Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 21 September 1995, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 9.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [9.00]: The Government's motion strikes at the fundamental heart of democracy in this State. The Minister for Local Government, who shudders, is the best Treasurer that the Labor Party never had in this State. He is the only man with the academic qualifications. He should have been given the portfolio of Treasurer, instead of which the Labor Party gave it to a pseudo economic rationalist. The party could have given it to somebody with local government experience.

Mr E. T. Page: When are you going to get on with a personal attack on your predecessor.

Mr KERR: I have been challenged to make a personal attack on my predecessor. I am wounded. The Hon. Michael Egan is the sort of Treasurer you have when you are Premier and you want advantageous comparison. There are a number of arguments that should be placed on behalf of the people of New South Wales in relation to this issue. What we are seeing, firstly, is a contemptible attempt at government by media; secondly, a denigration of the House of the people; and, finally, this is an abdication of representative government. I will deal with each of those issues in turn. This is an attempt to ensure that there is a multimedia forum for this Treasurer. He will come in here and make a set piece speech to the House without any opportunity of being questioned. It is significant that he will come in here, make a speech and not be available for questioning. Really that ought to concern the Minister and every member on the other side of the House.

Mr Amery: Your argument is flawed.

Mr KERR: The Minister for Agriculture says that my argument is flawed. I will tell the House why it is not flawed. I indicate to the Minister for Agriculture that his good mate, Paul Keating, spoke on behalf of the Labor Party when, referring to representatives in the Federal upper House, he said, "They are unrepresentative swill."

Mr Martin: Do you agree?

Mr KERR: The Minister asks me whether I agree. That is not the issue. The only issue is whether we want them swilling in here, because that is what this motion allows. The Minister obviously agrees with his mate the Prime Minister who made that reference to members of the upper House.

Mr Knowles: You have had all night to think about this speech.

Mr KERR: Yes, the Minister is quite right, I have had all night. The people of New South Wales will have quite a deal of time to think about this proposal. This is an attack on them. What is being done here fulfils the dream of harlots throughout the century - power without responsibility. That is what this is all about. It is having somebody come in, simply making pronouncements and never being examined or brought to account. That is what is being done by the Macquarie Street mafia. In order to assist the Government I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(4) On the next sitting day following the Premier's second reading speech the Hon. M. R. Egan, M.L.C., Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, be admitted to the House immediately after the conclusion of Question Time and attend for two hours to answer questions to be put by members in conformity with the Standing Orders in relation to the putting of Questions seeking information.

Mr E. T. Page: You have accepted the principle, now you are talking about the detail.

Mr KERR: No, the Minister does not understand parliamentary procedure. The Opposition is opposed to allowing a stranger into the House. It is a great pity that the Minister was not in the chair.

Mr E. T. Page: So you will be voting in favour of it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will refrain from interjecting. I am sure the honourable member for Cronulla, who has had all night to prepare his contribution, would not want any of his time taken up by having to respond to interjections.

Mr KERR: Absolutely. I remind the Minister that he was not in the chair when the House was given the historical background by the honourable member for Auburn. It is a great pity that the whole population of New South Wales was not in the gallery because it was a great demonstration of the dangers of substance abuse. It was the honourable member for Hawkesbury who was able to correct him. History will treat the honourable member for Auburn harshly and there is a lot of justice in that because the honourable member for Auburn treated history harshly and inaccurately last night.

Mr O'Farrell: Who was the last Stuart king?

Mr KERR: I am asked who was the last Stuart king. It was James II.

Mr Hartcher: The member does not look like James II. It was Queen Mary.

Page 1329

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Cronulla will return to the subject of the debate.

Mr KERR: I was addressing the matters raised by the honourable member for Auburn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr KERR: A serious issue is raised here. This is the people's House. If a person comes here for a purpose - and there can be no more critical purpose than the expenditure of public money - the people's representatives should question that person. Under this motion a stranger is allowed into the House. It is amazing stupidity to refer to analogies such as a head of State coming here to address the House. When we have other persons coming before this House - and an example given was the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies - they do not come here to transact the business of government. That is a matter for the people's elected representatives. This motion is totally stupid and highlights for the people of New South Wales that Labor in Government does not have the talent to provide a Treasurer. This is not the first time this has happened. It did not have the talent to provide a Premier.

Mr Markham: Neither did you over seven years.

Mr KERR: We provided a Premier from this House. All the Labor Party could do was provide a cardigan, from elsewhere.

Mr Markham: That is pretty weak.

Mr KERR: Yes it is weak, but it is what has been said here. The Labor Party cannot provide a Treasurer from the ranks of the honourable member's colleagues. The Minister for Local Government is academically qualified to fill that post.

Mr Markham: Ernie could do it.

Mr KERR: Yes, the Minister could do it.

Mr E. T. Page: Why do you say that?

Mr KERR: I say that because the Minister went to university and studied finance. Does he recall that?

Mr E. T. Page: I am an econometrician, not an economist. Get it right. But you would not even know what that means.

Mr KERR: The Minister will have an opportunity to make a personal explanation to the House. I understand the Minister's problem. He is Left and was not available.

Mr E. T. Page: I am still here.

Mr KERR: The Minister is a member of the left-wing faction and the problem with that faction is that it is like the pub with no beer. All that is left is the bitter. That is why we have the bitter in caucus.

Mr E. T. Page: If you want to move that motion I will second it.

Mr KERR: But to return to the leave of the motion.

Mr E. T. Page: It is like deja vu all over again.

Mr KERR: I would not speak French if I were the Minister because he is likely to bomb out. What is being proposed is an affront to every member of this House, and thereby to every voter in New South Wales. The Budget is the cornerstone of public policy. The honourable member for Auburn referred to the evolution of parliamentary democracy, which is all about the Executive being brought to account by the Legislature and those who represent the people. That accounting came about because the Crown had to account for its expenditure, and could not raise expenditure without the consent of the people and without that expenditure being questioned and voted upon. The Government is seeking to overturn three centuries of constitutional history. It wants to bring into this House someone who is not accountable to this House. It wants to bring the Treasurer, a man from another House, into this House. That, as the Minister for Police was at pains to emphasise, is unprecedented.

The only precedent that the Minister for Police could provide related to a member of the Legislative Council who was Treasurer for some months. However, the Treasury speech was delivered not by the Treasurer from the other House but by the Assistant Treasurer who was a member of this House. They understood the nature of democracy in those days. It is ironic that in the fiftieth year of our celebration of victory over the forces of tyranny and evil, members of the Government propose to snub their noses at parliamentary democracy. That is what is being proposed here for the sake of political expediency and for the sake of a cheap media stunt. This Government has shown it has no understanding of constitutional history.

The Labor Party used to stand for something; it used to stand for a fair go. On two occasions the Government tried to abolish the Legislative Council, but on each occasion its proposition was rejected by the people. What is fair about bringing the Treasurer from the Legislative Council into this Chamber when no member of this House will be able to ask him even one question? It is totally wrong. I say this for the benefit of the Minister: those on this side of the House totally oppose what is being proposed here and will not vote for it. The Opposition has given members of the Government an opportunity to carry out their duties as representatives of the people, with regard to the manner in which they raise and spend taxpayers' money. I believe the Government ought to think seriously about this issue.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Keira said, "You invite him here". Let it be said by those on this side of the House that we did not invite him here. The people threw him out in 1984. I do not want to delay the time set aside for private members' statements. The Government has tried to be clever, too clever by half. It said, "You can debate this issue but the price will be your failure to bring to the notice of the Parliament the cares and concerns of your
Page 1330
constituents." If the Government believes this is the proper course of action it should take this issue out of Government business, because there can be no more important piece of Government business than the Budget.

Instead, the Government has sought to take up the time set aside for private members statements. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, "The only thing worse than being in Opposition is being a backbencher in government". Because of stupid power play by the leaders of honourable members opposite they have not been allowed to bring the cares and concerns of their constituents to the notice of this House. That is all it is. Honourable members well know the troika that runs this State, a "Carr" with two passengers and that is what this motion is all about.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [9.15]: I intend to argue very strongly against the Government's motion, on the basis of strong principles following on from and espoused by the honourable member for Cronulla. To suggest that a member of another House - that is, a stranger to this place - should be allowed on to the floor of this Chamber while the House is sitting impinges on the rights of all members of this House. It impinges on its tradition, the fundamental principles on which the Westminster system is based, and it sets a highly undesirable precedent which will destroy 150 years of democracy in New South Wales. No-one, other than the 99 elected members of this Chamber, is entitled to be in this House to speak on behalf of the people of New South Wales.

Every member elected to this Chamber has a mandate to represent his or her constituents and no-one else is entitled to come here and purport to do that. The Government and the Treasurer are seeking to usurp the rights and entitlements of the members of this House and totally ignore the principles of democracy in New South Wales. Of all people, the Treasurer, the former member for Cronulla, has less right than anyone to seek to come into this Chamber. In 1984 he was denied the right to represent the people of Cronulla in this House. He was replaced by a vastly superior member who speaks for the people of Cronulla in a better fashion than anyone has spoken for them before. For the Treasurer to seek to come into this Chamber by subterfuge is a slap in the face for the constituents of Cronulla who rejected him 11 years ago. The fact is he lost but he is trying to come in by way of the back door under the pretext of delivering the Budget Speech and to grandstand in this Chamber one more time. He should be denied that opportunity. It is not an entitlement or a right. He is attempting to bypass the very democratic process which sees members elected to represent their constituents in 99 electorates across this State.

At no time since the establishment of this House has any member ever been able to speak in this Chamber without having been elected to do so by his constituents. One has to ask the question: why could somebody else not deliver the Budget Speech in this Chamber? The 16 or 17 members of the Government who are Ministers of the Crown are, presumably, able to read coherently from a prepared speech. Why not the Premier, who espoused pre- and post-election that he was all knowledgeable about financial affairs in New South Wales; who was able to travel to the United States of America and other places and swan around, talking about the economic climate of the State. Surely the Premier has some basic understanding of the fundamentals of the budget process. Perhaps he does not. Perhaps it is all rhetoric and hollow statements. Perhaps he is unable to deliver the Budget Speech. However, there are other options. There are some fine, outstanding members of the Government on the front bench.

[Interruption]

One honourable member has suggested the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women. Would she not be a great representative to deliver the Budget Speech? What about the former Minister for Finance, the now member for Blue Mountains? Perhaps he could be asked to read the Budget Speech - but, of course, we cannot rely on his being here. Perhaps there is someone else. The Opposition would be delighted to invite the new member for Blue Mountains into this Chamber to make a brief address. Why cannot another member of the triumvirate, another passenger in the "Carr", the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads - and for anything else he chooses to speak about - come into this Chamber and deliver the Budget Speech? The Treasurer is his good friend and colleague. The fact is that no-one on the front bench wants to deliver the Budget Speech and no-one has the ability to give the Budget Speech in this House. Surely it is not the case that the Treasurer has any greater abilities. Why cannot someone in this Chamber, respecting the traditions of this place, be given that right and do just that? The Government has not considered the alternatives. Under established precedent members of the public can come to the bar of this Chamber and speak to members. That option should be pursued by the Government.

Why not have the Treasurer behind the bar of the Chamber, outside the floor of this House, reading the Budget Speech. As proposed in the amendment let him answer questions at the bar and be accountable for what he says. Every member and Minister in this Chamber is accountable to this House. The proposition that a person could enter this House on a single once-off occasion, not be accountable and not answer questions, is fundamentally wrong. I strongly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Cronulla. I will hold the Treasurer accountable in this Chamber to answer to the members and to the constituents whom we represent. Yet the Government would deny members that opportunity. The Government does not want the Treasurer to be accountable. If this House is to be forced to have the Treasurer enter this place to deliver his Budget Speech, let him be accountable and for two hours answer questions from members. Let us see whether the Treasurer is able to stand up and be accountable to the electors of New South Wales.

Page 1331

The Government is running down the role and the position of the Legislative Council in this State. The Government implies that the Treasurer is unable to give his Budget Speech in the other place. The Government is saying that the Legislative Council is of little consequence in the Parliament of New South Wales. Why cannot the Treasurer give his Budget Speech in the Chamber to which he was elected? Is it because the Government, in the Keating vein, regards members of that Chamber as unrepresentative swill, and holds them in contempt? The Government has no respect for the Legislative Council. If it did, it would allow the Treasurer to deliver his Budget Speech in the upper House, which is the House to which he was elected. That is where he should stay. He should make his speech and should be accountable to members of that place who ask questions in that House - but not here.

The Government, if it wants to stand by the principle of accountability, which is at stake, should also support the amendment. Government is seeking to force through the motion but should also sustain the principle of accountability by supporting the amendment. We do not want the Treasurer in this Chamber. If this House is going to be forced to have the Treasurer in this Chamber, we want him to be accountable. My argument is based on fundamental principles and traditions of this House which all members have a responsibility to uphold. One principle is that a person who is not elected to this Chamber for the current term is not entitled to come onto the floor of this Chamber. Another principle is that of accountability. Any person who enters this Chamber against the wishes of the members of this House should be accountable. A person who enters this Chamber under those circumstances should be subject to questioning in this House about what they purport to represent. I strongly support the amendment but I oppose the motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.25], in reply: I am staggered, and I still do not believe what I have heard. It is clear that since last night there has been a conversion. The honourable member for Cronulla went home and spoke to a four-year-old child in his house who acquainted him with the detail of the amendment. In truth this issue is about detail. The amendment should be ruled out of order because it is unconstitutional. I read section 38 last night; I will not go through it again. That section provides for one-way traffic: it enables only members of the Legislative Assembly to address members of the Legislative Council. There is no constitutional provision that enables a member of the Legislative Council, even a member of Cabinet, to address the lower House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will have an opportunity to explain differences in interpretation when the Minister has concluded his speech.

Mr WHELAN: As there is no constitutional right embedded in the Constitution Act to enable members of the Legislative Council to address the Assembly, it is left either to existing standing orders of this Chamber or to a resolution of this House to enable such an address. I am not seeking to change the standing orders but, as I indicated to the House last night, this issue will be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for it to develop a standing order. I have no doubt that the proper way for an invitation to be extended to the Treasurer, who just happens to reside in this instance in the Legislative Council, is that which has been adopted by me, namely by the motion currently before the House. The basic principle is that such an invitation can only be effected by resolution of this House.

If members opposite read my speech they will see the reason the Treasurer will not be able to be examined is that it will be unconstitutional. A very important point is at stake in the proposed amendment. The amendment, if successful, would mean that in a hostile Parliament the lower House could summon and direct a member of another House, in this instance a member of the Legislative Council, to appear before it to be examined and cross-examined on any issue. The honourable member for Cronulla has made a quantum leap with his amendment, which seeks to deny to Legislative Council members the privilege of conducting their business as is their wont. The honourable member cannot deny that the amendment seeks to prevent the Treasurer, a member of the Legislative Council, to come to this Chamber and be examined.

The provision in the amendment about two hours is irrelevant. The Opposition could keep him here for an unlimited period. The Opposition in the Legislative Assembly could apply any sanctions and powers this House has in relation to a Minister from the Legislative Council or even in relation to a member of another Parliament. If we agree to the amendment, it may have extraterritorial effect and may involve members of other parliaments. The amendment is both unconstitutional and an exceptionally dangerous precedent, and honourable members should reject it. I hope that honourable members of the Legislative Council understand the motivation behind the moving of the amendment. It would denude them of their individual rights as members of the Legislative Council. At the conclusion of the debate, if the Government wins the debate, I will move a motion -

Mr Fraser: You will not win the debate; you will -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will cease interjecting.

Mr WHELAN: I have not checked to see whether everybody is here.

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

Mr WHELAN: The Opposition had three home goals last night. Opposition members may want to check whether the honourable member for Lismore,
Page 1332
the honourable member for Clarence and the honourable member for Port Macquarie are here. Should the decision of the House support the Government position, I will move a motion asking the Legislative Council to permit the Treasurer to enter the Legislative Assembly to present the budget. I will not direct members of the Legislative Council or ask this Chamber for a resolution that would summon a member of the Government - in this case the Treasurer - or any member of the Legislative Council to this Chamber. It will require the concurrence of the Legislative Council for the Treasurer to attend in this Chamber. The amendment should be withdrawn. Is the Treasurer to be given the same privileges and rights of examination? Is he to be examined here without being given the opportunity to make a statement? The Opposition is now saying that it wants the Treasurer to attend here on 10 October and to return on 11 October to be cross-examined. Just to make it clear, is the Opposition saying that it has no objection to his attending in this Chamber on 10 October? I take it from the reaction of Opposition members that they do not want him to attend in this place at all. The amendment shows the total hypocrisy of the Opposition.

Mr Kerr: This is very hurtful!

Mr WHELAN: I know it is hurtful. This debate has been coloured by the fact that the Treasurer was formerly a member of the Legislative Assembly for the seat of Cronulla. Some members of this House have turned the debate into a personal attack and a get-square campaign because of the political trials that have been held in the Sutherland Shire Council area and other local areas for more than a decade. This is a private get-square exercise by the honourable member for Cronulla and the honourable member for Miranda, and it will fail.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [9.34]: The amendment moved by the Opposition and replied to by the Leader of the House is sequential -

Mr Whelan: You people cannot even abide by a deal.

Mr HARTCHER: Abide by a deal? You gagged debate last night.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will resume his seat and the honourable member for Gosford will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Whelan: I have replied, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister having spoken in reply on the amendment, debate on the matter is concluded. I apologise to the honourable member for Gosford and ask him to resume his seat.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank Mr Richardson
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Mr Kinross Mr West
Mr Longley Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mr Gibson Mr Rumble
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr Clough
Mr Chappell Mr Harrison
Mr Hazzard Dr Refshauge

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Page 1333

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mr Gibson Mr Rumble
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank Mr Richardson
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Mr Kinross Mr West
Mr Longley Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Mr Clough Mr Beck
Mr Harrison Mr Chappell
Dr Refshauge Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.52]: I move:

That the following message be sent to the Legislative Council:

Mr President

The Legislative Assembly requests the concurrence of the Legislative Council for the Honourable M. R. Egan, M.L.C., Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier and Vice-President of the Executive Council, to attend at the Table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 10 October 1995 for the purpose only of giving a speech in relation to the New South Wales Budget 1995/96.

Legislative Assembly John Murray
21 September 1995 Speaker

Question put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mr Gibson Mr Rumble
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Peacocke
Mr Cochran Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank Mr Richardson
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Mr Fahey Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Mr Kinross Mr West
Mr Longley Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald Mr Zammit
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Page 1334

Mr Clough Mr Beck
Mr Harrison Mr Chappell
Dr Refshauge Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the consideration of General Business up to and including General Business Notice of Motion No. 2 (Hilton Bombing Inquiry) until 1.00 p.m.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.59]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to require public disclosure of particulars of contracts for carrying out any public works projects the estimated cost of which is more than $5 million and at least 20 per cent of that cost is to be met from money derived from non-government sources. The terms of the bill closely follow a key recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in Report No. 73 of July 1993, which is that contract summaries in the form proposed in the bill be made. During its inquiry into investment and infrastructure management business in New South Wales the committee held a number of public hearings and a business and public sector roundtable. One of the key issues raised at the roundtable was public disclosure of such contracts compared to contract confidentiality. Representatives from nearly all the major road building and tollway companies were present at the roundtable. The Auditor-General was present, as was someone from the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Ombudsman's Office, the Department of Public Works and Services, the Roads and Traffic Authority, and so on.

The key message to come out of the process was that the public sector is more concerned about keeping information confidential than was the private sector. The concerns of the private sector relate to a narrow range of things, including intellectual property, and certain issues relating to its profit margins. The concern of the public sector was much wider. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning interjects that it is probably paranoia, and I am inclined to agree with him. The process was interesting. During the roundtable, general consensus developed around an issues paper that was prepared for the meeting by Mr Ian Neale, who is a senior officer in the Treasury. So far as I am aware, the contract summaries proposal was Mr Neale's idea. The idea was developed during the roundtable, and was kicked around a lot more by the committee over the following months. I particularly pay a tribute to the former member for Fairfield, Mr Geoff Irwin, for his input into the proposal. He made some valuable suggestions during the process.

It became a strong bipartisan view of the committee that contract summaries were the way to go. Subsequently, and in the context of the M2 contracts, there was some criticism of our proposals by Professor Walker; he thought that they were too limited. He made the point that, when various aspects of the M2 were required to be disclosed publicly because there was a float on the stock exchange, some of the stock exchange requirements involved information being made public that would not be made public under our contract summaries proposals, so that was a shortcoming. It is our view that the proposal is a significant advance in accountability. There is strong public interest in having as much information as possible available about these contracts. The proposal is strongly supported by the Auditor-General. Indeed, the Auditor-General is an integral part of the process in the sense that he will vet the contract summaries. He will look through the primary contract documents to see whether they are properly summarised in the summaries. He will then either sign the summary or report to Parliament and refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee.

Experience has shown that, despite other controversies about tollway contracts and tolls generally, one of the key problems is that the withholding of information provides an incubator for rumours to hatch. When contracts are signed there can be a run of bad press on the projects precisely because there has been inadequate disclosure. The irony is that once disclosure is made, and it is usually made under the heat and political pressure of those who run such articles, the story goes away; there is no story. The catalyst for the story is in fact the precise point at which the information is being withheld. Withholding information is contrary to public interest in the sense that it is contrary to the public's right to know, and it is totally self-defeating for the projects and the public sector authorities.

The private sector, having been involved in the process that led to the recommendation, and now this bill, supports the proposal. The Public Accounts Committee held a seminar at the end of 1993. At the seminar the head of the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development Limited, which represents the major infrastructure builders - designers, providers and financiers - said that he approved of the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I shall briefly go through the bill. The bill will apply to contracts with a dollar value of more than $5 million. It will also impose a 20 per cent limit - 20 per cent will be the minimum threshold for private participation. The idea is that there will be a number of significant deals in which some private money will be involved, but it might be minuscule. Clearly, we do not want to catch such arrangements.

Page 1335

On the other hand, the threshold is relatively low because, if one looks at the contracts relating to the southern rail link, the overwhelming majority of the money for that project is public. Nevertheless, it is an important public-private project and one about which the Auditor-General has had a little to say. Although the private component is relatively small, a lot of money is involved and there should be full disclosure. Proposed new section 58C sets out what should be contained in the contracts. As I said, a number of issues were raised in Mr Neale's briefing paper, and they were more fully developed during the roundtable arranged by the Public Accounts Committee, which involved senior public servants and the private sector.

Once again, I acknowledge the contribution of the former member for Fairfield; some of his ideas were incorporated. I also refer to the role of the Auditor-General in vetting contracts for authenticity and accuracy. The bill is significant and will improve public accountability. There is bipartisan support for the view that the public sector cannot build the necessary infrastructure in Sydney and New South Wales, especially over the next five years, with public money alone. That view is shared by the Federal Government. There is agreement that the private sector must be involved substantially in such projects. Indeed, if such projects are properly run, that is a good thing. However, it is precisely for that reason that we must be mindful that there is a system of public accountability with disclosure and transparency. The right of the public to know what is going on and to have details of these projects is perhaps the best safeguard for ensuring that the projects are properly structured in the first place. Accordingly, the bill deserves the support of the House, and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [10.09]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill puts the people first. The office of New South Wales Governor is the foundation stone of our system of democracy in this oldest continuous working Parliament of the Commonwealth. This legislation enshrines the right of the people to determine the future shape and structure of their democracy. It requires that any move to either abolish the office of State Governor, or to limit the role or functions of Governor in certain respects, may not be enacted unless approved by way of referendum of the people. This is democracy in action. The bill recognises that we live in one of the finest, most open democracies on this earth and that fundamental change will require the ultimate democratic test: a test of the will of the people.

Australians have long held passionately to their right to assess constitutional change by referendum. However, under the State Constitution Act as it now stands, it is possible for the office of Governor to be abolished without direct reference to the people. The government of the day may, of course, initiate a referendum proposal of its own will. However, this is an option, not a guarantee. This bill gives the people their guarantee. It allows Parliament to reach a view, in the first instance, but then requires a subsequent referendum before assent may be granted. The Government, therefore, has two alternatives: to call a referendum to form the basis of legislation, or to legislate and then put the bill, with amendments, to the people. I draw the attention of honourable members to the short purpose of the bill, which states:

The object of this Bill is to provide that a Bill that abolishes the Office of Governor, or limits the role and functions of the Governor in certain respects, cannot be assented to unless it is approved by the electors at a referendum held after it has passed both Houses of Parliament.

This is achieved by amendment to the Constitution Act 1902, inserting a new section 7C. Once passed, section 7C may be removed only by way of referendum. The bill does not limit the normal operations of the Governor's office; for example, the Governor's power to deal with legislation or regulations. Without this bill the only resort for people to make their voice directly and specifically heard on the fundamental matters of democracy is by reference to Federal legislation. The question of whether Federal law could override State law to require a referendum is shrouded in uncertainty. There is no firm guarantee that Federal laws will achieve this goal. Moreover, significant Federal legislation frequently relies upon the State Governor in exercising authority.

Both the Australia Act 1986 and the Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985 outline the importance of an office of New South Wales Governor. In both Acts section 7(1) and section 7(2) refer to powers and functions of Her Majesty, Queen of Australia, in respect of a State being " . . . exercisable only by the Governor of the State". That is, Federal law relies on the State office of Governor. The office of State Governor is a foundation of our democracy, and the people must enjoy a full decision-making power should any change be proposed. The issue must be put beyond doubt, and the people of New South Wales given an assurance under law that their voice can and will be heard.

The electorate has been left to guess what is the secret agenda of the Carr Labor Government. Since April the Premier has chopped and changed, constantly shifting ground and giving out uncertain, confusing signals. On 16 April he had the press reporting his commitment to a review of the office of Governor; no detail, just a review. The best guess was for a multiparty constitutional convention, reflecting comments earlier in February. Those reports said that the successor to incumbent Rear Admiral Peter Sinclair "might be the last". By 7 June the rhetoric was changing: Rear Admiral Sinclair's
Page 1336
successor "would be the last". Along with this shift came an action of deep concern - a move to strip the use of the word Crown in State titles such as Crown Solicitor. That legislation was the signal that a republican agenda was under way.

The significance was in the Carr Labor Government's unilateral action, treating the electorate with contempt. Where was the mandate? Where was the admission, prominently up-front during the election campaign, that the people were voting for a republican agenda. The closest they came to such an admission was this talk of a multiparty constitutional convention, a far cry from an admission that Labor would begin immediately, step by step, to remove elements of the present system. It has not taken long for more of the secret agenda to be leaked, a bit at a time. In early August we find the rumour mill has been started over again, this time suggesting that the next Governor of New South Wales might be appointed part time.

Where was Labor's denial? Where was its urgent correction? There was none, because it is all part of the grand scheme. Labor will not admit it, it will not come clean, but it is there and it is an absolute commitment on the part of this Government. The office of Governor is firmly in this Labor Premier's sights. Why will he not come clean? Why will he not give the House a detailed explanation by way of ministerial statement so that the people know what is going on? Why not? Because this is an agenda by stealth. It is an agenda to tear away at the very fabric of our system of government, to be implemented in a dishonest, sneaky and underhanded manner. Why will the Government not come clean? Quite simply, because it knows that support for the Labor agenda is just not there amongst the people.

Labor would not admit its plans during the campaign; it still will not admit them now because it knows the plans are about stripping away the rights of the people. The Labor republican agenda is not about expanding democratic rights; it is about centralising power into the tentacles of government and a new Head of State, if there is to be any Head of State at all. The people of New South Wales have received an unprecedented warning of what lies ahead. It is with the deepest concern that the incumbent Governor has found it necessary to warn, publicly, against dismantling or lessening of the Governor's role. I quote from an article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of 5 August. In that article the Governor said:

My fundamental responsibility is to see that the Government of the day carries out its duties, in accordance with the Constitution and in accordance with the law.

I take that part of my duties very seriously indeed because it lies at the heart of our democratic processes.

That was said by the Governor as quoted in the Daily Telegraph Mirror. The report continued:

His Excellency warned " . . . our political system was too finely balanced for occasional tinkering.

If you start to dismantle such a system then you're starting to tread into rather dangerous waters.

If we are going to make a change to our system of Government then it ought to be done in a responsible and committed manner.

You do not do it by sort of chipping away at what you have in the belief it's not going to make any difference."

The rights of freedom and democracy are held passionately by the people of this State and Australia. They understand the need to protect and enhance those rights. They need, and deserve, open and honest government by a commitment through this bill that they will be consulted by referendum on change to the office, role or duties of State Governor. On 10 August in the Peppercorn column in the Land newspaper Mr Peter Austin captured the point particularly well. He stated:

To scale down the office of State Governor would not only strike a blow at the constitutional framework of the State; it would also display an appalling ignorance on the Premier's part of the immense goodwill value of the office of Governor, especially when that office is filled - as it has been for many years in New South Wales - by men of outstanding calibre.

If any doubt remains about the need for people to have a guaranteed referendum I refer honourable members to the Premier's most recent contribution to the republican debate last week when he advised us that our opposition to French nuclear testing was hamstrung because we were not a republic. That remark would rank as one of the most inane and irresponsible statements. No-one believed him. Even his own apologists could not rescue him. The Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was forced to admit it was a ludicrous suggestion. This is the backdrop to a republican agenda being pursued by stealth by the Premier. The legislation before the House does not seek to stifle the republican debate - quite the opposite. This legislation opens up the debate to the people. All honourable members will have a chance to commit to an open, transparent decision on the future of the office of Governor by providing the people with a guarantee of a referendum.

I place on the Hansard record some further matters relating to this legislation. The bill does not require a referendum before it becomes law. If it did, it would require a referendum to determine whether there should be a referendum. The position is straightforward - any change of substance to the office of Governor should be taken to the people. Consideration has been given to whether Federal law adequately overrides State law to ensure that a referendum must be held. Parliamentary Counsel's advice is that uncertainty may exist. This legislation addresses such uncertainty. The Government states unequivocally that the voice of the people will be heard. Ultimately, this issue is straightforward. Uncertainty can and should be addressed by legislation; to do otherwise would be to place the requirement for a referendum at risk.

A word of mouth guarantee by this Government concerning a referendum is simply not enough. We have heard about promises written in black ink and even in blood, but this guarantee should become law.
Page 1337
I urge all honourable members to demonstrate their commitment to the democratic process on this fundamental issue of democratic government. People must be allowed to voice their opinion on matters of importance relating to their Constitution Act and the custodian of the Constitution Act, the Governor of New South Wales. The students present in the public gallery this morning are the future of this State. The constitution belongs to them; it does not belong to us. We must respect their wishes and their future. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Face.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [10.25]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to amend the Roads Act 1993 to provide that the Minister administering that Act, currently the Minister for Roads, may not transfer a Crown road to a roads authority without its consent. The circumstances which have led to this bill are as follows. I have been advised by councils in my electorate and elsewhere that in some parts of the State the Department of Land and Water Conservation has been transferring Crown roads to local councils, without councils having any right to accept or reject the transfers.

For example, in some areas Crown land serviced by substandard thoroughfares is being subdivided and sold at market rates. In order to avoid its obligations to upgrade these substandard Crown roads, the Department of Land and Water Conservation has transferred ownership to local councils and has provided no additional funding for their maintenance and upgrading. For the record, statewide insurers have agreed to provide indemnity to its member councils against liability incurred as a result of these roads. Section 151 of the Roads Act does not currently preclude such transfers. Honourable members will be aware that many councils throughout the State are in extremely dire circumstances and are budgeting for a net reduction in the length of road under their control. Transferring roads to them, therefore, imposes onerous burdens on them.

This legislation seeks to address what I believe to be a genuine oversight in the drafting of the Roads Act which created an anomaly that has been used to the advantage of the Department of Land and Water Conservation. Sections 150 and 151 of the Roads Act set a precedent for requiring consent. Section 150 requires the consent of both authorities before the transfer of a road, other than a Crown road, can take place. Section 151 requires that a Crown road cannot be transferred to the Roads and Traffic Authority without the council's consent. This legislation seeks to put some balance into the Act by requiring the consent of both authorities, that is, local and State government agencies, before transfers of Crown roads can take place.

Government Ministers have given much lip-service to local government's role as an equal partner in the development of this State. This bill will provide an ideal opportunity for that to occur. I understand that the Shires Association is developing a protocol with the Department of Land and Water Conservation and the department has agreed that unwanted Crown roads will not be transferred to councils without prior consultation. Given this intention, the department must surely recommend to its Minister that the Government should support this legislation. The legislation will provide a better bargaining position for local government which, even under the proposed protocol, has no right to reject a proposed transfer if negotiations are unsatisfactory. I commend the bill to the House. I urge honourable members not to reject commonsense policy merely because it has not been developed by the Government.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


Debate resumed from 8 June.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.23]: The native forest industry is under extreme pressure at the moment from the greens and those people in the community who wish to see native forest harvesting stopped for what I think are all the wrong reasons. When the present Minister for Land and Water Conservation was a member of the Opposition he said that he would support this legislation, but now he has decided not to. He told the people of New South Wales that it is the policy of this Government to promote plantation harvesting across the board. The Minister announced that the Government had bought land in my electorate for the purpose of plantation. Millions of dollars of forestry money have been poured into plantations in New South Wales but there is no guarantee that those forests will be harvested.

The shadow minister for land and water conservation and I visited Mullumbimby to look at plantations of fast-growing blackbutt trees which are not returning any agricultural income. People are entering into deals with forestry with the sole intention of harvesting timber that is now being planted. The agenda of the extreme greens, which the Minister seems to be following, is to ensure that these plantations are not harvested. They will be locked up. There is interest at present in the Whian Whian Forest north of Lismore, which comprises both regrowth and plantation forest.

Mr Yeadon: It is a mix.

Mr FRASER: As the Minister said, it is a mix. At present the greens are stopping licensed foresters harvesting in areas that have been licensed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service since 1992.
Page 1338
Harvesting plans have been approved and signed off on. The greens are saying, "No, we are not going to let you harvest it."

Mr Jeffery: They are terrorists.

Mr FRASER: Logging contractors in that area have decided they will not log because their safety is not guaranteed. It costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars to install their machinery to commence their harvesting program, but these terrorists, as the honourable member for Oxley quite rightly calls them, will not let them harvest, though all the prescriptions have been agreed to. Everything in relation to Whian Whian forest has been complied with, but the Minister sits back and allows the greens to hold up the harvest. I ask the Minister whether he is the Minister for forests or the Minister for the Environment. Opposition members understand the forests. What the Government understands is the extreme green debate.

Mr Yeadon: You had seven years to prove that.

Mr FRASER: The Minister refers to seven years. In the five months he has been in the job he has refused invitations from the foresters at Dorrigo to speak to them. The Minister spoke with a group at Gloucester about a retraining program in the south-east but what are they going to be retrained do? To plant trees? If they do plant trees, will the Government allow their harvesting?

[Interruption]

The rabbit from Port Stephens - the spokesperson for forests - has neither inspected the forests nor spoken to the loggers. He is now supporting a Minister who is playing with the extreme greens. By playing with them and running to their agenda the Minister is affecting their livelihoods. He is putting good, hardworking Australians out of work and is allocating $100,000 for their retraining. There is no future in the dole cheque and that is what the Labor Party has to wake up to. Who will pay for the dole when the majority of citizens of this State are on the dole? From whom will the Government get its taxes? What will happen to the forests when the World Bank owns them? Will they come in and harvest them? There is no protection in that. It is about time the Government and the Minister spoke to the people and supported this legislation. This legislation gives a future to the forest industry in New South Wales, to towns like Dorrigo and to the people who want to work for a living. They do not want to go on the dole.

Many people in the timber industry would probably be better off financially if they were on the dole, but they do not want that. They are good, honest, hardworking Australians, not like the extreme greens who perch in the forest on poles for which trees had to be cut down. Honourable members do not hear the Minister speaking about the trees that have cut down to make the greens' tripods. They perch on the poles and collect the dole cheque. In a recent television program the extreme greens from Nimbin said they could not survive without the dole. The only reason they want to close down forests is so that they can plant their marijuana crops there. If the Minister is really about promoting this State, it is about time he looked at the honest, hardworking people and gave them an opportunity to continue to work, because an allocation of only $100,000 for retraining, when there are no jobs at the end of the line, is an absolute disgrace. Hurfords mill and the building centre are initiatives of the timber industry on the north coast. Does the Minister believe they are value adding?

Mr Yeadon: Absolutely.

Mr FRASER: Where are you going to get the extra value added with mills like Notaras and Coramba at Grafton, which have 2 per cent waste? That is value adding. Those people are doing a great job. But the Minister is saying to the people who want to work and who are doing the right thing by the industry, "We are not giving you a future. We are not going to back this sound legislation", legislation which Labor Party members said they would support when they were on the Opposition benches. The Minister is saying, "We will let the extreme greens with their third party rights come out and stop all logging operations." As I said earlier, the Whian Whian forest has marketable timber, both regrowth and plantation timber, and the Minister is allowing the extreme greens to knock it off. When his media adviser visited Wild Cattle Creek she said, "Isn't this wonderful." Stumps surrounded the spot where she was standing. She was under the impression that it was untouched forest. That is a well managed forest that has been managed for natural regrowth for years.

It is all very well for the Minister to smile. I will take the message back to the people of Dorrigo, the north coast and the south coast that the Minister thinks their livelihoods are a joke. What this country and State needs is a viable industry. The timber industry returns money to this Government and New South Wales needs that industry, but the Minister is prepared to sit back and watch that industry fall over. The only joke in this place, Minister, is you and the attitude of your Government. The troika of planning, environment and you running the forest debate is laughable, and our people do laugh about it. You refused to address the timber workers who were here on Tuesday.

Mr Yeadon: They were not timber workers.

Mr FRASER: They were timber workers. That shows the Minister's ignorance. He would not know a timber worker if he fell over one. He has been in western Sydney and Sydney for too long. He sits down here and listens to the lies of the greens and lets those lies infiltrate his office. He employs green people on his staff and he does not look at the productivity that can be gained from a sustainable resource industry. One of these greens in Coffs Harbour told me that we should be mining, using metal for buildings, and having a prefabricated concrete structure. Those resources cannot be replaced, but timber is a renewable resource. Plantations and the provisions of this bill will protect that renewable resource and give the opportunity for these people to continue working.

Page 1339

At present more trees are locked up in national parks and wilderness areas than there are in forests, but the Minister and his extreme green mates want to lock up that timber. Every conceivable EIS and FIS process has been completed and harvesting has been agreed to, but the Minister has allowed a small group of rat bags who are collecting the dole to wander in and stop the operation. Clearly, the Minister is not worried about it. I don't know how he sleeps at night. I challenge him to visit Dorrigo and speak to these hardworking people. They and their families have been harvesting these forests for more than 100 years. The Minister should come and see the effect of his decision on the timber workers in that area, the corner shop, the engineering works and so on. He should tell them what his agenda is.

The Minister has not even responded to my correspondence asking him to come up and speak to these people. He slips into town and talks to the extreme greens but he will not come and talk to the real honest, hardworking people. They have got that message and the challenge is there, Minister. Come up and talk to them. Come up and tell them that the reason they cannot put bread and butter on the table is because you will not issue them with licences to harvest a renewable resource. Come up and show me where flora and fauna species have been disappeared. Go to Chaelundi and see how the so-called rare and endangered Dorrigo daisy is flourishing beside the road. The Minister's lot would have us believe that it will not flourish.

I invite the Minister to have a look at the damage to national parks on the north coast that resulted from bushfires caused through undergrowth and rubbish. Where were the greens when the bushfires were raging in that area? The Minister should also look at the timber that was destroyed at Wild Cattle Creek because of poor management. This Government will not allow proper management of forests and national parks. It is about time the Minister had a look at what he is doing to the bush. He should talk to the people, but he has not got the spine to do it. The people would love to see him, and they will not be abusive. They want to sit down and talk to him and it will depend on his decision and the honesty with which he addresses their concerns as to whether he will be abused. The invitation stands.

The Minister should answer my letters so that I can show them to people in the industry. It is a disgrace that he does not have the courage to visit the area. I ask the Government to support this good legislation which will give a future to the north coast forestry industry, which returns millions of dollars to the Government that is used to provide services in other areas. It is incumbent on the Minister to visit the towns. He should not visit the areas and simply issue press releases and talk only to the greenies. The Minister is in charge of this industry which produces income for the State, and he must ensure that timber resources are available for people to build homes and to provide a future for their children. The Minister should provide security for those people. He should allow people to earn an income - rather than rely on the dole - and produce income for New South Wales.

This is good legislation which will provide opportunity for investment by the forest industry, and allow private and Government investment, which the Minister has promoted, to be applied. The bill will guarantee that the forests can be harvested when they mature. The Minister and I will certainly not be sitting in the Parliament at that time - some 50 years away - but we now have the opportunity to secure the future of the New South Wales forest industry. It is incumbent on the Parliament, especially the Minister, to support the legislation. The Minister has suggested in the past that he is preparing other legislation, on which he will consult. Where is the consultation? Where is the legislation? If the Minister will not visit the bush and talk to people, and if he will not table his legislation for our examination, consultation will not occur. The Minister should support this legislation, which he supported in opposition, and give the timber industry the opportunity to survive and thrive.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.43], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I thank the members for Oxley, Monaro, Bega, Burrinjuck, Clarence, The Hills and Coffs Harbour. I also thank the Independent member for Tamworth for his support of the bill inside and outside the Chamber. I acknowledge the contributions of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and the honourable member for Newcastle. As indicated this morning by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, this bill is about giving people the right to plant timber and harvest it when it matures. This is a simple concept which should be supported by the House, as it is supported across the general community.

It is very disappointing therefore that despite supporting the bill last year when it was in opposition, the Government has changed its perspective and now will not support it. I have repeatedly said that I am more than happy to consider whatever amendments are needed to make the legislation work if difficulties arise with it. I introduced this bill in basically the same form as last year's bill because I believed that members opposite supported that measure subject to some minor amendments. I would be more than happy to debate any amendments, and I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider the Government's opposition to this legislation.

It is not true that no consultation took place on this bill - there was quite a lot of consultation. I have with me briefing notes relating to the Independent members for Manly and Bligh, who had some concerns about the bill. They did not agree with some of its aspects, but it is not accurate to say that consultation did not take place. As a result of what happened last year, State Forests told parties in the community who were interested in planting trees that this bill had bipartisan support. Those officers are now red faced. The Minister should be aware - I am sure he is - that many State Forest employees are embarrassed that they told people that the bill to allow timber to be harvested was a fait accompli. I know people who have planted trees in good faith on the basis that they were told that the bill had the support of the Labor Party.

Page 1340

The Minister raised a number of issues, and it is important that the reasons for his spurious opposition to the legislation are debated, because they do not stand up to scrutiny. First, the Minister said that he opposed the bill because the Government would release a discussion paper and introduce its own legislation. On 31 May 1995 the Minister sent an interesting memorandum to the Independent members of this place - the members for Manly, Bligh and Tamworth - explaining why the Government opposed this measure. He said that the advice he had received suggested that "investment in plantation forestry is adversely influenced by doubts about whether the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or the National Parks and Wildlife Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act will prevent timber from being harvested from existing or proposed plantations." The memorandum further read:

The environmental impact assessment provisions of the EP&A Act have become more specifically focused on forestry operations in recent times. Concerns that this situation could potentially create circumstances where plantation harvest may be prevented is impacting on plantation forestry investment decisions.

The Minister concedes in his memorandum that the current legislation is impacting on plantation forestry decisions. That is a very important point in this debate. The Minister's memorandum continued:

With a few exceptions the Bill introduced by the Member for Ballina is identical to that introduced by the previous Government during the last Parliamentary session of 1994.

That is absolutely correct. That was a deliberate decision because we believed that the bill had bipartisan support. The memorandum continued:

The general scope of the Bill was, at that stage, supported by the Labor Party, subject to some amendments.

Why has the Labor Party changed its mind now that it is in Government? The second reason for this change of position identified in the briefing note to the Independent members read:

I am about to publish a major public discussion paper on hardwood plantation forestry issues. This discussion paper, which is an in depth analysis of plantation forestry, will be pivotal to developing any hardwood plantation strategy for NSW. It would be premature, therefore, for the Government to move to support legislation until the process of public consultation which my discussion paper will initiate has been concluded.

Has a discussion paper been released, Minister?

Mr Yeadon: No.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Therefore no consultation has taken place with the public. In the four or five months since the memorandum was sent to the Independent members on 31 May, the Minister has not produced a discussion paper. I question his sincerity in relation to this legislation.

Mr Yeadon: You did nothing for seven years.

Mr D. L. PAGE: No. We kept the timber industry going for seven years. The Minister is about destroying the industry by reducing the availability of the resource. Returning to the leave of the bill, the Minister indicated four or five months ago that he would release a discussion paper, but he has not done so. That raises the question of whether the Minister is serious about addressing the issue. He will not be able to introduce legislation during this session if community consultation follows the release of the discussion paper. It has not been released yet and we have only two and a half months of parliamentary sittings left this year. The Minister will either introduce a bill without consultation and ram it through the Parliament, or he will not get it passed. His face indicates that he will do what he has done in the past: have absolutely no consultation - as happened with the State environmental planning policy 46 and water policy.

Mr Yeadon: So you agree with consultation?

Mr D. L. PAGE: I do agree with consultation. What the Minister does not realise - although Government backbenchers may realise it - is how easy it is to burn up political capital when you come into government, and the Government is burning it up at a tremendous rate. The Minister may think he still has some credibility in the country, but country people like to be consulted. They do not mind doing something that is shown to be sensible, but they like to be consulted. The Minister is developing an incredibly bad reputation for his lack of consultation. Country people are very angry with him because he is not consulting them. If he wants support in the community for his plantation harvest security legislation, he will have to consult with the people to ensure that they have some idea of what he is on about.

The Minister should not just come into the Chamber one day and drop the legislation on the table, but I can see from his demeanour that that is exactly what he will do. The only other reason put forward by the Minister for not supporting the bill is that it would lead to massive land clearing of native vegetative forests. The hollowness of that claim is revealed by the fact that under new State environmental planning policy 46, to clear more than two hectares of land the consent of the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation is required in the first instance, and then the concurrence of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service; but an exemption is given for clearing land for timber production.

Mr Yeadon: Don't you support that?

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister should listen to what I have to say. Under SEPP 46, land can be cleared for timber production, without the consent to which I have referred. Yet the Minister is opposing the legislation because it might lead to the clearing of land for timber production. His position is completely dichotomous and has been exposed as hollow and inconsistent. On the one hand he opposes the legislation because he believes that giving people a guaranteed right to harvest timber will result in mass clearing of native forests. On the other hand SEPP 46 is designed to prevent the clearing of native vegetation, with the exemption of clearing for timber production. The Minister's contribution to this debate reflects his absolutely hypocritical and intellectually unsustainable position.

Page 1341

I am very disappointed that the Government, which has no alternative, will vote against the bill. The Government said it would consult, that it would release a discussion paper, but it has done neither. It has no legislation, but it will oppose this legislation which has the support of the community and, last year, had the support of the Labor Party. This is good legislation and it is consistent with the national forest policy statement. It is all about promoting plantation timber. People will not invest significant amounts of money and give over their land to timber production unless there is a guarantee that they can harvest the timber when it matures. By opposing the legislation the Government is sending all the wrong signals to the community - not just the farming community, which wants to do the right thing with plantation timber, but the institutional investors as well.

If we are serious about increasing plantation timber beyond the 26,000 hectares of hardwood plantation we have today, we will have to get the big players involved. They will not make investment decisions involving millions of dollars unless they know that when the timber matures they will be able to harvest it - something about which there would be some doubt under current planning laws. It is not as though this legislation does not protect the harvest plantation environment. The legislation is not devoid of measures relating to the environmental impact of harvesting. It requires that plantations be accredited, that there be harvesting codes, and that the Soil Conservation Act and the Clean Waters Act, and all those sorts of things, remain in force. The legislation will not result in environmental damage, but it does guarantee the right to harvest timber. I am disappointed that the Government will vote against the legislation. The Opposition will certainly vote for it. We believe that plantations are a very important part of the timber industry for the future of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Ellis Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fahey Mr Small
Ms Ficarra Mr Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Souris
Mr Glachan 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 O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Carr Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr Clough
Mr Chappell Mr Harrison
Mr Hazzard Dr Refshauge

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Debate resumed from 1 June.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.06]: The Privacy and Data Protection Bill introduced by the honourable member for Eastwood is in identical terms to the Privacy and Data Protection Bill 1994 introduced into the Legislative Council by the previous Government. Both the honourable member for Eastwood and the former Attorney General, when introducing their respective bills, explained that the legislation was a response to the recommendations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption in its report on the unauthorised release of government information. When the 1994 Government bill was debated in the Legislative Council the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, on behalf of the Labor Party, welcomed the fact that the previous Government had finally made some attempt to address the issue raised by the ICAC in its report. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald and the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby pointed out, however, that there were substantial weaknesses in the approach of the bill.

Page 1342

The points made included the need for further consideration of the scope of the offence provisions, the potential for significant disparity between the codes adopted by department heads and the data protection principles recognised by the bill, and the fact that the proposed Privacy Commissioner's advisory powers in relation to the private sector would seem even more limited than those currently enjoyed by the New South Wales Privacy Committee, which, of course, would be abolished by the bill. The previous Government as much as acknowledged the flaws in the bill when it determined that the bill be referred to a Legislative Council select committee for further consideration. The select committee lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued. However, the shortcomings of the bill were amply demonstrated by the New South Wales Privacy Committee submission to the select committee. While the committee in its submission welcomed the fact that the previous Government had finally taken steps to address the issue of personal privacy, it was also made clear that the committee considered the bill as introduced to be seriously flawed. I quote from page 2 of the committee's submission:

Unfortunately the bill is seriously flawed in a number of important respects, including the following:

The data protection principles set out in the bill are unenforceable and public authorities are ultimately free to decide the extent to which they will comply with the principles;

The data protection principles contain broad exemptions in favour of law enforcement, criminal intelligence and revenue protection which are unnecessarily wide and capable of abuse;

The bill permits virtually unrestricted data matching between public authorities;

The bill contains no remedies for people who are adversely affected by serious breaches of the data protection principles;

The Privacy Commissioner is given no power to act on complaints other than to write reports;

The bill has very weak application to the private sector.

The committee at page 24 of its submission stated:

As it stands, the Privacy and Data Protection Bill qualifies as probably the weakest attempt at data protection legislation world wide. There are no precedents for giving heads of public agencies the ultimate power to choose whether or not to comply with the data protection principles.

Obviously, there is a range of factors and views that must be considered and taken into account when formulating legislation of this nature. However, as was clearly stated by the Privacy Committee, there can be no doubt that the bill fell well short of the mark. The honourable member for Eastwood suggested that the Labor Party in opposition supported the bill of the previous Government. I have made it clear that is not the case. What the Labor Party did was support the bill being referred to a legislation committee, in the hope that it might lead to some of the bill's shortcomings being addressed. While the Government has no doubt about the need for an appropriate legislative response to the findings made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption report, there can equally be no doubt that the Privacy and Data Protection Bill requires detailed and fundamental reconsideration. The Government is serious about protecting privacy and doing the job properly. The Attorney General, the Hon. J. W. Shaw, QC, MLC, has indicated that he has asked his administration to give further consideration to the issue of privacy and data protection legislation with a view to Government proposals being developed as soon as practicable. For the reasons I have stated, the Government intends to oppose the Private and Data Protection Bill.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [11.10]: I speak briefly and strongly in support of the bill. It is important to enshrine in legislation the principles that apply to privacy and data protection. The bill contains 11 data protection principles and also proposes a mechanism by which public sector and other information is protected. The essential principles include the manner and purpose of collection of information. That information should be lawfully collected and should be relevant to the function of the collector. Principle 2 provides that personal information should, wherever practicable, be obtained directly from the individual concerned and not from other sources. Principle 3 states that information collected should be relevant for the purpose for which it is collected; it should be accurate and should not unreasonably intrude on the privacy of an individual. Principle 4 refers to the storage and security of information, and states that it should be stored for specified, explicit and lawful purposes, and used in a way consistent with those purposes. It should be kept for no longer than is necessary.

Principle 6 is important and states that where the information refers to an individual, that person should, without excessive delay or expense, have access to the records relating to them. Principle 9 relates to limits proposed on the disclosure of personal information. Information can be released or disclosed only in accordance with the law or with the concurrence of the individual concerned. The data protection principles form the basis of the bill. It will be necessary to take into account the special needs of certain industry groups, such as private detectives and investigation agencies, in order to ensure that they are able to carry out their duties, and at the same time able to comply with the provisions of this legislation. Such industry groups must be able to pursue their lawful duties, but mechanisms must also exist to ensure that strict terms and conditions apply to their access to such information. I strongly support the bill.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [11.17]: "Every breath you take, every move you make . . . every step you take, I'll be watching you." They were the words of Sting and the group The Police in a hit song that ran for 10 weeks as a number one single in the early 1980s. It says something about the role of privacy in our community when a pop group can capture worldwide attention with a hit song that reflects fundamental principles of human rights. One of the fundamental rights that the previous Government introduced was a right to know. I refer to the
Page 1343
Freedom of Information Act that was introduced by my predecessor as member for Gordon, the Hon. Tim Moore, a former Minister for the Environment. I contend that, just as the right to know is a fundamental right, so also is the right to privacy a fundamental right.

On 21 August 1995 Bernard Lagan wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that, second only to the issue of the economy, Australians were fundamentally concerned with the right to privacy - indeed, I think the figure was something like 70 per cent. Soon after that newspaper report, Chris Puplick issued a report relating to the privacy aspect of smartcards and their fundamental intrusion on people's rights. Privacy and personal freedom are fundamental rights. I congratulate the honourable member for Eastwood on his persistent determination to have this legislation debated. It is an issue that has affected many people, not only in this State but in Australia and worldwide. No doubt that is one reason the Commonwealth Government sought to introduce privacy legislation.

It is not my intention to traverse some of the comments made by the honourable member for Bligh in relation to a former member of this House. Privacy is a fundamental right and the importance of that right was demonstrated by that member's actions. The fundamental requirement for privacy and data protection as encapsulated in this bill is borne out in reports from government departments, in the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption into the release of unauthorised information and, indeed, in the daily activities of working men and women in this State. Late last year in this House I spoke about a proposal for truth and public interest in relation to defamation matters. One has only to refer to the unnecessary voyeurism and titillation that the media engage in and I refer, for example, to the Greg Chappell case. That was a classic case where no public interest was served. There was a right to privacy, it was not protected and the court found in favour of Greg Chappell.

Much has been said about the media, including recent debate about camera intrusion, spying in lifts, and spying in the workplace. I will not canvass the numerous newspaper articles referring to that, but intrusion occurs elsewhere, including railway stations. The question is one of balancing competing interests: the right to have access to State property and the right of individual liberty of a citizen. Sometimes there is excessive intrusion. Stuart Littlemore - whether you love him or hate him - portrays in his program gross breaches of privacy by the media. Recently camera crews were seen to be invading a person's home and little effective attempt was made to gain that person's permission before the cameras started rolling, and the film is often shown later in the evening across the news network.

It is important to note in relation to data protection that the Federal Government proposes to issue a major statement on innovation and information technology later this year. Originally it was scheduled for August and was put off until October. I believe it will now be introduced in late November or in December. With the growing tendency of the computer age to affect all of our lives, the biggest intruder, the biggest spy, is government. Bureaucracy - with its largesse for gathering information - all portends of big brother. I finish where I began: that the words of a pop group that reflected a fundamental principle about privacy ought to be adhered to by this Parliament. That principle is encapsulated in this bill and every member of this House should support the bill wholeheartedly.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Gibson.


Debate resumed from 1 June.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [11.20]: The Government opposes the Forestry Amendment (Control Signs) Bill. It is no more than an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour - dare I say, a predictable reaction. The honourable member has come up with this bill in response to a magistrate's dismissal of charges against demonstrators at the Bellingen Local Court. He has completely ignored the possibility that an appeal could be lodged against this decision. He has also ignored the fact that any doubts raised by the case, in relation to the powers of State Forests, may well be clarified by the due process of law. Indeed, an appeal is in progress.

The Government acknowledges that the proper management of our State forests requires some ability to regulate the activities of people within those forests. There are already provisions in the Forestry Act 1916 and the Forestry Regulation 1994 specifying such powers. These controls are necessary to ensure public safety during periods of bushfire danger, or when logging and other forest management activities are in progress. In periods of excessive rainfall road closures are often necessary to minimise damage, including soil erosion and degradation of the forest environment. As the State forests are increasingly used by schoolchildren, bushwalkers, four-wheel drivers and campers, it is necessary to be able to regulate these visitors in some way. This was acknowledged when the Forestry Act was amended in 1978 to insert section 36A, which relates to the issue of directions by way of control signs.

The Government is not prepared to support a bill such as this until the issues have been clarified by the Court of Appeal and the Government has had the benefit of further careful advice from its lawyers and the agency that is responsible for the administration and management of our State forests. This is to say nothing of the lack of consultation with the many and varied interests who regularly use our forests. Before we put in place too much draconian control of our forests - because they are used not only for timber
Page 1344
production but can provide a whole range of recreational uses for the citizens of New South Wales - we need to be sure we are not being so draconian in our approach as to preclude those recreational and other activities provided by the forests. The ill-considered nature of the proposed amendments is obvious from the clumsy attempt to focus only on the physical description of the form of construction of control signs. This is totally inadequate where communication with forest users may need to embrace a wide range of media and other symbols. The bill may even restrict the flexibility of State Forests of New South Wales in its powers to implement modern, effective, regulatory signage in the forests.

The Government's forestry policy includes wide-ranging reforms which will establish a proper management, regulatory and operational regime for New South Wales State Forests. Most importantly, statutory State management plans will be established according to principles of ecologically sustainable development and with regular community consultation. I know that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour supports consultation. The environmental impact statement process and the results of comprehensive regional assessments of all forest resources will underpin these management plans. The plans will ultimately ensure a proper balance between competing forest values and will remove the grounds for conflict which characterised forest management under the previous, coalition Government. Management of forests under forest management plans which have the benefit of stakeholder input and agreed allocation of the forest resource on a regional scale will avoid the type of conflict which resulted in the emergence of this bill. Hasty, heavy-handed regulation as proposed by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is not the solution to conflict in the forests. It has taken the honourable member some considerable time to come to that quite simple and fundamental understanding.

A number of the reforms proposed in the Government's forestry policy will require legislative action, and accordingly a comprehensive review of the Forestry Act 1916 will need to be undertaken during the next 12 months. If, after the conclusion of the legal proceedings which prompted this bill, it appears that some clarification of the commission's powers is required, the Government believes that this should form part of the wider review that I have foreshadowed. This will ensure that any future provisions are properly conceived with the benefit of full consultation with all interested parties. The reality is that the issue is still before the court. It is the subject of appeal and it is possible that that appeal process could produce a very different result to that which occurred in the local court in Bellingen. We need to determine the extent of the existing regulations in the light of the decision on the appeal, and to then review the whole situation in a cool, consultative and appropriate manner to ensure that everyone has appropriate access to forests for recreation and other uses. We need to ensure that we do not act in a draconian way to stop people from using our State forests where they can be used, and also ensure that the forests are there for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. I know that a number of constituents of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour are interested in having access to State forests to enjoy their recreational value. The Government opposes the bill.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [11.27]: I support the Minister's opposition to this bill. As has been pointed out by the Minister, the Government is in the process of developing a comprehensive forest policy and in that process will review the Act to ensure maximum opportunities for use and protection of our forests. It is important that we develop a plantation policy that will achieve the maximum benefit from our hardwood timber forests - that extremely valuable timber resource - and at the same time ensure replacement plantations of hardwood and softwood in a balanced way. It is equally important that we recognise the recreational and environmental values of our forests, and ensure maximum access to them by those who want to use them. The coastal forest that runs from the Victorian border to the Queensland border is a particularly outstanding asset of the people of New South Wales. I know that in bringing forward this bill the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would have had at heart the best interests of all who use the forests, but the bill is precipitous and ill-considered. In addition, as the Minister has pointed out, an appeal has been lodged against the judgment of the magistrate. If it becomes necessary to amend the existing regulations or the Act as a result, that will be done as part of the Government's comprehensive review process.

Mr Fraser: What are you going to do in the meantime?

Mr GAUDRY: In the meantime the regulations, developed in consultation with the New South Wales Forestry Commission and the forestry industry, provide adequate control. When logging operations are taking place forestry management can ensure that people can be removed to a safe place. That has been tested in the court case, which is subject to appeal. The Minister will take the court's findings into account in framing adequate legislation in the comprehensive package that is being brought forward. The first priority of the Government is forest safety. The matter will be dealt with comprehensively. Legitimate users will not be locked out of forests. There will be no knee-jerk reaction from the Government by introducing legislation detrimental to legitimate forest users. This week the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Monaro, when speaking on a matter of public importance, urged maximum access by legitimate users of forests and recreational reserves.

Four-wheel drive groups have tremendous access at the moment to the east coast forests and national parks. In consultation with such groups, the Government will protect access. Apart from coupes being locked off when forest operations are taking
Page 1345
place, there will be access for people in four-wheel drives, bushwalkers, campers and ordinary citizens in two-wheel drive vehicles. An enormous range of recreational pursuits are available in the forests. We accept that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has good intentions in proposing the bill but the legislation is precipitant bearing in mind the appeal that is before the courts. The Minister and the Government have taken the far more sensible approach of awaiting the court decision. It is believed that changes to legislation may not be necessary, but if they are they will be part of a comprehensive package.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence) [11.33]: As most members of this House would know, I have been involved in forest industries for a very long time and I am a very strong supporter of them. The industry should have a right to harvest forests and members of the public also should have access to forests. It seems that because of a technicality on signage the courts have held that people in the forests irresponsibly - and I would say illegally - cannot be apprehended. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour merely seeks to address that problem, which is a responsible attitude. In the last few weeks I have heard the rhetoric from Government members, particularly the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, about forest industries being enhanced by the decisions of the Government. People of this State should know that such claims are utter nonsense. The Premier promised 24 new national parks, in addition to wilderness areas. Blind Freddy would know that such decisions have to affect forest industries.

When the coalition was in government there were almost equal areas of national park and forestry - four million hectares. The areas protected under national parks were quite adequate. The other areas should have been available for sensible and balanced harvesting of forests. The forest areas of my electorate have been harvested for more than a century. From the descriptions of the forests of 100 years ago, the present regrown forests are better. They provide a resource and employment. The forest areas should be accessible and people should be protected. At Whian Whian out of Lismore there is a forest which is basically a plantation - 2000-odd hectares. The industry has gone through all the necessary processes to gain approval for logging. Yet the dark greens intend to blockade the forest. What can be done about it? Perhaps there will be another technicality! Nothing seems to be done to allow industry and employment to progress. People can disrupt industry through the courts and other processes and destroy the viability of honest, hard-working people.

Machinery is destroyed. Sand is put into gearboxes. Hydraulic hoses are cut. People's lives are threatened with the danger of a hose blowing. People are being allowed to disrupt the whole economy. Eventually the economy of this country and this State will be destroyed if we do not ensure that the legitimate uses of these areas are maintained. Federal laws are being passed which supplement State laws and which put enormous pressure on the resource industries. An example is legislation on the Federal reserve system. It is aimed at protecting the 15 per cent of species which have become endangered since European settlement. The latest maps I have seen show nearly half a million hectares of leasehold and freehold land being affected. I suppose that again there will be no compensation. This legislation affects people's property. What do we stand for in this country if we do not stand for the rights of people who own property? Yet State and Federal laws detract from the value of property. And we wonder why people are upset! Of course they will be upset when their property is affected. What would Government members say if I put an order on their houses - which would be the equivalent?

A report recently received by the Federal Government stated that we do not need to log native forests because plantations could supply our needs. Where are the plantations to provide the resource? We are importing something like $2.4 billion worth of forest products each year while stifling and destroying our own industry. Government members should tell the residents of little towns such as Woodenbong, Grevillea, Drake, Dorrigo, and Bonalbo where their livelihoods will come from. They are being destroyed at the moment for no good reason. The forests have been very well managed for a long time. We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that people have the legitimate right to harvest the forests and enjoy their amenity. They are beautiful places and the public has every right to enter them and to enjoy them. That is what the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is trying to achieve. I am sick and tired of Federal members such as Harry Woods wringing their hands and doing absolutely nothing. That is one of the reasons I am moving to the Federal Parliament: I am sick and tired of it.

[Interruption]

The Minister can say what he likes; it will happen. I will raise the same issues in the Federal Parliament because I am very concerned about the small towns, employment and the Australian economy. The balance of trade deficit for one month was $2.9 billion. The forestry industry can do something about improving that figure. What are we doing to assist the industry? Very little. The Minister constantly refers to value adding. That is a red herring that has been drawn across the whole of this debate. At the present time, everyone is doing everything they can to value add. I refer to Pidcocks and Notaras in Grafton.

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order: I submit that the honourable member for Clarence is outside the leave of the bill. The bill does not refer to value adding; it refers to control signs in State forests. I ask you to bring the honourable member back to the leave of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Clarence will return to the leave of the bill.

Page 1346

Mr CAUSLEY: Value adding is obviously a sensitive issue, but I shall speak about that at another time. Access to forest areas is vital to small sawmilling communities. The Minister has claimed that the provisions of the bill will restrict access and will make matters more difficult for State Forests. He should do something about it. I am disgusted with the courts of this country. It seems to me that a number of twisted ideas are emerging from the judgments of the Land and Environment Court. I shake my head and wonder where the sense is in some of the judgments of the Land and Environment Court, which hands down decisions that have serious repercussions for the whole of the State. As I understand it, the courts should interpret rather than make the law. It is evident from some of the judgments handed down by our courts that the courts are trying to make the law. A classic example is the High Court.

Members of the community claim that people who commit serious offences are tapped on the back of the hand and sentenced to the rising of the court or something similar. The community has had enough of this. People in the forest industry are genuinely trying to work; they have equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are not high income earners; they are at the lower end of the income scale. Their equipment is being sabotaged by people who are a disgrace to Australia. They sneak out at night and damage equipment, cut hoses, and unbolt wheel nuts. That is an absolute disgrace. Those people are being allowed to get away it, and it seems that nothing is being done to reinforce the right of people to earn an income. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour understands the situation well because he is very close to it. He understands clearly that people need to be protected and that these areas need to be correctly signposted so that when people are apprehended they can be dealt with for the crimes that they have committed, some of which have been quite serious.

I am beginning to wonder whether people have a right to work in this country. It seems to me that the Labor governments of this country are not all that interested in allowing people to work. Some claim that everything possible should be done to protect the environment. As I have said before, if the economy of this country is destroyed the environment will be destroyed. Empty stomachs do not worry about the environment. Everyone wants to obtain a balance with the environment, but we must also ensure that Australians are able to enjoy the standard of living they have a right to expect and that the forestry industry offers secure employment. The forestry industry is the greatest decentralised industry in New South Wales. It must be defended and protected. I urge the Minister to think carefully about the bill. If it hurts his pride to accept the bill he should draw up a bill to ensure that these areas are protected. If the Minister is able to draft an amendment that is compatible with the rationale behind the bill, I am sure the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would consider it. The bill seeks to ensure that the constituents of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour have the right to work. I urge the Government to support the bill.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [11.46]: The speech of the honourable member for Clarence was a total overreaction. It demonstrated his refusal to allow the decision in question to be reviewed by the court system. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is not prepared to wait for the result of that review. I have a great many friends in the Coffs Harbour area.

Mr Fraser: Name them!

Ms HALL: I do not have enough time to name all my friends in Coffs Harbour.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The contribution of the honourable member for Swansea will be heard in silence.

Ms HALL: All of my friends in the Coffs Harbour area have told me about the local member's reputation for overreacting and about his anti-green reputation. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is trying to circumvent the court system.

Mr Kerr: It is an appropriate amendment.

Ms HALL: Not at all. The bill is about two rednecks getting together to support the one amendment. It is about closing the forests off and keeping them only for logging; it is not about letting people enjoy the forests. It is about protecting sectional interests. In his negotiations with the forestry industry the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, has the support of the industry, the unions and the greens. In seven years in government -

Mr Gaudry: Seven long years.

Ms HALL: Yes, they were seven very long years. In seven years the previous Government created only turmoil and dissension. This bill wants to go down the same old track. I shall move on -

Mr Fraser: I wish you would.

Ms HALL: Perhaps I should speak a little longer about knee-jerk reactions, about failing to listen to what the whole community wants, about destroying the economy and the environment. If the environment is destroyed we will not have an economy. The honourable member for Clarence referred to the Land and Environment Court. Of course he would not agree with its decisions. The only decisions the coalition agrees with are decisions made in its favour. The amendment seeks to repeal the powers provided in section 36A to prescribe by regulation the form or description of control signs. It is a hasty reaction to the court decision by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The power of State Forests to prohibit entry and to regulate activities within State forests will be clarified by the due process of the law. Legal advice suggests that any possible deficiency in the law as it stands can be overcome by simply prescribing the forms or descriptions of control signs envisaged under section 36A of the Forestry Act 1916. Instead, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour proposes that section 36A be the vehicle for description of control signs.

Page 1347

The amendment seeks to insert into the Act a description of the construction of control signs and of the structures on which they may be affixed. That proposition indicates a misconception of the intent of the section; I believe it is in fact a distortion. As I have said, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is seeking to close off the forests to all but the loggers. He is committed to logging and woodchipping and is totally opposed to the general public being able to enjoy the forests. He opposes protests, even if they are peaceful. The honourable member for Clarence referred to those in the timber industry being among the lowest paid workers. The former Government did nothing to help them.

Mr Yeadon: We are.

Ms HALL: Yes, the Government is looking after them as a priority. The former Government looked after those who own the big machines. The coalition was interested only in opening up the forests for logging and allowing the workers to be exploited.

Mr Gibson: Getting the chainsaws out!

Ms HALL: Yes, get the chainsaws out and go for it! The amendment is clearly not an adequate or sufficiently flexible prescription. Section 36A, as it is presently worded, allows State Forests complete freedom to prescribe whatever form of sign or symbol is considered necessary in the particular circumstances.

Mr Kerr: We are finding this a bit hard to swallow.

Ms HALL: I thought you might. Any idea that you disagree with would always be hard to swallow. During the next four years the Opposition will have to listen to many things that it finds difficult to swallow, because the Government will act; it will not be a do-nothing Government, particularly in relation to the forestry industry. The Minister has already shown how pro-active she is in relation to that issue, and that is only the start. The control signs may need to parallel the symbols commonly adopted by local councils, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other authorities so that members of the public can remain informed. The Government is big on that, unlike the former Government. Labor will not adopt the closed-government approach of the former Liberal Party-National Party Government: no camping, no swimming, no entry, and vehicle use restrictions. When section 36A was inserted by the then Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources, the Hon. Lin Gordon, he pointed out in the second reading speech that the Government's intention was not to discourage but rather to permit the recreational use of State forests. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour now seeks to change that section.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member for Coffs Harbour has the right of reply at the appropriate time.

Ms HALL: As the vision of the Carr Government for the future management of State forests includes provision for all forest values, an increase in ecotourism and recreational use can be expected. For the purposes of ecotourism the environment must be preserved. We should not go down the track of logging and woodchipping. The forest areas should be available for enjoyment by all people. As the honourable member for Newcastle said, that includes people with four-wheel drive vehicles. The identification of areas of conservation and heritage value and their protection from logging will ensure the continued attraction of State forests for recreation and tourism. Already some 55,000 hectares of the 3.5 million hectares of State forests are protected in flora and forest reserves. At any time most forest areas are not subject to harvesting or active management and, accordingly, with some limitations, can be made available for sustainable tourism and recreational use. A significant number of ecotourism operators are already taking visitors into State forests, and some forests in close proximity to large urban populations are subject to heavy recreational usage. That is the way it should be. The Government advocates that forests should able to be enjoyed by the people.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: the honourable member appears to be reading her speech. If that is so, that is a contravention of rulings by various Speakers.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! It is accepted practice in this House that in debate members may refer to copious notes. The member is not reading her speech; she is referring to copious notes. No point of order is involved.

Ms HALL: If the honourable member for Cronulla wishes to check my speech for some of the matters I have been raising, he will find that I only have notes.

Mr Kerr: And they are copious!

Ms HALL: They are copious, although one would not need extensive notes to understand the amendments of the Opposition.

Mr Fraser: If you know your subject you do not need copious notes.

Ms HALL: I know my subject. The object of this amendment is to keep people out of forests, the perversion in the course of justice, and the refusal to accept the judgment of the court system. It symbolises what the Opposition stands for. It is symptomatic of the coalition's narrow view on forest management, which is focused on logging, woodchipping, and the traditional usages of the forest.

Mr Fraser: There is provision in the bill for woodchipping. This bill is about signs.

Ms HALL: Yes, the bill is about signs, and the rationale behind signs is to keep people out. As the honourable member for Clarence said, the amendment is all about harvesting the forests and keeping them secure for harvesting; it is about keeping the workers on low pay and maintaining the power of loggers. The Opposition wants to keep the forests for
Page 1348
woodchipping and logging; it wants to keep the greens out. I have taken copious notes about the twisting of ideas by the honourable member for Clarence, about his disagreement with decisions of the Land and Environment Court, and about opposition to the legal structures of the State.

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

Ms HALL: After a process of comprehensive regional assessment and forestry amendment, the Government will protect the areas of high conservation value and identify areas for future sustainable forest management. This approach is unlike that of the previous Government.

Mr Fraser: On a point of order: this legislation is specifically about control signs in the forest. It is not about preserving old growth forests. The member should be brought back to the leave of the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that the honourable member for Swansea was making only passing reference to that topic and was about to return to the leave of the bill.

Ms HALL: The Government rejects this knee-jerk reaction amendment which seeks to circumvent the court system. [Time expired.]

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [12.01]: I have just heard one of the more extraordinary speeches delivered in this House in recent times. The member completely missed the object of the bill and misinterpreted the thrust of the legislation which gave rise to this saga; namely, the Forestry (Amendment) Act (No.2), which was introduced in 1978 by the then Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources, Lyn Gordon. The bill before the House is specific and limited. The intention of the Labor Government in 1978 was to provide a management tool for the Forestry Commission; that is, the power to erect control signs. The second reading speech of the 1978 bill referred to that power in the following terms:

. . . have legal effect to prohibit the doing of certain things - for example, the riding of trail bikes in a specially set aside rest or picnicking area . . .

This has nothing to do with keeping people out of the forests and preserving forests for loggers. The 1978 legislation was directed solely at the preservation of recreation areas for picnickers and others, keeping them free of such irresponsible people as those who ride trail bikes in areas unsuitable for that purpose. The then Government envisaged that it was necessary for the Forestry Commission to regulate the use of the forest by certain people under certain conditions. As the then Minister indicated, this included preventing people moving into an area of forest during extreme bushfire periods. Surely the honourable member for Swansea is not suggesting that if we have a bad bushfire year, and if the court has not determined this issue, forest managers should not prevent people entering a section of forest in times of high risk of bushfire? The honourable member's proposition is incredible.

The Forestry Commission was given the all clear by the Minister in 1978 to implement the legislation, but it failed to do so. In the following 10 years of Labor government the department failed to act on the instruction of the Parliament to make regulations. Undoubtedly, during those 10 years the Forestry Commission thought it had the power to act in that way. A magistrate, picking up on a technicality, determined that the department never had that power, even though it had been acted upon for many years. This legislation is not about thwarting the control of the courts, as the honourable member for Swansea suggested. It was believed that the department had a power, but the regulation process was never followed to give that legal authority. The Minister has indicated that we should wait until the appeal process is complete to determine whether the magistrate's interpretation of that section of the Act was correct. I have not had the opportunity since this bill was introduced to avail myself of the arguments made by counsel for those challenging the powers of the Forestry Commission.

Ms Hall: On a point of order: it would appear that the honourable member for Hawkesbury is reading his speech.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! As I ruled earlier, it is a longstanding convention in this House that members may refer to copious notes. No point of order is involved.

Mr ROZZOLI: Obviously, the member for Swansea does not know too much about the member for Hawkesbury. In my 23 years in Parliament I have never used copious notes when making a speech. As the Hansard reporters can testify, the best speech notes they can expect from me are three lines scribbled on the back of a bus ticket. The magistrate determined that because no regulation was made, no power exists. On a strict legal interpretation, that determination is fair enough, and I would be surprised if the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The magistrate pointed out a failure in the system to create the law-making mechanism. Unfortunate as that may be, fault rests with the Forestry Commission for not doing what it should have done with the regulation. The magistrate said that people who disobeyed the signs and entered the forests did so on the basis of the lack of regulation. The magistrate may be acting within the strict legal interpretation of this matter, but the situation shows up a gap in the mechanism required for controls within forests.

If the bill is passed and the Court of Appeal decides that the power did exist even though the regulation had not been made, this bill will not disturb the situation. If the measure is passed quickly, it will pick up what was always the intention of Labor and the department. It is important to plug the gap in the legal status of this control mechanism as quickly as possible. It is irresponsible of the Minister to oppose such a narrow amendment. The bill is very specific and does not relate at all to matters of forest policy. Why on earth the Government has this attitude towards this conscientious and sensible legislation, I
Page 1349
do not know; it simple reiterates the action of a former Labor government. What worries me most in this debate is the emergence of a feature of the Labor Government of 1976-88.

That Government would never accept a suggestion from any quarter, no matter how good the suggestion might be. It was scared that the suggestion might have a hidden agenda; it feared being caught by some convoluted interpretation. That Government did not have the mental capacity to understand that somebody else might have a good idea and, in good conscience, try to help the Government to do a better job. The function of the Parliament is to bring forward ideas and suggestions and test them and to work cooperatively towards a better result. I am sad to see the re-emergence of the attitude of the previous Labor Government. I had high hopes for the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I have followed his career as Minister and to date I have been impressed with his conscientiousness in endeavouring to come to terms with and discuss problems.

The Minister should understand that the bill is not complicated; it is clear and straight forward and picks up what the previous Labor Government wanted to do in 1978. There are many instances in which the Legislature has made a law but for some reason the relevant legislation is not quite right in its strict legal interpretation. The courts strike down such laws because, although the intent of the Legislature is clear, the words used do not implement the intention. It is then the task of the Parliament, on the advice of the courts, to introduce amending legislation to address anomalies in the wording of legislation to conform with the intention expressed at the introduction of the legislation. Today's bill seeks to implement the intent of legislation introduced by Minister Gordon in 1978.

It is important that it is understood that the intent of the legislation was to give State Forests the ability to control - the Minister used the word "prohibit", but really it was the ability to control - certain functions that in many cases enhanced recreational use and protected people from danger; aspects that would normally be part and parcel of any operation. When one goes into a factory one sees signs excluding entry to certain areas and requesting, for example, that fire stairs be kept clear. That is an important safety precaution. The purpose of such signs is to assist proper control and management. Proper control and proper management were the intention of Minister Gordon and the Government of the day. It has now been pointed out that there may be an anomaly in the legislation; that such signs may not be legal. I sincerely hope that no-one is killed between now and the court's determining whether the magistrate was right. But if that does happen, it will be on the conscience of Government members.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [12.13]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, which is about an important aspect of operations in forests. The actions of the Minister are much better than the proposals of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. In the main, those who use our forests are sensible and highly appreciative of the forests, and I have no doubt that they will obey whatever instructions they receive. It would appear that the proposals of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour are a knee-jerk reaction to a demonstration in a forest about activities going on in that forest, activities that were contrary to the beliefs of many people. The introduction of this amending legislation is a knee-jerk reaction. Honourable members should listen to the words of the Minister. The Government will overthrow this legislative attempt to limit people putting forward their concerns about what is happening in State forests.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has the right of reply at the appropriate time. He should listen in silence to the contribution of the honourable member for Keira.

Mr MARKHAM: The Government opposes the bill because the amendments proposed are a step backwards. If the motivation of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was to clarify the powers of State Forests to prohibit entry and regulate activities within State forests, he should have waited for the final results of the prosecution that is now the subject of an appeal. Alternatively, he could have simply suggested that a regulation be made in accordance with section 36A of the Forestry Act, which was inserted to facilitate forest managers in their control functions. Surely managers of national parks and forests have the ability to direct people without signs being displayed in the manner suggested by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The amendments proposed by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour would repeal the power provided by section 36A to prescribe the form or description of control signs. Instead of providing a workable alternative, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour seeks to insert a crude physical description of the construction of a sign and of the structure on which it may be affixed. What is the honourable member for Coffs Harbour trying to prove by suggesting that the signs should be affixed and should display specific information?

At the time of introducing section 36A a former Minister for Conservation and Minister for Water Resources, the Hon. Lin Gordon, explained that the provision was aimed at facilitating the Forestry Commission in its exercise of powers under the Act to control and regulate State forests. When introducing the amendments, the Minister at the time pointed out that the provisions were not designed to discourage people from using the State forests for recreational purposes. Rather, they were intended to permit the recreational use of State forests to continue and to be further developed, with greater protection and safety for the public and the forest environment. It is obvious that is what happens right now. Why change the thrust of the present legislation? I consider the proposals of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to be an attack on those who want to register their protest about what is occurring, and that is the reason for the introduction of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Markham.

Page 1350

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [12.20]: I move:

That this House:

1. Stresses the imperative and urgent need for a top level open joint New South Wales-Federal Government inquiry into the bombing of the Sydney Hilton Hotel on 13 February 1978.

2. Calls upon the Federal Government to immediately establish the inquiry.

3. Pledges the full co-operation of the New South Wales Government.

4. Emphasises that the terms of reference of the inquiry must embrace events leading up to as well as the circumstances and consequences and subsequent investigations of the bombing.

I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mr Terry Griffiths, who, as honourable members know, was grievously injured as a result of the bombing and has worked unfailingly to get to the bottom of the matter ever since. I wish to refer briefly to a speech of the former member for South Coast, Mr Hatton, who, in moving a similar motion in 1991 said:

There have been persistent suggestions of ASIO involvement in the bombing, for example . . .

He then listed a number of sources of information. It is that material upon which I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon. I refer to recent events: the release by the Government of some of the files in this matter. I opposed this release as did, I understand, the head of the Premier's office, Mr Wilkins, and Terry Griffiths. Our concerns are twofold: first, the documents that are disclosed are only ever going to be disclosed in part - and that heightens suspicions rather than reduces them; second, there can be information in the material that is released that will tip-off people in relation to the matters that could prejudice subsequent inquiry. For example, at the Archive Authority of New South Wales from box 5 of a number of boxes of documents that are on public display I found a schedule of documents which have been exempted from the release. The list contains about 25 documents.

That has been the story right throughout this matter. A large number of documents have been exempted. With regard to the documents not exempted we face the difficulty of having documents, such as the one I am holding, in relation to which key paragraphs have been blanked out rendering the balance relatively meaningless. Further, there are serious concerns about the interrelationship between the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments in connection with documents being withheld. I have been told by Mr Griffiths that he attended the Archive Authority on Friday 15 September and looked at the available documents. He was told that a number had been classified as restricted and were not available for inspection. He then telephoned the Premier's Office and spoke to Mr James Wheeldon, who made inquiries and later informed Mr Griffiths that the files he had mentioned, whilst cleared by the State of New South Wales, were restricted by the Commonwealth of Australia from public viewing.

Mr Griffiths has since told me that the Archive Authority informed him that the files that were withdrawn by the Commonwealth had been on public display from 4 to 6 September at the Archive Authority office. After intervention from the Commonwealth Government the documents had been withdrawn. This is the sort of nonsense that goes on with this type of disclosure of documents - where there is toing-and-froing with partial information. There now seems to be censorship of the State Government by the Commonwealth Government. One Federal Labor member of Parliament got it right. Chris Haviland in a recent motion in Federal Parliament put the key question: did the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation commission a Commonwealth scientist to make bombs just before the Hilton bombing? I refer to a letter of 31 January 1994 signed by the Special Minister of State, Frank Walker, to Ms Caroline Graham at the University of Technology. The letter stated:

It is true that I was visited by a Commonwealth scientist who said he manufactured two bombs. I passed that information on to senior officers of the Attorney General's Department in NSW.

They conducted an investigation but could not substantiate that the bomb described by the scientist was the same one as the one produced by the police in the first case against the three members of the Ananda Marga.

The letter continued:

The law officers who conducted the investigation also had ultimate responsibility for the Coronial Inquiry.

Since that time there has been reference in the Sydney Morning Herald of 22 July to Mr George Petersen, a former member of this House, who has met a scientist said to be involved in the manufacture of these bombs. Mr Walker discovered last month that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Reg Blanch, and Mr Laurie Glanfield had been unable to find any record of this. These matter were the subject of a recent report by Mr Holditch to the Federal Government. The report, which was made on 21 September 1994, indicates that Mr Walker, the Special Minister of State, had been approached by Senator Evans, the present foreign Minister, to interview a scientist. Mr Walker said that the man he interviewed told him that he had designed a bomb that was intended not to explode, but could have exploded in a garbage compactor. Mr Walker said:

I arranged for the man's story to be investigated by senior officers of my Department. The officers concerned were the Under Secretary, Trevor William Haines, and the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, John Hogan.

Mr Holditch subsequently wrote to both gentlemen. They said they were unable to assist him. Mr Holditch then said he was given permission by the Federal Attorney General to follow up with the scientist. There is no record of his ever having done so although he concludes in his report that there was insufficient evidence to link ASIO with any scheme to make fake bombs. Having read the Holditch report,
Page 1351
I have little doubt that somebody had cut and pasted the report. Somebody has changed the contents of the report. It is utterly astonishing that Mr Holditch, having been given permission by the Attorney General to interview this person, makes no reference in his report to whether the interview took place or what the outcome was. On 7 January 1995 in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald Mr Walker insisted he had seen a written investigation into a senior government scientist's claims that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation had made bombs. Mr Walker said that Mr Haines, the former Under Secretary of Justice, had sat in on his meeting with the scientist. Mr Walker said that the identity of the scientist was known to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Evans, who retained notes of the meeting he held with the scientist before the scientist met Mr Walker.

It is of fundamental importance to know whether the New South Wales Attorney General's Department, the New South Wales Cabinet Office or the New South Wales Government - in any one of its forms - is holding any documentation, notes or records of an investigation carried out by Mr Haines and/or Mr Hogan, or anyone else, in relation to truth of the claim of this scientist. Mr Griffiths told me that on 1 September he had a conversation with Mr Bruce Hawker, the Premier's Chief of Staff. During the conversation the Premier's Chief of Staff informed Mr Griffiths that the missing file concerning the allegations made by Mr Frank Walker, QC, had been located - past tense. This file had the name of the scientist whom Mr Walker and Senator Gareth Evans alleged had made two bombs under pressure from ASIO in the week prior to the Sydney Hilton bombing.

As Mr Griffiths says, this information is vital to resolving this tragic matter. However, on 11 September Mr Wheeldon, the assistant to Mr Walker in the Premier's Office, rang Mr Griffiths and told him that the file regarding the scientist could not be found. On 12 September, Mr Griffiths informs me, Mr Hawker spoke to him again and said that the source was a female in the Cabinet Office who had first said that the file had been located but now could not be found. These are fundamental issues - we have to get to the bottom of the situation. The Premier's Office has to get its act together; the Attorney General's Office has to get its act together. If we are to go through this process of releasing files, we have to do it properly. This goes to the heart of one of the key allegations. From the Premier's Office down, there seems to be fundamental problems with the process that they say they have embarked on. [Extension of time agreed to.]

One of the documents that has come to light at the archives office is an advice of 3 May 1982 from Roger Court, QC, the Crown Advocate, to the then Under Secretary of Justice, who I understand was Mr Trevor Haines. Paragraph 4 of that advice states:

Early in the year I had a number of telephone calls from Senator Gareth Evans referring to ballistics material apparently brought to the attention of the Attorney General late in 1981. That material, if it exists, was never referred to me and a number of calls by me to the Attorney General's private secretary at that time failed to secure it. The Senator apparently attached considerable weight to it and, if some formal report from me is sought, I should perhaps see it.

To my mind that is clear evidence that the matter was before the Attorney General's Department in some form. The original suggestion from Mr Hawker indicates there is a real issue here about what documents are available that have not yet been produced. The situation then is that we have two very senior Ministers of the Federal Government, Mr Walker and Senator Evans involved in the matter. Mr Walker was also a senior Minister in a previous State Labor Government and was also at one stage the Attorney General of this State. He is clearly indicating that there is material and indeed they provided material about the identity of a person who said he manufactured bombs for ASIO in connection with the Hilton bombing. The response of the current Federal Attorney-General to that is that the whole issue is not worthy of further consideration. In a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 July, Mr Lavarch stated in part:

Another example is the allegation linking ASIO to the making of fake bombs. Your reporting ignores the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, tabled in Federal Parliament last month, which debunks this theory as well.

Two of Mr Lavarch's senior ministerial colleagues are saying that this story has substance; that they know the identity of this person; that an investigation took place in the New South Wales Attorney General's office; and that involved in the investigation were Mr Hogan and Mr Haines. That is the state of the matter. We have a situation where Mr Bruce Hawker, the head of the Premier's office, first of all said to Mr Terry Griffiths that the documents relating to the State Attorney General's office inquiry into this matter exist, and then said that they do not.

This absolutely fundamental issue has to be grasped and dealt with immediately, if this Government is going to follow through on its commitment to open documents in this matter, to be open and up-front about it. The Premier spoke the other day about wave after wave of documents. We are getting a lot of material that is irrelevant. The Opposition was provided with a fair bit of material last night, but as far as anyone I have spoken to can tell, it is totally irrelevant. The one key document that apparently exists and that has been held back, that the Premier's office has admitted exists, is this very report from the Attorney General's office, the record of inquiry into these issues that have been raised by two senior Federal Ministers. That is the matter we have to get to the bottom of.

Returning to the heart of the motion, it seems to me to be fundamentally important that if there is to be any inquiry into this matter it has got to be a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry. If the current Commonwealth Attorney-General is going to fly absolutely in the face of the comments and reported evidence over many years, the documentary evidence
Page 1352
of both Senator Evans and Mr Walker, if he is going to allow material to be put out into the public arena by the State Government - as it was - and then pulled back out again, as it was, we are not going to get anywhere without the active and complete cooperation of the Commonwealth Government. I regret to say that on his track record in respect of this matter we are not going to get cooperation from the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch. That is a matter of extreme concern to me. Yesterday, when he tabled documents, the Leader of the House said:

The Premier's decision to open the files reflects the Government's commitment to open and accountable government.

If in regard to this matter those words really mean what they say, if the Leader of the House really meant what he said - and I am sure it was done with the full concurrence of the Premier - they have to get into the Cabinet Office or the Attorney General's office this afternoon and get to the bottom of it. They have to speak to people such as Mr Haines and Mr Hogan and obtain any documents that they might be holding. That is fundamental. To further indicate, regrettably, the intransigence of the Commonwealth Government, the Attorney General yesterday furnished the following response to a question upon notice from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby:

The New South Wales Government is eager to participate in a joint Commonwealth/State inquiry into the Hilton Bombing. However, the Commonwealth response to the requests of my predecessors in office for a joint inquiry is that the explosion was a violation of NSW laws and therefore a joint inquiry is not justified.

Two Commonwealth Government Ministers have said firsthand that a Commonwealth Government employee was involved in manufacturing bombs for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. That is how fundamental this matter is. I do not understand how, faced with that material from two Ministers who sit at the Cabinet Table with Mr Lavarch, the Government could still provide an answer such as that. To me it does not make sense. The documents to which Mr Hawker referred, which are now apparently being held back, are fundamental to breaking the log jam on this issue and fundamental to getting the Commonwealth Attorney-General involved in a joint inquiry. I remain extremely concerned about the nature and ambit of the documents that have been revealed, but as the Government has embarked on this exercise, let us get away from all the irrelevant material that honourable members in this Chamber are getting swamped with, and get down to the key documents; the documents that relate to Haines, Hogan and Walker, the documents that confirm or contradict the evidence and show Mr Lavarch once and for all that we must have a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry and that the key issues in this matter are on his patch. I commend the motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [12.35]: I do not know where the honourable member was in the period from 1988 to 1995, and I am pleased to note that the Leader of the Opposition has arrived in the Chamber. At some stage between 1988 and 1995 he was the New South Wales Attorney General and he had access to every file. As a Cabinet Minister he had access to anything that he may have wanted. All the information that the honourable member for Eastwood said is available was available to the Leader of the Opposition while he was the State Attorney General and a Cabinet Minister; they were in the hands of the Government between 1988 and 1995.

The honourable member for Eastwood could have moved this resolution in his party room in exactly the same form as it is today and obtained the consent of the Government leadership, from the Premier to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and former Attorney General, for access to be available to all these papers that the honourable member says are now going to prejudice the open inquiry. The Opposition had seven long years to release the documents and the former Attorney General was privy to all that information that was available. The honourable member for Eastwood has not been critical of the Federal Government, other than for its intransigence on this issue. He said that the papers held by the State Government Cabinet Office and the State Attorney General's office should be turned in. So be it.

The honourable member has to ask himself a question: why did the Leader of the Opposition sit on his hands or put his hands over his eyes and do nothing? He did not produce the documents. These papers were discoverable by him; they were within his purview and his ministerial authority as the State's first law officer. The honourable member for Eastwood is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition has been derelict in his duty, because the implication is that former Attorney General Walker, the Cabinet Office and the former Government did something wrong. The honourable member for Eastwood has done something wrong; he has told the Leader of the Opposition that he is guilty of dereliction of duty, not only as first law officer but also as a member of Cabinet.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: the motion refers to a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry and the Minister for Police has not spoken about that joint Commonwealth-State inquiry at any stage in the debate. I ask that you draw this to his attention and direct him to address the terms of the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has no power at this stage to direct the Leader of the House to make his statements relevant. He still has seven minutes remaining to speak, during which time his statements may become relevant.

Mr WHELAN: This is an important issue. The Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Eastwood cannot claim that all these problems started on 25 March 1995. The Leader of the
Page 1353
Opposition was fully apprised. He had all the information when he was Attorney General and he did nothing about it. He was a member of the Cabinet. I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(5) Congratulates the Carr Government for its historic action in opening the Hilton bombing files.

I shall give a few excerpts from the document I tabled yesterday. It will be noted from the file dealing with the arrest of Anderson and Pederick that many ALP figures were involved in attempting to get justice for Tim Anderson. Few members of the Liberal Party are mentioned. The Hilton matter is a later political discovery for the coalition. It was happy for the three men charged to spend their lives in jail. If it were not for the Australian Labor Party and people such as George Petersen nothing would have been done. I will check to see whether the Leader of the Opposition went surety for Tim Anderson.

Mr Collins: Look for your name while you are at it. Are you there?

Mr WHELAN: Yes. I am mentioned five times. I did not realise that the special branch went to a meeting at Glebe Town Hall that I addressed.

Mr Collins: You were regarded as a suspect.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the Opposition regards it as laughable. Page 172 of the report states:

VISIT BY PAUL HILL OF THE "GUILDFORD FOUR" - ALLEGED I.R.A. TERRORIST - MEETING AT GLEBE TOWN HALL.

On 24 March 1991, a public meeting was held at the Glebe Town Hall. A number of persons spoke including Paul Whelan the shadow Attorney General who, in a political speech, set out his policy on the issue of police informants.

Peter Collins was not there.

Mr Collins: What was your position on the Hilton bombing?

Mr WHELAN: Read my speech of 1991. Read my history. Go to the Supreme Court and see that I went surety for Tim Anderson. In fact, more members of the Australian Labor Party than members of the coalition have tried to reveal the truth. These are the people who went surety: Whelan, Hatton, Read, Coxsedge - she is from Victoria - Jones, Vallentine, Senator McLean, Ernie Page, Andrew Refshauge, Gerry Hand, Ted Mack, George Wetherell and Tom Roberts. Where are the members of the Liberal Party? Where are the members of the National Party? Coalition members have jumped on the political bandwagon for purely political purposes with this serious issue involving Australian security. When Premier Carr sent a letter to me as Minister for Police he said, "Open up all the files. You have to exercise your discretion, on advice from the Crown Solicitor. The presumption is that the Government and its agencies will make all files available except where there is a legally compelling reason not to do so or where the safety and security of a person is likely to be immediately prejudiced."

Mr Collins: And the Commonwealth stops you.

Mr WHELAN: In 1991 the Leader of the Opposition had a direction from this Parliament as Attorney General to negotiate with the Labor Federal Attorney-General but did nothing. The Leader of the Opposition referred to Mr Griffiths, who is in the gallery today. He made an inquiry of the Premier's Office. I have been advised that the matter concerned the question of whether a file existed on meetings between the former Attorney General, Frank Walker, and the scientist, and it was not a file on the substantive question of the Walker allegation. That was made clear to Mr Griffiths in a subsequent conversation with him after clarification with the Cabinet Office. I have been urging Federal Government cooperation. The matter has been taken to the Federal Labor Party at the highest level. As a publicity stunt former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser was called to the witness box at the trial of the three young men who were incarcerated. What did Malcolm Fraser do about this issue when he was Prime Minister? Much of the material in the archives is defamatory. Rather than be sullied by claims such as that made by the honourable member for Eastwood, we have blocked out the names of people for their own safety.

Mr Tink: What is this?

Mr WHELAN: It looks like a piece of paper with black lines on it. If you let me look at it, I will tell you what it is.

Mr Tink: It is a piece of paper with parts that have been blacked out.

Mr WHELAN: If the honourable member has any qualms about it, he can put a question on notice.

Mr Tink: You tell me what it is - some kid playing with a textacolour? It is censorship.

Mr WHELAN: Censorship? Ask the man you are sitting next to what was in the unabridged document when he was Attorney General. He had access to it. He had those documents. If he is so concerned about the matter, why does he not have a copy of the document? He is nothing but a hypocrite. He had the documents for seven years. They were there for his eyes only. He was the Attorney General, the first law officer. After March 1995 he went blind. He is a hypocrite. Why did he not do what the Premier did and table the papers? Because he did not have the courage of his convictions. He is only a Johnny-come-lately on this issue. [Time expired.]

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [12.45]: What an extraordinary performance! I have never seen a government ducking for cover in the way that we have just seen with the Minister for Police. It is obvious that the Carr Government is happy to act as an agent of the Federal Government in this matter. It is happy to see the veil of secrecy remain across the Hilton bombing affair. It is all very well releasing a bundle of documents that provide the State's perspective on this
Page 1354
issue. Ever since I spoke about this matter I have consistently said that the only way the people of Australia will ever get to the bottom of our greatest political crime is with a joint Federal-State inquiry. The documents that have been released - with all the blacked out sections, the World War II style censorship -

Mr Whelan: Ask Mr Griffiths why some of the -

Mr COLLINS: You ask him in the press conference after this debate is over. The Labor Party must stop this piecemeal approach to the issue. What does it have to hide at this stage? Why is it acting as a branch office of the Keating Government on this issue all these years down the line? It makes no sense. Why is it releasing these documents in a flurry of self-congratulation and saying that it has done its bit, it has dealt with the Hilton bombing issue and it is all over now? I reluctantly draw the conclusion, having heard the Minister for Police, that the Government has decided that this is where the issue stops. The documents released do not contain most of the Commonwealth documents held by agencies such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Department of Defence. The Minister knows that those documents are missing from the files. The operational orders and procedures are not contained in the documents. That is why the Minister is covering up for the Keating Government, which has now had 13 years to do something on the issue.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the Federal Government would have anything to hide but, plainly, with the successive actions of Federal Attorneys-General in blocking the holding of a joint Commonwealth-State inquiry, the matter will not be fully investigated. There has been a public relations stunt by the Carr Government to make people think that all the documents have been released. The documents released are not all the documents. The documents of the Commonwealth agencies involved in the massive security operation to protect the Commonwealth heads of government have not been released and will not be released while ever the Labor Party is in power at Federal or State level. It is ludicrous to suggest that the New South Wales police alone would have run a security operation to protect the heads of state of the entire Commonwealth. It is utterly ludicrous.

Mr Whelan: Tell us what you did.

Mr COLLINS: I made sure that the coalition supported a joint resolution of this House, which the Minister for Police also supported - he is a hypocrite. That resolution called for a joint Federal-State inquiry into the Hilton bombing. Now that the Labor Party is in a position to apply pressure on its Federal mates in the Keating Government it is doing nothing.

Mr Whelan: Why didn't you release the files?

Mr COLLINS: Shower the documents around and tell anyone interested they have to find the evidence through the blacked-out areas - it is a World War II style of censorship. The Federal documents remain under lock and key in Canberra. Australia will never get to the bottom of the Hilton bombing until those documents are released and Commonwealth witnesses are compelled to appear before a royal commission representing both Federal and State interests. The Hilton bombing is Australia's greatest unsolved political crime. The Australian people deserve better than this stunt; they deserve better than today's performance by the Minister for Police. This red-herring exercise of the Carr Government is not enough. Questions remain unanswered. The Hilton bombing remains a scandal. It is an unsolved crime.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [12.50]: The Minister for Police has moved an amendment to the motion of the honourable member for Eastwood. The amendment congratulates the Carr Government on its historic action in opening the Hilton bombing files. I have listened to this debate with interest. Members of the Opposition have said, "We did this, and you didn't do that." The response from the Government has been, "No, we are doing this." It is important to put on the record what the Carr Labor Government has done recently with respect to the Hilton bombing matter. I shall quote from a letter dated 15 August 1995 which the Premier sent to the Prime Minister. It states:

Dear Mr Keating

I refer to my recent decision to open the NSW Government's files on the Hilton bombing affair as outlined in my press release dated 24 July 1995.

I am keen to ensure that all possible files are made available under this exercise and I have asked the relevant State Government agencies to comply with the request.

The general principle governing the commitment is a presumption in favour of release and opening of the files unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

State Government files held by the Cabinet Office and other key agencies such as the Attorney General's Department and the Police Service contain correspondence, reports and advice in relation to the Hilton bombing dating back to 1977 exchanged between State and Commonwealth Government leaders, Ministers and officials.

In July this year the Federal Attorney General, the Hon M Lavarch, MP, indicated publicly that he was prepared to cooperate fully with any inquiry considered necessary by NSW to investigate the matter and offered to provide full access to information. In the circumstances, I seek your concurrence to the public release of all papers emanating from the Commonwealth and held on State Government files.

I have asked State Government agencies to be in a position to forward copies of all papers to the NSW Archives Authority by 25 August. The file opening will commence as soon as possible after that date and public inspection will be permitted for a period of six weeks. I would welcome advice of your cooperation with the exercise before that date.

Yours sincerely

Bob Carr
Premier

This letter shows that the Carr Government has been proactive and has done the right thing. It should be congratulated in accordance with the amendment moved by the Minister for Police. The Leader of the
Page 1355
Opposition keeps saying that this is a stunt. This letter shows that it is not a stunt; it is an action of responsibility.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [12.54]: The honourable member for Eastwood raised a number of questions, which have not been answered, in relation to the files and material that have been placed before the House. The Premier has released all of this information. The essential point which has missed the Minister for Police is that this was an operation to protect the heads of state of the Commonwealth nations. It is absolutely unbelievable that a member would come into this House and imply that this was purely a State operation. What nonsense.

Mr O'Farrell: A Demidenko operation.

Mr KERR: It would defy an award-winning novelist to come up with that sort of lie. It is a novel approach. It was not a publicity stunt for the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, to be called as a witness. He was an essential ingredient in the case. He was the host; he was present; he was a witness to the proceedings. The defence would have screamed its head off if Malcolm Fraser had not gone into the witness box. The Prime Minister is not immune from being a witness in criminal proceedings. If Bob Hawke had been the Prime Minister and the host he would have been called as a witness at the insistence of the defence. The heads of government meeting was a major Commonwealth operation. When the Leader of the Opposition was the Attorney General he called for a joint State-Federal inquiry.

The Labor Party's mates in Canberra should have acceded to that request; they should have said, "Yes, this is a matter that should be examined." The Labor Party deserves some credit because of what it did for Tim Anderson. Had that joint inquiry taken place we would perhaps be a little closer to knowing the truth. We may never know the truth in relation to the Hilton bombing. So much has never been committed to paper. The Minister for Police is a little closer to the present Prime Minister and a number of Federal Cabinet Ministers than is the Leader of the Opposition. However, he has not used his advocacy to say that this is an important matter. I went surety for Tim Anderson because I believed that he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This motion is about something bigger than the reputation of one individual. It is about national security. We often hear that cliche.

Mr Schultz: It is about possible political assassination.

Mr KERR: Yes, that is true. That is what is at issue.

Mr Whelan: Who did it?

Mr KERR: Yes, we have to find out who did it, how they did it and what safeguards are needed to ensure that it never happens again. Australia has had an enviable reputation in the international community. This issue is important because it relates to Australia's international reputation. The Hilton incident was not to Australia's credit. There were big question marks as to what was available and what was not available to the Crown. The honourable member for Eastwood raised a number of questions which deserve answers. This motion should be passed for all of those reasons. The Leader of the Opposition has maintained an interest in this matter for a long time, as has been acknowledged by the Minister for Police on a number of occasions in this House.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [12.59], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I am confident that the House will pass this motion unanimously, as it did on the last occasion. However, I must say something about the amendment moved by the Leader of the House. The exercise embarked on of opening the files was opposed by the head of the Cabinet Office, Mr Griffiths. I thought it was unwise to do so because the revelations would always be only partial and would create more issues and problems than they would solve. That has turned out to be the case. It remains to be seen whether in the opening of the files anyone has been tipped off and is now able to trim his cloth so that in any subsequent inquiry he will unjustifiably get off. It is a huge risk, and it is one of my concerns about the exercise just undertaken. It is plain that opening the files is only a partial exercise. I have seen a number of files with large parts blanked out. Mr Griffiths tells me that he was at the Archives Authority of New South Wales yesterday and saw one file with 86 separate parts deleted. Ninety per cent of the file contained blank pages, each with a note stating that the page had been deleted.

With respect to the Leader of the House, it is a joke to suggest this is an open exercise. I have taken instructions on what the Leader of the House said about Mr Hawker. I have had the opportunity to put that matter to Mr Griffiths as well, and he said that Mr Hawker told him quite voluntarily, "The file relating to the Haines and Hogan matter concerning the Walker allegations about the scientist had been located". With great respect to the Leader of the House, Mr Hawker and everyone else involved, that seems to me to be a fairly simple proposition. That series of documents somehow, somewhere, for some reason, has been pulled back. That is a matter of utmost concern because it relates to a series of very serious allegations, supported by two Federal Cabinet Ministers, implicating the Commonwealth.

The Federal Attorney-General, a colleague of Government members, is showing the most unbelievable bloody-minded, stupid, intransigence in relation to this matter that I have ever experienced. Having scrutinised the matter and having closely examined the Holditch report, it is easy to be paranoid. The Leader of the House claimed that these issues had been ventilated over a long period of time. Some of them have and some of them have not. By their nature some of them are rolling along, as it were, relatively late in the piece. The involvement of the Attorney General's Department, and Mr Haines and Mr Hogan in particular, in the public arena is a
Page 1356
late development arising out of the Holditch inquiry. I commend pages 51 and 52 of the report of that inquiry to all members of this House, all Federal members and all Federal Cabinet Ministers.

Paragraph 278 on page 51 indicates that Mr Holditch was given permission by the Attorney-General to inquire into the matter. It is as though somebody has taken a pair of scissors and cut out whatever followed because what follows immediately is a notation that he concluded the inquiry and found there was no problem. There is no mention of whether he looked for the scientist, talked to the scientist, or inquired into any of those matters. No analysis appears of what he might or might not have found. That strikes me as very odd. The only thing it sits well is the approach of the Federal Attorney-General to this whole issue. It is untenable for the Federal Government to claim that this is a State matter. If ever there was a matter that is clearly not a State matter, it is this issue, bearing in mind the evidence on the public record of two Federal Cabinet Ministers and, I regret to say, the total intransigence of the Commonwealth Attorney-General. I hope this document comes to light and that the Attorney or the Premier raises the matter with the Prime Minister and that someone prevails upon the Federal Attorney-General to agree that an inquiry should be held.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.


Report noted.


Mr SHEDDEN (Bankstown) [1.03]: On Tuesday I tabled the report entitled "Discussion Paper No. 1 on Scrutiny of National Scheme Legislation and the Desirability of Uniform Scrutiny Principles". It outlines the response of the committees that scrutinise legislation in all Australian parliaments to the emerging need for effective parliamentary scrutiny of national scheme legislation. Each Australian Parliament has established a committee which scrutinises subordinate legislation. In New South Wales this is the committee I chair, the Regulation Review Committee. This week the Parliamentary Counsel produced figures on the numbers of regulations which have been repealed under the Subordinate Legislation Act, 1989. Honourable members will recall that the Subordinate Legislation Act came about as a result of the committee's recommendations in its report of July 1989. The figures show that when that Act commenced on 1 July 1990, the total number of statutory rules in New South Wales was 976, comprising a total of 15,075 pages. As at 1 September 1995, on the completion of the initial five stages of the staged repeal program, there were 542 statutory rules, comprising only 8,240 pages. This represents a massive reduction of 44 per cent in the number of statutory rules.

The Government Gazette of 1 September 1995, large as it was, chiefly represented the distillation of the great number of rules in the fifth stage of the program. The figures produced by the Parliamentary Counsel show that the number of rules in that stage were 271, while about 100 statutory rules were published in the Government Gazette on 1 September. In this sense the size of the Government Gazette can be regarded as a significant achievement for the Regulation Review Committee, for had the program not been a success, the Government Gazette would have comprised six volumes instead of two. For some time the Regulation Review Committee and all other parliamentary committees scrutinising legislation have noticed the emergence of a greater degree of national scheme legislation which brings about uniform laws in areas which previously had been dealt with differently in each Legislature. A number of these are mentioned in the paper, such as uniform laws on credit, evidence, defamation, road transport, trade measurement, dangerous goods, health services, therapeutic goods, radiation, offshore minerals and building. I emphasise that the discussion paper does not enter into the merits of these separate pieces of national scheme legislation. However, its main concern is the promotion of effective parliamentary scrutiny of legislation.

A number of alternatives are canvassed, and proposals are put forward for consideration. The chief object of the paper is to ensure that committees adopt uniform terms of reference when they consider such national scheme legislation. In this way they would be able to more effectively communicate with one another on the impact of that legislation. The other aspect of the paper is ensuring effective parliamentary oversight of proposed national scheme legislation. The two options considered at the end of the paper are to either ensure that uniform legislation is tabled as an exposure draft in each Parliament or to ensure that scrutiny committees are involved in the process of drafting uniform legislation. The second of those options would effectively exclude New South Wales from oversight of this legislation, as this State has not established a committee to scrutinise bills.

I stress that this is only a discussion paper released for comment by honourable members and the public generally on appropriate means of scrutiny of national scheme legislation. Before the discussion paper was prepared, committees approached the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General - SCAG - for appropriate direction in this area. The committee was informed that at the November 1993 SCAG meeting, Ministers considered the proposal to be a parliamentary matter and not one appropriate for oversight by SCAG. The committees are aware that the Council of Australian Governments is introducing procedures which require the preparation of regulatory impact statements and the carrying out of public
Page 1357
consultation on proposals for national scheme legislation. It is, accordingly, timely that the role of Parliament and the parliamentary scrutiny of legislation committees with respect to national scheme legislation should now be discussed. The committees are keen to obtain submissions and comment on the discussion paper from the community at large. I commend the report. [Time expired.]

Report noted.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.12 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.15]: On 13 July the Minister for Police and I attended the funeral service for Senior Constable Peter Addison at Port Macquarie. The next day we attended the funeral of Senior Constable Robert Spears of Liverpool. Both senior constables had been shot on 9 July at Crescent Head. After that incident the police Minister and I resolved to do all we could to achieve more effective enforcement of the State's gun laws, and we resolved to do so by cooperating with responsible shooters. This need is very real: within a few hours last night, New South Wales police from Cessnock to Maroubra faced five incidents involving dangerous weapons. The weapons count included a .22 calibre pistol, a replica Luger pistol, a cut-throat razor and several illegal knives. Last night was not an unusual night. The fact is that police are confronted with violence and illegal weapons every day. At a time when the police are facing criticism at the Wood royal commission, we should acknowledge the dangers of daily police work.

At Orange yesterday a District Court judge sentenced a man for the tragic shooting death of a local teenager, 15-year-old Dali Handmar-Pleshet. Judge Shillington described her death as a reckless loss of a young life. Dali was shot dead with a .223 semi- automatic rifle fired by a man who had never fired a gun before; he was a complete novice. Sentencing him, Judge Shillington urged gun owners to recognise the dangers of firearms in the hands of the inexperienced. He said that owners have a duty of care to protect others. That is why I am pleased to inform the House of a major initiative to remove guns from the ownership of people without licences. The measures also cover illegal knives.

This initiative is a result of extended negotiations with all sides of the firearms debate. After great consultation with the Hon. John Tingle, parliamentary representative of the Shooters Party, the coalition for gun control, the police and the victims of crime, the Government has produced a plan to reduce the number of guns and illegal knives in the community. The Government strategy is to work with gun owners to improve community safety. First, our plan will encourage unlicensed people who have no desire to use or hold their firearms to surrender them. Second, it will provide encouragement for people who hold firearms without holding shooters' licences to get licences. Also, it will provide for action against people who continue to possess firearms illegally, and it will provide incentives for people to surrender prohibited weapons, including knives.

The five key points which will reduce the number of illegal weapons in the community are as follows. First, a major advertising campaign will be conducted with the theme "No Questions, No Fines, No Innocent Victims Starts Today". Second, the existing gun amnesty which I announced in July will be broadened from today. Unlicensed gun owners will be able to dispose of guns to dealers, and people with prohibited knives can hand them over to police. No questions will be asked and no fines will be applied. Third, we will waive the shooters' licence fee of $75 and the $100 fee for a prohibited firearm permit throughout the amnesty, which runs until the end of July 1996. This once-only offer will encourage shooters to join the licensing system. The strategy provides for the first time an actual incentive to take out a shooter's licence. Fourth, we will track down expired licences and, fifth, we will improve the enforcement of existing laws.

This is not the first firearms amnesty in New South Wales, but it will be the best. The previous Government had amnesties in force almost continuously from 1992, but there was one problem: it did not tell anyone about them. As far as the coalition was concerned, the word "firearms" was never to be mentioned in public. Consequently, the amnesties were not publicised. Therefore, from the tens of thousands of illegally held guns in the community, a mere 1,200 a year were handed in. My Government is committed to ensuring that this amnesty works. The people of New South Wales want serious action taken to remove guns in the ownership of people without licences and against dangerous knives and prohibited weapons.

Later today I will launch the television, radio and print advertising for the campaign. A hotline has been established by the Police Service, and this will provide information about the amnesty or firearms legislation. In addition, a direct mail campaign will focus on former licence holders to encourage them to join the licensing system. Another breakthrough is the participation of the private sector: the Insurance Council of Australia has generously offered an incentive for people who surrender their firearms. The Government is committed to building a safer New South Wales. It believes that the best way to do so is to ensure that firearms are held only by licensed shooters, and the amnesty is aimed at achieving this goal. We are not changing gun laws. We have said that can only happen with bipartisan support. We are implementing the existing gun laws more effectively,
Page 1358
and I call on the Opposition to join with the Government in adopting a sensible approach to the firearms issue and to publicly endorse this important initiative.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.20]: I join the Premier in his support for the efforts of New South Wales policemen and policewomen in carrying out what is often a dangerous role of protecting our community and upholding the laws of this State. It is all too easy for those in this Chamber and in the community at large to forget - especially with the Police Service under the searing scrutiny of a royal commission - the very difficult role played by the men and women who comprise the New South Wales Police Service. It is easy to forget the sacrifices that they make on a daily basis for the community they represent and protect. On behalf of the Opposition I indicate our appreciation and, I trust, that of the Government of the effort made by the men and women who make up the bulk of the New South Wales Police Service and who carry out their tasks in a most admirable way.

I turn to the initiatives that have just been announced by the Premier. It is true that some elements of the package he has announced have not been tried before. The previous Government undertook a number of the initiatives - for example, the firearms amnesty to which the Premier has referred. To whatever extent a firearms amnesty can assist in the reduction of gun ownership, Opposition members endorse the renewal by the Premier of earlier amnesties. I also acknowledge that the Premier has today introduced a scheme whereby firearms may be sold to dealers. That is a new element that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been in force in this State previously. In so far as that initiative assists in meeting the overall objectives set by the Government, the Opposition supports that measure being taken in addition to those already in place and those already tried.

The Premier is correct in expressing the concern of all members of the community and all members of this House about the use of firearms and other weapons in the commission of crimes. We are all concerned as a Parliament to ensure that whatever can be done to bring the possession of weapons in this State under greater and more reasoned control should be done. Opposition members wish those responsible for the implementation of the measures referred to well in the task ahead. We hope that the firearms amnesty that has been mentioned will be more successful than amnesties in the past. I assure the House that the Opposition is fully supportive of the overall objectives outlined by the Government. I conclude by saying that the crucial factor is that all interested parties be consulted whenever possible to ensure that we as a community travel together on this issue. The only way to provide for serious and lasting reforms on firearms ownership, if there is bipartisan consensus, is to have broad-based community support. To whatever extent that has occurred to date, Opposition members welcome the announcement made by the Premier and encourage a bipartisan and consensus approach in the future.

Petition praying that Avalon Police Station not be closed and that Mona Vale Police Station not be downgraded, received from Mr Longley.

Petition praying that an alternative traffic route be provided between Pottsville and Kingscliff in order to reduce traffic on the Coast Road, received from Mr Beck.

Petition praying that in recognition of the increased use of Reef Beach and its surrounds it be retained as a clad beach, received from Dr Macdonald.

Petition praying that noise pollution from the F6 Freeway at Dapto be alleviated, received from Mr Rumble.

Petition praying that the Fox Film Studio proposal for the Sydney Showground be subject to the conditions set out in the petition, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying for an increase in the number of police in the Pennant Hills/Cherrybrook area, received from Mr O'Farrell.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Determination No. 3, 1995 of the Government Pricing Tribunal entitled "Hunter Water Corporation: Prices of Water, Sewerage and Drainage Services from 1 July 1995", dated 7 June 1995.

Determination No. 4, 1995 of the Government Pricing Tribunal entitled "Sydney Water Corporation: Prices of Water, Sewerage and Drainage Services from 1 July 1995", dated 7 June 1995.

Special Report of the HomeFund Commissioner, dated 12 May 1995.

Report on Review of the Oyster Industry in the Bega Electorate, dated August 1994.

Report of the Commercial Fishing Advisory Council for the year ended 30 June 1993.

Report of the Commercial Fishing Advisory Council for the year ended 30 June 1994.

Statistical Returns of the General Election for the Legislative Assembly, held on 25 March 1995.

Page 1359


Mrs SKINNER: My question without notice is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Does he stand by the principle of admission to public hospital beds based on clinical need? If so, why have area health services issued instructions to exclude emergency patients from using non-urgent surgical beds reserved to meet his waiting list promise?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the member for her spirited question. Without doubt I stand by my statement that patients should be admitted on the basis of clinical need. I point out that health Ministers in the former Government also made the same statement. Patients should be admitted on the basis of clinical need and clinical need alone. Interestingly, there has been over some years a determination to get better bed management of our hospitals so that we can have patients admitted to hospitals in an orderly way. Some hospitals decided that they should actually have beds put aside for elective surgery.

Who organised that? None other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Under the former Government, hospital after hospital realised that they needed to better organise their beds. They set up divisions so they could exclude some patients from certain sections of hospitals, so that they would not put a cancer patient in a heart patient's bed. That is not a bad idea. Congratulations! They had some beds that were for elective surgery admissions. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when Minister for Health, said, "That is a good idea." The honourable member is a little late in asking her question; maybe it should have been asked earlier. Some of the Opposition backbenchers have got the same message that the press gallery has.

The Opposition's spokesperson on health is showing little indication that her IQ is above room temperature. But some Opposition backbenchers are suspicious of what she is saying. About a month ago the spokesperson for health put out a press release - one of those fill-in-the-blanks releases: "Member X said X"; the same old line that comes from the Opposition regularly. I know Opposition members are finding it difficult in their electorates, and it must be comforting for them to have a spokesperson who puts out fill-in-the-blanks type press releases.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The people of the south coast should recognise the quality of the member for the South Coast, who, when he got this press release from the shadow spokesperson, had the foresight to ring my office and ask whether it was appropriate to send out the press release. I was quite happy to give him the best information available. I encourage any Opposition member who has a similar concern about his or her health spokesperson to ring my office. I am happy to give them the facts.


Mr MILLS: My question without notice is addressed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Can the Minister outline the progress of the Government's waiting list reduction program? Has there been any significant fall in the number of people waiting more than six months for elective surgery?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for Wallsend for his question on patients' needs.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: In recognition of his interest in health care and the needs of patients, the honourable member for Wallsend has been appointed Chairman of the Health Care Complaints Commission.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am pleased to announce that the Government's waiting list reduction program has already produced landmark results for the people of New South Wales. Since March the number of patients waiting between six and 12 months for elective surgery has fallen by a staggering 34 per cent. That represents 2,144 patients who were ignored by the former Government; people who had been waiting between six and 12 months for elective surgery often in pain and often with serious afflictions that cause great concern to them and their families and reduce their ability to participate in society. In addition, the number of patients who have been waiting more than 12 months has fallen by 482 or 21 per cent. That is, 21 per cent of patients waiting more than 12 months have at last got their surgery because this Government cared enough about them to put extra money into the health system.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for North Shore to order. Since the member asked the first question of questions without notice she has continually interrupted Ministers' responses to other questions. The limit of my tolerance has been reached. I caution her against attracting the attention of the Chair further in this regard.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government's promised first targets were those patients who had been waiting the longest for elective surgery. The Government has achieved a 34 per cent drop in the number of people waiting between six and 12 months for elective surgery and a 21 per cent drop in the number of
Page 1360
people waiting more than 12 months for elective surgery. In August the number of patients on New South Wales elective surgery waiting lists fell by a further 2,300, bringing the total reduction since March to 7,356. That is a fall of 16½ per cent. The Government is almost a third of the way towards cutting the waiting lists in half.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: In New South Wales at the end of August this year, 37,000 patients were waiting for elective surgery, compared with more than 44,000 when the Government took office.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: These results for August confirm that the Government is on target to achieve its commitment on waiting lists. Some of the most pleasing results have occurred in the greater west of Sydney.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The waiting lists have declined in the greater west of Sydney by some 23 per cent. In particular, Western Sydney Area Health Service has performed well above the State average. The latest data shows that elective surgery waiting lists in the Western Sydney Area Health Service have fallen by 34 per cent, an admirable effort. The number of patients waiting between six and 12 months in the Western Sydney Area Health Service has fallen by 65 per cent and the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months has fallen by 46 per cent. These are fantastic results for the Western Sydney Area Health Service and I congratulate all involved, particularly in that area, for doing the work with such real commitment. These are not just abstract figures that I am releasing. These are real people who are -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: These are people who were ignored by the former Government. Both the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Health and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Health ignored these patients. They said they did not matter. Well, the Government says they do matter, that they do need surgery, and we are giving them that surgery. We need to consider also what is happening with individual patients. The Liberal Party abandoned patients who needed hip replacements, cataract operations, gall bladder operations and other surgery. This Government has abandoned no-one. We are giving people the health care that they need.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Since the end of March the number of people waiting between six and 12 months for a hip replacement has fallen by 31 per cent; the number of people waiting between six and 12 months for a gall bladder operation has fallen by almost half; and the number of people waiting between six and 12 months for cataract operations has fallen by 39 per cent. The Government is making sure the patients get their treatment when they need it and has put an extra $64 million into this program. The extra resources are being channelled into providing additional medical facilities and obtaining staff to look after patients. We have almost 400 more beds open; there are 990 extra operating theatre sessions each month, the equivalent of about 450 extra full-time nursing positions and 100 full-time ancillary positions. This was a bold and audacious program and it needed commitment to make it work. The Carr Government is not only a bold and audacious government, it is a government with a real commitment to patient care.


Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. What steps did the Minister take to implement a key election promise to merge the State Transit Authority and CityRail into a unified public transport authority, as outlined in his transport policy released in February? To what extent has the Minister's role and authority been undermined as a consequence of his failure to deliver on this pre-election promise?

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

Mr LANGTON: The Government is about to embark on one of the greatest reforms of rail ever undertaken in this country, reforms which the previous Government did not have the fortitude to tackle, and reforms which will be consistent with national competition policy endorsed by the previous Government and by the present Premier soon after the election. As honourable members are aware, the Premier attended the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments and signed the agreement on national competition policy. As a result of that he had the honour of being able to announce the major reforms of State Rail Authority, including an access group which is going to conform with national competition policy, and I was very pleased to support that. This Government will achieve in public transport what was never achieved by the previous Government. Between 1988 and 1995 there were eight million fewer passenger journeys on CityRail in Sydney.

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

Mr LANGTON: The run down system was turning eight million journeys a year away from public transport because of its policies. At the same
Page 1361
time in the State Transit Authority there was no increase at all in patronage. The Government is about to get people back on to public transport with a whole range of initiatives. One is the reform of the State Rail Authority. The reforms that have been announced by the Premier are not only in accordance with good government, not only in accordance with national competition policy, but also in accordance with the Government's agenda.

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


Mr SHEDDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Will the Government be using public relations consultants to promote this year's budget? What was the practice of the previous Government?

Mr CARR: That is a very good question. I can reveal to the House that while we all knew that the previous Government had employed a public relations firm to promote the last two budgets -

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

Mr CARR: - the cost of that exercise was a staggering $1 million. The sum of $1 million was given to a public relations firm to sell the last two budgets in New South Wales. This year the Government will spend a modest sum of money to cover the cost of printing the budget papers, printing a small summary document and running the budget media lockup. Honourable members might well ask: where did that $1 million go to? I can tell you, because the Government has just received a pile of documents that represent the so-called strategic marketing plan for the last two budgets, the last budget being described, of course, by the Institute of Public Affairs as "The least responsible in the nation".

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

Mr CARR: Those who produced this plan based it on what was called a production schedule. Note the Hollywood terminology. It had references to theme development, key dates, stickers, fliers, logos, name tags in blue and soft red, a staff presentation and a very important item, specially made signs banning mobile phones in the lockup. All that was missing was the Mezzaluna menu.

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

Mr CARR: The previous Government was planning a direct mail campaign to sell last year's budget to the State's 3,842 dentists. It is spelt out in the document, a direct mail budget brochure to every dentist in the State. The idea was a stroke of genius by the former Treasurer. You are sitting in the waiting room. The drill is going on maniacally in the background. You have butterflies in the stomach. You are waiting to be summoned into the surgery. You reach for some soporific literature and you get your guide to Peter Collins' budget - no doubt to save on anaesthetic.

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

Mr CARR: The previous Government was also planning a direct mail assault on doctors, lawyers, accountants and airports. The guide to Peter Collins' wonderful budget would be available in the Golden Wing Flight Deck! We now come to anticipating the tricky questions from those naughty, nasty people in the press gallery - even Alan Jones, whom the Leader of the Opposition blamed for losing the coalition the last election. In the file - do not forget, the taxpayers paid $1 million for this - we see provision for a full dress rehearsal in the former Treasurer's office. There was quite a party. Cosways' budget lockup running sheet refers to arranging a "working lunch for 13 people for Treasurer's rehearsal". Back to those pesky press questions. Cosways has scripted answers to 32 questions to be used by the fiscal genius who was our Treasurer. If someone asked the former Treasurer about productivity savings, he would go to answer 22. The celebrated backdown on wilderness was question 29. Fiscal responsibility - no problem - it was question 4a. And these questions had stage directions. The one on fiscal responsibility said -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Northcott, whose behaviour is grossly disrespectful, on three calls to order. Members might like to discuss with the honourable member for Burrinjuck the difficulties that confront a member who is removed from the Chamber on the last sitting day before a two week break.

Mr CARR: Each of these little predigested answers had with it a stage direction. The suggested answer on fiscal responsibility had this advice, "Go to town on this one!" The Cosway people were so thoughtful. For a mere $1 million they thought of everything. They provided this response to a question about using a public relations firm to sell the budget, "It was unarguable that the Government was able to much more effectively communicate the budget with their professional assistance." Wasn't it nice and disinterested of them to provide that sort of candid advice! Cosways certainly did a lot of work and they were paid a great deal for it. The Liberal and National Party people who sit opposite like a row of death masks in an archaeological museum ought to contemplate this: this was the special assistance provided for the man who is now their leader. No wonder that in yesterday's Daily Telegraph Mirror Mark Day wrote:

Page 1362

On a scale of 1 to 10 for fiery Bear Pit action, yesterday was a damp squib . . . Which highlights the problem for Peter Collins.

All he had in his armory yesterday were a couple of corks in a popgun.

Whatever damage he might inflict today will be forgotten by voting day.

But unless he does better than yesterday's performance, which was akin to thrashing Carr with a wet lettuce, his backbench will simmer, then fester, in discontent.

They will look around for a more aggressive leader.

It is no coincidence that in the last few days we have heard the gentle feminine tones of the Lucrezia of Lane Cove making her mark as she hones that stiletto.

Mr Photios: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, you have clearly and unequivocally ruled on numerous occasions that honourable members should refer to members of this House by their proper titles and it is a fact -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Premier will refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr CARR: After what was done to the honourable member for Ermington on the last day of the last sitting one would think that he would sit quietly. But every question time all we hear from the honourable member for Ermington is yap, yap, yap, yap, yap - proof positive that it is possible to breed vertical corgis. It is no wonder that he is a royalist! Mark Day went on to say:

It may be too early to even think, let alone utter the words "leadership challenge". But the State Liberals have a record of being unforgiving.

Remember Eric Willis, Peter Coleman, John Mason, Bruce McDonald and John Dowd? They were all Liberal leaders who failed to lay a glove . . .

And the Leader of the Opposition is failing to lay a glove.


Mr D. L. PAGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Did the Minister agree at the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting only to continue the moratorium on the issue of irrigation licences and not to cap water use by New South Wales farmers? If so, will he direct his department not to reduce water allocations on the basis of a cap that his officers are telling farmers he has agreed to?

Mr YEADON: The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council met in Brisbane in June. The meeting had the benefit of a water audit that had been conducted by the council. Its contents were extremely alarming, not just for the New South Wales Government but for all governments party to the council - Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. A salient point of the audit was that the Murray River region at Lake Alexandrina in South Australia suffers drought conditions six out of every 10 years. Historically, there was only one drought every 20 years. That is a clear indication of the alarming condition of the Murray-Darling basin river system. In recognition of the alarming condition of the river system, the Council of Australian Governments imposed a ceiling on the number of water diversions from the Murray-Darling basin system as of 1 July this year. That decision was made by all the governments within Australia - not just Labor governments, but conservative governments as well. They clearly understand the magnitude of the problem facing inland river systems, in particular the Murray-Darling basin system. They understand the need to act urgently and immediately.

The Carr Government came into power with a clear mandate - a clear policy - to undertake urgent water reform in this State. The Government will not resile from that undertaking. Indeed, it has already commenced the reforms. A package was announced two weeks ago. That package provides for changes in relation to off-allocation water in only two valleys: the Macquarie and the Gwydir. Those two valleys were given particular attention in the Government's water reform policy because of the degradation that has occurred in the Macquarie marshes and the Gwydir wetlands. Those wetlands have international significance. The mob opposite did not pay attention to this issue at all when they were in office. The coalition allowed the wetlands to decline. The latest studies to emerge show that there has been a 50 per cent decline in the Macquarie marshes since European settlement in this country.

Mr Armstrong: You cannot substantiate those figures.

Mr YEADON: Members opposite continue to deny the hard evidence of what is happening to the inland river systems. I shall give an example of the sorts of problems that occur in our inland river systems. I refer to the 1,000 kilometre algal bloom on the Darling system in 1991. We do not need scientific studies to tell us that we have major problems with our river systems when there is a 1,000 kilometre algal bloom. That sort of evidence exists, but the coalition refuses to accept it. The coalition does not have the interests of the overwhelming majority of rural New South Wales at heart. The former coalition Government spent seven years pandering to sectional interests. The game is up. It is over.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government announced its water reform policy two weeks ago. It fulfilled its election promise to take account of the problems in the inland river systems. It will not resile from that undertaking. I give rural New South Wales an absolute commitment that the Government will
Page 1363
continue to ensure that there is a healthy environment in this State and that there will be sustainable agriculture in the future. That is what the fools on the other side of the House failed to understand in relation to this issue.


Mrs BEAMER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. What is being done to improve cleaning services in government schools?

Mr AQUILINA: I thank the honourable member for Badgerys Creek for her question. She, probably more than any other member, owes her presence in the House to the dirty schools policy of the former Government.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Under the arrangements of the former Government the cleaning of schools was permitted to fall into a disgraceful state. There were grimy carpets, grubby canteens and filthy woodwork rooms. Parents are appalled at the conditions some children are being forced to endure because of this neglect. Many parents have written to coalition members in this regard, and hardly a week goes by when those letters are not forwarded to me. Most of the coalition members were members of the previous Government which was the architect of the dirty schools policy.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Children are forced to attend school. They are entitled to a clean and hygienic environment in which to learn. The former Government was not interested in grassroots eduction issues, such as cleaning. It was more intent on driving its ideological privatisation agenda. The previous Government caused the problems and the Carr Government will resolve them. Today I announce that the Government has kept another promise - another big tick. It will completely review the cleaning of schools. The Government has conducted a thorough review and what it has found is truly appalling: grit and grime have been ground into carpets because of insufficient vacuuming; food preparation and serving areas in canteens are regularly left dirty; and woodwork rooms are left filthy with shavings and dust.

A principal of a school in Sydney's northern beaches region complained repeatedly over 12 months about toilets and desktops being left unclean, about dirty carpets and about food being left in servery areas. Every time he complained the problem was fixed - only to deteriorate again within weeks. That principal has reported a dramatic improvement since 1 September, when the Labor Government's changes were introduced. It is not simply a matter of providing students with a pleasant learning environment; it is a matter of maintaining the highest standards to protect the health of children. That is something which the coalition completely ignored. The Government is ensuring that children are not exposed to asthma problems and to other health problems caused by dust mites flourishing in dirty carpets.

The former Government was negligent in this regard. It failed to ensure that the specifications in the cleaning contracts were appropriate for classrooms with young children. Indeed, the former Government applied normal cleaning industry standards. Those standards may be appropriate for offices, but they do not take into account the fact that children behave differently from office workers. Members opposite do not know what goes on in classrooms and in schools. Classrooms full of young children get heavy daily treatment: dirt is trampled in and things are spilt on floors. Children frequently sit on the floor as part of their daily activities. It is essential that these carpets are kept clean. For the sake of our children this Government is determined to offer a higher standard of cleanliness in schools. The mob opposite were concerned only with the bottom line. Today I announce that the Government has signed an agreement with three cleaning companies. The agreement will significantly increase the level of hygiene and cleanliness at all State primary and infant schools.

Mr Tink: The nifty cleaning company?

Mr AQUILINA: If the honourable member so wishes I shall have his electorate exempted. I will tell the parents and citizens associations and the principals in the Eastwood electorate that their local member does not want his schools to be clean. Cleaners must vacuum carpets and wipe desks in classrooms daily.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Can honourable members comprehend that something as basic as vacuuming a classroom on a daily basis was not carried out under the previous Government? It did away with that requirement. The previous Government had no concern for the health of children in our schools or for the cleanliness of the classrooms. The new specifications will ensure the shampooing of all carpets in all schools on an annual basis. The cleaners employed by the companies will also benefit under the new arrangements. The previous Government had planned to drastically cut the number of cleaning hours. That is one of the reasons the former member of Badgerys Creek lost her seat, only to be replaced by the excellent member that we have now.

This Government has now prevented the reduction in the number of cleaning hours by negotiating an agreement where an additional 10,000 hours - this is something useful for electorates of
Page 1364
honourable members opposite - will be worked per week, over and above what was planned under the contract signed by the former coalition Government. Had that mob opposite remained in office the number of hours worked by cleaners would have been drastically cut, letting our classrooms become havens of disease. The Government has listened to the concerns of pupils, teachers and the unions. The Government's action demonstrates its determination to improve the level of hygiene and cleanliness in our schools, and remove the grubbiness left by honourable members opposite.


Ms MOORE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police, and Leader of the House. Will the Minister undertake to honour his commitment to the Parliament to have a well-managed parliamentary sitting program with family friendly hours, including finishing at 10.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and 6.50 p.m. on Wednesdays and Thursdays?

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to answer the question. I can simply say that if it were not for the vandalism of the Opposition reneging on its commitments to me the House would have finished on time last evening.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Minister's answer.

Mr WHELAN: Honourable members opposite have an obligation to talk constructively and to work out a process by which the Parliament can run efficiently. It is not possible to deal with the Leader of the Opposition because he has absolutely no idea of how the parliamentary process works. I assure the honourable member for Bligh, as I do the House, that private members' day will not be thwarted by any attempts of the Opposition. Honourable members would have noticed that today's proceedings commenced with a debate that related to whether the Treasurer would be permitted to address this Chamber. For some reason best known to honourable members opposite, they decided to invoke the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights and the Statute of Westminster to support their argument that in 1995 the State's Treasurer should not come to the people's House to deliver the budget. That argument last night went on for four hours.

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

Mr WHELAN: Effectively that took an hour out of private members' day. Fortuitously and thankfully the shadow leader of the House was able to agree to an arrangement to ensure that all private members' legislation was dealt with and the timetable for private members' day was met. Under the standing orders it is easy for governments to truncate debate. The gangsters in the Parliament, like honourable members opposite -

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

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bligh were present when this House sat 36 hours without a break. Honourable members opposite should tell the Leader of the Opposition, first, that when he gives an undertaking he should abide by it and, second, he should be compliant to the Government elected by the people to run its program. Then the Parliament will run with those family friendly hours that a lot of the backbenchers in this Chamber are going to be very concerned about in the future.


Mr IEMMA: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, and Assistant Minister for State Development. Can the Minister inform the House of the latest figures on trade through Sydney's ports?

Mr SCULLY: I thank the honourable member for Hurstville for his long-term interest in the economic well being of Sydney's ports. I am pleased to report that trade passing through Sydney ports increased by 9.6 per cent during the 1994-95 financial year. The latest figures show more than 44.8 million revenue tonnes of cargo moved through the twin ports of Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay. This traffic confirmed Sydney's position as Australia's largest capital city port in terms of trade. Both exports and imports increased significantly through those two ports: exports rose by 8 per cent while imports increased 10 per cent. There are some interesting aspects that are worth highlighting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Port Macquarie to order for the second time. There is too much conversation between members on the Opposition frontbench.

Mr SCULLY: Container trade recorded the highest growth since 1988-89, increasing 13 per cent to a record 670,000 twenty feet equivalent units. Export container trade increased by 4.2 per cent, with the most significant increases recorded in exports of chemicals, cereals and non-ferrous metals. Exports of meat, cotton and wool all fell as a result of the drought, but Sydney has now surpassed Brisbane as Australia's largest cotton export port, handling nearly 60 per cent of all cotton exports. Sydney maintained its leading position as the largest container import port in Australia, with a 15.5 per cent increase to 350,000 twenty feet equivalent units. The figures show that the major suppliers of imports through Sydney's ports are the United States, China, Japan, New Zealand and Taiwan.

It is of particular interest that trade with South Africa has increased through Sydney ports. In fact, container traffic with South Africa has risen 60 per
Page 1365
cent since that country opened up following the election of the Mandela Government. On Monday I visited Port Botany and was happy to see that Conaust Engineering was unloading two cranes 25 storeys high, perhaps the largest in the country, which will increase the container throughput at Port Botany. With the recent corporatisation of the State's ports the Government will be moving towards appointing boards for Sydney, Newcastle and Port Kembla. As the Opposition well knows and appreciates, this is a significant reform, which will benefit the State. The Government is about improving the efficiency and competitiveness of ports by requiring them to operate on commercial principles. One thing is different: the Government is about maintaining the ports of Sydney, Newcastle and Port Kembla in public ownership. The people of this State should thank the Labor Government for protecting our ports through public ownership. The Government is about polishing the family silver, not flogging it off, unlike honourable members opposite.


Mr ARMSTRONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Small Business and Regional Development, Minister for Ports, and Assistant Minister for State Development. Is the Minister willing to repeat to the Parliament his assertion on a recent trip to Bathurst that decentralisation offers little benefit to country New South Wales? Does the Minister support the moves by the Minister for Education and Training to close down regional education offices throughout New South Wales?

Mr SCULLY: I am happy to support the actions taken by the Minister for Education and Training. They are reforms on which the Opposition should be congratulated. The Leader of the National Party would be well aware that on the subject of relocation, the Minister for Agriculture is transferring the Rural Assistance Authority to the Department of Agriculture in Orange, the electorate of the former Leader of the House. It is no great wonder that office relocation benefits a region - wow! The Leader of the National Party goes up hill and down dale telling the country that office relocation benefits a region - whoopee-do! Is this his great economic insight: that you can parachute a government department into a region and it will be of benefit to the region? Of course it will be. The Leader of the National Party wants to know what the Government is doing about regional development. The Government is undertaking the greatest reform to government trading enterprises. These people opposite do not want to hear about electricity reform. The greatest reforms we can achieve for regional New South Wales are to drive down electricity prices, achieve economic development and create jobs, but members opposite do not want to hear about that. I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. He is misguided. I would be happy to educate him on regional development if he wants to have a chat with me.

Mr PRICE: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. What has the New South Wales Government done to reduce the stress suffered by koalas in this State's wildlife parks and reserves?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Waratah for his question, which highlights only one component of what will be this Government's admirable record on animal welfare. On 28 August 1995 I was pleased to announce that from 1 January 1997 the practice of "pass the koala", as it is known, will end in New South Wales. From that date koala cuddling in this State will be restricted to patting, stroking and cuddling koalas to the extent that it can be done while the koalas remain on a fixed perch. I will make it known to all animal welfare people that the coalition members in this Parliament consider animal welfare something of a joke.

This koala handling decision was made after consultation with the industry and considering a large number of submissions. Currently, the practice is for tourists to hold another object, such as a soft toy, a cushion, or a toy koala, to which the live koala is clinging. The koala is passed from the handler to the tourist so that a photograph can be taken. The koala is then passed back to the handler, and then handed to the next tourist in the line for another photograph to be taken. This process is repeated many times. All except one of the industry members agree that this practice produces unacceptable levels of stress in koalas. In fact, 33 of the 34 members of the Fauna and Marine Parks Association of New South Wales have requested that the current practice be changed.

The representative of the one dissenting park argued that no scientific evidence suggests that the passing of koalas causes stress. The observations which led the industry to believe that koalas were stressed after handling are as follows: flickering eyes; abnormal posture; weight loss; trying to climb off the cushion or toy; agitated behaviour; loss of fat around the back of the neck; and a low whining sound. It sounds like the honourable member for Monaro! Somebody has been passing him around.

Many honourable members may have heard arguments from the dissenting park claiming that the decision will affect tourism, and honourable members have received submissions from bus and coach companies and the park claiming that tourists will decide to visit Queensland rather than New South Wales if they cannot cuddle koalas in this State. This proposal will not stop the patting or cuddling of the koala so long as it remains on the one perch. At Fetherdale Park in my electorate, the new practice will not commence until 1 March 1997. I am told that tourists are voting with their feet on this issue. At a ratio of 3:1, more tourists are lining up to have photographs taken with koalas in a more natural setting - that is, while remaining on the perch - than under the other procedure.

Page 1366

I will continue discussions with the Queensland Government to have similar standards applied in that State. I have discussed the matter with the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Senator Bob Collins, who has given his in-principle support to establishing a national standard. The one dissenting park has argued that its good breeding record indicates that its koalas are not stressed. However, this group neglects to tell the public that breeding koalas are not passed around to tourists. No relationship exists between the successful breeding program in the park in my electorate and the handling of the koalas. The new regulation is supported by the Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales and endorsed by the Exhibited Animals Advisory Committee. In conclusion, this is only one of the important animal welfare issues which are part of our progressive reform program. Despite this orchestrated campaign by one park in New South Wales, honourable members of this House will support this more appropriate method of treating koalas in relation to tourists.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr COLLINS: I wish to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Mr COLLINS: The Leader of the House commented in answering a question earlier today that he and I came to some agreement on the procedure which took place in the House last night. I make it clear that the Opposition Leader of the House deals with the Leader of the House on procedure in this Chamber. Nothing I have said at any time cuts across that situation. The Leader of the House has impugned my reputation and has lied to this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "lied".

Mr COLLINS: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw. He might like to use another word.

Mr COLLINS: The term "lied" has been used in this House -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to withdraw.

Mr COLLINS: The Leader of the House has misled this House -

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr COLLINS: - and I want to set the record straight. The Leader of the House will deal with the Opposition Leader of the House on procedural matters.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member wish to raise any other matters in relation to which he feels that he has been impugned?

Mr COLLINS: I will not have my reputation as the Leader of the Opposition impugned by the sort of comment made by the Leader of the House. For the benefit of the House, I reaffirm that the Government and Opposition leaders of the House will determine procedural matters -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is outside the leave appropriate for the making of a personal explanation.

Mr COLLINS: I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of privilege: you, Mr Speaker, have asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word "lied" this afternoon. I clearly recall previous debate about whether the words "lie" and "lied" were acceptable in this House. The matter was debated at length before Speaker Kelly. The accepted custom has been that the word "liar" is unacceptable, but the word "lied" is acceptable; this has been the case in this place ever since the debate that led to Speaker Kelly's ruling during the term of the Wran Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I note the point raised by the Leader of the National Party. However, Speaker Murray would prefer that members did not use the term.


Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [3.30]: I wish to advise the House that severe frosts occurred across southern, north-western, and central-western areas of New South Wales from 6 September to 8 September, causing widespread damage to winter cereal crops, stone fruits and wine grapes. The damage was accentuated by an unseasonably warm spell in August, which caused early bud burst and flowering and advancement of two to three weeks in cereal crops. Growers appear to have suffered severe losses, with some total crop losses predicted. Estimates put the damage at between 10 per cent and 30 per cent over an area of 100,00 hectares of cereal crops valued at between $20 million and $30 million. At this stage it is hard to estimate the damage on the stone fruit and wine grape industries. However, they are likely to be substantial.

Page 1367

Losses sustained because of frost are not covered under the natural disaster relief program, which covers cyclone, earthquake, floods, storm and bushfires. I wish to inform the House that today I have requested the Department of Agriculture to prepare a comprehensive proposal to be submitted to the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Senator Bob Collins, outlining the case for the development of an exceptional circumstances frost damage package. For the frost damage package to be accepted under exceptional circumstances guidelines, my department will have to demonstrate that the frost in early September was a rare and severe event. I have asked my departmental officers in all affected areas to assist local producers in compiling relevant information to substantiate our case.

My office has spoken to the New South Wales Farmers Association, which has given a commitment to assist in the preparation of the submission. Through the work of that organisation, along with the rural lands protection boards and my department, New South Wales put one of the best submissions to the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for drought assistance in many regions of this State under exceptional circumstances grounds. I am confident that such performance can be repeated with the submission about to be prepared. I call on local State members of Parliament to assist in this regard. I ask that if they have any relevant information, they pass it on to my department or to my office. I do not suggest that representations have not already been made by some members of Parliament, but would like to indicate to honourable members that their involvement in applications or reports of frost damage would be most helpful not only with the submission of my department but with the assessment of frost damage throughout the State.

I understand that during the term of the previous Government there were incidents of frost damage. Producers applied then for assistance under the natural disaster relief arrangements and the applications were submitted to the previous Government. In fact, the previous management of the Rural Assistance Authority encouraged producers to apply for assistance following frost damage. All of the applications were rejected because, as I said earlier, frost damage is not included under the provisions of the program, despite the fact that literature produced at that time by the Rural Assistance Authority advertised that assistance was available. Even when the initial reports of frost damage came to my office in recent weeks there was a belief throughout rural New South Wales and in some government circles that assistance was available through the Rural Assistance Authority. In fact, it never has been available. The new management of the Rural Assistance Authority has since withdrawn and amended the misleading literature.

I understand that Australian Dried Fruits Association will be writing to me and the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in regard to this matter. The association has evidence that shows that between 6 September and 8 September Mildura experienced its coldest night in 49 years. I have to stress that the approach to the Federal Government for frost assistance under exceptional circumstances grounds is a first. We have to strengthen our case and prove that this is not frost damage that may occur frequently but is a rare and severe event. The evidence from Mildura that we shall present to the Federal Minister will strengthen our case - as I have pointed out, the hard evidence is that the area recently experienced its coldest nights in 49 years. The guidelines and structure of any package may take time to develop, and I would not like to give producers false hope of immediate assistance. It must be remembered that income from damaged crops was not due to flow to producers until early next year. Therefore, the loss of income as a criterion is very hard to evaluate at this early stage. The approach to the Federal Government signifies this Government's commitment to do everything in its power to develop assistance measures for New South Wales farmers affected by rare and severe events.

I wish to advise the House of matters in relation to the Government's continuing applications to the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on exceptional circumstances grounds and its concern about drought-affected areas. Up to 25 August 1995 in excess of $45 million in interest subsidies has been provided to New South Wales farmers under the exceptional circumstances drought provisions of the 1992 rural adjustment scheme. That was made up of $11.2 million of State funds and $34.4 million Commonwealth funds. So that no-one is vague about this matter, I shall share a few facts. Since the Government's election at the end of March it has made submissions to the Commonwealth for additional drought relief on the following dates: 21 April, 28 April, 4 May, 5 June and 23 June. The Department of Agriculture, on behalf of the New South Wales Government, has worked tirelessly on the analysis of data, particularly rainfall records, from information supplied by rural lands protection boards, the New South Wales Farmers Association, other organisations and individuals, and on the preparation of cases for submission to the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy for the declaration of drought exceptional circumstances.

Successful submissions resulted in assistance for the following rural lands protection board areas being announced on 29 May: Scone; Denman-Singleton, divisions A and B; Mudgee, division B; Merriwa, divisions A and B; Dubbo, divisions A and D; Molong, division A; Carcoar, divisions C and D; Nyngan, divisions B, C and D; Hay and Hillston. I point out to the House that the applications probably would not have been successful had it not been for the change of criteria negotiated by the Government in April. Virtually on a daily basis, staff of the Department of Agriculture continue to analyse and pass on to the Commonwealth new information in support of exceptional circumstance assistance. Over the past four months this has involved the analyses of
Page 1368
more than 150,000 rainfall records from official and private weather stations in those areas not already receiving exceptional circumstances assistance. Further submissions have been made to the Commonwealth for consideration of exceptional circumstances in the following rural lands protection board areas, and this may be of assistance to Opposition members who have been concerned about some areas missing out on the decision of 29 May.

Those areas subject to further applications to the Commonwealth are: Balranald; Bathurst, divisions A and C and part division D; Carcoar, divisions A and B; Cobar; Condobolin, divisions A and B; Denman-Singleton, divisions C and D; Dubbo, divisions B and C; Merriwa, divisions C and D; Molong, division B; Moulamein, division A in the north-western section; Mudgee, divisions A, C and D; Nyngan, division A; and Wilcannia. The Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council, known as RASAC, which provides advice to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, has visited most areas over the past six weeks to assess the situation and have discussions with farmers and advisers. Local meetings were coordinated by the Department of Agriculture and arranged by the respective rural lands protection boards and New South Wales Farmers Association branches to enable RASAC and Department of Primary Industries and Energy officers to receive representation from technical advisers as well as local producers, agribusiness, bankers and financial councillors. Field inspections were an important aspect of each visit.

It is understood that RASAC is currently making recommendations to be presented shortly by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to the Commonwealth Cabinet. Efforts have resulted in interest subsidies to more than 2,173 farmers and special drought relief payments to more than 4,440 farming families in New South Wales. On top of that, since April the Government has made available $40 million in other drought assistance measures, including subsidies for transport of fodder, livestock, water and welfare assistance. A further $10 million has been allocated to the special conservation scheme. The consultative and persistent attitude taken by the Government on exceptional circumstance assistance contrasts starkly with the confrontational approach taken by the previous Government. The first meeting of officers of the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Department of Primary Industries and Energy to discuss the New South Wales submission was held in mid-October 1994. A written submission was not sent to the Commonwealth until mid-November. Further backup and supporting information, which was available from the Department of Agriculture, was not sent to Canberra, on the instructions of the former Minister for Agriculture, Ian Causley.

From mid-November until the fall of the previous Government on 25 March no other submission for drought exceptional circumstance assistance was sent to Canberra. I conclude by saying that the Government now has a full, open and cooperative approach with the Federal Government. Sadly, on many occasions, on technical grounds, some areas have been given assistance while others have missed out. I point out to all honourable members that the Government will do all it can to cooperate with the Federal Government to give as much assistance as possible on drought relief to those areas that missed out in the past. I hark back to my opening remarks in this ministerial statement on frost damage: an issue that has been of concern to a number of honourable members is now high on the Government's agenda. I call on members of this House from all parties to assist the Government in preparing the data for a submission on frost damage assistance for farmers to put to the Federal Government.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [3.42]: I am delighted to welcome the package announced by the Minister this afternoon to assist farmers in the south, central-west and lower north-west of the State whose stone crops and viticulture crops sustained enormous damage during the extreme seasonal conditions a few weeks ago. Enormous damage has been done to peaches and apricots in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and to grapes, particularly the early chardonnay varieties, from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area up through Young, Cowra and Mudgee. It is estimated that in some cases up to 80 per cent of the first crop has been decimated. As those involved in viticulture point out, the second pick is never as productive and does not usually have the quality of the first pick. Losses suffered are considerable. The Minister says that this incidence of damage is a first. It is not a first. On 3 January 1990 the opposite seasonal conditions occurred in the south of the State, when record heat was experienced. That caused the decimation of much of the viticulture industry, particularly table grapes and raisins.

The Liberal-National Party Government negotiated with the Commonwealth to provide parallel assistance to that now being negotiated with the Commonwealth for record frosts. I am delighted that the Government has seen fit to respond to the calls I made some 10 days ago for this aid - a necessary initiative. That highlights the fact that the Government takes its lead from the National Party and from those of us who are out in the field. The Minister has said that loss of income would not be felt until early next year. The Minister does not appreciate that, whilst the loss of income would in most cases not have been expected until the end of November, now that it has been established that there will be a loss of income, budgetary arrangements made by farmers and businesses dependent on farmers for income must be adjusted now. Those people know that there will be a loss of income, for example, of up to 80 per cent on the first pick of the predominant grape of the area, the chardonnay, and
Page 1369
they have to approach their financiers to readjust their financial, repayment and contractual arrangements and their whole economic program, and they must do that now.

If aid is to be made available by the State and/or the Commonwealth, those people need to know that now, as their bankers call them in or they approach their bankers and private financiers, negotiate hire-purchase commitments, and plan seasonal purchases of plant and equipment and seasonal employment opportunities. The issue is not as simple as saying that those who have suffered from crop frost damage would not have had the money from their crop yield until later this year anyway. This whole announcement undoubtedly recognises the capacity of New South Wales Agriculture. The Minister made many references to the input that the department has had, and will have, in the execution of the assistance program. He pointed out that the department has done the research, put the figures together and negotiated with farmers, interest groups and the Commonwealth Government. He talked about the Department of Agriculture extrapolating the damage and assessing what the Government could do to assist those affected by this natural disaster. The Minister has simply reinforced what the Opposition has been saying for many weeks about the communications unit of the Department of Agriculture being halved at the whim of the Premier. The Premier said that he wanted that done simply because the communications unit had not written a nice press release about him since he became Premier. It is absolutely necessary for the Department of Agriculture to have an able, well-structured and professional communications unit.

The mooted cuts to agriculture funding of up to $35 million - they may be in excess of that - in the budget to be brought down on 10 October reinforce the necessity to maintain the department at full strength. Any decrease in the expertise in the Department of Agriculture, any further denigration of the staff and any further unsettling and uncertainty brought to agriculture by this Government will only work against the people the department serves and against the services so necessary out in the field. The Minister today recognised those services. It is up to him to defend the services against Treasury, his own Cabinet, and his own Premier if necessary. That is his responsibility. The Minister has ably made the case today. He will have the support of the Opposition but, by the same token, he will have to perform. He has set his own targets and has recognised the positives in his own department.

Mr Peacocke: Treasury will not let him get away with it.

Mr ARMSTRONG: It will not. The Minister also articulated some of the ongoing negotiations between the State and the Commonwealth regarding the exceptional circumstances provisions on drought. As we know, many parts of the State are now in their fourth year of drought. This afternoon the Minister provided for Hansard the various dates of applications to the Commonwealth for exceptional circumstances assistance. It is significant that there has been a partial response. In relation to the latest applications the Minister mentioned some rural lands pastures protection boards in which certain divisions are already included and application is being made for the inclusion of other divisions. For example, divisions C and D of the Carcoar rural lands protection board have been included, and application will be made for the inclusion of divisions A and B.

It is worthwhile noting that while divisions C and D have been included and divisions A and B excluded -and the Minister has just realised that they should not have been - the difference between those divisions is 2.5 millimetres of rain. The difference is only 10 points of rain - a couple of billy cans of water - yet this Minister and this Government say they are great because they recognised that divisions A and B should be included. The Government was happy to have those divisions excluded because of 2.5 millimetres or 10 lousy points of rain. The Government has a long way to go before it really understands anything about country New South Wales or about drought.

The rhetoric may be starting to flow but there is absolutely nothing behind it. Ten points of rain being used to decide whether a division is declared clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the Minister and the Government of what drought is all about and who they are trying to target for drought assistance. While ever they are content to determine who will receive drought assistance by drawing lines on maps and by accepting certain parameters that may, in their view, have some mathematical logic, and are not prepared to take fully into consideration seasonal and physical conditions, they will continue to disadvantage some parts of the State that should be included.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation is in the House and I am sure that he is equally concerned about the exclusion of two divisions, as happened in Carcoar. He would know that the exclusion of those two divisions for five months has led to a continuation for another five months of the environmental degradation caused by extreme drought conditions. That degradation may continue for another three months, and it should not have happened at all. If those divisions had been included, drought assistance would have been available to be used in protecting the environment. I hope the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will join the Opposition in making the point to the Minister for Agriculture and to Cabinet that the Government has been tardy and irresponsible in not demanding that divisions A and B of Carcoar be included earlier. Those divisions were certainly overlooked because of incompetence. It is clear that the Government has taken an ad hoc approach. The Government does not understand. It is tinkering around the edges and is responding, almost on a day-to-day basis, to the last telephone call.

Page 1370

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [3.52]: There is clearly no more pressing issue in New South Wales at this time than the degraded state of our waterways, forests and land. The sorry bunch sitting opposite spent seven years pandering to sectional interests and neglecting the emerging environmental problems of this State. It was a Government of total inaction and inability, and it put our future in jeopardy as a result.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee ought to be ashamed because his electorate is one of the worst hit areas. Since I came to office, study after study has shown how bad the situation is. For instance, until the Government took office, land clearing continued at the appalling rate of 150,000 hectares per year and was concentrated heavily in the Central Division. Between 1974 and 1989 nearly 60 per cent of native vegetation on the western slopes of New South Wales was cleared. Dry land salinity has increased to the point where an estimated 6 per cent of the State could be at risk of this environmental scourge. An audit of water use in the Murray-Darling basin found that use increased by 8 per cent between 1988 and 1994, an increase of 790 gigalitres or the equivalent of 1.6 times the capacity of Sydney Harbour. The mouth of the Murray River now experiences drought-like conditions approximately one year in every two, instead of one year in every twenty as it did before white settlement in this country.

In 1991 a 1,000 kilometre algal bloom poisoned the Darling River, our longest river. At least half of the billabongs west of Wagga Wagga are now likely to have significant algal blooms every year. About 17 per cent of the Murrumbidgee - and I am sure the honourable member for Murrumbidgee is listening to this - and 4 per cent of the Coleambally irrigation areas are salt-affected, and about one-third of this area can no longer support cropping. Internationally recognised wetlands have declined. Only 250 hectares of unique rush species in the Gwydir wetlands remain. In 1974 there were 2,200 hectares; it has now decreased to 250 hectares. Lack of water has seen stocking rates fall by 50 per cent for graziers in the Gwydir. That is telling evidence that the former Government only looked after particular sectional interests, and other rural interests were left to look after themselves. The Macquarie marshes are now estimated to have halved in size in the last 50 years, and the former Government took no action to halt that process. Ground water levels in the Murrumbidgee catchment have risen 10 metres in the 70 years that records have been maintained. Under the previous Government, identified wilderness, namely the Deua wilderness in the Narooma district, continued to be logged. Despite growing alarm within State Forests, the Government sanctioned logging at unsustainable levels: 30 per cent above acceptable levels, in fact.

[Interruption]

The negligent individuals opposite have plenty to say now, but they did nothing for seven years. Our unique Australian hardwood timber was used for cheap fence posts and pallets, with no plan for shifting the high-quality value-added products. Employment plummeted. Under the coalition 650 jobs were lost in the hardwood industry with no thought being given to any retraining or support for those workers, who were simply thrown on the scrap heap. In summary, this was a picture of environmental and economic crisis and yet the honourable member for Upper Hunter and his mates did nothing substantial to address these problems. They did absolutely nothing.

The drought has only made the need for action more urgent. Our rivers are being drained of what little water they have at a time when the environment is also crying out for resource. Fish suffer as a result of the low flows, nutrients become concentrated in the sluggish waters and wetlands struggle to survive. This issue needs to be looked at now because its urgency is simply overwhelming, in relation to both the natural environment and sustainable agriculture in this country. The reason it is so urgent is because the mob opposite did absolutely nothing except deceive their constituents and their so-called rural mates for seven long, dark years. The Government has taken action on these issues. It has done more in the last five months than those opposite thought about doing in the previous seven years. [Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [3.57]: The matter that I raise in this debate goes right to the core of the democratic process. Yesterday I asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation a question without notice concerning rural water pricing, the second part of which was:

Why did the Minister not refer the matter of rural water pricing to the Government Pricing Tribunal for determination as promised on page 8 of his water policy?

The Minister responded to that part of my question in the following terms:

We have referred the matter to the Government Pricing Tribunal for consideration and report.

The Minister stated clearly that the Government had referred the matter of rural water pricing to the Government Pricing Tribunal for consideration and report. This matter is urgent and serious because this
Page 1371
morning I contacted the Government Pricing Tribunal with a view to making a submission on the issue of rural water pricing. I was advised by that tribunal that, contrary to the Minister's advice to this House, in fact no referral has been made by the Government to the tribunal, and the tribunal has not received any terms of reference in relation to a referral on rural water pricing.

Mr Armstrong: Was that this morning?

Mr D. L. PAGE: It was this morning. This is a clear case of a Minister misleading the House. Few matters are more urgent or more important to the democratic process than the integrity of Ministers. What could be more urgent to the process of government than the credibility of a Minister? By stating that the Government had referred the matter of rural water pricing to the Government Pricing Tribunal when in fact no referral has yet been made is a clear case of misleading the House. For this action alone, apart from any policy initiatives undertaken by him in the past three months, the Minister deserves the strongest possible condemnation of this House.

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Mr Yeadon be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Ms Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hunter Mr Shedden
Mr Iemma Mr Stewart
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi
Mr Langton Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Whelan
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Beck
Mr Clough Mr Chappell
Mr Harrison Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.


Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.08]: I move:

That this House notes as a matter of urgency the crisis created by the loss of soil fertility, the effect of drought on the supply of water and the general decline in the quality of the agricultural and natural environment and supports the Carr Government policy initiatives in addressing these problems.

I am delighted to speak on this important and timely motion. The sad bunch sitting opposite me belonged to a government of inaction and inability. Their policy paralysis meant that individual farmers endeavouring to repair the environmental damage unwittingly done to the State by our forebears were working alone without the big picture reforms needed to make a real difference to land degradation. Their do-nothing approach endangered the long-term viability of agriculture in many areas of New South Wales and threatened the future of the timber industry. The Government, rather than answering to inner city greens, is implementing the reforms which many farmers knew had to be implemented but which the former Government was too weak and gutless to implement. Land clearing continued at an unsustainable rate.

Page 1372

Mr Cruickshank: Rubbish!

Mr YEADON: The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has major land degradation problems in his electorate, yet he pretends they do not exist. Dry land salinity is a major environmental hazard. I saw the foundations of houses at Wagga Wagga crumbling because of urban salinity problems. I am sure I will be supported in this debate by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, who will confirm that that is the case. An audit of water used in the Murray-Darling basin found use increased by 8 per cent between 1988 and 1994 - an increase of 790 gigalitres or the equivalent of 1.6 times the capacity of Sydney Harbour. Algal blooms are an ever-increasing problem, and even in winter some of our most prominent waterways experience algal poisoning. In 1993-94 it was reported that 110 waterways in the State had algal blooms, of which 50 were regarded as serious. Internationally recognised wetlands have declined significantly. Under the previous Government an identified wilderness, the Deua wilderness in the Narooma district, continued to be logged at an unremitting pace. I visited the Deua wilderness on a number of occasions and I can confirm that it is indeed a beautiful and pristine area. But it was shown no regard by those opposite.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Bega has the audacity to open his mouth on this issue.

Mr Smith: Why don't you come down and have a look, Kim?

Mr YEADON: I have been to the Deua wilderness more times than the honourable member for Bega has. The previous Government sanctioned logging at unsustainable levels, despite warnings from State Forests. New South Wales old-growth forests would have disappeared within 10 years if logging had continued at the unsustainable rate approved by the previous Government. Coalition members know as well as I do that the previous Government was allowing logging of old-growth forest at a 30 per cent unsustainable rate. Coalition members also know that almost every mill in New South Wales is equipped for old-growth timber. When the State runs out of old-growth timber the timber industry will fall over. The previous Government was going to sit back and watch the industry die.

Under the coalition Government 650 jobs were lost in the hardwood industry, with no $60 million restructuring package to act as a cushion and ensure that the workers were retrained or relocated. The coalition failed to understand that better technology was removing jobs from the industry. The State lost 650 jobs in this area when the coalition was in office. It did not give those people one scintilla of support. Our rivers and fish will have difficulty recovering from the drought if we do not take action immediately. Eleven species of freshwater fish in New South Wales are threatened with extinction. Action was necessary if our rivers and wetlands were to recover from the drought and if we were to properly value this finite resource. Water had to be more fairly shared and more fairly priced

The paralysis of the previous Government meant that - although it signed the Council of Australian Governments agreement in February 1994 - absolutely nothing was done to fulfil the commitment to full cost recovery for rural water. This would have brought the cost of water closer to its value. The previous Government did not have the guts to do it. Since the introduction of this government's policy the Deputy Leader of the National Party has sat silently in his seat. He secretly supports what the Government is doing. He pleaded with the former Premier to implement this policy. The redneck Nationals on the backbench stopped him from doing it. til the Carr Government acted, only 13 per cent of the cost of supplying water to irrigators and other rural users was recovered - which constituted 30 per cent of what was being charged in Victoria and Queensland.

Our rural users paid a mere $1.50 to $5.50 for a megalitre of water. A megalitre of water is equivalent to the volume of water in an Olympic swimming pool. The cost of sufficient water to fill an Olympic swimming pool was $1.50! The same volume of water in Sydney would cost a user $700. Clearly the need for reform was great, urgent and overwhelming. When the coalition was in power it did nothing. Why? Was it because it did not believe it was necessary? No, the coalition knew that it was necessary. It buckled under pressure from its redneck rump. It pandered to its sectional interests. Lest members opposite have not had time to digest the little missive dated 11 July 1994 from the then Minister for Land and Water Conservation - the honourable member for Upper Hunter, who is the Deputy Leader of the National Party - to the then Premier, John Fahey, I shall read it:

Dear Mr Fahey

You will recall that we discussed the need for long-term pricing reform for rural water services with the agreements reached at the Council of Australian Governments. Attached is a report prepared by the Department of Water Resources addressing this issue. The report recommends progressive movement of pricing for water services to cost recovery.

The coalition supports the reforms outlined by the Government; it just does not have the guts to admit it to its constituency. The reforms outlined in that report are based on exactly the same responsible principles as the Government's pricing reforms - the same reforms the Opposition is now claiming to repudiate. The letter to the Premier continues:

Although the adoption of the proposals will cause some difficulties for some users, I believe the report provides a legitimate basis for tackling this issue.

The Opposition knows that these reforms are sensible. The former Minister for Land and Water Conservation undoubtedly wanted to tackle them but lacked the political willpower to do it. Underneath
Page 1373
his false smile I suspect he is full of envy at this Government's ability to take such important action quickly. I point out that the letter of the former Minister makes no mention of the Government Pricing Tribunal or what it would have done with the money. More than a year after the Council of Australian Governments agreed that rural water prices should recover all costs from beneficiaries, the previous Government charged only for the product delivery side of the Department of Land and Water Conservation services. Water users have not, until now, been charged for the resource management services - which are of benefit to them - required for water extraction.

The Fahey Government procrastinated on water pricing. The previous Government allowed this important reform - and many like it - to languish while it tried to appease its sectional interests. Under its administration an antiquated pricing structure continued, giving no incentive for sensible water market reform or conservation of this finite resource. Irrigated agriculture ultimately faced an uncertain future under the previous administration. The coalition's policies ensured that irrigation, forestry and every other agricultural pursuit in this State had an uncertain future. I assure the House that the Government will bring certainty back to resource management in this State. The Government will ensure that balanced, proper and appropriate policies are in place. It will ensure a viable future for agriculture - [Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.18]: What an extraordinary speech. It was extraordinary for two reasons. The first and probably most significant reason is that despite the fact that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation had a good 10 minutes to deny what I said a moment ago about misleading this House, he did not make any attempt to do so. That goes to the credibility of this Minister.

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order: the honourable member for Ballina is outside the terms of the motion, which deals with resource degradation problems in this State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order involved. It is a little early in the contribution of the honourable member for Ballina for the Chair to make such a determination.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Secondly - and this is indicative of the way in which the Government has approached the issue of land use management since it came to office - the Government is not about protecting the environment; it is about protecting its political backside. This is a politically driven agenda. There are very good reasons why the Labor Party has to have a politically driven agenda. The Labor Party, State and federally, cannot govern without the support of the dark green movement. It needs the preferences. That is a simple political fact. If the Labor Party is to get its legislation through both Houses of Parliament, it has to have the support of the majority of the Independent members in the upper House. Most of those Independents are dark green. It is a political imperative for this Government to be seen to be green so that it can get its agenda through the Parliament.

The only matter on which the Minister and I agree is in relation to his recent statement that it is important to have balanced policies on the long-term sustainability of agriculture and the environment. The two issues are related and must be balanced. However, the Government is way out of balance in this regard. The Minister has the environment agenda at the forefront and has no intention of consulting with the relevant people. He has no intention of doing the right thing by the rural community. This country has a huge trade deficit, and it is worsening. It can be improved through developing its resource base and promoting export industries in rural centres, but the Government is doing everything possible to stifle those opportunities for Australia.

It is important to have environmental integrity for the long-term sustainability of agriculture but the Government is going way over the top with its environment policy. I refer particularly to the introduction of State environmental planning policy 46, which is clearly on the political agenda. It is justified because Australia is losing, according to the Minister, 150,000 hectares a year. One should look behind the rhetoric straight to the source document entitled "Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline", which was produced with the support of the CSIRO - thus it has some scientific validity. There is a disclaimer, however, about the contents of the document. It states:

The analysis is subject to the following caveat: namely, that it is constrained by a lack of datasets which are comprehensive, precise and accurate at the State, Territory and regional levels, particularly for Queensland and New South Wales.

That is the largest disclaimer I have ever read for any scientific document. Obviously the answer is not known. The document estimates the amount of native vegetation that has been lost across Australia in relation to areas cleared in New South Wales between 1983 and 1993. It is a question mark, not a figure. The authors do not know yet. Is the Government implementing policies based on questionable scientific data? The policy is flawed. Before land is cleared an application costing $100 must be obtained. A vegetation management plan must be prepared, and it must take account of no fewer than 16 complicated environmental criteria, such as biodiversity, significance of the area, and so on. All those issues are arguable. A plan addressing all those issues must be prepared. If that is not done, the Director-General of the Department of Land and Water Conservation, and subsequently the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife, must give concurrence for the clearing of more than two hectares of land.


Page 1374
If the plan does not address those issues, the two directors-general are duty bound not to grant consent. However, even if consent is given, the application is still subject to third party appeal rights from people with no direct interest in it. The Government is saying that people who want to clear land in this State will be subject to the same planning principles as apply to designated developments. An environmental impact statement must be done for designated developments, and third party appeal rights exist. In this case, a vegetation management plan must be prepared - an incredibly complicated procedure which must address all these difficult issues - yet the applicant is still subject to third party appeal rights. The administrative side of the equation is even worse.

The Department of Land and Water Conservation has to address the application within 60 days. The National Parks and Wildlife Service must address it within 40 days. However, unlike the Department of Land and Water Conservation, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has a capacity to delay. If it cannot deal with a matter, does not have the resources or does not wish to make a decision, it can delay the application, and that results in the automatic rejection of the application because the Department of Land and Water Conservation cannot obtain the necessary concurrence from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. One does not need to be smart to work out what will happen. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will refuse to make decisions and no applications will be granted. This is a typical example of the Government's maladministration. It is typical of a government that makes policy on the run. A comment in today's Land newspaper really says it all. In response to the Minister's comments on Monday on ABC radio - and country people will be particularly interested to hear this - he said:

Now we've got a responsibility to ensure that we leave a country out there, a rural sector that is viable into the future; [no problem with that] not just simply go there and plant what we want and leave a wasteland, and have this generation walk away with huge profits and leave nothing but a mess for future generations.

Such an insensitive remark during a time of drought and economic hardship in our rural communities demonstrates where this Minister is coming from. The Land article had this to say about the Minister:

. . . it almost defies belief that any Minister with an essentially rural portfolio could drop such an outrageously insensitive line at a time when the average farm in NSW is staggering under a debt of $140,000.

The management of forests industries by this Minister leaves a lot to be desired. He has made decisions in cahoots with the Minister for the Environment, particularly with regard to Coolah Tops. There are two State forests involved in that decision. One half of the area is already in a conservation zone and the other half has been logged on a sustainable yield basis since 1916. This Minister and the Minister for the Environment have put a national park classification above the interests of the State forests. Half the area should be declared a national park and the other half should continue to be used for sustainable timber purposes. As a result of the decision a local timber mill will have to close, because that area was its only source of supply. What will be offered by way of compensation to the mill owners, one could only guess. They have not been able to tell the mill employees what is going to happen. However, I do know that a recent Department of Land and Water Conservation document that recently came into my hands suggests that 1,800 jobs will be lost in the timber industry. [Time expired.]

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [4.28]: I support the motion of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I support also his comments and what the Government is doing about trying to arrest the degradation of our waterways, soil quality and land reserves. The National Party member leading for the Opposition on this debate has advanced the simplistic argument that it is all about a green agenda and not about improving water conservation or water quality. He said it was the Government pandering to the green movement. I ask the former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and Minister for Water Resources whether he has ever had a farmer from the mid-west of New South Wales complain to him about water practices in the cotton industry.

Mr Causley: Yes, I have.

Mr AMERY: Has he ever put those views in this House?

Mr Causley: Yes, I have.

Mr AMERY: Has he had other farmers talk to him about problems of salinity and possible solutions to those problems? The former Minister for Water Resources in his early days as a Minister actually made some progress in that regard. He got irrigators to accept acid levies and the like. But when the other States moved ahead with appropriate water pricing he dropped the bundle. He started off quite well. He was working well, moving water prices to a more realistic level, but then he dropped the matter. As a result, this Government has been left with water prices which are two or three times less than those of our neighbouring States of Victoria and Queensland. Is the honourable member saying that the Government's proposal is not part of the Council of Australian Governments arrangement? The previous Minister for Water Resources, the Deputy Leader of the National Party, was involved in the process of bringing water reforms up to the year 2000. However, we are now told that these reforms are about pandering to a green agenda.

It is a shame that the coalition has left this debate to the National Party. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga is in the Chamber but he is not speaking in the debate. The Liberal Party has left the major soil and sustainable agriculture issues to a few
Page 1375
National Party members who say that the Government is pandering to sectional interests. These members talk about listening to farmers, and I have been doing that. The former Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been listening to farmers in recent times. What has he been saying to women on farms who ask, "How do we encourage the next generation to stay in agriculture"? Has he said, "Pack up and leave; it's a green agenda"? This State's agricultural industry has a golden opportunity. Australia is in one of the best positions in relation to its agricultural products in the coming decades. In future decades the efforts made in this State will be recognised.

I told the House recently that by the year 2050 the world population will be 10.02 billion people, up from the current 5.6 billion. New South Wales has a great opportunity to be a part of that growth, almost as a food bowl for Asia and other parts of the world. What is the Opposition's solution? How will this State be able to supply that market if we allow the soil to be degraded by salinity? If that occurs, fewer hectares of land will be available for agriculture. Governments must introduce controls or policies relating to land clearing. National Party members opposite are so far out of date on water policy that even the Liberals cannot believe it. The previous Government signed the agreement with the Council of Australian Governments to bring water prices up to date. This has been a narrow and sectional debate. The National Party's view on this issue does its side of politics no good at all. The Government's actions are strongly supported by me and New South Wales Agriculture because we see the future of agriculture lying squarely in the hands of a Labor Government managing our water to ensure access to future supplies and maintaining sustainable agriculture. [Time expired.]

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [4.33]: I am sorry to hear the Minister for Agriculture support this motion. He has been around for a while and is not one of the immature, wet-behind-the-ears members of this Parliament. Members opposite speak about doing more in five months than was done by the previous Government in seven years, but anyone who knows the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area knows that is utter drivel. I am ashamed to sit at the dinner table with the mates of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation who live in that area; they are crooks. They made their money by having the right political allegiances - certainly not to a conservative party. Those people received water allocations and had property divided into horticultural farms when nobody else was allowed to. Why? Because they knew the local member and knew who to speak to in the ALP.

I am proud that those types of behaviour and rorts have disappeared from the area, but they flourished like nothing on earth under the Labor Party. People in the MIA made their millions through privileges gained from the Labor Party. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has the audacity, gall, temerity and cheek to tell us that he is doing something that was not done by the previous Government! The former coalition Government did more in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area than the Minister will ever know. He is a young man who knows nothing, but that is not the problem. The problem is that he will not learn anything, for he will not consult. I know him well, but I dislike it when he has the temerity and cheek to behave in this Chamber like some self-righteous convert to a sanctimonious ideology. He is full of ideology - and that is a polite name for it.

The Minister wants people to believe that things are being done that were not done by the previous Government. However, under the previous Government the salt problems were being cured by the farmers, and the farmers of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area had access to cures for the salt problem to a greater extent than had been the case in the previous 45 years under Labor governments. Also, under the previous Government consultation was the name of the game. I take my hat off to the previous Minister for Water Resources, the honourable member for Clarence, because he spoke to all the growers, to officers of the department and others. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area Board and the Coleambally Irrigation Area Board were established and were run by cockies and people involved in the process. They do a magnificent job.

If the Minister for Land and Water Conservation gets rid of those people, he will go down the chute; he is already halfway down that chute so far as the water users of the MIA are concerned. But it is still not too late for him to recover. He should either get out and save his reputation while he still has one or start consulting the people he expects to become involved in rectifying these monumental problems. Certainly those problems exist. If the Minister consulted the cockies, the problems would be further alleviated. The areas are being cured at the moment. Unfortunately, if the Minister continues in his current manner, many of the great reforms made in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, and other places like Coleambally on the Murrumbidgee River, will be lost and the operators will be weighed down by regulations, rules and bureaucrats. Under Labor in the past the area was run by public servants, but the number of such bureaucrats was reduced by 50 per cent under the previous Government.

Mr Amery: Remove the blinkers.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: The Minister is right. Do not try to bring control of the area back to Macquarie Street. The Minister and the local member used to control the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area but the former Government cleaned up that practice. No longer can people speak to the local member and have the farms divided, or people with non-irrigation properties suddenly find themselves as rice cockies, raising the value of the farm tenfold, because of their political allegiances. These are facts. I am sorry to see the Minister for Agriculture following the line of
Page 1376
rubbish spoken by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation in the debate. I thought better of him. [Time expired.]

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [4.38]: It has been interesting to hear the nonsense spoken by Opposition members. The House is considering a matter of urgency which seeks to highlight the loss of soil fertility, the effect of drought on the supply of water and a general decline in the quality of the agricultural and natural environment. The motion expresses support for the Government's actions to ensure that New South Wales is a better place in the future. This is a natural resource package. Each Minister who has a relationship with rural New South Wales must be involved in ensuring that this State is in an improved condition for future generations. The motion is important to the way we handle water, soil, forests, fisheries and other sustainable agricultural activities. It relates to a better way of doing things so that society and the land can make progress, not go backwards. There has been a decline in this State, particularly during the seven long years that the previous Government was in power - a decline in soil fertility and a decline in the way we use our water. Terrible things have happened. I was interested to notice the honourable member for Murrumbidgee scurry out of the Chamber as soon as he had finished his contribution.

How many people remember the former Leader of the National Party, the Hon. Wal Murray? How many people will remember his water policies? How many people will remember the water abuses in the northern part of this State? How many people will remember that there were more water allocations than there was available water? The State is now left in a terrible mess and we have to try to remedy the situation. My colleague the Minister for Land and Water Conservation has an enormous task ahead of him in that regard, and he is doing a good job. Anyone who wants to undo his work is a fool, and does not have the interests of the people of New South Wales at heart. The level of salinity in the State's waterways is worsening. A question was asked in the House today about water quality. We heard about blue-green algae down the Darling River system. Complaints have been made about a capping on water usage in the Murray-Darling system. We cannot keep taking more water than there is. This Government has done the right thing in freezing increases until the drought is over. The Minister's actions are commendable.

Opposition members should consider other things that have happened. They should go down to the south-west of the State to see the state of the mallee country that was cleared by their beer baron mate. The land will produce three crops and then the soil blows away. Honourable members will recall how the bloke at Collarenebri who cleared land down there was protected. Everybody involved went to ground. What happened was a disgrace and nothing but a cover-up for those who abused the land. The Government has had to step in and do things right. Country and city people expect this Government to take action. The Government will govern for all. The Labor Government is not in the business of privatising the western division, as was the previous Government; it is not in the business of cutting down trees until there are none left; and it is not in the business of overexploiting agricultural lands.

My colleague the Minister for Agriculture is concerned about the degradation of the black soil in the north-west of the State, about salinity and about soil degradation generally. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation is taking action in regard to the conservation of soil. This Government has a package of measures. In my own portfolio of mineral resources the Government will ensure that any mining carried out does not result in land or water degradation. As Minister with portfolio responsibility for the State's fishery, I am deeply concerned that the fishery of the State is being ruined. To that end, the Government has carried out a review of the share-managed fishery of the State. The results of that review will be finally worked out and in place following implementation of the February scoping papers. This Government, through Ministers who have a relationship with rural New South Wales, is doing it right. The Government has that responsibility for the people.

This Government does not govern for a select few only. This Government does it right, whether in relation to SEPP 46 or anything else. Honourable members should not heed the drivel delivered by the honourable member for Ballina. Let us get it right and let us convey the messages right. The Government is about one approval system and it is about people being able to live comfortably in this State. The Government has a decent land-clearing policy, which the previous Government should have had years ago - probably previous Labor Governments should also have had such a land-clearing policy. This Government is biting the bullet and is getting it right. The Government's policies are being received quite well in the bush, because people understand them. It seems that the only people who do not understand the Government's policies are National Party members. That is a disgrace. [Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [4.43], in reply: The response of Opposition members in the debate has been entirely predictable: one of denial. Opposition members seem to think that everything is okay and that there is nothing to be concerned about. They expect their constituents to trust them, yet they will continue to lie to and mislead their constituents about what is going on in this State. Opposition members always pick the lowest common denominator or the most extreme position. They try to demolish the credibility of anyone who has a different point of view, and then they use that to scare the rest of their constituents. I am aware of press reports about the
Page 1377
activity of National Party members in their constituencies in relation to announcements from the Government. National Party members have misrepresented Government announcements and have tried to scare their constituents about future employment prospects and so forth. That is an absolute disgrace.

The honourable member for Ballina referred to the Government Pricing Tribunal. I wish to put that issue to rest, so that the honourable member is under no misapprehension. The Government has advised the chairman of the Government Pricing Tribunal that it will refer rural water pricing to the tribunal for the determination of prices from 1 July 1996. Lengthy discussions in relation to the development of draft terms of reference have already been held between the Government and the Government Pricing Tribunal. Indeed, my department has already begun to provide the Government Pricing Tribunal with much of the data that the tribunal will require to undertake the exercise with which it has been charged. I have referred draft terms of reference to the Premier for formal issuance according to the Government Pricing Tribunal Act.

The honourable member for Ballina is raising furphies and coming up with irrelevant comments about what was said and what was not said, while the matter of real concern, reform of policies in relation to our natural resources, is expected to look after itself. That is what happened under the administration of the previous Government, and the honourable member for Ballina certainly appears to have no concern about rectifying the situation or assisting the Government on vital reform. Opposition members have also said that agricultural products make up the majority of exports. The 1995 report and financial statements from the Reserve Bank of Australia show that statement to be incorrect. Page 18 of the Reserve Bank documents shows that the majority of exports come from resources rather than from agricultural products, although agricultural products certainly come second. The manufacturing and services industries have increased dramatically in the past seven to 10 years, whereas exports derived from rural production have remained stable or even declined.

The Government is taking note of the problems of degradation in rural New South Wales that are harming agriculture. The situation needs to be rectified so that agriculture has a long and sustainable future. This Government will ensure that that happens. Those who are on the land now will be able to pass their land on to their children with confidence. Mention was made of job figures that are being quoted by irrigators. The figures come from an academic and they are baseless - plucked out of the sky. The limit for off allocation for the Macquarie marshes this year under the Government's proposal is still above the amount available in the river last year. How could there be job losses when there will be more water for off allocation than the amount available last year? The Opposition's response in this debate has been predictable. Whenever statistics are produced Opposition members deny that anything is happening. The honourable member for Ballina said that SEPP 46 is not necessary because we do not know how much land clearing is taking place. The land applications system provides for the monitoring of land clearance and clearing of vegetation, which is one of the reasons for the introduction of SEPP 46.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Ms Harrison Mr Scully
Mr Hunter Mr Shedden
Mr Iemma Mr Stewart
Mr Knight Mr Sullivan
Mr Knowles Mr Tripodi
Mr Langton Mr Watkins
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Whelan
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Causley Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fahey Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Souris
Mr Hartcher Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr West
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr Longley Mr Zammit
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Page 1378

Mr Carr Mr Beck
Mr Clough Mr Chappell
Mr Harrison Mr Hazzard

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [4.57]: The matter of public importance I raise today is in regard to multiple site franchising. Yesterday members might have seen outside Parliament House a demonstration by a small group of well-behaved franchisees representing the Shell company. I want to discuss primarily developments in that industry that apply to other oil companies, particularly the Mobil company. Many people do not know what multiple site franchising is. For the record I will quickly define it. Essentially it is a move by the oil companies to consolidate their sites under the one manager or one franchisee. The object is to have anywhere from, say, 25 to 40 retail sites under the control of one manager. This issue has been examined over the last year by Shell, and other companies have taken an interest in it also. In the last few months it has really come to a head. I have received numerous representations from service station franchisees.

Shell operators and others, including Mobil, have expressed concerns about offers made to them by the oil companies: whether they are fear offers, whether they are being made under duress and what the impact of this new development might be down the track. The concerns are numerous and affect the franchisees, who are essentially small business people, family men and women who have bought into a fuel franchise and invested money. In most cases they are finding business increasingly difficult in recent years. The service station franchisees are concerned about whether the offers being made are conscionable and whether they are being put under duress. A number of franchisees believe they are. There are allegations of people being told to "take it or leave it". Allegations have been made of paltry sums of money being offered to buy out leases.

Since the beginning of a campaign within the industry the offers have increased, and an average offer to buy out a lease that may still have five or six years to run is in the vicinity of $150,000. That issue ought to be looked at closely. Yesterday I spoke to franchisees who said their lease has about 5 years to run and that they are being persuaded - and I use that term advisedly - by the Shell oil company to accept an offer of about $150,000. That offer equates to $30,000 per year for the next five years. Bearing in mind the amounts invested, that does not sound like a large amount of money. I understand that 17 individual franchises have been taken off the market in New South Wales in the last few weeks by the Shell oil company. The Opposition is concerned about the effect of this move on small business and on families. The Opposition is also concerned about the effect that this move may have on fuel pricing. That has been a contentious issue for a number of years in all parts of New South Wales, particularly in country areas and the outer city suburbs.

My concern is that the move to multiple site franchising will give fewer people greater control over the market. That view is shared by the franchisees and the industry. For example, in the southern region of Sydney one person could lease or franchise 25 to 40 service stations. Assuming that one or two independent operators were scattered amongst that network of Shell franchises operated by one person, it would be very tempting for Shell to claim that the two independents in the middle of its multiple site franchise were discounting and taking a bit of profit off its bottom line, and trying to get rid of the independents. That is one of my concerns as a consumer and as a shadow minister. That concern is shared by many of the franchisees. That issue, which is essentially about competition, should be closely examined before we proceed down the path of multiple site franchising. Another issue is the effect on prices for other goods provided in service stations. Many service stations do not make their money on fuel but on the other services such as the provision of retail goods. The oil company takes a cut of all money made on the provision of those services. In a number of cases there is some evidence that retail prices have increased. There is also evidence of a lessening of competition.

One of the oil company representatives in Adelaide stated that that was a possible outcome of the move to multiple site franchising. He conceded that in some places there was likely to be a lessening in price competition among those retail goods. I hope that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women, or the Trade Practices Commission will, in the near future, take a close look at the way in which the company is seeking to set up an arrangement with an operator who takes a multiple site franchise. I have been given information that shows that if a person agrees to take a franchise - and that may be initially for 10 or seven sites if that person is taking a multiple site franchise - that person is asked for about $7 million for the franchise. I am not talking about small dollars. Shell says to the bank that it will guarantee that person for an amount of $10 million but then takes the business and house as security. In other words, the company demands $10 million in security for a $7 million loan.

In addition, a number of changes are made to the articles of association that severely limit the independent operation of the company. I have documents to back up that statement. That has happened to a couple of franchisees who have gone
Page 1379
through this exercise. It is a question of whether that is conscionable, whether that is reasonable or fair. Such conduct seems to me and to many others to be against the spirit of the Sites Act, a Federal Act that was originally aimed at trying to keep the companies from having too much control of retail outlets for fuel. The practice to which I have referred seems to be a not-too-subtle way of getting around the Sites Act and giving the companies fairly direct control over considerably more than the supposed limit of 4 per cent to 5 per cent of sites. Currently the Trade Practices Commission is considering this issue. However, I am concerned that it has not dealt with the matter in detail as quickly as possible.

The Trade Practices Commission seems to have held off investigating a number of major issues until the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission is set up and has an opportunity to examine them. That could be too late. As I have said, the leases of 17 franchisees have been bought out - again I use the term advisedly - during the last few weeks. I am advised that the Federal authority may not be able to consider this issue until the second quarter of next year. That could well be too late. At that time there will be no point in discovering that the practice has resulted in negative impacts on competition or that some of the offers have been unconscionable. By that time people will have been put out of business or a number of multiple site franchises will have been established around the State. Because of these concerns and because of the pace at which this practice is escalating, I have given notice that the Opposition will introduce legislation to impose a moratorium on the move to multiple site franchising.

I emphasise that this is not an anti-business move. The Opposition is not trying to get the Parliament to take control of the marketplace. However, we believe that the practice is increasing at an uncomfortable pace, that it involves real issues and concerns, and that a national body such as the Trade Practices Commission should examine the issues involved in the near future. The Australian Capital Territory Government has moved down that path and has provided me with a copy of its legislation. The ACT Government wants a moratorium to be put in place until the Trade Practices Commission reports on the issue. That is reasonable. Many small business people and families are worried about the future and are looking to this Parliament for assistance.

The Minister for Consumer Affairs asked to speak to the franchisees yesterday, and I thank her for that. However, I think her response could have been stronger. I have written to the former head of the Trade Practices Commission, Professor Allan Fels, asking him to advise me on the issue and to take some action. I hope the Government will support the action taken by the Opposition and perhaps cooperate with us so that bipartisan legislation can be introduced to put a stop to this practice. The moratorium need not necessarily last for too long. A period of six or nine months will not matter too much to a large company such as Shell. I call on the Government to support the legislation that will be introduced in the House in a couple of weeks. Many people fear that if the delay extends any longer and if we try to blame the Federal Government, as the State Government has done, it could be too late for many consumers in New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [5.07]: In the process of researching multiple site franchising I came across the greatest piece of hypocrisy from the person who has just spoken. The report of the Industry Commission inquiry into the petroleum industry contained a recommendation to completely deregulate the industry in New South Wales and the rest of Australia. The former New South Wales Government, and this woman when she was the Minister, completely supported that recommendation. She supported the repeal of the Sites Act, which she is now saying is a problem, and the Franchise Act -

Ms Machin: On a point of order: the Minister for Consumer Affairs seems to have confused the issues. She is talking about an Industry Commission inquiry into fuel pricing. The issue before the House -

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

Ms Machin: It is a point of relevance. The issue before the House is multiple site franchising.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume her seat.

Mrs LO PO': The honourable member does not want to hear this but she will listen to the whole lot. She supported the repeal of the Sites Act and the Franchise Act, which controls the level of petrol company ownership and the retail of petrol service stations. It restricts the ownership of the retail service stations and her recommendation would have allowed petrol companies to fully vertically integrate the service stations in New South Wales. The former Minister did that, and now she has the hypocrisy to start screaming about something that she instigated. Her support for the repeal of the Franchise Act would have allowed petrol companies to rip off the current service station owners. The honourable member may not think it is worth a press release, but I do.

The introduction of multiple site franchising is of considerable concern to me, as evidenced by my press release of 1 September 1995 in which I indicated that I have requested the Trade Practices Commission to inform me about the developments in this area and in particular any action that the Commonwealth may be considering. Members may not know that during 1994 the Shell Company of Australia Limited began the introduction of multiple site franchising, known as MSF, in the retail petroleum sector. Each franchisee
Page 1380
will manage up to 40 sites. The franchisee will exercise control over all aspects of product pricing at each of the sites. This means that sites in less competitive markets will be able to cross-subsidise sites in more competitive areas. The primary reason competition exists in metropolitan markets is the existence of independent operators. If the multiple site franchisees are able to cross-subsidise their operations in the more competitive areas, in the longer term the franchisees may be able to drive the independent competition out of the market.

Australian Petroleum Proprietary Limited and Mobil Oil Australia Limited are either considering MSF or introducing a form of "franchisee rationalising". I understand that franchisees are currently being made offers to sell their franchises. If a franchisee who does not accept the offer remains, given Shell's intention to introduce MSF to the site, the value of the site will be substantially lessened and the capability of the franchisee to conduct a viable business would most likely be lost. Indeed, if the franchisee does not accept the offer, Shell could readily bankrupt the franchisee by not granting rebates. Affected franchisees have now organised themselves under the banner Shell National Action Group, known as SNAG, and have begun a campaign to resist the move to MSF. Undoubtedly members have received, as I have, numerous letters from SNAG. In the Australia Capital Territory, SNAG members have successfully lobbied the Government, which has recently imposed a moratorium on the further introduction of this form of marketing until a review has been concluded on the level of consumer benefit or detriment.

The Australia Capital Territory Minister for Consumer Affairs has noted his intention to introduce retrospective legislation to stave off any move to MSF by the majors. I have just received a letter from the Minister, the Hon. Gary Humphries, MLA. He notes that the reduction in the number of franchisees in the Territory has the potential to lead to a decrease in the degree of competition.

Ms Machin: On a point of order: for the last three minutes, after the initial tirade, the Minister has been reading directly from notes. There is a longstanding ruling that, other than with certain exceptions such as second reading speeches and questions, members shall not read directly from notes. The reason is clear: the views expressed here should be the views of members and not those written by someone from outside the Chamber.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I rather think the Minister was referring to copious notes, which I am sure she will use to good effect.

Mrs LO PO': The Minister also pointed out that he is concerned about competition being affected by multiple site franchisees. The possible effects must be closely scrutinised. The honourable member for Port Macquarie sees an issue and runs in like a bull at a gate. This is a complex issue. It has Commonwealth connotations, which she has ignored. She was involved in the creation of the problem because of her actions when she was Minister for Consumer Affairs. When the honourable member raised this matter yesterday I said that the problem was her fault; she thought I was kidding, but I was not. Multiple site franchising could prove to be a crucial component in minimising the impact of independents in major metropolitan areas. If MSF is introduced by all the oil majors there is the potential that they will act in concert on retail price.

Collusion would not be necessary in such a situation. All that would be necessary is coordinated price following. And once the independents are eliminated it is expected that prices will slowly move upwards. The introduction of MSF by the majors may run counter to the Commonwealth Retail Petroleum Sites Act. According to "The Petroleum Retail Marketing Legislation: A Users Guide" the Act was intended to "limit the number of sites which each of the major integrated oil companies may directly operate throughout Australia". This is the Act that the honourable member for Port Macquarie had a part in repealing.

Ms Machin: It is a Federal Act of Parliament.

Mrs LO PO': When the honourable member went to the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs she supported the move with her confreres. She headed the delegation from New South Wales and supported the move. She created the problem and now she is trying to make amends - too little, too late. Members may be aware by now that professor Thomas Parry has just concluded his inquiry into country versus city retail petroleum pricing. He found that while the semi-independent and independent distributors handle only about 50 per cent of the volume of petrol delivered nationally, they predominate in the wholesaling and distribution of product in rural areas. In addition, there is evidence that the situation is changing, with oil company deliveries potentially playing a greater role over larger areas of the State, particularly direct-drop deliveries to larger retail sites in country areas. This will have implications for the role of independent distributors in rural areas. I warn the honourable member for Port Macquarie that she has not thought the matter through in relation to the impact it will have in rural areas.

Ms Machin: Why do you think I am raising it?

Mrs LO PO': It may have the opposite effect. She should be very careful. There is an indication that unless this matter is handled perfectly correctly there will be a detriment to rural areas. The vast majority of service stations in New South Wales are either franchised or distributor-supplied sites, with 3.9 per cent owned by the four major oil companies. For the benefit of those who will be following the debate in future I shall put on record the number of New South Wales service stations by type: agency
Page 1381
operation sites, 110; franchised sites, 1,150; branded owner-dealer sites, 190; independent owner-dealer sites, 80; distributor supplied sites, 1,284; and independent systems, 25. Local distributors in rural areas claim to be more efficient in servicing the substantial proportion of sites in the country that are difficult to access by the larger company tankers and in delivering the smaller quantities of petrol required.

Given the Commonwealth's involvement in regulating the petroleum industry and in view of the industry restructuring forum operating under the aegis of Senator Chris Schacht, petrol industry issues should be referred to the Commonwealth. It is widely agreed by the major parties involved that the Commonwealth is the appropriate jurisdiction. In the absence of Commonwealth initiatives, the State may wish to consider its own actions - we will be doing that - such as reducing the impact of the Laidley agreement and undertaking a review of freight differentials - [Time expired.]

Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [5.18]: It is obvious from what the Minister said that she is not aware of the oil industry but I give her credit that she has made inquiries. The Opposition is calling on the Government to assist service station proprietors. I have had 16 years of running a service station. I can tell the Minister exactly what goes on. If the Minister has the time she should listen because she will learn something. The people she is supposed to be protecting, the small business people, are being raped and pillaged by oil companies - in this case the Shell Company of Australia Limited. The franchise Act and the sites Act have not been repealed. They are due to be repealed but they have not been. That is why Shell is engaged in multiple site franchising. It is trying to get in to get the jump. It is done by one-off consultation with the dealer, no notes taken. The moment the proprietor tries to argue with the oil company it denies all knowledge of any offer made.

We know what the oil companies are up to. The shadow minister referred to how the marketplace is controlled. I can ring the hotline number now to find out the wholesale price but there are under canopy discounts. They were previously outlawed by the Government of this State. If a nearby site in an area is deemed to be a competitor selling at a lower price than the wholesale price the oil company agrees with the dealer on a price to give a profit margin. Three or four days later at about 4 p.m. the dealer will receive a phone call saying that all price support has been removed.

Mrs Lo Po': We know all this.

Mr BLACKMORE: Yes, but the Minister has not acted. Yesterday she received a deputation from the Shell National Action Group, which was calling for assistance. I always thought this matter was always controlled by the Federal Government. The Australian Capital Territory Government showed initiative and imposed a moratorium on multiple site franchising. The dealers of New South Wales are asking the Minister to do the same thing; they are asking for support. The Minister agreed to that part of the way through her speech. The coalition is not here to score political points. The coalition is asking the Minister to give some support to these dealers, these small business people, who have their livelihoods tied up into these sites. The dealers are being railroaded by oil companies, which offer a take-it-or-leave-it price. If the dealers do not accept the price the oil companies threaten not to renew their agreements.

That has gone on for too long. The oil companies have come out smelling clean from every inquiry into the oil industry. The industry then settles down for a while and then the tactics start again. I ask the Minister to listen to these small business people. Shell is the market leader in New South Wales. If Shell gets away with it, other companies will follow suit. The Minister knows that by now. The oil companies are using standover tactics at their worst. Dealers undertake compulsory training to run a service station. They have to mortgage their homes. They have to provide cash security. They have to provide cash on delivery for fuel. The margins on oil company credit card systems are reduced. They receive a 3 x 3 x 3 lease for the franchise. With three years to five years of the lease remaining they are told that the lease will not be renewed. This is devastating news to people in small business. I thank the Minister for agreeing to give them her support. The people in this industry are the lifeblood of our community. They provide a service seven days a week, 24 hours a day. One operator should not have a monopoly of 40 sites. I ask the Minister to give the industry the news it wants to hear: she will follow the example set by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and introduce moratorium legislation in this House at its next sitting.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [5.23], in reply: The Minister for Consumer Affairs has finally shown her hand. I thought that she was basically a nice person and that she was prepared to cooperate.

Mrs Lo Po': You were wrong! I reserve my niceness.

Ms MACHIN: I was wrong; the Minister is not a nice person. I have raised an issue which affects everybody. I know from what has been said to me by Government members that they are concerned about this issue. Half of the service stations that have been taken over are in their electorates. The Minister does not understand the difference between a Federal Act and a State Act. She does not understand what is in her own files. When she attended the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs she said that issues relating to petrol should be referred to the Commonwealth. At the last ministerial council she voted with her Labor colleague to stop referring petrol prices to the Council of Australian Governments.


Page 1382
Mrs Lo Po': I did not.

Ms MACHIN: The Minister did. One of the members who was there told me. She was caught out on fuel pricing and she knows it. The inquiry on which she was about to report will say that nothing can be done about fuel pricing in country areas of New South Wales. It may recommend less regulation because regulation has not worked. The Minister will be severely embarrassed. I would have thought that with all the staff she has, a much bigger staff than I had when I was Minister, she would have done better than that. I would have expected that after six months someone on the Minister's staff could tell her about the difference between State Acts and Federal Acts. The Minister would then at least know that the Sites Act and the Franchise Act have nothing to do with me. They are Federal Acts. I would be interested to know how I could repeal an Act of the Federal Parliament.

The Minister duck-shoved this issue whenever she was asked questions about it in country areas. The same thing occurred at the MCCA. The Minister made a pathetic defence of Shell from a prepared speech. Members of the Opposition are getting used to Ministers in this Government reading from prepared speeches; they are incapable of speaking off the cuff. The Minister gave a prepared speech about multiple site franchising. We all know what it is; we can all read the newspapers. Where were the words of support for the small business people in the community? Are the service station operators in the electorates of Government members not talking to their representatives? Why are Government members not going into bat for service station operators? The Minister could do that under the Fair Trading Act, as her colleague in the Australian Capital Territory has done, but she is not prepared to do that. On 1 September the staff of the Minister's office released a press release which was four paragraphs long. It stated:

The Minister, Mrs Lo Po', has acknowledged that the issue is of national importance and is seeking information . . .

That is a big help to all the Shell franchisees! By the time they get the information and understand it, they will have been out of business for a year. The Minister is quoted in the press release as saying:

I have requested the Trade Practices Commission to keep me informed of any developments in this area.

The people we spoke to yesterday were particularly underwhelmed. They said, "We briefed her, she seemed very vague, she does not really know." I suppose that was because she did not have a prepared speech in front of her. I received a fax from a Shell petrol station which read:

Dear Wendy,

Thank you for your press release expressing your strong support on the issue of multi site franchising. The State Minister, Mrs Lo Po', has only referred the matter to the Federal Minister. This will be too late for many franchisees who are being forced out of business by the "Shell" company as each week passes. I have an investment of over $800,000 . . .

The coalition has received numerous letters like that. Today I tabled a petition in relation to this issue. I have received lots of petitions from Shell franchisees who are concerned about their customers. The pile is six inches high. Where were the Minister's comments about the consumer? Where were her comments about what this practice might to do to competition? I do not give a damn about what might have been in a submission in my office, which I cannot understand anyway.

Mrs Lo Po': The honourable member for Port Macquarie does not give a damn about a submission in her office!

Ms MACHIN: That is not the issue.

Mrs Lo Po': What a great quote!

Ms MACHIN: I know what was in the submission; I have it upstairs. The Minister is embarrassed because she cannot handle the responsibilities of her portfolio. She obviously has no understanding of the issues or of the legislation she brings into the Parliament. She cannot make a speech without her notes. As we heard on Tuesday, she cannot answers questions in less than three months. What do all her staff do? She cannot distinguish a Federal Act from a State Act and she cannot answer questions. What is she doing? We want the Government's support to help these small business people. Syd Einfeld will be turning in his grave. We want to help the little guy, the battler, and his family who are trying to make a dollar. All the Government wants to do is go in to bat for the Shell oil company. The Minister has nailed her colours to the mast. We will tell the dealers in the electorates of Government members what the Minister has not done. We will see how they line up when this issue is voted on. Presumably the Government will vote against the legislation to be introduced by the Opposition.

Discussion concluded.


Suspension of standing orders agreed to.


Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.28]: I address the issue of regionalism for the central coast. This issue is fundamental to the coordinated development required to produce the social outcomes demanded by the residents of the central coast. Regionalism is a concept that has been embraced by sections of the coast, but it needs to be embraced by all levels of government to maximise the efficient delivery of government services to the community. The regional approach adopted by the Hunter, Illawarra and western Sydney are outstanding case studies of the success of a regional approach to development. I firmly believe that unless such an approach is adopted the central coast will continue to struggle to reach its
Page 1383
potential. The central coast has now reached a point where it has a population which demands such an approach. In June 1994 the central coast had a population of some 250,000 people. By comparison, the Northern Territory has a population of only 171,000 people, or 68 per cent of the population of the central coast. The Australian Capital Territory has a population of some 300,000 people, which represents 1.2 times the population of the central coast. The Australian Capital Territory is well established as a region: it has its own hospitals, educational facilities, police and other services. The central coast has yet to achieve that status.

The population of Northern Territory is small in comparison with that of the central coast, yet the Northern Territory receives the same number of services received by the Australian Capital Territory. The State of Tasmania has a population of 472,000, slightly less than twice the population of the central coast; the State of South Australia has a population of 1,469,000, slightly less than six times the size of the central coast. On the basis of population alone the central coast should be recognised as a region; clearly by national standards it should have designated regional status. So far as industry is concerned, major national and international firms have relocated to or have been established on the central coast. I refer to Wella Australia; N J Phillips, a veterinary hardware company; Coles Distribution Centre; Albany International Proprietary Limited; Chickadee Chickens; Hebel Concrete Products, Sanitarium Health Food Company Proprietary Limited, which has recently opened its national headquarters in the region; Master Foods of Australia, which has also established its national headquarters on the central coast; Krone Electronics, and Sara Lee - to name just a few.

Commercial developments include a $150 million Westfield Centre at Tuggerah, a $30 million 75 hectare Tuggerah Business Park, a $20 million Tuggerah Super Centre Bulk Food complex and a $25 million Stage One Mingara Recreation Club. An aquatic centre is also planned, which will be partly funded by the Wyong Council. In addition there is the recently completed $27 million first stage of the central coast campus of the University of Newcastle at Ourimbah. Furthermore, it has been predicted that the proposed Warner Vale residential precinct will result in further population growth of 100,000 people. Simply put, the central coast demands recognition as a region. Notwithstanding this growth, there are existing problems of infrastructure and related issues that need urgent attention.

Currently 50,000 people, more than half the work force, leave the coast to go to their places of work; 17,500 by rail and 33,000 by road. This situation places massive demands on families and their quality of life. Both rail and road accesses to Sydney are reaching saturation point. The crisis is escalating daily as more and more people move to the coast. Yet a report commissioned by the previous Government of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, entitled "Cities by the Twenty-First Century", effectively assigns the central coast the status of a dormitory suburb servicing Sydney and Newcastle.

This is planning nonsense. The coast must have a jobs policy. Commuting is not an acceptable policy. There must be jobs for residents and the prospect of jobs for their children. Wyong Council and Gosford City Council to their credit recognised this situation and in 1993 established the Central Coast Development Corporation with a budget of $1.9 million funded by council and local businesses. It is the only regional development corporation in this State to be funded entirely by its local community. However, this recognition must be matched at State and Federal levels of government. On behalf of my electorate I seek the support of the Minister to assist in the official establishment of regional status for the central coast at all levels of government.


Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [5.33]: I raise a matter on behalf of a constituent, Mr John Ryan of Cremorne, concerning lack of assistance in relation to a ruling brought down by the Consumer Claims Tribunal Building Division. Mr Ryan's case with the Consumer Claims Tribunal was heard on 7 October 1994. On that occasion, my constituent raised a number of serious matters in relation to the actions of a builder, Mr Daniel Croak, whom he had commissioned to construct what he had hoped would be his house in Leichhardt.

During the commencement of construction on my constituent's land, Mr Ryan informs me that, among other things, the builder proceeded with an unauthorised variation in contravention of the contract. The builder's variation quote, when finally submitted, was totally unacceptable because of a lack of detail and the large sum involved, which was not substantiated. The builder's progress claim was unacceptable because of a lack of detail and the inclusion of an unauthorised variation component. The builder refused to give proper paperwork as per the contract, despite two letters from my constituent stating that he was prepared to pay the progress claim provided the sums of money were due and payable in accordance with the contract amendments. The small amount of work carried out was inaccurate.

Despite all these anomalies, the builder was awarded his claim to loss of profit totalling $18,000. My constituent's costs, however, are in excess of $34,000. The Chief Inspector of the Building Services Corporation, Mr Robert Coles, assessed the value of the work done on my constituent's property as only $5,000. My constituent is suffering considerable financial hardship. Mr Ryan raised this matter at a ministerial level for the first time with the former Minister for Consumer Affairs, Wendy
Page 1384
Machin, who had dealt with his case most promptly, providing what information she could. She responded to Mr Ryan, informing him that although it would be improper for her to comment on the conduct of a judicial officer, she would seek a report from the Building Services Corporation regarding this case.

On 21 March Mr Ryan received confirmation that Wendy Machin had instigated an investigation by the Chief Inspector, Mr Robert Coles. My constituent was advised of the findings of the report on 19 April by the General Manager of the Building Services Corporation. The report found that the builder had failed to adequately discharge his responsibilities in relation to a number of building procedures. The General Manager also advised that the findings had been provided to the Building Services Corporation Insurance Branch with a view to providing all possible assistance under the provisions of the Building Services Corporation comprehensive insurance scheme. Regrettably my constituent to date has been denied any insurance relief.

My constituent has informed me that since the change of government he has attempted to take this matter up with the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who has made herself available to comment on this matter in response to my raising it this afternoon. I ask the Minister to urgently reconsider the matters raised by my constituent. They point out a grave anomaly in this case, and it should be reviewed. Mr Ryan should at least be given assistance from the Building Services Corporation comprehensive insurance scheme. I undertook to raise this matter in the House on behalf of Mr Ryan. I trust the Minister will endeavour to be of some assistance.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [5.37]: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for notifying my office that this matter was to be raised tonight because I can be of some assistance. A briefing note from the Building Services Corporation states:

Following a Ministerial request to the Corporation to review the matter the Corporation determined the contract was "frustrated" at a date earlier than the purported determination by the builder. In these circumstances the contract was at an end, with neither party being at fault . . .

The next part is what the Leader of the Opposition wishes to hear. It states:

As there was doubt concerning the circumstances of termination, the Corporation exercised its discretion in favour of Mr Ryan and approved an insurance claim that included completion costs. The Corporation concluded that the contract was not rescinded or determined by any fault on the owner's part. As a result of that determination an insurance claim in the sum of $19,812 was approved on 14 September 1995. Mr Ryan has yet to be advised of the approval.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [5.38]: I raise a matter referred to me by a newly formed organisation in the electorate of Wollongong, the Kembla Grange Trainers Association. It deals with facilities at the Kembla Grange Turf Club used for training and race meetings. I wish to read briefly from a letter dated 11 September, which states:

The Kembla Grange Trainers Association was formed earlier this year with the purpose of making Kembla Grange Racecourse a more viable training facility for those who currently use it and for future use.

Although, the Kembla Grange Equestrian Estate [which is a private development adjoining the race club] provides potential facilities second to none, we believe that Kembla Grange is not developing this potential and is at the cross roads for survival as a training venue. Since the estate was developed, horse numbers have increased dramatically without a corresponding improvement of training tracks. While many other training facilities have benefited from major improvements over the last five years, there has been no capital input into our training tracks. Without a major overhaul of our existing facilities we feel Kembla Grange will no longer be viable as a training centre . . . We believe Kembla Grange has the potential to become the best provincial training/racing track in Australia and such developments would be welcomed in Wollongong . . .

Basically, stables are provided at the Kembla Grange equestrian centre which have the potential to handle 350 horses; however, that potential has not been realised because the trainers could not handle that number of horses. The land capacity is still available and it could be developed to bring the stable level to 600 horses. The potential exists to double the existing level, but a problem exists with the training facilities provided by the Illawarra Turf Club. To achieve the desired expansion three areas need attention: training tracks, an improved watering system to ensure water supply, and lighting. The additional training track could be a sand or grass construction, and that would remove one of the hurdles.

Increasingly the problem is the need for an improved water supply. Two options have been identified: first, the construction of a large dam in the centre of the track system to trap runoff from the foothills and the escarpment north and west of the track area. The level of the track is such that any well system will be contaminated by seawater. The estimated cost of the large dam would be about $1 million, but it would not necessarily assure supply. The alternative is for sewer mining for irrigation water supplied by Sydney Water. The cost of this proposal would be $1.75 million if the club went ahead with the proposal. Cheaper options are available if Sydney Water will provide the sewer mining facility ensuring water of quality suitable for grass and track watering. The advantage of that option is that it would be an assured supply of water. This proposal was put to the club by technical advisers Forbes Rigby Pty Ltd, consulting engineers and planners. Funding is required for the evaluation of these proposals. If these proposals were to be implemented, they would largely address the needs for an assured water supply.

Lighting is also a key aspect. The Illawarra Turf Club has achieved significant improvements, certainly during the last five years. It now has a $5.2 million
Page 1385
grandstand, and a major administrative building. Indeed, the club has contributed $1.8 million in the last five years to these developments. Still, it is having difficulties. As I said earlier, it is not meeting the local need for training facilities. A number of the larger trainers who started off in a small way at Illawarra are looking to move elsewhere because the training facilities are inadequate. The Illawarra Turf Club needs State Government support to enhance the facilities already in place. I ask the Minister to investigate this matter with a view to addressing the serious need in the Illawarra. If horse numbers could be increased to 600 in training, it would be a significant boost to the economic base of the Illawarra. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.44]: The honourable member for Wollongong has had an intense interest in the Illawarra Turf Club over a long time. The Illawarra Turf Club has conducted race meetings at the Kembla racecourse since mid-1976 when the then Labor Government permitted the club to conduct a limited number of meetings in addition to meetings conducted by the Wollongong Racing and Trotting Club. Following the cessation of racing by the Wollongong Racing and Trotting Club in late 1976 owing to financial difficulties, the then Minister for Sport and Recreation, the late Ken Booth, took swift action to ensure the retention of racing in the Illawarra region and arranged for the acquisition by the Government of the Kembla Grange Racecourse. At the same time, he granted the Illawarra Turf Club the licence to conduct galloping meetings at the Kembla Grange Racecourse. The club has successfully conducted meetings to this day.

Since that time, funding in excess of $9.3 million has been made available from the Racecourse Development Fund towards improvements to the Kembla Grange Racecourse. The significant funding included in excess of $5.9 million towards a new grandstand and facilities, including an initial approval of $4.5 million by the then Labor Government in late 1987. In addition, in excess of $1.3 million was provided towards improvements to the course proper, and in excess of $45,000 was provided towards improvements to training tracks.

Following a recent meeting with representatives of the club, I have asked that the Racecourse Development Committee give consideration to options whereby the outstanding balance of $462,162 in respect of total loans of $800,000 provided towards the cost of the grandstand might be discharged. I am currently awaiting the committee's advice in respect of this application. With regard to the letter from the Kembla Grange Trainers Association referred to me by the member for Wollongong concerning a request for improvements to training facilities at the racecourse, I have arranged for advice to be sought from both the Australian Jockey Club and the Racecourse Development Committee.

Finally, I will arrange for the Racecourse Development Committee to examine the possibility of funding being provided towards the cost of an environmental feasibility study into the sewage treatment plant proposal at the Kembla Grange racecourse. The Illawarra Turf Club is one of the most progressive and successful racing clubs in New South Wales. [Time expired.]


Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.48]: I speak out of concern for the irrigators in the Murray electorate. The Murray electorate has more irrigators than any other electorate in Australia, so I feel a strong allegiance towards them and have a great interest in the good management of water. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation should make an effort to visit the area as soon as possible. The Murray River, Darling River and Murrumbidgee River, and the Billabong-Yanco-Colombo creek systems are all within the Murray electorate. The electorate fronts the Murray River for 1,431 kilometres east of Corowa to the South Australian border.

In recent times many statements have been made in this House by Government and Opposition members alike about water issues. They are not doing anyone any favours. The Minister should examine the situation in my electorate for himself. The Minister for the Environment should also visit the area to see first hand the efforts at sound management of water. Red gum forests in the region - the largest in the world - are also being well managed and sustained. The Minister for the Environment would appreciate the great strides that have been made in the management of red gum forests over the last 70 years.

The quality of the Murray River is improving, due mainly to community and irrigator interest. The irrigators, particularly the privatised irrigators in the upper and lower Murray areas, and the Hay settlers are contributing finance to asset improvement and to land and water management plans. The Government has helped too in this regard. These people are not making unnecessary complaints; they are concerned for their livelihoods and for the environment generally - and this is evidenced by the amount of money that is spent by irrigators on land flooding, particularly in the Berriquin, Denimein, Deniboota and Wakool irrigation districts. In these districts people have re-formed the country as they have been able to afford to do so. They have installed reticulation systems and drainage has been put in place. The previous Government and the present Government - and indeed the Commonwealth Government - have provided much-needed funding for these projects; funding that was not forthcoming initially.

The horticulturalists, the microjet drip systems and the probes into the soil to the water table are recent technological improvements in the area. Irrigation by furrows has converted to overhead sprinkler,
Page 1386
underground sprinkler and drip systems. The progress has been incredible. Channels have been sealed and pipe systems have been installed. I hope no-one in the media or Government thinks that irrigators are not doing an extremely good job. No-one could be anything but pleasantly surprised after seeing the development. The Murray-Darling draft report raises some concerns for irrigators, particularly if they were ever to lose the advantage of off-allocation flows when large injection flows are coming down the river system; they have depended on those flows for a number of years. An incredible amount of work has been done to clean up the rivers. Work is being done by all the shires and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Murray-Darling Association. I know that Hunter Landale, President of the Yanco Creek and Tributaries Advisory Council, would like to meet the Minister, as would the management board of the lower Murray irrigation scheme, the forestry people, and many others for an update on the position.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [5.51]: I recognise that the Murray electorate is a major irrigation area and a major contributor to agricultural production. I join the honourable member for Murray in recognising that many farmers and irrigators are doing good things in the Murray area and across New South Wales. This Government recognises that most farmers are environmentally conscious and act accordingly. Farmers have a vested interest in their land; if they degrade it, they degrade their future. The Government's reforms in water and land policies are aimed at ensuring that this State has the right framework, so that farmers and irrigators can continue to do work that is of benefit to their farms and their areas. The honourable member for Murray mentioned a range of technological advances in use in the Murray area. I wholeheartedly support that approach. Advanced technology is important, particularly in regard to matters such as underground drip irrigation. Experiments and tests have shown that twice as much production can be achieved with the use of smart water technology systems. In my extensive travels around the State I give consideration to all natural resources, including water. I have not yet been to the electorate of Murray and, unfortunately, it will be a little difficult to get there while Parliament is in session. I undertake that at the first available opportunity - probably when Parliament is not sitting - I will go down to the Murray area. [Time expired.]


Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [5.53]: I seek the approval of the Minister for Education and Training of a major redevelopment proposal for the Penshurst Public School in Arcadia Street, Penshurst. The facilities at this school are old, inadequate and not up to standard. Most of the school facilities were provided in 1922 and a range of them do not meet various government codes. I refer to administration facilities, for example. The school lacks a deputy principal's office, there is no interview room, the sick bay lacks a toilet and shower, and toilet facilities for the staff are inadequate. The school hall does not have a proper stage, there are no storage facilities for chairs or physical education equipment and the hall itself contravenes the building code in relation to egress, exit signs and emergency lighting.

The school canteen is undersize and isolated from the main playground. It does not satisfy any of the food service ordinances. There is a hopeless inadequacy of refrigeration facilities, there is room for only two people and the canteen does not meet the primary school building code. Library facilities, in particular the reading area, do not meet the requirements of the various codes. There is no audiovisual workroom or tiered learning space and the library has very poor noise insulation. All the classrooms are under the minimum size required for learning in primary schools. Only one classroom is connected to water. There are no wet areas for craft and art classes at the school. Parents and teachers of the school and the school's principal, Anne Nolan, have proposed a major redevelopment of Penshurst Public School that involves the sale of land opposite the school, land owned by the Department of School Education and surplus to the school's needs.

The land has not been used for some 20 years, and at the moment it only provides extra car parking spaces for teaching staff. The land is valued at about $1.2 million and the proposed redevelopment would cost about $1.3 million. I seek the Minister's support for the proposed sale of the land - which is zoned for medium-density development - and for the proceeds of the sale to be directed to a major redevelopment of Penshurst Public School. Funds from the sale of the land would enable the school to build a new administration block, school hall and canteen and to improve library facilities, enlarge all the undersized classrooms and provide an outdoor covered learning area - something the school has been seeking desperately. There has been no redevelopment of the school in the past seven years - during the term of the previous Government. Everyone connected with the school is anxious that redevelopment proceed. I seek the Minister's support to enable the project to go ahead by allowing the proposed sale of the land opposite the school and the allocation to the school of the proceeds of sale for the redevelopment work. It is important to provide both the facilities required and a school environment that will give the children the facilities needed for a proper education in the twenty-first century.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training) [5.58]: This is not the first time that the honourable member for Hurstville has raised this matter with me. He has been most vigilant in pursuing the interests of the school, in formal correspondence and in private discussion. I compliment the honourable member for Hurstville for the way he looks after the interests of his electorate. This Government, in contrast to the previous Government, is a sympathetic government.

Page 1387

Ms Ficarra: Oh!

Mr AQUILINA: I note that the honourable member for Georges River is irked. Perhaps if her predecessor had been more vigilant as a Minister of the previous Government pursuing the interests of his constituents, Labor would not have to be now concerned about Penshurst Public School, and the children of that school would a long time ago have had the justice they deserve. It took the honourable member for Hurstville and a caring government and caring Minister to raise this issue. I assure the honourable member for Hurstville that in principle I agree completely to the sale of the surplus land so as to obtain the required funds. The Department of School Education has already worked on a detailed program to ensure that the upgrading required is undertaken.


Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [5.59]: This evening I wish to raise a matter of grave importance to the Albury district and to New South Wales in general. My remarks relate to the plans now being formulated by the Australian Newsprint Mill Limited to expand its production capacity of newsprint. The company has the choice of adding another paper-making machine to its plant in Albury or building a new plant in South Australia. The area the company is looking at in Mount Gambier has the distinct advantage of being near large stands of timber more suitable for quality paper making than the timber it would draw on in Albury. The large quantities of South Australian timber are more mature and have a stronger fibre content which would make better quality paper. Of course the South Australian Government would be anxious for a plant of this size and capacity to be constructed in its State. I am certain it will offer a wide range of incentives in an effort to convince the company to establish a new plant at Mount Gambier rather than expand the current plant at Albury. The advantages to Albury would be an estimated 200 extra jobs. The advantages for southern New South Wales forest areas would be in the areas of harvesting timber, planting trees and carting timber to the plant. One disadvantage is the long distance that timber would have to be carted to the plant in Albury.

Albury has other advantages as far as the company is concerned. It would be cheaper to add another machine to the existing infrastructure than to build on a greenfields site at Mount Gambier. One key issue that will decide where the company will establish is the cost of electricity. New South Wales can offer a far more attractive electricity cost to the company than South Australia. It is important that New South Wales should furnish the company with an attractive quotation for the supply of electricity. My appeal is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, and Minister for State Development in another place or to whoever represents him in this House to do everything they can to provide a competitive price for electricity in an effort to secure this plant for Albury. It will make a huge difference to employment in Albury. The plant would certainly be a great asset to New South Wales. I appeal to Ministers to do all they can to ensure that this plant is established in Albury rather than Mount Gambier, to resist the efforts that South Australia will make in its offers to the company.


Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [6.03]: The Auburn municipality covers the areas of Silverwater, Auburn, Lidcombe, Berala and Regents Park. Prior to an amalgamation in 1949 the area was divided between two municipalities, one called Lidcombe and the other called Auburn. Over the years many men and women have served on Auburn Council with distinction and pride. They were from both the Labor and Liberal parties - not from the National Party - and did a lot of work for the people of Auburn. Jack Lang served two years with distinction as mayor of Auburn, from 1909 to 1911.

One of the most remarkable things about Auburn is that in 95 years it has returned a State Labor member and a Federal Labor member to respective parliaments, except for 1946 when it returned Jack Lang as an Independent in the Federal Parliament and his son Chris Lang as an Independent in this House. Auburn Council has been controlled by the Labor Party for 20 years. On 9 September the people, in their wisdom, elected eight people who would support councillor Pat Curtin as mayor of Auburn. Councillor Curtin served with distinction in the Federal police force for 25 years and has been for many years the Federal secretary of the Federal police. Hopefully, next Monday night he will be elected as mayor.

I would like to record my appreciation for some outgoing councillors, both Independent and Labor, for the good work they have done for the municipality of Auburn. Councillor Shirley Haslem was a Labor councillor for 12 years. Shirley Haslem is the sister of Frank Kennedy who, honourable members may remember, called the greyhound races in Sydney. Councillor Shirley Haslem is a member of an unfortunate family which has one of the most rare diseases in the world. It is the only family in Australia, and perhaps the world, to have inherited leukemia. Shirley lost one of her children to leukemia and many of her sisters and brothers have lost members of their families to leukemia. Science has not been able to find the reason for that. Although Shirley has a disabled daughter, she served with distinction; she put a lot of time and effort into not only Auburn Council but has devoted 35 years to local community and charitable works. Shirley is leaving the council and going to the south coast in retirement with her husband. I wish her all the best. She will missed by the people of Auburn, her friends and colleagues in the Labor Party and her friends and colleagues in the council, and also by me. She has been a great support.

Page 1388

Councillor Stan Hedges has now left the council. Stan was elected in 1958 and was mayor of Auburn for nearly 16 years. He served as deputy chairman on the former Sydney County Council and contributed to the trotting industry. Stan is a man of great distinction, a local businessman in Auburn who succeeded in his father's business. He has given a great deal of service to the people of Auburn, as demonstrated by the vote given to him as an Independent. He has been selected by the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Standing Ethics Committee as one of the community representatives. Stan stood for the Liberal Party against Tom Uren at the Federal elections in 1963. He was soundly defeated by Tom Uren, but even so Tom and Stan had a great respect for one another and worked well together. Stan also worked well with Peter Cox, a former member for Auburn, myself and other people.

I also mention Bill Kain, the mayor of Auburn, who has been on the council for eight years and served with distinction. George Dunn for over 12 years served as mayor with distinction. Councillor Maurie Smith was a councillor in 1991; and Helen Lane served for four years but was defeated, and I say no more about that. I also mention my great father who served six years on the council with distinction. Mr David Marks, the general manager, has retired after serving 20 years on the council. All those people have given their time and effort to local government. I thank them and am indebted to them. The current serving councillors include councillors Judy Jones, Erica Hockley, Lee Lam - who has already served four years and is the first Chinese to be elected to Auburn Council - and the first Turkish member of the council, Bulan Borluk. I wish them all the best as Independents and hope they will serve the community as well as those I have already mentioned. I also wish Councillor Ronald Donaldson and Councillor Bob Murray, both Labor councillors, all the best. [Time expired.]


Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [6.08]: My statement relates to the potentially unmitigated disaster visited on the Macquarie valley, which forms a major part of my electorate, by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. All the people who live in the Macquarie valley are basically keen conservationists, and there is no doubt about that. They have great involvement in the zoo and the breeding of endangered animals. The Macquarie valley has a great reputation for being at the forefront of catchment management. Recently the Minister announced that there would be a massive additional allocation of water from the already low Burrendong Dam for the Macquarie marshes.

The Macquarie marshes are a vital part of the ecosystem of this region of New South Wales but the point I wish to make is that the proposals put forward by the Minister have the potential to be a complete and unmitigated disaster for the marshes. In the fifty years prior to 1945 when the Burrendong Dam was built, the average flow on the Macquarie River system was 754,000 megalitres. In the 50 years since 1945 when the dam was built the average actual flow was 1.426 million megalitres - after all irrigation extraction. After the water was taken out for irrigation the flow increased. I believe that the problem with the Macquarie marshes lies in its management. The channels are now deepening and water is not spreading as it used to do. Historically, those marshes have suffered periods of great dryness during droughts. It was a natural occurrence. If the marshes are managed properly they can be restored and saved.

The Minister's proposal will be a disaster for the people of the Macquarie valley. The Macquarie irrigation system generates 5,000 jobs in the irrigation industry. Every 50,000 megalitres withdrawn from the current supply - and the proposal is to withdraw 75,000 megalitres - will reduce the number of jobs by 500. A reduction of 75,000 megalitres will reduce employment in the Macquarie valley by 750. That does not include only wealthy graziers or irrigators; it includes a large number of working people. For example, wages for woodchippers in the valley amount to $4,475,000 per annum. That money will be lost. The problem is that the Government has relied on ignorant, untested advice from the extreme green movement. The people of the Macquarie valley are not asking for a from-the-hip decision but for a person independent of both the Government and the irrigators to conduct a full-scale investigation of the marshes to ensure that saving the marshes is not going to destroy the valley.

Transferring large quantities of irrigation water to the environmental flow will not of itself achieve a commensurate improvement in the marshes. The management and distribution of water flows are as important as the volume, but are not adequately addressed. The Opposition suggests a study should be made of what has happened to the marshes in the past 100 years. The records are available. If we can match that outflow of water into the marshes they will be saved; if the Government does not do that but pours this massive amount of water into the marshes, which already suffer from a salinity problem and have done so for centuries, they will be destroyed. Not only will the marshes be destroyed but the livelihood of approximately 1,000 people will be destroyed because of repercussions - [Time expired.]


Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [6.13]: My concern relates to the name "Newcastle South" which is to be given to one of the new districts under the proposed restructuring of the Department of School Education. I want to thank the Minister for Education and Training who has come into the House to hear me
Page 1389
raise this matter tonight. The Minister announced the restructuring of the Department of School Education in early August and the restructuring process should be completed by December 1996. It will commence with the appointment of district superintendents who are to take up duty at the beginning of term 4 this year, that is, in a few weeks time. The regions and the regional administrations will continue until December 1996 and the new structure will be phased in progressively.

It is proposed that the new State office will be located in Newcastle, which is where the old State office is located. The new districts are an interesting idea and I look forward to seeing Labor's policy on education implemented at least in part by way of this restructuring. The district offices are an essentially new concept and the district office staff will be a multidisciplinary team of specialists, working for and with all the teachers in the classrooms, responding to school needs and implementing the education priorities of the Government. Four district officers will be appointed under the scheme and in what has been the Hunter region, and will be so for a little while longer, there will be three new districts: Maitland, Newcastle north and the proposed Newcastle south.

The proposed Newcastle south district contains 67 schools and, on my count, 57 are within the city of Lake Macquarie, and they are all located around the geographical feature that we know and love, Lake Macquarie. The district office is to be located at Boolaroo in the heart of the city of Lake Macquarie. Honourable members may not be aware that the city of Lake Macquarie is quite a bit bigger than Newcastle. In the 1990-91 census it had a population of 169,000 compared with a population of 136,000 in Newcastle. There are some anomalies which are entertaining but have led to some concern among my constituents. For example, within my electorate only a few kilometres apart are Cardiff North public school, located in the Newcastle north district, and Cardiff South public school, located in the district to be known as Newcastle south.

It seems to me that Newcastle south is the wrong name for that district. I have written to the Minister seeking a change of name, firstly because I think it is important that the Department of School Education is seen to be a good citizen of the region. Secondly, some people in Lake Macquarie perceive the name Newcastle south as something of an affront to their local identity. I think it has the potential to reduce the credibility of the new organisation and in some cases to weaken community support by distracting people from the important educational issues. This statement is by way of a request to the Minister to give serious consideration to changing the name of the new district from Newcastle south to something more appropriate and more acceptable to local identities in the Hunter.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training) [6.17]: I was delighted to hear that the honourable member for Wallsend is very supportive of the new district office structure which has been established throughout New South Wales. It will provide the most comprehensive localised network of district offices in the history of the Department of School Education. Already I am being overwhelmed with accolades from my colleagues around the State who are supportive of this visionary measure of providing local district support for all our schools. I am more than a little embarrassed that most of those accolades seem to be coming from members opposite, particularly from my National Party colleagues who are supportive of the fact that a caring Labor Government has seen fit to place a district office of the Department of School Education in their own backyard. So far as the issue raised by the honourable member for Wallsend is concerned, I must say I have been well and truly convinced by the eloquence of his argument. I shall dispatch to the honourable member a letter approving wholeheartedly the case for renaming the Newcastle south district office as Lake Macquarie district office, and I wish him well for the future.


Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [6.18]: There is a noticeable smell across the shire of Hornsby. It emanates from a deal between Hornsby Council and a company named Earth Proprietary Limited to provide a greenways recycling facility for the council at a site in Thornleigh. The smell appears to radiate from the very highest levels of Hornsby Council, or at least it did until the recent council elections. It is an odour that the new council, led by new Mayor Stephen Pringle, must act quickly to eradicate. What started as a general survey of council's waste management needs turned into a proposal for a new, untested process in close proximity to a residential and educational precinct. The Meinhardt report commissioned by council led to an involvement with Compost Technology Services Proprietary Limited, a company whose name was subsequently changed to the more politically acceptable Earth Proprietary Limited.

My first concern is that in its report Meinhardt admitted that it had previously been involved with Compost Technology's Melbourne operation, but nevertheless went on and strongly pushed the company and its novel process as a solution to Hornsby's waste problems, which would not normally cause concern. On receiving such a report most responsible government bodies at local, State or Federal level would put the matter to tender - but not Hornsby Council. The only tender was for the original consultant's report. Since then the deal has been characterised by the recommendation and direct appointment of suppliers and providers, despite the fact that millions of dollars of ratepayers' funds are involved.

On the basis of prior commercial association with Compost Technology Services, the Meinhardt report could not be regarded as independent. Indeed, Meinhardt's role is comparable to pyramid selling,
Page 1390
which is a practice outlawed in this State. In an attempt to investigate this matter I sought a copy of the report under the freedom of information provisions, as council had repeatedly refused to release it to its own ratepayers. The report was provided, minus pages 105 to 108 which appeared to go to the heart of Meinhardt's relationship with Compost Technology Services. Council now claims that those pages never existed.

The commercial irregularities do not end there. A company called Nexus was also involved in the preparation of the Meinhardt report. Presumably that company was paid for its work. Nexus was subsequently employed by council to prepare an environmental impact statement on the project. Again it appears that the independence required of such statements by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has been ignored. I note that Nexus did not provide the usual disclaimers when it produced the EIS. Ratepayers need to know Meinhardt's financial dealings and relationship with Compost Technology Services-Earth and Nexus.

In justifying the absence of tenders, council has always claimed that the process offered by Earth was unique and patented. A council minute dated 14 December last year, which was used to justify the purchase of millions of dollars worth of equipment from two other companies involved in the deal, stated that the equipment was unique and purpose-built to patented specifications. When a group of local residents formed an action group called Northcompass and investigated the matter, it discovered that no patent existed and that an earlier patent application had lapsed. The former Mayor of Hornsby issued a press release which, on at least four occasions, incorrectly claimed that a patent existed. Evidence of a patent has never been produced by council or the mayor.

It is curious that council responded on the issue and not Earth. Given the importance of the alleged patent to council's deliberations, it is unbelievable that council had never previously investigated the matter and is still unable to produce a patent to satisfy ratepayers. The former mayor's quick but misleading defence is highly unusual. I will await with considerable interest the publication of the sources of donations to his campaign following the next Federal election. Council's financial exposure on this matter
is considerable: it has paid a $250,000 licence fee for an unpatented composting process without tender and it has ordered equipment valued at an estimated $1.5 million without tender and amid claims that similar equipment could have been purchased elsewhere for $700,000 to $800,000 less.

It is alleged also that the agreement between Earth and council contains a take-or-pay clause which could result in a $5 million liability for ratepayers; provision for Earth to receive 10 per cent of any revenue from the plant - the sort of rake-off that Christopher Skase and Alan Bond would be proud of; suggestions of a finder's fee and a clause allowing the equipment purchased by council to revert to Earth. A full independent analysis of council's financial dealings in this matter is urgently required to provide to ratepayers full information on its exposure and an assessment of the probity or otherwise of council's dealings with Earth. The newly elected council should immediately commission the Auditor-General to undertake that review. Only this course of action will restore faith in council, its staff, and its re-elected and new councillors. I am disappointed that the Minister for Education has failed to respond to my representations on behalf of Normanhurst West primary school on the matter.

Private members' statements noted.


Mr Deputy-Speaker reported the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr Speaker -

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it agrees to the request of the Legislative Assembly in its Message dated 21 September 1995 for the Honourable M. R. Egan, M.L.C, Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier and Vice-President of the Executive Council to attend at the Table of the Legislative Assembly on Tuesday 10 October 1995 for the purposes only of giving a speech in relation to New South Wales Budget 1995/96.

Legislative Council Max Willis
21 September 1995 President

Page 1391

The following questions upon notice and answers were circulated in Questions and Answers:

Mr Tink asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

(1) What is the gross annual salary payable to each of the following Ministerial Chiefs of Staff?

Glen Wran
Mark Andrews
Madi Maclean
Greg Smith
Darryl Clout
Charles Shields
Lawrie Daly
Andrew Gilchrist
John Richardson
Stewart Crawford
Mathew Strassberg
Paul Tracey
Trish Oakley
David Tierney
Isabel Adamson
Adam Searle
Laurie Brown
Robyn Henderson

(2) Is any Chief of Staff entitled to any other form of remuneration in addition to salary?
(3) If so, what is the name of each Chief of Staff and each extra entitlement?
(4) What is the gross annual salary payable to each of the following Senior Press Secretaries?

Rupert Posner
Angela Ricardo
Paul O'Connell
Paul Murphy
Andrew Woodward
Ross Neilson
Matthew Shaw
Sandra Harvey
Allan Hansell
Walter Secord
Virginia Knox
Julian Brophy
Fred Smidt
David Bone
Liz Jurman
Dennis Driver

(5) Is any Senior Press Secretary entitled to any other form of remuneration in addition to salary?
(6) If so, what is the name of each Senior Press Secretary and each extra entitlement?
(7) Has any Chief of Staff or Senior Press Secretary been given permission to carry on any other employment?
(8) If so, what is the name of each such Chief of Staff and/or Chief Press Secretary and each such other employment?
(9) How many of his staff are paid at an equivalent to SES1 or higher?
(10) What are the names and positions of those staff members?
(11) In relation to each, what other remuneration are they entitled to?

Answer -

(1) to (11) All salaries for Chiefs of Staff and Press Secretaries are paid in accordance with the salary ranges and regulations determined by the Public Employment Office.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Police -

In November 1994, he made a promise to provide 12 additional police officers and a second patrol car for night work in Maitland -
(1) Does he stand by that commitment?
(2) If so, when?

Answer -

(1) During November 1994, Mr Whelan indicated that a Labor Government would restore police numbers in Maitland to strength and to increase police patrols of car theft hot spots.
(2) The Government has announced and is delivering on its commitment to increase the size of the Police Service by 650 units over the next 4 years. These units will be progressively deployed in line with the recruitment and training cycles of the Police Service. Maitland will receive two police officers who will commence duties in the near future. Staffing levels in the Police Service are the subject of constant review. It is the policy of this Government to focus police resources to areas of greatest need so that response times to incidents will be minimised. I have been advised that a Task Force has been formed to target break, enter and steal offences and motor vehicle theft. I understand that the Task Force is achieving good results. The Carr Labor Government will honour its pre-election commitments to the people of Maitland.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Is the relocation of the Regional Office of the Department of Housing to the former TAFE building in Maitland still proceeding?
(2) If not, what plans exist for the former TAFE building?

Page 1392

Answer -

(1) No.
(2) As the site is surplus to Government requirements, it will be sold by the appropriate authority.

Mr Souris asked the Minister for Education and Training -

(1) It is correct that the Minister has imposed a freeze on all voluntary redundancies in the TAFE system?
(2) Does this freeze apply to applications for voluntary redundancies made, in response to an invitation of 14 April 1995, before the freeze was imposed?
(3) Does this freeze apply in any case where the applicant was advised verbally by an officer from the Human Resources section of the TAFE Regional Office that the offer would be accepted?
(4) When will the freeze be lifted?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) No.
(3) If a NSW TAFE employee has signed an acceptance of a voluntary redundancy prior to the "freeze", voluntary redundancy will take effect.
(4) The "freeze" will be lifted when negotiations with the unions are successfully completed.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism -

The Train Noise Resident Committee, which was established in the Hunter to assist the State Rail Authority in reducing the impact and to determine compensation claims, conducted an independent noise and vibration test in affected areas of the Hunter -
(1) Will he release the findings of the tests and act upon their recommendations?
(2) Will he reinvest some of the $200 million profit made annually from the haulage of coal into noise reduction measures?
(3) Will he re-establish the compensation fund to cover damage to homes?
(4) If so, when?

Answer -

(1) The Community Environment Committee, formerly known as the Hunter Train Noise Resident Committee, has not carried out any noise and vibration tests independently of the State Rail Authority. The Authority has, however, commissioned a program of Environment Protection Authority approved tests which are planned to be conducted by independent consultants in late 1995. The results of the independent consultants' report will be released to the public and their recommendations will be evaluated by the Authority's Freight Rail Division.
(2) Substantial funds have already been invested in noise reduction measures such as the replacement of wooden sleepers with concrete ones, laying of continuous welded rail, fitting of anti-squeal brake shoes to locomotives and wagons, use of solid couplings on new wagons to greatly reduce their noise, introduction of new 90 and 82 Class locomotives and noise reduction education of train drivers.
(3) The results of the program of testing planned for late 1995 will have a bearing on future policy, however at this stage there are no plans to re-establish the compensation fund. It should be noted that the compensation fund was introduced on a temporary basis only and ceased in November 1990. It should also be noted that compensation was granted in most cases on the condition that no further applications for compensation be made.
(4) Not applicable.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Can he give a reassurance that the Nowra Police Patrol will not have the present public service temporary and permanent personnel staffing structure reduced?
(2) When will the freeze on the appointments of public servants to police patrols to ease the clerical load, be lifted?
(3) How many extra police officers will the Nowra Police Patrol get as a result of the Government's promise for more police on our streets?

Answer -

(1) The allocation of staffing positions across the State is subject to a variety of conditions prevailing at the time. The movement of staff within the Police Service is affected by circumstances such as workload, policies and programs, which ensure the most appropriate distribution of resources.
It is this Government's policy to focus resources on areas of greatest need to achieve the most effective response times.
(2) The general moratorium on recruitment is still current. However, where there is a compelling reason, in the case of operational necessities, an exemption from the current recruitment restrictions may be sought. An exemption was sought, and approved in relation to the recruitment of 34 General Support Officers within the current financial year.

Page 1393
(3) The future deployment of police positions to patrols will depend on the competing demands of various policing criteria across the State. However, I have been advised that Nowra Patrol has had various staffing increases since achieving patrol status in 1989. At that time the patrol had a total strength of 67 authorised positions. Currently the patrol's authorised strength is 79, an increase of 12 authorised persons.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Will there be an extension of time for public response to the Jervis Bay draft plan?
(2) Will he arrange with the Department for public meetings to be held so that the residents of the Shoalhaven are made fully aware of the consequences of the Jervis Bay draft and respond in an informed manner?

Answer -

I have been advised by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and Minister for Housing that the answers to the honourable member's questions are:
(1) Yes. The exhibition and receipt of submissions on the draft regional environmental plan for Jervis Bay has been extended to Friday 15 September 1995.
(2) Yes. The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning is arranging with Shoalhaven City Council to hold a number of public meetings to discuss the draft plan.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) What will be the impact of the proclamation of a marine reserve in Jervis Bay on the local tourism and commercial fishing industries?
(2) Will he revoke such a proclamation if there is a negative impact on the economy of the Shoalhaven?
(3) Will he guarantee there will be no job losses as a result of such a proclamation?
(4) Can he explain how a meeting with a Member of this Parliament would pre-empt the planning process in respect of the proposed marine reserve at Jervis Bay?
(5) Is the Government rejecting the concept of a marina for Jervis Bay without even looking at the proposal in any detail?

Answer -

(1) The Government expects that there will be a positive impact.
(2) Refer to answer to question (1).
(3) It is expected there will be a creation of jobs as a result of the establishment of the Jervis Bay Marine Reserve.
(4) I can only presume that the meeting the honourable member refers to was a request, through the Member, from Shoalhaven City Council for a meeting with myself and the Director of Fisheries to discuss the proposed marina and associated engineering works.
The normal planning process was in train at that time and it is my view that submissions received during that process will be of assistance in revising the draft management plan for the Marine Reserve and therefore any meeting would clearly pre-empt that process.
I have supported my Department (NSW Fisheries) being a party to the proposed working group being set up by the Shoalhaven City Council to consider the proposed marina, in order to present the view and concerns of NSW Fisheries in that forum.
(5) No.

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

How many rejoinees did the NSW Police Service employ in March and April 1995?

Answer -

I have been advised that there were no rejoinees employed during March and April 1995.

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

(1) What are the NSW Police Service separation figures for the months of March and April 1995?
(2) What were their ranks?

Answer -

(1) The separation figures for March and April 1995 are:
March

Resignations 15
Optional Retirement 1

Medically Unfit 10
Deaths 4

April
Resignations 31
Medically Unfit 7
Dismissal 1

(2) The separation figures, in order of rank, for March and April 1995 are:
March
Resignations
Sergeant 2
Senior Constable 5
Constable 1st Class 5
Constable 3

Page 1394
Optional Retirement
Chief Inspector 1
Deaths
Sergeant 1
Senior Constable 2
Constable 1st Class 1
Medically Unfit
Superintendent 1
Sergeant 6
Senior Constable 3
April
Resignations
Sergeant 3
Senior Constable 8
Constable 1st Class 14
Constable 5
Pro/Constable 1
Dismissal
Sergeant 1
Medically Unfit
Chief Inspector 1
Sergeant 4
Senior Constable 1
Constable 1st Class 1

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

(1) When did Class 260 complete their training at the Goulburn Police Academy?
(2) How many student police officers were attested from Class 260?
(3) (a) Which demonstration patrols received probationary constables from Class 260?

(b) How many were assigned to each patrol?

Answer -

(1) I have been advised that Class 260 completed Phase Three and were attested on 19 May 1995. Class 260 will complete Phase Five and graduate on 4 May 1996.
(2) 232.
(3) (a) and (b)
Hornsby 8 City of Sydney 11
Chatswood 9 Broadway 8
North Sydney 9 Sutherland 10
Manly 8 Kogarah 10
Gosford 9 Maroubra 10
Wetherill Park 9 Waverley 9
Blacktown 10 Campbelltown 10
Fairfield 10 Liverpool 10
Penrith 10 Bankstown 10
Mount Druitt 10 Campsie 8
Castle Hill 10 Flemington 7
Parramatta 10 Burwood 8
Newtown 9

Mr Causley asked the Minister for Police -

Will he undertake the previous Minister's commitment of a police station and permanent police presence at Wooli in the electorate of Clarence?

Answer -

The Minister for Police reaffirmed the commitment to the Wooli community in a media release dated 6 June 1995, where he stated "I have made a commitment to provide a police presence in Wooli and that commitment will be honoured next month with the arrival of a full-time police officer".

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) Will he and the Government maintain the Roads and Traffic Authority depot in Cooma?
(2) Will he undertake to maintain current staff levels at the Roads and Traffic Authority depot in Cooma as a minimum?
(3) Will he maintain funding for roads construction in the electorate of Monaro at current levels as a minimum?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) The relative priorities of all road projects throughout the State are currently being reviewed to facilitate the development of a comprehensive works program in line with the Government's policy of upgrading existing roads to reduce accidents and enhance safety for all road users.
(3) No undertaking can be given prior to the completion of the review.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Will he continue the process of land resumption and purchase for the purpose of constructing the Welcome Reef Dam at Braidwood?
(2) What is the proposed date to complete land resumption for the Welcome Reef Dam?
(3) Does the Government propose to build the Welcome Reef Dam?

Answer -

The answers to the honourable member's questions are:
(1) to (3) Sydney Water has supported the introduction of pricing, demand management, reuse
Page 1395
and water conservation measures aimed at deferring the augmentation of water supply for Sydney. It is not this Government's policy to construct Welcome Reef Dam.

Mr Cruickshank asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Who controls the South West Screening and Assessment Unit?
(2) Is it a private company?
(3) If not, is there a private company involved with the South West Screening and Assessment Unit?
(4) Who are the shareholders of that company?
(5) Are taxpayers' funds or assets being used to facilitate the activities of the South West Screening and Assessment Unit?
(6) Is the Calvary Hospital Board involved with the South West Screening and Assessment Unit?
(7) Were there ever any tenders called for the provision of a screening service for the women of the South West health region?
(8) Why was there a concerted effort on the part of the Regional Murrumbidgee Hospital Board at Griffith to prevent the relocatable Mammography Screening Unit visiting individual towns in the local areas?
(9) Why did the Griffith Base Hospital subsequently have a fixed unit owned and operated by the South West Screening and Assessment Service installed?
(10) Is the fixed unit at Griffith under-utilised?
(11) What has been the role of the Cancer Council in the installation of fixed Mammography Screening Units in Griffith?
(12) What accountability for both money and decision-making is available from the NSW Cancer Council?
(13) Who oversees the activities of the NSW Cancer Council?
(14) (a) Has there been an itemised list of where the money donated by Mrs Gloria Schultz to the NSW Cancer Council, some $150,000, has been spent?

(b) If not, why not?

(15) Was there ever any encouragement given to Mrs Schultz and others to collect money for the provision of a mobile mammography unit to supply a screening service to all the eligible women within the South West health region?

Answer -

(1) to (4) The South West Screening and Assessment Service is managed by the Calvary Hospital Wagga Wagga Inc., which is a not-for-profit health facility, incorporated under the Associations Act 1984. The hospital is managed by a duly appointed Board of Management appointed by the Little Company of Mary Province Council.
(5) The South West Screening and Assessment Unit is funded as part of the NSW Program for Mammographic Screening to provide screening and assessment services to women in the south west region of New South Wales. Nine other services in New South Wales are also funded under this program.
(6) The South West Screening and Assessment Unit is managed by the Calvary Hospital Wagga Wagga Inc.
(7) In January 1990, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Mammographic Screening called for expressions of interest from multidisciplinary professional groups with expertise for the establishment of accreditable screening and assessment services in New South Wales.
The Ministerial Advisory Committee established a NSW Accreditation Subcommittee which considered submissions for Assessment Centre status across the State. Calvary Hospital Wagga Wagga Inc. tendered an expression of interest to provide the required service to the South West catchment area.
(8) I am informed that the NSW Program has no knowledge of any such activity by the Murrumbidgee District Health Service Board.
(9) The fixed Unit is based in a radiology practice at the Griffith Base Hospital and is not owned by the South West Screening and Assessment Service. It is the policy of the NSW Program to maximise available infrastructure and expertise in the private screening services.
(10) No.
(11) Management of the NSW Program for Mammographic Screening has been contracted to the NSW Cancer Council.
The Cancer Council's role has been in accordance with the funding and performance agreements between the Commonwealth and the State, and the State and the Cancer Council. Under these agreements the State Planning and Coordination Unit, based at the NSW Cancer Council has made "recommendations on the location of Screening and Assessment Services, on the mix of mobile and fixed screening units and on the public/private mix of services, in the context of the Revised State Plan".
(12) and (13) The NSW Health Department has a detailed funding and performance agreement with the NSW Cancer Council for the planning and implementation of the NSW Program for Mammographic Screening.
(14) and (15) I understand that the previous Government was aware of local fundraising efforts in relation to mammographic screening, however I am not aware of any encouragement given to Mrs Schultz to raise funds for the provision of a mobile mammography unit.
The Mobile Mammographic Funding Appeal Committee donated $170,245.75 to the Calvary Hospital Wagga Wagga Inc. on 21 February 1995. The donation offset the cost of the relocatable screening unit which had been purchased from Program funds in June 1994. The cost of the Unit was as follows:

Page 1396
Mobile Mammographic machine and
Buckys $101,640
Agfa Loader Unit $ 35,495
Mazda truck and chassis $ 46,581
________
TOTAL 183,716

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

How many rejoinees did the NSW Police Service employ in May 1995?

Answer -

I have been advised that there were no rejoinees employed during May 1995.

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

(1) What was the NSW Police Service separation figure for May 1995?
(2) What were their ranks?

Answer -

(1) The separation figures for May 1995 are:
Resignations 16
Termination 1
Dismissal 1
Deaths 2
Medically Unfit 5
(2) The separation figures, in order of rank, for May 1995 are:
Resignations
Senior Constable 6
Constable 1st Class 3
Constable 2
Pro/Constable 5
Termination
Pro/Constable 1
Dismissal
Senior Constable 1
Deaths
Inspector 1
Sergeant 1
Medically Unfit
Chief Superintendent 1
Chief Inspector 1
Sergeant 1
Senior Constable 2

Mr Beck asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Tweed Heads patrol received funding for two civilian general support officers and one Aboriginal community liaison officer?
(2) If so, have these positions been filled?
(3) If these positions have not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for two new civilian general support officer positions and an Aboriginal community liaison officer at Tweed Heads and these positions have been filled.

Mr Cochran asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Does the Government propose to build a new ambulance station in Queanbeyan?
(2) Will a new ambulance station be built in Queanbeyan by the end of the 1996 financial year?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) The timetable for construction of a new ambulance station in Queanbeyan will be determined as part of the Government's capital budget process for the 1995/96 program.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for the Environment -

Will she maintain the entry fee to the Kosciusko National Park at current levels for the 1995 ski season?

Answer -

Yes. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will be undertaking a review of all park use fees in line with the Government's commitment to review pricing policies.

Mr Collins asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Chatswood patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Page 1397

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for a new civilian general support officer positioned at Chatswood.
The original recruitment selection ultimately declined the offer of appointment. The position is to be re-advertised and recruitment action is underway within the Police Service's Personnel Services Branch.

Mr Fahey asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Goulburn patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding was provided for either one civilian general support officer position or one communication officer position at Goulburn.
The Region and local commands determined there was a need for a communication officer and the position has been filled.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism -

(1) Will he intervene to ensure that the RTA completes landscaping work along Forest Way?
(2) Will the RTA fulfil its obligation to rectify access across the dual carriageway to the Belrose Bushfire Brigade?
(3) Will the RTA undertake, as promised, mounding outside Wesley Gardens Retirement Village?
(4) (a) Did the RTA advise the council that stormwater drainage would flow easterly?

(b) In allowing the majority to flow west, did this create flooding problems for some Belrose residents?

Answer -

Although this question was addressed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Tourism, this matter is one which falls within the ambit of my administration as Minister for Roads.
(1) Landscaping work on the median area on Forest Way has been completed. Some landscaping on the footway area was necessarily delayed pending the completion of Sydney Electricity cable works. It is expected that landscaping on the footway will be completed by mid-August 1995.
(2) Work to reinstate the front wall and parking area for the Bush Fire Brigade has been commenced and is expected to be completed by the end of August 1995. This will reinstate the access to the brigade station from the Sydney Water roadway on the northern side of the brigade station and will provide a permanent connection between the two carriageways.
(3) Warringah Council will not allow mounds to be constructed on land under its care and control. The management of Wesley Gardens and representatives of the RTA and council discussed the village's concerns on 16 June 1995. Further meetings will be held to discuss options for enhancing the amenity of the village residents. The RTA will contribute towards the cost of the preferred option.
(4) (a) Warringah Council was advised that with the full widening of Forest Way to four lanes, stormwater would be carried to the eastern side of the road.

(b) As a result of the construction of the northbound carriageway preceding construction of the southbound carriageway, some residents between Ralston Avenue and Morgan Road experienced problems from stormwater run-offs in February and March last. Temporary drainage was installed to divert some of the stormwater.
The problem was rectified with the construction of the southbound carriageway, the completion of additional drainage works and the removal of the temporary drainage. All stormwater run-off from Forest Way between Ralston Avenue and Morgan Road now flows to the eastern side of Forest Way.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) When will she be proclaiming the inclusion of Manly Dam Reserve into Garigal National Park?
(2) What additional resources will be made available for its management?
(3) Is the Government including the picnic area in the park?
(4) Will the Government be breaking an election promise by not proclaiming the park in 1995?

Answer -

(1) The National Parks and Wildlife Service will be undertaking a detailed examination of the proposal to add Manly Dam Reserve to Garigal National Park. It is not possible at this stage to predict when the addition will be proclaimed.
(2) Any additional resources required to manage Garigal National Park will be considered following assessment.

Page 1398
(3) Inclusion of any picnic areas in the land to be added will be considered following assessment.
(4) No. This proposal is not one of the 24 new parks proposed to be established within the first year of Government.

Mr Humpherson asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) When will she finance completion of the former Garigal National Park kiosk/boat shed east of Roseville Bridge?
(2) Does she intend to allow the partly completed building to deteriorate with vandalism and weathering?
(3) Has she finalised compensation to the former lessees of the building?
(4) What compensation, to date, has been paid to the Davitt's?

Answer -

(1) and (2) No decision will be made about the future of the building until after the public exhibition of the draft plan of management for Garigal National Park.
(3) No. The arbitration has not been completed.
(4) The total compensation paid, to date, by the service is $652,957.

Mr Longley asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Mona Vale patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that no additional general support officer positions were funded for Mona Vale in 1994/95.
There are currently two general support officers attached to Mona Vale Patrol and the Police Service is examining the need for additional general support officers at Mona Vale.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Port Macquarie patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for a new civilian general support officer position at Port Macquarie and the position has been filled.

Ms Moore asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Will the Government's hospital waiting list reduction program in any way affect or impact upon, within hospitals, the level or quality of:

(a) Non-surgical medical services?
(b) Paediatric services?
(c) Social work services?
(d) Aged care services?
(e) Rehabilitation services?
(f) Sub-acute services?
(g) Post-operative services?
(h) Palliative care services?
(i) Discharge planning services?
(j) Other non-surgical services?

(2) If so, what is the expected affect or impact of the waiting list reduction program on each of these services within the:

(a) New South Wales hospital system?
(b) Central Sydney Area Health Service?
(c) Eastern Area Health Service?

(3) Where there is an expected or potential adverse impact, what action is the Government taking to minimise or eliminate this impact within the:

(a) New South Wales hospital system overall?
(b) Central Sydney Area Health System?
(c) Eastern Area Health Service?

Answer -

(1) The Waiting List Reduction Program will impact on each of these services. However, quality will not be affected.
(2) Each Area and District Health Service has submitted its Waiting List Reduction Plan to the NSW Department of Health. Based on these plans it is expected that the impact on New South Wales hospital system, Central Sydney Area Health Service and Eastern Sydney Area Health Service will be that there will be improvement in the way hospitals manage the patient before, during and after the episode of care, for each of the following:
(a) Non-surgical medical services.
(b) Paediatric services.
(d) Aged care services.
(e) Rehabilitation services.
(f) Sub-acute services.

Page 1399
(g) Post-operative services.
(i) Discharge planning services.
(j) Other non-surgical services.
In respect of:
(c) Social work services; and

(h) Palliative care services;

it is expected that there will be a slight increase in the number of patients accessing these services.
(3) Additional funds of $64 million have been allocated to Area and District Health Services to meet the demand. This includes Central and Eastern Area Health Services. Each Area and District Health Service will be allocated funds based on a Waiting List Reduction Plan prepared by the Area/District, and on achievement of reductions in the Area/District's waiting list.
There is not expected to be any adverse impact on any of these services.

Ms Moore asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Will the Government's hospital waiting list reduction program result in an increased demand for:

(a) Rehabilitation services?
(b) Sub-acute hospital services?
(c) Social work services within hospitals?
(d) Aged care services?
(e) Community health services?
(f) Home care services?
(g) Counselling services?
(h) Other post-discharge services?

(2) If so, what is the estimated increase in demand for each of these areas within the:

(a) New South Wales hospital system overall?
(b) Central Sydney Area Health Service?
(c) Eastern Area Health Service?

(3) In those areas where there is an estimated increase in demand, will additional funding be made available to meet the increase in demand in each of those areas within the:

(a) New South Wales hospital system?
(b) Central Sydney Area Health Service?
(c) Eastern Area Health Service?

(4) In those areas where no additional funding is made available, how will the estimated increase in demand be met within the:

(a) New South Wales hospital system?
(b) Central Sydney Area Health Service?
(c) Eastern Area Health Service?

Answer -

(1) It is expected that the Waiting List Reduction Program will result in an increased demand for each of these services.
(2) It is expected that there will be a slight increase in demand for these services within the New South Wales hospital system, Central Sydney Area Health Service and Eastern Sydney Area Health Service.
(3) Additional funds of $64 million have been made available for all Area and District Health Services for the Waiting List Reduction Program. Each Area and District Health Service will be allocated funds based on a Waiting List Reduction Plan prepared by the Area/District, and on achievement of reductions in the Area/District's waiting list.
(4) Additional funds have been made available to meet the increased demand in all service areas across the New South Wales public hospital system, including Central and Eastern Sydney Area Health Services.

Ms Moore asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Is the use of diagnosis-related groups as the basis for payments to Area and District Health Services under the waiting list reduction program a casemix-based measure as referred to in the Commonwealth-New South Wales Medicare Agreement for the period 1993-1998?
(2) If so, to what extent does this represent the adoption of casemix-based measures for the New South Wales hospital sector?
(3) What other initiatives, activities, projects or planning activities are currently being undertaken, or have been undertaken, by the NSW Government related to the adoption of casemix-measures for the New South Wales hospital sector as agreed to in the 1993-1998 Commonwealth-New South Wales Medicare Agreement?
(4) Are casemix-based measures currently being used, or planned to be used, in New South Wales:

(a) To determine, assist with, or in any way inform or advise on the levels of funding received by:
(i) Area or District Health Services?
(ii) Hospitals within Area or District Health Services?
(b) To allocate or distribute funds between hospitals within Area or District Health Services?
(c) To assist with the development of quality assurance programs within:
(i) Area or District Health Services?

(ii) New South Wales public hospitals?

(d) To increase efficiency or productivity within:
(i) Area or District Health Services?

(ii) New South Wales public hospitals?
(5) Has the NSW Government contracted any external consultants to advise on, assist with, or provide information on any aspect of planning for the adoption of casemix-based measures for the New South Wales hospital sector?
(6) If so:

(a) Who were the consultants?
(b) For what period or periods were they contracted?
(c) For what advice, assistance or information were they contracted?

Page 1400

Answer -

(1) The use of casemix in the allocation of waiting list funding is consistent with the arrangements set out in the Medicare Agreement.
(2) This is one part of the commitment to develop more consistent information for acute hospital management, which, in turn, is a part of the commitment to develop more consistent management and information systems for hospitals and health care in general.
(3) In 1993, the New South Wales health system participated in an Australia-wide cost modelling exercise sponsored by the Commonwealth to produce cost-weights (relative costs) for Australian National Diagnostic Related Groups. Some 22 New South Wales hospitals were part of this study undertaken by KPMG Management Consultants, and NSW Health funded an additional 9 hospitals to increase the cover in New South Wales.
NSW Health is currently undertaking a series of research projects of national significance for health systems as part of the casemix development program including:

(a) sub-acute, non-acute and palliative care (SNAP) classification development (1993/94 to 1995/96);
(b) development of a model for outcomes-based funding (1994/95 and 1995/96);
(c) teaching and research study (1994/95 and 1995/96);
(d) severity within AN-DRGs and dependency adjustment (1994/95 and 1995/96);
(e) refinement of same day classification (1994/95 and 1995/96);
(f) community home nursing (1993/94 to 1995/96);
(g) cost modelling and casemix implementation in rural hospitals (1994/95 and 1995/96);
(h) casemix education and information (1992/93 to 1995/96);
(i) support for the Casemix Area Network (1993/94 and 1994/95).

Under the Commonwealth's ambulatory care reform program (1994/95 to 1996/97), NSW Health is also carrying out casemix-related research activities including the development of a classification for outpatient and emergency department services and revisiting the national ambulatory casemix project.
(4) Under this Government, casemix funding will not be used in an indiscriminate way to ration health care. Instead, casemix-based measures within health will be used only where it is clear that they can improve efficiency of service delivery while not compromising quality of care.
In this context, casemix-based measures along with other structural approaches to funding, quality assurance and efficiency are under ongoing consideration in NSW Health planning activities.
(a) (i) Casemix-based measures are currently used in:

Waiting List Reductions - Allocation of $64 million waiting list funding.
Resource Allocation Formulae - Funding allocations to Area and District Health Services are guided by the Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) for Program 2.3 Support for Area Health Services and Public Hospitals. The RAF is intended as a tool for facilitating equity of access to service. Analysis of casemix-weighted hospital utilisation rates is one factor in developing RAF-based allocation.

(ii) In 1993, the Area Health Services within the Sydney, Hunter and Illawarra Areas formed the Casemix Area Network. Participating Areas have been funded by the State Government to pilot approaches to allocating their fixed budgets between hospitals on the basis of casemix-weighted inpatient activity. The Areas are each at slightly different points in their development of the necessary resources and skills to implement the methodology. At least one Area has been informing its local allocation of acute inpatient budget between hospitals on this basis since 1993/94. Three more are expecting to inform their allocations by this process in 1995/96. District Health Services are currently developing the necessary skills and are expected to be able to implement a similar approach in the future.
(b) See answer (a) (i).
(c) (i) and (ii) Yes.
(d) (i) and (ii) Yes.
(5) and (6) Four studies have been contracted since 1992. In October 1992, the then Ministry of Health and Community Services contracted an English consultancy firm, NERA, to complete a report by the end of December 1992. The terms of reference for the consultancy were to critically review international health reforms, particularly in New Zealand, England, Wales and Canada, and assess their relevance to New South Wales. Recommendations were sought as to how the best of these initiatives could be used appropriately in New South Wales to ensure key health system objectives would be achieved over the current decade.
The Centre for Hospital Management and Information Systems Research, University of New South Wales, has been contracted from January 1994 to December 1996 to provide advice and programming assistance to public hospitals collecting data for this project and to prepare reports on data collected. The project is known as the Clinicians' Information System Consortium. Its aim is to develop:

•an information system which will facilitate and enhance the process of devolved clinical management and to aid continuous quality improvement in clinical care;
•a patient level record that links clinical information (for example, AN-DRG) with information about the resources consumed in specific clinical processes (for example, pathology, nursing);

Page 1401

•a standard set of summary reports that are clinically meaningful from both a costing and utilisation perspective;
•internal and cross institutional benchmarks and international comparisons.

In December 1994, the Department of Health contracted Ms Kathy Eagar and Prof. Don Hindle, from the Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong. Their final report was submitted on 27 March 1995. The terms of reference were to work closely with the Department to identify and develop options and recommendations on a preferred funding model to be applied within New South Wales Area and District Health Services for funding hospitals, and where appropriate, other health services within their jurisdiction.
The Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Sydney, was contracted from April to June 1995 to develop a proposal and an evaluation methodology for trialing alternative modes of delivering primary care within a public hospital setting, particularly primary care currently delivered through emergency departments. It is expected that this project will have significant impact on the nature of a casemix classification developed for ambulatory care.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Ethnic Affairs -

With regard to the return of the NSW Branch of the ALP under the Election Funding Authority Political Education Unit -
(1) Does the NSW Branch of the ALP pay rent to its landlord, the Labor Council of NSW?
(2) If not, will he request the Election Funding Authority to investigate the claim for rent?
(3) If the claims are correct, will he request the Auditor-General to investigate the NSW Branch of the ALP's 1994 Political Education Fund return?

Answer -

The New South Wales Branch of the ALP pays rent to the Labor Council of NSW. The New South Wales Branch did claim expenditure for some rent from the Political Education Fund. The claim for rent related only to office space for the Education and Research Officer, whose responsibilities include Party training programs and the production of political education material, and for the library which is available for secondary and tertiary students to use for research.

Mr Phillips asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Miranda patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position at Miranda and the position has been filled.

Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Wagga Wagga patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position at Wagga Wagga and the position has been filled.

Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) How many co-ordinators are currently employed in the Landcare program?
(2) What total funds are allocated to this program and how are these funds deployed as to salary, administrative costs and projects?
(3) What is the job specification for Landcare co-ordinators?
(4) How many other staff in departments within your administration have land conservation functions and at what cost?
(5) What services are provided?

Answer -

(1) In 1994/95 community groups employed 25 landcare co-ordinators.
(2) New South Wales received $1.276 million in 1994/95 from the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy's National Landcare Program for community landcare group projects, including the $750,000 for co-ordinators. A further $800,000 from the NLP State Component provided infrastructure support and employment for 12 Landcare Specialists. Administration costs are approximately 1 per cent.

Page 1402
(3) The job specification for co-ordinators is a decision of the community group which employs the person. They decide on the priorities for action and so determine the job specification. A typical role would be to run an approved project (or projects), locate and put together resources for projects, help groups form and provide training in specific skills.
(4) All staff in the Community and Catchment Management Services and Land Assessment and Protection Division of the former Department of Conservation and Land Management have land conservation functions. The total costs are $49 million and details can be identified by program in the Department's annual report.
(5) The services provided are:
Land assessment and protection;
Research and development;
Total catchment management administration;
Landcare support;
Community services.

Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) What are the current balances in the Home Purchase Assistance Fund and the Housing Reserve Account?
(2) How are these funds invested and what income is derived?

Answer -

(1) As at 31 March 1995, the total assets of the Home Purchase Assistance Fund were $819.9 million and the net assets were $133.8 million. The net assets will be increased by Capital Supplementation from the Housing Reserve Fund this year.
As at 31 March 1995, the Investment Assets of the Housing Reserve Fund were $176.6 million; net property assets acquired as a result of the HomeFund restructure amounted to a further $22.7 million.
(2) The assets of the Home Purchase Assistance Fund at that time comprised Mortgage Loans (pre-HomeFund loans and Defaulting HomeFund loans) of $174.3 million and investments representing holdings of FANMAC Bonds, Semi-Government Bonds, Bank Accepted Bills of Exchange, Short Call Deposits with New South Wales Treasury Corporation (TCorp) and investments in TCorp HourGlass facilities. Income earned on investment assets in the 9 months to 31 March 1995 totalled $32.4 million. Total income during this period was $44.1 million.
The Housing Reserve Fund investment assets comprised a range of Bank Deposits and Bills of Exchange, TCorp deposits, Semi-Government Bonds, TCorp HourGlass facilities and loans to the Home Purchase Assistance Fund. Investment income earned in the 9 months to 31 March 1995 totalled $9.1 million.
Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Agriculture -

(1) How many rural advisers are currently employed within your administration?
(2) What are their functions and what total funds are allocated to their services?

Answer -

(1) I have assumed by "rural advisers" that Mr Schipp is referring to Drought Support Workers and Rural Financial Counsellors.

Drought Support Workers:
There are 11 Drought Support Workers employed for 12 months as part of the Drought Relief Package for Farmers and Farm Families. The initial 7 are employed to 31 October 1995 and the remaining 4 until 31 March 1996.
Rural Financial Counsellors:
There are 30 Rural Financial Counselling Services operating in New South Wales to which the NSW Government, through NSW Agriculture, provides part funding for their operation. In addition, there are another 5 services which are 100 per cent funded by the Commonwealth for 12 months.

(2) Drought Support Workers:

The Drought Support Workers Program aims to provide confidential family and community support through:
•linking families with specialised drought initiatives and other support services;
•providing emotional support where needed;
•assistance in developing local support networks; and
•making emergency cash payments to farm families in serious financial difficulties to assist in meeting household expenses.
Total funds allocated to this program through to 31 March 1996 is $1.58 million, which includes $450,000 for emergency financial assistance.

Rural Financial Counsellors:

The Rural Counselling Program was established nationally in 1986 to help rural communities operate local counselling services which support and advise farm families in times of financial difficulties. In New South Wales these services are referred to as Rural Financial Counsellors in order to more clearly identify their role.
The Rural Financial Counsellors are employed to help farm families identify financial options and the associated requirements to implement them such as:
•assessing a farmer's current financial position;
•preparing budgets;
•assisting with loan applications;
•information on Government assistance schemes;

Page 1403

•reviewing contracts with lending institutions;
•identifying options and negotiation with creditors.
Funding to these services is linked to that provided by the Commonwealth Government, through the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. The Commonwealth currently provides 50 per cent of funding to a maximum of $50,000 per annum per service. The State Government contributes 50 per cent of the first year costs of new counselling services, thereafter reverting to 25 per cent.
As part of the Drought Relief Package the State Government provided 50 per cent funding for all services in 1994/95. The total contribution from the State Government in 1994/95 was $1.326 million.

Mr Slack-Smith asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Moree patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding was provided for either one civilian general support officer position or one communication officer position at Moree.
The Region and local commands determined there was a need for a communication officer and the successful applicant is to commence duty on 31 July 1995.

Mr Smith asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Ulladulla patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position at Ulladulla and the position has been filled.

Mr Smith asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Batemans Bay patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position at Batemans Bay and the position has been filled.

Mr Souris asked the Minister for Agriculture -

(1) What progress has occurred to fill the vacant district agronomist position at Rylstone?
(2) How many applicants responded to the advertisement placed by the Department of Agriculture before the March 1995 election?
(3) How many were interviewed?
(4) When will an appointment be made?

Answer -

(1) An internal circular seeking applicants for the Rylstone agronomy district was issued throughout the Department on 28 February this year. Applications closed on 17 March 1995.
(2) Only two applications were received.
(3) Neither applicant was interviewed as neither was suitable for the position.
(4) The Department has not proceeded to fill the position while the current recruitment moratorium is in place.

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

Does the Government intend to implement the transfer of prisoner escort duties from Police to Corrective Services in the following police patrols:

(a) Port Macquarie?
(b) Albury?
(c) Dubbo?
(d) Kempsey?
(e) Goulburn?
(f) Tamworth?
(g) Coffs Harbour?
(h) Nowra?
(i) Bathurst?
(j) Lithgow?
(k) Wagga Wagga?
(l) Maitland?
(m) Orange?

Page 1404

Answer -

I have been advised that the functions of Prisoner Court Security and Prisoner Transportation have been transferred from the Police Service to the Department of Corrective Services in the nominated areas with the exception of Dubbo, Albury and Wagga Wagga.
It is anticipated that the transfer of these functions for Dubbo, Albury and Wagga Wagga will be completed by September 1995.

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Bathurst patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding was provided for either one civilian general support officer position or one communication officer position at Bathurst.
The Region and local commands determined there was a need for a communication officer and the position has been filled.

Mr West asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Broken Hill patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer and one Aboriginal community liaison officer?
(2) Will he confirm the Walgett patrol has received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(3) Will he confirm the Nyngan patrol has received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(4) If so, have these positions been filled?
(5) If these positions have not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (5) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position or one communication officer position at Broken Hill, Walgett and Nyngan patrols. The Region and local commands determined there was a need for communication officers at these patrols and the positions have been filled.
Funding has also been provided for one Aboriginal community liaison officer position at Broken Hill patrol and the position has been filled.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Education and Training -

(1) Does the Government propose to build a new school at Jerrabomberra near Queanbeyan?
(2) Will he undertake to honour an agreement reached between the previous minister and the Jerrabomberra Residents Association to open a K-2 school in Jerrabomberra for the start of the 1996 school year?

Answer -

(1) The size of the Jerrabomberra development will warrant a school, and a site has been acquired. A demographic study of the estate and surrounding Queanbeyan area shows that the projected student enrolments do not justify the construction of a new school at Jerrabomberra in the short term.
(2) The capital works proposal submitted to the Treasury by the previous administration did not contain a provision for the establishment of a school at Jerrabomberra. There is no departmental record of an approval by the previous administration to plan a school for 1996. This Government will monitor the number of students generated by the Jerrabomberra development and once the numbers are sufficient to give the new school a high priority, it will be included in the Capital Works Program.

Mr Debnam asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Bondi patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position at Bondi and the position has been filled.

Mr Glachan asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Albury patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Page 1405

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for one civilian general support officer position at Albury and the position has been filled.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

Will he proceed with the development of a new electrometallurgical industrial park at Wallerawang as proposed by the previous Government?

Answer -

The Government is committed to actively creating jobs and attracting investment to New South Wales. Labor's policy for mining places considerable emphasis on encouraging further value-added minerals processing in the State. Hence, the proposal advanced by the Department of Mineral Resources, and developed in co-operation with Pacific Power and State Development, to establish an Electrometallurgical Industrial Park (EMIP) at Wallerawang, has the full support of the Government.
I have endorsed the establishment of a management group comprising senior officers of these three agencies with representation from Greater Lithgow City Council to facilitate development of the proposed EMIP. The EMIP management group will meet in Lithgow in early July and will report to Government on action required to progress development of the proposed park.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) How many proposed mining leases are the subject of discussions between the Department of Mineral Resources and the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(2) Where are these proposed leases located in New South Wales?
(3) What are the issues in dispute in each of these cases?
(4) How long have these matters been in dispute?

Answer -

(1) It is not possible to answer this question directly. The Department of Mineral Resources and the National Parks and Wildlife Service routinely discuss mining lease proposals. There may be many proposals under discussion at any given time and the number may vary from day-to-day. Section 239 of the Mining Act 1992 provides for the involvement of the Service in the leasing process.
(2) See answer (1).
(3) It is not accurate to say that there are matters under dispute. The matters that are discussed between the Department and the Service are varied and may include site rehabilitation, fauna and flora issues, including survey requirements and protection of habitats.
(4) See answer (1).

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women -

(1) Will she increase the Building Services Corporation maximum home insurance payment to $200,000 as previously committed by the former Coalition Government?
(2) If so, when will she introduce this measure to assist home building consumers?

Answer -

(1) Yes. I currently have before me proposals which include increasing the maximum insurance payment to $200,000.
(2) A tentative date of 1 January 1996 is currently being considered.

Ms Moore asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Which joint Commonwealth-State committees, boards, councils, advisory bodies or other bodies relating to health matters, including administration, policy, financing and funding, include representatives of the NSW Department of Health and/or the NSW Government?
(2) Of the bodies listed, which bodies also include:

(a) Representatives of non-government organisations which represent, advocate on behalf of, or are otherwise concerned with the interests of health care consumers?
(b) Representatives of non-government organisations representing community interests?
(c) Persons appointed as representatives of health care consumers?
(d) Persons appointed as representatives of the community?
(e) Persons appointed on the basis of their knowledge, expertise or experience of health care consumer issues?

Page 1406
(3) In the case of those bodies which include representation in any of the categories referred above, what is:

(a) The total membership of each body?
(b) The number of persons on each body representing Government?
(c) The number of persons on each body appointed on the basis of their medical and/or scientific expertise?
(d) The number of persons on each body representing or appointed on the basis of their membership of professional associations?
(e) The number of persons on each body representing health care consumers?
(f) The number of persons on each body appointed on the basis of their knowledge, expertise or experience of health care consumer issues?
(g) The number of persons on each body appointed to represent the community?

Answer -

(1) to (3) The Australian Health Ministers' Conference (AHMC) and its advisory body, the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) provide a mechanism for the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments to discuss matters of mutual interest concerning health policy, services and programs. Membership of the AHMC comprises the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for health.
The AHMAC supports the AHMC. The Commonwealth, States and Territories may raise matters for discussion by this Council and the Council may forward matters to the AHMC. Membership of the Council comprises the head plus one nominee of each State and Territory health authority, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health plus two senior officers; and the Chairperson of the National Health and Medical Research Council.
The Council may establish standing committees to serve ongoing matters of concern to the Council and the AHMC, and working parties or task forces to investigate and report on specific issues.
Current standing committees include:

•Inter-governmental Committee on AIDS.
•National Coordinating Committee on Therapeutic Goods.
•Australian Coordinating Committee on Organ Registries and Donation.
•National Management Committee on Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry.
•Subcommittee on Women and Health.
•Communicable Diseases Network - Australia and NZ Advisory Committee.
•Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee.

Working parties and subcommittees of the Council are:

•Working Party on Child and Youth Health.
•Highly Specialised Drugs Working Party.
•Veterans' Hospital Access Committee.
•Nationally Funded Centres Working Party.
•Audit of Hospital Records Working Party.
•Blood and Blood Products Sub-Committee.

Committees of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) include:

•COAG Acute Hospital Working Party.
•Ambulatory Care Working Group.
•Casemix Development Working Group.
•COAG Working Group - Health and Community Services.

Additional joint Commonwealth/State bodies include:

•Health and Community Services Ministerial Council.
•Health and Community Services Ministerial Advisory Council.
•National Food Standards Council.
•State Tripartite Forum on Aboriginal Health.*
•Health Ministers' National Benchmarking Working Group.
•Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee.
•National Women's Health Program State Advisory Committee.*
•National Advisory Committee for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer.*
•Commonwealth/State Program Manager Committee for Early Detection of Breast Cancer.*
•National Advisory Committee for the Organised Approach to Preventing Cancer of the Cervix.*
•Cervical Screening Liaison Group.*

* These bodies include community or consumer representatives.
This listing is not necessarily exhaustive and the identification and provision of the detailed information requested in the question would require considerable staff time which is not warranted within the priorities of the NSW Department of Health.

Ms Moore asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) Which committees, boards, councils, advisory bodies or other bodies established by, responsible to, or in any way connected with the NSW Department of Health, include representation or membership of:

(a) Non-government organisations which represent and/or advocate on behalf of health care consumers?
(b) Non-government organisations representing community interests?
(c) Persons appointed as representatives of health care consumers?

Page 1407

(d) Persons appointed as representatives of the community?
(e) Persons appointed on the basis of their knowledge, expertise or experience of health care consumer issues?

(2) In the case of those bodies which include representation in any of the categories referred above, what is:

(a) The total membership of each body?
(b) The number of persons on each body representing Government?
(c) The number of persons on each body appointed on the basis of their medical and/or scientific expertise?
(d) The number of persons on each body representing or appointed on the basis of their membership of professional associations?
(e) The number of persons on each body representing health care consumers?
(f) The number of persons on each body appointed on the basis of their knowledge, expertise or experience of health care consumer issues?
(g) The number of persons on each body appointed to represent the community?

Answer -

(1) and (2) The last annual update of membership of Boards and Committees under the Health portfolio included:

10 Area Health Service Boards;
23 District Health Service Boards;
124 Local Hospital Advisory Boards;
33 Statutory Boards and Committees.

The basis for appointments to these Boards and Committees is detailed in the relevant legislation.
Previous annual reports of the Department of Health have listed many selected significant committees or advisory bodies set up by the Department. There are many more committees which assist the strategic and policy-making role of the Central Office of the NSW Department of Health.
The identification and provision of the detailed information requested in the question would require considerable staff time which is not warranted within the priorities of the NSW Department of Health. However, as a general principle, consumers and the community are represented on such committees where it is considered appropriate to their effective operation.

Ms Moore asked the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs -

(1) What formulas, instruments and/or policies are being used to reimburse hospitals, area and district health services for treating patients not resident within their areas or districts in respect of:

(a) Acute inpatient services?
(b) Sub-acute inpatient services?
(c) Paediatric services?
(d) Social work services?
(e) Aged care services?
(f) Rehabilitation services?
(g) Post-operative services?
(h) Palliative care services?
(i) Accident and emergency services?

(2) Which hospitals, area health services and district health services are not being reimbursed for treating patients not resident within their areas or districts in respect of:

(a) Acute inpatient services?
(b) Sub-acute inpatient services?
(c) Paediatric services?
(d) Social work services?
(e) Aged care services?
(f) Rehabilitation services?
(g) Post-operative services?
(h) Palliative care services?
(i) Accident and emergency services?

(3) Which hospitals, area health services and district health services are only partially being reimbursed for treating patients not resident within their areas or districts in respect of:

(a) Acute inpatient services?
(b) Sub-acute inpatient services?
(c) Paediatric services?
(d) Social work services?
(e) Aged care services?
(f) Rehabilitation services?
(g) Post-operative services?
(h) Palliative care services?
(i) Accident and emergency services?

(4) Have diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) or other casemix measures been considered, or are being considered, for use as the basis for reimbursing hospitals and/or area and district health services who treat patients not residing within their respective areas or districts?
(5) If yes, will they be adopted as the basis for reimbursing hospitals and/or area and district health services who treat patients not residing within their respective areas or districts?
(6) If yes, when?
(7) In respect of (4) above, if not, why not?
(8) In respect of (4) above, if not, will DRGs or other casemix measures be considered, or are being considered, for use as the basis for reimbursing hospitals and/or area and district health services who treat patients not residing within their respective areas or districts?
(9) If not, why not?
(10) If yes, when?

Answer -

(1) to (3) Funding for the NSW Health Areas and Districts is guided by a Resource Allocation Formula that seeks to ensure equity in distribution of resources. Information about this formula is available in a NSW
Page 1408
Department of Health publication entitled "A Resource Allocation Formula for the NSW Health System: 1993 Revision".
Areas and Districts provide a service to people requiring care and treatment whether or not they live within the local Area or District boundaries.
(4) to (10) Under this Government casemix funding will not be used in an indiscriminate way to ration health care. Instead, casemix-based measures within health will be used only where it is clear that they can improve efficiency of service delivery while not compromising quality of care.
In this context, casemix-based measures along with other structural approaches to funding, quality assurance and efficiency are under ongoing consideration in NSW Health planning activities.
All Area Health Services have been funded by the State Government to pilot approaches to allocating their fixed budgets between hospitals on the basis of casemix-weighted inpatient activity, compromising the total activity generated by both residents and non-residents.
The Government has identified the reduction of waiting lists for elective surgery as an immediate priority of the New South Wales health system. To provide incentives for such reduction, the NSW Health Department is providing performance-based funding to Areas and Districts in proportion to the list reduction and the number of extra procedures performed. It will be doing this with payments based on Australian National Diagnosis Related Groups (AN-DRG) costs made for all patients whether or not they are local residents.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism -

(1) Did he promise the Motorcycle Council of New South Wales on 3 March 1995 that he would make every endeavour to keep the motorcycle grand prix in Sydney after 1996?
(2) What, if any, endeavours did he make?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) The honourable member will be aware that this matter is not one which falls within my administration.


Mr Schipp asked the Minister for Agriculture -

(1) What is the current status of the Patterson's Curse biological control program?
(2) (a) Has any assessment been made as to the effectiveness of the program?

(b) If so, what was the result?

(3) Have all biological control options been trialled and/or implemented?

Answer -

(1) Four insects have been released to attack Paterson's curse. A leaf mining moth released in 1988 is now endemic in New South Wales and damages leaves from spring to autumn, reducing competitiveness of the weed. A crown weevil was released in 1992 and a root weevil in 1993. The Meat Research Corporation and the International Wool Secretariat are contributing funds to accelerate the mass rearing and distribution of these weevils until 1997. A flea beetle was released in 1994 directly into the field by CSIRO.
(2) Assessment of the impact of agents is being carried out at a number of field sites in New South Wales. Because of normal seasonal fluctuations in growth it is too early to determine definite results, however some reports indicate flowering and seed production has reduced in the south-western region of New South Wales.
(3) Another flea beetle and a stem boring beetle have been approved for release and are being bred up under laboratory conditions.

Mr Souris asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) Is State Forests of NSW planning to transfer Nullo Mountain State Forest and Karridgy State Forest to the National Parks and Wildlife Service for addition to the Wollemi National Park?
(2) What implications will this have on the Kandos timber mill?
(3) (a) Will there be job losses at Kandos timber mill?

(b) If so, how many?

(4) Will there be job losses amongst timber contractors and/or State Forest employees in the Mudgee/Rylstone Shires as a result of this transfer?

Answer -

(1) No. However part of Coricudgy State Forest is within the identified Wollemi Wilderness.
(2) None. The Kandos mill is a private property sawmill. State Forests has no commitment to supply although parcel sales up to 1,000 cubic metres have been made for several years. In the event that part of Coricudgy State Forest is withdrawn from timber production, resources elsewhere within the Mudgee area are available, i.e.:

•freehold;
•other State Forests in Mudgee Management Area;
•Crown Timber Lands in Mudgee Management Area (leasehold).

Page 1409
Hence, the Kandos mill is not under threat of closure and job losses are not an issue as a result of the Government's Forest Policy.
(3) (a) and (b) No job losses are foreseen.
(4) No job losses are foreseen.

Mr Cochran asked the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services -

(1) Will Cooma Prison remain in operation throughout the term of the current Government?
(2) Will he undertake to consult with the Cooma community prior to closing the Cooma Prison?

Answer -

(1) The Department of Corrective Services has no plans to close Cooma Correctional Centre during the term of the Fifty-first Parliament.
(2) If there is a change to the current plans, there will be consultation with Cooma community.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Police, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations -

(1) Will the Legal Aid Commission solicitor, who visits the Nowra Neighbourhood Centre once a fortnight, continue?
(2) If not, why not?
(3) If not, what does the Government propose for Nowra in terms of legal aid services?

Answer -

The Attorney General has advised me as follows:
(1) The Commission will continue to operate its fortnightly service to the Nowra Neighbourhood Centre. The Service will be provided by a different solicitor to the one presently performing the same role on the same basis as previously.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Police, representing the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations -

(1) Why has the Shoalhaven been excluded from having a legal aid centre in the proposed network recently announced by the Government?
(2) Will he review that decision and include a legal aid centre for the Shoalhaven?
(3) Will he guarantee that the present level of legal aid services to the Shoalhaven will not be reduced?

Answer -

The Attorney General has advised me as follows:
(1) The decision on the locations of the four new legal aid centres was made by the Commonwealth Government. The Attorney has been advised that the decision was based on factors such as population growth, the level of access people have to existing services and the level of service provision available currently.
Neither the Attorney, nor the Legal Aid Commission had direct input into the making of the decision.
(2) The Attorney is not in a position to review the decision and representations in relation to it should be provided to the Commonwealth Government directly.
(3) Yes.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Education and Training -

(1) When will the construction of the proposed new primary school at Ashtonfield commence?
(2) When does he expect enrolments to commence at the new school?

Answer -

(1) The Department of School Education has owned for a number of years a site at South Seas Drive, Ashtonfield. The Hunter Region of the Department of School Education has nominated this school for construction on its 5-year strategic plan.
(2) The 151 students from the Ashtonfield area currently attend Maitland East Public School whose student enrolment was 714 in 1994 and 715 in 1995. Maitland East Public School was recently upgraded and offers first-class educational facilities.
(3) At this time, there are insufficient students in the Ashtonfield area to justify priority for local capital works ahead of other areas with greater and more immediate need for school facilities. It is anticipated that as the need arises a new public school will be constructed at Ashtonfield but this will depend upon the rate at which houses are constructed and enrolments grow. This will be closely monitored.

Mr Blackmore asked the Minister for Education and Training -

(1) How many demountable buildings are located at Thornton Public School?
(2) When will these buildings be replaced by a permanent block?
(3) What is the ratio of students per computer at Thornton Public School?
(4) Is this comparable to the Department's requirements?

Page 1410

Answer -

(1) There are 6 demountable classrooms, 14 permanent classrooms, 1 permanent library, an administration facility and a communal hall at the school.
(2) Under the core plus standard the school already has its full entitlement of 14 permanent classes, and there is ordinarily no provision for the construction of additional permanent classroom accommodation.
However, accommodation needs at Thornton Public School are being examined as a special case, given that there is no immediate prospect of a new school in the area to ease enrolment pressures. The results of the examination will be announced before the State budget.
(3) The school's current enrolment is 596 students and they have access to 13 computers (ratio of 1 to 45.8). The school is currently acquiring 8 additional computers (ratio of 1 to 28.4).
(4) The Government's policy on computers and technology in schools targets those schools with the greatest need. Within our first term in Government, the student/computer ratio in primary schools will reduce to 1:14.

Mr Cruickshank asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation -

(1) Is he about to close the office of CaLM at Leeton?
(2) Is the office to be transferred to Wagga Wagga?
(3) How many jobs will be lost in Leeton?

Answer -

(1) to (3) With the formation of the new Department of Land and Water Conservation there will be total integration of staff of the former agencies and a rationalisation of Regional boundaries to a Catchment Management basis.
Within this rationalisation exercise, all offices of the Department will be evaluated to ensure maximum client delivery services are maintained.
There will be no closure of offices of the Department in either Leeton or Wagga Wagga. The office of the Regional Director will be located at either Wagga Wagga or Leeton following consideration of regional priorities and consultation with staff.
The Government is mindful of the employment situation in rural New South Wales and will be making every effort to avoid any loss of jobs in country areas.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) Can he give an assurance that the Government will continue the construction of the Woronora Bridge?
(2) When will it be completed?

Answer -

(1) The construction timetable for the Woronora Bridge will depend upon the future availability of funds for the project. In this respect, the relative priorities of all road projects throughout the State are currently being reviewed to facilitate the development of a comprehensive works program in line with the Government's policy of upgrading existing roads to reduce accidents and enhance safety for all road users.
(2) See (1) above.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) When will the EIS for the Bangor Bypass be placed on public display?
(2) Will the Bangor Bypass be built?
(3) When will it be completed?

Answer -

(1) Mid-1996.
(2) The relative priorities of all road projects throughout the State are currently being reviewed to facilitate the development of a comprehensive works program in line with the Government's policy of upgrading existing roads to reduce accidents and enhance safety for all road users. The Bangor Bypass project will be considered in this context. Accordingly, it is not possible at present to indicate any timetable for the project.
(3) See (2) above.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

What role will her Department have in relation to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games?

Answer -

The principal roles that the Department of Sport and Recreation has in the period leading up to the Olympic Games are:

•To assist in determining the needs and the funding required for the development of pre-Olympic venues.

Page 1411

•To ensure the development and preparation of elite athletes for the Olympic Games in Atlanta and Sydney.
•To guarantee that New South Wales sport is in a position to maximise the benefits that accrue from the Olympics and provide an ongoing legacy for the people of this state.

As the Minister for Sport and Recreation, I look forward to the period leading up to the Olympic Games in both 1996 and 2000 as years when sport in this State will benefit from improved facilities for competitors, their coaches and sports administrators.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) When will the successful applicant for the position of Director of the NSW Institute of Sport be announced?
(2) What funding has she approved for capital expenditure and recurrent funding for the Institute of Sport?
(3) (a) Will the Registered Clubs Association remain as principal sponsor of the NSW Institute of Sport?

(b) When will the first sponsorship payment be made?

Answer -

(1) It is anticipated that the Director of the NSW Institute of Sport will be appointed shortly.
(2) Funding for the NSW Institute of Sport is currently being considered as part of the budget deliberations.
(3) (a) It is anticipated that this will be the case.

(b) No date has been set as yet.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Sport and Recreation -

(1) What measures did she take to try and keep the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix at Eastern Creek after 1996?
(2) Was she aware of a clause in the contract with Two-Wheel Promotions that gave the NSW Government first right of negotiation regarding a new contract to extend the rights to hold the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix at Eastern Creek for a further 5 years?
(3) If she was aware of this clause, why didn't she enact that clause and proceed to negotiate with Two-Wheel Promotions?

Answer -

(1) The contract signed by the former Government with TWP did not enable the Government to force TWP to renegotiate the contract. Negotiation was at the discretion of TWP. TWP chose to exercise its right under clause 45 of the 1991 contract to not renegotiate the continuance of the agreement. The terms of clause 45 of the agreement provided that, should TWP so elect, the Government would negotiate exclusively with TWP for a 60-day period concerning the continuance of the agreement.
The Government only had an obligation to negotiate with TWP if TWP so elected and it had no legal right to force TWP to renegotiate.
(2) There is no clause in the contract that states this.
(3) Not relevant.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) When does the Government propose to upgrade Trunk Road 92, from Nowra to Braidwood, to an all-weather road?
(2) What is the Government's position on the upgrading of this road given it is a direct link between Nowra and Canberra?

Answer -

(1) The relative priorities of all road projects throughout the State are currently being reviewed to facilitate the development of a comprehensive works program in line with the Government's policy of upgrading existing roads to reduce accidents and enhance safety for all road users.
Until the review has been completed, no commitment can be given regarding Trunk Road No. 92.
(2) See (1) above. Also, the Government is aware that while Trunk Road No. 92, which extends from Tomerong to Braidwood, connects with other roads to provide a direct link from Nowra to Canberra, there is a viable alternative route between the cities via the Princes and Kings Highways which has been extensively upgraded over recent years.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads -

(1) Under what circumstances and to what extent will the Government support the creation of practice facilities for the Year 2000 Olympics in regional areas?

Page 1412
(2) Does the Government support the principle of sharing the Olympic dollar beyond the bounds of Sydney and to what extent?
(3) Will the Government support the establishment of practice facilities for Union Internationale de Tyr shooting sports in Nowra?

Answer -

(1) The Government's responsibility for financially assisting the development of sporting facilities in regional areas of the State rests primarily with the Minister for Sport and Recreation. I understand that the potential for a facility to meet the training needs of athletes from areas outside Sydney during the pre-Sydney 2000 Olympic Games period will be taken into account when funding consideration is being given to the development of sports facilities generally by the Minister for Sport and Recreation.
(2) Yes. The Olympic and Paralympic Games in the Year 2000 provide Sydney and New South Wales as a whole with a unique marketing opportunity for our Tourism Industry.
The real economic benefits to New South Wales will come through tourism, not simply during the Games themselves, but the years before and afterward. By capitalising on that, all of New South Wales will share the economic benefits of the Games.
The NSW Government will aggressively use the approaching Sydney 2000 Games as part of its international and interstate marketing strategy for Tourism NSW.
All marketing, planning and communications initiatives within Tourism NSW are aimed at developing and raising the profile of regional Tourism in the lead-up to the Olympics and beyond.
The Regional Tourism Strategy within Tourism NSW provides funding assistance to enable regions to develop their marketing and tourism product.
A new Tourism Development Unit has been established within Tourism NSW to assist new and established tourism businesses in their business development.
The Tourism Olympic Forum, an industry body established by Tourism NSW, is also working to spread tourism benefits across the State.
Through the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) an approach has been made to every Local Government Authority throughout Australia.
Communities across Australia are being offered the chance to host overseas Olympic teams for acclimatisation and training before the Sydney 2000 Games.
The Pre-Games Training Program gives Australia the chance to share the Olympic spirit by being directly involved in the pre-Games activities of visiting athletes.
SOCOG aims to identify communities and facilities to be listed in a guidebook which will be distributed to nearly 200 National Olympic Committees after the Atlanta Olympic Games.
SOCOG is acting as a provider of information to National Olympic Committees and will encourage National Olympic Committees to negotiate training arrangements directly with local councils and community facilities.
Overseas teams are expected to come to Australia to train as early as 3 years before the Olympics. However, the needs of overseas teams will vary. While some will look to train for several months, others will come in the last month before the Games.
(3) No. Olympic facilities are planned for construction in the Nowra area. With respect to the establishment of practice facilities for UIT shooting, the development of sporting facilities in regional areas of the State rests primarily with the Minister for Sport and Recreation.

Mr Fraser asked the Minister for Police -

(1) Has the Coffs Harbour patrol received funding for one civilian general support officer?
(2) If so, has this position been filled?
(3) If this position has not been filled, when is it intended to do so?

Answer -

(1) to (3) I have been advised that funding has been provided for a new civilian general support officer position at Coffs Harbour and the position has been filled.

Dr Macdonald asked the Minister for Agriculture -

(1) In honouring the commitment to a full review of the Animal Research Act, will he also give an undertaking to ensure greater funding is provided for the use of alternatives to animal use?
(2) Would he also provide a comprehensive report on the use of non-human primates in New South Wales in commercial, bio-medical and defence establishments?

Answer -

(1) The NSW Animal Research Act 1985 was developed as an initiative of the Wran Labor Government. It was fully implemented in January 1991 after gazetting of the NSW Animal Research Regulation in June 1990.
Concerning a review of the Act, recommendations for amendment of sections of the Animal Research Act are currently under consideration. This review has been undertaken on the recommendation of the Animal Research Review Panel (the statutory body which oversees the administration of the NSW Animal Research Act).

Page 1413
In addition, the Animal Research Act Regulation 1990 is currently being reviewed under the Subordinate Legislation Act.
The Animal Research Regulation 1990 also contains a Code of Practice which is based on the National Code - "The Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes". A review of this National Code has recently been recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council Code Liaison Group.
Concerning alternatives to the use of animals in research, ways to further progress this issue at a State level are being examined. Currently all Animal Care and Ethics Committees are required to consider the principles of reduce, refine and replace. These principles require that alternatives are considered.
All institutions conducting research in New South Wales are annually required to submit information on animal use to NSW Agriculture. This information includes the development or adoption of alternatives to animal use and is published in the annual report of the Animal Research Review Panel.
Additional measures are being considered and these include the following:

•A workshop in 1996 on the use of alternatives to animals in teaching is under consideration by the Animal Research Review Panel.
•The Panel is also considering ways to document and collate available information on the use of alternatives and this may include the production of an annual publication on the subject.
•The Panel is also undertaking a survey of the methods of production of monoclonal antibodies in New South Wales. This will include examining alternatives to the use of animals for the production of monoclonal antibodies as well as examining refinements which reduce the impact on animals used. This survey is being undertaken with a view to promoting alternatives to the use of animals in this area.

Funding for these new developments will be provided by the Department of Agriculture.
(2) Concerning the use of non-human primates, research in New South Wales is encompassed by the NSW Animal Research Act 1985. Research using animals cannot be conducted without the approval of an Animal Care and Ethics Committee.
The 1993/94 report of the Animal Research Review Panel details that as a direct result of Panel recommendations one primate holding unit was closed down at the end of 1993. Another primate holding unit was instructed to upgrade its facilities as a condition of accreditation as a research establishment and a recent inspection by the Panel confirmed that significantly improved facilities had been constructed.
With regard to the extent of use of primates in New South Wales, there is no use of primates for commercial purposes. There is limited use of primates (at two institutions with a third being phased out) for biomedical purposes. Also, the Federal Department of Defence (over which New South Wales research legislation does not have jurisdiction) is in the process of moving to Queensland.
Statistics on animals used in research, including primates, are collected from all institutions conducting research and published annually in the report of the Animal Research Review Panel.
The information published includes numbers of animals and categories of research for which they are used.

Dr Macdonald asked the Minister for Agriculture -

(1) Will he be undertaking to honour the commitment given by the honourable member for Coogee prior to the election to:

(a) Complete the review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in the first term of government?
(b) Develop and enact a Companion Animals Act?
(c) Implement a full review of the Animal Research Act?
(d) Outlaw the use of steel-jawed leg hold traps currently permissible under the Rural Lands Protection Act?

(2) Has a decision been made to transfer the Animal Welfare Unit to the Department of Local Government?

Answer -

(1) (a) Concerning the review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, a significant amount of time has lapsed since this review was submitted to the previous government in February 1994. For this reason, I am currently being briefed as to significant changes which have occurred since this review was undertaken. Following this activity, the review and its update will be submitted to Cabinet for circulation to Ministers for comment. It is then proposed to release material for public comment.

(b) With regard to the Companion Animals Act, the need for this Act is currently under consideration. The idea behind this Act was to combine dog control, cat control and animal trades control legislation. The need for cat control legislation is a vexed issue. Both Victoria and South Australia have recently introduced cat control legislation and it is prudent that New South Wales carefully monitors the real advantages and disadvantages of these legislations before embarking on a potentially costly bureaucratic legislative process.

Page 1414

The Animal Trades legislation is currently being reviewed. The intention is that codes of practice for each animal trade will be incorporated by reference in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act regulation. This would replace the current Animal Trades regulation which is outdated. Discussions are currently occurring with each animal trade concerning this matter.
With these developments, the essential elements of the proposed Companion Animals Act can be met and for these reasons the matter of introducing an entirely new Act is under consideration.
(c) The response to this question has been covered in the response to Question 70 (1).
(d) The matter of outlawing the use of steel-jawed leg hold traps is part of the review of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and will be considered together with the many issues which are included in this review.

(2) The Animal Welfare Unit will be remaining within NSW Agriculture. The RSPCA, the Animal Welfare League, the Animal Welfare Advisory Council, together with groups such as the Vice Chancellors Committee and NSW Farmers' Association, support the retention of this unit within NSW Agriculture. The Animal Welfare Unit is performing to a very high level and the advantages of its location within NSW Agriculture greatly outweigh any perceived disadvantages.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women -

(1) Has she made any changes to the fit-out or decoration of her ministerial office?
(2) (a) If so, what are those changes?

(b) How much did they cost?

Answer -

(1) No changes have been made to the fit-out or decoration of the Ministerial office.
(2) Not applicable.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women -

(1) Does she intend to refer HomeFund borrowers' cases to the Commercial Tribunal?
(2) If so, how many cases?
(3) What are the estimated costs of such action?

Answer -

(1) The Government is assessing the current position concerning assistance to HomeFund borrowers with a view to identifying options for further action.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.

Ms Machin asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women -

(1) Is there record of a meeting between officers of the Building Services Corporation and lawyers from Phillips Fox representing certain aggrieved consumers?
(2) Who are the consumers they represent?
(3) Is there a Building Services Corporation file note stating that the lawyers did not believe any legal action would be successful but the "political climate" may advantage their clients?
(4) Will that advice be referred to the review she recently initiated?

Answer -

(1) I am advised that on Monday 22 February 1995, the Corporation's then Acting Director Industry Standards, Mr Smith, and the Corporation's Legal Manager, Mr Casson, met with Mr St John Frawley of Phillips Fox Solicitors to discuss a claim made by that firm on behalf of four consumers against the Department of Local Government and the Building Services Corporation.
(2) Gwendolyn and Brian King, Yvonne Morris and Kenneth Rayner, Beverley and Scott White and Patricia and Soren Thirup.
(3) There is a file note made by one of the Building Services Corporation officers present at that meeting. That note indicates that the Phillips Fox representative told the Corporation officers present at the meeting that the timing of the claim was important and that he went on to indicate that the matters raised would be taken up at a political level. The note goes on to indicate that Mr Frawley also said that he did not know how the matter would be raised at a political level as this would be done by his clients.
(4) I am advised that advice, together with other Corporation file holdings in relation to the matters raised by the claim, has been referred to the Scheduling Panel for the Inquiry initiated by me.

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism -

(1) What is the extent of State Rail Authority's total liabilities, including lease obligations?

Page 1415
(2) What is the extent of State Rail's employee benefit liability?
(3) What is the extent of the total contribution from consolidated revenue to State Rail?

Answer -

(1) $2,343,391,000 (at 30 June 1994).
(2) $1,633,943,000 (at 30 June 1994).
(3) $1,150,212,000 (for the year ending 30 June 1994).

Mr O'Farrell asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) What initiatives has she taken since her appointment as Minister responsible for the Environment Protection Authority to address the issue of Berowra Creek pollution?
(2) In particular, what additional resources has she provided to the Environment Protection Authority to undertake testing to identify possible illegal polluters of the creek?

Answer -

(1) Many of the current Government initiatives aimed at improving water quality within the Berowra Creek catchment are being developed by a Technical Working Party comprising representatives of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney Water Corporation, the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust and Hornsby Council. While this Technical Working Party has recently been convened by the EPA, it reports to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the Hon. Craig Knowles, M.P. Therefore the question is more appropriately directed to him.
(2) The EPA carries out periodic inspections of premises licensed by the EPA to ensure compliance with environmental operating and monitoring conditions. The EPA also investigates reports of illegal discharges as they occur.
One of the commitments made by the EPA, as a member of the Berowra Creek Technical Working Party, was to review each of the premises licensed by the EPA to discharge effluent to Berowra Creek.
To this end, the EPA is currently completing a 6-month review of small, privately operated "package" sewage treatment plants throughout the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, which are licensed by the EPA to dispose of treated effluent both directly to creeks and by irrigation of suitable land. As Berowra Creek is a tributary of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, this project has comprised a detailed compliance audit and licence review of 9 of the 19 premises licensed to discharge effluent within the Berowra Creek catchment. This project will lead to upgrading of treatment processes and increased re-use of effluent for irrigation, thereby reducing nutrient and faecal coliform levels within Berowra Creek and its tributaries.

Mr Downy asked the Minister for the Environment -

(1) Will 124 ha of land at Lucas Heights, adjacent to the Lucas Heights waste depot, be transferred to the National Parks and Wildlife Service?
(2) Will the transfer place in jeopardy the contract between the NSW Waste Service and the Sydney International Clay Target Association?
(3) Will the west Menai area be incorporated in the Georges River National Park as proposed by the National Parks Association?

Answer -

(1) Discussions have taken place between the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Managing Director of the Waste Service NSW with a view to identifying areas of high conservation value on land owned by the Waste Service at Lucas Heights. I am still assessing the most appropriate method of protecting areas of high conservation value in Lucas Heights and west Menai.
(2) No.
(3) See answer to (1).

Mr Downy asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing -

(1) Can Sydney Water legally enforce the payment of contributions made under the Backlog Sewerage Program?
(2) If not:

(a) Will the Government cease enforcement action?
(b) Will it refund monies already paid?

Answer -

(1) The charges referred to concern the payment by property owners of contributions towards the total capital cost of backlog sewerage schemes in their areas.
Sydney Water has the legislative authority to levy these capital contributions (as did its predecessor, the Water Board). Sydney Water has undertaken the construction of these sewerage backlog projects following extensive community consultation about each particular project and the capital contributions required from property owners. Sydney Water has completed these projects in good faith and in accordance with all commitments which it has made to each community.
(2) (a) Sydney Water will act in accordance with its legislative authority and like all commercial businesses will seek the payment of all monies for which it is owed.

Page 1416

(b) Sydney Water will not be refunding any monies which it has received as capital contributions towards the total capital cost of sewer backlog projects.

Mr Ellis asked the Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women -

(1) Why has the Government disbanded the Women's Consultative Council?
(2) What replacement structure will be implemented?
(3) When will this be done?

Answer -

(1) The members of the Women's Consultative Committee Terms of Appointment expired on 30 June 1995, so in that sense, the Government allowed the natural course of events to proceed, which is quite different from the suggestion that the Government "disbanded" the Committee. The Committee was able to complete its planned program of work for 1994/95 and, as the Minister for Women, I formally acknowledged the achievements of the Council in the areas of post-natal depression, superannuation and women in parliament consultations.
(2) Labor's Policy for Women made a commitment to the establishment of a Premier's Council for Women, the members to be appointed by the Premier and chaired by me in my capacity as Minister for Women. The Council will report to the Premier.
(3) The Premier is expected to announce the appointments to the Council and its Terms of Reference during the Budget Session of Parliament.

Mr Jeffery asked the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries -

(1) Has he instructed the Department of Fisheries not to proceed with the share management fisheries strategic plan?
(2) (a) Will he implement the new Fisheries Management Act?
(b) If so, when?

Answer -

(1) As the share management scheme is a complex one, the Government has instituted a review of its implementation. I have instructed the committee to report to me by 20 August 1995.
(2) (a) and (b) Refer above.

Mr Hartcher asked the Minister for Police -

(1) When will tenders be called for the construction of a new police station at Kincumber?
(2) What is the proposed completion date for construction of the Kincumber Police Station?
(3) Will the police station operate on a 24-hour per day basis?
(4) How many police will be located at the police station?
(5) What is the estimated cost for construction of the police station?
(6) Where exactly at Kincumber will the police station be constructed?

Answer -

(1) I have been advised by the Police Service that a submission recommending the purchase of a property is currently under consideration.
(2) to (4) This is currently being determined, subject to budgetary constraints brought about by 7 years of Coalition Government neglect. The future of Terrigal Police Station, which the former Government intended to close, is relevant to the future policing needs of the people of the Central Coast.
(5) and (6) See response (1).

Dr Macdonald asked the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics and Minister for Roads, representing the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development and Minister Assisting the Premier -

(1) Is he aware of the SRA proposal to construct a $7 million to $30 million concrete drainage tunnel on the Illawarra coast at Wombarra?
(2) Is he aware that this tunnel was conceived to deal with flood water runoff from the disused South Clifton Colliery?
(3) Has he been informed that Coal Lease 587 requires full rehabilitation of that site including drainage and waste removal?
(4) Is he aware that Coal Lease 587 also provides for an annual expenditure of $310,000 or more at the discretion of the Minister for Mineral Resources?
(5) Why are public funds being used to solve a flood problem when private moneys are available for that purpose?
(6) Has the tunnel proposal been fully costed by the SRA?
(7) Is he aware of a recent tunnel collapse at Heathrow Airport, London, with a cost blow out of tens of millions of dollars?
(8) How is the economy of the tunnel proposal justified by Treasury?

Page 1417
(9) Why does the Wombarra drainage project EIS contain no economic analysis of options as required by Treasury for capital works in excess of half a million dollars?
(10) Why does the same EIS contain no risk analysis as required by the State Government's Assets Management Policy?
(11) Has the SRA refused to accept responsibility for monitoring and maintaining the proposed Wombarra drainage tunnel during its 50-year life?
(12) Has Wollongong Council refused to accept responsibility for monitoring and maintaining the tunnel?
(13) Who has agreed to be responsible for monitoring and maintenance?
(14) How would this be financed?
(15) Will New South Wales taxpayers bear the cost?
(16) (a) Is he aware of secondments from the Office of the Auditor-General to the SRA?

(b) Will this compromise the independence of SRA audits undertaken by the Office of the Auditor-General?

Answer -

(1) Yes.
(2) This was stated by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW in a letter of 10 May 1995.
(3) In the aforementioned letter, it was also stated that there were statutory and financial provisions in KCC's Coal Lease agreement 587 for mine reclamation.
(4) See (3).
(5) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(6) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(7) No.
(8) Projects over $5 million have always been subject to a full economic appraisal. However, previously projects such as this were reviewed and evaluated by the Capital Works Unit of the Premier's Department.
(9) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(10) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(11) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(12) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(13) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(14) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(15) This is not a matter which falls within the administration of the Treasurer.
(16) (a) Yes, I am aware of the secondments from the office of the Auditor-General to the SRA. The SRA required expertise to develop and set up an internal audit system and the Auditor-General's office was a logical choice to find the appropriate personnel.

(b) This would not compromise the independence of the Auditor-General's audits of the SRA.

Dr Macdonald asked the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism -

(1) Has a Snowy Mountains type drainage tunnel with ocean outfall been proposed by the SRA for Scarborough/Wombarra?
(2) If so, what are the dimensions of this proposed tunnel in metres?
(3) What is the aboveground length in kilometres?
(4) How deep underground would the proposed tunnel be built?
(5) Are explosives used in construction of this type of tunnel?
(6) Does the proposal involve extensive underground work on an ecologically fragile coast?
(7) Would the proposed tunnel cross Scarborough/Wombarra coal seams?
(8) Are these coal seams known to emit methane and carbon monoxide gas?
(9) Can the SRA guarantee safety of workers involved in tunnel construction activities in this locality?
(10) Can the SRA guarantee safety of Scarborough/Wombarra homes situated above the proposed tunnel easement?
(11) Is land to the west, upstream of the tunnel intake, known to be geologically unstable?
(12) How close, in metres, is the Wombarra landslide zone from the intake shaft of the proposed tunnel?
(13) Would open drainage channels lead to the tunnel entrance?
(14) How close, in metres, are these channels from the Wombarra landslide zone?
(15) Is the South Clifton Colliery, west and upstream of the proposed tunnel intake, fully remediated?
(16) Are tunnel intake channels at any risk of being blocked by mine debris?
(17) Did parts of this area at Wombarra collapse onto the rail corridor during rains in June 1991?
(18) Was that collapse in any way connected with debris blocking SRA drainage culverts?
(19) Did waters displaced by that culvert blockage run south and demolish the Illawarra rail line at Wombarra Station in June 1991?
(20) Did waters from that culvert blockage cause serious flooding to Scarborough/Wombarra homes in June 1991?
(21) Do Scarborough/Wombarra residents fear a repeat of this incident if the proposed tunnel intake became blocked?
(22) Would the proposed tunnel combine the waters of ten smaller streams together at one point?
(23) Has an independent hydrologist and risks engineer checked that creeks in the area have been gauged to provide quantitative data on peak flood runoff levels?

Page 1418
(24) Does the risk engineer's report indicate the amount of water to be carried by the tunnel?
(25) How does this compare to SRA estimates?
(26) What is his legal advice on this problem?
(27) What engineering design features would allow the tunnel to operate with 50 per cent more water?
(28) Will he table these engineering designs?
(29) Does the SRA have contingency plans to deal with operational failure at the intake shaft?
(30) Is the Wombarra landslide zone, above the intake, moving approximately 7 inches p.a. in a southeasterly direction?
(31) Has he viewed any recent photographic evidence of that movement?
(32) Will he table 1994 geotechnical data on the current rate of this land movement?
(33) Is tunnel construction expected to commence before this slip zone has been stabilised?
(34) What is his legal advice on that?
(35) Has the SRA refused to make tunnel safety plans available to potentially affected Scarborough/Wombarra residents downstream of the Wombarra landslide zone?
(36) Has the SRA carried out an assessment of geotechnical stability of the proposed tunnel under major storm conditions?
(37) If so, will he table that report?
(38) If not, why not?
(39) Does the proposed tunnel cross a major east-west fault line known as the Scarborough Fault?
(40) Does it cross a second north-south fault line near the proposed outfall at Scarborough Headland?
(41) Could the main coast road, Lawrence Hargrave Drive at Scarborough Headland, be undermined by the proposed tunnel?
(42) Has the RTA been asked by the SRA to examine this possibility?
(43) Is Scarborough Headland known to be geologically unstable?
(44) Has a house and other buildings collapsed into the sea from this headland?
(45) Will the energy dissipater to be constructed inside the tunnel outfall at Scarborough Headland vibrate at 45,000 horsepower in a major storm event?
(46) What effect will this have on homes built above the proposed tunnel?
(47) Could persons be put at risk by an ocean outfall situated above the rockpool play area?
(48) Will he table a copy of contracts for the proposed Wombarra drainage tunnel as signed by the SRA and Transfield Constructions?
(49) If not, why not?
(50) Is the Wombarra tunnel contract a fixed price contract?
(51) Is the contract a do and charge contract?
(52) Is there any specific clause in the contract relating to a penalty payable should the contact be terminated?
(53) Has he given SRA liability for compensation as the reason why the tunnel must go ahead?
(54) Would not the penalty be merely the sum of the contractor's expenses to date, plus an estimate of loss of anticipated profit?
(55) If not, how is the penalty calculated?
(56) How much is the penalty for termination of the tunnel contract expected to be?
(57) Is this less than the $7 million to $30 million cost of construction of the tunnel?
(58) Have maintenance costs been factored into the cost of the tunnel?

Answer -

(1) A drainage tunnel with a cliff face outfall is planned for Wombarra.
(2) 3 metres.
(3) Approximately 0.6 km.
(4) Up to 60 metres.
(5) It is not anticipated that explosives will be used.
(6) In the absence of a definition of ecological fragility and specific details of the area concerned, it is not possible to provide an answer.
(7) Yes.
(8) Yes.
(9) The SRA has engaged an experienced underground miner, Transfield, and it will be responsible for workers' safety.
(10) The SRA does not anticipate any adverse effects on properties from the tunnel construction works.
(11) There is a propensity for movement in land west of the proposed tunnel. However, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, principal engineering consultant for this project, has advised that this would not seriously endanger the proposed drainage system.
(12) Approximately 40 metres.
(13) Yes.
(14) Approximately 40 metres.
(15) No.
(16) The design incorporates risk mitigation measures such as mesh grilles, a 600 mm high retaining wall, and trash racks.
(17) Yes. This was predominantly caused by stormwater scour.
(18) The SRA is unaware of any damage as a result of its culvert work.
(19) and (20) Water from the overtopping creek "G" flowed south through Wombarra platform, causing a washaway. Some flooding occurred downstream.
(21) In response to community concern, mitigation features, as outlined in (16), are planned to avoid blockages.
(22) No.
(23) An independent hydrologist and risk engineer has reviewed the hydrological work.