Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 29 November 1994, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. Kevin Richard Rozzoli) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Petitions praying that the rail line between Civic railway station and Newcastle railway station not be closed, received from Mr Gaudry, 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 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 that the present level of services be retained at Coledale, Bulli and Port Kembla district hospitals, received from Mr Sullivan.

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

Petition praying that the Government take immediate action to accept responsibility for the health and environmental risks associated with the contaminated site at 35 Terry Street, Rozelle, received from Ms Nori.


Bill read a third time.



Mr CARR: My question without notice is directed to the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services. Did the Minister publicly state in August that the preferred applicant had complied with the Casino Control Act? How had Leightons passed the probity test under the Act in May and, according to counsel assisting the royal commission, six months later failed it on the same evidence?

Mrs COHEN: The Leader of the Opposition is at it again. His record on casino issues bears close attention, which I am sure he will get today. I have said it before and I will say it again for the benefit of the Opposition: in 1992, this Parliament determined that the processes for the selection of the Sydney casino operator would be undertaken by an independent casino control authority, not the Government. Under the Casino Control Act, the authority must continually monitor the probity of applicants for the casino licence and the licensee once the casino licence is granted. That responsibility was not extinguished with the announcement of the preferred applicant, contrary to the impressions that the Leader of the Opposition continually tries to give.

Since that time, probity checks on the preferred applicant have been ongoing, as they will be on any future licensee. The Casino Control Act is structured to deal with any eventualities that arise now or in the future with regard to probity issues. I am advised that the authority has considered the issues associated with the report of the royal commission, and has conducted further inquiries in relation to Trade Practices Commission action and other developments. These matters were also considered during the public inquiry which, of course, did not have the benefit of the appearance of the Leader of the Opposition. He is not an honourable man when it comes to appearing in the courts of this land on these issues!

These matters were considered during the public inquiry, which has just concluded its formal hearings. The inquiry will complete the process of assessing the suitability of the preferred applicant to be granted the casino licence. In conclusion, as we have said frequently in this House, the Casino Control Authority is the sole body responsible for assessing applications for a casino licence in this State and determining who shall be granted that licence. The Casino Control Authority has stated publicly on numerous occasions that it will not award the licence until it is satisfied with the suitability of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the Act.


Dr KERNOHAN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Can the Minister advise the House of the latest official estimates of the cost of building new road and rail links to the proposed Badgerys Creek airport? What is the earliest date that the airport would be operating if it were fast tracked?

Page 5862

Mr BAIRD: The honourable member for Camden is an outstanding member of this House. She is on the ball on all issues, particularly those concerning the west. There is no doubt that honourable members opposite are totally rattled by airport noise; they are running scared.

[Interruption from gallery]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I direct those members of the public who are interfering in the proceedings of the House to leave the public gallery immediately. It is difficult for the Chair to deal with such a situation over which it has little physical control. The task is not made easier by members interjecting and continuing to engage in conversation while the Chair is on its feet.

I advise those members of the public who remain in the gallery that behaviour of the type just witnessed is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Members of the gallery are not permitted to participate or interfere in any way in the proceedings of the Parliament. Should there be further instances of such behaviour I will clear all galleries immediately. It behoves all people who remain in the galleries to be of good behaviour and not to interfere with the proceedings of the Parliament.

Mr BAIRD: As I was saying, this is undoubtedly an issue on which all honourable members opposite are running scared.

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

Mr BAIRD: For example last night the 7.30 Report team was looking for someone from the Opposition to debate the question of airport noise. Laurie Brereton was asked first, but he was in his bunker. He was not talking to anybody. Then they asked the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Maroubra. In his normal, arrogant way he refused to go on. He did not want to know about it. He did not want to talk about it. He just wanted it to go away. Where did they go next? They went to the honourable member for Kogarah who said that he could not go on because he was not across the issue. I am not sure when that has previously prevented the honourable member for Kogarah from speaking on an issue - he is not normally across the issues.

They ended up with the poor old Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Marrickville, doing the dirty work of the Leader of the Opposition. His solution was that the Labor Party would fast-track the work and that the airport at Badgerys Creek would be operational by 1997. But, of course, we know that pigs might fly and there is as much chance of that happening as there is of the airport getting up and running by 1997. In today's newspaper Mr Brereton, the Federal Minister for Transport, distanced himself from the honourable member for Marrickville. He said that there is no way the airport at Badgerys Creek could be up and running by 1997. On Sunday Mr Willis, the Federal Treasurer, said that there was no way the airport could be fast tracked.

[Interruption]

Dicky Knee is making a bit of an interjection over there. I am not about to sit down. I want to tell you more. Mr Willis, the Federal Treasurer, said that there was no way the airport could be operational until some time early in the next century. There is some discrepancy between the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Marrickville - the line being peddled by those opposite - and their Federal colleagues.

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

Mr BAIRD: That is not the only thing from which Mr Brereton was distancing himself. The Leader of the Opposition said that we should have a rapid royal commission, a brisk royal commission. Not a word from Laurie, who did not think that was such a great idea. The next thing is the $50 million that the Leader of the Opposition was going to spend.

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

Mr BAIRD: The total cost of the project is $5.5 billion; $50 million would pay for a few railway stations, but it would not pay for the land on which the railways would have to run.

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

Mr BAIRD: That is the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition. The Federal Government, through Laurie Brereton, has offered the State $200,000 to conduct a transport study and $8 million for roads. The reality is something different. The real cost is far in excess of those amounts. The latest estimate of the cost of a rail line from Badgerys Creek to Sydney airport ranges from $795 million to $961 million. The estimated cost for the rail corridor alone - out via Glenfield to Badgerys Creek - is from $800 million to $1 billion.

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

Mr BAIRD: We are yet to find out where that money will come from, but the Leader of the Opposition is offering to solve the problem with $50 million. There is no question that honourable members opposite are muddled. The Roads and Traffic Authority has estimated that roads will cost over $1 billion, the rail link will cost close to $1 billion - a total of $2 billion on transport infrastructure alone - yet the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Kogarah are running around and bagging, wherever and whenever they have the opportunity, the M5 project. The honourable member for Rockdale is one of the leading opponents of the M5. He opposes it at every opportunity.

Mr Thompson: Tell the truth, Bruce.

Page 5863

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

Mr BAIRD: I am hoping to.

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

Mr BAIRD: The St George and Sutherland Shire Leader will have some pronouncements on it. As to the M2 project - about which honourable members opposite got so excited last week - all were opposed to it and tried several times to stop it, but what did Laurie Brereton do? Last week he brought out his grand plan for the roads to Badgerys Creek. What are two of the key roads he has marked as part of airport infrastructure? The M5 and the M2. They are labelled clearly. Honourable members opposite are talking about doing everything possible to fast-track the project, but they oppose all tollway proposals. Laurie Brereton is planning three tollways and piggy-backing on the ones that are under way.

The proposed rail linkage will go from Mascot airport towards Arncliffe, connect with the East Hills line to Glenfield, with a new linkage out to Badgerys Creek. The linkage from the City to Mascot airport and on to the East Hills line is being provided by the State Governments new southern railway. The cost of the linkage is $260 million. When we announced a joint venture with the private sector to build this important new rail link, honourable members opposite bagged the project. Yet this is supposed to be a key linkage in the transport network. Honourable members opposite constantly bag the M5 and the M2, the airport rail link and the new southern line, yet their Federal colleague issued a press statement to the effect that they are integral parts of the infrastructure.

Honourable members opposite do not know what they are doing. On the one hand the honourable member for Kogarah and the Leader of the Opposition are saying, "We are going to take the toll off the M5", but on the other hand Laurie Brereton has announced a new toll. He is putting a toll on one end and the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he will take it off the other end, if ever the Labor Party should get into government in New South Wales. The reality is that honourable members opposite are confused. They are running scared. They do not know what they are doing. Why is that? Good old Laurie Brereton! We all remember him for some of his great monuments to the State, for what he did to the hospital system and for taking all the money out of roads - something the honourable member for Barwon would remember, as he was the Minister for Roads - and putting it into Darling Harbour. Away he went with $1.6 billion and threw it into Darling Harbour. He gave us that wonderful environmental edifice, the monorail. He also gave us the harbour tunnel project - without tenders - and delivered it for us.

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

Mr BAIRD: The answer is that Laurie is back.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. I call the Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs to order.

Mr BAIRD: He did what he could to cause panic in this State, and now he is doing it federally. He could not wait to get out there and cut the ribbon.

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

Mr BAIRD: We all know that he should have waited until the new control tower was built. He was warned by the Federal Airports Corporation not to go out there and cut the ribbon early and open the new second runway - as we would prefer to call it - but such is his edifice complex that away he went out there with the cameras. The Prime Minister was out there saying, "This is a great example of microeconomic reform". Where is the Prime Minister now? He has run from his mate Laurie. He has left him out there by himself. But Laurie's great desire to launch new monuments - clear for all to see - is creating noise havoc across the city. The Opposition has been running scared. It has put up proposals to fast-track Badgerys Creek - a $5.5 billion program, with a rail cost of $1 billion, and a $1 billion road cost as well. No-one - neither the Federal Government nor the Opposition - has outlined where that money is supposed to be coming from to solve this immediate problem. Members opposite have been shown for the shams they are. They are all running scared because their mate Laurie Brereton is now doing federally what he did to this State.

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


Ms ALLAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for the Environment. Do minutes from the central regional executive meeting of the National Parks and Wildlife Service confirm the region's recurrent budget has been cut by $700,000? Do they reveal plans to close national parks and cut capital works?

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

Mr HARTCHER: If there is one member who knows how to lead with her chin, it is the honourable member for Blacktown. In my three years as Minister for the Environment, she has now asked question No. 4 on the environment.

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

Mr HARTCHER: It has been devastating waiting day after day for the killer question from the honourable member for Blacktown.

Page 5864

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

Mr HARTCHER: What is that question? It is about the central regional executive meeting minutes of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. My God, she must spend every night poring over those regional executive minutes.

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

Mr HARTCHER: This Government inherited from Bob Carr -

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

Mr HARTCHER: - a National Parks and Wildlife Service that was a mess, like everything else it inherited from Labor. That service was underfunded, it was underresourced, it was understaffed.

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

Mr HARTCHER: It was typical of that man when he was Minister for the Environment that he talked about it but did nothing about it, just like he talks about aircraft noise and does nothing about it. What has this Government done? This Government, effectively, has doubled the NPWS budget from $43 million to $79 million over a period of years.

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

Mr HARTCHER: This Government has removed the blight which that man opposite, the so-called friend of landowners, who calls himself the Leader of the Opposition, and the man who would govern this State - Mr Twenty-eight per cent, I am reminded by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation - placed upon land on the north coast zoned 8B and 6C.

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

Mr HARTCHER: That blight sterilised land that its owners could never use for any purpose whatsoever, land not managed for the national park system but designated as future national park. The Leader of the Opposition did that. However, the Government has put up $20 million to acquire that land. The question asked by the honourable member for Blacktown is timely. The Government is pouring money into national parks. The Government is pouring money into feral animal control. The Government is pouring money into noxious weed control and into bushland management. The Government is pouring money into the acquisition of land on the coast that was zoned for national parks.

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

Mr HARTCHER: This Government has continued the record of my predecessor Tim Moore to extend the national park system, with the magnificent announcement of the Jervis Bay National Park.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection and audible conversation from both sides of the Chamber. I seek the cooperation of all members to allow question time to proceed in an orderly and decorous fashion. The Minister for the Environment is the only member with the call.

Mr HARTCHER: This Government has established the magnificent Jervis Bay National Park, the finest national park along the eastern coast of Australia. This Government is working to establish more national parks, and I am sure honourable members will be thrilled when the announcement is made. This Government has shown a commitment, over and above simply creating national parks, to their proper management and maintenance.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The increase from $43 million to $79 million that this Government is pouring into the national park system should have been well known to the honourable member for Blacktown if she had paid the slightest attention during the estimates committee hearing.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Instead, all she wanted to do was to argue with the chairman about his rulings. This Government has one of the proudest records of any government in the history of New South Wales on looking after its environment and upon looking after the national park system.

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

Mr HARTCHER: I am delighted with the support I get from the honourable member for Bligh. I am delighted that after three years, and in the closing days of the Fiftieth Parliament, the honourable member for Blacktown has finally had the gumption to ask a question.

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


Mr PETCH: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. Did the Environment Protection Authority withdraw from the Commonwealth's airport noise management steering committee? Was the action taken because expert advice was ignored in the race to open the third runway ahead of time?

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Blacktown, shadow spokesperson for the environment, slinks out when a relevant question is asked about noise impacts in western Sydney.

Page 5865

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

Mr HARTCHER: The question of the honourable member for Gladesville is an expression of his deep interest in this issue. The thousand bomber raids over Sydney are similar to what rained down on Dresden in World War II. Aircraft noise devastation affects the Gladesville electorate as much as it affects electorates represented by members opposite.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Honourable members are witnessing the sad last days of the doomed honourable member for Drummoyne, who is now in his last week of Parliament.

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

Mr HARTCHER: That champion of the standing orders, the honourable member for Ashfield, that model of good behaviour in this Parliament was not even in the House when aircraft noise was discussed.

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

Mr HARTCHER: He was too busy preparing for his public meeting tonight in Ashfield, where he will be torn apart. The honourable member for Port Jackson, who is so silent this afternoon, is contemplating her fate at the hands of an outraged electorate.

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

Mr HARTCHER: It is true that in 1991 the Federal Government exempted the Federal Airports Corporation from compliance with New South Wales environment laws.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Nonetheless, the New South Wales Government, in an effort to assist the people of the inner city areas, had the EPA participate in development of a noise quality management plan.

[Interruption]

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

[Interruption]

Mr HARTCHER: I thank the honourable member for for Smithfield his interjection.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Smithfield said it was a joke. It was a joke under Labor, under Laurie Brereton, one of the honourable member's mates. No wonder people are outraged. No wonder they have come to this Parliament to cry out their complaints. They have only one opportunity to wreak their vengeance, and that is on 25 March 1995. However, in August this year it became clear to the EPA and the New South Wales Department of Planning that the advice they were giving on noise quality was not being heeded, not so much by the Federal Airports Corporation but by its political masters. This advice was ignored and the issue was not addressed because the Federal Labor Government was seeking to fast-track the airport development. It wanted the runway open early so that the electorates of Maroubra and Kingsford-Smith could benefit from the reduced operations of the east-west runway.

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

Mr HARTCHER: Laurie Brereton and Bob Carr knew where the advantage lay and they sought the fast-tracking of the airport.

Mr Sullivan: On a point of order: it is the custom of the House to refer to members by their electorate names. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to call the Minister to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for the Environment will refer to members by their electorate names or their titles.

Mr HARTCHER: There was no concern for citizens.

[Interruption]

When will the Leader of the Opposition apologise to the people of western Sydney for what he has done to them, for what havoc he has wreaked on them, and for the suffering they are now undergoing because of him and his party?

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

Mr HARTCHER: The EPA expressed concern that important criteria, such as eligibility for noise insulation, were being altered without the consent of the steering committee.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The criteria under which homes were to be insulated were being altered by the Federal Labor Government without the consent of the noise management steering committee.

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

Mr HARTCHER: In August the EPA advised that the Federal Government's noise insulation recommendations exposed too many people to extreme noise levels. In August the EPA recommended that Labor's guidelines were inadequate and argued that
Page 5866
treatment should be offered to all buildings subjected to noise above 25 ANEF. However, Labor says that only homes above 40 ANEF should be acquired and only homes above 30 ANEF should be insulated.

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

Mr HARTCHER: But back in August the EPA said that the criteria being adopted by the Federal Labor Government were much too slack and would expose too many people to devastating noise levels. Under Labor's noise standard only 112 homes are to be acquired, but the estimates of the Environment Protection Authority reveal that 10,000 homes need to be acquired to ensure proper noise protection. Further, if Labor's guidelines on noise insulation are followed, only 3,500 homes will receive any noise insulation compared with the criteria advised by the Environment Protection Authority, under which 31,000 homes would receive protection. Labor wants to protect 3,612 homes throughout Sydney. The Government demands that 41,000 homes be protected and that the concerns of the 500,000 people suffering noise impact be addressed.

At the opening of the third runway - it is called the third runway but is in fact only a second runway - the Prime Minister announced that $180 million would be allocated to buy and insulate homes. But where is it? It has disappeared, like the money that will fast-track Badgerys Creek, like the money for the roads and like the money for infrastructure. No money has been allocated for noise insulation or home acquisition and the Federal Labor member for Grayndler, Jeannette McHugh, has publicly admitted that residents whose houses are to be purchased or insulated still have not yet been notified. According to Mrs McHugh, no-one has been notified that his or her home will be acquired or protected against noise. Labor has done nothing.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The New South Wales EPA was alarmed that the Federal Labor Government intended to set a lower standard and expose the people of Sydney to extreme noise pollution. I should like to quote one EPA report:

The local community should not be subjected to lower environmental quality because of the benefit to the whole of the Australian community without compensation.

But this advice has been ignored. Because the advice was ignored - in October, before the runway was opened - the EPA and the Department of Planning withdrew from the noise management steering committee as they were not prepared to rubber-stamp a noise plan into which they had no input and in relation to which their advice was ignored. In a letter to the steering committee the New South Wales Department of Planning and the EPA offered to continue assisting with technical issues because they wanted to make sure that people were protected, but they were not prepared to be seen as participants when expert advice was ignored. It is clear and indisputable that the Federal Labor Government, anxious to fast-track this airport, bypassed the one committee that would have set a noise quality standard for the inner city area - the noise quality management committee. The sign outside Parliament House this afternoon was the most accurate comment on this runway fiasco. It said, "ALP equals just another lousy aeroplane".


Dr REFSHAUGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Does the Baume Report into Australia's surgical work force recommend the development of Labor's policy for elective surgery second opinion pilot programs? Does the Minister now concede that a system of voluntary second opinion would mean better health care?

Mr PHILLIPS: A significant and severe lack of work force planning in the health industry has gone on for years in this country, particularly from the Federal Government and from organised sectors. On one hand we have this hotchpotch with the Federal Labor Party saying, "There are too many general practitioners so, therefore, we will cut the number of practitioners. We are actually going to restrict the number of doctors going into the system because there are too many and a number of them are not making a good enough living". But try to find a GP in country New South Wales; or try to get doctors and specialists to work in the country! Work force management in general practice is extremely confusing.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: Although there is no control with general practitioners, the number of specialists entering the system is controlled. Because of shortages in a range of professions, it is difficult getting orthopaedic surgeons, or ear, nose and throat specialists, or anaesthetists, or a range of specialists, not only in country areas but also in city hospitals. Is there a work force plan? No. The Health Ministers forum vigorously argued to Graham Richardson when he was Federal Minister for Health that the health industry needed a sensible work force plan because Medicare and funding methods were warping the health system, and affecting the supply of practitioners. Graham Richardson picked up that challenge.

Then Carmen Lawrence came on board. What has she done? Without consultation with the States, she organised for one person to do one part of the report - former Senator Peter Baume, who is highly regarded in the industry. He had two months to complete a work force report and make recommendations on the Australian health industry. The report was produced and has been presented to Canberra. It is controversial at best, but at least it brings to a head the issue of work force management in Australia. This is a serious issue that must be
Page 5867
debated. It is a matter from which Commonwealth and State Ministers cannot walk away. The Baume report contains a range of recommendations that have to be properly analysed and considered.


Mr JEFFERY: Can the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, representing the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing, advise the House what action the New South Wales Government has taken to persuade the Commonwealth Government to commence Badgerys Creek airport? What response has there been?

Mr SOURIS: The proposed Badgerys Creek airport will have an impact on country areas just as much as it will impact on city areas. There is confusion and disarray in country electorates, especially the electorate of Oxley, because of flights into and out of Sydney - a factor which would be known only too well by students of Macksville High School, particularly students in the year 11 legal studies group, who are in the gallery today. The State Government has spent two years trying to get the Federal Government to start planning Badgerys Creek airport. The Minister for Planning, at the request of the honourable member for Badgerys Creek, sought a joint planning meeting between local councils affected by the proposed airport and the Federal Government. Nothing happened. The Minister for Planning then wrote to the Federal Government requesting it to establish a task force to conduct air and water quality studies. All that the Federal Government came up with at that time was a mere $200,000.

In June this year the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Planning again wrote to Laurie Brereton expressing concern at the Federal Government's failure to undertake any proper planning for Badgerys Creek or to indicate funding sources for major transport work. The attempts by the State Government to get the Federal Government to commence planning on Badgerys Creek airport are all documented and chronicled. Planning for Badgerys Creek airport is monumental, yet we have seen nothing from the Federal Government - no funding and no action. Even the environmental impact statement desperately needs updating. If the Federal Government is serious about Badgerys Creek it should do several things. First, it should detail its commitment to a timetable for Badgerys Creek, which should include major works such as roads and rail. I commend my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads for keeping up the pressure on Laurie Brereton, particularly in respect of transport matters.

Second, the Federal Government should clarify the role of the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek and its real impact on air traffic volume and noise levels associated with Mascot. When Badgerys Creek airport finally opens we do not want another story from Laurie Brereton that will leave us wondering what the original planning was for, what was the original intention of the airport, and whether Laurie Brereton will tailor the operations of that airport to suit himself. Third, the Federal Government should update the Badgerys Creek environmental impact statement - a vital requirement. That environmental impact statement is now 10 years old. Fourth, the Federal Government should accept New South Wales pollution standards for noise, water and air quality. If the Federal Government is serious about easing noise pollution levels it should, first, abide by New South Wales pollution standards specified by the Environment Protection Authority.

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

Mr SOURIS: Second, it should lower its acceptable noise standards for residential properties from 40 Australian noise exposure forecast - or ANEF - to 25, and to 20 for schools, hospitals and child-care centres. Third, it should fund noise amelioration works on properties and fast-track the new control tower - the sort of work detailed earlier in question time by my colleague the Minister for the Environment. Here we go again with Laurie Brereton. Old Laurie strikes again!

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

Mr SOURIS: Laurie Brereton is fast-tracking the third runway to replace the east-west runway.

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

Mr SOURIS: That is the only fast-tracking we have had from Laurie Brereton.

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

Mr SOURIS: There is no doubt about the motivation of Laurie Brereton. Whenever he fast-tracks something we can be sure there is a political motivation, that is, to silence the skies over Maroubra and Kingsford-Smith for his own personal gain. Laurie Brereton has turned this entire event into a shambles because of his naked self-interest and the self-interest of the Leader of the Opposition. They are intent on silencing the skies over their electorates at the expense of others. There is no doubt that a special deal has been done, solely for political purposes - that is, to let go Port Jackson, Drummoyne and Rockdale and to save the skins of the honourable member for Maroubra and Laurie Brereton.


Mrs GRUSOVIN: Did the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for the Ageing tell this House last Wednesday that in 1988 only 32 per cent of child abuse notifications were made within 24 hours? What advice did the Minister's department give him? Why did he mislead the House?

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

Page 5868

Mr LONGLEY: I am amazed that members of the Australian Labor Party have come back for a second bite.

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

Mr LONGLEY: This is unbelievable! Everyone in this House knows - I indicated quite clearly last week - that there is only one consistent, comparable information system for the Department of Community Services, that is, the client information system, which shows quite clearly that in 1988 the 24-hour response rate for urgent notifications was less than 32 per cent.

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

Mr LONGLEY: That figure has been confirmed by the department. The client information system was introduced by the Labor Party - by the person who asked me the question last week. Opposition members do not know which way is up.

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

Mr LONGLEY: Opposition members are caught in their own web of lies.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for Ashfield to order for the third time. I call the honourable member for Murwillumbah to order for the second time.

Mr LONGLEY: Because of the airport noise issue, members of the Labor Party are starting to learn which way is up. It is obvious that Opposition members are trying to make a survey an issue.

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

Mr LONGLEY: That survey, which covers a very short period, does not cover the period referred to by Opposition members.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Such childish outbursts do little to enhance the dignity or reputation of the Parliament. Members who interject in that way will be called to order. Many members are already on two or three calls to order. Those wishing to leave the House early today need only to continue their present behaviour. If they wish to remain for the rest of the day's proceedings, they would be well advised to be silent for the remainder of question time.

Mr LONGLEY: The client information system is the only official ongoing casework record enabling a comparison of the department's casework activities over time. The record of the Labor Party in this area is abysmal. This Government has dramatically increased funding, the response time and the response rate of notifications. This Government has a record of which it can be proud on one of the most difficult issues in our society. Members of the Labor Party cannot get their facts right. They are lying so consistently that they cannot remember which lie they are up to. That is a true condemnation of the record of the Labor Party in this area. I can see that the honourable member for Heffron is preparing another supplementary question.

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

Mr LONGLEY: The supplementary question last week asked whether document had been destroyed by the director-general. That was and is a foul lie.


Mrs GRUSOVIN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister's answer, when did his department tell him that this information was wrong?

Mr LONGLEY: As I have indicated, the information I have given the House is absolutely, 100 per cent correct. It has been confirmed in writing by the department. It is clear that the Labor Party is so tied up in its own lies that it does not know which way is up. It is so confused -

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

Mr LONGLEY: The Labor Party can ask as many questions as it likes on this issue. The record of the previous Labor Government in child protection was dismal. Under the present Government the 24-hour response rate has improved dramatically and funding for child protection has increased dramatically. The present Government has a proud record, one that all the lies of the Labor Party will not tarnish.


Mr KERR: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister of Health. Can the Minister advise the House whether health impact studies relating to aircraft noise have been published? Did the Federal Government undertake any studies prior to the opening of the second parallel runway?

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

Mr PHILLIPS: I thank the honourable member for Cronulla for asking this important question, which concerns an issue very relevant to part of his electorate - the area of Kurnell. Once again the Labor Party has consistently lied to the people, misled the people and botched up the implementation of a scheme. It is a serious indictment of the Federal Government that it has gone ahead with the expansion of Sydney airport, increasing traffic noise, without completing a study into the impact that noise has on people's health. This is not a new issue. Implications evident around the world show that something needs to be done. A German medical journal study found that death rates due to fatal disease of people living
Page 5869
near Los Angeles airport were 5 per cent higher than average. Rates of suicide, cardiovascular deaths and accidental deaths were all significantly higher than the national average. A study conducted in Australia as far back as 1979 supported that German study.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: It found that stress-related deaths were higher in areas under Sydney's flight paths. It was recently reported in the Sydney Morning Herald that doctors in areas under the flight path of the third runway have reported a staggering 20 per cent increase in stress-related health complaints. Dr Con Costa has predicted increased insomnia, anxiety, blood pressure and circulation problems. Yesterday I opened the sleep disorder clinic at St George Hospital. The unit monitors patients who suffer from sleep apnoea and sleep deprivation. There is growing evidence to suggest that heart disease, high blood pressure and stroke can be problems associated with sleeping disorders. I shudder to think of the health problems confronting people who have to live with constant, increasing noise from an airport. In 1970 a House of Representatives select committee recommended that a health study into people living around Sydney airport be undertaken. In addition, a noise management plan was ordered. Again in 1985 the select committee made the same recommendation.

Years later, and one month after the third runway was opened, no health study has been completed and, as we have heard, the noise management plan is a farce. In fact, the mayor of Marrickville has been quoted in the Glebe and Inner City News as saying that there had been "some big promises made about a health study" but they had not been kept. The health study became a condition of consent for approval of the third runway. The third runway could not go ahead until the study was undertaken. The third runway was opened last month, yet the study into the health effects of aircraft noise has not been completed. The Federal Government fast-tracked a project but did not complete a health study that its own parliamentary committee indicated had to be completed. A study has been commissioned by the Federal Airports Corporation and conducted by the University of Sydney and National Acoustics Laboratories. It commenced in June, only a few months before the opening of a third runway. The original, comprehensive study that had been envisaged was to cost $8 million.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: Laurie Krueger is back. He rejected that proposal and reduced study funding to $1 million. Funding for a study into a major impact on health was cut back to $1 million. The study, in its reduced, limited form, will examine thousands of people, mental health problems, children's blood pressure and the monitoring methods of the Civil Aviation Authority. The first phase of the study is due for completion in December 1995. That date is too late, being more than 12 months after the opening of the new runway. Not only was the runway opened before the health study could be completed, it was obviously fast-tracked and opened too early. Because the program was accelerated, the early opening of the runway has severely compromised the data collection phase of the children's blood pressure study for comparison purposes. If that is the way health studies are to be managed, I feel for the people around Badgerys Creek. As the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services would know, all sorts of promises are being made to the people of Badgerys Creek. Who could know what will happen out there, when one takes into account the botch of the job that has been made at Sydney airport?

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

Mr PHILLIPS: One should consider the arrogance of the Labor Party. How can Opposition members support that?

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

Mr PHILLIPS: What we are talking about is being honest with the public, being transparent and making sure that programs are implemented properly. However, Laurie Krueger, who is back, has a devastating track record of botched projects in this State. We all remember Crown Street and the beds to the west health program, which never eventuated. That policy was a catastrophe under Laurie Brereton, and the arrogance with which he tried to implement it is remembered.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: The recent report of the Auditor-General has showed that Laurie Brereton ruined the management of the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. There were no tenders - nothing. He just lumped the State with a huge debt, and that has been lampooned by the Auditor-General. What about the Darling Harbour development? That was a great, visionary project. We remember the rorts that went on in relation to it. It cost twice as much as it would have cost had it been properly managed and implemented. But no, under Laurie Brereton it had to be fast-tracked. Another good project was botched, and this State has to carry the debt.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: as honourable members would know, Darling Harbour was opened by Her Majesty the Queen and former Premier Greiner -

[Interruption]

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

Page 5870

Mr PHILLIPS: That shows the dishonesty of the Labor Party. We now have monarchists on the other side.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: We have heard about the health system, the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, the monorail, and Darling Harbour. Laurie Brereton is now trying to handle air safety and the airport. Once again, in his usual arrogance, he will shove it in and the people will have to learn to like it. When Laurie Brereton left this Parliament many people breathed a sigh of relief that there was to be a return to sensible management of projects in this State. Unfortunately, however, he is now in Canberra. People are saying that Laurie Krueger is the nightmare on everyone's street.


Mr BLACKMORE: My question without notice is directed to the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services. Has the Minister been advised that the Federal Airports Corporation has authorised a petrol station at Hoxton Park to sell liquor? What action will the Minister take in relation to this matter?

Mrs COHEN: I commend the honourable member for Maitland for his interest in the responsible sale and service of liquor. Honourable members may be aware that section 72(1) of the Federal Airports Corporation Act provides that the corporation can make by-laws relating to the sale, supply, disposal, possession or control of liquor at a Federal airport. I have recently become aware that the Federal Airports Corporation authorised a petrol station adjoining Hoxton Park Aerodrome to sell and supply liquor for consumption off the premises. This effectively means that people can purchase liquor from a petrol station at Hoxton Park regardless of whether they are using the airport. This disturbing development raises serious concerns. At a time when my colleague the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads was warning year 12 students not to mix drinking and driving, the Federal Airports Corporation authorised a petrol station to sell alcohol to the driving public. At a time when I, as Chief Secretary, have been working with the liquor industry to encourage responsible drinking practices, the Federal Government has enabled people to buy beer at the same time and place as they fill their cars with petrol.

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

Mrs COHEN: I am concerned that the normal checks and balances that go with the issuing of a liquor licence are not being properly addressed by the Federal Airports Corporation. Local licensees in the Hoxton Park area have understandably been outraged at the actions of the Federal Airports Corporation. They now find themselves in competition with a liquor outlet which apparently does not have to abide by the liquor laws of this State. The Federal Airports Corporation may have set a precedent.

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

Mrs COHEN: With the current fiasco in Sydney's skies, one would think that the Federal Airports Corporation would concentrate on its job rather than enter the liquor business. It is another example of the ineptitude of the Federal Airports Corporation and its Federal masters. When will they stop to think of the public interest? They have shown their complete disregard for the people of western Sydney by announcing and re-announcing the fast tracking of Badgerys Creek airport simply to save the necks of their inner-city politicians.

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

Mrs COHEN: I have seen more forethought and planning go into the building of a large chicken shed than the Federal Government has put into the Badgerys Creek airport. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to it being completed in three years. He knows full well that it will cost billions of dollars. There is no up-to-date environmental impact statement for the project. I would have expected Opposition members who represent western Sydney to support my call for that environmental impact statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned members about such outbursts, a repeat of which will not be tolerated. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.

Mrs COHEN: The Leader of the Opposition sacrifices the interests of western Sydney whenever he has the chance. People who live in western Sydney are concerned for their welfare.

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

Mr Knight: On a point of order: the question that was asked of the Chief Secretary related to liquor licensing at a petrol station at Hoxton Park. She has strayed well beyond that topic into a broader discussion of issues relating to airports, electorates and infrastructure. Mr Speaker, I ask you to direct her to return to the leave of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Secretary is aware of the obligations Ministers have with regard to answering questions. If members of the Opposition ceased interjecting, question time would conclude much sooner. Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order.

Page 5871

Mrs COHEN: People in western Sydney have supported the Badgerys Creek airport on the information they have been given. What has occurred lately leads me to believe that the information, if not deliberately and mischievously delivered, is as accurate as the information regarding Mascot airport. I insist that an environmental impact statement and adequate noise studies be carried out on the huge development at Badgerys Creek before it becomes as bad as Mascot. If the Federal Government was serious about airports it would have properly planned for Badgerys Creek, for Mascot and for the sale of liquor at Hoxton Park service station. I will investigate the service of liquor from that service station. Under-age people should not have the opportunity to buy and consume liquor while driving motor vehicles. I will advise the House of the result of my investigations.


Mr FAHEY (Southern Highlands - Premier, and Minister for Economic Development) [3.26]: I inform the House that the Australian Cricket Team has won the First Test against England and that Shane Warne has taken eight wickets for 71 runs. I extend the congratulations of all members of the House to the Australian Cricket Team.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If members of the House expect a certain amount of tolerance from the Chair about a matter that is of passing interest to some members of the House, they should not test that tolerance by engaging in the type of behaviour just witnessed.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [3.28]: The Opposition extends its congratulations to Shane Warne and the Australian team, and congratulates also the captain of the team, Mark Taylor.


Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [3.28]: I move:

That this House directs the Premier to comply with resolutions of this House by:

(1) requiring the Minister for Planning to comply with the motion passed by this House on 17 March 1994 to close down "and decommission the Malabar sludge screenings incinerators"; and

(2) tabling and making public without restricted access, pursuant to Standing Order 54, reports relating to privatisation of the Water Board, forthwith in accordance with the motion passed by this House on 14 April 1994.

The Opposition has been forced to move this motion today because the Premier and his Ministers are intent on ignoring the will of the Parliament. The question is: what are they covering up? The Government is not prepared to meet its obligations to protect the health of the community and to tell the truth about the future of the Water Board. It has been eight long months since this House first directed the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing to close down the Malabar sludge incinerators. Over that eight months more stories have emerged from the Water Board about incineration at Malabar, such as the reports of Richard, Kathryn and Colin Cass, who have video evidence of the incinerator with white smoke billowing from its smokestack.

According to the Water Board, this event was caused by breakdowns at the plant, resulting in the incomplete combustion of the toxic sludge. Residents are concerned that this event may have allowed the discharge of cancer-causing particles from the incomplete burning of the sewage screenings. Residents should fear these discharges. These screenings contain 42 known pollutants, including chromium, nickel, mercury, lead, and vinyl chloride. Other evidence has come to light which makes it even more urgent for the Government to comply with this Parliament's resolution in March. Internal Water Board reports have confirmed the practice of Water Board staff of tampering with equipment to override the automatic shutdown of incinerators at the Malabar plant. The practice has again led to the incomplete burning of toxic materials at the plant. The 1991 Water Board report, which has become available, states:

A slight variation in the material quality such as moisture contents or an uneven feed rate cause a large pressure surge.

This instrumentation frequently initiates incinerator shutdowns. Most of the instrumentation have been damped or made less sensitive in order to prevent the incinerator from shutting down.

Such a practice is unsound and frequently led to, for example, incomplete combustion of feedstock resulting in breaching of licensing conditions.

If ever there was an indictment of the Water Board's lack of concern for community health, or its superficial concern for the environment, this report is it. Until now I had been prepared to accept that the Minister for Planning and the Premier had not acted on Parliament's directive to close down the incinerators through either incompetence or sheer laziness. But it seems that there is a hidden agenda. According to members of the action group, Campaign to End Sewage Smells, there is deep suspicion that the Water Board is planning to increase the level of incineration at the plant by transferring sludge and other sewage screenings from coastal sewage plants to Malabar. It would all come back to Malabar. Frankly, that would be a disaster for the community. It would mean a measurable increase in air pollution in the region and would lead to an explosion of trucking activity on local roads.

It is all too clear to the residents of Malabar and Maroubra why the incinerators at the sewage treatment plant are still operating three years after the incinerators at North Head were closed. It simply emphasises the need for Parliament to force the
Page 5872
Premier to have his Ministers comply with the directions of this Parliament. Furthermore, the Premier has defied Parliament by failing to table his plans to privatise the Sydney Water Board. On 14 April this year Parliament used Standing Order 54 to force the Government to produce reports prepared on the privatisation of the Water Board. It is now clear that the Premier is determined to withhold the reports because they confirm that he was pursuing privatisation of the board and that there would be higher water bills if the board were corporatised. If Water Board privatisation reports cost the public $750,000, members of the public deserve to see the contents. The motion was passed more than seven months ago, yet the documents still have not been produced in Parliament.

It is not as though the Government did not have any warning that it would be required to table the documents. The motion to force the Government to table the reports has been on the notice paper for more than one year. This is all part of the Government's strategy to hide from the public its plans to privatise the Sydney Water Board. On 15 January 1993 the planning Minister told the Sydney Morning Herald that the board was "a candidate for privatisation". They are the words of the Minister. Ever since this outburst of honesty the Government has tried to keep secret its privatisation agenda. When the Sydney Morning Herald tried to obtain documents under freedom of information legislation, the documents were reclassified by the Minister's office as Cabinet documents so they could not be released. On 3 February 1993 the Sydney Morning Herald initiated an FOI search for three Water Board reports relating to privatisation.

When the Water Board refused to release the reports and made the transfer to the Premier's Department, the Sydney Morning Herald initiated a search of the Water Board's FOI file notes. On 2 March 1993 the planning Minister told Parliament that the documents would not be publicly released because they were part of the Cabinet process. The file notes obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald under the second FOI search showed that on the same day the Minister's office gave a written direction to the board to stop the release of the documents. The planning Minister's position that they were Cabinet documents contradicts advice to the board from the Government's expert on FOI law, the Deputy Crown Solicitor, Mr John Withington, who, on 15 February, advised the board that the documents could not be classified as Cabinet documents because they were not created for the Cabinet. He argued that there was no reason that the documents should not be released.

On 9 March, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council questioned the planning Minister again on Water Board privatisation reports. He asked whether the reports were transferred from the board to the Premier's Department before or after 2 March and whether the transfer was done to evade FOI laws. The Minister replied that the transfer was not done to evade FOI laws and that "the transfer of these reports to the Premier's Department was done well before the Hon. Franca Arena asked her question [on 2 March]". The FOI file notes show that this was not the case. The notes show that the documents were not transferred to the Premier's Department until late on 4 March. The Premier's Department did not know whether it had the authority to accept the documents at 12.45 p.m. on 4 March.

The Managing Director of the Water Board, Mr Wilson, wrote a memorandum on 2 March to the board's FOI coordinator stating that it was regrettable that the Minister's office had intervened in the processing of the FOI application. A note suggesting that the board was prepared to release all the documents was based on Withington's advice. When Parliament now demands to see the reports, the Premier flouts the ruling. The only reasonable response is for the Government to table these reports immediately so that they can be considered in the context of the Government's water corporatisation legislation. The Government has avoided every request. It has flouted FOI laws and now it flouts the will of Parliament. I call on all honourable members to support the motion so that the Government does not treat this Parliament as a joke.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.36]: The matter that the Leader of the Opposition does not understand is that he left the passage of this motion in the hands of the honourable member for Blacktown. As a result - to his embarrassment - he will learn that the motion was technically flawed. He will also learn that we have the information ready to be tabled under Standing Order 54. That motion stated:

That this House, pursuant to Standing Order 54, orders to be laid before the House the following documents:

(1) KPMG Peat Marwick - Review of Tax Implications for Board re: Corporatisation/Privatisation; and

(2) National Economic Research Associates (NERA) - Model for Corporatisation/Privatisation of the Water Board.

Debate ensued on the motion, the question was put, the House divided and the motion was agreed to. Crucially, the member for Blacktown messed up the motion by failing to give a time and/or date requirement and failing to mention the question of unrestricted access. That means that the motion now being put by the Leader of the Opposition - a motion that includes reference to "tabling and making public without restricted access" - has a new angle. However, the original motion, though it was agreed to on 14 April, certainly did not refer to any time restriction or time requirement, as have virtually all other Standing Order 54 motions that have been moved by this House in past months.

Ms Allan: You are a joke.

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

Page 5873

Mr SOURIS: The member for Blacktown is the joke; she is the embarrassment. She botched the motion. She has placed her leader in an embarrassing position because she failed to specify a time requirement for the tabling of the documentation.

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

Mr SOURIS: Having exposed the Opposition for its clumsiness, and to show good faith, I seek the leave of the House to table the documents as required by resolution of 17 March.

Leave granted.

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

Mr SOURIS: The member made a mess of the motion, and that is the end of the matter. With regard to the second part of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, he would have been enlightened had he taken the trouble to read Hansard of the Legislative Council of 16 November. On that date my ministerial colleague the Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing - the Minister responsible for the Water Board - gave a substantial explanation as to why the Malabar incinerator must remain open. I shall quote only a few paragraphs of the reply given by my colleague on that occasion. He stated:

I have several pages of explanation on why the Malabar incinerator is remaining open and why it should remain open. I am happy to canvass the reasons when I have more time. I do not want to see members kept here unnecessarily, but I feel I should take a few minutes to explain to honourable members - particularly the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who has been braying at me from the backbenches - exactly what the implications might be if the Government were to close the Malabar incinerator, which on every test, medical and environmental, is perfectly safe and doing an adequate job . . .

What is being burnt in the Malabar incinerator is not sludge. The sludge from Malabar is now being used for a variety of other purposes - agriculture, landfill, et cetera. What is being burnt at Malabar incinerator is what the Water Board euphemistically describes as screenings. I do not want to unnecessarily disturb the sensibilities of honourable members by describing in great detail what screenings are. Screenings are mainly little things that most of us use in our everyday lives. Unfortunately, they find their way into the sewerage system. The alternative, of course, is not to burn these screenings at Malabar but to take them to a landfill site.

I will give honourable members the choices. Ms Genevieve Rankin, to whom I referred earlier, would not be at all happy if the screenings went to Menai. I guarantee that the honourable member for Londonderry, the devoted fan of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, would not be overjoyed if they went to Londonderry. They are the two choices. I guarantee that a little more of Sutherland ratepayers' money would be used to try to prevent the screenings going to Menai. I am sure one would not be able to print what the honourable member for Londonderry would say if the screenings were sent to Londonderry. I would like the Leader of the Opposition, in whose electorate the Malabar incinerator is situated, to tell me where he would like the screenings to go, and then watch him squirm.

There is adequate reason for not closing the incinerator at Malabar and, as has been said, there are no medical or environmental reasons for closing it. My colleague the Minister for the Environment will speak in a little more detail about that very issue. It is interesting that on a day like today the Leader of the Opposition should seek to bring forward this motion - showing vested, naked self-interest for his electorate - to join with the issue of the third runway, which is really a replacement second runway; he has used this Parliament for what is, without shame, self-interest for his own electorate, coupled with the shameless and disgraceful closure of the east-west runway. The third runway became the replacement east-west runway so that the honourable member for Maroubra could gain some kind of political favour in his electorate at the expense of other electorates held by his colleagues. He is quite prepared to sacrifice the electorate that covers the Menai area and the electorate that covers the Londonderry area. Everyone knows the sort of friendship that exists between those two members of Parliament.

Honourable members know that the Leader of the Opposition is most pleased, for his electorate purposes, to sacrifice the electorate of Drummoyne in particular. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the honourable member for Drummoyne will not be here next time. He is quite happy to be rid of that electorate, as he is quite happy to be rid of Rockdale. He will lose Port Jackson and he will probably lose a couple of other electorates. His only interest is in looking after his own electorate. He is quite happy to move incinerators and close them down; he is quite happy to move runways and close them down; he is quite happy to lose electorates - indeed, he is quite happy to do whatever is necessary to save his skin and to save his crumbling leadership.

The Leader of the Opposition ought to be ashamed of his statewide approval rating of less than 28 per cent. It is no joke; less than 28 per cent of the State support the Leader of the Opposition. He will do anything, including taking this desperate act of trying to close the Malabar incinerator, and causing chaos throughout all of Sydney and all of country New South Wales with the closure of the east-west runway, to save his skin. He does not care which electorates he loses and which members he sacrifices in the process of looking after himself and looking after his dear, little head office mate who is really causing all the trouble - Laurie Brereton.

Laurie Brereton will do anything to stay in close harmony with his little mates, and is only too pleased to sacrifice whatever is necessary to save himself and, coincidently, the overlapping State seat of the honourable member for Maroubra. It is back to business for Laurie Brereton. He virtually lost the last State election for the Labor Party, and he will do the same next time and keep the Labor Party out of office after the next election. The Government could not be more delighted that the Leader of the Opposition and Laurie Brereton are leading the charge. Good luck to them. They will lose. If the Leader of the Opposition ties himself to Laurie Brereton, he will be a goner.

Page 5874

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [3.44]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out the words "and decommission the Malabar sludge screenings incinerators" and inserting instead, "the Malabar sludge incinerators and decommission the incinerators at both the North Head and Malabar Sewage Treatment plants".

Mr Souris: I suppose you are looking after your electorate as well? There is nothing like a little bit of self-interest.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask that the honourable member for Manly provide the Chair with a written copy of his amendment.

Dr MACDONALD: I hand a copy of the amendment to the Clerk. I resent the comment by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I am merely being accurate as to the resolution passed on 17 March. It covered the closing down of the Malabar sludge incinerators and decommissioning incinerators at Malabar and North Head. By all means make a riposte, but he should be accurate in what he says. Not only has the resolution of the House been ignored, but I think there is a cover-up and I want to address it. The motion seeks to implement what the House resolved. I have corresponded with the Minister, who has implied that a form of decommissioning has already taken place, at least at Manly. He talked about sludge incinerators at Manly being mothballed, then used the words, "You are correct to note that in the remote possibility that it is proposed to recommission the incinerator at North Head, a rigorous environmental impact assessment would have to be undertaken".

If the Minister is acknowledging that they are decommissioned, I ask him to officially decommission incinerators from both locations in line with the resolution. He knows, as I know and as the Leader of the Opposition - the honourable member for Maroubra - knows, that it is extremely important to undertake the decommissioning, because it means one thing: if it is to be recommissioned, a proper environmental impact statement and a full health assessment will have to be conducted. The reason the incinerators at Manly were closed and the reason the sludge incinerators at Malabar were closed is that they were constantly malfunctioning.

Mr Hartcher: Rubbish!

Dr MACDONALD: It has been consistently documented in all the reports. Not only that, but the $3.5 million air emission study showed that there was a risk. Of that there is absolutely no doubt. The technical subcommittee which reported on this issue - the working party that looked at the technical aspects - confirmed that there is a significant risk. I quote from the document which said:

Estimated carcinogenic risk at the nearest residence at both locations still exceeded the level of concern (10^-6) . . .

Environmental regulatory agencies generally require risk reduction action for carcinogenic risk at the 10^-4 level. For the range from 10^-6 to 10^-4, potential risk reduction actions are reviewed.

That is what the Environment Protection Authority called upon the Water Board to do. In fact, the EPA issued a press release that talked about the need to reduce risks. The report said:

"The study has concluded that the chance of health impact from the incinerators is one in ten thousand.

"As soon as these results were available we consulted Health Department experts", said Ms Corbyn.

In response, Deputy Chief Health Officer, Dr Gavin Frost, of the NSW Department of Health said the health risk of one in ten thousand showed the incinerator emissions were associated with a minute statistical risk of increased cancer . . .

"This means the incinerators are not a significant health threat, but a review of operating practices is warranted".

The deputy director-general, Lisa Corbyn, served legal notices on the Water Board, asking it to reduce that risk to lower levels, and required a review. My assertion that there has been a cover-up is based on the fact that only six months later the EPA released another press release stating that everything was fine. But it raised more questions than it answered, and I direct these questions to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation: what was the review? What precise testing was done? What was the methodology? Were chromium levels reduced? Chromium represented the risk. Was it all done in six months? What are the negligible levels that the Water Board talked about? Closing of the Malabar incinerator would have a minimal impact. It is only incinerating one tonne a day, which is less than could be carried by a small truck. It will not have a big impact on landfill. Why is it not closed? Because this Government wants to keep open the option to reincinerate - there is no doubt about that. I have constantly asked the Government to decommission the incinerator, but it has refused. That is the secret and hidden agenda.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [3.49]: It is election time alright. The honourable member for Manly has repeated the special plea which he made at the last State election, and the Leader of the Opposition, who represents the electorate of Maroubra, has raised a similar plea in a desperate attempt to hang on to that electorate. The Leader of the Opposition, not content with benefiting from the Maroubra aircraft manoeuvre, needs to make an issue of the Malabar treatment works, just as the honourable member for Manly needs to make an issue of the treatment works at Manly. Both members, in their contributions, misrepresented the facts about the environment. The Environment Protection Authority, of which I - not the honourable member for Manly - have the honour to be ministerial head, has investigated the Malabar incinerator. The authority has authorised public release of information which states, under the heading "Malabar incinerator health risk further reduced", that a review of air emissions from the Water Board's Malabar incinerator, ordered by the New South Wales EPA earlier this year, has shown that health risks from measured pollutants are negligible.

Page 5875

Dr Macdonald: Table the reports.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The information released further states that the director-general said the EPA ordered the review in March - after the honourable member moved his motion - after a major report showed that a hypothetical person living very near the incinerator for their entire life would have minute statistical increased risk, one in 10,000, of contracting cancer. In fact, no-one has experienced anywhere near the level of exposure used in the study. The one in 10,000 increased risk compares with average rates of cancer in the community of one in three for men and one in four for women. In other words, this rate is comparable to that in the ordinary community. The director-general said also that while the original emissions represented extremely low increased risk, the EPA issued a legal notice to the Water Board in March requiring investigations of risk reduction options to further improve operation of the incinerator. The Manly plant is not even operating, yet the honourable member for Manly is anxious to try to make it an issue.

Dr Macdonald: It is a cover-up.

Mr HARTCHER: It is not a cover-up. The honourable member is anxious to make it an issue so that he can scare people. It is the Macdonald scare technique as the election campaign draws near. As a result of the review, which involved more precise testing, the Water Board has now changed its operating practices.

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

Mr HARTCHER: The EPA has now confirmed that the board's actions have been effective in reducing the level of increased risk identified in the previous study. Both incinerators on the site have been subject to the same recent emissions testing. Results for measured pollutants show that risk from the second incinerator is also at negligible levels. I table this document. The honourable member for Maroubra, desperate in his attempts to maintain his seat, wants to send sludge tippings from Malabar to landfill at Castlereagh. He wants to send out to Castlereagh what will not be used at Malabar. The people of Castlereagh will learn that Bob Carr wants them to get Malabar sewage sludge. The Leader of the Opposition, having dumped aircraft noise from his electorate, wants to dump Maroubra sewage screenings.

Ms Allan: On a point of order: the Minister said that he was tabling a document. What is that document? Has it been tabled?

Mr HARTCHER: I have tabled it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has not tabled the document yet and has not sought leave to table it. I was going to draw attention to that matter when he had concluded his contribution.

Mr HARTCHER: If the honourable member paid attention occasionally, she would know what is happening in the House. The forced attempt to close these incinerators, which pose absolutely no significant risk to health at all, is an attempt to stack up the Leader of the Opposition's own precarious position in Maroubra.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Manly and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation wish to converse, they should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr HARTCHER: The studies indicate that a hypothetical person would have to live virtually on top of the stack for 70 years, absorbing the very worst emissions at the highest level of toxicity. Realistically, that could never happen. The EPA investigated the claim in March and reported in September, six months later, that emissions were negligible and that there was no cause for concern. Negligible means just that - no cause for concern. I have tabled the document. The honourable member for Manly can read it at his leisure. The document is perfectly clear in what it says: negligible - no real risk. This is a farce. [Time expired.]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has indicated that he wishes to table the document. Procedure requires the Minister to seek the leave of the House to do so. Does the Minister seek that leave?

Mr HARTCHER: Yes. I seek leave to table this document.

Leave granted.

Mr HARTCHER: I table the document.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [3.55]: The Opposition is interested to examine the document the Minister tabled. The Minister referred during his contribution to a press release by the honourable member for Manly, to a press release by himself, and to an anonymous document he sought to table, which turns out to be an Environment Protection Authority news release. Tabling of an EPA news release dated 13 September 1994 on further reduction of health risks from the Malabar incinerator will not satisfy the Opposition, the honourable member for Manly or, more importantly, residents living near the incinerator. Those residents believe strongly that health risks from the incinerator are significant and that the EPA has fallen down badly on its job of monitoring those risks and ensuring that the incinerator does not continue to be a hazard to the local community.

I was very interested in the comment by the Minister for the Environment that an EPA review earlier this year claims that health risks had been further reduced. The Minister quoted from that review this afternoon. The Minister did not say that the EPA found that no risks exist. He merely alleged that the EPA has said that the health risk has been "further reduced". The Minister has failed to table the review by the EPA of the Malabar incinerator. Until the Government decides to table that sort of documentation, rather than a one-page, seven-paragraph EPA press release on the same issue, the local community will not be reassured. Tabling of that press release does not negate this afternoon's resolution calling on the Government to implement the
Page 5876
terms of the resolution passed by this Parliament on 17 March 1994, which called for both the Malabar sludge incinerator and the North Head incinerator to be decommissioned.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation and the Minister for the Environment made passionate contributions but gave little further information about the reason the Government has not acted to close those plants. The Ministers have not taken account of the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the local member for Maroubra, or by the honourable member for Manly in whose electorate the North Head incinerator is located. The Ministers have given no information. They have made slimy little comments across the table, but they have provided no substantial information from the public authorities which they head about the reason the 17 March resolution has been ignored continuously since that time. Members witnessed, in a display earlier this afternoon in this Chamber, final capitulation by the Government on the Water Board privatisation proposal. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation finally tabled these documents today, almost at the end of November, following a resolution of this House in April. He has whinged and prattled on about the fact that I supposedly botched the motion.

Mr Souris: But you did.

Ms ALLAN: When was there an effort by the Government to table this information? What is so different now?

Mr Souris: You should read Hansard.

Ms ALLAN: Another bit of paper gets waved across the Chamber. All that Government members ever do is wave bits of paper around. Unless the Opposition drags reports out of them, they are not prepared to provide them. At the risk of further embarrassment this afternoon the Minister finally capitulated on the privatisation report. He has not capitulated on the more interesting reports so far as the Malabar and North Head incinerators are concerned.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to order.

Ms ALLAN: The Minister is providing only lousy little bits of paper. Where is the EPA review that the Minister claims justifies his inaction and failure to close down the incinerator? If he really believed what he said in the Chamber this afternoon, if he really believed there are no further health risks at Malabar from the incinerator, he would be prepared to table the reports on those reviews in the Chamber now. That is what the Malabar community wants; it does not want the pollutants from the screenings churning out into the atmosphere, endangering the health of families and children. The people want evidence that there are no health risks. The Minister has not provided the evidence yet again. He has given us one lousy little bit of paper, an EPA press release, and he has continued by his inaction to flout the will of the Parliament.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [4.00], in reply: The issue is simple: the House carried the motion in March; the Government did not implement the resolution. The resolution called for the closing of the Malabar incinerator and the decommissioning of incinerators at Malabar and North Head. Neither on this occasion nor in March was the Government able to justify that in 1992 it trumpeted that it had closed North Head incinerator. It put out a press release congratulating itself and saying it was a gain for the health of people around Manly. When this motion was debated in March I quoted the press release from the then Minister for the Environment trumpeting the Government's success - a great win for the health of the people of Manly! The Government has the same responsibility for the people of Malabar: do not put an incinerator in Manly, because it is a marginal seat and the Government wants to increase its chances of prying that seat from the Independent member; do not make a decision for political advantage without considering the people of Malabar.

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

Mr CARR: The Government must deliver for the people of Malabar. If it was good enough to put out a press release saying it was a great gain for the health of the people of Manly, the same decision must be made for the people of Malabar. The resolution of this House on 17 March required that decision and the Government has not made it. That shows the contempt of the Minister for the Parliament. This motion holds the Premier responsible for that decision. The Opposition had to move the second part of the motion. Again the Government has been forced by a motion of the House to table material that was requested to be tabled on 14 April.

Mr Souris: On a point of order: given that I have now tabled the information concerned, whether or not part (b) of the motion of the Leader of the Opposition has any relevance, that would have been deleted.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I shall not place a restriction on the Leader of the Opposition at this stage of the debate.

Mr CARR: It has taken a motion of the House and a debate to force the Minister to produce the material. Why? Because again it raises the prospect of Water Board privatisation. That is what this issue is all about. As far as the Minister is concerned, corporatisation is the first step towards privatisation. It is not an alternative to privatisation, as the Opposition sees it. It is the first step towards the privatisation that the Minister responsible for the Water Board said was on the Government's agenda back in January last year. He said, "the Water Board is a candidate for privatisation" and he clings to the documents confirming that. The Opposition has had to remind the Minister of his obligation, given the passage of the motion in April, to produce the documents for the public.

Amendment agreed to.

Page 5877

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Mr A. S. Aquilina Ms Meagher
Mr J. J. Aquilina Mr Mills
Mr Bowman Ms Moore
Mr Carr Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Face Mr Neilly
Mr Gaudry Ms Nori
Mr Gibson Mr E. T. Page
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
Mrs Lo Po' Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald Mr Davoren

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

Mr Doyle Mr Fahey
Mr Price Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [4.12]: I move:

That this House notes as a matter of public importance the selection of the preferred applicant by the Casino Control Authority.

Yesterday's submission to the Casino Control Authority by counsel assisting Mr Allaway is extraordinary. Mr Allaway argued that Leighton Holdings Limited failed the probity test. He said that the company should not be involved in the management of the casino, yet he also argued that it should be free to maintain its shareholding in this multimillion dollar project. Section 12(2)(h) of the Casino Control Act states that a licence must not be granted to those who fail the probity test and are connected with the ownership of the preferred applicant.

The community has a right to know how Leighton can maintain its shareholding in the consortium after it has failed the very probity test set for it by this Parliament. The community has a right to know how Showboat, as the partner of Leighton, can continue to operate while its partner has failed to demonstrate probity. There will be a public scandal if this partnership goes ahead after the submission. It will be a reward for deception. I am sure that not one honourable member sat in this House and thought that if one party failed the probity test the casino licence would still be issued to that consortium. The reward for failing the probity test is, in Mr Allaway's submission, a lucrative building contract. According to his analysis, Showboat and Leighton were not close associates. The people of New South Wales are left with a multimillion dollar casino, 100 per cent controlled by United States interests.

According to Mr Allaway, the Casino Control Authority attempted to make contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but that contact was never made because the Casino Control Authority did not go through the correct protocol. This is now a matter of grave concern. This matter of public importance is about the rights and responsibilities of this Parliament. When this Parliament established the Casino Control Authority under the Casino Control Act it did not give either the Government or the authority a blank cheque in regard to the casino licence. In the past seven months there has been an orchestrated attempt to prevent this Parliament from exercising its responsibilities. There has been a deliberate campaign of intimidation. At the heart of this campaign, led by the Premier and the Chief Secretary, has been the attempt to mislead the public about the status of the preferred applicant - the Leighton-Showboat consortium.

To that end, the Premier, the Chief Secretary, the financial backers of the consortium and, I have to say, the consortium itself, embarked upon a campaign of misrepresentation without precedent. On 6 May 1994 the New South Wales Casino Control Authority
Page 5878
and the Chief Secretary announced the Leighton-Showboat consortium as the preferred applicant for the Sydney casino licence. The press release heading said it all: "Sydney Casino Winner Announced". There was no mention of ongoing inquiries of any outstanding concerns, yet, as the Opposition has shown, serious concerns about probity remain. These concerns are: the involvement of Leighton in payment and acceptance of losers' fees; the links between Star Casino's owner, Louis Roussel III and organised crime; and probity concerns over the Showboat Australian directors, John D. Gaughan and J. Kell Housells Jnr.

I turn, first, to Leighton, the subject of yesterday's unfavourable submission. On 16 May the Chief Executive of the Casino Control Authority, Lindsay Le Compte, said that the two casino consortia had undergone probity investigations and the authority was happy with both. On 17 May the Sydney Morning Herald identified Leighton as one of several building contractors nominated by the New South Wales Royal Commission into Productivity in the Building Industry as having received and given over $4 million in losers' fees on six different building projects. On 18 May the authority said it was aware of the circumstances surrounding the naming of Leighton contractors in the building industry royal commission. The press release stated:

. . . the Authority had been given access to an opinion by a Queens Counsel who concluded that the practice of the payment of "losers fees" to unsuccessful tenderers did not contravene the Trade Practices Act or the general law.

When the Minister was interviewed on the 7.30 Report she clung to this opinion. She said, "Oh, there is a Queen's Counsel's opinion on this. Everything is all right". She quoted it as it if were a Queen's Counsel's opinion that she had commissioned. This legal advice was meaningless. The Queen's Counsel's opinion was provided to the authority by Leighton and commissioned by the Master Builders Association - a party subsequently discredited by the royal commission. The Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services said, "Oh, we have a Queen's Counsel's opinion on this", implying that it was as fresh as paint, but that opinion was provided before the royal commission had heard any evidence about unsuccessful tenderers. No independent or alternative advice was sought by the authority.

Finally, and most importantly, Mr Le Compte chose to hide the origins of the opinion to lend credibility to his defence of Leighton. That is unforgivable! Le Compte violated his duty to be impartial and independent - to be a public servant. He is meant to be the public watchdog, not a lap-dog in this affair. On 30 August the Trade Practices Commission commenced legal action against Leighton Holdings Limited as one of four companies charged with conspiracy to defraud the State Government of money relating to Commonwealth offices in the Haymarket. So much for the authority's clean bill of health! The Opposition has been vindicated by the decision of the Casino Control Authority to hold an inquiry into probity concerns.

This Minister and the Premier said on 6 May, "A winner has been announced. There are no further probity concerns". All this material has come out because we raised the issue of probity. We made it an issue. Statements made by members of the Casino Control Authority remain, however, a great cause for concern. Because of these statements the impartiality of this inquiry has always been in doubt. Comments made by members of the authority suggest that the inquiry was set up for one reason, and one reason only - to defend and justify the authority's decision to grant preferred applicant status. On 18 August this year Mr Lindsay Le Compte said in the Australian Financial Review that the inquiry would give the authority "a chance to justify its actions". Some independence! Some searching inquiry! The inquiry has been set up to justify the decision already made. Mr Le Compte went on to say:

It's important in confirming our credibility, which until now we did not think was in question, but Mr Carr obviously did.

Mr Le Compte has said that he is conducting the inquiry to protect the credibility of the casino authority, not to investigate matters of probity. The terms of reference of the inquiry are clear. Nowhere do they refer to confirming the credibility of the authority or justifying its actions. I remind the House that the inquiry is not about the integrity of the authority, Mr Tobias or Mr Le Compte. The inquiry is about the suitability of the Showboat group to run a casino in New South Wales under our legislation. If the inquiry is conducted properly, the people of New South Wales will make their own judgment on the credibility of the Casino Control Authority and its handling of probity checks. Evidence has emerged which raises concern about directors of Showboat Australia. The Opposition has obtained a 1988 report by the Division of Gambling Enforcement, New Jersey, raising the most serious questions about the probity of Mr Gaughan. The report stated:

John D. Gaughan is unable to establish by clear and convincing evidence his suitability for qualification as a director and shareholder of Showboat International.

It stated also that investigations by the division "reflect adversely on his good character". The report found that between 1936 and 1951 Gaughan ran illegal gambling operations in Nevada and was charged with such offences four times. In 1951, together with two others, both illegal bookmakers, Gaughan bought a 10 per cent interest in the Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas, whose principal owners were described as "persons with unsavoury reputations and questionable backgrounds". One of the owners of the Flamingo Casino was Chester Sims, a business associate of the notorious killer, mafia figure and financier, Meyer Lansky. [Time expired.]

Mrs COHEN (Badgerys Creek - Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services) [4.22]: In speaking to this matter of public importance it is vital that I examine the motivation that lies behind the debate. Honourable members should make no mistake: this is part of the continuing attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to deal
Page 5879
himself a stake in the casino action. It is the work of a man with vested interests and questionable motives who simply cannot be trusted on casino matters. It is the work of someone who will try anything he perceives might somehow delay, thwart or prevent the awarding of the casino licence. It would be a naive person indeed who did not think that the Leader of the Opposition was playing an underhanded game on casino matters. I mean that he has been up to far more than his usual political mischief-making. How do I know that?

Events to date speak clearly for themselves. On 10 August the Leader of the Opposition was part of the gang of three attack on the casino project. The day before, the Prime Minister had apparently risen, like Lazarus, from his sick bed to criticise the location of the casino. The day before that, Frank Sartor, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, had announced a legal challenge against the development. Lo and behold, it was then the turn of the Leader of the Opposition. What did he do? The Leader of the Opposition announced that he had concerns about the preferred applicant, but he refused to detail those concerns. What reasons did he give for his actions at the time? He said that he raised the matter to prevent the Government from granting the casino licence, but needed parliamentary privilege before he could make his concerns known. I agree that he needs the protection of Parliament for his cowardly behaviour. Neither reason held up to scrutiny. For a start, the Casino Control Authority issues the licence, not the Government. Also, the licence was not due to be issued until November. If the Leader of the Opposition had given his information to the authority, he would have been covered by the secrecy provisions of the Casino Control Act. So why did he do it? I quote from the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 August:

But Mr Carr's insistence that he has material which casts doubt on the probity of the preferred applicant for the casino, and his continued refusal to make that material available to the Casino Control Authority, is unquestionably an attempt to politically interfere with the awarding of the casino licence . . . We can only guess at the motives for Mr Carr's reckless behaviour.

That same day, coming under heavy pressure from the Government and the news media to release the information, the Leader of the Opposition did a U-turn and released the material. I have no need to remind the House of the great lie of the Leader of the Opposition, that he got his report from publicly available resources. Today is 75 days since he uttered that lie. He has already proved his inability to defend himself on this grey issue. But did the dishonest behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition stop there? Of course not! Next he suggested that he held more material relating to Showboat, but again he refused to give it to the Casino Control Authority.

In keeping with its charter under the Casino Control Act, the authority - no doubt sick to death of the irresponsible actions of the Leader of the Opposition - announced an inquiry so that the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else who so desired could bring forward information, knowing that it would be fully aired in a public domain. Then came the next deception. The Leader of the Opposition told anyone who would listen - and he has done so again today - that the holding of the inquiry justified his actions. In fact, it was his continued decisions to withhold information which led to the inquiry - hardly something of which the Leader of the Opposition could be proud.

Next, the Leader of the Opposition finally agreed to provide his information to the inquiry, but steadfastly refused to appear before it. Coward Carr was at it again. I could go on for much longer about the deceitful actions of the Leader of the Opposition on casino matters, but I have stated my point. The Leader of the Opposition has vested interests in overturning the casino project, no doubt hoping to win government, nobble the Casino Control Authority, change the casino site and do a deal which would best advantage the Australian Labor Party. His dubious behaviour has been criticised and commented on by overseas investment houses, media commentators and even his own mates in the Labor Council, the same mates who are now trying to dig him out of his electoral funding hole. Peter Sams of the Labor Council is quoted in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 15 August as saying:

I am worried, there are many hundreds of jobs being delayed by this political manoeuvring.

What has the Leader of the Opposition really done? He has released a highly confidential police report to the public, which the Casino Control Authority already had in its possession and which was the subject of further inquiries. What a hero! The Leader of the Opposition has continually lied to the public and has failed in his public duty to cooperate with the relevant institution established by this Parliament, namely, the Casino Control Authority. It was this Parliament in 1992 that decided that the process of selecting the casino operator would be controlled by an independent body, the Casino Control Authority. The concept was supported strongly by the Opposition when the Casino Control Act was passed. The Casino Control Act gives the authority clear objects and functions. The Act makes it clear that only the Casino Control Authority may determine applications for the casino licence and that the Minister must not direct the authority in this regard.

The Act imposes strict probity requirements on who may be granted a casino licence. The authority, not the Government, must consider whether an applicant and its associates are of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity. The Casino Control Act clearly states that the authority must not grant an application for a casino licence unless satisfied that the applicant and each close associate of the applicant is a suitable person to be concerned or associated with the management and operation of the casino. That responsibility was not extinguished with the announcement of the preferred applicant. Since that time probity checks on the preferred applicant have been ongoing, as they will be on any future licensee.

Page 5880

I am advised that the authority has considered the issues associated with the report of the royal commission and has conducted further inquiries in relation to the Trade Practices Commission action and other developments. Those matters were also considered during the public inquiry. The authority is obliged to obtain reports from the Commissioner of Police and the director of casino surveillance, and is at liberty to obtain information from law enforcement agencies and other sources. The Auditor-General provided a due diligence report to the authority when the preferred applicant was announced in May.

The process followed by the Casino Control Authority continues to be monitored by the Auditor-General and will be until it is completed. The inquiry will complete the process of assessing the suitability of the preferred applicant to be granted the casino licence. The Casino Control Authority is the sole body responsible for assessing applications for a casino licence and for determining who will be granted that licence. Only the authority is in possession of, and has access to, the relevant persons and information essential to enable a properly informed decision to be made as to whether a casino licence should be issued to the preferred applicant. The process set down by the Parliament is working. The inquiry will complete the process. The Casino Control Authority has stated publicly on numerous occasions that it will not award the licence until it is satisfied with the suitability of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

I am satisfied that the authority is following the independent process laid down in the Act to determine this matter. This matter of public importance should be seen for what it is: a political stunt and a cover-up of the disgraceful performance and the lies of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the casino. The Leader of the Opposition has failed to act in the public interest by his reckless behaviour in spreading rumours and innuendo. He has constantly implied that the Government issues the licence and plays a part in the process. The Opposition finds it incomprehensible that the Government would not manipulate the process. That is the way the Opposition does business. This Government has followed the process set down by this Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition should present his evidence to the Casino Control Authority. He has failed to do so, and he stands condemned for his actions.

Mr FACE (Charlestown) [4.31]: When the Casino Control Bill was passed I said history would repeat itself. This has occurred, because there has not been a full and open inquiry. Between 1960 and 1967 the Flamingo Casino was the site of a multimillion dollar skim of casino revenue. Mr Gaughan denied knowledge of the skim. However, one of those convicted of the skim was Steve Delmont, who, in 1986, was employed as the President of R. J. and S. Inc., a company owned by Gaughan. The report of the Division of Gaming Enforcement also states that in 1958 Gaughan tried to buy a Las Vegas racetrack with Sammuel Bratt, an operator of illegal gaming clubs, who was ruled by the Nevada Gaming Control Board to be unsuitable to run a racetrack.

The report further states that Gaughan is a friend and business partner of Lester Binion, who was described as "a person of disreputable character". In 1976 and 1978 Mr Binion lent Mr Gaughan $2.1 million. The report was forwarded to the New Jersey Casino Control Commission. The commission ultimately did not deny Showboat a licence to operate in New Jersey, believing Gaughan's claim that he had not been involved with the Flamingo Casino skim. A member of the commission, E. Kenneth Burdge, said Mr Gaughan should be awarded a licence because he had been told Gaughan had assisted an old man whose car had broken down.

When some of these allegations were put to the head of the Sydney consortium, Mr Gregg Nasky, by the Sydney Morning Herald, he said Mr Gaughan had never been convicted of a criminal offence and was well liked and respected. It seems the probity test applied by New Jersey and Mr Nasky is whether Mr Gaughan is liked or not. That is not good enough for the Opposition. The New South Wales Casino Control Authority and the Government should require a higher standard of probity. It cannot accept Mr Gaughan as a proper person to operate Sydney's casino on the basis that he helped an old man whose car had stalled. The Opposition's test is a higher test of probity.

The Casino Control Authority must satisfy the people of New South Wales that the standards set by the report of the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement were too high. It must say that Gaughan was not, as the division reports, "unable to affirmatively establish by clear and convincing evidence his suitability for qualification as a director and shareholder of Showboat International". Showboat is in partnership with the Louisiana casino operator, Star Casino, owned by Louis Roussel III. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 August stated that Roussel is the subject of a United States grand jury investigation into the granting of US casino licences.

A 1993 Louisiana police report entitled "Background Report into Star Casino Inc." reveals Roussel owned the Merchants Trust and Savings Bank in Kenner, Louisiana. The report states that the president of the bank at that time, John Matassa, is the brother of Joseph Matassa, who managed the Pelican Tomato Company for Carlos Marcello. Both Marcello and Matassa have been identified as major mob figures. The report also stated that Joseph C. Marcello was on the board of directors of Roussel's Merchants Trust and Savings Bank. This fact was confirmed by Roussel's father in an interview with the New York Times in 1972. The article stated:

Mr Roussel acknowledged in the interview that Joseph C. Marcello, a brother of Carlos Marcello, was once a member of the advisory board . . . the Merchants Trust and Savings Bank.

Page 5881

There is no doubt that Carlos Marcello, his family and their associates, including the Matassas, were deeply involved in organised crime. The New Orleans Time Picayune of 3 March 1993 stated that Carlos Marcello was the most senior mafia figure in Louisiana and Mississippi. Carlos Marcello and his family are the subject of a detailed biography by John H. Davis, entitled Mafia Kingfish. Davis says Marcello made his money through gambling, narcotics, prostitution, extortion, stolen goods, robberies, burglaries and theft. This was achieved through collusion of corrupt officials at every level. According to Davis, the Pelican Tomato Company provided Marcello with his alibi. He would claim that he was "a $1500 a month tomato salesman".

Louis Roussel III admitted that John Matassa was the President of the Merchants Trust and Savings Bank. John H. Davis states that John Matassa's brother, Joseph, bribed a juror in a criminal prosecution of Carlos Marcello. So Joseph Matassa - the brother of the chairman of Roussels bank - was one of Marcello's principal crime partners through the Pelican Tomato Company. Roussel is in partnership with Showboat, yet the authority says that Roussel passes the associates test. Further evidence has emerged to question the suitability of Louis Roussel III to operate a casino in New South Wales. On 19 August this year Mr Roussel was interviewed on the Today show. During that interview Roussel denied on three occasions that there was any connection between himself, his family and the mafia. The interview was as follows:

Steve Liebman: Do you know any members of the Marcello family which allegedly runs crime in New Orleans?

Roussel: I have probably met Mr Joe Segreto, I have, I know Mr Joe Segreto. Someone said he is familiar with the Marcellos . . .

Steve Liebman: And you have no links with the mafia . . .

Roussel: No . . .

The report of the Louisiana State Troopers quotes Mr Louis Roussel III as stating he owned a 10 per cent interest in Jazzville, a company vying for a casino licence in Louisiana. [Time expired.]

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Leader of the Opposition) [4.36], in reply: That is the little charmer - Louis Roussel - that she is happy to have in partnership with the people running the Sydney casino.

Mrs Cohen: On a point of order: I ask the Leader of the Opposition to have the courtesy not to refer to me as "she". I have an electorate, duly elected by the people.

Mr Beckroge: At the moment you have.

Mrs Cohen: And I will continue to have.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition should refer to the Minister by electorate or title.

Mr CARR: This is the person the Minister is delighted to have in partnership with the people running the Sydney casino. We heard nothing about Louis Roussel III in the lead-up to the exalted announcement on 6 May. "Winner declared", said the Minister - nothing about Louis Roussel. Why is the Minister so enthusiastic about putting the ownership of the Sydney casino in the hands of those in partnership with Roussel? What have they got, and how much? Who got it, and how much? Those questions have to be asked, given the behaviour of this Minister. The people of this State know that this Minister was part of a deal that puts Louis Roussel - with the record described in this House this afternoon -

Mrs Cohen: On a point of order: I object to the implication the Leader of the Opposition is making.

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

Mr CARR: The Minister can object all she likes. She is stunned; tears are welling in her eyes. She can come here tomorrow wearing a different shade of lipstick. She is part of a thoroughly bad decision. She thought she got away with it for a few months, until the details started coming out - the details about the Louisiana link. Those details were never referred to the Casino Control Authority until the Opposition raised them. "Winner declared" was the title on the press release in the Minister's name. She can tap away nervously all she likes, but this hangs around her neck. She was part of this decision, and now the Casino Control Authority is raising all sorts of material that she was prepared to ignore. The other questions that must be asked are: how much does the Minister know, and when did she know it? What was the Minister told about the Roussel link? What had she been warned about the Leightons record?

The Minister was clutching an old, yellow opinion from a Queen's Counsel that had been passed on by the Master Builders Association. What a joke! The Minister's role in the affair was to cover up, and use an old QC's opinion that had been given to her by, of all organisations, the Master Builders Association, with its record as revealed by the royal commission. The evidence that was read into the record today by the Opposition came out only as a result of the work of the Opposition. The Government did nothing to enforce its statutory obligations under the Casino Control Act and to see that the probity test was applied. If the comments of Mr Allaway are any guide to the decision that will be handed down, will there be a probity test? Will probity be given any weight, given the extraordinary speech of Mr Allaway yesterday? Why did the Government write a probity test into the legislation if it will not give effect to the test?

It is a blot on the Government's record that it so ignored the requirement of its own legislation about nothing less than the establishment of the first legal casino in New South Wales that it was prepared to tolerate Louis Roussel in association with the people
Page 5882
running the Sydney casino. All the details have been brought to the attention of the House today. It is all there in the record. The Government did nothing about its statutory responsibility to protect the probity of the deal, and it did nothing about researching the material, getting on top of it and seeing that the right safeguards were struck.

Motion agreed to.
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.41]: I move:

(1) That, pursuant and subject to the provisions of the Forestry Act, 1916, this House agrees to the revocation of the dedication of those part areas of State Forests indicated on the attached schedule:

State Forest	No.	Parishes	Counties	Area (ha)	Portion	Purpose
Bemboka	1007	Bronte, Mookerwah, Numbugga, Ooranook, Puen Buen, Werri Berri	Auckland	13,745	Part	Addition to National Park
Bondi	128	Bondi, Genoa, Nalbaugh Gulgin	Auckland Wellesley	5,550	Parts (3)	Addition to National Park & Nature Reserve
Cathcart	607	Kanoonah, Yuglamah	Auckland	2,160	Part	Addition to National Park
Coolangubra	547	Coolangubra, Kanoonah, Mataganah	Auckland	8,455	Parts (2)	Addition to National Park
Glenbog	149	Bredbendoura, Colombo, Mogila, Tantawangalo, Werri Berri	Auckland	2,200	Parts (3)	Addition to National Park
Mumbulla	605	Mumbulla Wapengo	Auckland Dampier	1,400	Part	Addition to National Park
Nalbaugh	129	Nalbaugh	Auckland	224	Part	Addition to National Park
Nullica	545	Bimmil, Boyd, Eden, Imlay	Auckland	4,355	Part	Addition to National Park
Tantawangalo	134	Bredbendoura, Mogila Creewah	Auckland Wellesley	3,655	Part	Addition to National Park
Nangar	686	Goimbla, Mogong	Ashburnham	5,134	Whole	Addition to Nangar National Park
Capertee	876	Coco	Roxburgh	2,733	Whole	Part of proposed Gardens of Stone National Park
Wolgan	454	Wolgan	Cook	400	Part	Part of proposed Gardens of Stone National Park
Newnes	748	Cook, Wolgan	Cook	2,700	Part	Part of proposed Gardens of Stone National Park
Ben Bullen	434	Ben Bullen	Roxburgh	600	Part	Part of proposed Gardens of Stone National Park
Conjola	863	Conjola, Cudmirrah	St Vincent	315	Part	Part of proposed Cudmirrah National Park
Dampier	926	Coondella, Wamban	Dampier	740	Part	Addition to Deua National Park

(2) That the foregoing be communicated by Address to His Excellency The Governor.

The procedure under which State Forests, or parts of State Forests, may be revoked is set out in section 19 of the Forestry Act. The section provides for the revocation by His Excellency The Governor, but first it is necessary that a resolution be passed by both Houses of Parliament that the revocation be effected. In summary, the State Forest dedications proposed to be revoked comprise two State Forests and part of 14
Page 5883
other State Forests. This proposal implements the additions to the national park and reserves system which were part of the south-east forests agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. The revocations will also enable the Government to give effect to its longstanding commitment to create Cudmirrah National Park and the Gardens of Stone National Park, and to make additions to Nangar National Park and Deua National Park.

The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments agreed in July 1989 to set up a joint scientific committee to conduct biological surveys of the south-east forests and make recommendations about the adequacy of the reserve system in that region. Following extensive studies, the committee delivered its report in July 1990, which provided a number of options for expanding the existing reserve system to preserve better the regions biological diversity. Subsequent negotiations between the two governments led to an agreement which balanced both conservation and socio-economic needs. Details of the broad agreement were announced in October 1990, and the final south-east forests agreement was signed on 21 December 1993.

The agreement referred to "both nature conservation and access to forest resources to maintain and enhance regional development opportunities". Together with the commitment to expand the reserve system, the two governments made a firm commitment that other forests would remain "available for other commercial and non-commercial uses, including wood production". In the south-east, six new national parks and a nature reserve with a total area of 62,000 hectares will be created by revoking approximately 47,000 hectares of State Forests and adding them to 3,000 hectares of vacant Crown land and 12,000 hectares of existing national parks and nature reserves. These dedications are based on sound and lengthy scientific work by the joint scientific committee on the adequacy of regional conservation reserves. The new national parks and reserves are the Bemboka National Park, the Biamanga National Park, the Coolangubra National Park, the Genoa National Park, the Tantawangalo National Park, the Yowaka National Park and the Bondi Gulf Nature Reserve.

Since the announcement by the Minister for the Environment of the Government's intention to create Cudmirrah National Park and the Gardens of Stone National Park, and to make additions to the Nangar and Deua national parks, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has undertaken lengthy and detailed consultations with other government agencies to finalise the boundaries of these reserves. This action will not have any significant adverse effect on the local timber industry. The whole of Nangar State Forest, totalling 5,134 hectares, will be revoked and added to the Nangar National Park. This area near Eugowra in the central west is a significant area of box ironbark forest, which is poorly represented in conservation reserves. Its incorporation will more than double the size of the existing national park.

Parts of the Wolgan, Capertee, Ben Bullen and Newnes State Forests, with a total area of 6,433 hectares, will be revoked and added to adjoining Crown Land to form the Gardens of Stone National Park, which will have an area of 11,780 hectares. The area has spectacular scenery associated with the cliffs and unique rock formations of the so-called pagoda country, and provides outstanding opportunities for bushwalking and rock climbing. However, much of the finest scenery can be seen from roads that touch the boundaries of the proposed national park. The area contains poorly conserved natural vegetation communities such as the box and ironbark forests, and provides a habitat for the endangered regent honeyeater. The national park proposal has been assessed by the Department of Mineral Resources, and will have no impact on the coalmining industry.

On the south coast, 315 hectares of the Conjola State Forest near Sussex Inlet will be revoked and reserved as part of the new Cudmirrah National Park, with a total area of 2,200 hectares. The park will protect outstanding coastal landscapes, including beaches, headlands and estuaries. Special features include the extensive foreshores on Swan Lake and the forest of the Cudmirrah High Dunes. The last area listed on the schedules is a 740-hectare part of the Dampier State Forest. The addition of this area to the Deua National Park will fulfil the Government's undertaking to protect the Deua wilderness area. It includes the upper reaches of Diamond Creek, which contains attractive tall eucalypt forest. Its inclusion in the Deua National Park will ensure the protection of the entire Burra Creek catchment - a large undisturbed stream catchment. With those remarks, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens) [4.47]: I seek to amend the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition after the word "Schedule" of the following words:

", but request your Excellency to withhold the revocation of the dedication of the following State Forests until after advice is received from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines, namely Nangar, Capertee, Wolgan, Newnes and Ben Bullen."

Though the Opposition accepts the intention of the Government with regard to moving this motion, it is concerned that some conditions have not been met. I refer specifically to the coal deposits that may be under these areas in the western coal fields. In that regard the Opposition seeks an assurance from the Minister for Mines that the coal deposits that should be, and could be, drawn on as a vital resource for New South Wales, will not be forsaken. Before the dedication of the area as a national park is revoked, the Opposition wants that assurance. The Opposition seeks advice about mineral resources in the Nangar-Parkes area, especially having regard to the massive expansion into gold mining in western New South Wales. When that issue is resolved, the Opposition will support such legislation.

Page 5884

The record of the Opposition with regard to the environment and employment is a fine one. The Government must do the right thing by the State and its available resources. Extensive debate about the south-east forests has ensued during the time of the forty-ninth and fiftieth parliaments. Acceptance of this motion will resolve many contentious issues. My regret is that it has been moved on the third last sitting day this year. The Labor Party is concerned that this exercise will be hurried and that such important areas as the central coalfields and the coalfield near Canowindra will not be given due consideration. The south-east areas - Bemboka, Bondi, Cathcart, Coolangubra, Glenbog, Mumbulla, Nalbaugh, Nullica and Tantawangalo - are supported by the Opposition as part of the Hawke-Greiner agreement for 55,000 hectares to be dedicated as national park. As part of that agreement, adjustments could be made on the periphery of the park to ensure that the best conditions are created for conservation purposes.

The Opposition supports those actions. Conjola and Dampier are situated on the northern part of the South Coast. The Opposition has no objection to their revocation. The Lake Conjola area is renowned for its natural beauty. Dampier was part of the Deua wilderness nomination, which this Government elected not to proceed with. The Premier, last Christmas, reneged on his promise with regard to that nomination. The Opposition is about doing right by New South Wales, but further consideration should be given to the Capertee, Wolgan, Newnes and Ben Bullen proposals to ensure that things are done correctly. The honourable member for Bathurst will speak extensively about the central coalfields, an area that he understands well and has a strong association with. Section 19 of the Forestry Act 1916, which deals with the revocation of dedications, states:

19. Subject to sections 16A and 19B, a dedication under this Act or under the Act hereby repealed of a State forest may be revoked or altered in whole or in part in the following manner: -

(a) The Governor shall lay on the table of each House of Parliament proposals for such revocation or alteration.

(b) After such proposals have been so laid before Parliament, the Governor on a resolution being passed by both Houses that such proposals be carried out, may, by notice in the Gazette, revoke or alter such dedication as aforesaid. On any such revocation the land shall become Crown lands within the meaning of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act, 1913, or the Western Lands Act 1901, as the case may be, and shall be dealt with under those Acts respectively and until so dealt with shall be reserved from sale or lease under any Act.

On revocation the land reverts to the Crown; it does not automatically become national park land. The intention of the Government must be made clear. Whatever the result of this debate, the Minister will have to define clearly what will happen to the land. The Opposition hopes that the Government will support its proposal to defer the final decision in relation to areas about which little is known. When due consideration has been given to matters relating to those areas, then the Government can get on with the job. A similar debate took place today in the other place. If the result of this debate is different from the result of debate in the upper House, the matter should be reconsidered by the Legislative Council, at which time its members will be acquainted with all the matters referred to here today.

The Opposition has taken all aspects into account. The western coalfields area should be given particular consideration. My colleague the honourable member for East Hills, the shadow minister for mines, has told me that the Chamber of Mines expressed its concern to him about the possible tying up of coal reserves. It is important that that aspect be addressed. Nangar consists of 5,134 hectares, a large extension. Given modern techniques of mineral assessment one wonders whether the concerns of the Chamber of Mines have been taken into account. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, can allay the concerns expressed by all parties. The Minister for Mines might address the Chamber on those matters or else accept the amendment of the Opposition.

Coolangubra and surrounding areas have been the subject of great battles between the environment movement and the logging movement. Environmental protection and jobs can coexist. I am sure that the proposal by the Government to revoke the dedication of approximately 4,500 hectares will be part of an adjustment program that takes into account the forest needs of the south-east and ensures adequate resources for those who have been reliant on timber in that area. I am sure that the shadow minister for the environment and the Minister for the Environment will want to comment on that issue. I assure honourable members that the Opposition has taken that into account.

Diamond Creek, as mentioned by the Minister for Lands and Water Conservation, should also be properly assessed. The Government has identified it as one of the areas to be included in the south-east forest agreement, following lengthy discussions between Prime Minister Hawke and Premier Greiner in the historic agreement to dedicate 55,000 hectares in the south-east for conservation purposes. The Opposition is in favour of between 80,000 and 90,000 hectares being earmarked for conservation purposes. I look forward to one day, hopefully, being part of a negotiating team with the forest industry to preserve areas of high conservation and old growth value, and at the same time guarantee stock supply for the timber industry.

Other areas have also been subject to extensive campaigning. Great consternation has arisen over proposed revocation of dedication of 5,550 hectares in the Bondi State Forest, being land in the Bondi, Genoa, Nalbaugh and Gulgin parishes, and 607 acres in the Cathcart State Forest. That land is of considerable value. Full consultation by the Government with the timber industry and environment movement will ensure agreement on these issues and minimisation of conflict. Land affected in Auckland
Page 5885
and Wesley counties includes 3,600-odd hectares that are precious to those living in the upper reaches of the Bega Valley and at Candelo. Those residents will welcome revocation of that land for the purpose stated in the motion.

The Opposition supports the general thrust of this measure, but seeks an explanation about those five areas. The Opposition accedes that it could pursue its aim by amendment of the revocation of dedication provisions in the legislation. Clauses 16, 16A and 19B provide for revocation of dedication in certain circumstances. The Opposition seeks more information on those areas but supports the general thrust of the measure. I ask all members to express their views on these provisions, which will at the end of the day enrich New South Wales. I commend my amendment to the House.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [5.03]: The amendment would strike at the heart of the conclusion of the South East Forest Agreement. Any amendment which would result in loss of the motion would deny the Government the ability to fulfil obligations it signed to fulfil under the South East Forest Agreement one year ago - obligations which must be fulfilled within the year. Any amendment would place the motion out of harmony with the motion passed in the other place. I understand that both Houses must pass the same motion to allow it to go to His Excellency the Governor. The proposed amendment would prevent that happening. The provision has already passed the upper House unamended. Therefore, any amendment in this House would prevent the motion going to His Excellency. The amendment proposes that advice will be required in respect of the mining aspects of those five additional areas to the Gardens of Stone National Park. I shall quote the Minister for Mines, in a letter he wrote on this topic to the Premier. Once I have read out these two paragraphs I will seek leave of the House to table the letter:

I have received advice on the Minute from the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR). I have no significant concerns at the four recommendations advanced in the Minute or the boundaries of the proposals described in the maps [attached].

In particular it is noted that the proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone and Cudmirrah National Parks reflect extensive discussions held between the DMR and the NPWS. The proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone still impinge on a number of existing coal authorisations to prospect and coal leases. However, the DMR considers that there are no economic coal resources within the affected sections of these titles and that the proposed boundaries exclude all areas containing potentially mineable coal. I therefore find the proposed boundaries satisfactory.

I seek leave to table that letter, which I believe represents the advice referred to in the amendment.

Leave granted.

Mr Martin: Will it be incorporated?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The letter has been read into the record; it does not need to be incorporated in Hansard. It is sufficient that the letter be tabled.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [5.06]: What is happening is quite extraordinary. As the Opposition spokesman on minerals and energy, I support wholeheartedly Labor's progressive policy on creation of national parks. Announcements have been made on that issue and further announcements will be made about it in the lead-up to the next State election. I make clear the Opposition's commitment to the national parks program, lest my words be misinterpreted or reported in a form that might cast doubt on that commitment. It is extraordinary that the Government has brought on the motion in this form without any real consultation. This afternoon I consulted with the Coal Association and the Chamber of Mines, Metals and Extractive Industries, the two principal bodies involved in the mining industry in this State. I approached both bodies and asked them whether they were aware of the motion moved by the Minister and of the revocation schedule contained in Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day No. 41, of Tuesday 29 November 1994.

Both bodies told me they knew nothing about it and had not been consulted about it. That is extraordinary. The Minister quoted from a letter by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines. That letter, now tabled, seems to create doubt whether adoption of the motion before the House would impinge upon current and future mining in the western districts of New South Wales. In the estimates committee I asked the Minister questions about the Camden area, which has extensive prospective coal reserves. The Government is allowing development to occur in the Harrington Estate at Camden and at Cawdor in that region. That is the way the Government is looking after the future mineral resources of this State. Earlier this year, with great fanfare, the Minister for Mines released a publication entitled "Our Threatened Coal Resources". The article contained a graph and said:

The coal industry will face a crisis in a few years if it is denied access to the last of New South Wales' untapped coal resources. Almost half of the State's coal is already locked up in National Parks, or cannot be exploited because it is covered by housing developments or other land uses which prevent mining. Another third cannot be mined economically at today's prices.

In reality only 18 per cent of the coal in New South Wales is available for mining and a third of this could be lost if action is not taken soon to protect access to it.

The Minister has given certain verbal assurances; he quoted from a letter from the Minister for Mines. With the limited resources available to the Opposition - it does not have a department at its disposal - how can it possibly analyse this schedule of revocations and make any informed determinations about what areas should or should not be excluded? The shadow minister has foreshadowed an amendment simply to allow time to consider whether there are prospective areas in which mining could occur. One of the most prospective areas for goldmining is in the west of the State. Two large goldmines will commence operation soon. However, if the Government sends this sort of signal to the industry, perhaps those mining operations will not go ahead.
Page 5886
Lack of consultation by the Government hardly inspires confidence in the industry and in the bodies responsible for the industry in this State.

The Government's method of revocation of dedications inherent in this motion is extraordinary. I urge caution on the part of the Government: if it proceeds with this motion and if it uses the same form with these revocations as it displayed in Camden, Cawdor and Wollondilly shire, it will not inspire confidence from the industry. It is extraordinary that industry was not consulted, though given the past performance of this Government it should not come as any surprise, for it never consults with anybody outside the industry, and certainly not with the organisations and people concerned. However, the Government's approach in this instance is extraordinary because those involved are not traditional Labor supporters.

I am sure members of the coal industry and the Chamber of Mines Metals and Extractive Industries would admit that. But those people now talk to the Opposition because they cannot talk to the Government. It is becoming increasingly obvious from this Government's performance that it is very likely its members will be sitting on this side of the Chamber in the not too distant future. Members of that industry and other industries can talk to Opposition members, as was the case when we were in government. The Minister's door was always open for industry members to talk with the Labor Government. Certainly information that I have relating to discussion with the industry about these revocations is not -

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



Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.15]: I draw to the attention of honourable members the continuing serious circumstances of drought and its effect on the Murray electorate and New South Wales generally. In recent times storms have brought rainfall, but only in isolated regions. Very little, if any, water is being received in the southern catchment areas. My greatest concern is securing the transfer of water between Victoria and New South Wales within the Murray Valley and obtaining flexibility to secure temporary transfers generally wherever water is required from where it is available. I have always believed that water should be available temporarily to help where drought conditions prevail in different areas of our State and other States.

I am pleased that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is in the House. I compliment him for the good work he is doing in the present circumstances. He has made approaches by correspondence to Mr Coleman, the Victorian Minister for National Resources, in an endeavour to seek transfer of available water to the irrigation districts of the Murray Valley in New South Wales. Unfortunately there appears to be an impediment within the Victorian legislation that does not allow for this procedure. A meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission is to be held on Friday, 2 December at which I hope this issue will be considered and a decision made as to whether a Victorian legislative procedure can enable the transfer of available water to be utilised in New South Wales.

We must also consider interstate and intervalley transfers of water. Water could be secured from the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme to help rice crops to mature and to maintain irrigation for pastures, summer crops generally and stockfeed. I speak about the needs of several thousand irrigators within my electorate. When one has regard to the small quantities of water that irrigators in northern New South Wales have been able to secure, perhaps people in the south of the State are fortunate indeed. With areas of rice crops, summer crops and pastures already established, it is essential that these crops be helped to reached the harvesting stage by securing available water. Improvements in seasonal conditions would be marvellous, but unfortunately that will come only with time. Every avenue must be considered. The Minister is doing his job well; the irrigation management board and boards generally along the Murray River are working in cohesion to try to assist with water supply.

Another matter of concern is the interstate transfer of water between properties held by the same owner. I find it difficult to understand why land-holders cannot transfer water from one property to another. Two landowners with properties in Victoria and New South Wales that have water supplied from the Murray River have told me they want to transfer their water rights entitlement temporarily this year from their Victorian farms to their New South Wales farms. I plead with the Victorian Minister and this Government to accept this procedure. I thank all those involved for the help they have given our agricultural industry, which is suffering from drought at this time. I am pleased that irrigation water will be made available - 95 per cent this year and 15 per cent next year. [Time expired.]


Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [5.20]: Tonight I refer to Aboriginal education. At 4.00 p.m. on Friday, at Leichhardt RSL club, Tranby Aboriginal Co-operative College will be holding graduation celebrations for this year's students. I am proud to have received an invitation to those celebrations. The programs Tranby college offers Aboriginal students are marvellous. The college, which is a leading light in providing educational facilities for Aboriginal people in this country, has been operating at Glebe for the past 36 years. Staff at Tranby college are dedicated, and Aboriginal people have many curricula from which to choose. Kevin Cook, the Chief Executive Officer, and Jack Beetson, Director of Studies at Tranby college, are proud of its
Page 5887
achievements. They hope, in the very near future, to establish the first Aboriginal university in Australia. They are working towards achieving that goal. This year Tranby college offered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders technical and further education courses.

In early November we saw the introduction of the first New South Wales Vocational, Education and Training Accreditation Board, VETAB, accredited course - the advanced certificate of small business studies. This course, which will be offered in 1995, marks a milestone in Tranby's history, as it was developed specifically for indigenous people and has an indigenous content and perspective. Tranby students will study Aboriginal business methods and styles of communication, along with western methods, in a unique, competency-based format that aligns with the Australian Standards framework and is now nationally registered. That is a great achievement for Tranby's dedicated staff and management committee. I hope they go from strength to strength. I hope that the Government recognises the great job Tranby college is doing and ensures that funding is made available for culturally-based and vocationally-based programs.

This college will play a big role in building bridges between Aborigines and non-Aborigines in this country. This is a first step in the process of reconciliation. There is nothing better for young Aboriginal people than first-class, quality education. That is exactly what Tranby college offers. Tranby college believes that, if we are to achieve anything that remotely resembles Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice in this country, it can only come through independently controlled and community-based educational organisations such as Tranby, which embraces the philosophy and ethos of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teaching and learning styles. Education programs for Aboriginal people should be based on their culture, their beliefs and their spirituality. We need a holistic approach to Aboriginal education. Aboriginal people will not receive the right sort of education in mainstream TAFE colleges, because teachers do not understand their culture. The teachers at Tranby college understand Aboriginal culture, and I applaud them for that. [Time expired.]


Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [5.25]: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I raise a matter of considerable importance to you, to me and to the Minister for the Environment - the Federal Government's recent short-sighted proposal to import cooked chicken meat into New South Wales. I am greatly concerned that this plan may, first, have dire consequences for Australian native wildlife through the introduction of exotic diseases; second, lower the quality of chicken meat for Australian consumers; and, third, cause great hardship to chicken farmers and result in job losses in Maitland and across New South Wales. I am told that, following requests from the governments of the United States, Denmark, Thailand and New Zealand, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service proposed a relaxation in quarantine controls to allow the importation of cooked chicken meat. If the Federal Government accepts this proposal it will represent another compromise of Australian interests in favour of the demands of other nations.

This issue is about more than trade and open markets; it is about protecting our wildlife, our standards and our jobs. There are many chicken farmers in my electorate, making chicken farming one of the area's significant agricultural industries. These farmers not only provide a valuable boost to the local economy through the generation of business and employment but play a large part in the maintenance of our local infrastructure and our community. Mr Deputy-Speaker, I know that you join me in confirming the importance of the chicken industry in the Hunter region and on the central coast - an area which is also represented by the Minister for the Environment. Chicken farmers, like many others in agricultural industry, are hard-working people, many of whom have lived in the area for generations. They want to protect Australia's high quality chicken meat that we, the consumers, put on our tables and in our children's sandwiches. Over the years they have worked hard to achieve these high standards.

Plans to relax quarantine controls on the importation of chicken meat make it clear to me that the Federal Government cares more for the requests of overseas governments than it does for hard-working Australians. The interests of farmers in Maitland are being ignored in favour of farmers in Thailand, Denmark and the United States. This is not the only threat that these plans pose to the people in my electorate and the consumers of New South Wales. The Australian Veterinary Association and New South Wales chicken growers have expressed concern that exotic diseases will be introduced into Australia along with imported chickens. These chickens may carry diseases against which our valuable native wildlife have no innate or acquired immunity. One such disease is Newcastle disease. This virus can be found in chicken products in many other countries, but so far it has been prevented from entering Australian shores. If it were to be introduced through the importation of cooked chicken meat, native bird species such as eastern rosellas, black cormorants, budgerigars, cockatiels and other threatened species could be at risk.

Where is the shadow spokesperson on agriculture? Where are all the Labor members who represent electorates in the Hunter area? They are not supporting dedicated farmers in the Maitland area who put so much effort into growing their product. Everyone in New South Wales has heard of the famous Steggles chickens. Will Opposition members, who do not adequately represent farmers in this area, stand back and let the Federal Labor Government allow the importation of inferior chicken meat products into New South Wales? That is not good enough for this Government. Farmers have put a lot of money and effort into the production of wonderful
Page 5888
chicken products. At a time of drought in New South Wales the Federal Government is prepared to take advice to allow the importation of inferior products into Australia and New Zealand, particularly our supermarkets, because of price. I urge the Minister for the Environment to examine this matter and to lobby the Federal Government to stop the proposal immediately. I ask what the Federal members of the Hunter region are doing about this matter. Are they looking after the interests of the poultry farmers and the processors, who provide so much employment in the Hunter Valley and this country?

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [5.30]: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for his interest in this matter and commend him for his ongoing dedication to the people of his electorate. Once again the honourable member for Maitland has demonstrated a concerned interest in his electorate and the environment. Last week the honourable member took a stand for the people of Maitland against the relocation of a dross processing plant to his electorate. He stood up and said no to the developers of the plant, who wanted to try to avoid appropriate environmental conditions that were to be placed on their operations at Kurri Kurri. He defended his electorate against overdevelopment. He always stands up for his electorate. He knows that the people of Maitland would not accept a dross plant that did not adhere to strict environmental standards and he stood up for them and said so.

The proposals of the Federal Government to import cooked chicken meat into Australia are short-sighted. Like the honourable member for Maitland, I am concerned about the threat posed to the chicken farmers of New South Wales and to the high standards of meat that we as Australians have worked hard to establish. I am also gravely concerned about the peril that the cooked chicken meat may signify for our native wildlife. Newcastle disease, as the honourable member for Maitland has indicated, is a significant threat to many species of Australian birds. The Australian Veterinary Association and the New South Wales chicken growers association have both expressed concerns about the possibility of certain exotic diseases being established in native bird populations if the plans are approved. The Australian Veterinary Association stated:

As Australian native birds probably have little innate or acquired immunity against Newcastle disease, the effect on their population dynamics could be devastating, with potentially serious implications for the conservation of endangered species.

New South Wales has the largest bird meat, broiler and egg production industry in Australia. Therefore, it also has the greatest chance of exposing native bird life to any exotic disease that could be imported. I thank the honourable member for Maitland for his concern in this matter and will today place my concerns and those of the honourable member for Maitland in formal correspondence to the Federal Government. This plan by the Federal Government must not be allowed to happen. It has implications of devastation for Australian bird life. It has implications of devastation for the livelihood of thousands of chicken growers in this country.


Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [5.32]: Normally I speak at this time of the day about problems in my electorate. Tonight, rather than talk about bad things, I want to talk about something that is good and positive. Tonight's story is about the future of this State. It is about the young people who live in New South Wales. Last Friday night my wife and I had the pleasure, as did other honourable members, of being guests at the Sydney Entertainment Centre for the 1994 Coca-Cola Schools Spectacular. The night was compered by Vanessa Corish and Brett Meyer. Vanessa is personally known to me. She not only has great talent but is also a lovely young lady. The comperes did a magnificent job.

Two thousand five hundred students from 200 public schools throughout New South Wales took part in the spectacular on Friday and Saturday nights. We were lucky: we visited many countries and were entertained with magic song and dance displays. Mary Lopez, the producer-director, and Bruce Harris, the executive producer, should be proud because they produced a show that was not only good but of world-class. We were entertained by people such as Riki James from the J. J. Cahill Memorial High School, Belinda-Jane Hardy, the Island Sisters from Newtown High School of the Performing Arts, Juliette Owusu from Hoxton Park High School and Michael Tierney from Hurlstone Park Agricultural High School. Those people really stood out on the night and should receive special mention.

In the International Year of the Family we visited the Pacific Islands. We joined guitarist Robert Svard from Newtown High School, who took us through Asia. We holidayed in Mediterranean magic with Maria Stavropolis. We experienced with Juliette Owusu of Hoxton Park High School, particularly in her performance of the song "Holi Hla Hla Mandela", which was absolutely superb, the ecstasy that Nelson Mandela and people from South Africa must have felt. Of course, Michael Tierney, knocked the crowd out just before interval with in his rendition of "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother". After interval we found ourselves in the Antarctic. Gavin Lockley sang "Corner of the Sky" superbly. One World led us through Europe with a number of songs, flamenco guitars and Andro and Dauno Martinez of the Miller Technology High School - who did a wonderful job - who were supported by vocalist Lance Costantini from Menai High School.

Michael Tierney, who has appeared in the Schools Spectacular for some 11 consecutive years, led us through the United States of America. We finished with an absolutely spectacular finale. There were 2,500 students and 2,500 stars. I suppose I have been fairly fortunate. I have seen shows at the West End in London, in Vegas and on Broadway in New York. Never have I enjoyed a show more than I
Page 5889
enjoyed the Coca-Cola Schools Spectacular at the Sydney Entertainment Centre last Friday night. Never have I felt like cheering and clapping more than I did on Friday night. Never have I been so proud of the young people of New South Wales and never have I been so proud to be a New South Welshman as I was on Friday night. Never have I been so confident in the younger generation. I say, "Well done" to all the students, teachers and parents who took part in this show the other night. They were superb.

Special mention should go to high schools in my electorate. I should like to mention special performing arts high schools such as Plumpton High School, Shalvey High School and Cranbrook School. Other schools in my electorate have supplied many stars for the Schools Spectacular over the years and played a leading role in the show on Friday and Saturday nights. I feel it is timely that someone should say something good about the youth of New South Wales. We hear a great many negative stories about youth and the younger generation. Honourable members who did not take the opportunity of going to the Coca-Cola Schools Spectacular should take the opportunity to attend the show next year and every year. The show demonstrates the great talent and the great future that we have in New South Wales. If we can place our plans in the hands of the people who performed on Friday and Saturday nights, I am certain that New South Wales is well-positioned.


Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.37]: Tonight I wish to discuss a matter that is of great concern to some of my constituents in the Old Windsor Road area, Winston Hills, in the Goliath Avenue and Gideon Street proximity. Since the Old Windsor Road was widened some years ago there has been a problem of noise. Noise levels are high in the early hours of the morning, and at night the use of the road by heavy vehicles means that many residents have problems with sleeping. In fact, Mrs Doreen Ramage, to whom I have spoken on many occasions, tells me that she has been forced to sleep at the rear of her premises and wears earmuffs to bed in a desperate attempt to sleep.

The problem appears to be accentuated by the bridge over Toongabbie Creek, which seems to act as an echo chamber and noise resonates to adjacent houses. I have visited that area on a number of occasions and have had site meetings with Roads and Traffic Authority officials. I have met Mr Bob Morris, the former regional director, and other staff members. I had meetings with Mr Michael Yabsley when he was the assistant Minister for Roads. People such as Mrs Deborah Morris have written to me to say that the noise is becoming unbearable. From the early hours of the morning trucks travel along Old Windsor Road at a great speed, sounding like oncoming goods trains. The Roads and Traffic Authority has planted trees adjacent to Old Windsor Road, and that has certainly reduced the noise level somewhat. In addition, the sealing of part of the road was changed recently, which also reduced the noise level. However, noise remains a problem for people who live in the area.

The area is excellent for families and is close to all transport facilities. The noise, however, is a big problem. I have been in communication with the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads on a number of occasions about this matter and I understand that approval has now been given to construct earth mounds. The matter is with Parramatta City Council and negotiations are proceeding to determine council's requirements. The noise mounds will reduce the noise, but when? Members of the community have been patient for many years. They are concerned about the problem, and their health is being affected.

Mr and Mrs Ken Ryan have contacted me, and I have met with Mr Gordon Lee, Ms Anne Franey, Frank and Doreen Ramage, Mr and Mrs Stcherbina, and the Morris family. Mr Ramage is seriously ill and the noise level is not helping his health problem. Over the years I have received a number of petitions from people in this area. They are concerned about the noise. People in the area who want something done about the problem include the O'Malley family, the Stephenson family, the McKay family, the McGonigal family, the Cornock family, Mr Lee, Mr Stackpool, Mr Kang, Ms Franey, Mr Miners, the Ryan family, Mr Musial, the Edwards family, the Ramage family, the Shaw family, the Kirwan family, the Hill family, the Lees family and the Sutton family. Those people are concerned about the noise problem in their community. I ask the Minister to take urgent steps to expedite the question in regard to the noise problem and to consider having earth mounds erected so that members of that community can have a better quality of life. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to discuss this matter this afternoon. I thank him for his courtesy and assistance.

Mr BAIRD (Northcott - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads) [5.41]: The honourable member for Baulkham Hills is an outstanding member of Parliament, an outstanding Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport, and takes a strong interest in these issues.

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

Mr BAIRD: He has made numerous representations to me about the problems he has outlined. I am pleased to advise him that his representations will soon be successful in providing relief for his constituents who live in Goliath Avenue. The Roads and Traffic Authority is in the process of commissioning a consultant to undertake a review of environmental factors for the construction of noise attenuation barriers at Goliath Avenue. An initial site visit was undertaken with a consultant on 21 November in order to explain the proposal and to initially identify any limitations, such as vegetation. It is expected that the review of environmental factors will be completed in three weeks. Necessary
Page 5890
negotiations with Parramatta City Council will be undertaken during that period. Subject to council approval, work is expected to start in the week commencing 19 December. The honourable member for Baulkham Hills can be sure that his representations have made a difference, and that his constituents can retain their confidence in their local member presenting these issues to me and to the department. It shows once again that this is a can do government.


Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [5.43]: I ask the Minister for Community Services to reinstate the home care services that have been reduced in relation to my constituent Mr Joseph Jenkins, of unit 44, 10 Fowler Street, Hamilton South. Mr Jenkins is a severely disabled man aged 34 years who, through courage and determination and the assistance of Home Care Services, is able to live with independence and dignity in his own home. He has access to a motorised wheelchair, and this gives him the ability to move around the community. However, within his own home he is severely limited in what he can do. He crawls around his unit; he has difficulty making sandwiches and preparing similar food; he cannot cook; he has to drink from a straw. He has been a client of Home Care Services since 1983, and has been receiving five hours service three times a week.

On Mondays Home Care Services provided someone to do his washing, cooking and ironing; on Thursdays his shopping was done; and on Fridays his cooking and ironing were done, and his clothes were pegged out. These services have given Joseph independence and dignity. However, services have now been reduced to one day a week for 3½ hours, when his clothes are pegged out, after he has washed them in an automatic washing machine; three meals are cooked for him, which will be frozen, and he has been told the rest of his meals will be provided by Meals on Wheels; and some ironing and shopping are done for him. This will have a severe impact on his capacity to live independently in his home. He is concerned that these cuts will force him to move into a hostel. That would have an impact on his right to live in the community as an independent person and to retain that independence with dignity.

Mr Jenkins is not complaining about the services he receives from Home Care Services or about the administration. He is complaining about the impact of that change on his lifestyle. The Home Care Services coordinators and workers in Newcastle feel badly about the cuts. They have said it pains them to go through the reassessment program and to turn down clients who are genuinely in need, who are not well off financially and cannot afford $12 an hour for services that have been provided by Home Care Services. However, the number of clients is increasing substantially and services are becoming leaner.

Home Care Services was set up to provide the sorts of services that Joseph has received, that is, basic care in the home, and assistance with shopping, washing, cooking and ironing. Those services are being reduced. In almost all cases fortnightly home care services have been axed as demand grows and services are extended to those who are more needy. There is not a more needy case than Joseph. It would be a tragedy if his capacity to live independently in the community, to be secure in the Department of Housing area in which he lives, is taken away because of the reduction of services from five hours three times a week to 3½ hours once a week. I ask the Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts - the Minister at the table - to make a special effort to discuss this matter with the Minister for Community Services. Hopefully Mr Jenkins' case can be reviewed and the level of care he was receiving from Home Care Services can be reinstated.


Mr W. T. J. MURRAY (Barwon) [5.48]: On 7 November 1973, and continuing on 8 and 10 November 1973 a heinous crime was committed in the north-west of New South Wales, when Mr Lamb and Mrs Morse were murdered. Subsequently, on 20 June 1974, Messrs Baker and Crump were sentenced to life imprisonment. As a result of the court hearing Mr Justice Taylor said:

I believe you should spend the rest of your lives in gaol and there you should die . . . If in the future some application is made that you be released on the grounds of clemency or of mercy, then I would venture to suggest to those who are entrusted with the task of determining whether you are entitled to it or not, that the measure of your entitlement to either should be the clemency and the mercy you extended to the woman when she begged you for her life.

That sentencing by Mr Justice Taylor has since been the subject of a number of appeals and other legal mechanisms. For example, in 1988, it was pointed out that no murder charge was laid against Baker and Crump for the murder of Virginia Gai Morse; it was a charge of conspiracy to murder. Baker and Crump were found guilty of the murder of Mr Ian James Lamb, and of other charges, such as assaulting police and firing at them.

Following the restructuring of the law, people such as Baker and Crump may now make appeals. In 1992 Mr Justice Loveday heard an appeal by Crump. His Honour said that Crump would be able to reapply in two years to have his life sentence converted to a definite minimum term and an additional term of parole, having been convicted in 1974. In an appeal in Baker's case - the appeals in both the cases were heard separately - notice was given that Crump and Baker were not charged with the murder of Mrs Morse because she died in Queensland. A newspaper report at the time of the appeal stated that homicide inspector Ian Claridge said that the police were ready to act if either man was ever released from prison in New South Wales. He said that a report detailing the
Page 5891
crimes committed by Baker and Crump had been sent to the Queensland Director of Prosecutions, Mr Royce Miller, who could recommend extradition proceedings.

Since then, matters have gone forward. In response to some comments that I made, Mr Smethurst, the Commissioner for Corrective Services, advised me on 7 June 1993 that the Queensland Attorney-General had applied under the provisions of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1982 for Baker and his co-accused, Crump, to be transferred to Queensland to be dealt with according to law. That application is currently under consideration by the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice. There has been a great deal of relief felt throughout the north and north-west. I had a personal involvement in this heinous crime. Virginia Gai Morse was a very great friend of mine and my family. Indeed, I led part of the search for her.

A charge of murder has not been laid, but I believe that it should be. I ask the Government to give a guarantee that if either of the two persons is ever released, he will be extradited to Queensland to stand trial for murder. It is preferable that they never be released because the decision and the summing up of the trial judge made it abundantly clear that Baker and Crump should never be released back into the community. The fact is that the families and other people involved still live in this State. The daughter of a former member of this House, Roger Wotton, is married to Mrs Morse's brother, and many members of Parliament were involved in this case. In one of my last statements in this House, I seek recognition that Baker and Crump will never be allowed back into society. [Time expired.]

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [5.53]: I thank the honourable member for Barwon for raising this matter in the House tonight. Obviously, it is a matter of considerable concern to him, to the people of north-west New South Wales and, indeed, to all the people of New South Wales. If these two people, Baker and Crump, had committed this crime today, under the Government's truth in sentencing legislation, life would have meant life. Truth in sentencing was introduced because people who commit such crimes could, through the technicalities of the law, find themselves back on the streets.

I undertake to the honourable member for Barwon that while I hold the commission of Minister for Police I will take up this matter with the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, and urge on him that these two people, Baker and Crump, should never be released from the New South Wales justice system. However, if that is not possible, I will pursue the course of action raised by the honourable member, that is, to take up the matter with the Queensland authorities to ensure that Baker and Crump are immediately extradited to Queensland to undergo appropriate justice within that criminal justice system.

Mr A. S. AQUILINA (St Marys) [5.53]: I wish to raise with the Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts the needs of punters in the Tregear area of my electorate. Tregear is at the western end of the electorate of Mount Druitt and to the eastern end of the electorate of St Marys. It is chiefly populated by public housing tenants, many of whom are elderly or disabled. Those who live in the area do not have a great deal of access to private transport, and public transport in the area is poor. Most residents do not own their own vehicles and find it difficult to get to the local Totalisator Agency Board closest to them, which would be further to the east in Mount Druitt.

I ask that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing consider the possibility of the provision of a TAB agency at the local shopping facility at Tregear. That shopping facility is owned by Mr Tom Smith, who is in a perfect position to take charge of such an agency. He has offered his own premises for an agency; he is concerned to provide a service to the local residents. I take this opportunity to commend Mr Smith. I also commend another member of the community, Mr Peter Patsouris, who has had a number of years of unstinting effort on behalf of the local community, giving assistance in many different ways.

The fact that, on numerous occasions, Mr Smith has made requests for a TAB and for the allowance of an agency being provided at the Tregear shopping centre indicates that there has been considerable interest in and certainly a lot of local support for the issue. It has been conveyed to me that many hundreds of residents have indicated that they need access to a TAB facility and that the local newspaper, the Mount Druitt and St Marys Standard, has also supported this call for a fairer consideration of the needs of the residents, especially, as I said, the elderly and disabled or those who are disadvantaged because of the isolation of the area.

Other issues relate to the isolation of the area, such as the need for a post office and banking facilities close to the residents. As such facilities are controlled by the Federal Government, I have made representations to the appropriate Federal member. In conclusion, I implore the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing to provide such a facility at Tregear, and to consider the needs of the residents of this isolated part of Tregear. I ask him particularly to take note of the strenuous efforts of Mr Tom Smith and Peter Patsouris on behalf of the community to provide a facility of which the punters in Tregear can be proud.


Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [5.58]: During the week of 31 October, students at Bradfield College in North Sydney put aside their regular classes and took part in the first school-based Australian Business Week program in New South Wales. One hundred
Page 5892
and fifty-three students participated in the program. They formed companies that then elected chief executive officers, and directors of finance, marketing and administration. What they achieved in five days was truly amazing. They were helped by local business people who acted as mentors, sponsored awards and presented entertaining and educational insights into the world of business. Watching their chaotic company meetings on day one develop into considered, consultative team approaches was as much an education for mentors as it was for students. I know, because I was one of the mentors.

Within five days they had developed products, business, finance and marketing plans. They had produced one-minute videos to advertise their wares, which ranged from socks to galactic sunglasses, other worldly perfume, stationery and household cleaners. On the final day the school grounds became the venue for trade displays, where each student company mounted exhibits to promote their products. What students achieved using crepe paper, photocopiers, balloons, and bits and pieces scrounged from the school grounds would put the creative flair of the best advertising agency to the test. Each company also produced a company report and spoke to it in front of a panel of judges. The quality was outstanding.

Each team used a computer business simulation game developed by lecturers from the University of Technology, who gave unstinting support during the week. It was very tough and, from my discussions with other business mentors, the way students used the technology to make decisions about increasing market share, increasing profit, establishing new plant and new markets would have done existing businesses proud. This simulated game had previously been used with university students, so it was quite something for year 11 students to take it on. Australian Business Week was developed by the Chamber of Commerce in Parramatta, and this was the first time it had been tried on a non-residential basis in a school.

It is not surprising that Bradfield was selected to operate the trial. It is an innovative joint TAFE and Department of School Education vocational college for students in years 11 and 12. It is located at the old North Sydney Girls High School site in North Sydney, which is currently undergoing a $2.6 million upgrade. It will be a splendid school when it is completed. Working with the Bradfield students and talking to them during breaks confirmed my view that the college provides a highly beneficial alternative to students wishing to continue their vocational studies and to complete their studies in a mature setting with excellent links to further training.

The motivation, commitment and energy demonstrated by the students was matched by that of the teachers. The strong and supportive relationship between them was clearly visible. Australian Business Week at Bradfield was challenging, exhausting and difficult, but fun according to teacher Kay Higgins, who was one of the driving forces behind the Bradfield program. Bradfield Principal, Allan Coman, has told me of the beneficial effects the program has had on participants beyond the program. He said they are motivated and clearer about what they want to do.

Kay, Allan and other teachers, Bernice Wakeley and Ilham Ayoub, and Michael Brown from Blue Circle Southern Cement, are in the gallery, along with students Damien Deacon, Rowena Denny, Kym Denny, Sara Johnson, Alison Brookes, Sue Bower, Chris Quinn, Michael Andrews, Tamara Kendall and Skye Severino. I welcome them to Parliament and congratulate them all, especially the young people who formed the company voted overall best at the end of a challenging week. I know that Bradfield college will go from strength to strength. I hope that Australian Business Week becomes a regular event, not only at that college, but in many schools throughout New South Wales. It helped develop skills in teamwork. It showed young students how to express ideas and use technology to solve problems that will make them strong participants in the growing New South Wales business sector. I commend the college and the program to the House.


Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [6.03]: The matter I wish to raise this evening concerns the lack of services for developmentally disabled people in the Illawarra area. The parents and friends of developmentally disabled persons in the Illawarra region are hostile because of the lack of relevant services for the disabled. On 27 October I placed a question on notice for the Minister for Community Services, which read:

In the Wollongong region, how many persons with intellectual disabilities were on the waiting list for community group home accommodation or other supported accommodation as at:

(a) 30 June 1988?

(b) 30 June 1989?

(c) 30 June 1990?

(d) 30 June 1991?

(e) 30 June 1992?

(f) 30 June 1993?

(g) 30 June 1994?

The response was:

The Department of Community Services does not have a policy of maintaining waiting lists for placement in group homes. As vacancies occur expressions of interest are forwarded by consumers to the Area Placement Committee and selection is based on an assessment of need.

I thought it was amazing that the department did not keep a waiting list of the developmentally disabled in need of accommodation. I wish to draw to the attention of the House that in respect of the accommodation crisis in the Illawarra, the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability recently completed a statewide survey of the accommodation needs of people with disabilities. The report was presented to the Minister for Community Services on
Page 5893
16 September. The figures for the Illawarra are: 175 people need accommodation now - 65 of those 175 cases are critical; 340 people will need accommodation in the next one to five years; 10 people currently live permanently or semi-permanently in respite beds; and 25 school leavers have no option for day placement or employment options. These figures are very conservative, as they are limited to the number of people who responded to the survey.

The research report "I think about it all the time" was completed in November 1993. There has been no response to the clearly documented crisis in the report, let alone any action or an allocation of resources. The community's fear that the report would be a stalling tactic and would gain no result has been realised. I have also been informed that recently in the Illawarra region one place was vacant for a developmentally disabled person. When it was advertised, 300 expressions of interest were recorded and 95 definite written applications were received, but they were culled down to 10. The person who received the placement was the lucky one, but I reiterate that initially 300 people were interested in the one vacancy. It was reported at a public meeting that beds put aside for respite care had to be used to permanently accommodate developmentally disabled patients. In other words, they should have been available for respite care but had to be used to accommodate the developmentally disabled.

Recently in Wollongong at a public meeting attended by 250 people, as well as eight State and Federal Labor members of Parliament, a blind migrant woman who is a sole parent described her desperate position. Her daughter is unable to communicate. Her mother, who was extremely distressed, sobbed out the story of her struggle. She has no family to help her. Mrs Margaret Chadwick, who has been a tireless worker for the developmentally disabled for many years, told of her 36-year struggle to find alternative accommodation for her daughter. Mrs Chadwick said:

We have saved the Government millions of dollars. Surely it is our right to expect assistance for our loved ones before we die.

I ask the Treasurer, and Minister for the Arts to raise as a matter of urgency this important matter of the developmentally disabled and their carers with the Minister for Community Services.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.08 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [7.30]: In my contribution prior to the taking of private members' statements and again before the adjournment I emphasised industry concerns that this measure should not lock up valuable State resources. The Minister tabled a letter, dated 27 October, from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines. During the adjournment I had the opportunity to look at the letter. I noted this assurance in the Minister's letter:

In particular it is noted that the proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone and Cudmirrah National Parks reflect extensive discussions held between the DMR and the NPWS. The proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone still impinge on a number of coal authorisations to prospect and coal leases. However, the DMR considers that there are no economic coal resources within the affected sections of these titles and that the proposed boundaries exclude all areas containing potentially mineable coal. I therefore find the proposed boundaries satisfactory.

I suppose one could be reassured by that advice from the Minister. After all, Ministers should not put their signatures to letters that are in any way misleading. I have no reason to doubt the Minister's commitment. I re-emphasise, however, the importance of the mining industry, with coal sales worth $3 billion per annum. That industry directly employs about 14,000 workers. The metals, minerals and extractive industries, with revenues of more than $1 billion, employ 6,000 people. The mining industry makes a significant contribution by way of freight revenues to the State Rail Authority. In the 1993-94 financial year that industry paid royalties of $154 million, of which coal accounted for more than 95 per cent.

Given the figures in the report released earlier this year, prepared by the Department of Mineral Resources, it behoves the Government - and the Parliament in particular, which has a responsibility mandated by the electorate to ensure preservation of these resources - not to lock them up. I understand that the motion will act as a form of gazettal. If the motion is passed and not overturned, the proposals for national park areas would become law. For that reason I have expressed concern about an area of the Gardens of Stone National Park. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Bathurst will be speaking on behalf of his constituents - the mineworkers who are employed in the mines that would be closed if all the Gardens of Stone area were to be included in these national park proposals.

I accept the statement in the Minister's letter that those jobs will be secure. But there is understandable doubt on this side of the House because of other assurances and promises that have been given which, regrettably, have not been lived up to. I re-emphasise my opening remarks that my comments should not be misinterpreted as not supporting the Opposition's very strong commitment to the creation of national parks throughout this State. That strong commitment is given. In my discussions with the industry, in which it raised with me its concerns about access to land, I re-emphasised that the Opposition is committed to a policy of creation of parks, that the Opposition will abide by that policy and that it will introduce it as one of its measures when it is in government. But it is only right that the House should be aware of the concerns of the mining industry. The proposals may impinge upon mining areas that are great revenue earners for this State and creators of jobs for miners.

Page 5894

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [7.37]: I support the motion. It is about time the Fahey Government acted to protect key forest areas in New South Wales, even if it is too little, too late. However, I fully endorse the efforts of the conservation movement to expand the conservation reserve proposals as far as possible. The motion clears the way to protect parts of the Gardens of Stone area, coastal land around the Cudmirrah Lake, the catchment of Diamond Creek in the Deua wilderness, and parts of the south-east forests within the 1990 Greiner-Hawke spaghetti national park agreement. That terminology is not mine, it was that of the former Minister for the Environment, Tim Moore, when describing the agreement hatched between Greiner and Hawke on all those left-over areas that no-one wanted to log. The proposed revocations are not based on ecological boundaries but are aimed at minimising the amount of timber taken out of production.

It is interesting that opposition is not being mounted by resource-based government agencies. That makes me wonder whether the proposal is just another spaghetti national park type approach, in which revocation is proposed for land areas that are not significant for economic purposes. It is said that the environment always seems to come last - I refer now to the south-east forest area - which was the basis on which a bill was passed by this House with the support of the majority of honourable members but was not passed in the upper House because of opposition by the Government and the Call to Australia group. Although the areas the subject of this revocation were not to be logged, it is pleasing that they will be part of the national park system. It is to be noted that they were never under threat of being logged. These areas consist of poor timber and embrace steep lands. The proposed park will be surrounded by vast thickets of aged regrowth.

The Swan Lake area will be part of a proposed 2,000 hectare park announced by the Government as part of this motion. The National Parks Association of New South Wales Incorporated recommended 7,200 hectares; the Government has announced 2,000 hectares. Though important parts of the Swan Lake foreshore are protected by the Government's proposal, unfortunately large parts of its catchment will continue to be subjected to logging. It is notable that of the old-growth forest areas identified in the National Parks and Wildlife (New Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill 1993, only the Conjola and Nangar State forests are revoked. Many important old-growth forests, including the spectacular Ben Hall's Gap Nature Reserve, supported by the National Trust, will be logged. Another area I am interested in and about which I have been questioning the Minister for the Environment for the past six months is the area known as the Gardens of Stone. Those who walk past my office will see the beautiful poster of the pagodas of the Gardens of Stone on my door.

Mr Kinross: Hear! Hear!

Ms MOORE: I am pleased that the honourable member for Gordon frequently walks past my door and admires my poster of the Gardens of Stone. The proposals to revoke the Capertee State Forest and parts of the Newnes, Wolgan and Ben Bullen State forests to make a Gardens of Stone national park will be a welcome addition to the national parks estate. The area is part of the Blue Mountains proposed for inscription on the World Heritage List by the Colong Foundation for Wilderness. As with other members of Parliament I have visited the area under the guidance of the Colong Foundation of Wilderness and have been in awe of its majesty. This proposed park will protect the New South Wales version of the Bungle Bungle ranges in Western Australia. The proposed park also will protect the Wolgan escarpment, the Woolpack Rocks, the isolated mesa known as Donkey Mountain and the headwaters of Coco Creek, securing critical habitat for the endangered regent honeyeater.

I call upon the Minister to include Mount Airly in the proposed Gardens of Stone national park. It is unclear to me, on examining the Minister's speech, whether this is the case. The Colong Foundation described this area as a place of great dramatic landscape with village-like clusters of sandstone pagodas perched on top of buttress ramparts. The unprotected internal high cliffs and pagodas that form the complex sculptured rock gardens will be subject to substantial surface subsidence, rock fissuring and cliff collapse if mining is allowed. I would like to dwell on this mining issue because I have visited the Gardens of Stone and I have met with interested groups.

I spoke to members of the union and the miners, and was reminded that a delegation of miners and their families from Newcastle had walked to Parliament House to call upon the Parliament to support them in setting up a mine in the Newcastle area. This was so that they would not end up on the unemployment scrap heap, and mining could continue in their area. After careful consideration support was not given to that proposal because there was an overabundance of coal in New South Wales. Yet, this area, the Gardens of Stone, which has been recommended for World Heritage listing, is to be threatened and could be destroyed if mining is allowed. That is tragic.

I would like to mention briefly the Deua wilderness area. I welcome the revocation of part of the Dampier State Forest to protect Diamond Creek in the Deua wilderness area, south-west of Moruya. The Government chose to secure this last unprotected headwater of the Oolla-Burra Creek system. Honourable members should not forget that the Government recently rejected the dedication of 9,680 hectares of State forests recommended by the National Parks and Wildlife Service for inclusion in this area. That area, covering the entire headwaters of the Deua River, is being logged.

I support this motion as a small step towards protecting remaining old-growth forests in New South Wales on the premise that it is better to take small steps forward than to be constantly taking steps
Page 5895
backwards, as has occurred in this Fiftieth Parliament. With the exception of Diamond Creek, I do not consider these revocation areas productive or biologically significant arboreal forest habitat. Productive forests are the very areas required to make our national park reserve system comprehensive, adequate and representative of the old-growth forest areas of New South Wales. Accordingly, making these forest revocations into national parks cannot be passed off by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation as compliance with the national forest policy statement, signed by the former Premier and the Prime Minister.

This is not another Christmas present from the Government. Honourable members should remember that at this time last year there was a recommendation from the National Parks and Wildlife Service for 10 wilderness areas embracing 800,000 hectares to be set aside. Those recommendations had been sitting on the desk of the Minister for the Environment for 11 months. On 23 December the Premier announced his Christmas present, stating that less than half of the recommended area would be set aside, that is, 350,000 hectares. The majority of the New South Wales community welcomed this long overdue commitment from the Premier.

But what happened? There was a revolt by backbench members and the 350,000 hectares was revised to only 113,000 hectares. It would be wrong for this revocation to go ahead and for the parks not to be declared. I have continually asked the Minister for the Environment when the Gardens of Stone national park will be declared and until now his excuse has been that he has not finalised boundaries. It is to be hoped that after the revocation proceeds, the Minister for the Environment, who has entered the Chamber, will quickly make commitments and take action to declare those long awaited national parks, particularly the Gardens of Stone. I wonder why I am suspicious? I hope no trickery is involved.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [7.48]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the amendment moved by the Opposition. In particular, I refer to a report forwarded to me by the Department of Mineral Resources, dated 6 September 1993, when the department provided me with a briefing on the National Parks and Wildlife (New Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill 1993 introduced by the honourable member for Manly. Officers of the Department of Mineral Resources provided me with considerable information concerning the resource potential of the various notified areas under that private member's bill. A significant part of the document related to the proposed Gardens of Stone national park. At that stage the department had given serious consideration to the Gardens of Stone proposal by the honourable member for Manly, and also to the proposal contained in the Gardens of Stone National Park (Amendment) Bill presented by the honourable member for Bligh. I took the opportunity to again read the document. It was quite obvious that the Department of Mineral Resources in September 1993 had significant and considerable reservations about the declaration of the Gardens of Stone national park. We are all heartened by the new-found enthusiasm of the Government for the declaration of national parks.

Mr Gaudry: It is Christmas.

Ms ALLAN: As my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle says, maybe it is the Christmas spirit - the time of year when this sort of idea comes upon Government members. Unfortunately, after the Christmas festivities and as the new year approaches much of the excitement and enchantment of the national parks that grabs the Minister for the Environment at Christmas time will abate and a number of his gains will lose ground. The honourable member for Bligh has already referred to the declaration of last year's wilderness proposals and their eventual abortion only several months ago. It is difficult to assess what is under discussion because so little information is available in the revocation schedule. For example, on at least four occasions parts of the proposed Gardens of Stone national park were mentioned but without specific details.

Perhaps we should refer to information that has been provided. The Minister for the Environment is throwing literature around. He is enjoying himself. Maybe he has had a few drinks at dinner time. What has the Minister for the Environment got in his glass of water? Little boys playing little games after dinnertime. Never mind, we will not tell anyone. One difficulty with the proposal is lack of specific information. I should like to refer to some specific information on the Gardens of Stone proposal that the Department of Mineral Resources was able to provide about 12 months ago. The department had considerable concern about the proposed bills of the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh. So concerned was the department about the impact of the proposed bill of the honourable member for Manly and his proposed Gardens of Stone national park that it detailed for the Opposition the various job losses and loss of coal resource that could occur as a result of the declaration of the national park. The department said that the loss of coal resource would impact severely on both the local and the regional economies and on the long-term cost and efficiency of State power generation.

I am sure the Minister for Energy would be concerned if he were aware of this major issue. The shadow minister has already outlined some of those concerns in his contribution. In addition, in relation to the proposal by the honourable member for Manly on the Gardens of Stone national park the department said, "The livelihoods of 1,150 employees would be directly affected". Less than 12 months ago the department commented on one of two proposals being examined to create the Gardens of Stone national park. Government members might treat lightly the possibility of 1,150 employees losing their jobs as a result of the declaration of the Gardens of Stone national park, but the Opposition does not. The hilarity displayed by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation demonstrates their attitude to this issue. Their lack of concern about those 1,150 jobs is disappointing.

Page 5896

I am sure my colleague the honourable member for Bathurst would also like to comment on the attitude of the Ministers. At the heart of the amendment moved by the Opposition is coal resource. The Department of Mineral Resources claimed that with approximately 75 per cent of coal resources in the western coalfield already sterilised by existing national parks, limited opportunities are available for new coalmine developments. The department considered the possibility of the Newnes plateau, or that part of the area that might become the Gardens of Stone national park, compensating for the coal resource that was considered unavailable less than 12 months ago. The department was also aware that the Newnes plateau included significant areas of deeply weathered, friable and crushable sandstone which has been identified by the Department of Mineral Resources as having potential for future extraction of construction sand.

Less than 12 months ago in relation to coal resource and construction sand availability the department said that the Newnes plateau was a very valuable area and should be protected. That does not take into account that 1,150 jobs would be affected as a result of the declaration of that national park. In fact, the department concluded at that stage that the Gardens of Stone national park proposal of the honourable member for Manly should be vigorously opposed. The department was also concerned about the proposal of the honourable member for Bligh; it was seen as an improvement on the proposal of the honourable member for Manly. Reference must be made to the Macdonald proposal and the Moore proposal because, unfortunately, we do not have a Hartcher proposal to study in any depth. The department preferred the proposal of the honourable member for Bligh to that of the honourable member for Manly and said that it maintained a strong opposition to the dedication within the proposed Gardens of Stone national park of areas marked B1 and B2 on the map.

The department also raised other issues, for example, the possibility of diamond exploration in the area of the Gardens of Stone proposal of the honourable member for Bligh. The department identified all those valuable mineral resources: coal resource, construction sands and diamonds. What is the Government doing? Perhaps in an attempt to score a few cheap political points less than four months from an election it decided it was appropriate to declare this unspecified area. I refer to some other areas that are part of the proposal. Cudmirrah national park proposal includes the Lake Conjola State Forest. The report also identified a highly significant construction sand resource - Cudmirrah sand deposit. Serious doubts are raised about the possibility of the national park being created.

The department also indicates that the area of the Nangar national park addition, the proposal that has been around for some time, overlies certain sandstone, siltstone and shales, and is considered to have low mineral potential of some value. The department also identifies that there is no prospectivity for gold, natural gas or petroleum, but that is all it identifies. It has not looked at other areas. The Minister for the Environment has allowed new sandmining activities in the proposed Cudmirrah national park. That is a very mischievous thing for the Minister to do at this stage; it contradicts some of his statements of vehement support for Gardens of Stone, Cudmirrah and other national parks currently being proposed. In fact, the Minister for the Environment wrote to the Minister for Mines on 2 September saying that he is "now prepared to consider . . . remedial and sand extraction operation in an active dune blow out area at Cudmirrah".

[Interruption]

The Minister for the Environment should be shocked by his own words. Perhaps he was not aware of what he was writing when he signed the letter. He has opened the gates for sandminers over an area that he previously said should be part of the Cudmirrah National Park. How can the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation participate in this debate with real bona fides when some of their actions undermine their proposals? It confirms the doubts the honourable member for Bligh expressed about their motivations. I now come to the forestry aspects of the debate. I presume that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation is fully aware of what his department thinks about some of these issues. Perhaps he is not. Perhaps he, too, has failed to see the wood for the trees in this debate. State Forests, his department, expressed 12 months ago severe reservations about the Gardens of Stone National Park. It was certainly prepared to wear a national park in the area if it were to be foisted upon it by the Government, but it did not recommend the creation of a national park. The areas of Wolgan, Capertee, Ben Bullen and parts of the Newnes, which is referred to in the schedule, are areas that State Forests is interested in cultivating. A report by that department regarding the value of those forests stated:

The Commission is currently reviewing the future of Wolgan, Capertee and Ben Bullen State Forests and would prefer that they remain as State forest until such time as the review is completed. However if there is no alternative the Commission would not oppose the inclusion of the whole of Wolgan and Capertee State Forests and the affected part of Ben Bullen State Forest in the proposal. The affected section of Newnes State Forest is an integral part of the Bathurst Management Plan and produces mining and sawlog timber which are essential to local industries. The inclusion of any part of Newnes State Forest in the park proposal would be opposed.

Unfortunately, State Forests does not proceed to translate that opposition into the number of jobs which will be lost in the mining and timber industries as the result of the inclusion of the Newnes State Forest in the park proposal. At this stage, the information is not provided. However, I would be interested to hear whether the information had already been provided to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. My colleague the honourable member for Bathurst will, with a great deal of enthusiasm, be going back to his region in the next few days and highlighting to his
Page 5897
community the fact that State Forests recommended to this Minister that Newnes State Forest not be included in the Gardens of Stone National Park. As the report indicated, that section of forest "produces mining and sawlog timber which are essential to local industries". That raises the question of why the State Government is bothering to move on this issue at this time.

I can only agree with the view expressed by the honourable member for Bligh - admittedly, a cynical view, but who can fail to be cynical about the environmental motivations of this Government. This Government claimed that it would bring us natural resource security packages, revoke endangered fauna legislation in this State, wind back fauna impact studies, and guarantee plantation management for ever and a day. This Government has an appalling track record in environmental management in this State in a wide variety of areas, particularly forests. The Government is not taking the advice of its departments - be it State Forests or the Department of Mineral Resources - and is prepared to sacrifice jobs. Why? The Government is acting in this way because it is the silly season. And I do not mean the Christmas silly season; I mean the silly season leading up to the next State election.

The Government thinks it can score a few political points by seeking to embarrass the Opposition on an issue about which the Opposition has had some very animated debate. I for one am not embarrassed about seeking to protect jobs in the Bathurst management plan area in relation to State Forests. I am not embarrassed about trying to protect mining jobs when 1,150 mining jobs were identified more than 12 months ago by the Department of Mineral Resources as being at risk as a result of this proposal. I am not embarrassed about that one bit! I have been delighted to say to a whole range of audiences over the past few weeks, including the Wilderness Society of Western Sydney, that though the Labor Party has found this to be a tough political issue, it has been prepared to bite the bullet and say that it stands for jobs ahead of national parks in this instance. I, the honourable member for Bathurst and the Leader of the Opposition do not retreat from that statement.

This stand by the Opposition is in contrast to the efforts of the pathetic specimens on the Government side of the House, who do not have the guts to assess what should be protected in this State. At every opportunity the Minister for the Environment has fallen over and allowed his National Party ministerial colleagues to run over the top of him - he has been done over like the dead duck he is! I now comment on the south-east area mentioned in the revocation of dedication schedule. That part of the schedule is the best example of the dead-duck performance of the Minister for the Environment. What is the Government really providing to the south-east of this State under this schedule? It is providing what even Tim Moore, the previous Minister for the Environment, identified as a set of spaghetti-like parks in the south-east forests.

This was proposed as a result of the agreement on the future of south-east forests between former Premier Nick Greiner and former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. The Opposition of New South Wales rejects that agreement totally - it is simply not good enough. In the meantime, while the Government is bringing its pathetic schedule of forest revocations before us today, it is out there plundering the timber resources of the south-east of this State. The Government is wood chipping trees that should be protected in national parks. The Minister for the Environment may have an erect finger in the debate and at question time; however, he does not have the capacity, as at every stage of his political life, to protect the environment of this State. That failing is nowhere more obvious than in the south-east of the State. There has been debate on the south-east areas of the State in this Chamber for several years. What has been achieved? Under this revocation schedule some State forests will now finally go, presumably, to national parks. In this case, the Minister for the Environment has not done his job.

The Minister responsible for forests has at least done his job in moving this revocation motion and producing the schedule. However, the Minister for the Environment has not even given a hint about when the national parks in the south-east of the State will be created. These national parks will not be acceptable to the Opposition or to the local community, yet the Minister for the Environment has not even announced these areas. The inadequate composition of those national parks tells the whole story of this debate: it simply represents political opportunism in the lead-up to the State election, for which this Government is desperately seeking some environmental credentials. Even with some dislocation about the Gardens of Stone National Park, the proposal will not work because the environment movement in this State is not nearly as naive as the Minister for the Environment, who has allowed himself to be done over so many times by National Party Ministers. [Time expired.]

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [8.08]: I shall refer tonight particularly to the Gardens of Stone area within my electorate. I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague the honourable member for Blacktown and the information she conveyed to the House in her contribution. I have forgiven her for some of the comments she made about me some time ago when she added 10 years to my age and referred to my seat as marginal. It is 0.2 per cent under the quota required to bring about the defeat of the honourable member for Orange, the Minister for Police. I have forgiven the member as she has indicated a number of things tonight which make me -

Mr Hartcher: A very proud old man!

Mr CLOUGH: If the Minister for the Environment has had a heavy drinking dinner, I suggest that he goes outside rather than trying to interrupt me and put me off my contribution. It ill-behoves a Minister of the Crown to come into the Chamber trying to upset the debate after partaking of such a dinner. I suggest that it might not be a bad
Page 5898
idea if he goes outside and sobers up. Incredibly, those who want to do the right thing in my electorate - those who want to change things, create national parks and do everything in accordance with the wishes of the Wilderness Society, the Total Environment Centre and other conservation movements - all live in cities. Not one of them understands what the Lithgow, Wallerawang, Portland, Cullen Bullen, Capertee, Glen Davis and Ben Bullen areas are all about. Not one of them has any knowledge of what has occurred in those areas over the past 20 years. I have represented my electorate since 1976, apart from the three years when I was put out to pasture.

Mr Martin: A member in exile.

Mr CLOUGH: As the honourable member for Port Stephens has said, I was a member in exile. In 1976, when I became a member of Parliament, the coalmining industry in Lithgow won its first overseas order. That area had never exported any coal. The Independent member for Blue Mountains at that time, prior to his defeat in 1976, negotiated a 200,000 tonne order for the British Electricity Commission - the first overseas order for the mining industry in Lithgow. From that point on, Lithgow and the surrounding districts have grown. Today that area is exporting about six million tonnes of coal. The standard of living of people in Lithgow valley is a joy to behold. In May 1976 homes in the Lithgow area were of the old Welsh-style with 12 foot frontages. Welsh miners who settled in the Lithgow district brought with them that close style of living. Lithgow now has many new and comfortable homes. Miners are earning far better salaries now than they did in the early days and they no longer experience the problems they experienced then with coaldust. In many instances they died horrible deaths, struggling for breath, because mines did not observe many safety precautions and did not have the luxury of the equipment that is available today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member for Bathurst, but he is straying far from the leave of the motion before the House. I have allowed him some indulgence to make a passing reference to the city of Lithgow. However, this is not a debate on the mining industry per se or on the economic structure and wellbeing of the people of Lithgow. The motion relates to the revocation of certain forest areas and their addition to existing national parks. I direct the member for Bathurst to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr CLOUGH: I was attempting to give honourable members an idea of the lifestyle in Lithgow prior to the upgrading of the mining industry, as it has a bearing on the revocation. There has been an incredible improvement in amenities and lifestyle of the people in that district. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Blacktown say that some time ago State Forests had a different point of view from the one it has now. It was interesting to hear her say that, only 12 months ago, the Department of Mineral Resources had a different approach from the one it is taking now. I can only assume that the current proposition - announced by the Minister for the Environment some time ago and which is now coming to fruition - is a Christmas present, as the honourable member for Blacktown described it. I refer honourable members to a letter from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines to the Premier, which states:

In particular it is noted that the proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone . . . reflect extensive discussions held between the DMR and the NPWS. The proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone still impinge on a number of existing coal authorisations to prospect and coal leases. However, the DMR considers that there are no economic coal resources within the affected sections of these titles and that the proposed boundaries exclude all areas containing potentially mineable coal.

What a load of rubbish! The Ballbone colliery, one of the major mines in the Lithgow district, is operating right underneath the Gardens of Stone. I know that the honourable member for Bligh has inspected that area but, like all city-based environmentalists, she has failed to come to grips with the issues that affect local people. The mining unions in Lithgow are diametrically opposed to the revocation of forests as suggested in the published schedule to allow for the establishment of a national park in the Gardens of Stone area. The honourable member for Blacktown pointed out that 1,150 jobs are at risk. That is a fact. Ballbone colliery, which is one of the biggest in the district, proposes to establish a colliery at Airly.

I heard the honourable member for Bligh say that she would like to see Mount Airly included in this revocation. How much further do honourable members want to go? Do they want to ensure that no coalmining takes place under national park areas, which will eventually force people out of the mining industry? My miners have a saying - and I apologise in advance for the language - "Let the bastards freeze to death in the dark". I subscribe 100 per cent to that point of view. It is tough enough in the coalmining industry - even with the advent of longwall mining techniques. Mining personnel are special people. I readily admit that I could not be a miner; I could not go underground for the length of time miners do. They go underground knowing the risks, and they take those risks.

The annals of coalmining in my district are full of the names of those in the industry who have lost their lives. The names of men killed at a particular mine two or three years ago are quickly forgotten. It is part of the system under which mining towns operate. The mining community accepts fatalities and keeps going. The revocation of these forest areas will effect the Ballbone colliery and the proposed Airly colliery. It is not what the people in my electorate and the mining community at Lithgow want. It is obvious from conflicting reports from the Department of Mineral Resources that there has been an about-face in the past 12 months. We have been asked to view seriously the schedule with which we have been provided. We have not been provided with any maps and we do not know where the cut-off point will be.
Page 5899
We have been asked to take the word of the Minister. The Minister is not sure of this either as, in the second page of his letter to the Premier, he wrote:

I therefore must foreshadow that I will in future be vigorously objecting to any further national park or nature reserve proposals within Petroleum Exploration Licence No. 2 . . .

The Minister states that he will object to any further proposals. But I believe that the Minister, in this about-face on the part of the National Party, is pursuing some environmental issue thought up by the Minister for the Environment and conveyed to the Premier in a last, desperate attempt to embarrass the Labor Party. I make no apologies for it; I am not an apologist for the environment movement. The environment movement has another think coming if it thinks it can successfully oppose me at the 1995 March election on an environmental issue such as the Gardens of Stone National Park.

We must consider the effect the proposal will have on one of the best coalmining areas in New South Wales. It has a high level of industrial relations, and industrial action in the coalmines in the west is practically unknown. The type of coal produced is without peer: it is the best steaming coal in New South Wales and is highly sought after. Any restrictions will threaten the mining companies and the livelihood of the 1,150 to 1,200 miners who earn their living day after day in the mines at Lithgow. I do not have to explain my position to the mining unions; they know where I stand. I suppose we have had 50 or 60 conferences about proceedings in this Parliament, and the views of the mining unions are not contrary to mine. The trade union movement and the mining industry in the Lithgow Valley must be supported. This proposal to revoke State forest declarations is a backdoor attempt to establish national parks where they are not wanted by the local people. They are wanted by all the greenies who live in Sydney, who do not take into account the effect of their actions on the livelihood of the local people.

I well remember that about 10 years ago I was staggered one morning to find that Mount Werong and Gurnang State forests had been taken out of the State forest area and included in national park areas. That was done by a former Labor Premier in consultation with one of the leading conservationists. Nobody asked me; the arrangement was simply made. That action immediately cost the jobs of 50 timber-getters who had been supplying timber for the mines. The decision emanated from someone who lived in the city of Sydney, not someone who lived in and who had to make a living in the Lithgow area. I make no apologies for my view on this matter. The mining industry is the lifeblood of the Lithgow district. The old mines in the city of Lithgow are gone. They were old and antiquated and the mineral was worked out 10 or 15 years ago. The new mines are not operated as a form of environmental vandalism; proper mining practices are used.

I have walked over the Gardens of Stone and I have noted marginal damage, but it has not been proved to be attributable to coalmining. The front of Hassams Walls are crumbling not because of coalmining underneath but because the passage of time has caused erosion. I fully support the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party. But I do more than that: I make a plea to the Parliament to take into account that in the city of Lithgow an enormous number of people rely not just on a regular income but on a standard of living that has been determined over the past 15 years. In fairness, I must say that this has occurred under governments of both sides - initially under the Wran Labor Government with the construction of sufficient locomotives and coal haulage vehicles to ensure that the local product was transported to the seaports, and then under this Government, which has continued the process. But if this Government goes ahead with its proposals I do not know how long this will be the case.

If there is revocation of State forests and the area involved is incorporated into a national park in the Gardens of Stone area there will be a dramatic effect on employment opportunities in my electorate. It is an effect I am not prepared to support or even live with. I will work hard to ensure that anybody who proposes such a move in the electorate of Bathurst receives the treatment that he is almost certainly bound to get, because it amounts to vandalism of the coalmining industry. As I said earlier, coalmining is not against the environment. Coalminers are no different from any other people: they enjoy the environment. They work underground day after day but they live on five-acre blocks, with big homes, four-wheel-drive vehicles and trailers and caravans. They live in that style because they spend most of their working day hundreds of feet below the surface getting coal out for the suburbanites who live in Sydney. When they turn on switches the light shines, and they should give a thought to the fact that if my miners were not producing coal and the power stations were not generating power the bastards would freeze to death in the dark.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [8.27]: I pay tribute to the honourable member for Bathurst for his spirited defence of his electorate and jobs in his electorate. I speak in favour of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Port Stephens. He has asked for full advice from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines on the Nangar, Capertee, Wolgan, Newnes and Ben Bullen areas. While I do not speak with the authority of the honourable member for Bathurst, I speak as somebody avidly involved in the extension of the national park system. I find it very interesting that this matter has been dropped on the Parliament today. The genius, the Minister for the Environment, the Government tactician, is not genuinely attempting to develop the national park system but attempting to embarrass the Opposition. His efforts are foundering.

When the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for Manly suggested an extension to the national park system there was extensive consultation with industry groups, the Department of Mines, the forest industry and New South Wales Forests about the potential impact of the declaration of a whole series of extensions to national parks. The
Page 5900
Minister for Land and Water Conservation, with the Government's strategic brilliance, today tabled a letter from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Mines to the Premier dated 27 October. In the third paragraph it states:

In particular it is noted that the proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone and Cudmirrah National Parks reflect extensive discussions held between the DMR and the NPWS. The proposed boundaries for the Gardens of Stone still impinge on a number of existing coal authorisations to prospect and coal leases. However, the DMR considers there are no economic coal resources within the affected sections of these titles and that the proposed boundaries exclude all areas containing potentially mineable coal.

Where is the evidence? That question is particularly relevant given that last year, as part of the extensive consultation process, the report of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the proposals for the Gardens of Stone national park, which was given to the honourable member for Blacktown and other members of the environment committee, stated:

Proposal includes the whole of Wolgan State Forest No. 454 (1,450 hectares), the whole of Capertee State Forest No. 876 (2,732 hectares), part of Ben Bullen State Forest No. 434 (about 1,150 hectares) and part of Newnes State Forest No. 748 (13,170 hectares). The commission is currently reviewing the future of Wolgan, Capertee and Ben Bullen State Forests and would prefer that they remain as State forest until such time as the review is completed.

If the review has been completed, I should like the Minister to say whether it has been tabled in the House. The report also stated:

However if there is no alternative the Commission would not oppose the inclusion of the whole of Wolgan and Capertee State Forests and the affected part of Ben Bullen State Forest in the proposal. The affected section of Newnes State Forest is an integral part of the Bathurst Management Plan and produces mining and sawlog timber which are essential to local industries. The inclusion of any part of Newnes State Forest in the park proposal would be opposed.

It is obvious that the inclusion has been opposed on the basis of that area's economic importance to the Bathurst management area of the State forest service, in terms of both sawlog timber and mining timber. Significant change has occurred in that time. The change has not followed comprehensive discussion with any section of the Opposition. The matter has not been discussed comprehensively with either the shadow minister for lands and forests or the Opposition's environment committee. As has been pointed out by Opposition speakers, this is not a genuine attempt to add to national parks but is a grubby political manoeuvre to raise the issue at a time when it is expected that it will have a tremendous impact. I am sure that is not the case. I now turn to the position of the Department of Mineral Resources on the proposed Gardens of Stone national park and the importance of the area to the mining industry. I do not suggest that resources ought not to be considered carefully, as they were in the proposals brought forward by the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh. The Government and the Department of Mineral Resources expressed strong opposition to those proposals. In relation to the bill of the honourable member for Manly, the Department of Mines stated:

The Department most strongly opposes declaration of a national park over the great majority of Dr MacDonald's Gardens of Stone National Park Proposal. In particular, it opposes park declaration over areas held by Baal Bone, Invincible, Angus Place, and Clarence Collieries and the area of Airly Coal Project.

I do not adhere to the view that the Gardens of Stone area is not a particularly significant area for declaration for national park. What I do say is that there ought to be a due process of discussion and negotiation in this Parliament, just as was undertaken on the proposals of the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Bligh. We ought to have a clear indication of the metes and bounds of the proposal; not what is in the revocation schedule dropped on the House today, which the Government expects to be dealt with without the Opposition calling for full information. I should again like to quote from the briefing paper of the Department of Mineral Resources of 6 September 1993. It is a comprehensive document that examines all of the proposals of that time for national park inclusion. In terms of the proposals of the honourable member for Bligh for the Gardens of Stone the paper stated:

The Department maintains a strong opposition to the dedication of the areas marked B1 and B2 on the accompanying map within any Gardens of Stone national park. The Department has, however, a low level of opposition to other areas within the Moore proposal, including that marked B3 on the map, being included in a multiple land use conservation reserve, where exploration and/or mining continue to be permitted.

"Multiple land use conservation reserve" is new terminology invented by the Government because it wanted a range of activities to be carried out. It appears that a move has been made from that position, without discussion and without any concept of what the Government intends to do, to today's proposal for revocation of various sections of State forest. The honourable member for Port Stephens has rightly requested that prior to the Governor proceeding with that revocation the House be provided with full information on the metes and bounds of those areas and on the proposition put forward and the impact of that proposition in terms of the documentation received last year. Then it would be appropriate for both sides of the Parliament to discuss that matter and make a determination upon it.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.37]: The Government opposes the amendment, predominantly on the grounds that our motion must match the motion that has already passed through the Legislative Council. Any amendment would render the entire revocations null and void and destroy the intent of this motion to create particular national parks. In addition, the Opposition's amendment clearly indicates that until advice is received from the Minister for Mines the exclusion for the Gardens of Stone will prevail. We have advice from the Minister for Mines, and I am hardly likely to convey advice from him that is untrue, to the effect that there is no need for any prohibition, from the point of view of the Department of Mineral Resources or the Minister for Mines, against the revocation of land to create a Gardens of
Page 5901
Stone national park. The House has heard many speakers on the matter. I am not sure that the debate is anything more than a political motivation to make some kind of statement that superficially appears to be pro-mining. All of the remarks made so far are irrelevant. If the Opposition's amendment were taken at face value, the provision of the advice of the Minister for Mines would render the amendment no longer relevant.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.


Bill received and read a first time.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [8.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Defamation (Amendment) Bill 1994 will achieve significant reforms in defamation law. I propose to elaborate, first, on the nature of those changes and, second, on the timing of the bill. The first change the bill will introduce is an adjustment of the roles of judge and jury in defamation proceedings. What is proposed is that at an early stage in a defamation action a jury will be required to answer two questions. The first is whether the imputations alleged are conveyed by the published material. The second is whether, if the answer to that question is yes, the imputations are defamatory. If the jury answers either of those questions no, the judge will enter judgment for the defendant.

That is what occurs now in defamation cases where a jury is empanelled. It is where the jury answers the threshold questions in the affirmative that the change will take place. In proceedings at present the jury is retained to determine some questions of fact inherent in certain defences. Under this bill that will not occur. Having dealt with the preliminary questions the jury will be discharged from further participation in the trial, which will then proceed before the judge alone, he or she determining all defences and, in due course, assessing any damages. By allocating to the jury what is a vital decision in the trial the arrangement maintains an appropriate degree of community involvement. At the same time, by providing that the trial shall thereafter proceed before the judge alone, a substantial amount of time and money will be saved and the complexities which now arise in the course of a trial because of the current division of functions of judge and jury will be overcome.

These, of course, give rise to problems which generate appeals and, in turn, new trials. In assessing an imputation, a jury reflects the view of the community and provides a good safeguard in the process of balancing reputation against freedom of speech. Moreover, by enabling the trial judge and not the jury to determine damages, the bill will ensure that damages awards in defamation proceedings correctly reflect the aim of compensating a person for an injured reputation. Honourable members need have no concern that the legislation now before the House fetters the proper exercise of judicial discretion. On the contrary, the bill envisages that such discretion will be retained. All it requires is that in assessing non-economic damages, the judge will take into consideration awards made in other types of cases. Such awards are an important factor, but they are by no means the only factor legitimately to exercise a judge's mind.

In performing the task it is not expected that judges will need to tread the tortuous path of detailed analysis of every personal injury verdict. It would be nonsense to expect any exact equivalence. It is anticipated that judges will draw on their experience and knowledge of the range of possible verdicts in the light of the seriousness of the cases occasioning them. They will then consider the relative seriousness of the case that they are actually deciding and, having taken into account all other relevant factors, will make an award. The second change the bill will effect is to provide for a justification defence of truth alone.

The additional requirement that has operated to date in this State is that the publication should be justified as either being in the public interest or made to a limited audience in furtherance of some legal, social or moral duty. Its rationale has been that it affords to a plaintiff protection against the distress and embarrassment that may be caused by a vindictive or sensation-mongering disclosure of sensitive private facts. However, the common law rule which allows a defence of truth alone already operates in some jurisdictions. In Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, material which exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt or which causes him or her to be shunned or avoided by others may be published without adverse legal consequences provided the statement is true.

In the High Court's recent decisions in Theophanous and Stephens the majority justices proposed criteria to determine whether the publication of political discussion is to be non-actionable. Their Honours set out what a defendant would need to establish to escape liability where false and defamatory material about a plaintiff is published. Their Honours did not, however, deal with the question of liability where a defamatory but true statement is made in the course of political discussion. In this State, as I have already indicated, the present law requires that the defendant establish both truth and public interest to avoid liability. It is, however, a corollary of the majority's approach that the restraint of the latter element is likely to be viewed as a restriction on the freedom of political discussion and, provided a statement is true, it will not be actionable.

It is therefore appropriate to take this opportunity to put the matter beyond doubt. For too long the courts have dictated the agenda concerning the freedom of communication. On this occasion the bill provides an opportunity for Parliament to take the initiative. In a society that demands and should
Page 5902
expect free and open participation in political discussion, respect for the truth must prevail. It should not be the role of the defamation law to provide protection against the invasion of a person's home life, personal and family relationships, health or private behaviour. Nor should the law of defamation protect undeserved reputations. In Rofe v Smiths Newspapers Limited (1925) 25 SR NSW 4, His Honour Acting Chief Justice Street said at pages 21 to 22:

No wrong is done by telling the truth . . . By telling the truth . . . reputation is not lowered beyond its proper level, but is merely brought down to it.

Thus, the law will become simpler, easier and clearer to apply and the truth of the matter will be the only issue to consider when journalists, editors and lawyers are considering publication. The change will not protect truthful but misleading statements. Take, for example, a hypothetical prominent headline and picture encapsulated "Member of Parliament in court - child pornography case". Assume also that the member in question was not involved in any criminal activity but had been called as a prosecution witness to pass on certain information that had been conveyed to him. The headline would be literally true but the imputation it conveyed would not, and the defence of truth would not be available to protect against the wrongful imputation.

That brings me to the timing of the bill. The suggestion might be made that defamation law reforms at this juncture are inappropriate and that the Government ought not to pre-empt the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission and its work on the broad reference given to it in this area of the law. As honourable members will recall, the Government introduced the Defamation Bill 1991, which was referred by the former Attorney General to a legislation committee of the Legislative Assembly, comprising members from both sides of the House and the crossbenches, to enable a public evaluation of its provisions. In May 1992, after that bill had been reintroduced, and re-referred, that committee issued a discussion paper canvassing the principal issues raised in submissions made to it, and its final report was tabled in this house on 14 October 1992.

The approach taken by the committee was to focus not on the attainment of a uniform scheme, which had been a major impetus for the 1991 bill, but on achieving a thorough reform of defamation law in this State. Uniformity was still acknowledged to be a desirable aim but that object was not regarded as being the principal goal. As a result the committee made a number of departures from the approach taken in that bill. The legislation committee recommended that the Attorney General refer the Defamation Bill 1992 and the committee's report to the New South Wales Law Reform Commission for a comprehensive review of the bill's provisions. Significantly, the committee also recommended that the commission undertake an empirical study of defamation matters with the object of ensuring that reform proceeds from a factual rather that an anecdotal basis.

In the light of the committee's recommendations the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission was given a reference on 4 November 1992. That reference for inquiry and report related to the law of defamation in New South Wales and in particular: the relative roles of the judge and jury; standards, defences, onus and procedure; the determination of damages; non-monetary remedies, including court-ordered correction statements; alternative or additional techniques of dispute resolution; the need for the provision of a separate tort of privacy; the need for the provision of shield laws to protect journalists' sources; and any related matter. The chairman was advised that the commission should provide drafting instructions for amendment of the bill and, in doing so, take into consideration such empirical data relating to defamation matters as may be available and to have particular regard to the proposals of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for uniformity of defamation laws in Australia and the discussion paper and the report of the legislation committee on the defamation bill.

The commission formed a separate division with responsibility for the project. Two part-time commissioners, Mr Justice Hunt and Professor Chesterman, Dean of the Law School, University of New South Wales, were appointed because of their specialised experience in the subject matter. The commission published a comprehensive discussion paper in August 1993. It sought submissions by the end of October 1993 and a number of extensions of time for the making of submissions were sought and granted. The commission is now finalising its report, which will, of course, incorporate its views on significant recent case law, notably the Theophanous decision.

The strength of the Law Reform Commission lies in its independence. That independence prevents the Government from dictating compliance with a timetable that would compromise the commission's work towards achieving a consultative basis for comprehensive defamation law reform. It is in that context that the present bill has been framed. The bill accommodates essential reforms to defamation law while anticipating to some extent what the commission may recommend. Any wider reforms and the resolution of numerous contentious issues in this area of the law should properly await the findings of the Law Reform Commission. Honourable members should appreciate that the present bill merely represents an important interim step in achieving the Government's goal of effective defamation law reform.

On the information that is available to date, I believe the reforms go some way to meeting the concerns that have been canvassed both by the legislation committee and in the commission's discussion paper. Uniformity in the area of defamation law reform will depend on the willingness of other jurisdictions to embrace reforms eventually put forward in this State on the basis of a recent, thorough and consultative examination of this area of the law. That willingness would doubtless be
Page 5903
enhanced if any legislation that was put forward as a model was the result of a considered and comprehensive review. That will be the object of the next stage of defamation law reform in this State. In the meantime, I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [8.52]: I am delighted to speak on the Royal Commission (Police Service) Amendment Bill. The objects and intention of the bill have been fully explained by the Minister for Police. However, the general thrust of the legislation is to confer additional powers on the royal commission relating to the investigation of complaints against police; to confer additional powers on investigative and surveillance officers of the commission; and to allow the royal commissioner not to report possible corrupt conduct to the Independent Commission Against Corruption except in those cases agreed to between the royal commissioner and the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The bill provides that a relevant police complaint is a complaint within the meaning of the Police Service Act, being a complaint received by the Ombudsman, whether it was received directly or was forwarded by the Commissioner of Police or any other person. The bill states that the Ombudsman will be required to forward copies of all relevant complaints about police conduct to the royal commission. This - as well as a few other matters - was obviously an oversight when granting the royal commissioner unlimited powers. The Opposition agreed with the Government to amend the Royal Commission Act to provide that the royal commissioner could engage specialists to assist him in the royal commission. That was a knee-jerk reaction following the death of John Newman.

This bill will enable the royal commissioner to overcome legal obstacles, of which there are quite a few, and these are set out in the bill. It would not be beyond the capability of those with the largesse and money to frustrate the process of the royal commission by taking the royal commissioner to court. Such people could complain of a conflict between the powers of the royal commissioner and the Ombudsman. They could argue that when the royal commissioner was given absolute power the Parliament did not seek to amend the Ombudsman's restricted powers. Only the Ombudsman can obtain information relating to complaints about police conduct. However, under this legislation he is not compelled to forward copies of such complaints to the royal commission. Proposed section 37C(1) states:

The Ombudsman must, as soon as practicable, forward copies of all relevant police complaints to the Commission.

The Opposition agrees with that principle. The bill maintains the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Whilst the bill grants exclusive power to the royal commissioner, the Commissioner of Police and the Ombudsman still retain their separate statutory functions. However, the bill allows the royal commissioner additional power to acquire papers that are in the possession of the Ombudsman. Proposed section 37D fully explains the reason for the decision of the commissioner in regard to police complaints. The commission has a tripartite role; it may decide:

(a) to take over the investigation of the complaint from the Commissioner of Police; or

(b) not to take over the investigation of the complaint from the Commissioner of Police and to refer the complaint back to be dealt with in accordance with Part 8A of the Police Service Act 1990; or

(c) to take over the investigation of part of the complaint from the Commissioner of Police and to refer the remainder of the complaint back to be dealt with in accordance with Part 8A of the Police Service Act 1990.

The power of the Ombudsman is static but the royal commissioner has the right to involve himself in a police complaint if he so decides. Proposed section 37E provides that the commissioner can investigate the complaint from the Commissioner of Police and the Ombudsman is required to notify the Commissioner of Police immediately of the commission's decision. Part 6B - Police Powers and Weapons - provides extensive powers to the royal commissioner and to an officer appointed by the commissioner. Only a person designated "commission investigator" by the commissioner can attain these powers. That person must have be able to be identified as such an investigator. The definitions section defines "commission surveillance officer", which should be self-explanatory. It defines "seconded police officer" as:

(a) a member of the Australian Federal Police; or

(b) a member of the Police Force of another State or a Territory; or

(c) a member of the Police Force of any country prescribed by the regulations . . .

who is seconded or otherwise engaged to assist the Commission.

The commission investigator, commission surveillance officer and seconded police officer are given the powers contained in proposed section 37K. A commission investigator who is a seconded police officer can exercise all those functions, subject to the discretion, the whim and the role of the commissioner. Proposed section 37L causes me some alarm, but has to be accepted. I assume the royal commissioner does not want the New South Wales Commissioner of Police to be the authority to issue firearms licences, because the royal commissioner does not want the New South Wales Police Service to know his movements. Whilst I accept that, I worry about the future power and whether it is needed. Surveillance officers will be authorised to possess handcuffs and semiautomatic pistols. They should not need statutory authority for that.

Page 5904

Mr West: They are prohibited arms.

Mr WHELAN: The Minister has kindly told me that they are prohibited weapons; they would have to be given exclusion under the Prohibited Weapons Act. I thank the Minister for telling me that; I can now put that matter to rest. The bill endeavours to tie up some of the loose ends of the royal commission. I inform the House that tomorrow I will move a motion, subject to the leave of the Government, in relation to paedophilia. If time permits, I will give the Government a copy of that motion tonight. The motion will request that the powers the Parliament gave to the royal commissioner be supplemented by the powers the Parliament gave to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I believe that the Government will seek the concurrence of the Parliament to extend the powers of the royal commissioner to the minutes of evidence, particularly the confidential evidence, of the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration. I was happy to serve on that committee. The royal commissioner should get all the available information. I have no objection to that. I was surprised to discover that he did not have that information. If the royal commissioner did not have that information, the ICAC would not have had it either.

Mr West: Yes, it did, because there was a resolution.

Mr WHELAN: The ICAC had the confidential information?

Mr West: Yes.

Mr WHELAN: The royal commissioner certainly did not have that information. He should have that information so that he can properly investigate this matter. This is a further extension of his powers. The Opposition supports the extended powers granted by the bill. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [9.03]: I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Royal Commission (Police Service) Amendment Bill. It was an oversight in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act that a royal commissioner be bound to report to the ICAC. That situation has been corrected. Hopefully the definition of "public official" will exclude royal commissioners in the future. One of the most pleasing things about this bill is that the royal commissioner will know exactly what he is on about; he wants the power to take over complaints about police made to the ICAC and the Ombudsman. I am quite certain that the Ombudsman would be happy with that arrangement. His annual reports have clearly indicated that he is experiencing difficulty advancing such matters, both with respect to cooperation from the police and investigation of the police.

I believe that there have been real problems in the past in relation to the ICAC. The investigators of the ICAC have been seconded from the police force and they then return to the police force. They therefore find it difficult to investigate their colleagues. I believe that the royal commission will recommend that the ICAC have independent investigators seconded from police forces outside New South Wales or provide a career path to allow the investigators to progress their careers and not be dependent on the police force. When the royal commissioner takes over an investigation the police investigations will be terminated. The royal commissioner, having interstate investigators, will take a fresh look at the situation.

Section 11 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act requires principal officers of public authorities to report possible corrupt conduct to the ICAC. This is an important issue. I wrote to Mr Temby asking him about the reporting procedures under section 11. I was shocked to find that he was leaving that matter entirely up to the police. He did not have a system in place to check the integrity of that process. Through the work of the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration it was discovered that the police very cunningly used the device that the head of the department was the person to report, not the individual police officer.

That provided a perfect sieve against corrupt conduct or suspicion of corrupt conduct being obliged to be reported to the ICAC. We tried to sheet home the responsibility to the officer concerned. However, Assistant Commissioner Cole was able to catch the psychiatric express. In relation to the Frenchs Forest matter, a number of people said, "We thought officer X was doing it". The obligation ought to be on every single officer in the New South Wales Police Service to report directly. I think Commissioner Lauer was deliberately recreant in his duty. I believe that Mr Temby allowed himself to be snowed by the police in not setting up a proper reporting mechanism under section 11. This bill gives the powers of the New South Wales police to seconded police. They are entitled to carry semiautomatic weapons. I hope that the police force is not as bad as that would indicate; I hope that investigators would not need to carry semiautomatic weapons.

I am pleased with the measures that have been put in place by the Government in regard to drug security. The royal commission must examine in depth why the police committee was lied to by Commissioner Lauer and misled by Judge Thorley. They said that we could not have purity testing of drugs in New South Wales because legislation was required. If such legislation was required, why was it not brought forward? Why did it take years for the police Minister to be finally told that that legislation was not necessary? At any one time up to $200 million worth of drugs could be stored at Central City police station. Despite claims from Premier Greiner and then police Minister Pickering, one could get into that room with a pocketknife. The protocol recommended to Mr Pickering at the time was a surveillance camera; the police inside that centre were able to turn off the surveillance camera from the inside.

Page 5905

There was no testing of the drugs. Was this because the police were involved in taking drugs illegally to load up people? Were people in the drug industry able to influence people in the Attorney General's Department or people in the police department? How was a Supreme Court Judge of this State, as chairman of the Police Board, able to give the Joint Select Committee upon Police Administration the wrong advice that drug purity testing could not take place because it needed a change in the law? When I asked the Minister a question about that in the House last week, I was told that testing was not really necessary. We are looking at a potential multimillion dollar drug scandal. I want the royal commission - the commission is the place to find out the truth of the matter - to tell us what the hell has been happening with drug security at central police station: have drugs been recycled by the police or by other people?

I also want to know why purity testing was not carried out and why the protocols that have now been recommended to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police - I congratulate the Minister on his role in this matter and on demanding answers - were not in place years ago. I also want to know why Inspector General Wilson, who was supposed to be in charge of random checks on drug security at police stations around New South Wales, gave police officers seven days warning before he checked on drug security at a police station, according to his evidence to the police committee. It is an absolute scandal. At least with the powers that this bill will give the royal commission, with interstate investigators and those from the Federal police, and with the commitment of counsel assisting, Mr Crook QC, and Mr Justice Wood, we will get some answers.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.11]: Important information was conveyed to me recently concerning what the honourable member for South Coast just said. I was told by a reliable source - a person for whom I have much respect - that there has been much drug trafficking in the police force for a long time which has created major concern in the community as to what is happening to confiscated drugs. To use words that the Minister for Police will understand, drug trafficking by the police in regard to confiscated drugs is so bad that it has infiltrated all sections of the police force. The police hierarchy is so scared of the ultimate outcome of the royal commission that it is hiding the information from not only the Minister but the police commissioner because it knows that the information will ultimately be brought out in the royal commission. This infiltration has caused enormous distress among many police officers.

The honourable member for South Coast said that drugs worth about $200 million had been confiscated and placed under poor security. There is nothing worse than appearing in a drugs case and hearing the learned magistrate say words to the effect that the drugs shall be destroyed, and the prosecuting sergeant say that has already been done. It is known that the drugs may not have been destroyed; they may have found their way on to the market, they may have been diluted, or something else. I am not saying that all police officers in the State of New South Wales are involved; I am simply saying that those scumbags who are involved have brought on the royal commission. As Mr Justice Wood said:

I wish all honest police officers a merry Christmas, and those who are dishonest can make their own arrangements.

Mr West: It was Mr Crook QC.

Mr NAGLE: The counsel assisting said that. The security of drugs is a major concern for the community. Yesterday I was talking to a person for whom I have a great deal of respect. That person said that police officers have infiltrated every stratum of the police force, and are so powerful in the force that they are able to put pressure on the police commissioner and other police officers for the purposes of avoiding this sort of activity. I am not saying that all police officers in New South Wales are involved in this activity; I am simply saying that it is a matter of grave concern. The bill will give the royal commissioner wider powers to be able to prove the truth or otherwise of what I have said in the House tonight.

The police stand between the corrupt, evil people in our society and the good citizens. We must be able to have confidence in the police force. I am not saying that the police force and every police officer must be honest, decent and perfect in every way. I cannot remember who it was, but someone said that 80 per cent of all prisoners in our gaols have been put there for drug-related offences, and that is a major concern. I simply bring that matter to the attention of the House. The sooner we get the royal commission up and running with appropriate powers to prove the truth or otherwise of the allegations, the better it will be for the people of New South Wales.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [9.15]: I join the chorus of support for this legislation, in particular proposed new section 37C, which refers to the Ombudsman forwarding copies of relevant police complaints to the royal commission. I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House one matter on which the Ombudsman has such papers - the royal commissioner should avail himself of the new powers that he will have when this amending legislation is passed. This matter involves Detective Sergeant Joe Khalifeh.

Mr West: This is not the occasion to raise individual cases. I will raise a point of order on it

Mr SCULLY: I believe that it is appropriate. The legislation refers to complaints before the Ombudsman, and it is appropriate that I use this opportunity to refer to a case in which these powers can be used by the royal commission. I refer to Detective Sergeant Khalifeh, who should be the subject of Commissioner Wood's inquiries.

Mr West: Why does the member not refer the matter to the royal commission, rather than simply raising it in the House? Will he refer the matter to the commission?

Page 5906

Mr SCULLY: I am happy to refer the matter to the royal commission. However, there are certain things that need to be said in this House, and I would be disappointed if the Minister abused the standing orders of this House to prevent me from referring to something that should be put on the record. When this particular police officer was commander of Task Force Oak -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! The honourable member for Smithfield is drawing a rather long bow. The bill is about a particular method of dealing with complaints against police. Now is not the time to canvass matters to be dealt with by the commissioner. The honourable member should not stray too far from the leave of the bill.

Mr SCULLY: In passing reference to the amendment, I am entitled to make some comment. I propose to comment on a specific case, subject to your ruling - I think that the Minister accepts that I may do so - because it is a matter of public importance and I should like to put it on the record. It was brought to my attention only a short time ago that the Ombudsman had completed an inquiry and referred the matter back to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Basically, the case involved Detective Sergeant Khalifeh protecting his brother, who is involved in agisting horses. He felt that he was being harassed by RSPCA inspectors, and this police officer issued apprehended violence orders against the RSPCA officers.

In the police inquiry it was found that many of the RSPCA complaints were not sustained. I doubt that any honourable member has not found that the initial findings of an investigating police officer show that complaints are "not sustained". I do not think that I have ever come across a police investigation in which anything has been sustained. As usual, everything in the police inquiry was not sustained. The complaint went up through the ranks and hit the higher echelons. It even included Col Cole, who has been the subject of some adverse comment in this House - I do not wish to add anything further to that.

[Interruption]

I have almost finished my passing reference. Even Col Cole found that this police officer was not acting in the course of his duties as commander of Task Force Oak. Jeff Jarratt, for whom I have a lot of respect and who is also respected by many honourable members in this House, felt that it was an abuse of process. There are a number of documents I would like to have put on the record, but I will not ask the Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services to table them for me.

Mr West: I cannot table them.

Mr SCULLY: You can table them; you are the Minister.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! The honourable member will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr SCULLY: This bill will allow the Ombudsman to investigate - and, once this legislation is passed, I will certainly request that the royal commissioner properly investigate - Detective Sergeant Khalifeh for an abuse of power. He was absent from duty and used his position as a police officer to harass inspectors from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I cannot think of any worse police behaviour, short of violence or actually taking monetary contributions. He used his position as a police officer to protect members of his family. I am sure the Minister, if satisfied that this charge were sustained, would find the behaviour of this officer abhorrent. In winding up that passing reference, I express my extreme concern that in April this officer was promoted. Col Cole penalised him only to the extent of having him paraded before his commanding officer and reminded of his duty. He got off almost scot-free and I believe the royal commissioner must investigate it. As for the legislation, I welcome the opportunity to put this matter on the record.

Mr WEST (Orange - Minister for Police, and Minister for Emergency Services) [9.21], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ashfield and the honourable member for South Coast for their contributions and for their support of the bill. I would simply say to the honourable member for Smithfield that he has used the auspices of this amending legislation to raise a matter that has nothing to do with the bill. I will pursue this matter with the royal commissioner to make sure that the honourable member does refer that information to him. That is the appropriate course and I believe that the way the matter has been treated in this House is totally inappropriate. The matter must go to the royal commission and I will ensure that the honourable member follows that up.

For the sake of clarity and completeness of the record, one further comment should be made in my reply. As honourable members are now aware, the bill was brought forward to overcome legal obstacles encountered by the royal commission as it made the arrangements necessary for it to undertake its work and coordinate its relationship with existing bodies, such as the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I understand that the royal commission has been able to develop a satisfactorily cooperative relationship with both the Ombudsman and the ICAC which will allow all agencies to meet their respective responsibilities to their mutual satisfaction with minimal overlap.

It is hoped the provisions of the bill will assist to strengthen that position. However, I have been informed that in the course of drafting the bill and during related consultation with the ICAC, some confusion arose in respect of the form that the proposed section 30A was to take. One option was to express the bill in terms that made the royal commission subject to the general reporting requirement of section 11 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act but allowed the ICAC commissioner and royal commissioner to come to an agreement on matters that would not have to be
Page 5907
reported under the Act. The other option was to exempt the royal commission from the reporting requirements under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, subject to any agreement between the two bodies on matters that the royal commission would report to the ICAC. This, of course, is the option that has been ultimately adopted.

As I indicated on another occasion, the purpose of proposed section 30A is to ensure that information provided to the royal commission in strict confidence can be kept confidential and that that can be done without the royal commission breaching reporting requirements under other legislation. Clearly, this objective could be achieved by either means. However, the Government takes the view that the royal commission has been given a special charter by this House and has a unique function and position that makes it inappropriate to require it to report to an existing body. In practical terms it was also felt that the royal commission would be in the best position to assess what information could appropriately be passed to the ICAC or the Ombudsman to be dealt with in accordance with established procedures, and what information could be retained in confidence to be dealt with by the royal commission.

For this reason, the Government determined that proposed section 30A should be drafted in the form that appears in the bill. For the sake of completeness, I should inform the House that the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption has indicated to the Government that he prefers the alternative approach of having the royal commissioner report matters to the ICAC, subject to any agreement to qualify that obligation. I make this comment to ensure that no misunderstanding of this information can attach to the bill, which is central to the effective operation of the royal commission. I also wish to make it abundantly clear that the course pursued in this bill is that requested by the royal commissioner. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 23 November.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown) [9.25]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate. I am glad the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the rest of my cheer squad from the National Party are in the Chamber this evening. The legislation before the House today, to put it simply, is a hastily cobbled-together sham. Of course, that is not surprising, coming from -

Mr Kerr: Coming from you.

Ms ALLAN: - coming from this particular Minister for the Environment. I would love to have had the opportunity to introduce legislation, but, as the honourable member for Cronulla is obviously not aware, the Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill actually comes from the Government, and the Minister for the Environment is responsible for it. As with other legislation and announcements on environmental issues that the Minister for the Environment is responsible for, it is a very, very feeble attempt to solve a very real problem that Sydney is currently facing. It is particularly feeble legislation, thrown together not in any serious attempt to solve Sydney's waste crisis, but merely as a stopgap measure aimed at saving the political hide of the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services - the honourable member for Badgerys Creek. I am very pleased to see that she is in the Chamber this evening.

Rather than achieving that objective, the legislation exposes the absolute bankruptcy of the Fahey Government's waste policy, or lack of policy. This is dangerous legislation as well as being half-baked, and has very disturbing implications for the management of waste in New South Wales. Honourable members know that the current State Government already has a poor track record on waste management. That has been established over the past three years. In fact, at every opportunity during the past three years the Government has sought to wash its hands of intelligent and coordinated waste management in this State. The Government has not accepted that that has been its responsibility, yet before the House this evening is a bill that will actually do more damage than good, in terms of the future of waste management.

[Interruption]

I am about to, and I am disappointed that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has not actually read the bill at this stage of the proceedings, because it has implications even for the north coast of New South Wales and the various attempts by local government authorities in the honourable member's electorate, almost in his backyard as it were, to solve waste problems. The bill is intended to place a moratorium on the establishment of new putrescible landfill dumps, whether they be in private or public ownership, until the Environment Protection Authority has gazetted guidelines covering the siting of such facilities following a period of public consultation. It sets out conditions under which landfill depots can operate, following the conclusion of the moratorium and ban the proposed privately-owned and operated tip at Erskine Park.

I have received some very interesting intelligence from the Government about the origins of the legislation, and I think it is appropriate that I share it with the House. A few weeks ago I held a press conference to alert the media to the fact that a company called Enviroguard Proprietary Limited had lodged a development application to develop a private putrescible landfill in Erskine Park in the Government's marginal seat of Badgerys Creek. This event sent the honourable member for Badgerys Creek into a tail spin, and it eventually sent shock waves through the Government. As the story goes, and this comes from within the Government, the honourable
Page 5908
member for Badgerys Creek was so horrified that her own Government was promoting the establishment of not just one putrescible waste dump, but two private putrescible waste dumps in her electorate, that she ran hysterically to the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, to plead with them to dump the proposal.

All honourable members know that the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives sees himself as something of a political strategist. Remember, he was the person who, with the honourable member for Eastwood, coordinated that stunningly successful Parramatta by-election campaign. The Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives seems to have a continuing role as the architect of the Government's marginal seat strategy. So he was obviously a person to whom the honourable member for Badgerys Creek would go. She could not fail to see the Minister for the Environment. After all, he still has some token responsibility in this State for waste management. But the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives pledged to fix the problem. Even he could see the disadvantage to the re-election chances of the honourable member for Badgerys Creek of two private waste dumps being located in her marginal electorate of Badgerys Creek.

But, unfortunately, it seems that the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives - in cahoots with the Minister for the Environment - has not got the solution right. In fact, what they eventually brought to the Parliament will be a significant disappointment to the honourable member for Badgerys Creek. As I understand it, most of the Cabinet did not know about the legislation, because it did not even go to Cabinet. Both the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, and the Minister for the Environment, were so anxious to get the legislation into the Parliament that they did not think they needed the approval of their colleagues. Honourable members know that the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives and the Minister for the Environment are not the absolute brains trust of this Government. As a result of their getting their heads together we have very shabby legislation.

I would like to talk a little about the fundamental flaws in the legislation, of which there are several. The bill certainly exposes huge inconsistencies in the Government's approach to waste management. First, by placing a moratorium on the establishment of new landfill depots as opposed to all waste facilities, which was the Government's original intention, the legislation will have the effect of forcing councils and private operators to adopt incineration as the preferred disposal method for Sydney's waste. I am obviously in a very entertaining mood tonight, because various ministerial staff and departmental bureaucrats think my comments are very amusing. I am afraid that shows how absolutely out of touch the people surrounding the Minister for the Environment and his department heads are. If they do not realise that this legislation has become the trigger for the private sector, the private waste industry and local government to embrace incineration, they have been hanging around the portals of Macquarie Street far too long. He does not even know what is happening out there. They need to know what is happening, because they will be out on the streets very shortly, flogging themselves for votes next March.

If the bill is passed in its current form - it will not be passed in this Parliament in its current form, I can assure honourable members of that - local government throughout New South Wales will be clamouring to set up their own waste incinerators. They will be encouraged by the fact that it is in line with environment protection policy on incineration. Various strategy papers released by the Environment Protection Authority support incineration as a legitimate disposal method. That view has received some currency in the media for some time. What would have received some attention also is that incineration as a legitimate disposal method is opposed by the Opposition, by vast numbers of people who are concerned about the future of waste disposal in this State, and by the majority of the conservation movement in this State.

Although the bill is called the Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill, it is all about promoting waste incineration in New South Wales. It does nothing to prohibit the expansion of the incineration industry and, through the absence of such a provision, it encourages its development. I would like to give honourable members an example of what is happening. Already Ryde City Council is planning to establish an incinerator at North Ryde. The honourable member for Gladesville is not in the Chamber, but I am sure he will come down for this debate. He has been wandering around the corridors of Parliament telling anyone who will listen that he is playing good cop, bad cop with the Government and Ryde City Council over the incinerator. In other words, he is attempting -

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order: we have listened to the honourable member prattle on, but the fact is, of course -

Ms ALLAN: On a point of order -

Mr Hartcher: I have the point of order.

Ms ALLAN: On a point of order -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! The Minister has not finished his point of order.

Ms ALLAN: I would like to take offence at the reference by the Minister for the Environment to my words being crap. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw. I take offence.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! What is it that the member seeks the Minister to withdraw?

Ms ALLAN: His reference to crap. I think that is an offensive word to use.

Mr Hartcher: I did not use the word.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! As I heard the debate, the Minister did not use the word. Did you use that word, Minister?

Page 5909

Mr Hartcher: No, I did not.

Ms ALLAN: You are good at lying as well.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister said he did not use the word complained of.

[Interruption]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! There will be no further exchange on the matter. I will hear the Minister on a point of order.

Ms ALLAN: He is incompetent as well.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Did the honourable member for Blacktown not hear what I said? There will be no further exchange on the matter.

Ms ALLAN: I thought you were referring to the Minister.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I am referring to the Minister and the member for Blacktown.

Mr Hartcher: The bill relates to a specific matter in relation to landfill moratorium. It does not relate to matters that Ryde City Council might be planning or might not be planning. It certainly does not relate to anything to do with incinerators. It relates to a specific matter and I would ask you to draw the honourable member's attention to that and ensure that she stays within the leave of the bill.

Ms ALLAN: On the point of order: as the Minister well knows, I am taking the opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate in response to the Minister's second reading speech, which was extremely wide ranging, regarding the future of waste disposal and waste management in this State. Incineration is one of the many issues that has been canvassed in the debate about waste.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I accept what the member has said. I remind her, however, of the rules of debate and of her obligation not to stray too far from the leave of the bill.

Ms ALLAN: As I was saying, the honourable member for Gladesville is sitting on the fence regarding the options available to Ryde City Council for waste management in that local government area. It is quite obvious that Ryde City Council is not considering a landfill depot, for whatever reason - presumably a lack of space in its municipality. What it is considering is an alternative to that, which will be hastened by the passage of this legislation, that is, a proposed incinerator. The council says quite specifically that it supports an incinerator. The honourable member for Gladesville - and, as I said before, I am looking forward to his contribution to the debate - has been jumping up and down and alleging that would occur over his dead body. But that is all he has been doing - claiming that it will not happen, but doing nothing in the meantime to stop the proposal.

I do not see him rushing into the Chamber this evening to try to dissuade the Minister for the Environment, on behalf of the Fahey Government, from proceeding with this legislation, which will only give Ryde City Council an increased opportunity to proceed with the construction of its incinerator. The honourable member for Gladesville has not made representations to the Minister for the Environment, to squash the incinerator plan. He has not even complained to Ryde City Council. He certainly has not come forward in the House, as a lot of my colleagues have in recent weeks, to stop some of the offensive waste disposal options being considered by the government for this State. He has not come forward with a private members' bill to stop any similar proposal.

The Opposition believes that the bill needs to be tightened so that incineration does not become a fait accompli as a result of the moratorium. Indeed, incineration should not be considered as an option at all. The bill is a backflip from the media release of the Minister for the Environment of 16 September. The press release did not refer only to landfill dumps. It claimed that the Government, and particularly the Minister for the Environment who is responsible for waste management in this State, would place a moratorium on the granting of all licences for new waste facilities. That is not what the bill delivers. The press release referred to waste facilities. Such facilities include landfill dumps, tips and incinerators. However, although the object of the bill purports to give legislative force to the Minister's media release, the legislation goes only part of the way. The Minister should calm down whoever is writing his media releases. Earlier today the Minister read from and tabled one of his media releases about the Malabar incinerator. I was expecting great things from it, but it said nothing.

Mr Hartcher: Did the earth move for you, Pam?

Ms ALLAN: The earth did not move for me. Unfortunately, and more pertinently, because the Minister is responsible for waste management, the earth never moves for him. Obviously, that is a serious omission from the legislation. I foreshadow a series of amendments to be moved at the Committee stage. By only banning the establishment of the Erskine Park landfill depot, the bill reveals a serious inconsistency between statements made by the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services, the member for Badgerys Creek. She is on the public record as opposing the establishment of both the Erskine Park private tip and the Pacific Waste Management facility at Elizabeth Drive. She wrote to Mr E. Munoz, convenor of the waste crisis network, on 24 January about her concerns. She said:

Thank you for your recent letter -

she is a polite member of Parliament -

to me concerning the proposal by Pacific Waste Management to establish a putrescible landfill at Kemps Creek.

I too share your concerns about this proposal and am opposed to it.

Page 5910

I have written to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Chris Hartcher, making him aware of my opposition to this proposal . . .

What hypocrisy! The Chief Secretary has gone on record as opposing the Pacific Waste Management putrescible landfill at Kemps Creek but has not brought political pressure to bear when it counts, that is, at the end of the parliamentary session. Legislation has been introduced to do something about proposed waste facilities in this State, and the Pacific Waste Management proposal at Kemps Creek has not been included. The bill does not go as far as the bill that is on the parliamentary agenda for later in the week in the name of the honourable member for Penrith, the Badgerys Creek Waste Facility Bill. That bill will resolve the matter that the Chief Secretary, the member for Badgerys Creek, complained about to the Minister for the Environment in January this year.

The Chief Secretary claims she opposes the plan. However, when given the opportunity to quash the proposal, she and the Government are moving to ban only the Erskine Park facility. By taking action against one private operator and not the other, the Government and Chief Secretary are clearly favouring the Pacific Waste Management proposal. Why is that? I look forward to the Chief Secretary answering that fundamental question in her contribution. I am not the only person who is asking that question. Now that the Government has introduced such a limited bill, the voters in the electorate of Badgerys Creek are asking the same question. It seems fairly logical to assume that if the Government was prepared to attempt to strike out one private operator in the Badgerys Creek area, the remaining private operator that is still in the race would receive considerable commercial advantage. The Government either supports waste privatisation or it does not.

I am pleased to hear that private companies all over the State have been monitoring the development of this legislation with a great deal of interest. Pacific Waste Management has obviously written to all members of Parliament in the past few days; perhaps it has written today. It has been quick off the mark. It has raised a number of serious concerns about the possibility of the legislation being passed. I am not sure why Pacific Waste Management is as anxious as it is, because it has been fortunate. At present Pacific Waste Management is not covered by the legislation and will not be part of it unless the Opposition wins the support of the non-aligned Independents at the Committee stage. What Pacific Waste Management contends is interesting from another perspective. It is still concerned about the bill even though it does not directly relate to it. I should like to quote from the letter written by Pacific Waste Management, which read:

Pacific Waste Management has identified a significant set of implications for Sydney's waste management regime should the Government bill pass.

The letter continued:

Every likely scenario depends on the extended and continued use of Lucas Heights landfill.

I was shocked when I read that sentence in the letter. If I were managing that company, I would not stick my head up in this debate. I would be counting my lucky stars that my company had not been part of the Government's proposal to ban my proposed operations. I would be wondering why the Government was exempting my company from the bill. I might ask myself what financial contribution had I made to the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the State election that might encourage the Government to exclude my company from the legislation? Nevertheless, Pacific Waste Management has decided to contribute to the debate. The scenario painted by Pacific Waste Management is that the passage of this legislation will mean the extended and continued use of Lucas Heights landfill. That raises the role of another member of the lower House. Unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber. If he is upstairs listening on the monitor, I implore him to come to the Chamber and contribute to the debate.

The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, in whose electorate the Lucas Heights facility is located, must be trembling at the possibility that the Lucas Heights landfill site will not only be extended, but that its use will continue as a result of this legislation. I keep thinking of reasons why this legislation did not go to Cabinet. I have thought of two reasons. The first reason is that had the legislation come before Cabinet and had the Chief Secretary been at the Cabinet table, she might have remembered to include Pacific Waste Management in the bill, rather than relying on her mates, the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives, and the Minister for the Environment, to draft the bill.

Mrs Cohen: It is in the courts.

Ms ALLAN: The Chief Secretary says that it is in the courts. For how long has that worried us as legislators? Are we intimidated by what is happening in the courts? What is happening in the courts has not intimidated the honourable member for Penrith. She has introduced a bill to stop the waste facility at Badgerys Creek. Why is the Chief Secretary intimidated? She was not at the Cabinet meeting because the legislation did not go before Cabinet and she was not able to mention it to this dummy, the Minister for the Environment, who might otherwise have thought of it himself. The other reason why the legislation did not come before Cabinet was that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, who is also the member for the electorate of Sutherland, might have twigged during a Cabinet debate that the bill would have huge implications for the extension and continued use of the Lucas Heights facility.

The mayor of Sutherland Shire Council, Genevieve Rankin, is aware of the implications of the legislation. She is already speaking to the local community about what the bill will mean to the waste facility at Lucas Heights. I will be interested to hear the contribution of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing to this debate. I will be particularly interested in the vote on the amendment I propose to move at the Committee stage. That amendment will
Page 5911
seek to ensure that if this legislation is passed it will not mean that forever and a day the people of the Sutherland shire will have to tolerate the increased and continued use of the Lucas Heights facility, thanks to the Minister for the Environment and his political strategy thinker, the Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives. I have been concerned about the Lucas Heights facility, which is the subject of one of my amendments. The implication in the letter concerning Pacific Waste Management is that the waste industry in this State is rapidly developing the view that it just cannot do business with this Government, which is not predictable in its responses, actions, plans or strategies.

Mr Scully: It is just the Minister.

Ms ALLAN: It is not just the Minister. Even if the Minister were to change, the Government would not have a better strategy on waste management. He is a feeble attempt at an environment Minister. He does not have any idea how to deal with waste management in this State. But it is not just this Minister; he is backed by similar lacklustre Ministers in this Government who have little idea what to do about waste issues. The waste management business has lost confidence in the Government, and local government is in uproar about its performance. One of the more interesting debates at the Local Government Association conference in Katoomba two or three weeks ago was about the role of the State Government and local councils in waste management. The response from local government to this Government's performance on waste management was complete and utter horror at the wrong strategy of the Government. Both the waste management business and local government are sick to death of the Government. Local government will have to look with increasing desperation at a solution like incineration to solve its problems, because this Government does not have a waste strategy.

Why does the Government announce plans to privatise waste management one day and then place a moratorium on new landfill dumps the next? How can the Government have it both ways? If the Minister for the Environment knows the answer, many people would like to have him share it. Why change the rules in midstream for narrow and politically motivated purposes, unless the government of the day is increasingly desperate and frightened about electoral fallout on these issues? At least private industry knows where the Labor Party stands on this issue. They know Labor opposes private ownership of putrescible landfill operations. They are not exactly excited about our opposition, but they accept it. They know the Opposition is predictable on this issue. Labor welcomes involvement by private industry in recycling and waste minimisation, and in generating new technology to reduce the waste stream, but is not interested in having them run landfill operations. That will not happen under a future Labor government.

With the placement of a moratorium on new landfill operations, the Government will be under pressure to extend the Lucas Heights waste facility. But what is the alternative? The Government not only will extend the Lucas Heights facility, but also will overtop the Castlereagh waste facility. The honourable member for Londonderry has been a member of this House since 1988. He has been raising concerns about the Castlereagh waste depot. He has highlighted the fact that the Government's real agenda has been to overtop the waste facility. This letter is the honourable member's evidence.

Mr Gibson: Exactly.

Ms ALLAN: The Government is going to extend the Lucas Heights facility and overtop the Castlereagh waste depot. That would be an appalling violation of the trust that people in western Sydney have had in the Government over recent years. If this legislation is passed, the rest of Sydney will be saved temporarily from a new dump but the residents of Sutherland will get an even bigger tip, and the people of western Sydney will get overtopping at Castlereagh, more truck movements on their local roads, more water pollution and health hazards caused by various leachates from poorly managed tips. All those things will happen as a result of this ad hoc legislation. The proposals for Sutherland and Castlereagh tips will be vigorously opposed by local communities. The Government might think it will save face at Badgerys Creek with the passage of this legislation, which prohibits one dump but seems to forget about the electoral fallout from the other dump. Local communities in Sutherland and western Sydney will be outraged. I look forward keenly to the contributions by my colleagues from Londonderry and Penrith on this issue.

I turn to the amendments that the Opposition intends to move in Committee. The Opposition intends to support the bill, but with a number of fairly significant amendments. The Opposition will move amendments to ban establishment of all private putrescible landfill operations in line with its policy on this issue. The Opposition also will seek to place a legislative ban on the expansion of incineration operations, in line with our policy. Labor does not want to see incineration increased as an option for local government, simply because of this short-term legislation under consideration this evening. The Opposition will move an amendment to prohibit establishment of the Pacific Waste facility at Badgerys Creek. And the Opposition will seek to prohibit establishment of a waste facility at Sandy Crossing near Grafton.

Regional New South Wales is also having difficulty trying to solve its waste management problems. In some cases, for example, at Sandy Crossing at Grafton, inadequate waste options are being considered. Yesterday I spent an interesting afternoon at a proposed site at Jellat Jellat for a waste facility to be run by Bega Valley Council. The local community is in uproar about that proposal. What is the State Government doing about that? What
Page 5912
guidance is the State Government giving the Bega Valley Council and local communities to help them work out some of these problems? The Government merely turned its back to them. The Opposition will move an amendment to ban expansion of the Lucas Heights waste facility and another amendment to prevent overtopping of the Castlereagh waste depot with household garbage. I will be interested to hear the contributions, particularly by Government members, to the Opposition's proposed amendments.

The amendments under consideration will merely extend the category of restrictions already provided by legislation, to be imposed by the Environment Protection Authority on waste operators. The amendments will ensure that the moratorium cannot result in the extension of the Lucas Heights facility, the overtopping of the Castlereagh depot, or any new incinerator developments. Often towards the end of the parliamentary year Ministers get a rush of blood to the head and bring forward proposed legislation which is not quite up to scratch. This bill is probably the worst I have seen in that category in the six years I have been a member of this House. During the past week or two I have noticed, and my colleagues have commented, that the Minister's performance in the House has been fairly overreactive or hyperreactive. I have tried to reassure them that the Minister does not have a health problem and that he is simply excited at actually having issues about which people are prepared to listen. The residents of inner western Sydney have real concerns about noise pollution. Pollution falls into the Minister's portfolio; he now has something to say, and at long last his colleagues in the ministry are prepared to listen to him. They are giving him the opportunity to demonstrate in question time that the EPA has a view on certain matters.

That explains his hyperactive performance during question time, but it does not explain his hyperactivity with the Minister for Energy, and Minister for Local Government and Co-operatives in response to agitation from the Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services, the honourable member for Badgerys's Creek, that he should bring this legislation in this form to the Parliament today. The bill is an appalling piece of legislation. The bill will not achieve the aims and objectives the Minister has set out in his second reading speech. The measure will result in worse problems in existing, strained waste disposal facilities in an area such as Sutherland and in western Sydney residents having more pressure placed on them to receive waste. The bill will allow a major private operator, Pacific Waste Management, to continue to get away with a proposed private putrescible waste dump in western Sydney. There are not too many votes for Pacific Waste Management in western Sydney, nor should there be anywhere in the State. That proposal will increase the possibility of brawls breaking out about incineration as a serious option for waste disposal.

The honourable member for The Hills thinks this is amusing, probably because from my experience in politics there has never been a serious proposal for an incinerator on the north shore or the north-western suburbs of Sydney. Those areas are not on the eligibility list for those facilities - just dump them in inner western Sydney, outer western Sydney or western New South Wales. Electorates represented by Liberal Party members do not want those facilities. This is not an amusing issue because local government areas disadvantaged by a lack of community amenities might be tempted to accept incineration facilities.

The Minister for the Environment might be disappointed that there will be lengthy debate on this bill and on the numerous amendments to be moved by the Opposition in Committee, but I look forward to an intelligent response from the Minister - for a change - on a variety of issues that have been raised over the past few years in Parliament and in local communities throughout Sydney. This is an opportunity for the Minister to deal with issues such as the Lucas Heights nuclear facility and the Castlereagh toxic waste depot. The Minister did not have the courage to incorporate those safeguards in the legislation. In fact, he has introduced legislation that will worsen those problems. The Opposition will give the Minister an opportunity to tackle these issues in the Committee stage. It is to be hoped that this issue will receive bipartisan support because waste is too important an issue to be buried in political game-playing.

Mrs COHEN (Badgerys Creek - Chief Secretary, and Minister for Administrative Services) [10.01]: I listened with fascination to the contribution by the honourable member for Blacktown. It is of interest to provide the House with some background to the Erskine Park proposal. The Minister in his second reading speech said that the purpose of the bill is to give legislative effect to several undertakings given previously by the Government in relation to waste management. The Government has recently conducted a far-reaching review of waste management in this State. As a result of that review, the Government launched a new waste policy in August. Central to that policy was the requirement to establish guidelines for both the siting and operation of landfill sites.

Discussions are now taking place between local councils and the Environment Protection Authority on the development of these guidelines. It is appropriate that while these guidelines are being finalised, no new landfill depots should be approved. Accordingly, the Minister for the Environment recently announced a moratorium on the issue of new landfill licences until the guidelines are in place. The Government has now decided to give legal status to the moratorium, and the first part of the bill will have this effect. The second part of the bill is intended to enshrine in legislation the Government's consistent and historic policy on the Erskine Park quarry, the quarry that is specifically defined in this legislation not to be utilised for the disposal of putrescible waste.

The history of the site is quite interesting. The site is situated on the edge of an extremely densely populated area of western Sydney, far more densely populated than Londonderry and many of the areas
Page 5913
referred to by the honourable member for Londonderry. The original development consent for use of the quarry as a waste dump was issued in 1986 by the Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, when he was the Minister for the Environment. Prior to the 1988 election one of the promises of the coalition Government was never to allow the quarry to be used for putrescible waste. This has been the Government's consistent policy since 1987, and the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Tim Moore, has stated that in Hansard. Despite this, the Labor Party continually claims that the Government will allow putrescible waste in the Erskine Park quarry. Of course, that is totally untrue.

Following the 1991 election the Minister for the Environment at the time, the Hon. Tim Moore, repeated the Government's promise that the quarry would not be used for putrescible waste. About 18 months ago Penrith City Council gave permission for the site to be used for dry waste disposal. Of course, the current operator has now signalled its intention to apply for a putrescible waste licence for the site. It should certainly come as no surprise to Penrith City Council that the operator, having obtained a dry waste licence, would try to upgrade to a licence for putrescible waste. That has been its intention for many years. I am, and always have been, totally opposed to the use of Erskine Park quarry for this purpose because of the density of its surrounding population, the prevailing winds and its environmental impact.

Mr Gibson: It is called "Save my skin".

Mrs COHEN: No, this policy has been consistently in place since 1987. The honourable member for Londonderry can easily check that in the Hansard.

Mrs Lo Po': That is the hanging gardens.

Mrs COHEN: The honourable member for Penrith refers to what she calls the hanging gardens. A problem with the Erskine Park quarry is its rehabilitation because Penrith City Council failed to initiate rehabilitation plans - reminiscent of the history of The Lakes scheme. The head of the botanic gardens viewed that site and believed that there was enormous scope for a rehabilitation scheme - an attractive and innovative botanic gardens scheme for the area. Of course, because such a scheme has not been previously implemented, the honourable member for Penrith will not admit that it can be done. The Butchart Gardens in Canada clearly demonstrates that rehabilitation is an achievable solution to some of the quarrying activities that have taken place in the past. I am pleased that once and for all this legislation will put to rest continual attempts to use the Erskine Park quarry for the disposal of putrescible waste. This will ensure that the people of Erskine Park and St Clair do not constantly live in the shadow of that threat. I support the bill.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith) [10.07]: This bill could easily have two titles: "Save the seat of the member for Badgerys Creek" or "We told you so". When the Government introduced legislation to privatise the disposal of putrescible waste the Opposition said that it would not work; that people would be in it for the fast money and would not care about the environment. The minority report of the Joint Select Committee upon Waste Management certainly endorsed that view. Legislation which should be in place is now being introduced with great haste. As the honourable member for Blacktown said, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. Indeed, I hope to introduce a similar bill, as the Opposition believes that this bill does not go far enough.

The history of putrescible waste in this State is interesting. Back in the 1970s when putrescible waste was in the hands of private enterprise, the Askin Government's policy was for centralisation into the metropolitan area - and it has worked fairly well since then. This Government has decided that it should be given to free enterprise. As a result operators are in it for the money, without giving any consideration to the environment. The Government did not want to have anything to do with the issue and was of the view that it should be administered by local government. At that time Penrith City Council received a development application from Pacific Waste Management Proprietary Limited. Pacific Waste was disappointed that Penrith City Council refused that development application.

Mrs Cohen: The council did not refuse it.

Mrs LO PO': The council refused it; it did not want a bar of it. I should like to identify groups that have found fault with this particular proposal. The National Parks and Wildlife Service was concerned about leachate because Pacific Waste did nothing about it. Liverpool and Fairfield councils are also concerned about leachate and the restoration program. The western section of the public health unit is concerned that the dump will end up in the same condition as the tip at Castlereagh. The Department of Conservation and Land Management - the Government's own department - is concerned that the shape of the terraces will be detrimental to the environment. The Federal Airports Corporation is concerned about the birds. The Minister should be aware that any putrescible waste area attracts seagulls. Some years ago the Eastern Creek putrescible depot attracted many seagulls. The birds used to fly to the reservoir at Prospect and open their bowels into the water. At one stage those who drank from Sydney's water supply would be in danger of salmonella poisoning because seagulls carry salmonella in their bodies. A putrescible waste depot at Badgerys Creek will attract birds and create a problem for the Federal Airports Corporation.

The Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust is concerned about the Badgerys Creek putrescible waste depot being close to South Creek and Badgerys Creek, which flow into the Nepean River. The Water Resources Commission is concerned about high levels of ammonia. The Roads and Traffic Authority, a department that has nothing to do with the environment, is concerned about traffic
Page 5914
increase and road widening in the area. The Water Board is concerned about the quality of water, leachate and seagulls. Everybody who has had anything to do with water knows that putrescible waste dumps attract seagulls, which eat at the dump, look for a body of water to drink from, empty their bowels into the water and poison the water. The Government has created a problem because the closest body of water to the proposed dump is Prospect Reservoir. The water will be fouled as it was with the Eastern Creek site.

The Environment Protection Authority has asked Pacific Waste to consider alternatives to landfill. At some stage we must contemplate alternatives to landfill; we cannot keep burying things in the ground. The EPA is concerned, as we all are, that because this company is about making money and nothing else, waste minimisation will not progress. The company will merely pay lip-service to the program and encourage people to dump as much as they like because the more that is dumped the more money it makes. The Department of Planning has commented on the Government's policy of allowing private enterprise to manage putrescible waste - it too is concerned about the birds. Three groups are concerned about the birds and the sterilisation of the land. The Total Environment Centre is concerned about the clay liner. A clay liner will fail as it failed at Londonderry, but the Government has not made it mandatory for the company to provide other than a clay liner.

The Southern Highlands Community Action Group, a group in the Premier's electorate, claims that there is conflict of interest between privateers and waste minimisation. Friends of the Earth say that the site is too close to Badgerys Creek and South Creek. The New South Wales EPA licensing group says that a licence should not be granted until the guidelines are in place. The Coalition of Hawkesbury and Nepean Groups for the Environment - CHANGE - wants to know about the restoration procedures and who will own the dump. Kemps Creek Rural Precinct Committee says there are too many landfill sites. The Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales urges opposition to the venture.

A great deal of land in western Sydney is earmarked for future housing. Land not earmarked for future housing seems to attract developers who want to establish landfill sites. The Government proposed a giant landfill site at Castlereagh. An embargo must be placed on private enterprise making a fast buck out of great tracts of land in the western suburbs of Sydney. Pacific Waste depot is at Badgerys Creek, the Erskine Park quarry is close to a housing estate and the Government's policy will not protect anybody in western Sydney from free enterprise profiteering deals with regard to putrescible waste. I support the bill and the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Blacktown. Because the Minister was slack in producing guidelines, Penrith City Council was forced into court by Pacific Waste.

The slackness of this Government has cost Penrith City Council half a million dollars. The Government brought out a non-policy, private enterprise jumped in and made application, Penrith City Council refused the application and it has been taken to court. I will urge the council to send the bill to the Government because its slackness has caused the problem. If the Government had been smart and said, "Nothing will happen until the guidelines are set up", no applications would have been made. The guidelines are being set up too late. This proposal is not about being careful with waste management; it is about looking after an electorate and about trying to play catch-up on a policy that does not serve the people. The Minister for the Environment can turn his back, but he knows that he has been totally slack and that Penrith City Council is paying out half a million dollars because he did not implement guidelines soon enough. The Government does not understand the problems of putrescible waste, the Minister is totally ineffective, and patch-up legislation is doing a job that should have been done earlier by waste control policy.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield) [10.17]: The Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill should be renamed, possibly by amendment, the Anne Cohen Grab and Re-election Idea Amendment Bill. It is a public relations stunt. The Government is wondering what it can do about her marginal seat. She has got Buckley's chance of being re-elected at the next State election. She is running with this airport issue thinking she will be re-elected.

Mr Rixon: What is your margin?

Mr SCULLY: My margin is 6 per cent and it is going to go up beyond 10 per cent.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order! The honourable member for Smithfield will address his remarks through the Chair and desist from arguing across the Chamber.

Mr SCULLY: My brother Martin would be shocked.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order!

Mr SCULLY: But Mr Acting-Speaker -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! There will be no buts.

Mr SCULLY: I am delighted to take the opportunity to speak to the Anne Cohen re-election bill. I am concerned that there is no end to the stunts the Government will pull. The Minister has her poll file ready. She has the envelopes prepared and the letters ready to go. This bill is one big stunt. The Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Londonderry, will tell the people of the Minister's electorate that they should be careful. If this Government is re-elected with a majority, it will be a case of "let her rip". Waste management services will be privatised. We have a moratorium, but for how long? It will last until about 26 or 27 March next year.

Page 5915

Mr Knowles: Give or take an hour or two.

Mr SCULLY: Indeed, once the writs are in and the member for Badgerys Creek thinks she has got in, she will say, "You beauty! I've been re-elected and I've got my super. The Government is back in, so let 'em rip!" We will then have landfills, incinerators and putrescible waste all over western Sydney. The only Government member of Parliament in the west of Sydney, who should be protecting us from the scourge of the Liberal Party, will have the hammer, the sickle and the mattock and will be digging in. We are not fools, Minister. The Chief Secretary has thought that a moratorium for six months will convince everyone that the problem will be solved. All she could get this marginal from Gosford to do was to place a moratorium on landfill, but why did she not introduce a bill that kills incineration? She would not do it. I have not heard the Minister for the Environment or the Chief Secretary comment on Fairfield City Council. The Chief Secretary should comment on that council.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order -

Mr SCULLY: What is the Minister's point of order? It had better be good.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Glachan): Order. The Chair needs no assistance from the member for Smithfield. I will hear the Minister on a point of order.

Mr Hartcher: This is the Landfill Depots (Moratorium) Bill, which has nothing to do with remarks by the Chief Secretary on Fairfield council or any other council. That matter has not been canvassed in debate.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Smithfield is well aware of the rules of debate. The Chair has allowed members some latitude in this debate, but I remind the honourable member for Smithfield of his obligation not to stray too far from the leave of the bill.

Mr SCULLY: The Australian Labor Party, through the shadow Minister for the Environment, has foreshadowed some amendments in respect of applications for incinerators being refused. It is pertinent that I refer to Fairfield City Council because councils have copped the brunt of this Government's almost complete abrogation of its waste management responsibility in this State. Fairfield City Council has been promoting the investigation of the idea of a fluidised bed, which, if the Minister does not know, comprises heated sand that burns putrescible waste and increases the level of pollution in western Sydney. I for one have expressed opposition to my council being involved in the promotion of another waste incinerator. If the heroine from Badgerys Creek can produce this bill which refers to no more landfills, what is she doing about banning incinerators? This Government recently approved a development in Smithfield which involves recycling newsprint and incorporates an incinerator. It is insufficient for the Government to make this lopsided and limp-wristed attempt at waste management. This is nothing more than a stunt so that the Chief Secretary can issue a press release and have a poll file run. What will the Minister and this Government do about incinerators? If a moratorium is placed on landfill, what will be done about incinerators?

Mr Hartcher: What will you do about immunisation?

Mr SCULLY: The Minister should be vaccinated! The next time the Minister heads off on a junket, I will fill the needle myself and happily stick it into the Minister - he has asked for it. I would like to vaccinate the Minister with some truth serum so that maybe he will start telling some truths rather than fibs. The Minister jabs himself in the bottom with lie serum and pretends to Parliament that he has a program for waste management. The Minister should tell us the truth. He should vaccinate himself with the truth serum, and when the Chief Secretary is writing her poll file letters she should tell the community what she will do about incinerators and her view about Fairfield City Council promoting incinerators. How will the Minister vote on the banning of Badgerys Creek? That is an interesting question. I am delighted to place on record the fact that these hypocrites, media stuntmen and women, flim-flam and ghouls of politics who have wasted our time, while members with great virtue, like the honourable member for Londonderry -

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: the member for Smithfield has been speaking for seven minutes and has not once referred to the bill. He has clearly been flouting your ruling, Mr Acting-Speaker.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the member for Smithfield was about to conclude his contribution.

Mr SCULLY: I was about to wind up. I wonder whether I should respond to the point of order from the member for Ku-ring-gai, or whatever his seat is. There is no point of order. My point is made.

Mr Jeffery: You did not make any point at all; you would not know what day it is.

Mr SCULLY: I do not normally refer to the member for Oxley. However, if he gives me an account of what he has had for dinner, I will comment on any interjection he wishes to make. I have a reasonable regard for the Chief Secretary, and I want her to answer some of the questions I have asked tonight. She should tell the House what she will do about incineration in western Sydney if she should crawl back into office - which I doubt because the electorate will see what this legislation is all about.

Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [10.28]: It is important that I put on record my concerns about this legislation. For a long time this Government has abrogated its responsibility in this very important area. Again, this legislation is a demonstration of the Government's incompetence and its inability to look to the future and provide solutions for very serious
Page 5916
problems regarding our garbage disposal. This legislation is about banning the establishment of a landfill depot at Erskine Park near Badgerys Creek, and places a moratorium on other landfill depots. However, it fails to recognise the wider problem. Currently, Ryde City Council is attempting to establish an incinerator at North Ryde. As this legislation does not address the wider scene, it does not look at the problems caused by an increase in incineration in this State. The banning of landfills will mean that councils will be increasingly left to turn to incineration as the preferred method of garbage disposal. Does this Minister and Government know where they are taking us? They are doing our community no good. I refer specifically to the matter of incineration as this legislation will lead to increasing pressure on the provision of such methods of waste disposal. If the Minister had time to pay attention to the debate -

Mr Hartcher: Who would bother?

Mrs GRUSOVIN: If the Minister cared about the seriousness of this matter, he might be bothered about this debate; but he is not terribly interested. We have a waste incinerator south of the central business district, at Waterloo. That must either discontinue its operation or be upgraded. The upgrade will cost in the vicinity of $44 million, and to make it viable, increased usage will be necessary. If this matter were not so serious I would find it highly amusing that this incinerator is to be situated slap-bang in the middle of a proposed urban consolidation project involving 30,000 people. This Government will not maintain any credibility if it puts 30,000 people slap-bang in the middle of an environmental hazard. I will tell honourable members how credible the Government is in this matter. Recently I had a briefing on the new rail link to the airport from State Rail Authority officers. I looked at a video and at all the attractive graphics and said to them, "Green Square is an attractive place. It provides for lots of terrace houses and green trees". I then said, "There is only one problem; I cannot see the incinerator". The people from the State Rail Authority said, "It is not drawn in, but if it were it would be right here", and they pointed to a row of attractive terrace houses. That is the credibility of the Government at this stage.

Apparently, the Department of Planning is claiming that there is no conflict of interest in this matter. It sits very easily, thank you very much, with the prospect of an upgrade and the maintenance of an incinerator which is spewing out toxins in an area that will have an additional 30,000 people as a result of this Government's visionary planning. I suppose one should not be too surprised about that. In December 1991 - the silly season - Nick Greiner, the former Premier of this State, announced that his Government was going to be very forward looking and, by way of an urban redevelopment, place another 100,000 people between the southern central business district and the northern perimeters of the north-south runway at Mascot.

At the time, as shadow spokesperson for housing, I questioned the statement of the former Premier - the champion of the third runway - who said he would prevent councils from blocking or in any way interfering in the building and development of that third runway, as it was the best thing that could ever happen to Sydney. I questioned why the former Premier was proposing to situate 100,000 people right under a flight path of a runway he was proposing. I suppose I should not really be surprised at the continuing idiocy of this Government. It shows a lack of foresight by proposing to close all landfill areas and encourage incineration. That is just not on. Members of the younger generation feel strongly about this matter as their environment is being destroyed and their future quality of life is being interfered with. The younger generation believes it has been sold out again.

Mr Hartcher: By the flight path?

Mrs GRUSOVIN: The Minister does not know much about flight paths, the environment, or his responsibilities as Minister. He should be providing good administration and good government in this State.

Mr Hartcher: You are doing a great job on flight paths.

Mrs GRUSOVIN: We are doing a better job than the Minister. The Government does not have to bring in experts from overseas to tell it the obvious, but a United States professor of chemistry, Dr Paul Connett, delivered a number of presentations about incineration at meetings in Sydney during the past week. He said:

. . . the United States' experience of the 1980s when Municipal Waste Incinerators popped up like mushrooms across the country and were now severe economic burdens on communities and local authorities showed incineration is not a solution to the problem of disposing of domestic waste.

We should not expect it to be a solution to the problem in Australia. In the United States investment companies, local authorities and residents realise that incinerators are not the answer to dealing with waste. They realise that they only add to the problem. Dioxin emissions pollute the air and contaminate land, and affect the health of residents and, in hard financial terms, real estate values. It is not just third runways that cause problems for real estate values; it is also things like incinerators. In the United States toxic ash residue has now been banned from ordinary landfills by the United States Supreme Court. People disposing of ash residue have to use special, costly containers. Incinerators are expensive to run and, in the United States, there is not enough waste in various localities to make them a viable, economic proposition.

Local communities are involving themselves, necessarily, in long hauls of waste across State borders. Transfer that situation to the inner city area of South Sydney where the Waterloo incinerator is situated. How many truck movements would be required to bring garbage to the incinerator for incineration and to take out ash residue to be dumped? It is not a pleasant prospect. The overseas expert, Dr
Page 5917
Connett, is saying, "Why are you not looking at the bigger picture? Why are you not placing a greater emphasis on large-scale composting and resource recovery?" Are we blinkered? Are we blind? Are we not prepared to acknowledge that people in other parts of the world can do things better than us? Are we simply taking the easy way out, without facing up to some of the hard questions that we need to face up to if we are to provide efficient government and good administration in such a crucial area?

This question of garbage disposal has been left, on the whole, to councils. They have been left like shags on a rock trying to do the best they can in difficult circumstances. This legislation will place extra pressure on councils to look to incineration as a preferred method of waste disposal. If we do not look at other options, encourage councils to involve themselves in research and establish better ways of dealing with this problem and educating the community, the problem will continue to grow. We need a government that is prepared to encourage councils to look at a more ambitious way of disposing of waste. In fact, we need a more sophisticated method of recycling. We need to recycle a much wider range of materials. This can be done. We cannot say it is all too hard because some councils have had vision in this area and are doing the job much better than others. It is a question of education; and the Government must be prepared to take the lead in these matters.

The Government is paralysed and incapable of being visionary. It has introduced mediocre legislation that does not get to the nitty-gritty of this difficult topic. The Government hopes that the legislation will get it off the hook in the lead-up to the next State election. The Government is not interested in good government; it is interested in its own survival and self-interest. It is not doing much for the people of New South Wales. The Government and the Minister have been found wanting. His record is one of the least prepossessing of any Minister for the Environment. But in a Liberal-National Party conservative government that is not a comfortable position. The Minister has been vulnerable since he became Minister. He has to satisfy the interests of his National Party and Liberal Party colleagues. He spends so much time guarding his back from his coalition colleagues that he has not much time or energy to devote to the bigger issues that any responsible Minister for the Environment should be addressing - the protection of our environment. Once again we are presented with mediocre legislation by a mediocre Minister. [Time expired.]

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Debate resumed from 17 November.

Mr FACE (Charlestown) [10.43]: I lead for the Opposition, which supports the Totalizator Legislation (Amendment) Bill. The proposed amendments will provide taxation relief for the Australian Jockey Club and the Sydney Turf Club by increasing the share of totalisator commission which will be retained by metropolitan clubs. Under the provisions of the legislation commission is deducted from all investments made on totalisators. That commission is shared between the Crown, the Totalisator Agency Board and racing clubs conducting totalisators. The legislation further provides that non-metropolitan clubs retain 3 per cent more of commission than do the metropolitan clubs. Some time ago representations were made to both the Government and the Opposition by the AJC and the STC seeking tax relief by way of an increase in the share of on-course totalisator commissions retained by metropolitan galloping clubs.

There has been support for the measure. An announcement was made in the 1994-95 budget that the metropolitan clubs' share of totalisator commission is to be increased progressively over the next two years. When fully phased in, all metropolitan clubs' share of commission will be the same as that of other clubs throughout the State. Because the metropolitan harness racing and greyhound racing clubs are already in receipt of similar relief through totalisator commission rebates from the Racing Assistance Fund, some minor changes will be made to adjust the provisions of the legislation relating to that assistance. The assistance will cost $1.5 million in the current financial year, $4.5 million in the 1995-96 financial year and $6 million each year thereafter.

The increases in totalisator commissions payable to the AJC and the STC will serve only to bring those clubs into line with other clubs in New South Wales. During the past five years on-course totalisator turnover at AJC and STC meetings has declined from $250 million in 1989-90 to $209 million in 1993-94, a decrease of 16.4 per cent. The decrease would be even greater in today's money. Income to the AJC and STC from on-course and off-course betting is also in decline. This is the case with the New South Wales racing industry overall. Throughout the State on-course totalisator and bookmakers' turnover has declined significantly over the past five years. The only growth has been in New South Wales TAB turnover. However, while TAB turnover has increased in the past five years from $3.014 billion to $3.347 billion and the contribution to government revenue from TAB sales from $239.3 million to $281.6 million, or $42.3 million, the contribution to the racing industry from the New South Wales TAB has increased from $104.4 million to only $104.5 million, by $100,000. In other words, 99.8 per cent of growth in the profit of the New South Wales TAB during the past five years has gone to government.

Given those amounts, the New South Wales racing industry is in need of financial support and understanding from government. The industry overall contributes about $1 billion to New South Wales gross domestic product and employs about 50,000 people. The proposed increase in totalisator commission rates to the AJC and STC will provide some help to those clubs which are the leaders of the thoroughbred racing
Page 5918
industry in the State, but further support for the industry will be required if it is to compete with other entertainment, sport, leisure and gambling products into the future, and compete with the racing industries in the other States of Australia. Innovative long-term strategies are needed by the racing industry - not only galloping but also harness and greyhound racing. On-course totes have been decreasing because fewer people attend race meetings. Racing clubs now admit that they have significant problems resulting from various things that have occurred in recent times. They have to be market driven and to have long-term strategies. There will not be the regular patronage of tens of thousands as previously and a wider range of activities is needed on racecourses to attract people.

Privatisation of the TAB in Victoria is an example of developments which concern thoroughbred horseracing and horse training within this State. I hope that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, before the end of this session, will be able to introduce a bill that will overcome the industry's difficulties. I am told by the Minister's advisers, and I tend to agree with them, that any Victorian move to reduce the percentage of taxation on turnover could be detrimental to racing in New South Wales. I have no disagreement with that, and the Opposition in general has no disagreement with it. The Minister knows my concerns about this matter. We all learned from the Government's 1 per cent increase in turnover taxation that was imposed several years ago, and was later replaced by an increase of 0.25 per cent. The industry had great difficulty in recovering from that measure, which spelled out many experiences that would follow in horseracing, harness racing and greyhound racing in New South Wales. It was clear that the professional punters would not go to country courses. Many country courses had become dependent on professional punters. It is unhealthy to have a race club's totalisator dependent for turnover on whether a plane carrying the big punters gets off the ground in Sydney and whether professional punters attend its meetings.

The warnings have been evident for some time. No government, regardless of political persuasion, should ignore the racing industry. The industry has long-term needs that must be addressed. This bill relates to one area in which the Government has chosen to move, and it has made a move in the right direction. I hope that it will be the first of a considerable number of measures to be undertaken in the long term, not only for the Australian Jockey Club and the Sydney Turf Club but for racing generally, including the thoroughbred breeding industry generally and the harness racing and greyhound codes. One thing that everyone will agree on is that consolidation is needed in the racing industry. No-one can say, however, where consolidation should take place, and the Minister would know that well. In the next few years it will be an unenviable task to try to overcome the problems of the industry, but they have to be addressed if racing in New South Wales is to remain viable. Various inroads have been made and at this stage there is a great deal of goodwill within the racing industry. I support the bill.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland - Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing) [10.55], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support of the bill. The overall idea is to provide taxation relief to metropolitan racing clubs. At the outset I should like to say that the bill is part of the Government's commitment to maintain the viability of the New South Wales racing industry. For many years racing has been the most overtaxed industry in this State. Tonight I make the commitment that as long as I am Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing I will work, and the Government will work, towards ensuring that the racing industry remains viable. We understand the importance of the racing industry to the economy of this State. It is most important that the Government set in train a series of measures that will not only keep the industry viable but will also lead to its long-term existence in New South Wales and throughout Australia.

The New South Wales racing industry is the foremost racing industry in Australia. The Government will work to ensure that the industry retains that position. The honourable member for Charlestown raised a couple of issues of note. In recent years the Government assisted the industry with the introduction of on-course telephone betting. Since the introduction of telephones on course the turnover of New South Wales bookmakers has increased by 9.8 per cent. The honourable member for Charlestown also spoke about the decrease in the on-course tote, a decrease of 2.8 per cent. An interesting phenomenon of racing in New South Wales, and particularly thoroughbred racing, is that while great strides have been made by respective clubs in the marketing of their product and in ensuring that attendance on course is maintained, especially for major racing carnivals, turnover has not increased correspondingly.

Probably the best example of the contradiction is provided by the recent October long weekend racing carnival in Sydney. The Australian Jockey Club conducted its traditional meetings on the Saturday and Monday, which attracted an increased attendance over last year's figures. A Sunday meeting was held by the STC at Rosehill and was attended by more than 11,000 people and turnover was on a par with last year's turnover. If it had not been that there was no racing in Brisbane at that time, turnover that weekend would have increased on last year's turnover. However, that was an isolated instance. It has to be understood that it is not only up to the racing industry of this State to ensure that it continues to market its product and continues to attract people on course but it is also up to the Government to come up with measures that will assist the industry.

In recent months the Government has put in train a series of measures that it hopes will lead to further legislative initiatives in the next 12 months. The Government has consulted widely with the racing industry. The racing industry advisory group has met me, and does meet me, and has proposed a business plan. The Government fully intends to ensure that many of the proposals in that plan are put into operation. If there is one thing that can be said about racing in Australia it is that since the privatisation of
Page 5919
the Victorian Totalisator Agency Board there has been a sea change in racing in this State. Gone are the old days of gentlemen's agreements amongst the States and the various racing clubs that governed the way in which racing was run in this country.

In years to come competition will be much more fierce. Competition for the punters' dollar will come not only from within New South Wales but from throughout Australia. It is important to ensure that New South Wales retains the pre-eminent position it
has held for many years. I thank the Opposition for its support of the bill. As I have already said, this bill is the start; it is certainly not the finish. The Government fully intends to introduce in the next 12 months other measures to ensure that racing in this State retains its pre-eminent position.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:15:16   :   Update this page