Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 16 November 1994, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 15 November.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [9.01]: The Government welcomes the support for the bill given by crossbenchers and Opposition members. The bill is part of a fundamental package of improving cultural awareness within the Police Service and distinguishing the service in an important way from police services around the nation. The bill responds to the critical needs of the migrant capital of Australia, the most culturally diverse state in the world. New South Wales has 235 ethnic communities speaking 70 major languages. In Sydney alone 1,300,000 people speak a language other than English, so one can well appreciate that the task for the Police Service is daunting. The task is awesome at the best of times. The level of ethnicity is such that in a great many of Sydney's constituencies, both in outer western Sydney and in some regional areas, more than 50 per cent of the population is of non-English speaking background.

Multiculturalism is not an experiment but a reality in today's society. When that environment is contrasted to police operational work around the world it is evident that the institutional requirements of the Police Service in New South Wales are much different from requirements elsewhere. There is a critical need for a more culturally aware and culturally sensitive Police Service. It is equally important that communities are responsive to that need, which is more critical and more severe here than elsewhere. Fewer than 9 per cent of the State's 12,500 police officers are born of non-English speaking background and, as was indicated in the report of the Ethnic Affairs Commission, which was made in close cooperation with the Police Service, only 50 police officers are classified as bilingual. Those figures show the extraordinary disparity between the capacity and the need of the Police Service to respond to issues of critical concern to the community at large.

How can 50 multilingual police officers service 1,300,000 people of non-English speaking background, people who speak a language other than English in their homes? Some very difficult questions are posed. Accordingly, the Government and, to their credit, the Opposition and crossbenchers have come together as one in support of the principle of external recruitment. We now have an opportunity to deal in detail with that principle. I endorse the legislation as an exciting element in the Government's agenda. On Monday last the Government tabled 52 recommendations as part of the report of the Ethnic Affairs Commission into ethnic-police relations. An important recommendation calls for dramatic change to the recruitment procedures of the Police Service, whilst not seeking to impose a target or a quota on the service. The recommendation, which is but one of 52 recommendations, calls for dramatic improvements in Police Service recruitment of people of non-English speaking background.

As I launched the report on Monday, on behalf of the Police Service and the Ethnic Affairs Commission, I was pleased to note broad support for those initiatives. I welcome in particular the joint but separate endorsement and acceptance of the report and its recommendations by the Police Service and the Police Association. The recommendations provide for sweeping change in the Police Service. It is also unique in large measure, and a credit to the parties involved in this partnership, that all of the parties responsible for both the preparation and the implementation of the report have come together within 24 hours to endorse the report, are comfortable with the recommendations made and accept the implementation of the recommendations.

I thank the Ethnic Affairs Commission for its stewardship and preparation of the report and its recommendations. I thank the Police Service for its cooperation in the preparation of the report. The service will now implement the recommendations. I thank the Police Association for its acceptance and endorsement of the report, both of its balance and of its specific recommendations. The Minister for Police and I, in my responsibility for multicultural affairs, have made a joint approach on behalf of the Government to endorse the report. The Ethnic Communities Council and its chairwoman, Angela Chan, have endorsed the report on behalf of all ethnic communities. The bill is a part of the package of sweeping reform that is required and is being undertaken by this reformist Government, which is leading the way not only in Australia but in the western world.

The integrated package of reforms will include compulsory cross-cultural training for all existing police at a higher level than constable and will specify awareness of cross-cultural issues as an essential criterion in the promotion of police officers. The reforms will provide for the establishment of a multilingual assessment service within the Police Service and the establishment of an ethnic police advisory council which will be able to provide specialist advice. Previously such advice has been sought from external sources. The Police Service will
Page 5109
be better focused. The bill goes to the heart of the recruitment of special officers to assist with special needs of people of non-English speaking background in this the most culturally diverse state in the world.

One-third of our State's population is of non-English speaking background. If those of non-English speaking grandparents are included, more than half the State's community is of non-English speaking background. That is more than the minority. The legislation paves the way for a good managerial system for the Police Commissioner - not the Police Board, but the commissioner - to make specialist appointments that require special skills, qualifications and experience not generally available within the Police Service. The legislation provides for the appointment on probation in the same manner as a person appointed to the rank of constable of people not already in the New South Wales Police Service.

The Government has brought forward this initiative to enhance the work to be undertaken by the Police Service in its reassessment of current recruitment practice and its attempt to educate ethnic communities about the Police Service. It is important that ethnic communities recognise that the Police Service is not a threat to them and should not be viewed with suspicion. Some people come from backgrounds of huge and understandable concern about institutionalised corruption, which is a cultural barrier to a proper acceptance that our policemen and policewomen are, like everyone else in the community, concerned about the common good and work within a service that is largely free of corruption and largely free of racism.

The New South Wales Police Service is a model in many respects, but there are cultural barriers and there needs to be a re-assessment of those cultural barriers. We must provide for the fact that there are 235 communities in Australia, speaking more than 70 languages - 90 languages, in point of fact, but 70 in large measure - many living in areas where there are high levels of crime. The critical issue for the community is that there has to be a broad acceptance of the fact that many people who migrate to another nation are not immediately familiar with that nation's primary language. We are all first and foremost Australians, but proud nevertheless of our backgrounds; encouraged to be bilingual and multilingual, but proud of our inherited language.

Living in a new country, without resources, without contacts, without an understanding of the nation's language, and certainly with no understanding of the system of the country, limits the potential for many in ethnic communities to get a job. More than 50 per cent of Turkish, Vietnamese and Lebanese migrants who arrive on our shores are still unemployed 18 months later. That poses critical problems. They become a migrant underclass of unemployed people who - not because it is their inclination, but because of their environment - are susceptible to the pressures that particularly come in a disorderly society, and I put that in sensitive terms. They are, one could say, potentially susceptible to the criminal world and that creates a real difficulty.

When people with a community of interest come to Australia and have limited support structures they look to their own communities. So often it is the case that new arrivals come together in particular areas for mutual support. Frequently, there are inherent problems within those communities because those in the community have limited English skills, are unemployed and have no resources, financial or otherwise. The Police Service, in order to better respond to the problems associated with crime in those communities, needs to be able to communicate. Communication is at the heart of the real problem.

I welcome this Police Service (Recruitment) Amendment Bill as landmark legislation that paves the way for a more culturally aware and culturally sensitive response to police management and police operational activity in New South Wales. On behalf of the ethnic communities and the Ethnic Affairs Commission, and on behalf of the wider community, I applaud the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services for this legislation. I welcome the in principle support of the Opposition and those on the crossbenches. As the Minister said, the Government will give careful consideration to those amendments as the debate proceeds. I support the bill as an important part of a re-assessment of the approach of the Police Service to dealing with people of non-English speaking backgrounds and using special approaches to satisfy special needs.

Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [9.13]: I, too, support the legislation on the basis indicated by the honourable member for Ashfield. When the debate commenced yesterday, it was not my intention to speak to the bill. I decided to contribute as a result of something said yesterday by the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice with regard to a policy document. I am delighted that most of his contribution dealt with the issues of multiculturalism as they affect policing in New South Wales, because I think that is the bigger issue involved in this legislation. Can I say, not so much as a criticism but as an observation in good faith, that one of the reasons for the fear held by some police - and certainly by the Police Association and Commissioned Police Officers Association - about the motives of the Government is its failure to consult.

I appreciate the very difficult circumstances with which the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services has been confronted in recent times, since assuming this most sought-after portfolio. The difficulty is that neither of the two associations that represent the totality of police in this State were aware of the contents of the bill until I showed it to them after the Minister delivered his second reading speech in this House. I think it is important that they be given the opportunity to be consulted prior to matters coming before the Parliament. Much of the heat can be taken out of a number of problems if that consultation occurs. Leaving that to one side, I am particularly concerned about the issues raised by the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice. We do not seem to learn from what happens in other countries.

Page 5110

The issues we are confronted with in New South Wales are present in other parts of Australia, and the issues we are confronted with in Australia are obvious throughout the western world. One only has to go back to the aftermath of the Brixton riots in 1981, which resulted in a major inquiry headed by Lord Scarman, to see the sorts of issues that cause difficulties. The circumstances that created those riots are much different from the circumstances that bring us to this legislation, but the basic issue is very much the same. I refer honourable members to a worthwhile publication edited by John Benyon called Scarman and After. The former Commissioner for the London Metropolitan Police, Sir David McNee - whom it was my pleasure to meet during my time as Minister for Police - is quoted on page 9 of that publication as follows:

My message is that good will is required on both sides. The community have to come towards the police and the police towards the community.

That is an extension of the often quoted Sir Robert Peel exhortation in 1829 that the police are the public and the public are the police. The problem is that it is the police who have to take the first step. They can no longer, here or in England or anywhere else, step back and say, "It is our right to have the support of the community". They have to go out and seek that support, and earn and deserve it. Of all the things written in Scarman and After, to my mind the most important contribution was written by Paul Boateng. At the time he was the member for Walthamstow; Chairman of the Police Committee of the Greater London Council since 1981 - honourable members should remember that the book was written in 1984 - a practising solicitor, a governor of the Police Staff College at Bramshill, and a Labour Party parliamentary candidate for Hertfordshire West in the 1983 election. Leaving all that aside, Boateng deals at some length with the issues surrounding his community. Scarman said in his report that there needed to be greater recruiting amongst ethnic communities and the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services in his second reading speech made reference to the necessity to recruit from the ethnic groups which comprise our community. Boateng wrote:

It is clear that there are unlikely to be significantly more black policemen until such time as the service shows quite clearly that it is willing and able to put its own house in order - in terms of its attitude towards the black community.

He went on to talk about the vast sums spent on recruiting. The programs, correctly introduced in the United Kingdom, did not work and really have not had any significant impact. The publication Talking Blues basically consists of interviews with English police officers. One such interview was with a black police officer of West Indian background who was stopped by the police while driving his car to work, accompanied by his girlfriend. He was given a terrible time. The policeman who stopped his car asked, "Whose car is this? Did you steal it?" The officer replied, "I am on my way to work". That brought the response, "Oh, you have got a job?" The questions continued, "What do you do for a living?" He replied, "I am a public servant". To the question, "Where do you work?" the officer indicated the street in which he worked. The harangue continued. "Where exactly do you work?" The officer named the police station at which he worked. When asked what he did there the officer replied, "I am a PC".

The arresting officer was all apologetic, but the fact was that his line of questioning was indicative of an attitude. I am not saying that New South Wales police are racist; I am saying that some of them are. For substantiation of that view one only has to refer to the Ombudsman's discussion paper issued earlier this year and read about the Vo incident. And the incident on the north shore involving young Asian students is an absolute disgrace. There is no justification for what took place. Honourable members should also read the work prior to that, quoted in the report of Dr Chan - and we sit back in 1994 and wonder how we can address the issues raised by the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services and the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice. How can it be said that 9 per cent of New South Wales police are from a non-English speaking background? Until recently the Police Service did not keep that information; it did not require it.

Mr Photios: That is not the point of difference.

Mr ANDERSON: I accept that, but it is indicative. Countless thousands of people still do not believe that policing is a role to be carried out by women, yet 23 years ago the foremost policing authority in the United States, Patrick V. Murphy, said there was ample evidence to suggest that women were not only as good as men but were probably better in some circumstances. The attitude of a police service to civilians, then to women and now to people from different cultures, is an ongoing problem. What is the answer? This measure will bring half a dozen or a dozen people into the Police Service. What will they do? I suggest that basically they will be involved in intelligence and tactics, and rightly so, because they will come from other countries with experience of certain crime trends.

As the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Police have said, the problem in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia is that until the police force serves the community it cannot win the race towards better relations. Though there may be 150 interpreters at the police station, for police officers walking the streets a smile is not enough; they have to know the cultural differences. What could be perceived by people from one part of the community as an act of insolence may be regarded by others as an act of great respect. I instance the dropping of eyes, which is a mark of great respect in certain communities. However, it is expected of others in our Australian community that they look at police when they are being spoken to. So officers involved in law enforcement have to understand the cultural differences of those in the community they
Page 5111
seek to serve. I look forward to reading the Minister's report. I do not have it but I will make some endeavours to obtain it.

Mr West: I will give you one.

Mr ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's offer, because it is vitally important. What Boateng has said and what Benyon has written about is a small part of what has been said before, and we have to learn from it. Some say it will be dealt with at the Police Academy. It cannot be dealt with at the Police Academy. A great battle was fought 10 years ago to change the recruiting criteria. When I joined the police force at the beginning of 1967, in broad terms a police officer had to be six feet tall, weigh 15 stone, and have about a 48-inch chest. These criteria prevented people from many ethnic communities from participating in policing. Because of their ethnic backgrounds, they were not big enough. So those criteria were changed.

Then the educational criteria were changed. When I joined the police force in 1967 I was one of four of 166 in my recruit class who had a leaving certificate. Today, almost without exception, recruits entering the Police Academy have tertiary entry scores or tertiary entrance ranks of about 400. I suppose that is equivalent to 80-odd under the old scheme. It is the top level. With some exceptions, what chance do people from non-English speaking backgrounds have of being recruited? Understanding cannot be taught at a police academy. We are trying to educate and train police. Perhaps it is time we reconsidered and left the educating of people who want to be police to professionals in that field. Once they have been educated, through programs to address disadvantage and lack of opportunity, they can then be trained as police. The protections proposed in the bill, and improved by the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Ashfield, will dispel any real fears that the bill is the thin end of the wedge.

What is being suggested is not unreasonable. However, I exhort the Government to consider the matters I have put today in a constructive manner. If we do not learn from experiences in other parts of the world, we will continue to make the same mistakes, and those mistakes continue overseas. What has been the response in the United Kingdom, despite white papers and new legislation? There has been no success in addressing the basic problem. Police can be given shields, helmets and batons, but ultimately the problem will not be addressed until police are able to go among their communities and have the communities respond favourably to them. It is not enough to walk down the street, smile, and say, "Good day". A police officer has to become involved in the community. The perception of law enforcement has to be turned around, especially for the many people who come from countries that are brutal or corrupt in the operation of policing or law enforcement.

For every 10 steps forward, a Vo incident or an incident like the north shore matter sets the police back a long way for a long time with a lot of people. The measures introduced in the bill cannot succeed unless the matters I have raised are addressed. A number of people have been recruited from overseas and almost all of them have returned to their countries. I understand they returned because promises made to them were not kept. Permanent residency or citizenship is a prerequisite to becoming a member of the New South Wales Police Service under the Police Service Act. Those issues could have been resolved. People brought to Australia to become involved with intelligence and tactics could join the Police Service, not as sworn officers but as special constables, which would give them powers of arrest under section 352 of the Crimes Act.

Ultimately the issues will be effectively addressed on the street. I completely support what the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs said: the issue is communication - an ability to communicate. There cannot possibly be in every patrol area with a large number of people with non-English speaking backgrounds multilingual police officers who can speak with everyone, but people within communities should be encouraged to serve. Why are Aboriginal police reluctant to serve in areas with a high Aboriginal population? Why is it likewise with those few officers from ethnic backgrounds? The approach, the culture, and the whole situation has to change. The attitude of the bigots in our community has to change. When that is changed there will be some chance of succeeding in achieving the things that members on both sides of the House would like to see achieved.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [9.29], in reply: Without wishing to embarrass the honourable member for Liverpool, I would like to say that this House has just heard a speech from a person who has probably one of the better understandings of the need for improved relationships between ethnic communities and the Police Service in this State or around the world. I compliment him on that speech. I am sad that this may well be the last speech he will make in this Parliament on the subject. I say this genuinely. This Parliament will be the loser. I hope before he departs to take up other activities he will spend considerable time talking to his colleague the honourable member for Ashfield, because the honourable member for Ashfield could do with all the assistance he can get.

It is accepted by all honourable members that there is a need for a better ethnic mix within the Police Service. There is a need to recruit specialist police from time to time to assist in policing within the State. It has been said by the Police Association that this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the murder of one of our colleagues in this Parliament. It is not. It had been under consideration, and it had been discussed with the Police Association in advance of the discussions and negotiations on the enterprise agreement. However, the discussions and negotiations were suspended during that time. I suppose I am using the window of opportunity in this Parliament to get in this very important principle. The honourable
Page 5112
member for South Coast and the honourable member for Ashfield in their contributions to the second reading debate outlined the amendments they intend to move at the Committee stage. I do not intend to delay the House unduly so I will not duplicate many of the matters during consideration in Committee. Clearly, from the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Ashfield and the honourable member for South Coast, it should not be the commissioner who has powers to designate the positions, it should be the Police Board.

As a realist I recognise numbers in the Parliament. The designation of positions under this bill fundamentally is, and should be, a management issue. The identification of skills and competencies necessary to improve the operational efficiency of an organisation is the task of the chief executive officer. In this regard that is the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Service. The assessment of whether such skills can be found within an organisation, or must be sought externally, is a decision that is routinely taken by senior management within organisations. One must ask: what is so different about this proposal that requires the decision being taken away from the person who has the statutory responsibility for the effective and efficient management of the Police Service - that is, the commissioner?

The honourable member asked: why is this process so different from that of identifying qualifications necessary for a position in the information technology area, or the employment of the most appropriately skilled officer to head up special operations groups, such as the backpacker or granny killer task forces? In principle the honourable member is saying that if it is the Police Board that is to designate these positions, it should be the board that also decides the most appropriate officer to be the head of those task forces. Really, it does not match. There is no justification for the proposed amendment. It is ill conceived. However, in relation to the operational aspect of this bill, I am prepared to have it trialed. I assure honourable members that I will bring this matter back to the Parliament if I am told it is impossible for it to work.

It is incredible that only 18 months ago the Parliament received advice from the joint select committee, of which both the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Ashfield were members. As a result of that advice, a bill was introduced that provided that the Commissioner of Police should have clear responsibility for the management and control of the Police Service and that the Police Board should no longer have general statutory responsibility for the improvement of the Police Service as to its efficiency and performance. That was the direction taken by this Parliament on the advice that was clearly given. There were blurred responsibilities between the Police Board and the Commissioner of Police which were separated and made clear. Now we are going back to blur them again. The Parliament is not necessarily sending a clear message to the commissioner about his responsibilities. I will work with the commissioner to make sure that those concerns are met.

The honourable member for Ashfield has given notice of an amendment. He has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the association and by his amendment he proposes to increase the number of members of the Police Service by whatever number of recruits is determined to be necessary. I understand the politics behind that and the Government is prepared to accept it. Clearly, we are in the process of increasing the size of the New South Wales Police Service. Again, we are not expecting the numbers to increase dramatically. It is not as if there will be a huge financial burden, but it is clear that this has come about because of a letter written by the commissioner to the association which indicated that before designating any positions he would consult the association. I believe that consultation process by him must continue, even though the board will be involved. I will certainly be asking him to carry out that consultation. The commissioner, in his letter to the association, said that he was unable to give the guarantee that authorised strength levels would be improved. This proposed amendment by the Australian Labor Party ensures that that will occur. In good faith I am prepared to accept it.

Of the amendments proposed by the honourable member for South Coast, one relates to the probationary period that recruits can serve. The proposed amendment broadly brings this provision into line with the Public Sector Management Act and means that the commissioner cannot keep people hanging in limbo forever on probation or remove them while they are on probation. I am prepared to accept that amendment. The honourable member for South Coast also proposes that the period during which they must serve before being promoted be reduced from five years to two years. Again, I am prepared to accept that amendment. I thank all honourable members, including my colleague the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, for their contributions to the debate. The Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs has worked with me and the Police Service to ensure that in this multicultural community of New South Wales we have a Police Service that is able to work with the community, not only to solve crimes but also to do the pro-active work that is necessary.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.37]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1(1), line 16. Omit "Commissioner", insert instead "Police Board".

This amendment means that the Police Board will, for the purpose of this selection process, designate a non-executive position as a position available to any eligible person, whether or not the person is a police officer. The Police Board is the responsible body to be undertaking that selection process. I remind the Minister that the board's responsibilities and functions are set out in section 19 of the Act which states:

Page 5113

19. The Police Board has the following functions:

(a) the functions conferred on it by this Act in connection with the employment of members of the Police Service Senior Executive Service and other members of the Police Service;

(b) the supervision and promotion of career development and training for all members of the Police Service;

(c) after consultation with the Minister the undertaking of reviews it considers appropriate of the procedures of the Police Service designed to safeguard the integrity of the Police Service;

Other functions may be conferred. This function is being conferred on it, but it already has a power under section 19(b) to provide for the supervision and promotion of career development and training for all members of the Police Service. For those reasons the Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.40]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1(1), line 21. Omit "Commissioner", insert instead "Police Board".

I move that amendment for the same reasons that I announced before.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.40]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1(1). After line 27, insert:

(4) In the case of a special designated position that is not that of a non-executive commissioned police officer, the following provisions have effect despite anything to the contrary in this Part:

(a) the Commissioner is required to advertise a vacancy in the position in such manner as the Police Board directs;

(b) the Commissioner is not to appoint to the position a person who is not already a police officer unless the Commissioner has sought, and obtained, the recommendation of the Police Board to make the appointment;

(c) the Police Board may only recommend the appointment if the person has, in the opinion of the Police Board, the greatest merit of the applicants eligible for appointment to the position.

The reasons for that amendment are much the same as those I gave before. It is the responsibility of the board. The board will give the commissioner the power to advertise the vacancy, but the ultimate appointment will be with the permission of the board. I urge honourable members to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.42]: I move:

Page 2, Schedule 1(1), line 33. After "appointment", insert, "However, an appointment on probation cannot exceed 2 years without the approval of the Police Board and a commissioned officer cannot be dismissed except by the Governor".

I thank the Minister for his understanding of this matter. It was an unintentional consequence of the amended bill that a person could be on probation for a period well in excess of two years and during that time the police commissioner would be able to sack a commissioned officer. At present that can only happen by recommendation of the Police Board to the Governor. I understand also that not all officers who are seconded to the New South Wales Police Service will be commissioned officers. Where the Police Board is not normally involved in such matters with non-commissioned officers, 99 per cent of the time the board would take notice of the recommendations of the commissioner - as it probably would in the case of commissioned officers - but we have a special circumstance here. The board would more than likely endorse the commissioner's recommendation but it can react to a special community circumstance. Special community input into the board, which is really representative of the community, can be obtained.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.43]: This amendment is consistent with the proposal I put in the first three amendments that were agreed to; namely, the power of the board is enhanced. I note that under the current Act in section 73(3) the commissioner has the power to appoint officers to the rank of constable and appoint them on probation and may dismiss any such probationary police officer from the Police Service at any time and without giving any reason. As the commissioner has that power and as we have already agreed this morning to enable the board to be involved directly, it is appropriate that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.44]: I move:

Page 3, Schedule 1(1), line 4. Omit "5 years" and insert "2 years".

Despite my criticisms of the New South Wales Police Service, I have said on a number of occasions and I take the opportunity to say again that we have some of the best police officers and some of the best investigators in the world. Though I cannot comment on a current famous case, I think that would indicate exactly what I am saying. Members of the Police Service have nothing to fear from other people coming in from overseas getting promotion preferment. Overseas officers will find the competition quite keen within the New South Wales Police Service and they will have to show themselves to be distinguished in order to get preferment. However, quality officers will not apply for the job if they feel that for five years they will not be eligible for promotion.

The people we want to bring into our country are people with special skills and are outstanding members of an overseas police force. Such people are ambitious and naturally they will have to earn their place, but we want to get the best investigators to attack this issue of specific cultural problems that present challenges to police, and in particular where organised crime and international contacts may be involved. We will not get the best unless they are given an opportunity to gain promotion. Those people
Page 5114
will have a greater influence for the good in terms of a more multicultural police force and the attitudes that go with it. Police officers will learn valuable lessons from the experienced overseas officers. I am very confident in moving that amendment despite the nervousness within the Commissioned Officers Association and the Police Association about it. I think it is an important and practical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [9.46]: I move:

Page 3, Schedule 1(1). After line 9, insert:

(7) The maximum number of police officers to be employed in the Police Service as determined by the Treasurer under section 9 is increased by the number of special designated positions under this section.

This is the anti pea and thimble trick amendment. When it becomes statute law it will be incumbent upon this Government and future governments to provide that, should special designated officers be appointed under the provisions of this amended bill, additional appointments of designated officers are in addition to the authorised strength of the Police Service. We cannot attempt to hoodwink the public about the numbers. Yesterday, as I said in the second reading debate, the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads said that 800 police officers would be deployed to patrol the trains. What he forgot to tell the public of New South Wales was that those 800 police would come off beat and general duties police, so the rest of policing in New South Wales -

Mr West: They are not coming off general duties.

Mr WHELAN: Of course they are coming off general duties.

Mr West: It is 10 per cent of beat time. The honourable member does not understand.

Mr WHELAN: Of course I understand 10 per cent of beat time. The numbers of beat police are already causing enormous trouble and that is why I have hit a raw nerve.

Mr West: There are no raw nerves at all.

Mr WHELAN: I know what is going on. The Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services has been dudded by two of his colleagues. He has been dudded by the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice over the racism claims by the police. He has the report and he dropped it in to the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday to do a little bit of damage control from his side. This will leave the Minister, as the responsible Minister, the subject of criticism by the Ombudsman. Yesterday, the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads spoke about police. We must have a new Minister for Police. He must be the Minister for Police and transport or transport and police because he has taken 800 police off general duties, beat policing, general care, looking after house owners, looking at car stealing and that sort of thing, and said that any police station near a railway must be directly involved. It so happens that they are all located in the metropolitan area. And where does the majority of crime take place? It is in the metropolitan area. It just happens around where I live, the area I represent.

Mr Schultz: Bad representation created that problem.

Mr WHELAN: The lack of representation may be the cause but yesterday two National Party members in this Parliament called on the Minister to increase the police strength in their north coast electorates. This is the most sensitive issue that the Government has faced. We have a direct contrast between comments of the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services and the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. Also, the Minister's comments contrast slightly with those of the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs. This amendment will compel the Government to be honest; it must ensure that any designated police officer appointed as a result of this bill will be in addition to the authorised police strength.

Mr West: It will not be a problem.

Mr WHELAN: I know it will not be a problem as the Minister and the Parliament have agreed to my amendment. It will be compulsory.

Mr West: The Parliament has not agreed to it yet. Sit down and shut up, and it will!

Mr WHELAN: I am willing to bet - I have the occasional bet - that the amendment I have moved will be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


Debate resumed from 27 October.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [9.52]: This bill had its origin in the other place, where amendments were moved. The Government subsequently accepted a number of those amendments. During the bill's passage through that Chamber, the Opposition indicated that it does not oppose the measure. We support the principle behind the legislation; that is, the establishment of a separate transmission authority with the role of opening up to competition markets on the electricity grid as this will bring benefits. We will be moving an amendment in Committee. The amendment was moved in the upper House but was rejected. I hope the Government has thought about the amendment again and that, on this occasion, it will be accepted. I will detail the amendment shortly but it has been circulated and the Minister has a copy.

Page 5115

As outlined in the second reading speech, the purpose of the legislation is to establish the Electricity Transmission Authority which will take over the transmission function of the Electricity Commission. In May legislation was passed to allow the commission to establish a subsidiary company. Following the passage of that legislation a grid subsidiary company was established separating Elcom's generation and transmission functions, although that body will not be completely separated from the main organisation. This bill will enable the establishment of that authority.

When the other relevant legislation was passed earlier this year, the then Minister foreshadowed that this legislation would be introduced. The separation of Elcom's generation and transmission functions follows the Council of Australian Governments agreement for the establishment of a competitive electricity market of which the national grid is an integral part. The general competitive electricity market will be phased in from July of next year. Paper trials have been conducted during the past 12 months of this significant economic reform. Before the 1991 election the Opposition advocated this proposal as a way of producing lower prices and a more competitive market for electricity. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for its Bills Digest. This is the first occasion on which I have referred to one of its Bills Digest and having done some research I found it succinctly covers the bill. It states:

The economic benefits of electricity grid interconnections have been identified as follows:

* the efficiency of resource allocation can be improved as `interconnections between state grids can allow states with low cost power resources to export power to those states with high cost power sources.';

* interconnection between systems based on different technologies such as hydroelectric generation (which can respond quickly to changes in demand) and thermal coal stations (which are slower in response but provide cheaper power) can increase flexibility and reduce costs;

* lower reserve plant margins are needed to maintain supply which means that investment in new plant for this purpose may be deferred; and

* greater competition is possible in a larger interconnected network leading to efficiency gains.

The National Grid Management Council was established in July 1991 by a Special Premiers Conference for the purpose of encouraging and initiating `the further restructuring of the electricity industry in Australia so that the country can move ahead to more efficient generation, transmission, distribution, and use of electricity, thereby improving international competitiveness, particularly of manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.

This has been the subject of ongoing discussions at the Federal and State level. The National Grid Management Council, in order to meet the target date of 1 July next year, has established a comprehensive process. By Christmas of this year the council aims to have defined in detail the market model for the initial national market; prepared the first draft of a code of conduct to apply to market participants; identified all aspects of the market infrastructure required; developed a recommended approach for national system control; and put forward a suggested approach for administering the code of conduct pending the introduction of uniform legislation at a later date.

We are in a brand new age of the competitive market and of electricity reform. We must wait to see the final shape of this system. In introducing this legislation, New South Wales will be well and truly linked - if that term can be used in this context - to this competitive market. This legislation represents a sad day for people at the Electricity Commission and for those who have been associated with it over many years. They are seeing the complete separation of a significant section from the Electricity Commission. This body was established by a Labor government in 1950, amid a post-war crisis in power supplies to the State. This had been caused by a dramatic increase in demand for electricity as New South Wales industry and home building expanded, coupled with an ad hoc inadequate mix of private, government and semi-government power generation. This required government intervention.

The program of power station and transmission line construction commenced in the 1950s and continued into the 1970s and 1980s has put New South Wales in a secure position for electricity supply and has enabled this State to enter into contracts for interstate supply of power during the 1990s. Interconnection of the electricity transmission grid between Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia was also commenced under Labor. Under Labor, power costs in New South Wales were the cheapest of those in all mainland States and amongst the lowest in the world. Recognising the need for ongoing performance improvements, Labor established the McDonell inquiry into the electricity industry, which led to a package of legislation being passed in 1987. This consolidated the industry's legislative and operational framework along commercial lines. It provided greater coordination between all sectors of the industry and ensured more efficient use of the community's electricity assets. As a consequence of this legislative package Elcom is now required to prepare a 30-year plan on a three-year cyclic basis, thus improving its efficiency, accountability, performance and overall planning.

There is no doubt, though Government members will disagree, that this reform, initiated under Labor prior to it losing government in 1988, led to the great claims by this Government about improved efficiency of the Electricity Commission. These so-called improved efficiencies amount to the building on the reforms initiated by Labor back in 1987. The package of reform legislation I referred to previously was the most significant package dealing with the electricity industry in this State since the formation of the Electricity Commission in 1950. As a result, there will be no need to build any more power stations this decade. That is a significant cost advantage because the Electricity Commission is not required to embark on any major borrowing programs and by
Page 5116
shifting a lot of the 132kV across to electricity distributors it has reduced its debt. That fact, together with the very low price it pays for coal, has enabled the Government Pricing Tribunal to effectively reduce electricity charges. Obviously, no government gives much credit at any time to the initiatives of an opposition, and one would not expect that to happen in this case. Nevertheless, I wanted to place that on the record. They are the facts, and they cannot be refuted.

It is said that the former Government should not have embarked upon building some of the power stations that were built in the 1980s. However, the Bills Digest prepared by the Parliamentary Library outlines that in 1979 the Fraser Government encouraged State governments to develop resources infrastructure due to the expected resources boom through an infrastructure borrowing program. As a result, the Electricity Commission engaged in the rapid construction of substantial new generating plant capacity to meet expected growth during the 1980s. However, the expected industrial demand for energy did not eventuate and New South Wales was left with a level of generating plant over and above that which would normally be required to achieve reliability of supply. The bill deals with the separation of transmission from generation. Those who have been part of the commission all those years must feel somewhat nostalgic to see that separation. It is what could be described as progress, which it is hoped will lead to a new era of competitive power prices which will benefit New South Wales, other States and the nation by making Australia more competitive in the manufacture of goods.

When amendents were moved in the other place, the Minister there mentioned the establishment of a worker-elected board member, and referred to the current board member, Mr Leigh Brydson. The Minister was not very complimentary in his comments in regard to Mr Brydson. One of Mr Brydson's close personal friends, not Mr Brydson himself, spoke to me about what the Minister said. The excellent job Mr Leigh Brydson has done as a worker-elected board member should be put on the record. His solid understanding of the technical aspects of the industry has been of great benefit to other board members, given his knowledge of Electricity Commission operations. Most of these board members come from backgrounds other than the electricity industry. The only person on the board other than Mr Brydson who would have such knowledge would be the General Manager of the Electricity Commission. But when employee issues are raised, Mr Brydson is able to put a position representing the work force which bridges the communication gap that often occurs between the top management level, that is the board level of management, and the workers in the power stations.

Mr Brydson's role cannot be overstated, for it is of great benefit. I am given to understand that he has never breached any board confidentiality - as was implied by the Minister in the other place - at all times has kept his counsel in confidential matters, and has never made any inappropriate statements, even to his close friend who spoke to me. He has never been asked to leave a board meeting, as the Minister in the other place implied. The Electricity Commission does not have the best industrial relations record - it has been brought before the Industrial Relations Commission on more occasions than one would like to believe of such a body - but Mr Brydson's positive contribution as a worker-elected board member is improving that record. I could quote some of the condemnation heaped upon the Electricity Commission management by the Industrial Relations Commission over the years. However, I will not do so, except to say that it does not reflect well on many within the organisation who should know better on the question of industrial relations.

I understand that the Electricity Commission is one of the few large government organisations that has entered into an enterprise agreement with its work force. At the end of the day the acceptance of this enterprise agreement had much to do with the fact that the employee-elected director, Mr Brydson, was able to communicate with the work force. Generally at the end of the day the industrial enterprise agreement was accepted. The newsletter that Mr Brydson produces for the work force is another positive way of improving and facilitating communication between the board and work force levels of the Electricity Commission. Commission officers have spoken to me of this, saying it is an extremely beneficial initiative because it informs the work force of the policy directions the board is taking. For these reasons the Opposition will be asking the Government to agree to the amendment to provide for a worker-elected director of the new Electricity Transmission Authority to be established by this legislation.

I wish to make some general comments in relation to the bill, bearing in mind that the Opposition will not be opposing it. On reading the bill I was tempted to propose an amendment to clause 6, which outlines the principal functions of the authority. Unlike the Act that governs the Electricity Commission, this bill does not provide for the new board to give high priority to environmental issues. The bill refers to a number of functions of the authority but does not stipulate that the authority must take environmental matters into account when making decisions about the grid. However, as it is not the generating body, at the end of the day I decided I would not proceed with that amendment. When Labor comes to office it will certainly consider whether the charter of the Electricity Transmission Authority should include a commitment to protection of the environment.

Clause 6(e) deals with protection of the public from dangers arising from the transmission of electricity. Obviously the foremost concern of the new board will be a possible future definitive link between electromagnetic fields from transmission lines and some forms of cancer. That would mean either that many transmission lines would have to be moved or that people in close proximity to lines would have to be relocated. Certainly in my electorate of East Hills, 132kV transmission lines pass close to a
Page 5117
number of residential properties. Many academic studies have been undertaken, are currently being undertaken and no doubt will be undertaken in the future and it is hoped that such a link is not established because of the public health implications and the immense cost to any government of remedial action.

It behoves any government or authority to consider the recommendations of former High Court judge Sir Harry Gibbs, who said in his inquiry report said that whilst he could not establish a link between EMFs and cancer, he nevertheless could not rule it out and recommended that authorities adopt a policy of prudent avoidance, that is, that any new powerlines should be placed away from residential areas so that if such a link is established in the future, suitable action can be taken. Clause 24(2) of the first print of the bill, dealing with the application of certain provisions of subsidiary companies, provides that the Freedom of Information Act 1989 applies to the authority and its subsidiaries. This is to be commended. The Opposition moved an amendment for that to apply to earlier legislation, and I am pleased it has been included in this bill. I refer also to the transfer of staff. An undertaking has been given by the Minister in the Legislative Council following discussions with various principal trade unions representing transferred staff of the Electricity Commission to the new authority. The Minister has given an undertaking about the conditions of employment of employees of the Electricity Transmission Authority. He said:

I am advised by my department that before the end of that two-year duration of the current enterprise agreement negotiations will be held to reach agreement on a new enterprise agreement. However, if the Labor Council and the unions are not able to reach an agreement on a further enterprise agreement the new transmission authority, the Labor Council and the unions will enter into a consent award for a period of two years that will mirror the conditions and rates of the current enterprise agreement. During the transition arrangement for the formation of the Electricity Transmission Authority the current Pacific Power manual of personnel policy and procedures will apply to all Electricity Transmission Authority staff.

I suggested to the Labor Council when it dealt with the subsidiary company legislation earlier this year that it should write to the then Minister for Energy, the Hon. G. West, seeking discussions to enable the council to have input into the drafting of the new legislation. On 29 June the Labor Council wrote to the Minister for Energy indicating the concerns of employees, stating:

The unions affiliated to the Labor Council with members employed in this area of Pacific Power's operations seek to meet with you to discuss the impact of the proposed changes in the operation of the grid system and the impact they might have on the conditions of employment of those employees currently employed by Pacific Power in the grid system.

The Labor Council subsequently received a letter dated 28 July from the Minister, who stated:

Should the Government decide to proceed with the formation of a separate Statutory Authority for the Grid activity, I would be happy to meet with you together with representatives of Pacific Power to discuss any issues and concerns you may have.

Lo and behold, the Labor Council heard nothing and the first I heard that legislation had been introduced was when I read the Hansard report of the upper House the week following the Thursday the bill was introduced. When legislation is introduced I am obliged to speak with all interest groups to seek their views. When I spoke to the Labor Council it said that the Minister had not spoken to any members of its affiliates, and that the complete lack of consultation was again symptomatic of the Government. During debate on the police bill the honourable member for Liverpool said there had been no consultation with the police force. My illustration is also indicative of the lack of consultation by this Government.

When the Minister got the message, obviously he decided he had better talk with the union. I do not consider that to be consultation. Consultation is getting interested parties together to seek their views on the development of legislation. A government will not always accept the views of all interested groups - that is clearly impossible - but at least those groups should be given the opportunity to put forward their views, and the Government should consider them when drafting legislation. At a late hour the Minister spoke to representatives of the Labor Council and subsequently gave the House the assurance that I just read about working conditions and the transfer of employment from the Electricity Commission to the new authority.

Again this illustrates that this Government is not sincere about consultation. Due credit must be given to the former Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services. I am sure that if he had retained the energy portfolio, that would not have been his style of operation. It is certainly the style of the present Minister in another place and it is typical of the way this Government operates. I recently attended a fairly large public meeting held at Armidale Town Hall. Residents of the New England area expressed great concern that the eastlink 330kV power line going from the Armidale district into Queensland was not necessary.

Mr West: What has this to do with the bill?

Mr ROGAN: It is directly linked to the bill because one principal responsibility of the new authority will be what to do with the eastlink grid between Queensland and New South Wales. That will be an integral part of the national grid network because at the moment Queensland and New South Wales are not linked; the 330kV line will directly link the two States. It is an integral part of this proposed legislation. A major decision of the new authority will be the route of the line and whether arguments can be advanced as to its necessity. At the public meeting I indicated the Opposition's overall support for the national grid concept. Because a number of serious issues were raised and because of the degree of opposition in the New England area - indeed, a busload of people came from Queensland - in response to a request by a member of the audience I said that I would move for an inquiry to be established.

Page 5118

Consistent with the Opposition upholding its promises, as it will when it is in government, in the week following the public meeting I gave notice of the establishment of a select committee of the Parliament to consider and report upon the economic, environmental, health and community impact of the construction of the 330kV eastlink transmission line between New South Wales and Queensland, and to consider the justification for the building of this transmission line and its association with the national electricity strategy. This link is a very significant part of the national grid concept. In the upper House the Opposition raised its concern about the threat of privatisation of the electricity industry. The Opposition believes the Government has a secret agenda, though it has backed away from publicly committing itself to the privatisation of the electricity industry.

If the Government is re-elected with a working majority, it will proceed with its secret agenda, which is the sale of the generation, transmission or distribution arms of the electricity industry. For this reason the Opposition moved an amendment in the upper House - which to the Government's credit it accepted - that any sale of the transmission assets or of any subsidiary companies that might be established by the transmission authority would have to come back to the Parliament for approval before the sale proceeds. One function of the new authority will be to look at rural distributors. Serious attention must be given to the concern expressed to me - I know it was expressed to the then Minister, and no doubt also to the Minister in another place, who now has the responsibility - that rural distributors feel they would not be able to compete in the new market in which the national grid will compete.

I am interested in the concept of deputy directors, and as I have not heard of any other authorities having deputy directors I would ask the Minister, in his reply, to comment on them. The role of the officers has been spelled out in clause 4(1) of schedule 1 that the Minister may, from time to time, appoint a person to be the deputy of a director, and the Minister may revoke any such appointment. In the absence of a director, the deputy may, if available, act in the place of the director, and while so acting has all the functions of the director and is taken to be a director. I do not have any great opposition to that, but it is an interesting concept and I wonder at the rationale behind it.

The last annual report of Pacific Power shows that its asset value was close to $10 billion. The assets of the Pacific Power grid are worth of the order of $1.644 billion. Therefore it will require a significant step to separate the two functions of transmission and generation. How will this new authority operate? Which of the 132kV lines will it take over? Throughout rural areas the voltage which is used is 132kV. I want to know whether or not the new authority will be required to take over a lot of those transmission lines which at present are owned by the Electricity Commission or its subsidiary. Will some of the transmission lines that have been taken over be returned to distributors? If so, on what terms? When the 132kV transmission lines were taken over by the four major distributors a while ago I think their value was about $600 million. That transaction was paid for by money taken from a raid on Sydney Electricity, or the old Sydney County Council.

If any of the 132kV transmission lines are taken by the authority I would like to know what compensation will be paid to the distributors who are losing them. I have given the Minister a copy of the amendment which the Opposition proposes to move in Committee which will give effect to our commitment to worker-elected board members. I reiterate that the Opposition is not opposed to this legislation. We have some concerns in relation to various areas that will be impacted upon, not the least of which is the Eastlink powerline which I referred to, rural distributors and the role of this new authority. As I said in my introductory remarks, the new authority is part of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for a national grid and a new, competitive electricity market, which we all hope will ultimately be of great benefit to the community.

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [10.32]: I support the Electricity Transmission Authority Bill. As has been mentioned by other speakers, the bill deals essentially with the capacity of New South Wales to participate in the proposed national grid system. Reference has been made to the national grid system and to competition that could arise interstate and intrastate with the introduction of that system. Sometimes people lose sight of the need to utilise the national grid system to overcome the mentality that each State should structure its power station development to meet peak loads in the winter, and to save this country enormous capital outlays.

Competition is surely part of a national grid system. We can reduce public expenditure in the development of power stations by using different time frames and time delays and by utilising current and future generating capacities, thus ensuring surplus power is available for utilisation most of the time. I hope what transpires with the national grid system is not what was suggested yesterday in Akerman's column in the Daily Telegraph Mirror. I hope the national grid will be fruitful in the development of this country and this State. I also hope - and this is referred to specifically in the legislation - that non-discriminatory access to the transmission system will enable intrastate competition.

Over the past three or four years we have seen a turning back of the clock in the electricity industry. I grew up in an area which was not controlled by an electricity supply authority. The northern coalfields established the fact that they needed power to operate the mines and they created their own generating capacity. They also provided power for other needs in the community, including street lighting, household power and ancillary industrial requirements. In the late 1950s, with the establishment of the Hunter Valley county council, which now forms part of
Page 5119
Shortland Electricity, we departed from that system. Recently the Land and Environment Court decided to uphold a decision taken by Singleton Council to develop Redbank power station. I believe that the technology used to establish Redbank power station is good, clean technology which will overcome some of the problems experienced in ordinary coalmining and washing processes and will allow maximum extraction on the sites owned by mines, as less area will be required for the holding of waste matter.

This opens up an area which to date has not been exploited - before the introduction of this legislation there was little chance of exploiting it - that is, the capacity of private power generators to tap into coalmine waste resources and create power that can be sold directly to mining operations. Coalmines are a big utiliser of power and this is an opportunity to integrate that capacity. As I understand it, Redbank power station was too inhibited to pursue such a course because it was part and parcel of the State system and could sell power to the local county council. Surplus power could be utilised by the electricity supply system. It transpires that Redbank presold 30 years of power to Shortland Electricity at a price approximately 30 per cent below the Electricity Commission's prevailing tariffs.

At present Redbank power station is re-evaluating its financial situation. I hope that, with the passing of this legislation, the Government will be able to implement the program that is used to some extent in America which enables medium and large consumers to buy power direct from a supplier. Admittedly, Redbank power station is not a big generator of power; its potential capacity is only about 100 megawatts, but it has the capacity to attract industry and development. Redbank power station is able to deal directly with some of the persons interested in purchasing power. The system used in Wheeling, America, enables medium to large users of electricity to negotiate directly with power generators, which makes their businesses competitive. Separate transmission systems in America enable users of electricity to participate in this direct marketing arrangement.

At present, power prices for New South Wales industry - I again refer specifically to medium and large users - are subject to pressure because of competition emerging from Victoria and Queensland. The potential that exists through the independent transmission system gives industry the flexibility it needs to obtain power. The legislation is beneficial. It will enable us to compete both on an intrastate and an interstate basis. We will rue the day if we do not grasp the opportunity presented by this legislation to enable New South Wales to retain its place as perhaps the primary industrial State within this nation. It is hoped that the initiatives presented by this legislation are utilised to good advantage. I support the bill.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [10.41]: The Electricity Transmission Authority Bill, as outlined earlier, has the support of the Opposition because it is a manifestation in this State of the Council of Australian Governments agreement to set up a national grid for the establishment of a competitive electricity market. Legislation was passed in May to allow Elcom to establish subsidiary companies, and on 1 July PacificGrid Proprietary Limited was established. Further legislation was foreshadowed to constitute the transmission authority, which is what we are now discussing. In his second reading speech at page 3908 of Hansard the Minister said, "This statutory authority, to be known as the Electricity Transmission Authority, will take over the functions of PacificGrid". I would have preferred to have a clearer picture of exactly what that meant. I put the Minister on notice that I am not happy about the lack of information we have received from either the Government or the Minister about a number of matters, which I will refer to subsequently.

The Minister also said, "The authority will contribute to the electricity development and fuel sourcing plan which will continue to be prepared by the Electricity Commission". A pecking order is being established. Elcom will remain the superior arm of government in the electricity industry. The overall plan will be prepared by the Electricity Commission and the ETA will determine its policies, but presumably it will be subservient to Elcom and in that way report to the Minister. The Minister may give the board written directions in relation to the exercise of the authority's functions, which is usually the case. Later in his second reading speech the Minister said, "The authority must supply the Minister or a person nominated by the Minister with such information relating to its activities as the Minister may require".

Will a question in Parliament about the Electricity Transmission Authority be answered by the Minister? This matter has been of concern to members of the Opposition for a number of years, as we have seen the change in the way Government trading enterprises report to the people of New South Wales through this Parliament. For example, whenever I ask questions about the Hunter Water Corporation I am told that I have to go to the corporation itself. That occurs in respect of a number of Government corporations and Government trading enterprises. When they are off-budget it is hard to track down the accountability process. I would like some assurances or a clear indication of the position with regard to the Electricity Transmission Authority.

I referred earlier to my concern about the way in which the ETA is being established. There has been a lack of information about the size, the scope and the overall shape of the new authority. I know it is early days, but we are in the dark. I read the bill carefully, as I read the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest and I read the Minister's second reading speech, but the detail is not there. The picture is not properly described. The Government is creating an opaque shell and we cannot yet see inside. For instance, how many employees does the Government expect will transfer to the new authority? Is it 5 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent of Elcom's employees? I do not know. I would have appreciated, as a member of this Parliament, being given some idea of the size, shape and scope of the new organisation.

Page 5120

Approximately what value of assets will be transferred from Elcom? Is it 2 per cent, 5 per cent or 20 per cent? I do not have any idea of the value. A better picture would have enabled all honourable members to understand exactly what was being done. That is why I referred to it as an opaque shell: we do not know what is there. What value of assets will be transferred from the new company PacificGrid? What assets does PacificGrid, which kicked off on 1 July, have? The Minister said that assets will be transferred from PacificGrid as well as Elcom. What assets went into PacificGrid when it was established? The Parliament has not had a report about that. The Minister's second reading speech would have been the ideal opportunity to provide us with a report about the current status of PacificGrid Proprietary Limited - how many employees it has, what its interim performance is and what it is doing.

How much debt will transfer to the new Electricity Transmission Authority? Elcom has a fair swag of debt. It has been restructured and moved around in the past six years, since the Curran report. I imagine the authority will be given some debt as part of the transfer of assets. Unfortunately that has not been described; it would have been better had the Minister given us some idea of how the transfer was going to proceed. In his second reading speech the Minister said that he proposed to set up an establishment board that would be responsible for negotiating a statement of financial performance and an implementation team to develop an implementation timetable. Those things will be set in train. I know it is early days, but some idea of what the Government envisages would have helped members to better understand what is being done. In his second reading speech the Minister also said:

The authority will not be liable in damages to any person by reason of any partial or total failure of the supply of electricity from any cause, except to the extent, if any, that the authority otherwise agrees.

Who will be responsible for any blackouts, trip outs, or phase problems as the Government goes to a separate authority that will oversee those problems, a separate authority that will have to deal with people it is not used to dealing with, the sorts of people described by the honourable member for Cessnock when he talked about private companies, people using coal washery waste for energy production, solar power or other generators of electricity and existing generators? They will all be dealt with in a new way. They all move power in and out of a grid. If things go wrong now we know that Elcom carries the bag. If the new authority will not be liable, who will be? The Minister should address that in his reply.

I hope that the creation of this separate authority and the possibility of its having subsidiary companies do not lead to big bucks for the lawyers sorting out liabilities and responsibilities. I am also concerned about what performance contracts will be extracted from the new authority regarding such things as transmission failures and how complaints will be dealt with. When a corporatisation is proposed those sorts of commitments have to be revealed, but no such commitments have been revealed in the bill. What performance contracts are likely for efficiencies, which is one of the achievements intended, for productivity, for industrial relations, for financial control? What performance contracts are likely for environmental responsibility and protection?

The honourable member for East Hills referred to these matters when he led for the Opposition in this debate. What performance contracts are likely for health and safety? I support the remarks of the honourable member for East Hills about a policy of prudent avoidance in high voltage transmission engineering. A little more of the picture would have been appreciated. The honourable member for East Hills referred to a letter from Minister Pickering to John Robertson, the industrial officer of the Labor Council, representing the employees of Elcom, Pacific Power, PacificGrid and others, indicating that he would be happy to meet representatives of Pacific Power, to discuss any issues and concerns that the union might have. The Parliament would have appreciated a report on the outcome of those discussions and negotiations but honourable members were left in the dark.

There was nothing in the Minister's speech about support of the union movement or the problems envisaged. If the Government is seeking and getting bipartisan support, why can it not be open about some of those matters? I am talking about the way things are being done, not about the fact that the transmission functions are being separated from the Electricity Commission. The Minister in his second reading speech said that the bill is not about corporatisation or privatisation, but then went on to say that the authority must not without the approval of the Minister sell or otherwise dispose of any interest in a subsidiary company so that as a result of the sale or disposal it ceases to be a subsidiary company. Only ministerial approval is required to sell or privatise, in whole or in part, the new authority. I again ask the Government for more openness and accountability. We do not want secret deals. We want that sort of activity out in the open and that is why the Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment that would require parliamentary approval for any disposal or sale.

Clause 3(1) in part 2 of schedule 2 to the bill concerns the first board, to be an establishment board. The establishment board is to hold office on a transitional basis as determined by the Minister. I commend the Government for its good sense in stipulating that the initial board will be an interim body. The establishment board will be responsible for achieving implementation goals set by the Minister by direction to the board. The Minister's speech did not make clear just what those implementation goals might be. I do not know whether he has determined what the goals will be. This again is evidence of the opaque shell to which I have referred. I would have appreciated it had the Minister given a much more comprehensive statement about the goals he will direct to the establishment board.

Page 5121

I wish to refer briefly to the quantity of the dividend. Budget Paper No. 2, at pages 4-14 and 4-15, shows under dividends and community contributions a figure of $323 million for Pacific Power and under tax equivalents a figure of $222 million for Pacific Power. The total of $545 million from Pacific Power accounted for more than 58 per cent of the 1994-95 estimated total income from commercial sector enterprises. That is a significant proportion of government revenue. I am not criticising that in this context. It is important to note, however, that if the grid management efficiencies are to be achieved and if we are to have a reduction of costs, which is one of the goals of establishing the new authority, then we face a future reduction of those dividends. In the long term that outcome will threaten the financial viability of this State.

As we head down the path of national cooperation we need to keep in mind the financial viability of this State. I guess that in some generation later than mine Australia will be headed towards a diminution in the States' authority - perhaps the disappearance of the States if that is what the people eventually decide - but a reduction of dividends such as that to which I have just referred will lead to future difficulties in maintaining the financial viability of the States. The honourable member for East Hills referred to some of his concerns about environmental matters. The commentary section of the Bills Digest by Vicki Mullen of the New South Wales Parliamentary Library states:

If access to the National Grid in the future is truly competitive, new technologies for the production of electricity may begin to play an increasingly larger role as consumers become more aware of the damaging effects on the environment of the current production processes.

There is some promise of environmental progress. I hope that the Minister, when replying to the debate, will make it more clear to the House exactly how the Government envisages environmental matters will be protected under the bill.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [10.56]: In my contribution I do not intend to traverse the same ground covered by the honourable member for East Hills, the honourable member for Wallsend and the honourable member for Cessnock. I have one or two concerns about the bill. It was in 1989 or 1990 that the former Greiner Government last transferred transmission assets to electricity councils. At that time the county councils concerned were not overimpressed. Illawarra Electricity Supply, for example, claimed that it was not getting an asset at all at the stipulated price but was getting a liability. Illawarra Electricity Supply wanted to write off the 132kV transmission assets completely, but to keep the auditors happy it merely wrote down the assets to $14.8 million.

The annual report of Illawarra Electricity Supply for the year ended 30 June 1990 under the heading "Notes to the Accounts" stated that $16.4 million was spent on the acquisition of 132kV assets from the Electricity Commission. On the basis of a discounted cash flow analysis, $14.8 million of the transfer price was subsequently written down. The Greiner Government in effect made Illawarra Electricity Supply buy an item for $16.4 million when in fact its worth was $1.6 million. The situation was worse in the case of Sydney Electricity. Again under the heading, "Notes to the Accounts", the annual report of the Sydney County Council for 1990 states that 132kV transmission assets of the Electricity Commission of New South Wales located within the Sydney County Council district were acquired on 28 December 1989 for $410 million. It is stated further that the premium on purchase was $129 million, which was written off as an extraordinary item. That is the record of the present administration in the transfer of transmission assets to county councils in that case. I have read the Minister's second reading speech presented in the Legislative Council on 13 October. The only reference in his speech to the unfortunate incident that occurred in 1990 - and we cannot be sure another similar incident will not occur - stated:

Assets are to be transferred from the Electricity Commission and PacificGrid without compensation.

On the face of it, I guess that is all right. The following sentence of the Minister's speech, however, stated:

If agreement cannot be reached on assets and liabilities to be transferred within six months of commencement of the Act, the Minister may direct that the transfer take place.

Illawarra Electricity Supply did not want a transfer of the so-called assets from the Electricity Commission in 1989-90 but it was certainly made to take those assets, at a ridiculous price. It is important to examine clause 5(2) of the bill, which gives the Minister great control. I have no doubt that when the honourable member for East Hills is Minister he will exercise his functions in a judicious manner. That time is not too far away either; it is a mere four months away. The bill gives no guarantee that the financial approach adopted by the Greiner Government, of which the Fahey administration is a follow-on, will not be taken again. Clause 5(1) states that the Minister may give the board written directions and clause 5(2) states that the board and the chief executive must ensure that the authority complies with any such direction. The only latitude the authority has is to request the Minister to review a direction. Obviously this is firmly in the Government's mind. It has covered its bases well. It has said it will set up a bureaucratic review mechanism. The bill states that a review may be requested if it is considered that:

(a) the Authority would suffer a significant financial loss as a result of complying with the direction; and

(b) the direction is not in the commercial interests of the Authority.

The Minister's decision is final; there is no comeback. The situation could become a disaster and a travesty of the financial management that occurred in 1990. As the honourable member for Wallsend pointed out, the second reading speech told us nothing at all. It was contradictory in parts, and we do not know what price will have to be paid for these provisions.

Page 5122

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [11.00], in reply: I respond briefly to some comments of members opposite. The honourable member for Wyong spoke of his concerns about the powers of direction of the Minister. They are exactly the same powers that the Minister has under the principal Act with regard to Pacific Power. Nothing different is being proposed.

Mr Crittenden: Illawarra and Sydney had to pay because of this.

Mr WEST: This has nothing to do with Illawarra and Sydney. This is about the powers of the statutory board. Those powers are being conferred on the statutory authority that will be established as a result of the legislation. Members opposite have spoken about assets that will be transferred and about the size of the organisation. They fail to appreciate that the legislation is enabling legislation. It is the structural legislation that will allow all assets to be transferred from the current subsidiary of Pacific Power to the full stand-alone statutory authority under this mechanism. It is important that the legislation is recognised for what it is. Comments were made about the concept of a deputy director. That is not a new concept. If the director of the board is away for any length of time on duties outside the country or is unable to attend board meetings for a certain time and a quorum is needed, the Minister may appoint a deputy for that period of time.

Mr Rogan: Are they appointed in other boards?

Mr WEST: Apparently the provision was inserted on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel. There are precedents in other areas; it is not a new concept. Reference was made to what provisions may need to be included in the bill in relation to the environment. The new authority will be subject to environmental planning laws, as is Pacific Power. The rules will oversee the way in which the statutory authority complies with the law. Reference was made to the enterprise agreement between Pacific Power and its employees - probably one of the better examples of the way enterprise agreements are arrived at.

As the responsible Minister at that time, I did not become involved in the politics of the enterprise agreement. It was successful because it was an employer-employee negotiation. Pacific Power is a large organisation. The police enterprise agreement was finally resolved when I took the role of the Minister out of the negotiations and let the employer, the chief executive officer, negotiate with the employees. That is the way enterprise agreements should be conducted. I have been fortunate to be able to sit back and allow people to negotiate their problems and do a good job. The question of a staff-elected representative will undoubtedly result in a division between the Government and the Opposition during the Committee stage. I will not comment on whether the staff-elected representative on the subsidiary is performing his duties. I do not know and I do not want to be in the position of knowing, because I understand that staff-elected representatives on the boards of Pacific Power and the Sydney Electricity Commission work well.

However, there are times when such people could be put in a position of conflict when they are called upon to represent the union to which they belong. As a result of the negotiations that are taking place between the Government and the Opposition relating to the corporatisation of the Water Board it has been decided to move away from the concept of a staff representative towards the concept of the Minister approving a person from a panel of names submitted by the Labor Council. That would overcome the difficulties that may be experienced. Even the Opposition's amendment states that any person to be appointed to this position has to be approved by the Labor Council. The Government and the Opposition are not too far apart. The Government's proposal is a step in the right direction. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 16

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [11.08]: I move:

No. 1 Page 8, clause 16 (2), lines 5-7. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) The Board is to consist of 7 directors appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister. The persons appointed are to be selected for their relevant expertise and one is to be a person (not being an employee of the Authority) selected from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the Labor Council of New South Wales.

The Government believes this is the appropriate direction to take as a result of negotiations with the Opposition in respect of the Water Board corporatisation. This proposal will not put staff-elected directors in the difficult position in which they find themselves from time to time.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [11.09]: The Opposition will persist with its amendment as circulated, which will require the work force itself to be the body responsible for the election of a worker-elected board director. This person will not be selected from a panel but will be the democratic choice of the work force overall. This, we believe, is the appropriate way to handle such an appointment.

The principle of worker-elected directors has been accepted overseas for many years and has been shown to be of great benefit. I referred to many of the benefits in my contribution to the second reading debate and I shall not repeat them to the Committee. The Minister in another place in opposing the concept of the worker-elected director made the point that, because of the appointment by the work force, that person could be put in a position of conflict. The arguments of the Minister for Police have no validity. Worker-elected directors are fulfilling the obligations placed upon them. If a matter of conflict arises, the worker-elected director simply puts the position as he or she believes it relates to the work force.

Page 5123

Similarly, if parliamentarians do not understand and reflect the viewpoints of the people they represent, at the end of the day they will cease to be members of Parliament; the electorate will see to that at the next election. The same principle applies with worker-elected directors. That person is charged with the responsibility to present to management, the senior level of the organisation, the views of the general work force. In this way the communication gap is overcome. The concept of worker-elected director has been quite successful. I realise, however, that some directors have had reservations.

The Chairman of Sydney Electricity, Mr Moyes, in discussions facilitated by the Government to brief the Opposition on the operations of the organisation, expressed the view that there was initial scepticism about the value of the contributions of worker-elected directors with regard to potential conflicts of interest. But he gave me to understand that, after some initial period, the concept appeared to be working quite well. Certainly the worker-elected board member of the Electricity Commission is fulfilling his role admirably. Obviously there will be periods of disagreement between the worker-elected director and other board members, as indeed there will be times when other members of the board will not be in full agreement. After all, it would be a strange board if every director agreed with every decision that was taken. Most disagreements can be talked through and worked out. If they cannot be worked out, a vote is taken and the majority decision prevails. It is as simple as that.

I do not understand the objection the Government has to the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment. My mind goes back to 1988 when former Minister Neil Pickard moved an amendment to the Electricity Commission Act, proposing that persons nominated for appointment as commissioners must have such managerial, commercial or other qualifications as the Minister considered necessary to enable the commission to carry out its functions. And who was the first appointment under that Act? Kathryn Greiner! I have nothing against Mrs Greiner; she is a very capable woman. But when I asked the Minister at the time what managerial, commercial or other qualifications Mrs Greiner had, the Minister was silent. There was never any answer to that.

During the soul-searching by the Liberals after the close call in 1991 it was generally conceded that the appointment of Mrs Greiner to the board was one of those acts that almost brought about the coalition's defeat at the 1991 election, and I believe would have brought about its defeat but for the rorts of ticks and crosses. As this amendment does not cover ticks and crosses I will not canvass that issue. When this amendment of the Government is defeated I foreshadow that I shall move the following amendment:

Page 8, clause 16, line 5. After "selected", insert "(except in the case of the staff elected director referred to in subsection (3))".

In the event that that amendment is carried, I shall move amendments 2 and 3 circulated in my name. The Opposition will vote against the Government's amendment because it believes that the work force should be given the right to appoint a director who will act in its interests rather than have a director appointed from a panel from which the Government may choose a person sympathetic to its views. The role of the worker-elected director of the Electricity Commission, Mr Leigh Brydson, has been a very positive one and I can think of no better example that would support the inclusion of the concept in this legislation. The Opposition will oppose the Government's amendment and press ahead with its amendment.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [11.20]: I appreciated the Minister's comment in reply that the two sides are not that far apart, but we are debating the distance between us. The question is who will represent the workers on the board. Will it be someone - as the honourable member for East Hills and the Opposition would prefer - elected by the workers, or will it be a nominee of the Labor Council of New South Wales? The Opposition has indicated its clear preference. Under the Government's proposal, in the energy nest of public agencies there would be PacificGrid with worker-elected board members and Elcom with a worker-elected board representative, but the new Electricity Transmission Authority would have a Labor Council nominee. There would be an inconsistency. If this is a different approach of the Government, it is a fairly recent one. As recently as January last year the board of the Hunter Area Health Service was re-appointed following the dismissal of the former board, and the Minister for Health appointed a worker-elected representative to that board. To everyone's surprise, the workers elected not a nurse but a doctor - one of the medical superintendents. The workers themselves made an interesting choice. That choice supports the Opposition's belief that, in the interests of decent work force representation on the board, workers should have responsibility for choosing their representative.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [11.22]: Obviously, there is a difference in terms of mechanism but no difference in terms of principle. There is a need for, and advantage in having, a worker representative on the board. It is thought good enough to provide a mechanism for an elected member on the Sydney Area Health Board, which works very effectively, as do area health boards throughout New South Wales. An appointed member of the Sydney Area Health Board is a psychiatric nurse, and a doctor has been elected to the Western Area Health Board. The Government has provided that mechanism, which has worked in a most satisfactory manner. Yet the Minister says that system cannot be used and that there must be a period of appointment. The board is appointed for five years. There are no problems of time or any other component which would prevent election of a board member. The Government has set up a mechanism through the Electoral Commission to undertake elections. The amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for East Hills has been shown to be workable and, more important, will allow the work force to exhibit proper selection functions.

Page 5124

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

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

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

Mr Baird Mr A. S. Aquilina
Mr Fahey Mr Doyle
Mr Kerr Mr McBride

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [11.30]: I move:

No. 2. Page 21, Schedule 1, line 23. Omit "punishable.", insert instead:

punishable; or

(i) in the case of a director selected from a panel nominated by the Labor Council of New South Wales (as referred to in section 16(2)), becomes an employee of the Authority.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [11.32]: The Opposition does not oppose this amendment as it is consequent upon the first amendment moved by the Minister. That amendment was passed and the Opposition accepts the decision of the House, but it reiterates that it is most appropriate to have an employee-elected representative on the board.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


Debate resumed from 27 October.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [11.35]: During the period between the arrival of the First Fleet in Australia and Federation in 1901 British settlement was effected on the basis of the establishment of a number of independent colonies on the Australian mainland. Those colonies acquired financial powers commensurate with their political status, including the power to borrow at home and overseas. While some use was made of the local capital market, it was, of course, still developing and the colonial governments turned to the metropolitan capital for funds. By the end of the 1800s it was the colonial governments who were the most important Australian borrowers in London, which was then the biggest capital market in the world. Before the outbreak of the First World War as much as two-thirds of the public debt of £313 million was incurred overseas.

At the end of the nineteenth century when the colonies agreed to federate and to establish a Federal government, they retained the power to borrow as States, which they had previously possessed as colonies. However, the inauguration of the Commonwealth Government brought with it an element of contention into the arrangements for borrowing, concentrating on the issue of which body had priority - the Commonwealth or the States. The issue of borrowing priorities was temporarily resolved during the First World War when the Commonwealth Government assumed the role of borrowing authority for the States. As soon as the war was over this arrangement lapsed.

Page 5125

During the 1920s the States undertook large-scale immigration and settlement schemes. This period immediately after the First World War also saw a significant increase in urbanisation and industrialisation in Australia, and the States embarked upon a marked expansion in the provision of infrastructure to underpin this development. Considerable attention was devoted to providing facilities for the growing industrial and urban areas. With the development of motor transport, electric power and improved housing standards, the demand for the construction of roads, bridges, electricity and telegraph installations, and water and sewerage facilities expanded rapidly.

During the 1920s two considerations induced governments in Australia to borrow - principally overseas. The first was that before the First World War there had not been a high level of direct taxation in the colonies or in the subsequent States. Although income tax had been increased significantly during the First World War by the Federal Government and the States, people expected it to be reduced afterwards. State governments therefore preferred to borrow than to maintain unpopular wartime taxation levels. Second, it was considered that heavy domestic borrowing would deplete the private sector of capital for investment in manufacturing and other industries.

Between 1921 and 1929 £276 million was added to public indebtedness, of which 73 per cent was obtained in London and New York. In fact, the Commonwealth's overseas borrowing program was about 60 per cent of net loan expenditure. As the States expanded their borrowing during the 1920s the issue of priority in borrowing soon arose again when the Commonwealth Government was seriously embarrassed by the States' failure to leave the market clear for a large conversion loan of £38 million in 1923. Thus, at the Premiers' Conference in May 1923 the Bruce-Page Nationalist-Country Party Federal Government called for the establishment of a loan council. Since this was to be undertaken informally, the States raised no objection.

The council first met in 1924 and its executive consisted of the Federal Treasurer and the Treasurers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It operated quite successfully until 1927, when a major issue was raised in New York. In this period the rate of interest on government issues fell to around 5.25 per cent. Although council was certainly not responsible for this, it received some of the credit. The difficulty was, however, that despite a certain measure of agreement on a common approach, council found it increasingly difficult to bring any pressure to bear to reduce borrowing programs. Collectively, each government agreed that the rate of borrowing would have to be reduced to avoid serious consequences, but individually none was prepared to reduce its expenditure for fear that others would not do likewise and that they would thereby fall behind in the development race. This resulted in problems for the council.

A financial agreement was entered into between the Commonwealth and State governments which called for the Loan Council to become a formal body. This financial agreement, which was ratified in 1928 by the Commonwealth and State parliaments, was confirmed in November 1928 by a referendum which allowed for the insertion of section 105A into the Australian Constitution, establishing the Loan Council as a constitutional body and authorising the Commonwealth Government to make agreements with the States with respect to all aspects of their public debts. All future borrowings and other debt transactions, whether on behalf of the Commonwealth or the States, were to be arranged by the Commonwealth subject to the approval of the Loan Council.

In 1994, at the Hobart meeting of the Council of Australian Governments, a new financial agreement was signed implementing the changes decided on at the June 1992 Loan Council meeting. In addition to approving the provisions agreed on in 1992, further provisions were also agreed to. The new financial agreement provides for the continued existence of the Loan Council with broadly specified roles and powers and sets out certain obligations on the part of the States in respect of past borrowings undertaken by the Commonwealth on their behalf. Council will have the power to make resolutions only in relation to borrowings, fundraisings and other financial arrangements of public sector entities. The resolutions, however, are not legally binding.

In order to realise the changes agreed upon it has been decided that each State will pass a bill implementing that State's adherence to the new financial arrangements. So far, five legislatures in Australia have passed a bill. That is why we have before us today the Financial Agreement Bill. In many respects this bill only formalises a process that has been occurring over the past 15 to 20 years, during which time the States have been given back an increasing degree of responsibility for borrowing. It may be asked, however, whether this is a worthwhile development, on an overall level, given the reasons that first led to the establishment of the original financial agreement and the Loan Council. The degree of borrowing, particularly from overseas, which existed in the 1920s seems, of its own nature, to have called forth the need for a supervising body. The Great Depression of the 1930s, however, markedly reduced the level of borrowing. Although borrowing was increased somewhat during the 1950s, it played a lesser role in providing finance for development than it did during the 1920s.

On some immediate levels, however, other aspects of the reasons for the foundation of the original financial agreement seem relevant when looking at the conclusion of the new arrangements. The fact remains that for more than half a century the Loan Council has provided a coordinated and orderly approach to capital raising for Australian governments. This has eliminated governmental competition for funds and has enabled all governments to obtain their funds on terms and conditions that
Page 5126
apply to borrowers with the best possible credit rating. I turn to the main provisions of the bill. Its purpose is to obtain Parliament's approval of the new financial agreement. The document is aimed at formalising and streamlining existing intergovernmental arrangements with respect to public sector borrowings and the role and operations of the Loan Council.

The new agreement removes the Commonwealth's explicit power to borrow on behalf of the States as provided for in the previous agreement. Since 1987-88, the Commonwealth has undertaken no new borrowings on behalf of the States. In recent years the States have conducted their own borrowings through the respective central borrowing authorities. The relevant authority in New South Wales is the Treasury Corporation. A new fund, the debt retirement reserve trust account, will be established to provide a more efficient debt-redemption framework. In future, the redemption of Commonwealth securities previously issued on behalf of the States and the Northern Territory will be administered through the trust account.

The debt retirement reserve trust account will replace the previous arrangements for debt repayments through the National Debt Sinking Fund for the States and the Northern Territory Debt Sinking Fund for the Northern Territory. The Financial Agreement Act 1944 of New South Wales had a standing appropriation provision which allowed the Consolidated Fund to be appropriated to the extent necessary for the purpose of carrying out the financial agreement. The appropriations were to cover the payment of interest and the repayment of borrowings. A similar provision has been included in this bill. The new financial agreement will not impose additional costs on the State Government. As I said earlier, complementary legislation has been passed by five other jurisdictions. I support the bill.

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [11.46]: I support the Financial Agreement Bill, which in essence ratifies an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States signed on 25 February 1994. A copy of the agreement is appended to schedule 1 to the bill. Primarily, that agreement, which was signed by all the State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, is designed to amend the original document of 12 December 1927. The explanatory note to the bill gives a fair resumé of what this legislation is about - as referred to by the honourable member for Drummoyne. The explanatory note states:

The 1994 financial agreement therefore:

(1) abolishes the explicit power of the Commonwealth to borrow on behalf of the States;

(2) removes the restriction on States borrowing by the issue of securities in their own names in both domestic and international markets;

(3) removes the requirement that the Commonwealth and States obtain Loan Council approval of future borrowings.

With reference to debt retirement, the explanatory note states:

The States and the Northern Territory must refinance debt raised on their behalf by the Commonwealth . . . The Commonwealth must compensate the States and the Northern Territory for any additional costs incurred by them as a result of the change-over.

The explanatory note also stipulates:

The Loan Council is to be a monitoring and coordinating body, with the power to make resolutions in relation to the borrowings, fund raisings and other financial arrangements of public sector entities.

This is part of a process of freeing up the States, to some extent, to enter into their own borrowing arrangements and to be responsible for the payment of debts incurred under old Loan Council arrangements. It is important for the States to be aware of their status in international ratings as they will borrow from overseas in the future. I am not referring here to debt retirement or to the refinancing of debt previously incurred under old arrangements. Because of our high credit rating we can take advantage of our status. This legislation will reduce some of the paperwork generated between the States and the Commonwealth through Loan Council arrangements. We do not want to create a paper war and increase bureaucracy. I have not read the bill in its entirety, but I wish to ask the Minister one question. I presume that the monitoring process referred to will enable the Loan Council to prevent the sorts of transactions conducted in the mid-1980s concerning the financing and leasing arrangements of Bayswater power station. I hope the Minister will give me a response when he replies to the debate.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [11.50], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. Though I assume that my response to the question asked by the honourable member for Cessnock will be in the positive, I am unable to respond at this stage. I will provide him with a written answer after this debate has concluded. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 27 October.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [11.51]: This bill has a number of provisions that are consequential upon the recent budget introduced into this House. A number of minor amendments relate to stamp duty, financial institutions duty, debits tax, payroll tax, land tax and statute law. In relation to stamp duty, the exemption will allow the older generation of farmers to retire and provide an opportunity for the younger generation of farmers to bring new ideas, enthusiasm and greater production to the rural sector. The increased production will have
Page 5127
a flow-on benefit to New South Wales and, obviously, anything that will be of financial benefit to the suffering farming community will have the full support of the Opposition.

To encourage foreign investment in New South Wales the bill provides for an exemption from financial institutions duty, debits tax and loan security duty in respect of regional headquarters that are set up in New South Wales from July 1995 - another initiative that the Opposition has been pushing for some time. New South Wales is falling behind Victoria and Queensland. It used to be the commercial hub of Australia in both quantum and growth rate, but that has not been the case recently. Any inducement, such as this provision, is welcomed by the Opposition.

The farm household support scheme will provide financial assistance for farmers. The bill provides for an exemption from financial institutions duty in respect of payments to farmers' bank accounts pursuant to the scheme. The bill strengthens the definition of "Bill facility" for the purpose of assessing loan security duty whilst maintaining government policy. I understand that some amendments will be moved in relation to the FID and its impact on the stock exchange. The Opposition will support the amendments when the Treasurer moves them.

The bill extends until 31 December the current exemption from stamp duty for home loan refinancing. I presume at that time, with the heat coming into the first-home buyers market, that the need for inducements will be reduced. The bill provides for a two-stage increase in the threshold of payroll tax, from $500,000 to $550,000 effective 1 January 1995, and to $600,000 effective 1 January 1996. Another provision relates to the current land tax exemption for boarding houses providing low-cost accommodation. That is a commendable initiative, which will be extended to all other forms of low-cost accommodation, subject to guidelines being met.

I understand that the exemption, which will apply to residential as well as to boarding houses, will be limited to those within a certain distance from the GPO. Implicit in the legislation is that all low-income renters live within five kilometres of the central business district, but that is not so. In many cases rents in the Blacktown area and along the Canterbury Bankstown line from Campsie to Lakemba are much less than rents within five kilometres of the GPO. People living in those areas are all low-income earners, whose workplace is in the area. The exemption should be more equitable. Why five kilometres from the Sydney GPO, when the Hunter-Newcastle and Illawarra areas have been excluded? Those two areas would be in a similar situation.

Charity groups such as the Salvation Army and the Sydney City Mission have in many cases centred their social service activities close to the CBD, particularly around the Surry Hills area, which meant that those who sought boarding house or low-income accommodation lived in close proximity to those services. However, a number of charities are in the process of relocating. Consequently the concentration and conglomeration of hostel-type facilities, which were halfway facilities for people going into boarding houses, are moving away from the CBD. The Minister should keep a close eye on that. I am seeking to be constructive, not critical.

However, I am critical of one aspect, because the Government is having two bob each way. The legislation recognises the need to encourage private, low-income rental accommodation through boarding houses and unit rental properties. But on the other hand, changes to the Local Government Act have changed the rating of boarding house facilities from residential to commercial. Consequently many boarding houses, because of their different rates this year - a commercial rate rather than a residential rate - have had to increase the rent for their rooms to up to $100 per week. Those are low-cost facilities. The Government is doing the right thing in attempting to minimise one of the cost components for boarding houses: payroll tax. On the other hand, the Government is taking away any advantage that could accrue out of the legislation by decreeing that local government must rate boarding houses under a commercial rate. If something is not done immediately, no boarding house in the inner city will avail of the provision because to do so would mean going out of business. Clients would not be able to pay $170 or $180 per week for a room, which is $100 a week more than they are paying at present, to cover the rate increase.

I have had contact with officers from Leichhardt Council and Waverley Council who are faced with the problem I have outlined. According to legal advice they have received, there is no provision for councils to re-rate boarding houses. The honourable member for Bligh has a bill at the second reading stage that relates to this matter. The Treasurer should bring the issue to the Government's attention so that the proposal he has put before the House can come into effect. Unless a change is made to the Local Government Act boarding houses will not be able to make use of this excellent provision. The bill provides a concession for non-residential strata unit owners, who are currently taxed unfavourably compared with those who own residential strata units. The amendment will allow owners of non-residential strata units to claim the threshold in the same way as owners of residential strata units. I support the bill.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [12.02]: I wish to express my gratitude to the Government. I congratulate the Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts in particular on the good work he has done. Difficulty has been experienced for a number of years in securing exemption from stamp duty for farms being handed down within a family, to children in particular. I have canvassed this issue for the past four or five years and wrote to the former Premier, the Hon. Nick Greiner, and the present Premier and the Treasurer. I am pleased that the Government is providing an exemption from stamp duty for the intergenerational transfer of properties, particularly from parents to children and/or grandchildren and from parents to stepchildren.

Page 5128

I would be very grateful if transfer between siblings could be assisted in the same way. The bill states that land would have to be gifted in the first place. I hope that there may still be opportunity for amendment so that the Treasurer can consider the case of transfer of properties between siblings. I think of the instance in which two brothers may have bought a property and one brother leaves the land to secure work elsewhere because the property does not generate sufficient income for them both. The other brother either purchases or is gifted the land. It may well be that in that case the property should be exempted from stamp duty. In Victoria a transfer between brothers may be exempted from stamp duty if it can be proved that there is a good working relationship between the siblings. That is a reasonable provision.

Great difficulty has occurred in the transfer of land between elderly parents and their children. The difficulty goes back to the drought of 1981 to 1983. In many cases parents have held on to a farm and have accumulated huge debts because they have had to pay high interest rates. They have handed over responsibility for managing the farm to their sons or daughters but have not been able to effect a legal transfer because of stamp duty and other costs. Parents have been placed in great difficulty because they have not been able to benefit from either unemployment benefits or social security benefits on retirement, as the land is still held in their names. This has been a matter of great distress and has led to many problems. I am glad that the Treasurer and the Government have recognised the needs of those on family farms and that land will now be able to be handed down to children and/or grandchildren without the burden of the cost of stamp duty. There are enough legal costs and other obligations that have to be met without that added burden.

I recognise that there are matters that need to be further considered. One area that needs to be addressed is the situation to which I have already referred of children who are managing the property of parents who have already retired. The legislation identifies that the main income has to come from the land. The point is that two or three years after parents have retired, having earned their living from the land for many years, their income may not necessarily be derived only from the farm. I commend the support given by the Opposition and all members of Parliament to what is a caring provision for people in difficulty and in need.

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [12.09]: I, too, support the State Revenue Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill. I note that the bill amends six Acts. The amendments give statutory provision to Government initiatives announced in the 1994-95 budget. Initiatives contained within the amendments are new. Corrections are made to legislative provision that gives rise to double taxation in some arenas. The latter, by way of necessity, could be corrected. I commend the Government, as did the honourable member for Murray, on the new initiatives in respect of stamp duties applicable to intergenerational rural transfers.

A good case has been advocated by the New South Wales Farmers Association and many cases have been advocated by solicitors in rural communities, who deal with people who have held rural properties. I specifically refer to farming properties designed to generate income from rural activity. In many rural areas there is a tendency for young people to leave farming properties and go to the cities because of lower returns from farming properties. Forgetting the drought and the debt arising from the drought, farmers are usually asset rich, but now find they are not so rich in their capacity to derive day-to-day incomes. As a consequence, any impost on the passage of property from one generation to the other has always been to the detriment of people wanting to remain on the land and generate income from that source.

In many instances because stamp duty has been payable these people have been loath to conduct the transfer of property, and advice has been given to the beneficiaries to leave the property in the name of the estate rather than transfer it into the names of the beneficiaries, who do not have the resources to pay the stamp duty. They believe it is better to leave the property to posterity. Other problems have been created where an inevitable transfer has had to take place. The legislation complies with Commonwealth superannuation requirements and stamp duty concessions are made available to accomplish that mission.

The Newcastle Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries undertook the selling of farm produce on behalf of growers. The legislation enables that chamber to be treated identically to the way in which the Flemington produce markets, conducted by the Sydney Market Authority, are treated. Farmers send their produce to the market to be sold, the sale takes place and money is placed into a trust account. It is passed on to the farmers and the chamber receives its share. The legislation will prevent double taxation.

The legislation is designed to overcome many "irregularities" that existed under the various Acts which are to be amended. I compliment the Government on its change of heart. I do not think any government has considered the problems confronting people on the land in relation to intergenerational transfers of property. Some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Murray in relation to remaining difficulties warrant further consideration in the future. I support the legislation.

Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [12.14]: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to compliment the Treasurer on his magnificent contribution to the rural community by introducing changes in legislation relating to stamp duties. That legislation will have an enormous impact on the ability of young people to remain on family farms. I had a number of discussions with some of my constituents, in particular a Mr Flanery from Galong in the Burrinjuck electorate. I wrote to the Minister and alerted him to some serious concerns of Mr Flanery and others about the initial announcement by the Treasurer about intergenerational farm transfer.
Page 5129
I stated in that correspondence that I had discussed the matter further with Mr Flanery. Following that discussion, my constituent had gone to considerable trouble to forward to me substantive information which indicated that the general farming community would not be affected by the proposed legislative changes required to give stamp duty relief, because the majority of farming land - in the Burrinjuck electorate in particular - is held by way of family company ownership.

When Mr Flanery's father died in 1957 he held properties in his own name. As a result the family paid in the vicinity of 30 per cent of the value of his father's assets in State and Federal death duties. Large numbers of farming families were caught in a similar fashion and this culminated in a rapid transfer by family members of farming land ownership to company ownership. For many other reasons the trend towards company ownership continued. A well-known successful rural adviser, who had been operating in the district for 30 years, provided information on land ownership in the Boorowa, Cootamundra, Harden, Wallendbeen and Young areas. The pertinent point raised in the correspondence was that property owners who represent the most successful farming groups, in the majority of cases, operate their farming enterprises as family companies, and would be disadvantaged if their circumstances were not considered for stamp duty relief.

Fifty-one ownerships covering about 300 properties with an aggregate area of 80,000 hectares were broken up as follows: 11 of those ownerships were held in individual names; one was part company, and a large part individual; six were mostly but not entirely held under company ownership; and 33 were wholly owned by companies. There were a few cases of land held in trust, but significant areas were not involved. In the vicinity of 88 per cent of farms in that significant survey were held wholly or mainly under company ownership. When I wrote to the Minister I noted that company ownership means farming family ownership, not corporate ownership. Corporate ownership is applicable to some farming land in New South Wales, but I was advised it was not significant and had little bearing in the Burrinjuck electorate.

I have used the case of my constituent's family as an example of how the announcement of stamp duty relief disadvantaged farms under company ownership. The majority of this family's farming land, six properties, was owned by the family company. Mr Flanery, his brother and their wives were the beneficial owners of the shares in that family company. The Treasurer looked sympathetically at this problem. The two brothers have six children between them, all of whom are in their late twenties. The fathers are 30 or more years older than the children, who are working on the farm basically as labourers, because under present conditions they are economically unable to own land.

There were two options for transferring land to the family. Unfortunately, prior to the proposed change to the legislation both alternatives involved in the vicinity of $300,000 in stamp duty and were therefore out of the question. In the first option they could simply transfer one property to each of the children out of the company, penalising them to the tune of $300,000 in stamp duty costs. The second option was for Mr Flanery's family to buy three of the properties from one of his company holdings, for which stamp duty of $150,000 was payable.

At the same time my constituent would have to sell his shares in his holding company back to his brother, otherwise he would still be the beneficial owner of half of that company's assets and liable to pay ad valorem stamp duty of approximately $150,000 on the value of the assets. In other words, he would be paying double stamp duty amounting to approximately 11 per cent. There are, of course, a few variations to that example but they all attract the same costs. The situation was complicated further by the triggering of capital gains tax by most of these options, all of which adds up to an enormous disincentive to the orderly and most productive method of rural farm ownership. My constituent's family has attempted to overcome the problem for years, and the best advice they received and acted upon was to make a will. In other words, there would be no benefits to the children until the parents died.

Legal circles have suggested an option whereby stamp duty could be removed when assets of the company are transferred to its shareholders in their own right - workable in most cases, but by description it would be broad reaching. Learned opinion was that this would be practical only in small companies. My constituent had raised an issue of significant and critical importance to rural New South Wales. It was because of that importance that I wrote to the Treasurer, and as a result of that correspondence he acknowledged that a decision favourably disposed towards the points raised in my correspondence would have an enormous impact on rural New South Wales and, more importantly, an enormous impact on halting the haemorrhaging of our young people from rural properties, away from home, in order to maintain some sort of decent living for themselves. In addition, it would remove a depressing, worrying situation for people who have farmed their properties for decades, and were looking at a situation where their farming enterprises could not be carried on because of the debilitating costs of farm transfer stamp duty.

I place that problem on record on behalf of my constituents and, indeed, all rural constituents in New South Wales who were placed in similar situations to that of Mr Flanery, his brother and family, who can now see a little light at the end of the tunnel following a deep recessionary period and are now experiencing a debilitating drought. I thank the Minister for the magnificent contribution he has made. I thank him most sincerely on behalf of my constituency for understanding what I was trying to convey to him in my letter. It was refreshing that the Minister wrote to me after I had alerted him to the concerns of my constituency, and, more importantly, that he took positive action to address that serious matter. Many families throughout New South Wales will be
Page 5130
beholden to him for many years for the contribution he has made in ensuring that productive agricultural land is maintained as such. I thank you, Mr Acting Speaker for the opportunity to discuss this important, critical issue for New South Wales.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [12.24]: In my time as a member of this Parliament I have often heard Government members preface their comments by congratulating the Government and the Minister in the chair, whoever that may be at the time, on what is good legislation. Today I am pleased to do the same thing. The State Revenue Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill has significant and real benefits for New South Wales, and particularly for hard-pressed farm families. The electorate of Wyong has a small rural component but there are family farms, particularly in the Dooralong and Kulnura areas. Families such as the Wilsons and the Gibsons have farmed the Kulnura area, for example, for more than 100 years. No doubt the exemption from stamp duty of the transfer of family farms will benefit them as the family farms pass from one generation to the next, as I know is the intention.

I turn now to another aspect of this bill, which is to encourage foreign investment into New South Wales by an exemption from financial institution duty, debit tax and loans security duty in respect of regional headquarters set up in New South Wales as from 1 July next year. Recently in Indonesia agreement was reached in respect of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation. Honourable members have all heard and read about the growing Asian economies. The electronic and print media were given examples of companies wanting to come to Australia, and in particular to Sydney, to establish their regional headquarters in the Asia Pacific region. The Government and the Treasurer have been sensible in establishing exemption from these financial duties because it will lead to the establishment of regional headquarters that will benefit overall the people of New South Wales.

The third aspect I wish to touch on is the raising of the payroll tax threshold from $100,000 to $550,000 from 1 January 1995 and to $600,000 from 1 January 1996. I have been to many businesses in my electorate and have been surprised at the number of employees they have. I visited what I thought was a small engineering works and was staggered to find it and other small businesses have up to 25 employees. Though they had not all met the threshold for payroll tax, they were getting close to it. Those business people expressed concern that that would be a barrier to their employing people once they reached the threshold. I am pleased that the payroll tax threshold has been increased, because obviously it will not be an issue that will impede businesses from expanding their operations. I support the bill.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [12.27]: It seems as though it is a day for congratulations. I add my congratulations to the Treasurer, particularly for the amendments to the Stamp Duties Act contained in this amending bill relating to intergenerational rural transfers. Many members have spoken on this issue already, but it is important that it be noted that one of the great impediments to the free transfer of land, and I do not mean free in a monetary sense only, has been removed by this Government. Though it will not apply to thousands of people immediately, it will remove one of the real psychological impediments that have impacted on the operation of family farms. The bill will not only engender financial savings but will give younger people the chance to come into the agricultural industry and know they will have some control over their future. That will flow through into their capability to manage their day-to-day operations. That is equally as important as the financial savings.

The average age of farmers - 57 or 58 - has a direct relationship with current rural sector economics and the ability of parents on family farms to transfer their assets to their children without burdening them with great costs. The intergenerational transfer provisions in the bill cover that need. The spirit of the exemption guidelines has been carried through into the bill with provision of various structures for genuine land transfers within families. The farming sector was concerned that the provisions might be too narrow. I congratulate the Treasurer for making them as broad as possible, thus encouraging landowners to transfer their farms at little cost. Having been a general counsellor with the New South Wales Farmers Association for a number of years, I am aware this issue has been raised as an impediment to free flow of land from father and mother to son and daughter. That association will be pleased at the progress of the bill through this House. It is heartening that the Government is listening to the rural community, especially during this time of drought when massive changes have taken place. Measures to reduce costs faced by farm businesses deserve recognition.

Changes to the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 are made by the amending bill. The current payroll tax general exemption, with an annual threshold of $500,000, is to be increased to $550,000 by 1 January 1995 and by another $50,000 the following year, to $600,000. This positive initiative by the Government, which would be described by economists as bracket creep, is to be commended. Governments of all persuasions, especially conservative governments - which supposedly represent entrepreneurs and support employment from growth-through-business expansion - need to examine closely the use of payroll tax as a means of obtaining funds from business. I support that concept.

A private member's bill which I will seek to introduce into the House will call for exemptions from payroll tax for specific country industries. I ask all members, including the Treasurer, who is aware of the bill, to look closely at that. I ask them to consider how such exemption will affect country areas through intergenerational change and how government can have positive impact on rural communities. The removal of payroll tax from strategic industries mentioned in the bill will encourage growth in major employment areas, given the desperate straits country people find themselves in at present. I urge the
Page 5131
Treasurer and other members to consider my private member's bill. The most important aspect of this bill is intergenerational land transfer. The Government should be commended for putting such a provision in place.

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [12.35]: I also support this marvellous piece of legislation. The Government deserves to be congratulated on introducing the bill and on its understanding of the need for exemption to enable changeover between generations of families on the land. The measure shows that Parliament can get it right now and again, as farmers in this State expect. Landowners who have worked on the farm all their lives and have built up properties with the hope of passing them on to their sons or daughters have to pay an impost that has no relation to production; it is just a government tax to raise more revenue. The State Revenue Legislation (Further Amendment) Bill will enable older land-holders to retire to allow younger farmers to take over. Young people need to be encouraged to stay on the land, to build it up like their parents did, to ensure continuity of family farms in this State and throughout Australia, so that farms are not taken over by big business, holding companies, or those who have little respect for other than the bottom line. The bill will assist people on the land and will be of great benefit to New South Wales.

The current legislation makes exemption for union incorporation. The trend these days is for industrial organisations to merge. Such mergers bring benefits to the union membership and to the State. It is a wise step to waive stamp duty for such changeovers, for that will assist incorporation of existing organisations and conveyance of property from organisations that are not incorporated into or are not part of the system. The bill provides general exemption from a government tax which has little relationship to an organisation's production or wellbeing. Most people, other than Treasurers or finance Ministers, would love to see the end of payroll tax. It is a horrible tax because it taxes employment. But the reality is that governments, in order to provide goods and services and infrastructure such as schools, harbours, trains and schools, have to get money in. Payroll tax has a role to play in the New South Wales budget. The Treasurer said that 1,000 or more enterprises will benefit. I hope 10,000 small businesses will benefit. It is a move in the right direction and another good signal from this House, if both sides agree, that small business should be encouraged to survive and get on with the job. Most Australians are employed in small business operations. The small business sector is the engine-room of growth. If we can do something to assist in that regard, we will be all better off for it.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [12.39]: I also congratulate the Minister on introducing the bill. I have for some time had high regard for the Minister. This bill will help the farming community immensely. Today the New South Wales farming industry is very marginal and is under great threat. Unless governments of all persuasions at State and Federal level get it right, the small family-owned farm will disappear. Last week I spent some time in the mid-west of the State. I was appalled when I saw topsoil that had been blown by the wind up against fences. The enormity of the plight of farmers was brought home to me. I shall restrict my remarks to intergenerational rural transfers. Many farmers are rich in assets but are stone motherless broke. The transfer of a farm from father and mother to sons and daughters should be exempted from duty, and the Treasurer has achieved that result. That will take a load off the minds of the farmers. The Commonwealth Government social security guidelines are difficult to follow. Recently an elderly constituent visited me - he is even more elderly than the age my colleague the honourable member for Blacktown recently attributed to me -

Mr Jeffery: He can't be that old.

Mr CLOUGH: The honourable member for Blacktown has only been conditionally pardoned on the matter. This constituent has a small farm worth over $250,000, but he has no money except for $9,000 in the bank. Like all old people, he is saving to pay for his funeral. His income is $8 per week and he cannot get any assistance from the Commonwealth Government. Stamp duty payable on the transfer of property between members of a family attracting stamp duty has been an inequity for a considerable time, but that inequity has been removed by the Treasurer. The 1984 drought was severe and the recovery period following it was hamstrung almost completely because of enormous interest rates. The attitude of the lending institutions, particularly banks, was to place upon farmers burdens that they could not carry. Consequently, when another drought occurred a few years later, the farmers did not have the capacity to do anything about generating income so essential to the small family farm.

This problem is not peculiar to the areas in the far west of New South Wales; I refer specifically to the good farming areas in the western part of my electorate, as close as Grenfell, Wellington, Gilgandra and such regions as Coonamble. The Federal Government has got it wrong so far as providing drought assistance relief in exceptional circumstances is concerned. The State Government also has it wrong with regard to the allocation of funds for small business. The last thing people want in country areas is to spend $2,500 for their accountants and consultants to tell them how to do better. One man in Nyngan said to me last week, "I run a farm machinery business. What am I going to do? Diversify into fish and chips?" That puts the position quite plainly. This proposal will be of tremendous help to the farmer - to the mothers and fathers who want to see their children remain on the farms and not drift down to the city. There is no future for them in the city because the environment is alien to them. They are trained to do the job they do best, that is, to look after the small farming sector of New South Wales.

Page 5132

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [12.43], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate, particularly the honourable member for Tamworth, who spoke from the crossbenches. It is important that the people of New South Wales understand that every now and then, with the unanimous will of the Parliament, parliamentarians do things for the benefit of the State. This is one such occasion, and a number of honourable members have been generous in their comments about the legislation. I thank them also for the personal comments they directed towards me.

The Government is putting in place a range of measures that will bring a great deal of relief to some people who are hard pressed at the moment, and the sooner the better. I have indicated to the Opposition that the bill requires a number of necessary amendments. Principally those amendments fall into two batches and will be dealt with in Committee. The amendments are of a procedural nature and I regret that they were not included in the original legislation. Some of the amendments were unforeseen, as the Victorian Government decided that for the time being, pursuant to an agreement reached at the Council of Australian Governments, it would not enact complementary legislation. That does not prevent New South Wales from proceeding with this legislation expeditiously, albeit with amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 4

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [12.46], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 23, Schedule 4(17), line 12. After "subsection (1)", insert "or (2)".

No. 2 Page 23, Schedule 4(17), line 18. After "subsection (1)", insert "or (2)".

No. 3 Page 24, Schedule 4(17). After line 27 insert:

(c) In section 97AB (2A), after "subsection (1)", insert "or (2)".

The bill contains a new charging provision for principal trading by brokers. Previously, various trades by brokers on their own account were exempt from marketable securities duty. The new provision replaces this with a liability to duty at a new low rate. The three items are machinery amendments that will ensure that other relevant provisions will also apply to the new charging provision. This is consistent with existing policy and the current provisions of the Stamp Duties Act. Amendments 1 and 2 are necessary to ensure that the exemption from duty on the transfer of corporate debt securities continues to apply to principal trading and hedging transactions by stockbrokers.

Amendment No. 3 is necessary to ensure that the calculation of stamp duty payable on the exercise of options by stockbrokers and options traders is consistent with other transactions. The need for these amendments became apparent after routine consultations with the industry. I apologise for having to amend the legislation at this stage, but it is better corrected now than at a subsequent time.

Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [12.40]: The Opposition is in agreement with the amendments, although the need for them might be symptomatic of a government not in control of its own agenda. This bill has been pushed through the House without proper consideration. However, I believe these amendments will equalise the return to Treasury, and it would be remiss of the Opposition not to support them.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts) [12.41], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 4 Page 27, Schedule 4(27), line 13. Omit "has its principal place of", insert instead "conducts".

No. 5 Page 28, Schedule 4(30). After line 25, insert:

(b) After section 98U(1)(f), insert:

(f1) an account with a bank which is a registered person of:

(i) a New South Wales broker who is a registered person; or

(ii) a broker who lodges quarterly returns with the Australian Stock Exchange in a corresponding State or Territory (within the meaning of section 98 (1));

The bill implements a proposed scheme for the payment of financial institutions duty and marketable securities duty by stockbrokers who primarily conduct business in New South Wales and Victoria. Under the proposed scheme, brokers who operate in both States would pay financial institutions duty in one State only, calculated on the total dutiable receipts in both States. After the introduction of the bill it became apparent that Victoria would not introduce complementary legislation before the commencement date of 1 January 1995.

The first of these will ensure that brokers who receive receipts in New South Wales will remain subject to FID in New South Wales until such time as Victoria commences operating under the scheme. The second amendment will ensure that brokers will still be able to deposit non-dutiable receipts to an exempt bank account. Without such an exempt account brokers could be subject to double duty in New South Wales. A complementary amendment will be made to the Stamp Duties (Financial Institutions Duty) Regulation to ensure that New South Wales brokers who receive receipts in Victoria will not be subject to double duty.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

Page 5133

Bill read a third time.


Bill read a third time.


Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [12.45]: The resolution passed by this House yesterday required certain papers to be tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 54, by 12 noon. Debate was in progress at 12 noon, and I take this opportunity to table the documents as required by the House.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Rixon) left the chair at 12.46 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Mr FAHEY: The Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment will not be in the House today. Any questions of the Minister should be directed to me.

[Notices of Motion]

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


Petition praying that community and railway drainage problems at Wombarra be solved, received from Mr McManus.

Petitions praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Hunter and Mr Mills.

Petition praying that funds be provided for the dredging, rehabilitation and remediation of Mudd Creek, received from Mr Hunter.

Petition praying that an inquiry be conducted into the administration, practices and policies of the New South Wales Forestry Commission with respect to long-term sustainability of timber resources and the protection of wildlife habitat, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that legislation be enacted to give effect to the Law Society's recommendations on reform of marijuana prohibition laws relating to the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use, received from Mr Mills.

Petition praying for an increase in police patrols in the Bass Hill Neighbourhood Watch area, received from Mr Nagle.

Petition praying that the police station proposed for Quakers Hill be built as soon as possible, received from Mr J. J. Aquilina.

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

Petition praying that the salaries and conditions of part-time TAFE teachers be improved, received from Mr Mills.

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


Notice of Motion of General Business (for Bills) No. 8, standing in the name of the honourable member for Tamworth, called on and lapsed.

Order of the Day of General Business (for Bills) Nos 13 and 23, standing in the name of the honourable member for Tamworth, called on and lapsed.


Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [2.23]: I move:

That General Business Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 24 (Farm Debt Mediation Bill) be re-ordered to take precedence on Thursday, 17 November 1994.

I ask the House to give priority to the Farm Debt Mediation Bill so that it will be the first private member's bill debated tomorrow and, it is to be hoped, passed for transmission to the Legislative Council. This motion is not intended to downgrade the importance of other private members' bills. However, it recognises that there are now pressing issues that make it essential that this bill pass through the Parliament as soon as possible. First, because the forms of this House restrict debate on private
Page 5134
members' bills, unless the bill receives priority there will be no formal means to assist farmers to mediate farm debt. Second, because the Government has failed to address this issue, which has led farmers to desert the coalition Government in droves, it is incumbent upon the Opposition to use whatever forms are at its disposal to urgently pass this bill through the Parliament.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members should cease interjecting and conversing while the honourable member for Mount Druitt is speaking. Honourable members will realise that this is but one of two motions that seek to reorder business for tomorrow of which the House will have to determine the merits. If members cannot hear what is being said, they will not be able to make a choice between the two motions.

Mr AMERY: The second major point is that rural areas are suffering the effects of a most devastating drought, and that is causing many farm businesses, many of which have been in existence for more than 100 years, to go to the wall. Second, in addition to the drought, we are nearing the Christmas break and there is a possibility that the House will not sit until after the State election on 25 March 1995 and that this bill might therefore not be dealt with until then. The other point I wish to make concerns the alarming article in today's Telegraph Mirror that highlights the increase in rural suicide rates. The article, written by Cindy Sciberras, reported that contributing factors to rural suicide include financial hardship and related stress. The article referred to the recommendation of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues that the State Government, the Fahey Government -

Mr Photios: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Blacktown to order for the second time. I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: the purpose of this procedure is to establish a case for precedence, not to debate the matter. In making his second point, the honourable member for Mount Druitt was debating the matter by referring to newspaper reports and case evidence. I ask you to direct him to confine himself to establishing a case for precedence.

Mr AMERY: On the point of order: I was not debating the matter, I was only making a passing reference to an article in today's newspaper that said that a report to be tabled in the Legislative Council recommends that farm debt mediation be implemented in New South Wales.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I had thought that if any point of order could be taken it would be that some of the comments of the honourable member for Mount Druitt infringed the anticipation rule, as clearly they refer to debate, notice of which has been given for a later hour today. The member's time for speaking has expired.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [2.26]: I move:

That General Business Order of the Day (for Bills) No. 8 (Privatisation of Core Government Services Bill) be re-ordered to take precedence on Thursday, 17 November 1994.

I wish to raise a number of points. First, this bill has been on the business paper for quite some time and therefore should not be subverted in order of precedence by another bill that I consider needs more time for consideration. Second, this bill has passed through the second reading stage and is to be further considered in Committee. Third, it is widely understood that the House is not likely to sit prior to the State election next year, and the bill proposes a vital referendum question to go before the people at the election. The question would enable citizens throughout the State to express a view on privatisation of the core government services, defined as hospitals, education, water and electricity; and, consequently, to determine future government policy and action in that regard.

Question - That the motion of the honourable member for Mount Druitt be agreed to - resolved in the affirmative.


Bill read a third time.



Mr CARR: My question is directed to the Premier. Has the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries been referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption over his refusal on 20 October to reappoint John Carter as Chairman of the Meat Industry Authority? Was Mr Carter dumped because he defied the Minister by recommending against licensing the Orange abattoir? Is the Minister for Police implicated in this matter?

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

Mr FAHEY: The first part of the question related to a reference to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Leader of the Opposition should know, and I think he does, that matters referred to the ICAC are not for general publication. They are certainly not brought to my attention, and nor should they be. If the Leader of the Opposition believes the matter was referred to the ICAC, it must be within his knowledge. It is certainly not within my knowledge; nor should it be.

I pay tribute to Mr Carter. During the 10 years that he was Chairman of the Meat Industry Authority he demonstrated strong leadership. The industry is
Page 5135
changing rapidly, as was pointed out to the Industry Commission and by the Industry Commission in its report as commissioned by the Federal Government. I suspect the Leader of the Opposition has no knowledge of that, because the Opposition is all about trivia. He would be an ideal candidate for the honourable member for Coogee to take to the trivia day, because trivia is all this House ever hears from him.

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

Mr FAHEY: He is totally out of touch, directionless and lacking in policy. The Leader of the Opposition is only interested in attempting to destabilise the Parliament and stop any progress in this State. It is interesting to note the developments in the meat industry. Recently I saw a report into abattoirs. In recent years the rejuvenation of meat exports has resulted in some success stories. Three years ago in my electorate an abattoir was opened. It provided employment for 280 people. That abattoir, which exports to 11 countries, has now decided to put on an extra shift and thereby employ an additional 200 people.

Mr Roger Fletcher, who has the biggest export meat abattoir in the State, complained bitterly to me recently that he spends $1.2 million a year in fees for inspectors - health inspectors, Australian Meat and Livestock inspectors, Meat Industry Authority inspectors, local government inspectors, and so on. He has a viable business and is a great success story. The Industry Commission highlighted the fact that there is duplication and triplication in many areas. The Meat Industry Authority in this State will continue to play a role, and I give Mr Carter credit for showing strong leadership for ten years. The appointment of the new chairman of the authority followed advertisements placed - the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in the answer.

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

Mr FAHEY: He has no knowledge of this industry or any other industry; nor is he interested. He is totally out of touch with everything, as he demonstrates day after day in this House. He does not have the slightest concern about industries in rural New South Wales; he is not interested in grain farmers or farmers who are involved in reducing -

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

Mr FAHEY: He has absolutely no interest. He is interested only in throwing mud - and that is what he uses this Parliament for day after day - in an attempt to deceive the people of New South Wales. The people will forgive him for his ignorance but they will not forgive him for his deceit day after day. The appointment of the new chairman followed advertisements. I am explaining it if he wants to keep quiet and listen. He is so embarrassed about this that he is talking rapidly to the honourable member for Kogarah. He is probably trying to learn about Kogarah, and where it is. He has little knowledge of most places in this State, particularly those west of the Divide.

Mr Whelan: Do you know where the Blue Mountains are?

Mr FAHEY: I was there on Saturday.

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

Mr FAHEY: I have a great deal more knowledge of places in New South Wales than he does.

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

Mr FAHEY: They do not know where his electorate office is. Even when they find his office they cannot find their leader.

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

Mr FAHEY: That is why they write letters to the honourable member for Ashfield; and those who write those letters cannot be passed off as left-wing dissidents. The appointment of the new chairman followed a proper process of appointment by merit by a proper assessment panel, which was at arms-length from Government. The Leader of the Opposition should get down to the real issues. He should use this Parliament properly to deal with the real issues that affect the people of this State. He would get more credit if he went in that direction rather than in the direction he continues to follow.


Mr TURNER: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services. Can the Minister inform the House of the current statistics on crime trends in South Wales? Do the figures support claims made by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr WEST: There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition knows how to tell lies and throw mud around the State. Some 59 years ago President Roosevelt moved to comfort the American people by telling them they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Fear is a terribly debilitating emotion, it is often not rational, but to those who fear, it is real. The Leader of the Opposition has created fear in our society.

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

Mr WEST: The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ashfield have stalked the people of New South Wales.

Page 5136

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members have heard me say many times that question time can proceed in an orderly fashion only if members observe the general rules of decorum and debate. There seems to be a mood of considerable restlessness in the House today, and I warn all members that I will not hesitate to call members to order for relatively minor matters if they resort to interjections to deliberately disrupt proceedings. The remainder of question time should proceed in an orderly fashion. Only one member is entitled to speak at any one time, and that is the member with the call.

Mr WEST: Let me repeat: the Leader of the Opposition has created fear in our society. He and his shadow minister for police have stalked the people of New South Wales. "Look out", they say, "you are about to be robbed and it is all the cause of this Government" - lie after lie. The Leader of the Opposition even managed to turn a rhododendron festival into a law and order forum. That is how good he is.

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

Mr WEST: His candidate for Sutherland has tried to turn the delightful suburb of Sutherland into a slum. Australian Labor Party members and candidates are telling whoever will listen to them that this State has a crime wave. They claim that the police do not have sufficient numbers, that their numbers are falling dramatically and they cannot do their work.

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

Mr WEST: I do not believe that the leader of the Opposition is a complete fool, but I am not sure that my colleagues share that opinion.

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

Mr WEST: If he is not a fool, he is certainly a liar. He knows that the crime rate in this State is falling. He knows that police numbers are increasing.

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

Mr WEST: He knows that the State of New South Wales has the third largest Police Service in the English speaking world. It is well policed.

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

Mr WEST: By comparison with any free country, we have a safe society and this Government will strive to make it safer. Unfortunately, the jobs of the New South Wales police officers of this State have been made considerably harder because of the fearmongering of ALP members. Their campaign to frighten the people of this State has been successful. The latest research conducted by the Police Service shows some staggering statistics.

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

[Interruption]

Mr WEST: That is a lie. Latest statistics indicate that the fear graph is rocketing upwards.

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

Mr WEST: The greatest fear is of murder. The House may be interested to know how the people involved in the survey rated their fear. They rated, in descending order: murder, robbery, child abuse, sexual assault and domestic violence. The percentage of people concerned about crimes of violence happening to them or their families has increased in every category.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for East Hills to order. I call the Minister for Health to order.

Mr WEST: Against this, we have the facts from the Bureau of Crime Statistics which show that the incidence of major types of crimes in New South Wales is either falling or is stable: the number of robberies involving a firearm has decreased, recorded cases of motor vehicle theft are down, arson is down, offensive behaviour is down, and fraud is down. From January 1991 to December 1993 there was no change in the recorded rate of murder, robbery involving a firearm, sexual assault or break, enter and steal. The Leader of the Opposition knows these facts, yet he still tries to create fear in the community.

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

Mr WEST: The front page of the Broken Hill Barrier Daily Truth, a newspaper not known to be necessarily kind to the conservative side of politics, only yesterday corrected the outrageous claims on crime made by the Leader of the Opposition when he visited Broken Hill. The article states, "Claims of higher than State average crime rates in Broken Hill made by the State Opposition Leader have been refuted by local police". Who else would know? The local police would know, not the Leader of the Opposition. Chief Superintendent Doug Graham had to go to the newspaper to allay fears in his community of a crime wave, fears that were ignited by the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr WEST: Chief Superintendent Graham said he did not know where the Leader of the Opposition got his figures from. I know, and so do members on this side of the House. He made them up. He goes around this State making up figures to suit his case. He visited the Blue Mountains and told the residents that the Blue Mountains was in the grip of a crime wave.

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

Page 5137

Mr WEST: An article in the Blue Mountains Gazette stated, "New South Wales Opposition Leader Bob Carr launched Labor's anti-crime policy last Saturday in Wentworth Falls, where he claimed there had been a crime wave". The article continued, "This was despite the fact that the previous Labor Government closed the Wentworth Falls police station and police figures show a huge downturn in most areas of crime". So where is the crime wave?

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

Mr WEST: In the Blue Mountains there has been a huge downturn in crime. In Broken Hill the local police chief went on record saying that Mr Carr's claims could not be further from the truth. District by district, town by town the Labor lie machine rolls on. The mayor of Sutherland, the ALP candidate, thinks she is a buddy of the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr WEST: The mayor of Sutherland said that Sutherland is like the Bronx. Obviously she has not travelled, because Sutherland is nothing like the Bronx.

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

Mr WEST: Again, the local police chief, this time Chief Superintendent Clive Small, a man who has been defended in the past by the honourable member for Ashfield, a man with some credibility in the Police Service, was forced to correct the lies of Labor stooges. He said that to compare Sutherland with the Bronx was sensational and irresponsible. He said that there had been significant reductions in several types of crime in the Sutherland shire and other crime levels had remained relatively static for several years. Assaults have been reduced by 25 per cent, malicious damage by 28 per cent, and break, enter and steal offences by 33 per cent. That does not sound very much like the Bronx to me.

Lately the shadow minister for police has also been trying to get himself on the airwaves by making some stupid claims. His first attempt was to claim that a person had broken into the office of the new member for Parramatta. He went on the airwaves claiming that a knife-wielding man had terrorised the member's office. There was no knife, and the man was a former psychiatric patient who was doing some yelling. The staff were so terrified that they waited for about five minutes to report the incident to the local police. Then the shadow minister went on the airwaves and said that it had taken 30 minutes for the police to respond to the call.

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

Mr WEST: Now he says it was not 30 minutes, it was only 17 minutes.

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

Mr WEST: The honourable member for Ashfield ignored the fact that it only took 17 minutes from the time that the police received the call to the time they arrested the offender. And who was the arrest made by? The beat police. The honourable member said in the same press article that we should wind down the numbers of beat police and get them on to general duties. On that occasion again he got it wrong.

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

Mr WEST: But of course, he is like his leader. Our community attitude survey, which covered the entire State, shows that customer service in the Police Service rates extremely high. Some 91 per cent of people are satisfied with the reliability of police, 90 per cent are satisfied with credibility, professionalism and equity.

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

Mr WEST: Other areas which rate around the 90 per cent mark are understanding customers, competence, communication, responsiveness, access, and courtesy. The people of this State are happy with the service they receive. The incidence of crime is coming down, but the Labor Party continues on with its war of lies, attempting to raise fear in the community.

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

Mr WEST: Only yesterday members heard of plans announced by me and the Minister for Transport to ensure that we permanently have beat policing on our trains and around our railway stations.

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

Mr WEST: We want our police to be visible.

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

Mr WEST: The honourable member for Ashfield says that the Labor Party is going to increase police numbers by 450. We have already announced we are going to increase police numbers by 500. The Opposition is already short-changing the people of New South Wales.

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

Page 5138

Mr WEST: We are the ones actually providing increases in the numbers of police in this State. The lies and deception by the Labor Party never stop, and have continued again today.

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

Mr WEST: The Leader of the Opposition put out a press release saying, "Labor to keep the bastards honest". Guess what: he made three points and on all of them he was wrong. All I can say is bring back Peter Anderson - at least he was honest.


Mr MARTIN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines. Is the Orange abattoir currently supervised by Mr Bruce Skinner of the north coast meat company Yolarno? Did the Minister approve a licence for Yolarno to operate the Orange abattoir on 2 November? Was Mr Skinner found guilty of 10 counts of meat substitution in 1982?

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

Mr CAUSLEY: I thank the honourable member for Port Stephens for his first question to me since he has been sitting on the frontbench. He was only flushed out yesterday because the Premier accused him of never asking me a question in this House. There is not an abattoir at Orange at the present time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given members several warnings today, though my earlier words of caution were directed mainly at Opposition members. However my warning is extended also to Government members. The Chair does not appreciate such outbursts.

Mr CAUSLEY: There was an abattoir at Orange some years ago.

Mr Martin: It went broke a couple of times.

Mr CAUSLEY: Yes, it went broke a number of times, as a number of abattoirs across the State have gone broke. Neville Wran tried to force the abattoir at Forbes to close. That facility is now the most successful abattoir in the State. The Orange abattoir has been closed for a number of years. Yolarno did apply for a licence to operate an abattoir at Orange. The Meat Industry Authority looked at the application but refused it two or three times. It is well known that Yolarno has the right to appeal to the Minister, as has anyone who applies for an abattoir licence.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: Yolarno did apply for the right to appeal to me. I had a close look at that application and I did approve the licence application, on conditions. You will hear more about that.

[Interruption]

Mr W. T. J. Murray: On a point of order: I take great offence at the statement made by the shadow minister for agriculture, "How much money did the National Party get".

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On previous occasions when the House has been particularly disruptive I have warned members that responsibility for the disruption may fall indiscriminately on any member who is offending at any one time. Though I hesitate to use such a measure, I will if members continue to interject collectively. The member for Barwon is the only member with the call.

Mr W. T. J. Murray: I take offence at the member's statement and ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr Carr: On the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order involved. The member for Barwon is seeking the withdrawal of a statement he regards as offensive. I ask the member for Port Stephens to withdraw and apologise.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matter raised was not on a point of order. The concluding remarks of the member for Barwon were that he found the words of the member for Port Stephens offensive and asked that the member apologise and withdraw. I ask the member for Port Stephens to withdraw and apologise.

Mr Martin: My comment did not mention at all the words "National Party" or the words that the member for Barwon said across the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Riverstone to order for the third time. In order for the Chair to rule correctly when matters are raised by members for its determination, it must hear what is being said by those presenting the opposing arguments. It is virtually impossible for the Chair to hear, let alone understand, what is being put when members persist in interjecting. Because I could not hear him I am not sure that the honourable member for Port Stephens had completed what he wanted to say before he resumed his seat. I shall give him another opportunity to put his case, which I would like to hear in silence. The honourable member for Port Stephens is the only member with the call.

Mr Martin: My words were by way of interjection from this side. They were not the words used by the member for Barwon. They were nothing like that. The member ought to repeat what he heard. Otherwise I have nothing to respond to.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has received contradictory statements from members from both sides of the Chamber. Consequently, as I did not hear what, if anything, was said I am not in a position to make a determination one way or the other. If members wish the business of the House to proceed in an orderly fashion and to ensure that the Chair is in a
Page 5139
position to make a determination on allegations of misrepresentation or behaviour of an objectionable nature, they should remain silent and not interject. I am not in a position to make a decision on the matter. Therefore, I propose to take no action at this stage. However, I warn the considerable number of members who are already on one to three calls to order that they are now all deemed to be on three calls to order. The Chair has a responsibility to maintain order in the House. If members continue to offend, they will leave the Chamber.

Mr CAUSLEY: It is obvious from the little retort by the honourable member for Port Stephens that he is a person of the lowest order, and everyone in New South Wales knows it. I said yes on the licence appeal by Yolarno. They had every right to appeal that decision. They said to me they would like the appeal to be considered and that they would abide by all the conditions set by authorities in New South Wales. I do not think anything more could be asked for than that they adhere to the conditions set. If people are prepared to accept those conditions, they have to abide by them. As long as the courts do not find that people involved in Yolarno had any dealings with substitution or other illegal activity - and I do not think they have been found guilty of such activity - I cannot do anything about that. They are free to make application for a licence for an abattoir. The member for Port Stephens well knows they have that right. From time to time allegations have been thrown around, and I think I know where the allegations came from. But the appeal was upheld. Yolarno has the right to go ahead but must adhere to the very onerous conditions set by Orange City Council, the Environment Protection Authority and the Meat Industry Authority.


Mr BLACKMORE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister been advised that the Labor Party has promised to lift another motorway toll? What impact would the lifting of tolls have on the State's road program?

Mr BAIRD: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for his question; he is a man who delivers on his promises in Maitland and who has made sure that Metford gets a new railway station. When the honourable member for Kogarah was asked, he did not know where Metford was. We have an outstanding honourable member for Maitland. It is just as well the House has resumed sitting because if members opposite were allowed too much longer in their electorates, they would have made promises equal to the whole State budget. Opposition members simply do not know or do not care how much their promises cost or how they plan to implement them if they ever come to government.

During the recess the honourable member for Kogarah was being interviewed on radio station 2GB by that well-known comedian Brian Doyle. At the end of the interview I was not sure who was the comedian. The honourable member for Kogarah was asked how much it would cost to remove the toll on the M4 and the M5 motorways. He said that he did not know! The Opposition has made a major promise to remove the toll on the M4 and M5 and the honourable member for Kogarah has no idea how much it will cost! He forgets that a few months ago when asked the same question he said it would cost $80 million. The Government's estimate to remove the toll charges is at least $112 million.

Even using the figure of $80 million a year, as the honourable member for Kogarah suggests, what road projects in the electorates of Opposition members or Government members does he plan to delete in order to fund the proposals and promises? The honourable member for Kogarah has announced that the eastern distributor would be built by the Opposition but will have no toll. It will take three years to build at a cost of $180 million. With his $80 million per year cost for the removal of the toll, the total cost is $140 million per year.

During the last two weeks of the recess the Leader of the Opposition, in a rare visit to Wollongong and the south coast, made another announcement that he would remove the toll on the F6 freeway - another $5 million. Of course, the Opposition has announced that it will build the M5 east, again without a toll. The estimated cost is $600 million and that motorway will take at least three years to build. That represents $200 million per year out of a capital program. Where will the funding come from? When the Leader of the Opposition was in Port Macquarie recently, he announced that his road programs would cost $8 billion over five years. He thought that would impress people; that they had actually worked out how much they would get. The problem is that if we divide $8 billion by five years, it gives an amount of $1.6 billion per year. This year's road budget is in fact $1.9 billion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Consumer Affairs to order.

Mr BAIRD: Before he can start on any of these promises he is $300 million down. The Leader of the Opposition has gone around the State making promises. Just two weeks ago he was in the Monaro electorate promising $35 million to build the Queanbeyan bypass; the honourable member for Kogarah was there with him. If we take the $1.6 billion, which is how much the Opposition has allowed for a 5-year program for road funding, and subtract from it the amount for normal road maintenance programs, the running of the motor registries and the servicing of the debt that the Opposition racked up to over $1 billion - it was $130 million when they came into government and increased to more than $1 billion - the actual amount the Opposition has to spend on its promises is $330 million per annum.

The Government, in an attachment to its press release, has outlined all the promises that Opposition members have made. We have attached papers from the places where they have made these promises. The
Page 5140
total is $600 million. The Opposition has allowed $1.6 billion in its budget, but before it even starts anything, it is down $300 million. Where will the money come from to meet these promises? Honourable members know the promise to lift tolls is a hoax. The Opposition does not plan to deliver. The word is out around the town that if Labor comes to government, it plans to simply move the tollgates. Opposition members say they will remove this and that in various parts of the business community and when they visit the areas they say, "Yes, we will be responsible; we know it will cost a lot". The reality is that the Opposition has a secret agenda. The whole matter is a hoax.

The plan of the Leader of the Opposition is to have $600 million to honour his new promises for roads, but at the same time to reduce the road budget by $300 million. His plan would make the five loaves and two fishes at the lake of Galilee look like small beer in comparison. The Opposition policy on roads has been shown for the shambles and the sham it is. The Opposition knows it cannot deliver its promises to remove the toll and all the other promises it has made across the State. Each passing day there is the announcement of some new project - the Pacific Highway, the northern distributor at Wollongong, the Mount Ousley overpass, the Summerland Way, central coast roads, the Queanbeyan link road, the Port Macquarie link road and, of course, removing the tolls on the M4, M5, F6 and the eastern distributor. The people of New South Wales know what the Opposition is about and its figures do not add up.


Mr KNIGHT: I address by question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Did the Minister publicly state yesterday that his only involvement in the Kelly affair was to suggest an on-site meeting and to seek a report on Mr Smith's refusal to comply? Around February this year, did the Minister turn up unexpectedly at Mr Smith's office and pressure him? Is this common practice?

Mr CAUSLEY: I notice that the honourable member for Bathurst has some decency, because he handed the written question back; he would not ask the question and came down and handed back the piece of paper.

Mr Clough: On a point of order: I would just like to hear the Minister tell the truth. It was not that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the honourable member for Bathurst for his explanation.

Mr CAUSLEY: The Opposition had to get the bucket thrower to ask the question. Yesterday I made clear my involvement with Mr Smith. This matter has nothing at all to do with zoning, as the Leader of the Opposition tries to make out. But he would not understand the planning laws of this State; he only rorted them when he was the Minister. Agriculture has nothing to do with planning. Mr Smith knows very well that I did speak to Mr Smith and Mr Williams at the office of New South Wales Agriculture. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to hear what I said, I can tell him that it was nothing to do with this particular issue. I spoke with Mr Smith and Mr Williams, who is the regional director, at Wollongbar in the office of New South Wales Agriculture.


Mr HUMPHERSON: Can the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services inform the House of recent statements in a report by international investment analysts Salomon Brothers Inc. regarding proposals for the establishment of a casino in Sydney?

Mrs COHEN: The honourable member for Davidson has a continuing interest in this important issue. I remind honourable members that it is nearly nine weeks since I first challenged the Leader of the Opposition to explain his behaviour on the casino issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given ample warning to members about the level of interjection.

Mrs COHEN: Exactly 62 days have passed yet the word "liar" still hangs, undefended, over his head. This is the man who sets the standards of honesty for his party!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! My warnings extend to members on the Government side of the House also.

Mrs COHEN: The irresponsible behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition on casino matters generally has been a matter of great concern to a number of parties. Even the Labor Council seems to be at odds with the Leader of the Opposition in his attempts to delay the casino process. I understand that members of his own party have reservations about his behaviour concerning this matter. But in case the Machiavelli of Maroubra thinks his ill-motivated actions have been anything other than transparent to everyone I will refer to a recent report by Salomon Brothers, one of Wall Street's leading financial firms. The report, dated 21 September, gives investors an up-to-date analysis of Showboat, part of the consortium named as the preferred applicant for the Sydney casino licence. In the context of Showboat's bid for the Sydney casino the report states:

Recently, the winning bid tendered by Sydney Harbour Casino has come under fire from various factions, including some opportunistic members of the New South Wales Opposition party.

Eager to make the Sydney Casino into a political issue and perhaps force a delay to their own advantage, some have called the site and bid into question . . .

This is a damning indictment of the Labor Party and, most particularly, of the Leader of the Opposition. But it succinctly sums up the events of the last few months. Even an impartial analysis of the Opposition's performance by an international firm has revealed the Opposition's dubious behaviour. Some of the phrases used were, "opportunistic members of
Page 5141
the New South Wales Opposition party", and "eager . . . to force a delay to their own advantage". Even overseas investment analysts as far away as America realise what the Leader of the Opposition is up to. He wants to delay a billion dollar project for this State in order to better advantage the ALP. This is the man who courts the business community of this State!

We all know what the real plans of the Leader of the Opposition are. He wants to delay the project and undermine the Casino Control Authority in the hope that at some time in the future he can get rid of it altogether and do his own deal. That is why we have heard him lying about the origins of a secret Louisiana police report and that is why he has released snippets of information to the media in a way that is calculated to do the most damage. At the same time I note that he has taken great care not to give anybody an opportunity to cross-examine him in a public inquiry. He would rather seek refuge in this House.

The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition reeks of the kind of economic vandalism that sees overseas investors looking for other shores. Letters aired in the press and signed by five such investors already point to this being the case. The list of investors concerned about Labor's politicking already includes John Govett and Company Limited of London, Soros Capital, Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo, Kingdon Capital Management and Putnam Advisory Company. The lying behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition so far certainly does not inspire confidence or make us believe that he is acting in an honest manner. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition subscribes to the Graham Richardson philosophy of "Whatever It Takes".


Mr SCULLY: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, and Minister for Economic Development. Will the Premier determine from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether Mr Jim Kelly, the land-holder on whose behalf he intervened, attends local National Party functions and contributes to the party? Did this prompt the considerable personal involvement of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in his case?

Mr FAHEY: The simple answer is no. However, I wish to tell the honourable member for Smithfield that some of his best friends attend my fundraising functions. They do it because they are well and truly satisfied with the way in which this Government is operating. Despite the fact that they have known the honourable member for Smithfield for many years, they recognise the value of a good government and are prepared to support the functions of a good government. I am pleased to have all the friends of the honourable member for Smithfield attend our functions - all two or three of them - on a regular basis.

Mr O'DOHERTY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. Is there community concern about noise and air pollution in relation to the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek? Can the Minister advise the House whether any action has been taken in this matter?

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai has an ongoing interest in western Sydney, unlike the shadow minister for the environment, who rarely asks a question about anything, let alone western Sydney. We have lots of her recent statements on record and I am sure honourable members would be delighted to hear them as and when the opportunity arises. For some years there has been a proposal by the Federal Labor Government to construct a new international airport at Badgerys Creek in Sydney's west. Unfortunately, many years down the track all we seem to have from the mates of the Leader of the Opposition in Canberra is exactly that - a concept. In this context what is being overlooked by the arrogant Federal Labor Government, apparently with the tacit support of the New South Wales Labor Party, are the concerns of the local community regarding the environmental impact of a new airport and their concerns regarding a key Federal Government department charged with running the show. The New South Wales Government and, in particular the honourable member for Badgerys Creek, share the community's concern that the most recent examination of environmental issues surrounding the airport proposal is now nearly 10 years old.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The State Government and the honourable member for Badgerys Creek are concerned that the key agency responsible for this proposal has a track record of total ineptitude and insensitivity. In today's Sydney Morning Herald we read how well the Civil Aviation Authority is going with the first days of operation of the third runway at Sydney airport. No fewer than three Federal Labor members of Parliament, including two Ministers, are getting stuck into their own government because the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Airports Corporation cannot make the planes go where they said they would go. They are drifting all over the place, but we hear nothing from the honourable member for Drummoyne, the honourable member for Port Jackson, or the honourable member for Ashfield about aircraft and aircraft noise in their areas and the effect that that is having on the communities they are supposed to represent.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The only member who has stood up for the community and for community amenities is the honourable member for Badgerys Creek.

Page 5142

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

Mr HARTCHER: She has consistently and insistently demanded that the people of the west be adequately looked after. The citizens of western Sydney - now looking down the barrel of a new airport not just an additional runway like Mascot - cannot take any comfort from this incompetence on the part of the Civil Aviation Authority. Honourable members may be aware that noise footprints or contour maps are prepared for proposed airport sites to determine the noise impact on local communities and, therefore, how to compensate people or insulate their homes. The Federal Labor Government agency that produced the map in relation to Badgerys Creek is none other than the Civil Aviation Authority.

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

Mr HARTCHER: What about the accuracy of the Civil Aviation Authority's Badgerys Creek noise contour map? The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

The pattern of planes flying over Sydney bears little resemblance to the official noise contour maps prepared by the Civil Aviation Authority and issued by the Federal Airports Corporation . . . The acting manager of environmental operations for the CAA, Ms Linda Thanes, said that, "airplanes go all over the place" in Sydney, contrary to public perceptions.

The Civil Aviation Authority described the real flight patterns as a bowl of spaghetti. We need to know for the people of western Sydney, so inadequately represented by honourable members opposite, that the impact on Badgerys Creek will not be detrimental to residential areas in Fairfield, Liverpool and Penrith. We have heard nothing from the honourable member for Penrith on this issue that is of vital concern to her constituency. The indifference of the honourable member for Penrith to noise and the potential impact it could have on the people of western Sydney is not to her credit and in that regard she will be adjudged on 25 March 1995. No wonder Jim Aitken is looking so good in Penrith right now. Your inactivity, your lack of concern, your indifference to noise for the people of western Sydney -

Mr Mills: On a point of order: I ask that you request the Minister to direct his remarks through the Chair and not to the person -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr HARTCHER: The inactivity of the honourable member for Penrith and her lack of interest in the people of western Sydney are not to her credit. We will hear more about that in the months ahead. What is even more frightening for the people of western Sydney is that the man responsible for the Civil Aviation Authority and the Badgerys Creek proposal is none other than that great friend of signboards, Laurie Brereton. Not a single person in this House would trust Laurie Brereton with a map with a boy scout troop, let alone with the plans to determine the future of western Sydney and the development of the west.

It is ridiculous to talk about constructing a high-tech, twenty-first century airport on the basis of a 10-year-old environmental study. The airport to be constructed for western Sydney is being constructed on the basis of an environmental study carried out 10 years ago. Its noise impacts on the people of the west have the potential to be as devastating as Mascot is to the people of south-eastern Sydney, yet only the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services - the honourable member for Badgerys Creek - is speaking up for the people of western Sydney. The Federal Labor Government wants us to accept that 10-year-old environmental data is good enough.

It is not good enough for the people of Badgerys Creek, Kemps Creek, Horsley Park, Mount Vernon and Cecil Park, and those living in other affected suburbs who may well be subject on a 24-hour basis to decibel levels as loud as those generated at rock concerts. Nor is it not good enough for the future management of water quality in the nearby Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. Is the Federal Government prepared to allow New South Wales law and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority to monitor noise standards and to protect the people of western Sydney? No.

Mrs Grusovin: Why are you in a pickle all the time?

Mr HARTCHER: Sorry?

Mrs Grusovin: Why are you in a pickle all the time?

Mr HARTCHER: Are you interjecting?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Heffron and the Minister for the Environment will cease having a conversation across the table. I direct the Minister for the Environment to direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr HARTCHER: It is interesting that while the honourable member for Heffron was prepared to interrupt me, she was not prepared to defend the former member for Heffron. She was not prepared to say a word about the late and unloved Laurie Brereton and his campaign of ineptitude for the airways of New South Wales and Australia - the man who is now prepared to visit on the people of western Sydney a potential environmental disaster.

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

Mr HARTCHER: It is vital, if western Sydney is to be protected, that an environmental impact statement and data relevant to the modern time are gathered. It is vital that agencies such as the Environment Protection Authority be allowed to protect the environment and the people of western Sydney and that they simply not be abandoned at the whim of Laurie Brereton and his mates in Canberra. The people of the west, Badgerys Creek and Penrith need guarantees that the Commonwealth will institute a strict monitoring regime for noise, air and water pollution before, during and after the construction of
Page 5143
the airport. The total indifference of the honourable member for Ashfield, too busy writing letters to the newspaper to defend himself, the honourable member for Penrith and the honourable member for Drummoyne to the impact of noise in their areas needs to be addressed and will be addressed.

[Interruption]

What was that?

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

Mr HARTCHER: No, the honourable member for Penrith did not say a word, did she?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for the Environment will address the Chair.

Mr HARTCHER: The challenge to protect the people of the west rests with the leadership of the New South Wales Labor Party: with the Leader of the Opposition, with the honourable member for Blacktown and with all honourable members opposite who are now called upon to stand up and say whether they are interested in looking after the people of western Sydney or whether they are happy that people in the west have visited upon them an airport with the same potential noise impact as Sydney airport, based on environmental data gathered 10 years ago - based on 10-year-old environmental impact studies. The choice for the west is clear: Labor means environmental disaster.


Mr HATTON: In view of the undertakings of the Minister for Health to review health budget productivity savings, will he remove the $1.8 million productivity savings obligation from the Illawarra Area Health Service so that the money is available to be spent in that region during this year?

Mr PHILLIPS: The Government now invests a record $5.75 billion in health. A fundamental element of the Government's policy to ensure a fair distribution of resources throughout the State to growth areas - such as the electorate of the honourable member for South Coast - is the efficiency gains program, which has been running at the rate of 3 per cent to 4 per cent efficiency gains per year. In discussions with people from those areas and districts over past years - such as the area of the honourable member for South Coast, a major winner as a result of the Government's policy - it has been made clear that all areas have to play their part in gaining efficiencies.

The honourable member for South Coast is falling for the trap and starting a campaign like that commenced by Opposition members of this House, who home in on one line of the budget and claim that efficiency gains for the Illawarra have to be cut. What about the extra funding that has been provided for the hospital in the electorate of the honourable member for South Coast? What about the extra funding to the Illawarra? What about the new clinical services block that is to be built? The honourable member will not look at the bottom line of the budget, which shows substantial increases in the health budget for everyone. Some increases have been greater than others and some areas have experienced growth greater than others. The area represented by the honourable member for South Coast is one of the areas that has a growth rate greater than most.

The efficiency gain program has been in place for some time, and I understand that there are some hospitals - certainly not hospitals in the district of the honourable member for South Coast - in eastern Sydney, the north shore and central Sydney in particular that have been making substantial efficiency gains and may have a case for claiming that they have been squeezed too much. I undertook to examine that in the budget process and to make sure - as I have always done - that those hospitals are able to cope with and offer record services. The honourable member for South Coast is the last person who should be talking about the Government's health policy, because his area has been a major beneficiary of that policy.


Mr HATTON: I wish to ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer, as productivity savings have been imposed on the Illawarra year after year, when can we expect them to cease?

Mr PHILLIPS: People tend to forget that during the recession other government departments had to make efficiency gains. Those savings went back to Treasury, the central agency, and went to services such as health. Every dollar of the efficiency gains and the productivity gains made in health, by the use of modern technology and modern techniques, by the contracting out of services and other means, is redistributed to the areas of greatest need, the growth areas of this State such as western Sydney, the Nepean area -

Mrs Lo Po': Not there.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: Major funding goes to that area. Pouring money into the Liverpool area did not do the honourable member for Liverpool much good. Not one cent goes back to consolidated revenue. If the honourable member for South Coast wants to take up the battle for extra health funding, he should take it up with the Federal Government. I refer honourable members to the Federal Government's budget papers. The Federal Government's share of funding of the New South Wales public health system, our hospital system, community health services and so on, has decreased in the past six or seven years from 39 per cent to 32 per cent. The budget papers of the Federal Government predict that its share of funding for health will decrease to 29 per cent within the next
Page 5144
two years. The share of the Federal Government continues to fall. What has the Federal Government done about the 3,000 people who are dropping out of private health insurance schemes each week? The Federal Government makes the policy. Who has to make sure people receive health care? It is the State Government, and we are proud of the job we are doing in health.


Mr J. H. Murray: Mr Speaker, the Minister for the Environment stated that nothing had been heard from me, as the member for Drummoyne, about noise problems related to the third runway at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I put it to you that my political integrity has been impugned, and I seek leave to make a personal explanation as this is nothing but an outright lie.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A member may make a personal explanation to show how a matter impugns the integrity or character of the member but not for the purpose of refuting a matter raised in the cut and thrust of debate. No personal explanation is involved. If members were able to make personal explanations about the factually inaccurate statements of other members, the House would be for ever hearing personal explanations.

Mr J. H. Murray: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Drummoyne will resume his seat. I should be happy to discuss with the member the elements of personal explanations at a later time.


Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [3.37]: I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 54, this House orders to be laid before it and made public without restricted access, by the rising of the House on Thursday, 17 November 1994, all documents relating to the decision to grant a licence to Yolarno Proprietary Limited to operate an abattoir at Orange.

I should like to say at the outset that this side of the Parliament has no objection to Orange having an abattoir. What this side of the Parliament objects to is the procedures that have taken place. In answer to a question asked by me earlier today the Minister said that if criminal charges were successful it would be a matter for the Government. He went on without answering my question. The matter is recorded in Hansard. The Daily Liberal newspaper of 15 March 1982 in an article headed "Man pleads guilty to meat export frauds" details a case in which 10 charges were laid.

On Thursday, 20 October, the chairman of the Meat Industry Authority was summonsed to Orange, told that he would not be reappointed as chairman and told to quit his office within 24 hours. One could say that there was nothing too remarkable about the fact that the head of a statutory authority whose term of employment had expired was simply not being reappointed. No-one questions the right of the Government or the right of Ministers to select heads of authorities, provided due process has been served. However, there is something exceptional about this case. It goes to the heart of the matter that the Minister, unable to get his own way, has shot the messenger. The Meat Industry Authority Board and its former chairman, John Carter, have been subjected to blatant political pressure and bullying from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and his mate the Minister for Police.

Is it a fact that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries issued instructions for his director-general to summarily dismiss Mr Carter, to clear the way for the issuing of a licence to Yolarno Proprietary Limited, a company owned by a Mr John McDonald? Is it a fact that Mr McDonald, who currently operates a small export plant in the Lismore district, has lobbied the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for a licence for the Orange abattoir, and has this pressure also come from the Minister for Police? Is it a fact that Mr McDonald's manager and caretaker at the Orange abattoir, Mr Bruce Skinner, was found guilty by a magistrate on 10 counts of meat substitution in 1982? If this is true, why has the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries exerted undue influence on the Meat Industry Authority to review its objections to the licence for the Orange abattoir? Is the licence to be issued within a month, as was reported in the Central Western Daily? It was subsequently indicated that the licence would be issued on 2 November.

Was the licence issued? If the licence has been issued, why has that not been made more public? I want to know - as the House wants to know - whether the family group of companies collapsed, going into receivership in 1981? Did that action cause the collapse of the abattoir operated by the McDonalds at Dubbo in the early 1980s? The Minister has pushed for the licence, despite the entire Meat Industry Authority Board of 11 members having voted more than once against approval of an application for a licence to operate an abattoir at Orange. The former chairman, despite almost unanimous support for him from the meat industry in New South Wales, was virtually thrown out of his office. Mr Carter was told that his contract of employment would not be renewed and was ordered to clear his office within 24 hours. John Carter has been treated in a disgraceful manner by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The editorial in a recent issue of the Land newspaper stated:

To simply dismiss, without notice, and with no explanation, a man who has committed the best years of his life unstintingly, to the advancement of the State's meat industry, is an act unworthy of a senior minister.

It is particularly unworthy of the National Party Minister for Agriculture, who, if anyone, should have been aware of the substantial benefits that have accrued to producers under the industry reforms initiated by John Carter.

Page 5145

The article in the Land continued:

Thanks to Mr Carter and the work of his MIA we now have an industry in NSW that prides itself on its high standards and its consumer orientation.

This applies throughout the meat market chain from producers, carriers, agents, wholesalers and processors to retailers. In the Land Mr Jason Strong, New South Wales Chairman of the Cattlemen's Union said of John Carter:

He fearlessly pursued excellence in the meat industry, often despite the opposition of strong vested interests.

The Meat Industry Authority was so concerned that it referred the issue of political interference and pressure by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I understand this action was taken following legal advice and with the full knowledge of the board. The applicant for the abattoir licence, Yolarno Proprietary Limited, which is owned by Mr McDonald - the person the Minister for Police and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries favour - has a manager who has been successfully charged with meat substitution.

The 11 members of the Meat Industry Authority Board voted unanimously, more than once, against granting the application. The Orange abattoir was owned and operated by T. A. Field and closed in August 1981 because there was insufficient livestock. At that time there were more than 5.3 million livestock in the State. With the drought the numbers are dropping fast. The former Minister for Agriculture may laugh, but this is a serious matter. The Orange abattoir was unable to successfully operate under the Amatil and Metro ownership between 1981 and 1991, when the authority cancelled the plant's licence for non-operation for nine months. It was not operated for more than three years.

The Meat Industry Authority announced at the time that it would not issue a licence on the site, and the abattoir site was sold without a licence in November 1992. Yolarno was a company formed by John McDonald, who had previously operated the Dubbo abattoir prior to going bankrupt in the early 1980s. It operated a small export plant at Lismore and bought the Orange plant for $890,000 in total. This included approximately half the land that has been issued for stockholding. The Environment Protection Authority has had trouble for 13 years: Yolarno has applied for the licence in exchange for its Lismore licence, but the authority said no.

In April 1994 the media in Orange began to make noises about the issue. On 19 April the Minister was informed the authority did not intend to reverse its decision. The State was operating at about 65 per cent of one-shift cattle capacity. The Blayney abattoir was in trouble because it was a single-shift abattoir. There are abattoirs at Cowra and Mudgee that will be threatened by the opening of the abattoir at Orange. On 8 June the MIA subcommittee met with solicitor Norman Hunt and Alex Ferguson of the Central West Economic Development Group, a Federal Government organisation. Although this was a confidential meeting, Mr Ferguson went public with a letter of 14 June. I understand Mr Norman Hunt proposed to meet with the authority and sought to push the approval of the licence. The Orange media got in on the campaign.

On 22 June the Minister voiced his concern to Mr Carter about the Orange situation and left him with the impression that Mr Carter would be reappointed in two years as requested. This is an atrocious situation. The Opposition needs all the papers on this matter to be brought before the Parliament. The Parliament deserves to know about the man who pleaded guilty to charges of meat export fraud. It also should be told how the abattoir admitted to a former company failure. It needs to reflect on why the Mayor of Orange called for the Meat Industry Authority to be disbanded when the paddocks could not handle the effluent and most of it was going into the town sewerage scheme.

There has been a conspiracy by the Minister and the Minister for Police, the member for Orange. It also reflects poorly on other people associated with the Government. The Opposition is disgusted with what has happened to John Carter. It is disgusted with what has happened in Orange. It is disgusted with the dismantling of the Meat Industry Authority. The Deputy Premier, a former stock and station agent, would know only too well and he would not defend it.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: the Deputy Premier is not a former stock and station agent; he is still a fully licensed stock and station agent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier would be well aware that no point of order is involved.

Mr MARTIN: To that end, the Opposition demands the papers.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence - Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines) [3.45]: This motion shows what a desperate mob will do. I listened intently to the honourable member for Port Stephens. For once I thought he might have done his homework to get some of the issues correct. He tried to make out that Mr Carter had not been reappointed. Mr Carter's contract had expired. It is as simple as that. When contracts expire, the occupant is reappraised to determine whether he is the best person for the job or whether someone else should get it. We have not heard anything from the honourable member for Port Stephens about that.

It is marvellous what history turns up from time to time. When John Carter was appointed as Chairman of the Meat Industry Authority 10 years ago he was not the favoured son. Former Premier Wran tried to bribe the then member for Goulburn, Ron Brewer. He wanted to give him the job to get him out of Parliament because the Labor Party thought it might be able to win the seat of Goulburn. At that time John Carter was receiving assistance from the
Page 5146
Rural Assistance Authority; that is the sort of producer he was at the time. The Labor Party then cast around to find someone for the job and they came up with John Carter.

At that time there were abattoirs across the State, many of which were run by councils. They were total disasters. Ratepayers were propping up abattoirs. They were a status symbol right across New South Wales. There was no doubt that something had to be done about the abattoir industry. At that time it needed someone like John Carter to sort it out, and he had the support of the former Labor Government and this Government. It cost millions of dollars to buy out these abattoirs. It is in the interests of everyone, particularly the producers of New South Wales, that abattoirs run efficiently. It is to the eternal disgrace of this country that New Zealand can kill stock for one-third of the cost in this State. If one considers some of the cushy work practices condoned by these people one understands exactly why we are in that position.

It is obvious that the former chairman has fed most of this information to the honourable member for Port Stephens, and I am disappointed about that, because he got a fair go in this industry. There is no doubt the industry needs a new direction. If members look closely at the Yolarno application at Orange and at the 1978 Meat Industry Authority Act, they will see that the Act is archaic. I do not think any government in Australia would accept legislation in the form of the present Act. Not even the Federal Government would accept it. It consisted of regulation from start to finish, and most governments have moved away from regulation in this day and age because it does not encourage efficiency.

Mr Carter was an absolute regulator. He could not get past it; he wanted to regulate everything. We disagreed about that and I had every right to do so. I do not believe that the Meat Industry Authority has the right to overrule the EPA. Admittedly the EPA has come along since the 1978 Act, but it is the prerogative of the EPA to deal with pollution. It is certainly not the prerogative of the Meat Industry Authority to assess planning; obviously local government or the Department of Planning assess planning issues. Planning has nothing to do with the Meat Industry Authority any more, although it is referred to in the Act.

So we had this duplication, triplication, all sorts of powers, to the extent that the Meat Industry Authority was assessing whether someone was a capable or proper person to make an application for an abattoir licence. Then in its wisdom the authority decided whether this person had the financial resources to make an application. Now that is absolutely crazy. Yes, the Meat Industry Authority did reject the application by Yolarno on at least two occasions, but although it was a contributing factor, it was not the reason that John Carter did not retain his position. John Carter was a regulator. The world had passed him by. The Meat Industry Authority needed a new direction. Regulation in the Meat Industry Authority was breeding inefficiency. There was no competition. People in the authority were looking after their own positions because they were also abattoir owners, and they did not want competition. Competition is what achieves efficiency.

There is no doubt that the Meat Industry Authority had problems, and obviously I was concerned about it. I asked Mr Bob Junor, the former head of the Soil Conservation Service, to inquire into the Meat Industry Authority. I do not agree with everything in the Junor report but it clearly spells out where the problems are in the Meat Industry Authority. Obviously, a new government will have to look closely at that 1978 legislation.

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

Mr CAUSLEY: The honourable member for Port Stephens accuses people of standing over the head of the Meat Industry Authority or our friend Mr Smith on the north coast, who is obviously singing like a canary. I have already heard the threats that the honourable member for Port Stephens has been making about whom he will sack if he ever becomes Minister. Thank God he will never be a Minister, so they have nothing to fear. There is no doubt in my mind that the Meat Industry Authority needed a new direction. The head of the Meat Industry Authority in New South Wales would not communicate with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. What sort of situation is it when the head of the Meat Industry Authority of New South Wales would not even communicate with the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation? Yet the honourable member is trying to support him.

He should examine the documents. He did not get any documents as a result of yesterday's motion, and he will not get any today. His use of Standing Order 54 and the cost to the taxpayers of New South Wales are an absolute disgrace. It was all for nothing. The honourable member plays these games, and he can flap his wings as much as he likes, but he will not fly and he will never get anywhere. John Carter had a fair go. He had 10 years in the Meat Industry Authority. At the time I believed he was the man for the job. He certainly did a good job in cleaning out the abattoir industry, making sure that it was rationalised, but it is time for change. The honourable member for Port Stephens never mentions important issues. Yes, the Meat Industry Authority twice rejected an application, but the honourable member for Port Stephens did not tell anyone that under the Act Yolarno had the right to appeal to me, the Minister; and Yolarno did appeal.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Port Stephens will have the opportunity to reply later.

Mr CAUSLEY: Yolarno appealed and said that it would comply with the conditions of any authority in New South Wales. But the honourable member for Port Stephens is so bright that he would say to someone that they do not have that right. Yolarno
Page 5147
said it would comply with any condition of any authority in New South Wales. That means the Environment Protection Agency can impose conditions, the council can impose conditions, and the Meat Industry Authority can impose conditions, but who knows if the abattoir will get up and running.

The honourable member would be a great dictator if he were to refuse an appeal on those grounds. They are reasonable grounds of appeal. Yolarno now has the right to go forward, but it certainly has not opened an abattoir because there are a lot of hoops it has to jump through yet. Yolarno will have to comply with the conditions set by the relevant authorities. That is a reasonable position to be in. So far as the new Meat Industry Authority chairman is concerned, the position was advertised, due process was followed, and Cabinet appointed a new chairman. Mr Carter knew exactly what was going on. He was called in and told he did not get the position. He had known for months what was happening. He had been offered a contract for 12 months, but refused because he wanted more. He knew he would not be re-appointed.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [3.55]: The motion before the Chair is that the papers be tabled. My purpose in speaking to the motion is because the township of Blayney is concerned about the abattoir that provides a large percentage of the employment available in that area. I am not particularly interested in whether Mr Carter is to remain in the Meat Industry Authority or that the Minister says that his contract had expired. It was perfectly obvious that his contract had little chance of being renewed. The order of his going is not the point at issue with me.

Today the rural community is struggling to an extent that it rarely has this century. The volume of stock going through abattoirs is steadily decreasing and the chances of maintaining two viable abattoirs within 40 kilometres of each other, one at Orange and one at Blayney, are very slim. The Blayney abattoir was a county council abattoir. It was a drain on local government during the time that it operated and it was eventually wound up and the present owners took it over. The people of Blayney have two concerns. Will an Orange abattoir detract from employment opportunities in Blayney, or will it mean that those travelling from Orange to work in the abattoir may obtain employment in the new Orange abattoir, thus opening up employment opportunities for Blayney residents.

These are the questions I recently took up with the general manager of Blayney Council, who was in contact with the manager of Blayney abattoir to find out what the situation was. I have had conflicting reports as to what the intention of the new Orange abattoir will be, if and when it is established. I have been told it will undertake specialised work that is not now available at the Blayney abattoir. If this is the case and it will do special work that Blayney abattoir cannot handle, it will have no effect upon employment in the Blayney district. If that is not the case, Blayney district will be disadvantaged by the establishment of another abattoir such a short distance away. The abattoir provides a considerable proportion of the local employment and the township of Blayney could not sustain the wholesale loss of jobs from the Blayney abattoir.

As I said when I commenced to speak, I am not particularly concerned with the political infighting over the proposal to re-establish the abattoir at Orange. I am concerned to see the documents associated with this matter so that I can determine on behalf of the constituents I represent what their likely future would be if another abattoir was established. As I said earlier, if it was going to be a specialised line that cannot be done at the Blayney abattoir, there is no danger to Blayney jobs. But if it is to be the type of abattoir that operated there before, there will be competition for the few livestock making their way through the abattoir system in New South Wales, and I believe I have every right, and indeed a duty, to make a plea on behalf of the people who rely on the Blayney abattoir for a large percentage of the economy of that village.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports) [4.00]: I wish to support the Minister for Agriculture and to ensure that the facts are accurately reported so that they can be communicated to the public of New South Wales. The beef industry, one of the most important primary industries in this State, has as much potential to earn export dollars and create employment as any other enterprise in this State. The attempt by the Opposition to politicise the beef industry is an act of utter hypocrisy and irresponsibility. Discussions with the industry prior to the drafting and passage of the Meat Industry Act in 1978 took place under the administration of the Labor Government of the day. Labor Ministers Day and Hallam were charged with the responsibility of taking it to a Labor Cabinet. A Labor Cabinet approved the legislation, a Labor Minister introduced it in this House, and a Labor Government carried it through Parliament. Labor incorporated the following provisions in that legislation. I quote section 17(1):

Where the Authority decides:

(a) to refuse an application for the issue or renewal of licence;

(b) to issue or renew a licence subject to conditions or restrictions;

(c) to suspend or cancel a licence;

(d) to exercise its power under section 11B(3);

(e) to refuse its approval for the transfer of a licence; or

(f) to refuse its approval under section 15(2),

the Authority shall notify the applicants or the licensee of the decision and the grounds therefor.

Section 17(2) provides:

The applicant or the licensee may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Minister, in the prescribed manner, against the decision made by the Authority as referred to in subsection (1) in respect of him.

Page 5148

Section 17(3) states:

On an appeal under subsection (2), the Minister may confirm the decision of the Authority or may vary or revoke the decision appealed against and make any decision referred to in subsection (1) and the Authority shall give effect to the decision of the Minister on the appeal as if it were its own decision.

That is the Labor Party's own policy. The Minister's action is totally supported by the Government and by a number of very reputable publications. I will show what a raving idiot is the Opposition spokesman on agricultural matters and on this issue in particular. He even achieved mention in an editorial in the Central Western Daily:

State Opposition Agricultural spokesman Bob Martin has painted his Labor Party colleague and endorsed candidate for the seat of Orange into a corner over the proposed reopening of the Orange abattoir.

Glenn Taylor yesterday was busy deflecting criticism after Mr Martin's attack on Agricultural Minister Ian Causley over the abattoir proposal and the sacking of Meat Industry Authority chairman John Carter.

. . .

He said the ALP doubted whether the meatworks would be viable, and would oppose its reopening.

All of which leaves the ALP's local candidate in a precarious position.

. . .

Mr Martin's eagerness to attack the Fahey Government has backfired in this case. . . .

What an idiot he is! Glenn Taylor is the endorsed Labor candidate for Orange, but he went to Orange and pulled the carpet right out from under him. He has worked hard to stop 170 genuine jobs. He has not acknowledged that Yolarno, along with a number of other major parties, including Mitsubishi, is part of the consortium that has successfully applied for a licence to construct a new feedlot west of Condobolin. He has not acknowledged that that feedlot will be the major providore for the new Orange works. He has not acknowledged that the Yolarno works will adopt the most modern technology and new work practices that will achieve efficiencies and replace the 1950s technology and practices in this State's export abattoirs. The shadow spokesman has not acknowledged that this facility will be an export abattoir. But where are the export licences? Recently the Blayney works had its licence suspended for a short period, but got it back again. Those works, very old but much respected, have had problems for a long time. The shadow spokesman got it wrong. John Carter did a good job in carrying out his original charter. Much of his work has been achieved and he has succeeded. But his contract expired and the Minister simply chose not to renew it.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [4.05], in reply: After seven long years the Government is out of touch and cannot even get its facts right. Neville Wran acknowledged the work of Ron Brewer in the Brewer report and accepted his qualifications. The Government should get it straight. Ron Brewer was a contender in 1976. Brian Reagan was appointed in 1976, and Carter in 1984. That corrects what the Minister said.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: the member for Port Stephens said that Mr Reagan was appointed as chairman of the industry body in 1976. He was not appointed until 1978.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MARTIN: After seven long years, the Minister says it is time to look at the legislation. The Government has had seven years to do that but has done nothing. The Forbes abattoir was reopened on a five to four vote by the authority. The Minister went on about pollution and the Environment Protection Authority, yet half the paddocks of that abattoir were sold.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order: the honourable member is misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier has been a member long enough to know that disputed matters of fact or mis-statement may be refuted in debate and may not be the substance of a point of order.

Mr MARTIN: Half the paddocks have been sold. Waste water will have to be treated through the Orange town sewerage scheme, though that raises major problems. The company's financial records show that it has been in meat substitution rackets, has gone broke, and at Lismore was unable to comply with EPA requirements, yet that company wants to move all its works to Orange. The Minister should check the facts, because so far his knowledge has been deficient. The shabby treatment of John Carter is nothing short of a disgrace. The Minister had the audacity to say that the Meat Industry Authority is a club and breeds inefficiency. That authority is a grower-dominated organisation that the Minister has power to override. But the Minister, a National Party political bully, had to wreck the Meat Industry Authority, knock it over and make it into a toothless tiger. The Opposition needs these documents so that it can see what has been going on. We want to see the reference to the Independent Commission against Corruption and uncover the undue pressure put on the chairman and his group of people by the Minister. The Opposition wants those papers to confirm reports about what happened. I have read the Junor report, and it is very complimentary of John Carter. The Minister's treatment of John Carter was that of a standover man and a bully.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I caution the member for Port Stephens that if he continues down the path he is taking, he will very quickly be called to order as he is well outside the leave of the question before the Chair.

Mr MARTIN: The Opposition is seeking those papers to prove that undue pressure was applied. The Minister had the authority to override, but did not. As Minister, he is nothing but a failure. He has wrecked the Meat Industry Authority. The Minister talks about advertising the job. He advertised the job six months ago. In his department no job is filled six
Page 5149
months after it is advertised; it is readvertised. The procedure of this matter is nothing short of shabby. All papers should be on the table so that this House can uncover all the seedy and sleazy little acts that have gone on as reported in the Land, and other reputable publications in this country. It is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales for members of the Opposition to have access to all papers relating to the granting of the licence to Yolarno Proprietary Limited.

Motion agreed to.


Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [4.10]: I move:

That this House notes with grave concern the suicide rate in rural New South Wales.

Mr Rixon: Caused by the Federal Government.

Mr AMERY: That is a nice interjection to start with. I assume the honourable member for Lismore will not be making a lengthy contribution to this debate. The subject of the motion before the House must concern every citizen of the State and certainly every honourable member of this House. I hope the contribution by the Government is more positive than the opening interjection by the honourable member for Lismore. The media have reported alarming increases in suicides in the bush, which brings home to us the tragedy and suffering caused by this ever-increasing problem. For that reason we should reflect on the many stated causes.

Press reports today highlight, for example, the increase in suicide among young males from 14.2 deaths per 100,000 in 1971 to 59.9 per 100,000 in 1992. I am sure all honourable members will concede that is a dramatic increase in the suicide rate over a relatively short period of time. I should like to talk about suicides caused by financial hardship, and my colleague the honourable member for Port Stephens will concentrate on the drought and its effect on the farming community. Contributing factors to suicide have been well documented and publicised. They include such causes as the isolation of country living; family breakdowns caused, of course, by the various stresses related to the economy; unemployment, a major cause of suicide in rural areas and all parts of the country; financial hardship; mental illness, which contributes to about 85 per cent of suicides; and, of course, access to firearms, which is perhaps not the reason why people kill themselves but is obviously the most common method of suicide.

When I addressed a public meeting at Dubbo some months ago a number of farmers brought to my attention the stress caused by financial hardship in rural areas. Many residents from country areas recounted suicide numbers to stress this point. The Opposition does not suggest that anyone would take their own life because of a government policy. However, we must learn the causes of suicide and we call on governments to look at the impacts of their policies on the wellbeing of people affected by the action or inaction of a government. I mentioned that one of the causes of suicide is unemployment. Having in mind the interjection by the honourable member for Lismore, this Government would probably say that unemployment is the responsibility of the Federal Government and is related to the state of the economy.

However, the House should note that State Government actions in winding down employment in rural services, such as in the rail system and water resources, have placed strain on many individuals faced with losing their jobs in isolated areas and with little likelihood of finding alternative employment. Financial hardship and lack of counselling have been identified as other causes of rural suicide. The Government's role in providing financial counselling to rural areas has been the subject of some debate. Because of the relationship between financial hardship and suicide, this Parliament should call on the State Government to provide more funding for financial counselling in rural areas.

Financial counselling services are stretched thinly in rural parts of New South Wales. The Penrith service in western Sydney is required not only to provide financial counselling to people in the suburbs of Sydney but is required to stretch its services to areas such as Bathurst, the Blue Mountains and surrounding areas. At the time of the last budget the nearest financial counsellor operating in non-farm financial counselling was based at Broken Hill, working only one day per month. That same person was providing financial counselling for one day a week in Wilcannia. The $403,000 allocated by the Government should be topped up to the level of other States. Primarily there is a need for more understanding by our lending institutions of the difficulties faced by people in rural areas. When people need access to lending institutions, financial counsellors funded by the State Government are a crucial issue.

I repeat the call: New South Wales should top up its funding for financial counselling. The $403,000 allocated by New South Wales contrasts very poorly with the $1.3 million allocated in Western Australia; $1.3 million in Victoria, which is not suffering as much from the effects of drought as is New South Wales; even $1 million in Tasmania - an incredible amount of money for financial counselling in that State when one has regard to the magnitude of New South Wales and the serious effects of the drought; and $1 million in Queensland, which is also suffering the effects of the drought. The statistics and the budget papers show the need for this House to call on the Government to top up financial counselling funding and provide assistance to people suffering stress as a result of financial difficulty.

Recent current affairs programs highlighted the case of a 75-year-old couple living in a tent near a river near Tamworth because the banks threw them off their farm. As one report asked some months ago in the Sydney Morning Herald: what are we going to
Page 5150
do to prevent suicides? It is not an easy question to answer. Do we have to wait for that elderly couple to become a suicide statistic to make people aware that preventive action is needed? The director of mental health in the Department of Health, Noel Wilton, said in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 July:

NSW ranked highest among Australian States in caring for suicidal patients in rural areas, but a lack of community awareness obstructed successful suicide prevention.

Breaking down the stigma of suicide means reducing discrimination against people with mental illness.

Of course, Dr Wilton was the person who outlined the statistics of suicide attributed to mental disorders. Farming organisations have said that when the issue of suicide is raised, so too is a wall of silence. Many motor vehicle accidents written off as head-on collisions have been attributed to suicides. We have to break down that wall of silence and obtain some data on the cause of the alarming rate of suicide. It is a concern that no centralised database of suicide statistics is available in this country or in this State. With the continuing increase of suicides that information is needed up-front, if the Government is to have any chance of addressing the problem and of instituting preventive schemes as outlined by Dr Wilton.

Farmers need assessable independent financial advice. On another day we will debate a bill that deals with farm mediation. People in financial difficulty who are being thrown off their property have been the subject of many debates about people in rural New South Wales taking their lives. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show an upward trend in suicide rates since 1982. That trend has continued with a jump from 1.5 per cent to 1.9 per cent in 1992. Not only are there long-term increases in suicide but in the short term the problem is not getting any better. I look forward to the contribution of Government members. I draw attention to an alarming article in today's Daily Telegraph Mirror. In July Malcolm Knox of the Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Hard times are driving increasing numbers of NSW farmers to suicide and the real incidence of rural suicide may be much higher than has been reported, a State parliamentary inquiry heard yesterday.

I believe that a report from the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues will be presented in the not too distant future. I look forward to that report being tabled in the next few weeks. The recommendations in that report, which should be implemented, should receive the bipartisan support of all honourable members. We must create jobs in New South Wales. We must support those who are in financial difficulty by providing counselling and funding. We must ensure that people have access to proper mediation with moneylenders. That is crucial and it will go some way towards resolving these problems.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, and Minister for Ports) [4.21]: I am sure that this extraordinarily important subject will receive bipartisan support in this Parliament. The honourable member for Mount Druitt referred to a report which is about to be released. Over the last 18 months or so the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, under the chairmanship of the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, has been conducting an inquiry. I, as Leader of the National Party, gave that committee its reference. For many years I have been aware of unexplained suicides by young people, middle-aged people, young mothers, wealthy farmers and sons of professional people, who could have looked forward to a great future.

There is no apparent reason why people such as this decide to take their lives prematurely. It was on that basis that I referred this matter to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. In anticipation of the committee's report I compliment the members of that committee who have worked so hard over the months. We must ensure that services and agencies are carefully networked and coordinated and that people have access to those services. This Government appreciates the difficulties being faced by people, particularly those in rural areas. The appointment of a drought coordinator shows how serious this Government is about coordinating all the services provided by government agencies. This will help people to deal with difficult times. By any benchmark the assistance that this Government is offering as a result of the drought is probably the most generous assistance that has been offered by any government in our history. This Government is the only government in Australia that fully funds the transportation of livestock.

This Government is giving more money for rural counselling than any other government in Australia today. This is the fourth year that this Government has accepted 50 per cent of the funding of the cost of rural counsellors. So we are paying equal money with the Commonwealth in funding those counsellors. We have just allocated an additional $535,000 and we now have 33 rural counsellors in New South Wales as a result of a recent support package. This is in addition to the funding measures available to farmers for water, fodder, agistment and subsidisation of interest. This Government is the only government in Australia that offers subsidies through the Rural Assistance Authority for established debt and new debt. In addition, we now provide assistance to small business - again a first for any government in Australia. Recently, my colleague the Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Regional Development announced a $5 million package to assist small business. On various occasions the Commonwealth Government has matched State funding - $2 for $1 - on projects such as this. The Minister for Small Business, and Minister for Regional Development has sought Commonwealth funding on a two to one basis, which would give us $15 million to service approximately $240 million worth of debt. I hope the Commonwealth Government responds to his request.

We are talking about the reasons why people commit suicides. I said earlier that suicides are often unexplained. We are probably going through the toughest times this country has seen, certainly post-
Page 5151
World War II. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Federal Government increased interest rates. No other western society has had to put up with interest rates of such unprecedented magnitude. Those pressures have literally bled dry our farmers, small business people, cafe proprietors and professional people. The entire rural sector has been affected. The drought, which now covers 93 per cent of the New South Wales land mass, has left farming and rural communities without cash reserves. Their indebtedness per capita is at record levels. The equity in their businesses and farms is the lowest in proportionate terms since the 1929-30 Great Depression.

As this drought continues farmers are finding it hard to feed themselves and their livestock. Many families in rural communities are dependent on two jobs, as are people in the cities these days. The only way for farmers to feed their cattle, sheep or chickens is for either the husband or the wife to obtain alternative employment. That employment is drying up as the rural recession continues to escalate in New South Wales and around Australia. I do not think anyone understands the personal problems and pressures applying to small country business people and farmers in this day and age as a result of interest rates and the drought. They have no idea when the drought will end. The thing about drought is that one does not know whether it is just starting, whether it is halfway through, or whether it has nearly ended. With other natural disasters such as flood, fire or wind one usually has some indication when the recovery period will begin.

The Federal Labor Party is now purposely trying to talk up interest rates again. It is saying that we have to have higher interest rates in order to contain inflation. Its monetary policies are such that the Australian dollar is now in excess of US75¢. It is at a ridiculous level! That is making our export industry and the farming industries of Australia non-competitive. At the same time the Federal Government is saying that inflation is high because of consumer spending; therefore, effectively, it will tax, through high interest rates, the productive industries of agriculture and mining. Agriculture in rural New South Wales and in Australia has reached breaking point. That is why some people snap when the pressure becomes too great - a matter that has been highlighted in the Parliament today and which I am sure will be highlighted again. I do not know why some people - such as the mother of young children and a friend that I have had for 30 years, a very wealthy man - commit suicide. My friend and his mother had just paid off the probate on their farm. He had adequate resources, yet in a matter of 15 minutes he made a decision on a Friday afternoon to hang himself with a dog chain from the roof of a shearing shed.

Another friend of mine walked out of his back gate, carrying his shotgun with the intention of getting on his horse to shoot some rabbits. He was about to untether his horse, which was under a peppertree, but instead of getting on his horse and going to shoot rabbits he apparently decided to shoot himself. We, as a society, have a responsibility to try to find some answers to these problems, to take these pressures off people and to ensure that we entrench family values and give people support. Our opponents always have an answer - they throw money at the problem. But do they have an answer for the breakdown in the structure of society, in particular, the breakdown of families that is occurring in this nation at the moment? They have aided and abetted structural breakdown in so much of our society. Why are people turning away from marriage and churches? Why are they refusing, to a great extent, to participate in community organisations? Where is the traditional support for the family from the church and from friends within the community? Why is there so much pressure in these areas?

The leadership, particularly our Federal leadership, needs to be examined. The attitudes of political parties need to be scrutinised. The examples set by members of Parliament need to be assessed. Whilst the answer of the Opposition, to continually throw money at the problem, will help, it is not a panacea for a problem for which no-one has been able to provide the right answers. I hope that the report to be released by the standing committee will help us to better understand what is an unacceptable human problem. The contribution made by our Government to try to assist people, when the Federal Government is refusing to acknowledge that two-thirds of New South Wales is drought stricken, will continue to be an acknowledgement that every person in drought areas of New South Wales will receive full support. The Government is not in the business of drawing lines on a map to create human misery and suffering, as are its Labor opponents.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [4.33]: The suicide rate in New South Wales must be debated seriously in this Parliament. The Deputy Premier had 10 minutes in this debate to explain what is going on. When 93 per cent of the State is drought declared, when there is hardship, when people cannot feed themselves, when the health of the person traditionally perceived as the head of the house is neglected and when education is neglected we can associate the words depression, fear, family and stress with the number of suicides. What are we doing about this tragic problem? This debate is about seeking help for people who are suffering as a result of the drought, people who need help - greater help than they are receiving now.

I agree with the Deputy Premier that money is not the answer, but we need to allocate resources in a mature manner. We do not need a slanging match. We have to work together on this significant and serious problem. The drought is affecting young people, people who are feeling the stresses through the education system, people who are depressed about money, people who are depressed by the hardship caused by the drought and associated problems. But we have not put extra health workers back into the hospital system, into the area health services. We have not opened the offices of the Department of
Page 5152
Community Services. We have not followed up on what has happened to the people who have come to the Rural Assistance Authority as a last resort when they were knocked back. What are we doing about drought coordinators, whose tasks are monstrous?

This week I received a call from Balranald, from the father of nine children. Two of the children are university educated and the ages of the children go down from there. The family also includes a mother and two other siblings who need the mother for financial support. The bank is foreclosing on the family. They accept that, but right now they are being treated harshly. I get calls like that daily from people involved in such sad issues. My colleague the honourable member for Bathurst gets the same message day after day. But we do not have the answers. The counsellors are now out of answers; they cannot prevent the tragedies, so we must go that extra step. Farm suicides increased by 67 per cent in 1990. Rural poverty is worse than city poverty. In the last seven long years not nearly enough has been done for rural communities. The commitment must come quickly, because rural suicides and associated problems can only be attributed to the drought and many other pressures that are placed on rural people.

People in country New South Wales need somewhere to turn. We do not have the answers on this side of the Parliament. There has not been a sound bipartisan approach to this issue, but rather there has been an attempt to score points on the Commonwealth, to try to take the running with someone else's money. And it has been shabbily done. I plead with the Government to do what it must do, and that is to become compassionate, to address the problems, to take advantage of the motion moved by my colleague the shadow minister for consumer affairs. The Government should make mediators available, people to whom those in trouble can turn and feel that they will receive a fair go and be able to maintain their dignity. That is what members on this side of the Parliament want. That is what any decent member of this Parliament should want. At the end of the day we must have a better system.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt) [4.35], in reply: I thank the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Port Stephens for their contributions. In my opening remarks I referred to the report of the Director of the Department of Health, including matters that were given in evidence to the select committee; but no responses or solutions were forthcoming from the Government. The Leader of the National Party was glib about the cause of the problems in New South Wales. He intimated that they were the fault of the Federal Government because it deliberately put up interest rates, and he instanced a couple of sad cases that led to people committing suicide. I reject the argument of the Leader of the National Party - and I do not know what he means by it - that the Opposition's solution is to throw money at the problem. If he is talking about hiring a few more financial counsellors, that is the type of recommendation that would come from any assessment of rural New South Wales. The motherhood statement made by the Leader of the National Party about falling traditional family values was a little hard to follow.

Mr Armstrong: Do you object to that?

Mr AMERY: I certainly reject the argument that is was the responsibility of the Federal Government. When he talks about falling traditional family values he does not lay any blame at the State Government's doorstep. It is simple: he says that falling traditional family values are the fault of our Federal leaders. It makes one wonder why we have a coalition Government, but it is hoped that will not last much longer. I raised the recommendation by the Director of the Department of Health for the introduction of programs to study why people commit suicide. The Government made no response to that recommendation. There was little to refute the claim that New South Wales is spending so much less than its neighbouring States on financial counselling.

The Leader of the National Party commented that the Government is spending a lot of money on rural counsellors, but he excluded the fact that rural counsellors are jointly funded by the Federal Government, as the Minister said. That does not address the problems of non-farm financial counselling. The people who need non-farm financial counselling are former government employees and private industry employees who have lost their jobs. The Government made no response. I thought the Government would have given some assurances on that issue. More money is needed for financial counselling, not just for rural counselling, which is jointly funded by the Federal Government, but community-based financial counselling services that provide a service to the non-farm community in rural areas.

We need access to independent mediation to deal with foreclosures by moneylenders and banks, a subject that was reported on in today's Daily Telegraph Mirror. As has been highlighted, we need some form of database on suicides in New South Wales. The Government made no statements and gave no assurances in that regard. The impact of job losses needs to be considered. Whilst according to the Fahey Government unemployment and interest rate levels seem to be the only reasons for rural suicide, we need to examine the impact of closures of railway services, Department of Community Services offices and so on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members wish to converse, I suggest that they do so outside the Chamber.

Mr AMERY: We need to examine the impact of job losses at Department of Community Services offices - a matter referred to by the honourable member for Port Stephens - and job losses at the Department of Water Resources and other government departments.

[Interruption]

Page 5153

Does the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries not consider that unemployment is a related matter? Another issue dear to the hearts of those in small towns is the relocation of many government services to major regional centres. That also causes job losses and unemployment. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I would have wished for more of a response from the Deputy Premier to the many complex issues that have been well reported and the evidence presented to the Legislative Council parliamentary standing committee. Perhaps that may have to be left for debate on another day.

Motion agreed to.


Bill read a third time.


Bill received and read a first time.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [4.42]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) continues the well-established statute law revision program that commenced in 1984. The bill is the twenty-third bill to be introduced in the program. The statute law revision program is recognised by all members as a cost-effective and efficient method of dealing with amendments of the kind included in the bill. The form of the bill is similar to that of previous bills in the statute law revision program. The last such bill introduced a new schedule aimed at removing gender-specific language from the statute book. Honourable members will be aware that a policy of using gender-neutral language in legislation has been in force in this State for more than 10 years. Schedule 3 to the bill continues the process of removing the gender-specific language that remains in many current statutes enacted before the policy was implemented.

Schedule 3 adopts two approaches. Firstly, it selects certain Acts for amendment chronologically, beginning with the Real Property Act 1900. Secondly, it amends a particular category of Acts - on this occasion, those relating to the administration of justice. It is intended that similar approaches be continued in future schedules dealing with gender-specific language. I now turn to the more familiar schedules to the bill. Schedule 1 contains policy changes of a minor and non-controversial nature that the Minister responsible for the legislation to be amended considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill. The schedule contains amendments to more than 30 Acts. I shall mention a few of the amendments to provide honourable members with an indication of the kinds of amendments involved.

Some amendments arise out of administrative changes. Amendments to the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985, the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984, the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, and two of the amendments to the Poisons Act 1966 fall into this category. Other amendments will allow certain documents that are currently required to be in a form prescribed by the regulations to be in a form approved by the relevant administration instead. Amendments of this kind are included in the amendments to the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 and the Business Names Act 1962. Some amendments will vary the composition of committees or other bodies. For example, the amendments to the Poultry Meat Industry Act 1986 will increase the membership of the Poultry Meat Industry Committee from 14 to 15 and will replace the representatives on that committee of the Department of Agriculture and of consumers of poultry meat with independent members with negotiating skills or commercial expertise. Amendments of this kind are to be made to the University of Technology, Sydney, Act 1989 and the Women's College Act 1902.

Examples of other amendments in schedule 1 are the amendments to the Disability Services Act 1993, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 and the Ombudsman Act 1974. I shall say a little about each of those amendments. Section 6 of the Disability Services Act 1993 requires the Minister to ensure that designated services under the Act are provided and funded in conformity with the objects of the Act and the principles and applications of principles set out in schedule 1 to the Act. The application of section 6 to some designated services is postponed to April 1995 under the original legislation. These amendments will postpone that application for a further year. I point out that during the period in which the section will not apply the Act requires the Minister to ensure that the services are provided and funded as closely as possible in conformity with the objects, principles and application of the principles concerned.

The amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 will ensure that the term "place of work" when used in the Act includes any place where a person works; in particular, the amendment makes it clear that places in or under water are covered by the Act. The amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1974 will allow the Ombudsman to attempt to deal with complaints by way of conciliation; will allow the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman to table its reports when Parliament is not sitting; will extend the application of the provision relating to the giving of evidence in other proceedings to cover persons engaged to give expert assistance in investigations or conciliations under the Act; and will make consequential amendments.

Schedule 2 deals with matters of pure statute law revision consisting of minor technical changes to legislation that the Parliamentary Counsel considers are appropriate for inclusion in the bill. Some amendments in schedule 2 will correct typographical errors or errors of syntax, some will omit unnecessary
Page 5154
material and some will insert missing material. During the debate on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill introduced in the autumn session of Parliament it was suggested that it was a waste of time to correct spelling errors in Acts of Parliament. There are several reasons that it is appropriate to make those corrections. The integrity of the statute book is one consideration. Another consideration of increasing importance is the growing use of electronic means to search statutes. For searches to be effective the spelling in the statute book must be accurate.

I have already dealt with Schedule 3. Schedule 4 contains repeals. It will repeal amending Acts that are no longer necessary because the amendments have been incorporated in reprints of the relevant principal Acts. It also will repeal Acts that amend repealed Acts and Acts that are no longer of practical utility. Schedule 5 to the bill contains provisions dealing with the effect of amendments on amending Acts, savings clauses for the repealed Acts and a power to make regulations for transitional matters, if necessary. Two amendments have been made to the bill since its introduction. One is the insertion of proposed section 4A(2) in the amendments to the Infants' Home, Ashfield, Act 1924. That subsection relates to the liability of members of the body corporate that conducts the infants' home. The other amendment removed proposed item (3) of schedule 5, which would have empowered the Governor to revoke by proclamation the repeal of any Act made by schedule 4 to the bill.

The various amendments are explained in detail in explanatory notes set out beneath the amendments to each of the Acts concerned. Rather than repeat the information contained in those notes, I invite honourable members to examine the various amendments and accompanying explanatory material and, if any concern or need for clarification arises, to approach me regarding the matter. If necessary, I will arrange for government officers to provide additional information on the matters raised. If any particular matter of concern cannot be resolved and is likely to delay the passage of the bill, the Government is prepared to consider withdrawing that matter from the bill, as has previously been the case. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.


Bill read a third time.


Debate resumed from 26 October.

Mr FACE: (Charlestown) [4.50]: I lead for the Opposition in supporting the Sports Legislation (Amendment) Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Parramatta Stadium Trust Act 1988, the State Sports Centre Trust Act 1984, and the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Act 1978 to enable the trusts under those Acts to manage and expend trust money on sports facilities approved by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing. The need to extend the powers of these trusts rests in the need to provide for management of the stage one Olympic facilities at Homebush Bay; to provide opportunities for interim or caretaker management of government-owned international sports facilities, should a private operator be unable or unwilling to continue trading; and to enable the three sports facility trusts to compete, where applicable, with private sector tenderers for the management of State-owned sports facilities.

This legislation, in providing for the management of stage one of the Olympic Park facilities at Homebush Bay, is a consequence of the fact that despite all the utterances in the early days leading up to the Olympics, both in Government and in various sections of the community, there was no line-up of groups from the private sector that were willing to participate in the provision of such facilities. The legislation has put to rest the belief that unless there is an obvious financial gain the private sector will not provide such facilities. It would always be questionable whether such a profit would be derived from a community facility such as the stage one Olympic facility. If that were the situation fees would probably be so exorbitant that people would not be able to afford to use the facilities. This is sensible legislation. As I said, people have not lined up to take over the recently completed facilities at Homebush Bay.

I refer now to the caretaker issue. The private sector was encouraged to competitively tender for the management of the stage one Olympic facility. No satisfactory tender was forthcoming for the operation of the Sydney International Aquatic Centre or the Sydney International Athletic Centre. The tender process was discontinued by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, after having reviewed the reports of the tender evaluation committee and the covering report by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing. In the judgment of the department and the Minister none of the tenders were considered acceptable. Under current legislation, none of the trusts which manage the international sports facilities is empowered to manage facilities external to its landholding.

One of the three sports facility trusts has managed with considerable expertise the Sydney Cricket Ground and the Sydney Sports Stadium. Some of its management decisions in recent years will benefit the city and the State. It is an unacceptable state of affairs that such a pool of expertise cannot tender; the Minister does not have the power to award the tender to such a group. In order to provide caretaker management for the facilities, the Minister was limited to using the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing to open both the international athletic complex and the aquatic centre.

I would be the first to admit that it is not the role of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Racing to run such facilities. Though it plays an important role in various programs, the running of the facilities
Page 5155
would be better left to trusts. The Department does not have the flexibility that is necessary to optimise the potential of those facilities. The Minister currently does not have the power to use the sports facility trusts that have skills in facility management that are not normally required by the department. Loss of revenue and the loss of use of sporting facilities could occur if an operation fails. If the tender process fails or if an operator of a State-owned sporting facility fails, it is imperative that the Government has the ability to quickly utilise the expertise of one of the existing trusts in a caretaker role.

If this bill were not passed, and an operator went bad, the facility would be put into receivership and the doors effectively bolted. In such cases members of the public would be locked out of the facility until it was wound up or someone was appointed to oversee the receivership. These facilities provide an ongoing public community service. If an operator fails, the Minister may be unable to wait for the completion of a tender process or the enactment of legislation to allow for the appointment of a caretaker operator. In such cases it is imperative that the Minister has the ability to quickly utilise the expertise of one of his existing trusts in a caretaker role, to ensure that the facility is not tied up in receivership or insolvency actions, if the business of the operator or tenderer fails.

The Opposition has been sceptical for a long time about private operators. A limited level of private expertise is available to manage the number of international sports facilities envisaged for Sydney or anywhere else in Australia. The fact that only one company had the capacity to finally tender for the management of the stage one facilities is, in part, evidence of this deficiency. To ensure the competitiveness necessary in this limited market it is vital that existing State Government trusts be able to compete on a level playing field for the management of facilities beyond their current legislative boundaries.

The proposed amendment to the legislation covering the Sydney Cricket Ground and Sports Ground Trust will enable the trust to compete in the current call for proposals for the main Olympic stadium. The expertise of those involved in the Sydney Cricket Ground and the Sydney Football Stadium should be available for this important sporting facility, which will be the most important facility to be built in this country in the next 50 years. It is important for the facility to be viable and to serve the community without draining the public purse. Although it is not a part of this legislation, I refer in passing to Eastern Creek, which is not covered by a trust. However, in the event of the worst scenario being realised in the future, the Government should consider that option. The bill will provide more flexibility.

Parramatta Stadium was controlled by the then Sydney Cricket Ground Trust until the establishment of another trust, so to some extent this legislation is retrospective in that regard. I would be the first to say that if any one of these public facilities were to fail, whatever Government is in office at the time must have the flexibility to maintain them. I was pleased that Harry Hudson of the Hardie group - a man with tremendous business ability who has contributed significantly to the Parramatta region - was mentioned in debate in the upper House. The Opposition sports the bill.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing) [5.00], in reply: I take this opportunity to thank the Opposition and the honourable member for Charlestown for their support for this legislation. As was indicated, the main purpose of the legislation is to allow the Government to use the expertise of the operators of the Sydney Cricket Ground trust, the State Sports Centre trust and Parramatta Stadium trust whenever necessary - and there certainly is a great deal of expertise there. It is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 22 September.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [5.2]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. The aim of the legislation is to constitute a statutory corporation to hold property on behalf of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, to set out the functions of that corporation, and to vest in the corporation the property held in trust for the church. Currently, the property of the church is held by a company incorporated in New South Wales limited by guarantee. Obviously it makes sense in this day and age to set up a statutory corporation to better look after the financial affairs of the church. The legislation allows for the trust to be established as a corporation, and for the trust to consist of the archbishop, assistant bishops and two vice-presidents, and a secretary and treasurer of the Archdiocesan Council appointed by the archbishop, who may appoint a lay member of the church to the trust in place of an office holder of the Archdiocesan Council.

It is only when one becomes involved in a matter such as this that one thinks to research the background of such a significant group in this country. Apparently the first Greeks came to this country as migrants in 1818, and it was not until 1820 that they held their first church service, when a Russian ship with a Greek Orthodox chaplain on board arrived at our shores. A further 48 years passed before a Greek Orthodox priest arrived in Sydney and was able to minister to the congregation as it was at that time. In Australia today there are well over half a million people - 200,000 in New South Wales - of Greek
Page 5156
origin who will be affected in some way by this legislation. New South Wales has 37 Greek parishes. Theirs is a vibrant community. The church runs a broad range of facilities for its community - primary schools, high schools, pre-schools - and a wide range of welfare facilities. The Greek Orthodox theological seminary in Sydney has trained many of the priests who now minister throughout New South Wales.

Importantly for the community no stamp duty will be paid on the property trust from the company to the corporation. The Minister in his second reading speech said that it is not an uncommon procedure in the Parliament to provide the proper infrastructure for the handling of church property. He mentioned that similar orthodox church property trust bills have passed through this House on other occasions. I seek a guarantee from the Minister in his reply to this debate that all the relevant sectors of the community have indicated a favourable view with regard to the legislation. Recently in relation to a bill that had passed through this Parliament concern was expressed that numerous groups in the community had not been informed of it and that other groups felt that legislation did not look after the interests of all the church groups.

It is necessary that we, as legislators, are convinced that the legislation has the broad support of the community it seeks to serve. The bill will set up an advisory council to advise the trust. This will allow experts to be brought in to ensure that proper advice is available to those people on the trust in areas where they may not have the necessary expertise. The specified functions of the trust include buying, holding and selling church property, acquiring property by gift, or by devise or by bequest and the borrowing of money for the purposes of the church, Archdiocese or the Holy Patriarchate in Constantinople. It will allow the trust to delegate its functions to any trustee or to any other person and to hold property alone or jointly. It will provide for the investment of funds by the trust. The bill empowers the trust to invest, as one fund, money held for different purposes. It will allow for arrangements to be made with the church and other denominations concerning the use of trust property.

The bill will enable the trust to vary its terms if it becomes expedient to carry out those terms. It will enable the trust to be the executive or administrator of an estate in which the church has a beneficial interest. The trust will be able to accept appointment as trustee of property held for the church's benefit and also will be authorised to act on behalf of the church in setting compensation payable in the event that any trust property is compulsorily acquired. The bill also provides some safeguards for people involved in the trust. It exonerates a person who obtains a receipt for money paid to the trust from liability if subsequently the money is lost, misapplied or not applied. It removes the need for a person involved in a property dealing with the trust to inquire whether the trust has the power to deal with that promptly, and protects the person even if the person had notice that the trust had no such power. It entitles trustees and other people to be indemnified out of trust property against liability for certain things done to them in good faith concerning the property. The Opposition has no objection to this bill. I seek clarification from the Minister for the Environment of the matters I have raised. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington - Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Justice) [5.10]: I support the bill, a most important piece of legislation for one of the most significant communities in the Australian multicultural scene. The Greek Australian community - through hundreds of thousands of people living in New South Wales and about 700,000 nationally, through 105 Greek Orthodox parishes around the nation, 37 of them in New South Wales - has made a significant contribution to this nation and to the establishment of New South Wales and Sydney in particular. I pay tribute to the Greek Orthodox community for its long commitment to building a better State and nation. The purpose of the bill is to assist that community with its ongoing activities and in particular the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, under the excellent leadership of the spiritual leader of the Greek Orthodox community, His Holiness Archbishop Stylianos. His Holiness, together with Bishop Seraphim and the many priests of the Greek Orthodox community, continues to give leadership to that community on spiritual and welfare issues. As the responsible Minister and as a very proud Greek Australian - my family having migrated from Castellorizo at the turn of the century, and my grandfather being Greek Orthodox - I am most impressed with the determination of the Government to pass the bill. I appreciate the significance of the bill in a personal sense.

The purpose of the bill is to constitute the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust as a statutory body, to specify the trust's functions and to provide for the vesting of certain property in the trust. The bill will assist in a much smoother, more convenient and more integrated approach to the handling of the Archdiocese's affair. The measure will assist pastoral care by the 100 clergy who operate preschools, primary schools, high schools and community facilities such as St Basil's Homes and the Greek Welfare Centre, which I have visited with my colleague the Hon. J. M. Samios, the parliamentary secretary for multicultural and ethnic affairs. Pastoral care for the aged, the poor and the needy will be enhanced by the efficiency and integrity of this process. I applaud the establishment of this statutory trust.

Currently the church owns property through a company limited by guarantee, but this is not considered to be a satisfactory form of property ownership. The bill establishes a statutory property trust in the name of the church that will have power to do all things necessary with trust property and the proper management of the trust. The bill is very significant to the Greek-Australian community of New South Wales. I am very pleased that it is a coalition Government that, with generally bipartisan support but
Page 5157
tinged with some reservations, has introduced it. In response to honourable members I give an assurance that protection of property owned by the Greek Orthodox church will be enhanced by the establishment of this property trust and will be in no way diminished. As Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs and as a proud Greek Australian I am very pleased to support the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust Bill. I commend the bill to all members of this House.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [5.14], in reply: I thank the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs for his contribution and for his support for the bill. I also thank all other members of the House who have supported it. The Minister has a very proud record of support for the Greek community. His assistance with the bill and his support for the Government in its preparation and presentation to this House is much appreciated, as I am sure his efforts are appreciated by the Greek community. The Greek Orthodox Church dates back to the great day of Pentecost when the Christian church was founded, and has remained faithful ever since to the teachings of Jesus Christ as interpreted by the Holy Scriptures, the church fathers and the seven great ecumenical councils. The Greek Orthodox Church has a glorious history as the voice of the Greek people. Throughout the centuries it has been the custodian of Greek and Hellenic culture.

The church led the movement for Greece to achieve independence from the Turks in the 1820s. Ever since then it has been the great educator and leader of the Greek community, be it in Greece, its historic homeland, or in the United States, Australia and other countries for the thousands of Greeks scattered across the world. It has grown and prospered but has always remained faithful to its charter to be the authentic voice of the Greek community and the Orthodox faith and to always reflect the teachings of the seven great ecumenical councils. I am pleased to have supporting me in this Chamber two Government Ministers of Greek or Hellenic heritage: the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Hon. George Souris; and the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Michael Photios. This side of the House has a strong affinity and association with the Greek community. The Government strongly supports the Greek Orthodox Church in its traditional role as the leader and educator of the Greek community.

Mr Acting-Speaker, as a person with a deep involvement in the Christian faith, you would respect the glorious heritage of the Greek Orthodox Church, with its unbroken apostolic succession dating back to the great day of Pentecost. The Government is particularly pleased to have been able to facilitate this legislation to ensure that the Greek Orthodox Church is placed on a par with all other churches in our community, and that its rights and traditions are preserved and respected. I am advised that the bill has the support of His Holiness Archbishop Stylianos and of the Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand. The Government is pleased to have been able to introduce the bill. The Government will continue to facilitate and support the legislation. In another place the bill will be supported by the Hon. J. M. Samios, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs and to the Minister for the Arts. He is an adviser to the Archbishop and has a long association of involvement with the church. I am delighted that the bill has the unanimous support of all members, and I thank them for that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 27 October.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.20]: I support the bill, as proposed to be amended by the honourable member for Blacktown. The Government appears to be marginally more gentle with its approach to the Water Board corporatisation proposal than it was with the corporatisation of the Hunter Water Corporation. As a Novocastrian I can only say that given the Hunter's trial horse experience, it is about time the Sydney metropolitan area experienced the realities of rationalisation and this approach towards a user-pays system. However, commoning the pain does not necessarily repair the injury. To move a step forward, one needs to ask why the Government's bill again exceeds the requirements of the State Owned Corporations Act. Though hotly denied, privatisation is still the hidden agenda. Of the two major corporatised State institutions, namely the Hunter Water Corporation and the State Bank, the State Bank sale bill is currently on the agenda of this House. The break-up of monopolistic water corporations into saleable elements is, in reality, only a piece of paper away from the Fahey Government's policy direction, if it is maintained.

I now draw some implications for this legislation from the implementation of the Hunter Water Corporation Act. Progressive reduction and final removal of the cross-subsidy arrangements between residential, commercial and industrial users have caused a problem. The flat rate was achieved by stealth. In other words, the unimproved or improved capital value property rate component is no longer in the make-up of the Hunter Water Corporation rate calculation. That presents a problem as there is no differentiation between the rich and the poor. Low-income earners and unemployed people are somewhat concerned about this. The differential in capital value provided an opportunity to balance rates and provide some relief to people who live on properties with a relatively low value and in most cases have modest water needs. On the other hand, people in more affluent areas might not use the same amount of water, because of their location, but certainly can afford to pay a greater share and, in the main, do not object to doing so.

Page 5158

That system has now broken down completely, and the flat rate component system has taken over. It appears from rate notices in the metropolitan area that it will be progressively introduced in the Sydney Water Board area. Therefore, it will impact on those who can least afford to support the new system. I draw the attention of the House to the excellent bills digest prepared by the Parliamentary Library. I refer particularly to the statement of corporate intent and the paragraph on page 9 that deals with performance targets, community service obligations and employee objectives. The boards seem to experience difficulty with corporatisation in relation to community service obligations.

Regardless of the status in law of a State enterprise, whether it is corporatised or wholly operated by a State instrumentality, people have a right to expect some form of assistance if they need it. The State enterprise is provided to give benefit to all. The water boards now provide a community service obligation by way of pensioner concessions. Under these new proposals, that is the only concession that will prevail. In the area in which I live there is substantial unemployment, in the order of 12 per cent. Whilst relief may be available for pensioners, no relief is available for young families in receipt of social security payments. It is embarrassing for many of those families, who would normally pay their bills without question, but are now obliged to make special arrangements with the board's officers to pay their bills on a more frequent basis or to offload peak increases by way of deferral on part payments.

The process should be formulated by this Parliament. Under a corporatisation program those types of matters are divorced from parliamentary interference; it becomes a management or structural operation within the board, and its administration, and many people, slip through the net. I refer the House to a comment that has been made several times, including in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 February 1993, about government business enterprises. The article states that not only does one make a profit from these enterprises, but one should be prepared to give something back. The article stated:

The now familiar rhetoric runs something like this. GBEs should emulate private sector businesses. They should be given a single objective, make a profit, in order to deliver a return to the shareholder, the Government. If GBEs are required to undertake any community service obligations, then those should be separately identified and costed and paid for by government so that managers of GBEs have no excuse for not striving to produce a target rate of return.

I cannot see any provision to ensure that can happen. It must be a deliberate government policy. At this time it appears that has not been addressed, and nothing has been said so far by Government members to indicate it will be addressed. I refer now to the Port Stephens electorate. Honourable members will recall the Port Stephens by-election in 1988 and Premier Greiner's promises of providing sewerage services without levy. This bill allows levies to be imposed. The promise of sewerage without levy in the Hunter region was a deliberate Government lie, made in an endeavour to curry favour with an electorate that subsequently rejected the Government to a greater degree than it had at the general election in 1988.

The levy was introduced in 1989 by the former Hunter Water Board as a fully indexed levy of $35 for 20 years. Later that year the Minister agreed to exempt pensioners but extended the term to 24 years to make up for the shortfall. Within six months of that determination the Greiner Government saw fit to unilaterally expand the scheme so that a further $22 million was added to the $133 million debt that year as a result of the Government's contribution to that scheme. By way of press release, without reference to anyone, the levy was renamed an environmental improvement charge, and was raised from about $37.90 to $69, again fully indexed and to be maintained for the next 20 years.

That type of action has never been taken without some type of prior public comment or involvement. The water board press releases of that date are quite clear. A release dated 21 June 1989 advised of the initial implementation of an environmental charge of $35 - and, incidentally, it was imposed at about the time that the $80 environmental charge was imposed by the Sydney Water Board without any application to pensioners and with a timeframe of three years. Sydney got an $80 charge for three years; the Hunter region got a $35 levy for 24 years - what an imbalance! I should like to ask the Government what it intends with future levies by both corporatised boards. It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why the environment charge was suddenly doubled to provide an additional $22 million commitment over the period of construction of the sewerage augmentation scheme. It is not logical and in fact the cynics in Newcastle would say that the extra money raised by that levy equated to almost exactly the $10 million that had to be paid by way of government dividend in the last financial year.

This project, which is welcomed, is certainly not cheap. There is no other way for a corporatised organisation, as it is currently structured, to raise money other than by charging those sorts of levies. Customers pay the service charge and the levy on a quarterly basis. In addition, they contribute, by way of an increase in one or all of these charges, to the government business enterprise dividend paid to Treasury as a return on their investment. One might be paying $69, or more with indexation, but as it is split between quarterly accounts people are not inclined to complain too loudly; the incremental increase on a quarterly basis is low. That is a levy by stealth, with consumers receiving no advice of it. It is grossly unfair and something I would have hoped would have been clarified in this bill. However, it appears that these anomalies will continue.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation might be able to explain to the House how this bill will introduce an element of competition into a monopoly situation. Placing the corporation at arms-length from the Government is insufficient. I draw
Page 5159
the attention of honourable members to the rationalisation of activities that will occur after the corporatisation of the board, and I again refer to the Hunter experience. There are some benefits and there are some negatives. There is no doubt that the Government benefits from a substantial dividend, even though it is almost double-dipping as customers are paying for a service that they have already paid for. [Extension of time agreed to.]

On the downside, there will be job losses as a result of restructuring and multiskilling. For a period the absence of turncocks in the system caused difficulties. People in these sorts of jobs build up qualities and job knowledge over many years, and that cannot be handed over to subcontractors without a lot of experimentation and wrong decisions being made. I wish to refer to the removal of functions by way of self-regulation, for example plumbing inspectors. I instance a case mentioned by my colleague the honourable member for Charlestown when the Hunter water board bill was being debated: the dezincification of certain brass fittings because of the different chemical composition of the water in the Hunter scheme. It took the board a long time to recognise its responsibilities and the major health problems that was causing in certain areas.

I wish also to refer to the subcontracting of services generally to maintain the asset base of the Water Board. That will not necessarily guarantee a cheaper, more efficient operation in the long term. We need people who understand the system and who have a background in servicing it. To bring in subcontractors on the basis of the lowest tender, and change them every few years, might result, in many cases, in our reinventing the wheel. I see nothing practical in that, and there would be the possibility of increased damage. How will the asset replacement program be funded? The assets of the board will require replacement from time to time. What provision has been made for that? How will it be implemented? I do not believe the bill is clear on that issue. The Parliament deserves an explanation.

The bill does not provide for a workers representative to be appointed to the board, and in Committee the Opposition will argue strongly for such a representative. It is only reasonable for workers in a large organisation to be represented on the board; that representative can protect his or her colleagues and contribute on-the-job knowledge that would not normally be available to members of the board who come from remote industries or other professions. I believe that the only form of public reporting will be the annual report. No opportunity is given to honourable members to question the budget through the estimates committee process. That continues to be a problem. The honourable member for Blacktown commented on that matter when speaking in this debate. The honourable member for Charlestown received an answer to a question in the following terms:

Hunter Water is now a state-owned corporation fully accountable and responsible for determination of operational matters such as this. All matters concerning its operations should therefore be referred to the corporation.

In today's questions and answers paper I received an answer in similar terms to a question I asked about the Water Board. That is not good enough. Members of this House should be able to freely inquire into the good management and operation of corporations such as this without being directed to bureaucrats and public servants, with no check on the accuracy of replies and no guarantee that a reply will be forthcoming.

I would like now to refer to licensing by the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation. One of the aspects that concerns me is flood control, as opposed to mitigation work. What about stormwater removal? At the moment, as I see it, there is a conflict with the Local Government Act and the total catchment management trusts throughout the State. There has always been a circular system when there are flood problems. If the Water Board cannot solve a problem it sends it to the local council. If the local council cannot do anything with it, it sends it to the total catchment management trust. Various definitions of "flood" in Acts are interesting, such as rivers flowing backwards, and inundation. Whichever way we look at it, consumers will be missing out. As I understand it, there is no attempt in the bill to correct that problem. Will the community be protected or will the corporation just be able to pass off problems such as this to other authorities? This is a major problem, one that will recur and one that must be addressed.

The environmental protection aspect has been mentioned by a number of Opposition speakers. I reiterate that we must have an adequate watchdog in the corporation to maintain the rigid standards that are required for environmental protection. Opposition members will endeavour to ensure that the new corporatisation legislation does not begin until such time as the Government has passed the Environment Protection Authority stage two legislation, which is more commonly known as the protection of the environment operations bill. We look forward to that bill being presented in this House and being debated. Only then will we be happy to proceed with final corporatisation. I wish to raise one other matter that I believe is relevant to privatisation. I will deviate slightly from the bill and refer to the English experience. I refer particularly to a newspaper known as the International Express for the week ending 13-19 July 1994. That newspaper, which refers to the National Consumer Council of Great Britain, states:

The council's chairman Lady Judith Wilcox described the water industry as "the ultimate monopoly".

It is the commodity every family must buy - but nobody is allowed to choose their supplier.

Lady Wilcox warned: "Tough and effective regulation is essential if consumers are to get good quality service at a reasonable price." The council says the rules put in place when the leading water and sewerage companies - the Big Ten - were privatised five years ago have failed to ensure families get a fair deal.

Its report reveals that

* Average water bills in England and Wales have increased by two-thirds since privatisation.

Page 5160

* The industry's operating profits rose a fifth each year in the first three years after privatisation. Shareholders' dividends increased by almost two-thirds a year over the same period.

* Families buying water from the Big Ten have paid £2.9 billion in increased charges since 1989.

* The share value of the industry has soared from £5.2 billion to around £13 billion over the same period.

* The Big Ten have borrowed "no significant amount" for investment - although one of the main reasons for privatisation was to allow them to raise funds on the financial markets.

That is the English experience of privatisation and it is only one step away from what we are talking about. [Time expired.]

Mr BOWMAN (Swansea) [5.40]: At the outset I make it clear that as well as the Opposition - it is not a matter of a party line - I support corporatisation of the Water Board. Nevertheless, that does not clarify all the issues involved in the transition. It should be noted that there is more than one pattern of corporatisation. Given the structure that is to be introduced, there is more than one management style. Having had experience of the process in the Hunter, honourable members from the Hunter region are aware that a good deal of pain can accompany even beneficial change; pain for individuals whose jobs disappear and difficulties of adjustment for customers who, although they will ultimately feel that the change has been worth while, will have to make changes to their water consumption, often at fairly short notice and under penalty of financial pressure, which they find difficult.

The process will occur in Sydney and it will increase the number of employees who no longer work for the Water Board, which will become the Water Corporation. Customers will find that the habits of a lifetime will have to change fairly abruptly, otherwise they will be paying a good deal more for water, which they have used rather too freely. A good result does not mean that in the short term maximum care need not be exercised to ensure that the process of change is managed effectively. Many people have a suspicion or a fear, especially those who do more than average reading and who have heard of some of the things that have happened in Great Britain, a fear that the form of corporatisation proposed in the legislation has been designed to facilitate the ultimate privatisation of the distribution of water services in New South Wales.

Any current plan for privatisation has been denied, but many people in my electorate were fearful of it, and I do not mean only people who might have been employees of the Hunter Water Board, as it originally was, now the Hunter Water Corporation. Many individuals feared that they might pay a great deal more for what was an essential. I am happy to report that most of those fears have been dispelled because of the manner in which the transition was managed, rather than the black and white constraints of the legislation, thus minimising the short-term disadvantages or difficulties of changing one's lifestyle. That does not automatically happen. It is important for people to accept that corporatisation is in their interests, not simply in the interests of the Government.

People are well aware that State Governments, not only in Australia but elsewhere, are looking to dividends from Government enterprises to fund essential activities. That provokes a fear in a number of people that essentials, and that is the case with water, produce a monopoly and provide any government that is so minded with a marvellous opportunity to tax people unmercifully. On many occasions people are too fearful of tax, but the fears are genuine - and one can accept that they are genuine - when people are experiencing financial hardship brought about by unemployment or other circumstances. It is vital that people are confident that the form of corporatisation to be applied throughout the large area dealt with in the legislation will not be such as to enable a heavy taxing regime because of the monopoly.

It ought to be remembered - this is a source of some of the suspicion or fear - that when the environmental levy was introduced to the Sydney metropolitan area to deal with environmental problems exercising the public mind at the time, the levy was not applied pro rata with the water rates. That would have been the equitable way to do it, but no, the levy was set as a lump sum applicable to each person irrespective of where they lived, whether they lived right next to a beach and might achieve a considerable capital gain on their property, or whether they lived a kilometre drive from the beach. It was not equitable. I know that the environmental levy is to be absorbed, is being absorbed or will be absorbed into the new pricing system, which is a step in the right direction. But a residual fear remains that unless people are watchful - and I am expected to be watchful on their behalf - the Government, because people must have water, will give them less water at a much higher cost to avoid the imposition of other taxes that might be unpopular and harder to sustain because they are not indirect or hidden taxes on something that people have to have.

In those circumstances it is important that there be a most transparent operation of the Sydney Water Corporation. I cannot understand why open board meetings cannot take place. They occur in the Hunter and they have gone a long way to increasing the confidence of people in the new system. Perhaps the Government is ready to relent, but initially the Premier was of the view that it was unthinkable to have any open board meetings because commercial secrets would be disclosed and all sorts of managerial difficulties would occur. That has proved not to be so in the Hunter. Transparency and the creation of public confidence would be further assisted if an employee of the corporation were on the board. There is absolutely no reason why that cannot be so. It has not prevented Pacific Power from achieving significant productivity gains, of which the Government has boasted. The presence of an employee representative on the board would do a great deal to reassure employees, who might otherwise be fearful and even resentful of change being imposed on them.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! It being 5.50 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders debate is interrupted.

Page 5161


Mr PETCH (Gladesville) [5.50]: I wish to draw to the attention of the House one of the most scurrilous attacks I have ever experienced as a member of Parliament. The attack attempted to use monetary intimidation to manipulate the determination of a member of Parliament in a matter. The issue stems from a decision made three or four weeks ago by the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Ports to introduce a four-knot speed limit on the upper reaches of the Lane Cove River, where speedboats and skiers have over a period of time caused a great deal of environmental damage and made the area particularly dangerous for other users of the river. I understand that the decision was not an easy one for the Deputy Premier. It involved much contemplation, and many submissions were received from Ryde City Council, Hunters Hill Council, various environmental groups and other users of the river.

Because the committee that had been established to evaluate the issue could not reach consensus after approximately 18 months, the Minister had to make a decision. On behalf of the people of the Gladesville electorate, the users of the river, residents who live in the area and local councils I wish to say that the Minister's determination is appreciated. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation recently recognised the importance of some of the environmental areas of the Lane Cove River at issue and has just made available a grant of $10,000 for a research and management plan of Sugarloaf Point, a fundamental part of the Lane Cove River. The council appreciates the Minister's generosity and the Government's sensitivity in attempting to deal with some of Sydney's environmental issues. A recent press release issued by the Lane Cover River Water Ski Club stated:

. . . the ski club was outraged that Mr Petch had consistently refused to meet with ski club representatives . . .

The reality is that not a single person from that club has ever attempted to contact me to make an appointment to discuss waterskiers' problems. I could have assured the club that it would have found a sympathetic ear and that I would have done everything in my power to assist waterskiers to relocate. The most offensive letter of all came from Mr Richard E. Pym, Managing Director of Pathfinder Boatland Proprietary Limited, and stated:

. . . We have the wit inclination and money to mount a strong, united and vociferous campaign against you personally at the next election.

What Mr Pym is saying is that his company is not going to attempt to bribe me but is going to threaten me, using money, to change my mind. It is my opinion that it would be appropriate to send that letter and the entire file to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in order that the matter might be investigated to determine the types of intimidation being expressed and whether there has been a breach of proper conduct. The intimidation issue has been found abhorrent by local Australian Democrats and by the local Australian Labor Party. At the most recent meeting of the Ryde City Council, Councillor Andy Johnston, a Labor Party councillor, moved a motion expressing appreciation for the decision made by the Minister and for my involvement in the matter. All the political parties, environmental groups, the council and everyone else is outraged that an organisation would try to intimidate a member of Parliament - it could be any member of this House.

The organisation used money in its attempt to have a decision reversed. To me that is abhorrent. This matter is worthy of a total investigation. I note that Mr Simon Lane, who issued the press release on behalf of the Lane Cove River Water Ski Club, omitted to say that for many years he was an employee of the Maritime Services Board Waterways Authority. Is it any wonder that the committee established to evaluate the issue took 18 months, without success? Perhaps Mr Lane might be asked to explain his involvement in the determination and say whether there has been corruption in the Maritime Services Board in such determinations. I find this matter most distressing, as do my constituents.


Ms MOORE (Bligh) [5.55]: I should like to speak about an important matter in my electorate: the way the community deals with discarded needles and syringes. In August I convened a forum of local health workers, residents, local government representatives and needle exchange program workers to discuss that problem. I arranged the forum after receiving a worrying number of letters and personal representations from constituents and visitors to Bligh who had received injuries from discarded needles and syringes. Despite the provision of disposafit bins, needlestick injuries have occurred in Darlinghurst, Surry Hills and Rushcutters Bay parks and streets.

Parents have told me that they have real fears about taking their young children to local parks. At the forum a resident described how the schoolyard of Crown Street school in Surry Hills is littered each day with discarded needles. At one of my community meetings in Woolloomooloo a resident told me that she had found her small children playing with a discarded needle that they had found on the street just outside her front doorstep. Forum participants discussed several ways of reducing the problem of discarded needles and syringes, and I ask the Minister for Health to respond to these suggestions. I have written to the Minister and I seek an urgent response on these problems. The forum made the following suggestions. Participants agreed on the necessity for needle disposal bins and agreed that the present disposafit bins are too cumbersome and take too long to have installed where they are needed.

According to participants, the bins are provided for a highly mobile population of drug users, who do not like to use them because of the stigma attached to
Page 5162
the public disposal of syringes. The suggested solution to the problem is to have more needle disposal bins, to give drug users every possible opportunity to dispose safely. The bins need to be of a mobile design that could be installed by the needle exchange teams, who have knowledge of the most recent areas frequented by drug users. It is my understanding that the present disposafit bins are provided by local councils. They are expensive and councils do not receive any funding to cover their cost. Needle disposal bins are an important public health tool in the inner city. I ask the Minister for Health to accept some of the responsibility for the design of better bins and the cost of supplying them.

Residents have asked for public education campaigns for adults and children on how to deal with discarded needles and syringes. They requested that information be provided on three levels. First, for adults on how to dispose safely of needles if, for example, a needle is found in a backyard or on a doorstep - which, according to residents, is a common occurrence in some areas - and on preventive measures that can be taken, for example, appropriate vaccination against hepatitis. Second, for children, to inform them of the dangers of picking up or playing with discarded needles and syringes, and basic health measures such as always wearing shoes outside. Third, for drug users on the importance of safe disposal.

Forum participants suggested that the Department of Health might fund and administer such an education program and that syringe manufacturers could be required to contribute to the cost of the campaign. I ask the Minister for Health to take action on the request for a public education campaign on this serious health issue. Another matter discussed at the forum was the new retractable disposable needle. I understand that a one-use syringe is presently being developed and that this could overcome the problem of people sustaining needlestick injuries, because the needle point retracts after one use. It is my understanding that the cost of one-use syringes could be prohibitive. However, several needle exchange program workers raised the possibility of dispensing the retractable syringes selectively to people who they think might dispose unsafely.

I would like the Minister to advise me of the status of the development of the one-use syringe. The inner city community calls upon the Government to respond to the growing problem of discarded needles and syringes. It is one of the tough issues with which people who live in inner city areas have to deal. It is a health issue and a health risk. We are dealing with young mothers taking children to local parks and schools; we are dealing with pre-school children as well as primary and secondary school children. The community needs protection. It needs a public education program and an active Government response. I ask the Minister to urgently investigate the solutions I have proposed and to take appropriate action as soon as possible.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [6.00]: I refer this evening to the need for a multipurpose assembly hall at the Hay War Memorial High School. This magnificent building is the only high school in New South Wales that depicts and identifies a war memorial to the First World War. The war memorial recognises the soldiers and others of that era who served their country. It is important that a multipurpose assembly hall be provided in this area. The people of Hay have been waiting for this hall for many years. The whole of the Hay shire became part of my electorate in 1991. The high school has no usable undercover area. These areas are important not only for holding school assemblies but for sport, art and many other things. A multipurpose hall would be beneficial for the community.

The people of Deniliquin waited 22 years for a multipurpose hall, which was built prior to the last election at a cost of $1.1 million. A multipurpose hall was built in Finley in about 1986 at a cost of approximately $660,000. That hall, which has seating for at least 1,000 people, is so popular that the cleaners have difficulty finding a time when they can clean it. Some genuine concerns have been raised in the local press. I am disappointed that the principal of the high school has provided information that is not correct in every respect. I understand there is no priority to suggest the hall could be built within this budget year, and that if there is no public input, working on a joint venture system, the multipurpose hall will not be built. I wish to contradict those statements.

The Public Works Department could build a multipurpose hall, but that may take many years. The Public Works Department is using its limited funds to build new schools and libraries. An assembly hall is a matter of low priority. It is an important part of a school but is not as important as building a new school for educational needs. I am pleased that the Hay Council and the community are working towards securing a hall and providing financial assistance. It has been suggested in the town that about $300,000 would have to be raised by the local community to secure the necessary money from the Public Works Department to build the hall. If the council and the community are prepared to work together and raise money, without identifying the amount that needs to be raised, it would enhance the possibility of a multipurpose hall being provided. I will do everything I can to help the Department of School Education and the people of Hay to secure this hall. It may take two or three years but I am sure that with the help of the Minister and the department anything can be achieved. [Time expired.]


Mr J. H. MURRAY (Drummoyne) [6.05]: I draw the attention of the House to the need for increased police surveillance in the Drummoyne electorate, which is currently in the grip of a crime
Page 5163
wave. The number of car thefts in the area is at an all-time high. Police statistics show increases in car thefts of up to 77 per cent. Today I visited Wrights Road to liaise with constituents. I spoke to four people. Each of those people told me a story about theft, car damage, and the crime wave that is afflicting the area. Two weeks ago Mr and Mrs Anthony Farley, who live in Wrights Road in the area of Drummoyne House, found that their car would not start because someone had removed the petrol pump. They then approached others in the complex and almost every person they spoke to told a similar story: either their cars or parts of the cars had been stolen. Crime statistics will back up the empirical studies that can be carried out in the electorate. Total crime - assault and burglary - are on the increase in the Drummoyne electorate. Car theft, vandalism and street crime are also on the increase and are above the State average. These statistics show that between 1991 and 1993, under this Government, total crime rates have risen by 14 per cent.

Drummoyne is an affluent suburb. People who live in Drummoyne are proud to be called residents of that area. Yet assaults have increased by 67 per cent, burglary by 15 per cent and vandalism by 9.9 per cent. Last year motor vehicle thefts began to increase and this year they have increased by an additional 22 per cent. In the Drummoyne electorate car thefts are 77 per cent higher than the State average, and figures for Concord are not much better. Clearly, better policing policies are needed to tackle the crime rate in Drummoyne. Elderly women and families are the victims of gangs of criminals. Drummoyne, Five Dock and Concord are under siege. Police last week reported an average of 10 motor vehicle thefts per week, and over the last couple of weeks an average of 17 motor vehicles a week have been stolen from homes and streets in Drummoyne. If that is not a crime wave, I would like to know what is. The majority of these thefts have taken place in car parks underneath flats, with residents in the eastern section of Drummoyne living in fear that their vehicles and other goods will be stolen. Although these crime statistics and reports from local residents show that crime in Drummoyne is on the increase, the Government's response to this problem is to reduce the numbers of police at Drummoyne police station.

I recently called on the Premier to do something about the situation. In one of the most densely populated areas of Sydney the police station only runs two shifts. Although the police station has a complement of 12 police officers, they do not work 24 hours a day; there are only eight police at the station. There is no police car at that police station, and at night police have to go to Five Dock to obtain a car so they can respond to problems. There can be no excuse that transfers and promotions have depleted police numbers as it is obvious that replacements should have been in place prior to any transfer. This Government's bungling has been the cause of cars and other property in the Drummoyne electorate not being properly looked after. I was interested in what the Minister said in the House today about what police were doing. It was the greatest mumbo jumbo. There is a crime wave and the Government is doing nothing about it. Local residents are up in arms. Correspondence from a member of the local neighbourhood watch committee confirms what I am saying. [Time expired.]


Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [6.10]: Today I speak about two serious problems in our society. The first is the problem of parents who feel they no longer have responsibility for their children. Some embattled parents today feel that their children have more rights to leave home than parents have rights to insist that they stay. The second problem is the tragedy of the seemingly growing number of parents who genuinely do not care about what their children do. This issue is even more important because, as the Premier said yesterday, next week is Family Week.

Families help to shape the community. They teach us about sharing, co-operation and how to interact with other people. That is why I am concerned about what is happening to families. One of the greatest adversities parents of our time have had to cope with has been the Federal Government's youth homeless allowance. Many parents in Maitland who complained to me about this scheme pointed out that when it was operated exclusively under the Federal Government's social security department their children left home for no other reason than they were required to be home by 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. on a Saturday. The Federal Government listened to a sob story from the children who said that they were abused. They were given enough money so that they did not have to return home. Parents were not given any information about the whereabouts of their children.

I am a parent and I care about my children. They are the most precious gifts I have been given in this life. Everything I do for them reflects my love for them. I need to know that they are safe and well and that they are placed in as little danger as possible. Parents who have spoken to me in Maitland are people like me. Their lives are devoted to their children. All they have ever asked for is safety for their children, and all they insist on is precautions to ensure that these learning, young adults will, in some small way, be kept safe and will return home at a safe and reasonable hour.

Imagine how parents felt when their fear that something might happen was realised, and access to their children was denied them - not by some madman who ran them down in a car or by someone who snatched them from the street, but by a Federal government that had decided, without reference to them, that they were no longer fit to look after their own children. Something had to be done, and I was pleased when I heard that the Minister for Community Services stepped in on this issue. As a result of the concern of the New South Wales Government the meeting of social welfare Ministers in 1993 resolved to establish a protocol between the Commonwealth and the States.


Page 5164
The youth homeless allowance was widely perceived as an allowance that was breaking up families. That was the concern of the Fahey Government. The protocol for services to homeless young persons has been designed to provide an integrated and co-ordinated response to children who require help. New South Wales has led the way as a result of the new protocol. Children who may be subject to child abuse are now protected when they come to the attention of the authorities. This Government is not prepared to support the notion that it is satisfactory for children 15 years or younger to wander about the streets homeless. The consistent view of this Government has been that the payment of the youth homeless allowance is only for young people who genuinely have not got a home. The youth homeless allowance was another effort by the Federal Government to create a generation of young people who leave their homes and rely on a Labor government to support them.

The second tragedy in our society is the growing number of irresponsible parents who do not care about their children. This problem is a societal one. There is nothing any government can do to make parents care about their children. One does not need to take out a licence to become a parent. It is not a condition that anyone can regulate. Every adult has the right to become a parent. It is what they do or do not do once they have become a parent that concerns me today. There is a growing trend among some parents not to care about what their children do. In the past we used to see a street culture of kids aged between 16 and 18 years. These days children aged around nine and 10 years wander the streets at any time of night. There would be few of us who have not said at one time or another, "What are kids that age doing out at this time of night!"

Some of them may be the very children who are living off the Federal Government's youth allowance. Others may simply be children who have not been given guidance or had values imparted to them and, therefore, are allowed to roam the street as they please. What responsible parent would allow their children aged nine and 10 years to be out on the street at that time of night? People in Maitland are concerned that children of such a tender age are committing horrendous crimes. Children are literally being put away for murder and rape! The waifs wandering the streets at night may or may not have concerned and loving parents who worry about them. What has happened that has caused parents to neglect the actions of their children? Governments cannot make people discipline their children, but pressure generated by society can. These days it cannot be denied that children's attitudes have been influenced by the steady stream of violence that is shown on television and movie screens. This Government has made it mandatory for parents to be involved in the new program of community youth conferencing, which will allow the victims of juvenile crime to face the children who have injured or attacked them. [Time expired.]

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [6.15]: I raise a matter of grave concern to the residents of Abbotsbury and Bossley Park in my electorate. The Horsley Park, Prospect and Eastern Creek corridor of land, substantially owned by the Department of Planning, runs for approximately 17 kilometres from Cecil Hills in the south to Quakers Hill in the north. In 1991 the Department of Planning produced a report identifying what it alleged were core corridor lands and land which it believed was surplus to corridor requirements. With dollar signs in its eyes and evil intent in its heart the department drew a line on a map and surgically removed 107 hectares of land from Horsley Park corridor in my electorate. This department, on the specific instruction of the Minister for Planning, then proceeded to prepare this large tract of local space for housing development.

Western Sydney does not have adequate open space, and for this Liberal Party Government in its last months of office to proceed with this development is not just environmental theft, it is also an act of gross vandalism. Premier Fahey and Minister Webster, who both live in the Southern Highlands, would not dare to do to their local communities what they propose to do to mine. I ask the Premier and the Minister, as a final act of decency before being voted out of office, to instruct the Department of Planning not to proceed any further with this development. The department, in its money hungry desire for quick cash to spend on north shore electorates, engaged consultants Edaw Pty Limited for the purposes of assessing landscape strategies and guidelines for corridor land. The consultants reported in February 1992, "It is imperative that the corridor is preserved in its entirety . . . or the overall aims for the corridor will be fundamentally compromised".

Residents of my electorate who live in Abbotsbury and Bossley Park were told when they purchased the land upon which they now live that the land now claimed in Abbotsbury North as surplus to core corridor needs would never be built on. They purchased the land believing that there would be no housing development or any development at all in the vicinity of the estate in which they live. This Government should honour the basis upon which these thousands of residents purchased their properties and cancel the proposed development. I am committed to doing whatever I can to ensure that this development does not proceed and that the land is set aside permanently as open space for the residents of my electorate in particular and the people of western Sydney generally.

In the past 15 years the Fairfield local government area has taken a huge share of the housing development of Sydney. In that time, in Fairfield alone seven new suburbs have been created. In Cecil Park, just a few hundred metres south of this proposed development, Landcom is subdividing into 1,605 home sites a large tract of land which was supposed to be left as open space as part of Sydney's
Page 5165
urban green belt. If that were not enough, the three councils that have borne the largest burden of medium-density and dual occupancy development in Sydney in the past few years are Fairfield, Liverpool and Campbelltown. My electorate, the Fairfield local government area and south-west Sydney has done its bit for the provision of housing stock for home buyers in Sydney.

There comes a time when a line must be drawn in the sand and for us to say, "No more development". The time has come in my electorate to draw a line and say to the Department of Planning and this Government that the Abbotsbury North development should not proceed. I am astounded at how inefficient the development is. We have a proposal for 107 hectares, between 1,300 and 1,600 home sites, in relation to which the Government does not propose to conduct an environmental impact study. It believes that on the other side of this development a corridor of land should be preserved in its entirety, but it does not believe that this parcel of land has any environmental significance.

As is typical of large housing developments in western Sydney: road funding is inadequate, no new school will be provided, improved hospital services will not be made available, and more police will not be appointed to Wetherill Park police station. This is typical of the Government: it has seen a large tract of land and wants to make a large amount of money on it to spend elsewhere. If those funds were allocated to infrastructure, public works, services, teachers, hospital beds and police, the Department of Planning would do its mathematics and submit to Minister Webster that no money is to be had. They will subdivide the land, do a glitzy brochure, and flog the properties off. The money will be spent in rural New South Wales and in north shore electorates. I say to the people of Smithfield, Abbotsbury and Bossley Park that I will not let the Government do that to the Smithfield electorate. I will not let the Government take valuable open space and spend the proceeds elsewhere. [Time expired.]


Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [6.20]: Over the past 10 days to a fortnight devastating bushfires raged in the Coffs Harbour and Clarence electorates. I would like to express great thanks for the great job done by local volunteers and those from the State Tactical Assistance Response Group who came from Sydney. I want to publicly state the names of the members of those STARG units and the bush fire brigades they are members of. They came from Dubbo, Wellington, Bland, Forbes, Narromine, Mudgee, Warringah-Pittwater, Penrith, Blacktown, Hornsby, Blue Mountains, Baulkham Hills, Wyong, Gosford, Kiama-Shell Harbour, Warrimoo and Marsden Park. They also came from Campbelltown, Liverpool-Camden, Sutherland and Wollongong. These volunteers were given about two hours notice by STARG headquarters to be ready. They were flown up to Coffs Harbour. Some drove fire vehicles up there and then did 72-hour shifts in terrain where neither black nor white had ever set foot.

Given the nature of the country, the ferocity of the fires, and the fact that 13,000 hectares were burnt out, the job done by these volunteers was fantastic. They fought fires on a 90-kilometre front - the fire line was 90 kilometres long! On Thursday night I had occasion to drop into the State Emergency Service headquarters, where Fred Paskin and his team were delivering meals and coordinating accommodation at the motels, in conjunction with the local Department of Community Services disaster welfare plan group. I saw those fellows after they had spent 20 hours on the line. They were absolutely exhausted. They wanted no thanks or recognition, yet they were prepared to put their lives on the line in remote rural areas to protect property and lives from raging bush fires.

I make special mention of Steve Rayson, a forestry employee who was in charge, Warwick Roach, the Coffs Harbour fire controller second in charge, Fred Paskin, Terry Hedges from Bellingen; and Col Fitzgerald, fire control officer from Bellingen, who were the ones who took control of the fire, directed all the troops into the area and made sure the fire was brought under control. On Thursday night they were telling me there were winds up to 90 kilometres an hour, with hot westerlies and north-easters. The winds were driving the fire in all directions. There were 170 people on a 53-kilometre line. They fought that break out right through until daybreak, when they had it under control. Unfortunately, the wind then switched again, jumped the Nymboida River and headed west. These poor devils then had to pack up and go to the other side of the fire.

Motels in Coffs Harbour, at a moment's notice, brought in staff to change beds and remake rooms so that new fire crews could be accommodated. The Country Womens Association, the State Emergency Service and the Salvation Army did a fantastic job. The ladies who made sandwiches and prepared drinks and meals provided comfort for hundreds of volunteers. During that week more than 530 volunteers from the brigades mentioned came and assisted us. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines, my neighbour, the Hon. Ian Causley, asks that I put on record the great job done by fire fighters in the Pillar Valley to protect lives and property. I wish to express the grateful recognition by the people of the Coffs Harbour electorate of the great job those people did.


Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [6.25]: I raise a matter of great concern to my constituents who are tenants of two high-rise Department of Housing towers in Riverwood, the Lincoln and Jefferson buildings. Approximately 500 residents in 192 units in those buildings suffer from an appalling lack of security. They have been subjected to continuous raids by gangs of car thieves and vandals who are making their lives miserable. On Saturday
Page 5166
22 October 16 residents had their cars broken into, vandalised and stolen. That incident was just one in a series of raids on residents' cars.

One constituent, a single mother on a disability support pension, has had her car broken into and vandalised four times in one week and seven times in the last couple of months. There is an appalling lack of proper security arrangements on the housing estate and in the two high-rise towers. What would that single mum have said this afternoon if she had heard the Minister for Police during question time when he outlined his belief about crime statistics and car theft in particular? She would not have been too impressed with what the Minister said. The tenants of those two high-rise blocks have had enough of hopeless security arrangements.

I call on the Minister to release some money to improve the situation for them. The two towers are patrolled eight hours a day. The gangs wait for the security guards to clock off, usually at midnight, though on Saturday at 2 o'clock in the morning. Then they go and do their dirty work and make hay while the guards are away. The total cost of security arrangements is about $30,000 a year. To increase security patrols for an extra four hours, which would provide security for the high-rise towers throughout all hours of darkness, would cost an extra $15,000 a year. That is a miserable sum, but that expenditure would make the lives of the tenants much better. The Department of Housing would save many times that amount in maintenance. The gangs get into the ground floor and vandalise the lifts. On 22 October, the infamous night when 16 cars were vandalised, one tenant reported to me that both lifts in the Lincoln building were vandalised and rendered inoperative, one of them because it was flooded with urine and alcohol. If the department went to the trouble of spending an extra $15,000, all-night security could be obtained for the high-rise towers.

If the Minister considers that is not a viable option, he should look at other options, such as boom gate security or coded security in the parking area. The Minister could have the department look at a number of viable options that will not cost a lot of money but will prevent the tenants in those two high-rise towers having their cars stolen and damaged, and will save the department tens of thousands of dollars that it would otherwise spend on maintaining lifts and units. I ask the Minister to consider the options and obtain some measure of protection for the tenants in the two high-rise towers.


Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [6.30]: I raise an issue that is fundamental to the survival of the beef industry of New South Wales and more specifically to the protection of our breeding herds. I refer to the proposition to graze beef cattle in our national parks, particularly in the Kosciusko National Park. In this regard I received representations through the Gundagai Rural Lands Protection Board and subsequently arranged a meeting with the Minister for the Environment on Tuesday 8 November. At that meeting a small delegation comprising rural lands protection board members and a couple of gentlemen who have been raising and breeding cattle in the Kosciusko area for 30 and 40 years respectively put their concerns and a number of requests to the Minister, who said he would discuss the matters in Cabinet. Local residents have informed me that Kosciusko National Park has about 150,000 hectares of available grazing land that could carry 50,000 head of cattle. I am referring to breeding stock that is essential to sustain the economic viability of our beef industry. New South Wales beef cattle numbers have fallen 21 per cent over the last 12 months - yearling cattle being worst affected - with a further reduction of 19 per cent expected by Christmas if current conditions continue. Young breeding stock will be most affected by lack of grazing land.

In 1982-83 drought cattle numbers dropped by approximately one million to 5.4 million while sheep numbers remained static at 45 million. However, wheat prices in that year remained low due to a regulated market and because agistment was available. The situation is vastly different today. The present problem cannot be overemphasised. In 1983 cattle were allowed to graze in the Kosciusko National Park. Because we are leading up to the December period when breeding cows will commence calving from mid-December to late March, grazing opportunities are imperative. After December those cows will be too heavy in calf to be moved. In the 12-month period from October 1993 to October 1994 the reduction in breeding cattle approached 400,000 head. From October to early December this year it is estimated there will be 300,000 fewer breeding cattle available in this State. That demonstrates the magnitude of my concern and the way the beef cattle industry will be affected. It represents a decrease of 14 per cent in breeding stock in two months.

Female cattle kill figures in New South Wales abattoirs up until September account for 47 per cent of the total kill. Since September the figure has been 70 per cent of the total kill. Obviously more female cattle are being killed in abattoirs. This desperate situation is highlighted by the experience of one of my constituents, Mr Jack Lindley. In only a matter of months he has gone from storing 30,000 bales of hay to storing less than 3,000 bales. From 1987 until 1993 he never had to put his stock on the road to preserve his herd. Since May his cattle have been on the road. Only last Sunday while driving from Tumut to Gundagai I passed 1,100 head of mixed cows and calves in three different herds. I appeal to the Minister for the Environment and the Premier to seriously consider the concerns of my constituents and of the beef cattle breeders throughout New South Wales for the protection of breeding herds. I ask that national parks be made available for grazing. [Time expired.]

Page 5167

Mr ANDERSON (Liverpool) [6.35]: I raise an important issue on behalf of one of my constituents, Mr Keith Waite, a man in his late fifties, who has been the victim of a massive injustice that has gone on for far too long. On 23 December 1988 police arrived at his home and arrested him on allegations of sexual assault against a 13-year-old girl. After being charged he was kept in custody until he was ultimately released on bail. At that time, neither the girl's father, her friend nor Waite's two sons, who were present during the entirety of the short holiday, were questioned by the arresting police. On 1 May 1989 he was again arrested on the basis of further allegations made by the same teenage girl. Police refused to interview Waite's employer or his 12 work mates, who could give evidence that he was at work at Kirrawee at the time he was alleged to be in the Campbelltown-Camden area. He was kept in custody for some eight days.

On 22 July 1989 police raided his home. Fortunately he was in country New South Wales at the time. On 25 July 1989 after he had faced some 12 charges at a committal hearing - nine of which were discharged; he was committed for trial on three charges - he was questioned by different police who verified his alibi in relation to the fresh allegations. The police did not charge him. On 28 November 1989 he was again questioned by police over further allegations by the girl. On 29 November police were able to confirm that he could prove he was hundreds of kilometres away at the time he was alleged to have committed the offences on the girl. Nevertheless, on 2 February 1990 he lost his job.

On 19 November 1991 Waite was again questioned by police but was able to prove again that he was not in Sydney at the time alleged. Police stated they would take action against the girl. On 29 May 1992 the girl was charged with public mischief for making false allegations. In September 1992 the girl made further allegations but, fortunately, they were rejected by police. On 21 May 1993 the girl appeared before the Children's Court and was given a bond in regard to the offence of public mischief. On 11 June 1993 the girl lodged an all-grounds appeal, and on 23 February 1994 she withdrew that appeal.

On 20 April 1992 the girl was awarded $12,000 by the Victims Compensation Tribunal. She appealed that decision and on 26 November 1992 the District
Court, considering the appeal of the tribunal matter, awarded her $40,000 by way of victim's compensation. I ask the Attorney General to conduct an inquiry into all aspects of this matter: the money awarded to the girl, the inadequate police investigation in the first instance, and why the Attorney General has refused an application by Mr Waite, with my support, for an ex gratia payment to cover the $11,000 that he had to pay his solicitor who had threatened to bankrupt him.

This matter is important. On two occasions in January it was the subject of publicity generated by the learned and respected Sydney Morning Herald journalist Sandra Harvey. A Current Affair gave the matter substantial coverage, and subsequently, in the Australian on 23 April, Bettina Arndt referred to the matter in an article entitled, "Sex, Crimes and Dollar Signs", which referred to the problems of victims of crime. In January the Attorney General rejected my application for an ex gratia payment, stating that there were no grounds for making such a payment to Mr Waite. In a four-page letter dated 24 February 1994 to Mr Waite the Attorney General's Department had the audacity to say:

Whilst it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the case it is apparent that the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence -

that is, the girl's -

are not related to the girl's victims compensation claim nor the charges which were brought against you.

That is, Mr Waite. That is a load of rubbish! Anyone who bothers to look at this letter will see that it is a load of rubbish. I implore the Attorney General to reconsider this matter. This man has suffered enough. He has lost his job; he has been held up to ridicule and shame before his family and his friends; and he has almost been sent bankrupt because this girl lied and made allegations against him. She went so far as to slash herself and to allege that he had done it, even though he was hundreds of kilometres away. The police finally charged the girl. If that is not enough to invoke an inquiry into this matter one would have to ask why. I make this plea because I used to be a police prosecutor, who knows a little about the burden of proof. This was a dreadful performance by the police from the beginning. After all these years, all this money, all this shame and all these problems, it is time that Keith Waite got justice. [Time expired.]

Private members' statements noted.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:15:14   :   Update this page