent requirements of regulatory impact statements, quite apart from the 15-day rule.

One could go through that process, have all that hanging over one's head and, at the same time, one could be trying to complete the first stage. Even though Opposition members said by way of interjection that they will not disallow this regulation, it is difficult to live with those sorts of guarantees. Opposition members should recognise that this is enabling legislation. I know that Opposition members are worried about privatisation; that is what it comes back to. I make no bones about this: if anything is to be privatised it would need separate legislation, and clearly Opposition members would have an opportunity to debate the matter at that time. The honourable member for East Hills and other Opposition members are placing an unnecessary and undue restriction on this legislation. I do not believe it is as important as some of the other limits that are being sought.

Page 1932

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [10.39]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for East Hills. I point out to the Minister for Energy that the Opposition has stated quite clearly that it will not oppose the establishment of a subsidiary company for the transmission group. The Minister has been reminded of Australian Labor Party policy in that regard. If during the winter recess the Minister established a separate subsidiary company, that would not be opposed by the Opposition when the Parliament resumed. Why is the Minister going down that path if he does not intend to form a number of subsidiary companies?

The Minister has been dragging the chain. He should have introduced this legislation earlier. A board could then have been established and the 15-day requirement could have been complied with before the Parliament rose for the winter recess. The Minister should not say that the Opposition will oppose the regulation. I assure the Minister that the Opposition supports the separation of the transmission element. If this provision remains in the bill, the Opposition believes that the Government will attempt to separate other sections of the Electricity Commission and establish subsidiary companies, which will lead to partial privatisation.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [10.40]: The Minister made a point about the Regulation Review Committee. It is correct that the process must be followed with regulations, however I am assured by the Parliamentary Counsel's office that there is a means by which that can be fast tracked. I would be prepared to give the Minister an assurance from the Opposition that it will co-operate fully with the establishment of the regulation, provided that there is some consultation and that the regulation does not contain provisions contrary to the spirit and intent of the legislation and the concerns put by the Opposition. I emphasise that the Opposition does not want to impede the reform program that has been agreed to by this Government and all of the eastern State governments, certainly so far as electricity is concerned. That type of reform of the transmission system is necessary for this open competitive market which all honourable members support. I give the Minister the assurance of the Opposition that it will co-operate fully to ensure that the regulation is expeditiously executed.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [10.42]: The honourable member indicated that the Opposition would agree with the regulation provided it is not contrary to the bill. I could not make a regulation that is contrary to the bill; it is not possible. Neither the Parliamentary Counsel nor the Government would approve a regulation that is contrary to the bill. There is a lot involved in going through the regulatory impact statement procedure and at the same time focusing on getting the legislation right. I am talking about bringing the next stage of legislation back in the next session to do the full separation. I accept the integrity and direction of the honourable member for East Hills. However, his amendment is unnecessary and would impose an extra condition that will tie up the real intent of this bill. I remain adamant that the amendment is unnecessary and the Government must oppose it.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

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

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

Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Clough Mr Fahey
Mr J. H. Murray Mr Longley
Mr Nagle Ms Machin

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hazzard): Order! The numbers being equal, in accordance with established tradition I give my casting vote with the noes and declare the question to have passed in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Page 1933

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [10.52]: I move:

No. 2 Page 3 Schedule 1(3), proposed section 8B(3), lines 16-17. Omit "without the approval of the Minister", insert instead "without the authorisation of a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament".

As I stated during the second reading debate, the purpose of this amendment is to give parliamentary approval when any of the assets or any of the interests in the subsidiary company established by this legislation are proposed for sale. As the bill reads now, the commission must not, without the approval of the Minister, sell or otherwise dispose of an interest in a subsidiary company. The Opposition proposes that authorisation of the Parliament be required for the sale of such interests.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [10.54]: Honourable members talked earlier about some of the difficulties with the first amendment. They flow through to this amendment. The honourable member for East Hills - perhaps a number of members - is concerned about a potential privatisation plan. As privatisation would involve a core asset, the Parliament would have to pass specific legislation to achieve privatisation. This amendment would not achieve that process and, as I am advised, would hinder the process we are talking about.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [10.56]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for East Hills. The Minister has said that he is not in favour of privatisation. If he has nothing to hide and is not in favour of privatisation, why does he oppose the amendment?

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Mr A. S. Aquilina Mr Moss
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Neilly
Mr Bowman Mr Newman
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Doyle Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison 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
Mr McManus Mr Davoren

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

Mr Carr Mr Cruickshank
Mr Clough Mr Fahey
Mr J. H. Murray Mr Longley
Mr Nagle Ms Machin

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [11.3]: In view of the last two amendments being passed in the negative, I will not be moving amendments Nos 3 and 4 standing in my name because they were consequential on the success of amendments Nos 1 and 2. Therefore I move:

Page 4, Schedule 1(3), proposed section 8C. After line 7, insert:

(5) While the memorandum or articles of association of a subsidiary company do not provide that one of the directors of the company is to be a member of the staff of the company and elected by staff of the company in accordance with regulations under this Act:

(a) any existing delegation to the company under this section is automatically revoked; and

(b) no delegation may be made to the company under this section.

For the purposes of this subsection, staff of a subsidiary company include staff employed by the company or staff of the Commission seconded to the company. Regulations may be made for the purposes of elections referred to in this subsection.

The purpose of the amendment, as I outlined earlier, is to provide for the regulations to be prepared for the election of a worker elected representative on the board of any of the subsidiary companies and, accordingly, I ask all honourable members to support the amendment.

Page 1934

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.4]: I said in my second reading speech that there is already an employee representative on the principal board of Pacific Power. There is also an employee representative on the board of Power Coal. I do not believe this amendment is necessary, but having regard to the spirit in which this legislation has been entered into, I am prepared to accede to the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for East Hills.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [11.5]: I move:

Page 4, Schedule 1(3), proposed section 8E(2). After line 31, insert:

(b) the Freedom of Information Act 1988; and

This amendment is to allow for the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to apply to these subsidiary companies. I am aware that the Minister indicated in his reply that this may well be the case, given that this is a subsidiary of the main body, the Electricity Commission - Pacific Power is its business name. The Opposition moves this amendment to ensure beyond any doubt that the Freedom of Information Act applies to any of the subsidiary companies.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.6]: The honourable member for East Hills is correct that because the freedom of information legislation applies to the parent company, it similarly applies to the subsidiaries. For example, freedom of information already applies to Power Coal, which is a subsidiary established under Pacific Power. One might wonder why it never required enabling legislation to create Power Coal as a subsidiary company. That is because the source of coal is not core business to the Electricity Commission and, therefore, under the Act did not require enabling legislation. However, because transmission is a core business, this enabling legislation has been brought forward. Sadly the Parliamentary Counsel would say that this amendment is unnecessary, but again, for the sake of clarity, I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [11.7]: I move:

Pages 5-6, Schedule 1(3), proposed section 8F. Omit all words from line 29 on page 5 to line 13 on page 6 (both lines inclusive), insert instead:

(2) The staff remain staff of the Commission, and are merely seconded to the subsidiary company.

As outlined earlier and with due regard to the Minister's reply to the second reading contributions by the Opposition, this amendment is proposed to protect beyond any doubt the rights, privileges and conditions pertaining to employees of the Electricity Commission who are transferred to these subsidiary companies. This will put beyond any doubt the fact that these employees are simply employees of the commission on secondment to the subsidiary body, and will ensure that the rights, privileges and benefits that are accorded to employees of the main body apply equally to the subsidiary company.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hazzard): Order! The Chair is having great difficulty hearing proceedings. I am sure Hansard is experiencing similar difficulty. Members should be courteous by keeping the level of their conversations at an absolute minimum. If they wish to continue their conversations, they should leave the Chamber.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives) [11.11]: I understand the reason the honourable member for East Hills moved the amendment: to protect employment conditions, superannuation, the right of appeal to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal, and redundancy provisions. Proposed section 8F(2) provides that each member of the staff concerned, after the order takes effect, becomes a member of the staff of the subsidiary company. That clause also provides that awards, agreements and determinations applying, immediately before the order takes effect, to such members of the staff of the commission, shall continue to apply to each member of the staff concerned until other provision is duly made. Provision would be duly made when concern arises, for instance, that a new award might be made. Concern may emerge after that point. However, it is unlikely in the interim period that a new award will be made. On the other hand, board directors could believe that if people are employees of subsidiary companies they might not be as committed to getting on with the task.

I accept the amendment proposed by the honourable member for East Hills. However, in doing so I ask that he and employees of the Electricity Commission involved in this secondment endeavour to understand the spirit in which I and, I am sure, the honourable member for East Hills have entered into this matter. I hope that spirit, flowing through the organisation, will convey the message that we will be back in this Chamber debating a more principled piece of legislation, probably during the next budget session. In this instance I am prepared to accept these amendments in the hope that the spirit of what we are attempting to achieve will flow to employees and impart to them confidence that the Government is not trying to hijack any of their agendas and that their award conditions are as important to me as they are to them.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

Page 1935

Debate resumed from 3 May.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.15]: This bill, introduced by the Government, could be described as second best. The best was a private bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The Crimes Legislation (Dangerous Articles) Amendment Bill, with its Crimes Act nuances of intention to protect personal safety, has the same object as the Leader of the Opposition's private bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! Members should show courtesy to the honourable member who has the call.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the Opposition introduced his bill well before the Government first thought of the need to address failings within existing legislation and policies, failings which reflect a lack of understanding that women in our community need protection. That is the essence of the bill introduced by the Government. The bill, echoing exactly the private member's bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, is limited to two pages of substance. There is little difference between it and that introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government had the courage of its convictions about protecting women in our society, it would adopt the views of the Leader of the Opposition and his bill. The only difference in the bills is that the Government wants to amend the Prohibited Weapons Act 1989, as stated in clause 4 of the bill, by inserting after section 5(2) the following subsection:

(3) This section does not apply to a prohibited weapon specified in item (40) of Schedule l.

The Leader of the Opposition advocated reference of a substance to a committee which should include the Commissioner of Police and a representative of the Women's Advisory Council in the Premier's Department. The Government may pretend it had the interest, design and initiative, but that rightly belongs to the Opposition. The Government has the benefit of being able to oversee carriage of the bill. The Opposition supports the measure for the same reasons espoused by the Government, but wishes the Government would adopt a few of the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in his bill. Regrettably, his bill cannot be cognate with this bill because of the telling difference that prohibited substances are to be referred to a committee. The Opposition cannot oppose the current bill. The Opposition will pursue consideration of its bill but supports the proposed Government legislation.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [11.18]: I wish to discuss generally the concerns of John Gill, one of my constituents. John Gill is a self-defence instructor who operates a self-defence academy in Hornsby. He has been coming to see me for about 18 months about self-defence sprays for women. John Gill is one of those who want to import capsicum chilli defence sprays into New South Wales. This debate has been going on for a number of years. Before I was elected as the member for Ku-ring-gai I remember interviewing members of this House and, I think, Mr Gill himself about this very issue. Over the years I have stayed in touch with the debate. However, I have gone in circles around it. I find it hard to work out exactly where we should draw the line on those things that ought to be available for women - and for men as well - to carry as self-defence mechanisms.

John Gill and one of his female self-defence instructors came to see me 18 months ago and made what I considered to be a fairly compelling case about the desire of women to carry these sprays. The case was based on a number of things, but one of the more telling points was made by the female instructor. She said that the women she knew felt that it was better to carry a spray because, unlike a knife - which women feel is particularly threatening - it would not be as damaging or harmful if the spray was turned on the woman by her attacker. She felt that, from that point of view, it was a better weapon of self-defence for women to carry because women would feel less threatened by it. They claim that the capsicum chilli spray does not have any harmful effects beyond its immediate impact of stunning the victim for a period of perhaps as long as 15 minutes.

I found that argument compelling and, as a man, I certainly did not want to say that the woman's opinion was wrong. I undertook to take her argument to the Government and I have raised it during the course of the past 18 months. Most recently I raised it with the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister for the Status of Women. Advice came back from the Minister's department a few months ago that, so far as the women's co-ordination policy unit was concerned, it was not in the interests of women to have this spray available in the community. The department's position was that it was not in the best interests of women for any weapon that might potentially be used against them - whether this spray or a knife or a gun - to be available.

That was the very strongly worded advice from the Minister's department. I am still not certain that that is the feeling of most women in the community. Because I am a man, it is not a decision I am able to make. I say to the women in the electorate of Ku-ring-gai that if they have feelings about this question, they should let me know because I still have not made up my mind about whether or not such a spray should be freely available to women to be used in self-defence. So far as this member is concerned, the jury is still out and I would like to hear from women about this question. So far as Mr Gill is concerned, he still contacts my office occasionally and is anxious to have the matter pursued. I have this day raised the matter yet again with the Minister for Police, who assures me that he will have the matter further investigated by his department. The bottom line is that the Government would not want to make the wrong decision. What honourable member would want his or her name next to a decision that later turned out to be contrary to the interests of women? Certainly not me - and, I suspect, not the honourable member for Ashfield.

Page 1936

It is a matter that should be debated. I urge the Government to continue to consider the question but to do so with some haste because it needs to be resolved. Finally, I offer the suggestion of my constituent John Gill. It may turn out to be impracticable but I offer it to the Government as a suggestion, that is, if there is concern about this spray getting into the wrong hands, why not make it available on a licensing system through police stations and those people who want to obtain the spray could have their names recorded in a register at the police station as possessing the spray. That is one suggestion from my constituent to prevent the spray from falling into the wrong hands.

[Interruption]

If the honourable member for Ashfield really wants to debate the issue about whether or not the spray might get into the wrong hands, I am happy to engage in such a debate during the 10 minutes that are available to me. I do not suspect that the honourable member really wants to introduce a system whereby this weapon or any other could be used against women. The idea is to make it available for their self-defence. If the honourable member wants to open up the system so that more weapons are available to be used against women, he is welcome to do so. Members on this side of the House are interested in establishing the merits of the case as to whether women will benefit from the availability of the spray. I support the legislation currently before the House and again call on the Government to continue to investigate whether the capsicum chilli spray should be allowed to be imported and used in New South Wales.

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [11.25]: I am absolutely amazed at the contribution from the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. Considering the amount of publicity in New South Wales surrounding this issue of a spray can for women's self-defence and the surge of public opinion, it is astounding to hear a member of the Government suggesting that an opinion poll should be conducted - an opinion poll concerning the right of women, or for that matter any person in a desperate situation and in fear of their lives, to have some sort of protection. I indicate my support - indeed, the support of the Opposition - for a bill that will amend the Prohibited Weapons Act to provide a defence of self-defence for the possession of certain dangerous articles. The Government did absolutely nothing to assist women and those who are targets for the low life in our society, particularly in respect of assaults in the streets; it sat by and did nothing until after the Court of Appeal decision in respect of a woman found in possession of a spray. After that decision the Leader of the Opposition spoke out publicly, I think days after, and indicated that a private member's bill for that purpose would come before this House.

It was not until that happened and there was absolute public outcry in this State that the Government acted to bring forward this bill. It is a bill that I support. Some of the points made by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai in terms of the self-defence aspect and the right of people to defend themselves amazed me. It is important to note that it is not just a question of women in New South Wales being able to possess a spray as a result of this bill being enacted; it is a question of anyone - the elderly, possibly young people or those incapacitated in some way - being permitted to carry a spray of some kind, at least as a comfort in case of an assault.

Having been involved in self-defence for many years, and having taught self-defence to many women, I know the fear that some people have about assaults in the street. Anyone involved in self-defence would have reservations about how people act in particular circumstances, but when one weighs it all up, in the case of some women it is a good thing for them at least to be able to have some implement to deter an attacker. The Opposition's record is very clear on this issue. Although this is not an Opposition bill, quite clearly it could have been. The Opposition made sure that the Government introduced this bill tonight. It was a turnaround by the Government. If it had not been for Bob Carr and his actions, it would not have happened. The women of New South Wales will salute Bob Carr for his action and next March their votes will go to the Australian Labor Party.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.30], in reply: I thank all those honourable members who participated in this debate, especially the honourable member for Ashfield and the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. The latter gave an excellent, spirited and vigorous contribution to the debate, as he always does. I also thank the honourable member for Cabramatta. This Government is determined to ensure that the women of this State are entitled to, and able to, protect themselves when the occasion arises. It was clear, after the Court of Appeal decision, that action had to be taken. Unlike the knee-jerk response of the Leader of the Opposition and his acolytes this Government deliberated the matter to try to ensure that the bill we would introduce would be sympathetic to the concepts of an orderly society where weapons were not regarded as a normal means of apparatus to be carried around. Accordingly, the Government examined the matter appropriately and developed this legislation. This Government is determined to ensure that the women of this State are protected and that is why we have a strong law and order policy, and will continue to have. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Bill received and read a first time.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.32]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek the leave of the House to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Page 1937

The Victims Compensation (Amendment) Bill has resulted from a review of the implementation and administration of the Victims Compensation Act 1987. The Act commenced operation in February 1988. The aim of the tribunal is to ensure that victims of violent crime receive compensation in as prompt and sympathetic a manner as possible. While the tribunal has generally functioned well, concerns were expressed about the operations of both the Act and the tribunal and the nature of claims being made to the tribunal. To allow these concerns to be properly examined, I instigated the review which was undertaken by Mr Cec Brahe, the Deputy Chief Magistrate and former chairman of the tribunal.

The review was conducted with particular reference to: first, persons entitled to compensation; second, the nature and determination of compensation; third, the review of determinations; fourth, the payment of legal costs; fifth, the recovery of moneys from convicted offenders; and, sixth, the statistics and management of information maintained by the tribunal. In September 1992 an issues paper was released. Thirty-nine submissions were received in response from parties including the Law Society, the Bar Association, victims support groups, the Legal Aid Commission, the Chief Judge of the District Court, members of Parliament, community groups, women's groups, solicitors and legal centres, the Lesbian and Gay Legal Rights Service, the Sexual Assault Committee, the police, the Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Youth Advisory Council.

It can be seen that there was comprehensive consultation with the community in the process of the review and subsequent drafting of the bill before the House today. To assist Mr Brahe in the conduct of his review the Attorney General requested the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research to analyse the pattern of victims' compensation claims, claimants and awards. The bureau's report on the profile of claims, claimants and awards was published in February 1993. Its findings about the nature of claims was considered in the Brahe review. In March 1993 the recommendations of the Brahe review were published and circulated to members of Parliament, interest groups and individuals.

The report included 28 recommendations of which 16 required legislative amendment. The proposed amendments to the Act recommended by Mr Brahe included provision to clarify the definition of "act of violence"; provision that a payment should be made on solatium rather than common law principles of compensation; that there should be changes to the appeal process; that there should be administrative assessment of non-contentious claims; and that there should be some limiting of claims by close relatives on the death of a victim. A recommendation for consequential administrative amendments to the Act was also made. Most of the recommendations of the Brahe review have been implemented in the bill which is before the House today. In the process of finalising the legislative proposals before the House, the Attorney General consulted further with government agencies such as the Ministry for the Status and Advancement of Women, the Ministry of Police, the Department of Corrective Services, the Office of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Courts Administration.

It is fair to say that the bill which is before the House today has been formulated as the result of an extremely wide-ranging consultation process. The bill takes into account the views expressed by members of the community in the course of that consultation. While crime continues in this State, with its terrible impact on victims, there will be a continuing need for the tribunal to make awards to genuine and deserving victims of crime. Payments to victims are made out of the Victims Compensation Fund. This fund is financed by Treasury and ultimately by the people of this State. This bill attempts to provide out of the fund for the competing needs of victims in the fairest and most equitable way. So that all genuine victims may receive adequate compensation it has been necessary to clarify the basis of compensation, to narrow the ambit of acts of violence qualifying for compensation and to increase the threshold for minimum awards by the tribunal. There has been some limiting of categories of claimants qualifying for compensation so that the most deserving victims of crime will not be prejudiced. The process for review of the tribunal's determinations has also been enhanced and guidelines provided to the courts on matters to be considered by them on appeal.

I now turn to the details of the bill. Item (3) of schedule 1, dealing with proposed section 3B, clarifies the nature of compensation payable under the Act, by providing that the basis of payment to a victim of violent crime is consolation. It is a formal acknowledgment on behalf of the Government and the community of the unjust infliction of injury and suffering on the victim. It is not possible to compensate a victim of crime to the extent that, say, a person claiming for injury under an insurance based scheme would be compensated on common law principles. Therefore, proposed section 3B clarifies that compensation under the Act is not meant to put the victim, so far as money will do, back into the same position the victim was in prior to the violent criminal act.

Clarification is required because the Act provides no guidance as to the correct application of principles for compensation. In the absence of guidance, there has been a discrepancy between legal opinions on the correct basis of assessment, and a variation of awards has arisen. With a limit of $50,000 for awards, common law principles cannot be properly and evenly applied. There are types of injury such as those which are not manifested at the time of determination, which cannot be compensated on common law principles.

The scheme also provides for compensation to secondary victims and dependants of a deceased victim. Their loss cannot be assessed on common law principles, and the nature of proceedings before the tribunal, which are inquisitional rather than adversarial, is also a factor against the application of common law principles.

Under the proposed amendments, assessments on a solatium basis will not be reduced. They will not be scaled down from the maximum award by reference to common law levels. There will be scope for the adoption of a set range of awards applicable to categories of injury. This will result in victims receiving predictable and equitable awards for compensation.

Items (1) and (2) of the bill, proposed sections 3 and 3A, provide for the redefinition of an act of violence giving rise to compensation. These items will ensure that victims of violent criminal acts receive a payment. It overcomes previous interpretations that the Act compensates injuries occurring in the course of the commission of non-violent offences. Proposed section 3A amends the definition of "act of violence" to apply only where there has been a violent criminal act. The new definition also includes certain offensive acts to cover instances of sexual assault and domestic violence so that victims of these crimes are not excluded from the ambit of the Act by the redefinition of "act of violence". In the other place, the meaning of offensive conduct was also extended to include instances of kidnapping and child stealing. The Government supported this extension.

Proposed section 3A(3) clarifies the nature of a related act. Together with items (9) and (10), proposed sections 18 and 19 of the Act will provide that where more than one offence has occurred during the course of a continuing relationship between the victim and the offender, the victim will be eligible to make only one claim for compensation. This overcomes arguments that in such circumstances a victim may receive an award in respect of every single act of violence occurring during a series of acts of violence, resulting in total awards way above the $50,000 maximum. It was never intended by the architects of the scheme that a victim in this circumstance would receive an award for each act of violence. However, under the operation of proposed

Page 1938
sections 18 and 19 a victim will be able to make a fresh application covering acts of violence occurring subsequent to an earlier application. As the tribunal makes its determination on an assessment of injuries, the tribunal ,in assessing the level of compensation to be awarded where there is a claim for related acts of violence, will consider injury arising from all acts of violence covered by each claim. Once again, I must remind honourable members that compensation is paid largely from the public purse and it is necessary to provide some limitations on payments so that all victims of serious crime may receive compensation.

Proposed sections 3(b1) and 15 provide for compensation of a primary victim of sexual assault for a new category of injury being psychological trauma. In some cases victims of sexual assault will not be able to establish physical injury. The new sections overcome the requirement for these sexual assault victims to prove physical injury, mental disorder or nervous shock. The object of item (6), proposed section 15(6), is to exclude all motor accident victims from compensation. It is inappropriate for motor vehicle victims falling below the threshold for compensation under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 to obtain compensation as victims of crime. Item (7), proposed section 16(5), provides for maximum compensation for loss of earnings in accordance with section 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This will provide a new upper limit for such compensation but will allow a worker and his or her family to live with dignity during the period of incapacity to work. It is entirely appropriate for the level of compensation in such a case to be in keeping with amounts provided under the workers' compensation regime.

Item (8), proposed section 17(2), provides non-exhaustive guidelines to the Victims Compensation Tribunal in considering the lodgment of out of time applications. The Brahe review recommended that the two-year limitation period for lodgment of claims be maintained. It also recommended the criteria at item (8) for the exercise of the tribunal's discretion in relation to out of time claims. In providing such guidelines, the processing of these claims will be clarified to the benefit of genuine victims seeking to make late claims. The circumstances the WorkCover the tribunal will have regard will include those surrounding child and adult victims of sexual assault.

The amendment of item (11), proposed section 19 of the Act, is for a new threshold of $4,000 or such other amount as may from time to time be fixed by proclamation. The current threshold for claims at section 19 of the Act is $200. There has been no increase in the threshold since the Act was introduced in 1987. There are many small claims made to the tribunal by claimants injured in the course of employment. They seek compensation that is not available under the workers' compensation regime because of the operation of higher thresholds for claims, or in order to supplement awards made under that regime. The bulk of claims at below $4,000 are for bruising and lacerations which are often the result of brawls. In some jurisdictions such as Great Britain, bruising and lacerations are not compensable unless connected with other injuries. There is also much greater scope for dishonest claims at the small end of the spectrum. The smaller, trivial claims occupy a disproportionate amount of the Victims Compensation Tribunal's administrative time and costs. In some cases, the legal costs incurred in a small claim will outweigh the award. This is to the disadvantage of those with serious injuries caused by acts of violence.

Significant thresholds operate in workers' compensation and motor vehicle compensation schemes and it is appropriate that a significant threshold should also operate in relation to the Victims Compensation Act in order to achieve an equitable allocation of funds to victims. Submissions in the course of the Brahe review supported a range of increases in the threshold. We must again bear in mind that the object of the Act is to compensate victims of violent crime. This compensation is made by the Government from limited funds and it is only fair that payments go to those suffering serious injuries resulting from violent crime. The proposed threshold is realistic and fair. Those victims with claims falling below the threshold will still be able to take action through the courts to obtain directions for compensation out of the property of offenders under part 6 of the Act. At items (46) and (48), sections 53 and 61 of the Act are amended to provide that these directions may be made on a finding of guilt rather than the conviction of an offender.

Item (12), proposed section 20(3), provides matters which the tribunal may take into account when considering the element of late reporting to the police for the purpose of reducing an award. The Brahe review found that in most cases victims reported cases to the police on the date of an act of violence. However, certain victims including children and the intellectually impaired rely on the actions of others in the community to make a report. They often make late reports. The object of this item is to overcome any disadvantage suffered by these victims in the assessment of their claims. In the other place, the Government supported amendments to provide for the inclusion of physical impairment as a matter for consideration and delays in reporting caused by representations by the police that a victim's complaint should be withdrawn. Item (13), proposed section 21A, is framed to provide that where a claimant for compensation in one case is the offender in another application for compensation before the tribunal, any restitution order against a claimant as offender may be set off against the award to that claimant as a victim.

Items (14) and (43), new section 24A, provide that costs payable in respect of an application will be as set out in the regulations to the Act. These will include legal costs and medical expenses. The tribunal will be able to award in excess of the regulations in special circumstances. The section will also provide the tribunal with the power to complain to relevant professional bodies where medical expenses charged are excessive. The bill enhances the rights of victims to review of tribunal determinations. Under proposed section 24B the tribunal is given a limited power to review its decisions in cases where additional evidence, for example a medical report, becomes available after the tribunal's determination has been made. This provision will save the applicant from having to lodge an appeal in order to have the fresh material considered.

The appeal procedure from the tribunal to the District Court is clarified at proposed section 29, item (20) of the bill. The time for lodgment of an appeal is extended to three months. Proposed sections 29(2B) and (2C) provide that appeals to the District Court shall be heard on a rehearing basis and not a de novo basis. That is, matters will not be heard anew by the District Court. The result will be that in hearing an appeal the court will rely on the evidence adduced to the tribunal. The court may consider further evidence only if the special circumstances of the case warrant it. This will streamline the appeal process for victims, as their cases will not need to be run afresh when appealed to the District Court. The District Court will consider all evidence adduced to the tribunal plus any fresh evidence and will make its determination as to the correct application of the Act to the facts of the case. It will save the victim the legal and medical expenses associated in running a case afresh, not to mention the time and trauma involved in such proceedings.

Appeals to the District Court will not lie on the tribunal's refusal to allow lodgment of a claim outside the two-year limitation period provided at section 17, or the tribunal's refusal to reconsider a determination pursuant to proposed section 24B. These decisions are administrative acts. However, when taken in the context of the proposals which I have outlined for proposed section 17(2) providing for the exercise of the tribunal's discretion in accepting out of the claims, it is clear that victim's rights are not impeded by this amendment. As in other jurisdictions, the victim's right to appeal to the Supreme Court in its supervisory capacity to remedy cases where the tribunal errs in its administrative decisions will remain open.

Page 1939

By item (21) of schedule 1, dealing with proposed section 29A, the bill provides for costs to be payable in respect of appeal proceedings in accordance with the regulations. The same provisions regulating costs on a determination will apply to costs on appeal to the District Court. Items (22) to (26) of schedule 1 to the bill will establish a procedure for administrative assessment of non-contentious claims.

The Brahe review recommended that, as the majority of applications are non-contentious they should be determined administratively with a right of review from that determination. Proposed section 18(A) sets out the criteria for administrative assessment, including that the likely award will not exceed $7,000. Therefore, only smaller and non-contentious claims will be determined administratively. Applicants dissatisfied with an administrative assessment will have the right to have their claims determined by the tribunal. This is in addition to the provisions for redetermination by the tribunal and appeal to the District Court.

The bill provides some amendments limiting categories of claimants. Items (27) to (34) of schedule 1, including proposed section 3, limit the definition of "close relative" for the purposes of compensation in the case of a deceased victim, to dependants of the deceased. This is in keeping with victims' compensation regimes in other States, such as Victoria. It is necessary to provide this limit to claims under the Act in conformity with the principle that compensation is made on a consolation basis only. It is also part of the general emphasis in this bill on the allocation of funds so that the victims of crimes themselves are compensated by the Government on behalf of the community.

Item (35) of schedule 1 to the bill will amend section 10 of the Act relating to compensation to secondary victims. This has been an area of abuse by claimants in the past. The amendments have been framed to provide that a secondary victim must prove sudden sensory perception of the act of violence, or the actual physical harm or the death of a primary victim arising from the act of violence. The intention is to exclude claims by secondary victims for mental disorder arising from a primary victim's mental disorder. The object of proposed section 10(2) is to provide that where a secondary victim is the parent or guardian of a child primary victim, and did not contribute to the child's injuries, the secondary victim does not have to prove the elements of sudden sensory perception of the child's injury in order to be entitled to compensation.

Items (36) to (41) of schedule 1 to the bill will improve the process of recovery of money from offenders. This Government is committed to obtaining contributions from offenders to assist victims of crime. The Act currently provides for a recovery procedure in cases where a person has been convicted of an offence arising from substantially the same facts as those resulting in a previous award to a victim. Proposed sections 42A and 42B will provide an additional process whereby the tribunal may institute proceedings for recovery against an offender at the same time as making an award in favour of a victim. The bill also provides that in the event that a victim has lodged an appeal in relation to an award, a fresh recovery determination may be made so that there can be no shortfall in awards and determinations for restitution.
Proposed section 47(5) will provide for joint and several liability in determinations made against two or more offenders in respect of the same award for compensation. These amendments will improve the process by which the tribunal recovers money from offenders. It is part of this Government's policy of ensuring that offenders contribute to the assistance of their victims. Item (51) of schedule 1, dealing with proposed section 65C(1)(a) and (b), provides for increases in compensation levies payable by offenders. Items (53) and (61) of schedule 1 will provide that compensation levies may be made on a finding of guilt rather than a conviction. However, proposed section 65C(2A) will provide that the levy applies to juveniles only at the discretion of the court. Once again, these amendments are in keeping with this Government's commitment to victims of violent crime and its principle that offenders must contribute to the welfare of such victims.

Finally, item (42) of schedule 1 will insert a proposed new section 2A of the Act which will outline the objectives of the Victims Compensation Act, including provision that compensation for victims of violent crime is made on a consolation or solatium basis, the principle of recovery of compensation of payments from offenders and the payment by offenders of a compensation levy. The objects clause is a restatement of this Government's commitment to the many innocent victims of violent crime in the State. In conclusion, the Victims Compensation (Amendment) Bill is a detailed vehicle for improvement of the regime of victims' compensation in this State. It features a fine balance between the competing needs of victims of crime. It has been necessary in some cases to limit categories of claimants and in some cases expand the categories of claimants. Nevertheless, the bill provides for compensation for victims by way of consolation.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to compensate out of the public purse every victim of every offence. It is necessary to provide some limitations on payments so that victims may receive adequate compensation. It is necessary to rationalise and in some cases place limitations on the extent of compensation available to victims from government funds ultimately provided by the people of this State. This is so that those victims suffering serious injury as a result of violent crime may be compensated in the fairest possible way. This bill also contains a restatement of the Government's policy that offenders will contribute to the welfare of their unfortunate victims. The bill does not and cannot eliminate all crime and suffering; however, it will provide the best possible redress on behalf of the community to those suffering from the effects of violent crime. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill
Property, Stock and Business Agents (Amendment) Bill