Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 10 October 1995, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Mr SPEAKER: I draw to the attention of members and acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr John Hickey, a member of the Provincial Government of Papua New Guinea and the member for Madang Province, who is currently visiting Australia. We wish him a pleasant stay.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [2.15]: I move:

That, further to the resolution of the House of Thursday, 21 September 1995, relating to the introduction of the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow at 4.00 p.m. this day the interruption of the business then before the House for the introduction of the Appropriation Bill, Appropriation (Parliament) Bill, Appropriation (Special Offices) Bill, General Government Debt Elimination Bill, Motor Vehicles Taxation Amendment Bill, Business Franchise Licences (Petroleum Products) Amendment Bill, and Road Improvement (Special Funding) Further Amendment Bill, by a Minister on behalf of the Premier up to and including the second reading speech.

Mr WEST (Orange) [2.16]: This matter has been resolved by vote of this House. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose the motion.

Motion agreed to.


Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.16]: I seek leave to move a motion to suspend standing orders to require the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, to remain for one hour after completion of his speech on the budget this day to answer questions from the House on the budget.

Leave not granted.


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill
Liquor Amendment Bill
Parliamentary Supply Bill
Public Sector Management Amendment Bill
Registered Clubs Amendment Bill
Supply Bill

Motion by Mr Kerr agreed to:

That leave of absence for the present session be granted to Kevin Richard Rozzoli, Member for Hawkesbury, on account of absence from the State.

Mr Speaker tabled a copy of the Register of Disclosures by members of the Legislative Assembly as at 30 June 1995.

Ordered to be printed.


The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act, receipt of the following report:

Proceedings of the Seminar on Annual Reporting in the NSW Public Sector, minutes of evidence, submissions and exhibits concerning an inquiry into Annual Reporting, dated September 1995.

The Clerk announced, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act, receipt of the following report:

Performance Audit Report, the Audit Office of New South Wales, entitled "Department of School Education - Effective Utilisation of School Facilities", dated 29 September 1995.

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 any attempt to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide be opposed and that the right to life be supported, received from Mr Beck and Ms Machin.

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

Petition praying for a moratorium on and an inquiry into oil companies controlling retail outlets by way of multiple site franchises, received from Ms Machin.

Page 1459

Petition praying that a polyclinic be constructed at Westlakes, received from Mr Hunter.

Petition praying that facilities at Rachel Forster Hospital be upgraded, received from Mr Markham.

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 a pedestrian crossing be provided on Newcastle Road, Wallsend, between Bluegum Road and Thomas Street, received from Mr Mills.

Petition praying that commercial netting in the Bellinger and Kalang Rivers be discontinued, received from Mr Martin.

Petition praying that travel concessions be provided to university external students and full-fee paying students from overseas, received from Mr Chappell.

Petition praying for the construction of a passing lane on the Monaro Highway, south of Michelago gap, between Kelly's Road and Lenanes Creek, received from Mr Cochran.



Mr COLLINS: I address my question to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Does the implementation of State environmental planning policy 46 mean that, for the first time in the State's history, farmers will be forced to pay for the right to manage their own properties or face fines of up to $100,000 for clearing more than seven trees per hectare? Has SEPP 46 and the Minister's lack of consultation caused widespread outrage among New South Wales farmers, and will he assure them that his policy will be amended?

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition front bench will listen in silence to the Minister's response.

Mr YEADON: Little wonder there is so much discussion in the back rooms of the Liberal Party about the fate of the Leader of the Opposition's future and his position, if that is the best he can come up with after two weeks off from Parliament.

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

Mr YEADON: All he is becoming is just a mouthpiece for the National Party ratbags that sit behind him.

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

Mr YEADON: He cannot even come up with a question dealing with his own area of responsibility. His question, which has a little misalliance to it, is the best he can come up with. No wonder the honourable member for Lane Cove has a big smile on her face. The Government introduced SEPP 46 as an interim measure whilst it undertakes full consultation in relation to what is going to be appropriate land clearing controls in New South Wales in the longer term. SEPP 46 is an interim measure. There is a very good reason why the Government introduced that measure.

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

Mr YEADON: Experience in other States shows that as soon as any discussion arises about land clearing and native vegetation controls there has been a rash of speculative land clearing. Queensland and South Australia are classic examples of that. The Government needed to introduce an interim measure to ensure that a small minority of irresponsible people on the land did not go out and engage in that type of activity. There is a clear four-phased approach in the Government's reform in relation to native vegetation control. The first - introduction of SEPP 46 - has been undertaken. The second phase, currently in train, is for a full period of consultation to be undertaken over the next 12 to 18 months with all interested parties - a native vegetation forum in New South Wales - and that has been set up.

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

Mr YEADON: At the conclusion of that phase, in the third phase the Government will take into account all the submissions and views that have been put by interest groups, by individuals, or by anyone who wants to place a submission before the native vegetation forum.

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

Mr YEADON: The final phase of the Government's approach to this reform process will be an ongoing and permanent arrangement to protect native vegetation. This is only an interim measure, as the Government has made clear from the outset. It is not a blanket ban on land clearing in New South Wales. Two hectares of land can be broadacre cleared without an application having to be made. The State environmental planning policy contains 12 exemptions that will allow farmers to carry on with sound farm management in the meantime.

Page 1460

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation and there are far too many interjections from both sides of the House. The Minister's response will be heard in silence. The Leader of the Opposition, who has asked the question, and the Chair are having difficulty hearing the answer.

Mr YEADON: The Government's approach is characterised by balance and consultation, and ultimately this State will have a native vegetation protection regime that will be in the best interests of all the people in this State, including those in rural New South Wales.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government's policy relates to sustainable agriculture in this State and ensuring that people on the land have a viable future and can hand their properties over to their children, comfortable in the knowledge that their children will have a sustainable economic future on that land, as will their children. That is very important to this Government. When the coalition was in government it pandered to sectional interests and disregarded members of the rural community; it did not give a damn about them. It did nothing. I have travelled extensively throughout New South Wales since becoming Minister. Opposition members may laugh, but ironically whenever I visit rural New South Wales people tell me they are delighted to see a Minister in their area.

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

Mr YEADON: They were never visited by a Minister from the previous Government. The honourable member for Upper Hunter is often referred to personally in this regard.

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

Mr YEADON: When I visit rural New South Wales people say to me, "Good on you Minister for dealing with these issues, because they are long overdue." They say, "The previous Government never had the guts to do it; they pandered to sectional interests. It is great to see that somebody is finally doing their job."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The behaviour of members during the response by the Minister to the first question of questions without notice is unacceptable. Generally speaking, a degree of leniency is extended to members during question time. However, on some occasions the Chair insists on the strict adherence by members to the forms and procedures of the House. This is one of those occasions. Those members who have been called to order on one occasion already are now deemed to be on three calls to order.

Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Will the Minister explain his public statement that national park areas to be declared in the Government's first year of office would have no impact whatsoever on the timber industry, given the pending closure of Morrison's sawmill at Coolah and the direct loss of 12 jobs?

Mr YEADON: It is obvious that the honourable member for Upper Hunter has not changed his style since he was a Minister in the previous Government. He dithered for a long time before he got his question out, in the same way that he dithered when he was a Minister. The Labor Party went to the election with a clear, comprehensive forestry policy. It was an historical, watershed policy, a policy that all Government members are proud to be associated with. It will resolve the bitter problems dividing rural New South Wales now and into the future. That is in stark contrast to what occurred under the previous Government, which did nothing despite having signed a national forest policy statement. That statement was thrown in the bottom drawer and forgotten. Under the previous Government if National Party backbenchers had a problem, they would phone the Minister, who would fix things regardless of environmental controls or regulations.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order and advise her that she is now on three calls to order.

Mr YEADON: There was no rhyme, no reason, no policy - only adhockery and dithering, features that still characterise the honourable member for Upper Hunter. This Government went to the election with a clear policy to create 24 new national parks in its first year of government. One of those was the Coolah Tops National Park. The Government is fulfilling that promise and is creating the Coolah Tops National Park.


Ms NORI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for the Environment. What steps has the National Parks and Wildlife Service taken to protect life and property in national parks during the bushfire season?

Ms ALLAN: The National Parks and Wildlife Service is at its highest level of preparedness for the coming bushfire season than ever before in its 30-year history. With the January 1994 bushfires serving as a reminder of how government neglect can lead to a major catastrophe, I have refused to allow the build-up of ground fuels on national parks estates. If the Government creates new national parks, it has a responsibility to manage them properly. Since becoming Minister for the Environment I have asked the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to make bushfire management a top priority.

Page 1461

Since 1 July the service has completed over 7,000 hectares of hazard reduction burning throughout the State at a cost of approximately $100,000. A total of 137 separate hazard reduction operations have been carried out in the past year. The service's fire trail maintenance is of equal importance. In all, nearly 1,000 kilometres of fire trails have been upgraded at a cost of over $0.25 million. This represents maintenance work on approximately 10 per cent of a total of 10,000 kilometres of the fire trail system in national parks in just over two months. In the Blue Mountains district, which includes Blue Mountains, Wollemi and Kanangra Boyd national parks, over 300 kilometres of trails have been upgraded in preparation for the bushfire season. During the recent winter months the service took advantage of dry conditions to undertake hazard reduction in strategic areas throughout the State.

In the Central Coast district, including Yengo, Brisbane Waters and Bouddi national parks - areas subject to some of the most devastating damage in the 1994 bushfires - hazard reduction work has been completed well ahead of schedule. This effort has been repeated across the State. Even in urban areas such as the Royal, Ku-ring-gai Chase and Sydney Harbour national parks strategic burning, aimed at protecting life and property, has already been completed. In many rural areas, including Dorrigo, Armidale, Lismore, Coonabarabran and Jindabyne, the service has been working with the local bushfire authorities to ensure that hazard reduction work is completed before the season begins.

It should be noted that, while hazard reduction work is strategically important, the environment impact of each burn is taken into account. The service has moved quickly to prepare fire management plans for each of its reserves throughout New South Wales. I should add that that effort was completely ignored by the former Government. In the southern part of the State the service has worked with other authorities, including the Department of Bush Fire Services, to develop new risk assessment techniques for protecting people and property from bushfires. There has also been a massive upgrade of equipment and training for service personnel. Four new firefighting tankers have been purchased, two for use in Kosciusko National Park and two for use in Wollemi National Park and Myall Lakes National Park.

To improve our rapid response capacity, 22 standardised slip-on firefighting units have been purchased for use by four-wheel drive vehicles at a cost of $9,000 each. The service has a fleet of 160 four-wheel drive vehicles, and it is proposed to install these slip-on units on every vehicle on a priority basis. All service fire suppression equipment is in a state of readiness, and additional equipment, including pumps and hoses, has been purchased. I ask honourable members to compare this effort with the efforts of the former Minister for the Environment, the honourable member for Gosford - Thomas the Tank Engine - who, I notice, is not showing a great deal of interest in this answer. The honourable member told the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 December last year that he had asked the National Parks and Wildlife Service to buy 400 mobile phones to fight bushfires. Imagine firefighters throwing mobile phones at the blazes!

In the event that bushfires break out, I am pleased to announce that a service State operations centre has been established at our head office to coordinate service fire management responses throughout the State. The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service has trained its staff in incident control systems management of bushfires, whale rescue, search and rescue, storms, floods and chemical spills. Approval has recently been given for 14 of our staff to be given high level specialist training in the use of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters for bushfire suppression activities. I issue a warning to reckless and careless individuals who cause wilful damage by fire. To prosecute arsonists the Government will not hesitate to use the Crimes Act, which provides for penalties of up to $10,000 or 10 years' imprisonment for such an offence. Recently, I increased the fines for people who failed to observe fire bans or who carelessly left camp fires unattended from $100 to $300.

[Interruption]

I am not sure why the Leader of the Opposition should be concerned about protecting these people. But it is important that we increase fines. The former Government should have pursued that effort during its term in office. In conclusion, I thank the men and women of the National Parks and Wildlife Service for their efforts in protecting life and property during the January 1994 bushfires. The preparations made by the New South Wales Government and the National Parks and Wildlife Service will ensure that we in New South Wales have the best chance ever of stopping a recurrence of the January 1994 fires.


Mr CLOUGH: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. What steps has the Government taken to make the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority more effective in helping farmers to access drought assistance?

Mr AMERY: On behalf of all members I welcome back the honourable member for Bathurst; he has just spent some time in hospital. It goes to show that even a wounded Labor member delivers more for country electorates than any healthy National Party member.

[Interruption]

It worries me that the honourable member for Burrinjuck always seems to be cranky, upset and gruff. Has he ever tried to take up the All-Bran challenge? I have been told that it makes one a nicer person after about three weeks. On 30 September I announced that a further $20 million of drought relief was made available by the Federal Government for New South Wales farmers under the exceptional
Page 1462
circumstances program. Support has been extended to the Rural Lands Protection Board of Molong, division B; Merriwa, divisions C and D; Mudgee, divisions A, C and D; Bathurst, divisions A and C, and the western part of division D; Carcoar, division A; and Dubbo, divisions B and C. The extension applies from 29 May 1995. The best way to describe the support is that it picks up those areas that missed out on the exceptional circumstances announcement by Senator Bob Collins on 29 May. The decision by the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to grant extensions to the exceptional circumstances for drought relief areas means that an additional 1,000 farmers are eligible for Commonwealth assistance.

To assist farmers in their efforts to gain assistance under the exceptional circumstances I requested the Rural Assistance Authority to place officers in Dubbo and Bathurst. I advise the House that Mr Frank Slade is now in Dubbo and Mr Keith Pyne is now operating out of Bathurst, assisting farmers in relation to this further support. I urge farmers who think they may be eligible to contact these two RAA officers as quickly as possible. On 19 July I announced wide-ranging changes to the troubled Rural Assistance Authority following a review of the organisation's operations. The authority, which has responsibility for the distribution of drought aid to farmers, had been the subject of criticism over its handling of applications from farmers for drought and readjustment assistance.

The review followed an earlier damning report by the Public Accounts Committee that was brought down in February 1995, during the term of the previous Government As a result of the review I announced that the authority will be made more accessible to farmers and undergo a major change in its focus. Until now the authority has been a mail order organisation based in Sydney, remote from the people that it is supposed to serve. I want it to be more accessible to farmers. This will be achieved by locating officers in regional centres using existing New South Wales Agricultures offices and shifting the headquarters of the RAA to the country, specifically to Orange. The relocation to Orange is designed to strengthen services to rural industries, and is the first step to give the RAA a regional presence with greater access to its client base.

Operations of the RAA in Orange will commence from 1 February 1996, and staff of the authority will be required to relocate to Orange by 1 February 1997. However, they may do so immediately if they so desire. The authority is now under the umbrella of New South Wales Agriculture. At the same time it has become more orientated towards achieving positive outcomes for primary producers and rural communities. The authority will retain its independence and operate as a distinct entity. It will effectively have a shopfront presence through all New South Wales Agriculture offices across the State. Officers of the RAA moving to Orange will be provided with the same relocation package that was provided to New South Wales Agriculture employees who moved to Orange as part of the decentralisation package of the previous Government. The number of staff intending to make the move to Orange is uncertain. Negotiations with the unions are continuing. The move is being coordinated by staff members of New South Wales Agriculture. I expect that the relocation to Orange - which will result in a presence in a number of rural areas - will be successful.


Mr D. L. PAGE: Will the Minister for Land and Water Conservation withdraw immediately the recently announced increases of up to 86 per cent in rural water charges and await the determination of the Government Pricing Tribunal, as he and his party promised in their election platform?

Mr YEADON: Members of the National Party have really taken over. All honourable members would be aware of the altercation between the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Ermington during the last sitting about who would ask the final question. Of course, members of the National Party prevailed. As a result a number of Liberal backbenchers sent a delegation to the office of the Leader of the Opposition to tell him that it was not on, that they needed more balance in the equation, and that more members of the Liberal Party should get a run in the Parliament. But it seems that their plea to the Leader of the Opposition fell on deaf ears. The National Party is ruling the roost in the coalition today. The days of the Leader of the Opposition are numbered, I suggest.

Mr Longley: On a point of order: the question was clearly about an 86 per cent increase in water costs by the Labor Government. The Minister has not yet dealt with the question. What he is saying has no relevance to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point taken by the honourable member for Pittwater is not without substance. The Minister will answer the question.

Mr YEADON: Who said that the Liberals did not have courage? The answer to the first part of the question is that the honourable member's calculations are incorrect. It is not an 86 per cent increase. The answer to the second part of the question is no.


Dr MACDONALD: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Has the Government received legal advice on the potential liability of the Federal Government or the airline industry for aircraft noise at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport? Is the Government now of the opinion that the Federal Government or the industry can be sued? When will the Premier table the advice and his Government's policy on aircraft noise?

Mr CARR: The answer to the first part of the question is: not to my knowledge.

Page 1463

Mr McBRIDE: My question is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. What is the Government doing to make New South Wales beaches safe?

Ms HARRISON: This Government is committed to ensuring that the beaches of New South Wales remain safe for all people to enjoy. There is little doubt that this summer will bring record numbers of visitors to our beaches - people from New South Wales and people from all around Australia and the world. No matter how many times the Government or surf lifesaving associations try to get the message across about how to enjoy water sports responsibly and safely, too many people get into trouble. We will, however, strenuously maintain our commitment to making beaches safer. We have made a substantial increase in funding to our surf lifesavers. We will ensure that our surf lifesavers have the resources they need to fulfil their vital role, and we will continue vital education programs about water safety. To that end the level of support from this Government for the New South Wales Surf Life Saving Association will include substantial recurrent funding for State operations as well as a special provision in the State budget for the purchase of equipment.

Recurrent funding this financial year will be $600,000 through my Department of Sport and Recreation. Since the 1976-77 financial year the State Government has provided approximately $7 million to the New South Wales Surf Life Saving Association. The Government is also awaiting a submission from the New South Wales Surf Life Saving Association to have its State headquarters based at the New South Wales Academy of Sport. The Government supports this plan in principle but, as yet, no formal submission has been received in my office or by my department. The Department of Sport and Recreation will again consider applications for financial assistance from surf lifesaving clubs under the capital assistance program.

There has been a big step forward in water safety with the standardisation of beach warning signs on surfing beaches throughout New South Wales. This initiative, which has been implemented only recently, will be of benefit to all surf lifesavers and the public at large throughout the summer. Those signs have been developed by the New South Wales Surf Life Saving Association with local government and the Standards Association of Australia. This is a victory for cooperation between the various organisations involved in beach safety. A report early next month from the Premier's task force will examine the relationship and responsibilities of the various organisations to maximise their effectiveness.

Anyone who doubts the need for a strong lifesaving presence on our beaches should look at the rescue figures. Either a dramatically higher number of people are using our patrolled beaches or the message is not getting through about beach safety. In a report last week in the Australian newspaper, Surf Life Saving Australia quoted some alarming statistics from its own research. The association found that 95 per cent of overseas tourists could not recognise rips and 18 per cent of them did not know who the lifesavers were or what was the significance of the flags on the beaches. It also found that 45 per cent of the people being rescued lived more than 50 kilometres from the coast.

The Australian described this as "surfing naivete", and this spells danger for the coming summer. Since the summer of 1992-93 rescues have almost doubled on New South Wales beaches. Last summer 7,980 people were rescued on the beaches. That figure is up nearly 2,000 on the figure for the previous summer. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to again encourage people to enjoy their water sports and our great beach culture responsibly. This Government has maintained a strong commitment to the Royal Life Saving Society of New South Wales. One of my first tasks as Minister for Sport and Recreation was to present $300,000 to the society as a contribution towards the purchase of its new headquarters in Gladesville.

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

Ms HARRISON: My department has committed $175,000 in recurrent funding to the society this financial year, for a total commitment of $3.3 million. My department also works closely with the society to conduct resuscitation courses to educate members of the community in lifesaving techniques. Education is a key tool in making our beaches, waterways and swimming pools safer. Drowning statistics indicate that we are winning the battle here. Although I cannot describe the deaths of 127 people as an acceptable number, the figure for the 1993-94 summer was the third lowest on record in the 13 years that my department has compiled statistics. I congratulate the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries for ensuring that our beaches are safe by regular shark meshing in Wollongong, Sydney, the central coast and Newcastle.

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

Ms HARRISON: His continuing commitment to beach safety is commendable.


Mr HUNTER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. What action has the Government taken to clarify planning controls for mines in New South Wales?

Mr KNOWLES: One of the most effective contributions any government can make to enhance economic performance is to clarify and streamline regulations for business. The previous Government did very little on that front. In fact, the number of new regulations and controls grew by more than 5,000
Page 1464
in the previous Government's seven years of administration. A classic example was the regulation of the mining industry. Coal is Australia's largest export commodity representing some 10 per cent of export earnings. In New South Wales the Hunter Valley contributes over 50 per cent of coal production, and its role is rapidly increasing through foreign demand for thermal coal. The former Government left the mining industry under such a cloud of confusion that in some cases it was almost impossible to come to a decision about whether a mine could or could not go ahead. Not so long ago in relation to a mine application by the Bengalla mining company, our old pen pal the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr George Souris, wrote to me saying:

Dear Minister,

. . . There are several property owners in the proposed Bengalla lease area who have been in limbo for several years waiting for approval.

The decision has been complicated with Commissions of Inquiry, appeals to the Land and Environment Court etc. All these now seem to be over and your finalisation of this approval is keenly awaited.

The Deputy Leader of the National Party sought to expedite the process. One has to ask oneself: what was he doing for seven years, or at least for the three years that the Bengalla proposal was before the previous Government? For more than three years the Bengalla mining company proposed one of the largest resource developments ever seen in this State. When this Government came to office it found that the proposal had been stalled. In just six months the Government has approved the Bengalla mine, but more importantly - and this will be of interest to the honourable member for Lake Macquarie - the rules for approving mines have been clarified right across the State.

The Bengalla open cut coal mine will generate more than 800 jobs and $5 billion in revenue. The construction and development costs alone will be of the order of $370 million and will generate more than 300 jobs during the construction phase. There will be major overseas investment in the project, and export earnings will make a significant impact on Australia's balance of trade. On any criteria this proposal clearly represented, and is now, a very significant national project. But the previous Government was simply unable to get it up and running. The mine will be located in an area that is zoned, and always has been zoned, to permit mining, subject to appropriate environmental controls. In fact, it will join the existing mines of Muswellbrook No. 2, Bayswater No. 2 and the Dartbrook underground mine.

An exhaustive and extensive environmental impact assessment process into the mine was conducted, including a comprehensive environmental impact study, an independent commission of inquiry and appeals to the Land and Environment Court. Despite the independent assessment by the commissioner that "the benefits of the mine substantially outweighed any potential environmental impact", the former Government did nothing to correct the cumbersome planning system that required the applicant to satisfy two different sets of planning provisions to determine whether it could go ahead. Even after the commission of inquiry had recommended that the mine could proceed, opponents of the mine were able to overturn the decision in court purely on the basis of the former Government's hopeless inaction and approach to the problem. The previous Government did nothing to resolve the problem despite having three years to deal with it. In the words of one local resident, a constituent of the Deputy Leader of the National Party who wrote to me thanking for me for my action, the period under the previous Government was a desperate period of indecision.

I am pleased to inform the House that a new State environmental planning policy for mines has been gazetted and it has removed the confusion that reigned under the previous Government. This Government is committed to cutting red tape and to getting jobs for and investment in New South Wales. The new SEPP No. 45 - entitled "Permissibility of Mining" - allows mines to be assessed under a single and consistent set of rules across the State. Clear, stringent and publicly accountable environmental criteria, as contained in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, will be used to consider the merits of mines and their potential impact on the environment. And, of course, the new SEPP will ensure that the public will continue to have a say in the decision-making process.

This Government has achieved in six months what the previous Government could not achieve after three years: a new system that is not only a win for jobs and industry, but is also a win for the environment. The new Bengalla mine at Muswellbrook will be subjected to some of the most stringent environmental criteria ever imposed on a mine. Thirty conditions containing more than 90 controls will be monitored by an independent environmental audit. In addition, a consultative committee will also be set up to provide direct and ongoing input from local residents. These conditions have set new benchmarks for the management of the environmental impact of mining activities on a national basis. I am pleased to say that the Bengalla company is happy to comply with these conditions now that they have received certainty to proceed. This was just one aspect of my decision that was praised by the honourable member for Upper Hunter in his media release of 7 August 1995, which stated:

The Upper Hunter community, including a large number of property owners affected by the development, will be pleased that the uncertainty surrounding this project has finally been resolved.

Well, George, you must be pleased that Labor is in Government; that Labor is making the decisions, fixing up things after your hopeless and inadequate approach during the last three years. Clearly the new SEPP is good news for the mining sector of New South Wales; but it is also great news for the State's economy and the nation.

Page 1465

Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Why did the Minister ignore a recent water resources paper that showed that the flow to the Macquarie Marshes has risen 10 per cent since Burrendong Dam was built? Will the Minister concede that the increased inflow to 525,000 megalitres will force the watertable to rise and exacerbate salt pollution in the bird breeding grounds?

Mr YEADON: Again the Leader of the National Party has been able to prevail over the honourable member for Ermington. The National Party really does rule the coalition. When the Government formulated its water policy reforms it did so in a very comprehensive and qualitative way. It took into account all available data and studies in relation to the Macquarie Marshes and our inland river systems, and the Government believes that it has got it absolutely right.


Mr BECKROGE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware of any moves to force amalgamations on local councils in rural New South Wales? Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any plans for such amalgamations?

Mr E. T. PAGE: The honourable member for Broken Hill has a longstanding interest in local government. He always represents -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that a number are already on three calls to order. For the remaining four minutes of question time I suggest that all members be on their very best behaviour.

Mr E. T. PAGE: He always enthusiastically represents the eight councils in his electorate. No other electorate has more councils. Members on this side of the House, and I would hope members of the Opposition side also, know that it was a commitment of Labor prior to the election that there would be no forced council amalgamations. That is still the position, and it is another promise that will be kept by this Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse will have an opportunity to ask a question when the Minister has completed his response.

Mr E. T. PAGE: In response to the interjection of the honourable member for Vaucluse -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would prefer that the Minister continue to answer the question.

Mr E. T. PAGE: I was seeking to respond to the interjection of the honourable member for Vaucluse.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would prefer that the Minister answered the question.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Since I have been the Minister I have made extensive trips throughout the State.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The behaviour of the honourable member for Ermington is most disrespectful. I remind him that he is on three calls to order and that if he persists in such behaviour he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr E. T. PAGE: I have met representatives of some 50 councils and I have been very well received as a member of the Government who is prepared to go to country areas, talk to people in local government and see what is happening.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: Come on, you goose.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will answer the question and he will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Members of councils right across the spectrum have made the caustic comment to me that they are glad to see a Minister for Local Government in the country, because under the previous Government they never saw the Minister. They are now keen to have proper representation.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: I am always asked about amalgamation and I always say, in accordance with our commitment before the election, that there will be no forced amalgamations. Those who know me accept it as the word of the Bible. It is to the detriment of country councils that people are starting rumours that there will be amalgamations. Drought-affected council areas have enough trouble coping with the problems they have had for the past few years. It is not very productive for those in the bush when people start rumours that upset councils and councillors. One of the latest rumour mongers is Trevor Toole, who was formerly the Mayor of Evans Council. He did not run in the recent election because he was frightened to be beaten. He is no longer on Evans Council. Trevor Toole again raised the matter of forced amalgamation.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: Opposition members know him because he is a well-known National Party hack chasing headlines. He is a failed candidate for Bathurst and he will soon be a failed candidate for Calare. He obviously wants to go down in a blaze of glory; he has no credibility whatsoever. But certainly, in three years time, there will have been no forced amalgamation in this State. People will realise that honourable members opposite are the ones who are doing a disservice to the country by spreading false rumours, and that we on this side of the House are keeping our promises. I reiterate: we are a government of integrity.

Page 1466

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn members who continue to interject not to further try the patience of the Chair. The Minister has the call.

Mr E. T. PAGE: We are a government of integrity. We will fulfil the promises that we made before the election. I assure my colleague the honourable member for Broken Hill that he can tell his council members that there will be no forced amalgamations. In the next few months I will visit his local councils with him; we will do a joint tour. I will tell them personally that there will be no forced amalgamations, and they will be able to tell from my honest aspect that what I say is true. They can believe that this promise will be kept.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [3.15]: This matter is of considerable importance. I made passing reference to it in the Chamber the other night in relation to amendments to a bill that had been returned from the upper House. I conceded that there has been considerable concern, especially in country areas, about anti-social behaviour and the conduct of various people involved in alcohol-related incidents. It is obvious from comments that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga made recently in his city that he would concur that there is room for concern about the consequences of trading hours. It is essential that this afternoon members have the opportunity to relate some of their experiences and the concerns that their constituents continually raise with regard to the problems caused by the consumption of alcohol.

One aspect of alcohol consumption almost defies belief. Although alcohol consumption on a per capita basis is decreasing, far more serious incidents are occurring as a result of the phenomenon of alcohol consumption known as binge drinking. Evidence is emerging both medically and within my department that some young drinkers between the ages of 18 and 25 have within their system nearly double the volume of alcohol that their counterparts would have had 20 years ago. Therefore, it is a matter of grave concern to the community generally that the Parliament should deal with this issue on a bipartisan basis. The consumption of alcohol has social consequences also. In fact the number of assaults occurring now by comparison with a few years ago is considerably greater. Police statistics prove that. It is therefore essential that this debate proceed this afternoon.

In practically every country town I have visited recently concern has been expressed about the consumption of alcohol. There is no easy answer. Trading hours cause some of the problems, and many - though thankfully a minority - licensees and others in the industry are operating in a way that is less than desirable. It is well known that the Government is looking widely at licensing because of anomalies that have emerged. These problems cannot be attributed to any government of recent times, because many things have been done with the greatest of intentions. As I said recently to the honourable member for Orange, who was the Minister at the time, there is no way that blame for extended trading hours could be sheeted home to him. His legislation was passed with the concurrence of the Labor Party.

We agreed that extending trading hours might be an answer to the problem of people becoming involved in incidents on leaving licensed premises. But it has now emerged that younger people, especially, are staying out much later than their counterparts did some years ago. People in some country towns are wandering around at three or four o'clock in the morning, when previously they would reasonably have been expected to be home in bed, and it has become a real problem. It may well be that licensing hours in country towns will have to be re-assessed. The previous Government, with the concurrence of the Labor Party, tightened the law allowing people to obtain liquor. As a consequence, in recent times secondary purchasing of liquor has increased, and the problem has been transferred from licensed premises. Under-age people now have to run the gauntlet and obtain alcohol. The proof-of-age card is taking effect by heading them off at the pass, for want of a better expression. [Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [3.20]: The matter I raise is urgent because State environmental planning policy 46 was introduced without any consultation with the farming community. Lack of consultation has caused confusion, uncertainty and anger about the effects of this SEPP on normal farming activities. The policy was introduced without reference to the Parliament and thereby avoided parliamentary scrutiny and debate. SEPP 46 has all the hallmarks of a flawed document rushed through to meet a political objective. This matter is urgent because across New South Wales many spontaneous and angry meetings are being held at which thousands of farmers are venting their anger and concern at this overly restrictive policy.

Farmers do not know whether they can plough existing pasture if they wish to introduce new pasture species; they do not know how to deal with native pasture which is infested with noxious weeds. At one meeting I attended at Cooma, a departmental officer was unable to answer the simple question of what species of native pastures were under threat in the Monaro area, a threat that would warrant the introduction of such draconian laws. Further, the onus of determining whether a particular land-clearing activity is exempt lies with the farmer and not with the Department of Land and Water Conservation or the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Farmers are extremely concerned about this because penalties of up to $100,000 can be imposed for breaches of SEPP 46. The farmer must decide if he is exempt from SEPP 46, and he wears the full consequence of his decision in this complex and arguable area.

Page 1467

This policy applies not only to land of more than two hectares but also to native grasslands in certain parts of New South Wales. My colleagues and I have received hundreds of letters from land-holders who are confused and angry at having to obtain a permit to plough fields that have not been ploughed for 10 years. Farmers are angry at the concurrent role of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and that its decision can be delayed indefinitely; they are angry about third party appeal rights applying to land that they bought or perhaps inherited; and they are angry that this Government is attacking many normal farming practices and freehold property rights, based on uncertain scientific evidence. This matter is urgent because the Government has created a bureaucratic and administrative nightmare for land-holders.

If a land-holder wants to clear more than two hectares, he has to address more than 16 separate complex criteria in his vegetation management plan. This effectively represents an environmental impact statement which would involve much expense with consultants in addition to the $100 application fee, with no certainty of outcome. This obviously affects, and has the potential to affect, farm viability across New South Wales. The matter is urgent because even if a farmer goes through this process and obtains approval from the Department of Land and Water Conservation, with the concurrence of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, he still faces the prospect of an appeal in the Land and Environment Court from a third party - possibly another government department, another land user, a green group or even an individual with a personal interest in seeing a certain approach to management carried out on someone else's property.

Mr Armstrong: Or a vendetta.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Or a vendetta. The Minister has chosen the path of confrontation rather than consultation. Instead of targeting an irresponsible few, he has implemented a blanket approach that affects every farmer and has alienated the very people he needs to help solve land degradation and erosion problems in New South Wales. By taking the big stick approach he has threatened the goodwill in the rural community for such projects as LandCare and total catchment management. Farmers care about their land and their environment. They also like to be consulted. The Minister said he admires farmers. If that is so, why does he not consult them? The Minister stands condemned for his arrogant approach to country people. The Minister is not even at the table to hear what I have to say. Shame on him! He is the most unpopular Minister in this Government by a long shot. He is arrogant, he refuses to consult and he makes decisions without any consultation with those directly affected. For those and the many other reasons I have outlined, he deserves the strongest condemnation of this House.

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

The House divided.

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 Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gibson Mr Price
Mrs Grusovin Dr Refshauge
Ms Hall Mr Rogan
Mr Harrison 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 Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Causley Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
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 Hazzard Mr Turner
Mr Humpherson Mr West
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross Mr Zammit
Mr Longley Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Beck
Mr Gaudry Mr Rozzoli

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Page 1468

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [3.32]: I move:

That this House commends the Government for its actions to combat alcohol-related violence.

This Government is taking a strong stand on alcohol-related violence and the anti-social behaviour that is unfortunately associated with consuming alcohol. Alcohol, like other drugs and gambling, can be partaken of by most people without any problem whatsoever, but there are people in the community who not only become addicted to alcohol but as a consequence behave in a fashion which leaves a lot to be desired. Like many members of this House, I have been concerned for some time about the changes we are seeing in our society, the level of alcohol-related harm in the community, the alcohol-related and anti-social behaviour that is occurring around us, and the society we are creating for our young people.

As I travel around this State, not only in metropolitan areas but also in country and provincial New South Wales - and I am sure that many members of this House have had the same experiences - people tell me about the problems that concern them. Members from both sides of this House also tell me the same things. One of the issues that people keep raising with me is the problem of alcohol and its consequences. People tell me they are concerned about the violence that occurs late at night and in the early morning. They express concern about the hooliganism and drunken behaviour, the vandalism, the property damage and the anti-social behaviour that they associate with drinking and late-night venues. They are concerned about our young people being out drinking at four o'clock in the morning, and about the social and personal consequences of that behaviour.

Some of their behaviour is drug related - we will have to come to terms with that as well. They have found that some drugs and liquids that are not alcohol related give the same effect as alcohol. Police are expressing concern to me that such drugs and liquids are very hard to detect, as they do not show up on the breathalyser. People are saying this to me whether I am in my own electorate, in the provincial centres of New South Wales or in country towns throughout the State. It appears there is a problem; people are concerned about it and want it resolved. We hear again and again about the personal tragedies associated with alcohol consumption. I do not need to elaborate on the car accidents in this State, the increasing assaults and the domestic violence that stem from alcohol overuse. I do not need to mention the whole range of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour that as a society we may have accepted in the past but which is not acceptable today. Frankly, a lot of that behaviour is related to the hours at which people are allowed to consume alcohol.

The Carr Government is acting on the important issue of alcohol and violence in our community. In August this year the Premier convened a special alcohol forum, and hundreds of Government, community and industry participants attended. The follow-up to the forum is well under way, with special priority being given this year to the development of an adult alcohol strategy for New South Wales which will build on the momentum and interest generated by the Premier's forum. The Government has endorsed the harm-minimisation and preventive approach to alcohol problems in society. The harm-minimisation approach is a useful approach to dealing with alcohol-related problems in the community. It acknowledges that although a large proportion of the population drinks alcohol with safety, the level of alcohol-related harm in the community warrants continued government and community action. In supporting the harm-minimisation approach, the Government is not advocating prohibition or wowserism. The wowsers and prohibitionists never resolved or found a way around the problems of the 1920s in America. Despite banning alcohol, the problem continued. That is not to say that the Government does not recognise that many problems in our society are associated with alcohol. We are all too well aware of those problems and their impact.

Particular priorities of the Government include strategies and programs to deal with under-age drinking and to ensure the responsible promotion, serving and consumption of liquor. A range of initiatives is being actively pursued in the gaming and racing portfolio which will impact on alcohol-related problems in the community in the near future. These are initiatives of the Labor Government which give effect to a number of the Government's policies. For example, the Government will introduce amending legislation in the current session to reorient the State's licensing laws - the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act - so that they encompass social and harm-minimisation objectives in the public interest. That public interest legislative package will also see the introduction of compulsory responsible server training across the liquor industry in New South Wales.

The harm-minimisation proposal is an important one. It involves inserting into the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act a statement that a prime object of the legislation is the minimisation of alcohol-related harm. It also involves reviewing the legislation so that it more adequately reflects the public interest. The proposal to introduce compulsory responsible server training will involve the staged introduction of compulsory training for all licensees and liquor service staff across the industry. This also requires legislative change and, I emphasise, will be done in a staged way in full consultation with the industry. Despite the fact that the industry has been told about the need to provide responsible service, some people have not taken heed - as will emerge from certain court proceedings in the near future. The Government is left with no alternative but to introduce responsible service training across the board, regardless of who the licensees are, including motel owners.

The measures being finalised for the budget session will also strengthen the legislation in relation to minors, and will ensure the responsible serving,
Page 1469
promotion and consumption of liquor. The public interest, harm-minimisation and responsible serving proposals are especially significant because, for the first time, it is proposed that the licensing laws be amended to directly acknowledge the level of harm that is related to alcohol consumption in our community. The measures attempt to put some balance back into the liquor laws, in the interests of the community at large, of our young people, and of the liquor industry. The measures will redress the imbalance that seems to have developed in the law.

The proposed amendments are in the interests of the community, but I emphasise that they are also in the interests of the liquor, hospitality and registered clubs industries in this State. The liquor industry generally in the last five years has come 50 years in its attitude to serving responsibly. As I have indicated, the proposed legislative package will increase the penalties provided in both the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act for the sale and supply of liquor to minors. Despite legislative change people still do not heed their responsibilities in regard to serving and supplying liquor to young people. The measures will result in the introduction of higher penalties for offences such as second-party sales or the supply of liquor to minors by adults. Those penalties will include a six-month gaol term for sufficiently serious offences.

The measures will not stop people doing what they like in their own homes; their privacy will not be invaded. If people are stupid enough to buy a keg for a sixteenth birthday party, as someone did recently in my electorate, they deserve to be brought before a court. The Government is committed to sensible and realistic policies and programs; it realises that alcohol is consumed by many people with safety and without harm to themselves or others. However, the Government is determined to implement effective programs to combat the complex range of alcohol-related problems that face the community in the 1990s. Within months of coming to office, the Government has acted on its commitments; it will continue to act to address these complex and difficult community problems. The programs I have outlined represent only the first step of the Government's alcohol and violence program. That program involves my portfolio of gaming and racing, as well as the health and police portfolios and the Roads and Traffic Authority.

Representatives of my department, the police department, the health department and the Roads and Traffic Authority have been able to hold simultaneous workshops. Previously each government department went its own way. No sooner had one department given its view than another gave its view separately. Although those views may not have been significantly different, it is preferable to have programs such as this dealt with by representatives of all the relevant authorities at the one time. This problem will not be redressed easily; it will take time. I accept that long-term education is needed. The binge mentality of this country will not be changed overnight. Our European counterparts drink sensibly, sometimes from an early age. However, in this country the binge mentality must be redressed, in the short term by the measures to come before the Parliament during this session and in the long term by education for both young and older people. My experience tells me that it is more likely that the education will have to be directed to young people.

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga) [3.42]: I fully appreciate the Minister's passion in relation to this subject. Recently in my electorate the Minister and I held successful meetings with responsible representatives of the Australian Hotels Association and the Registered Clubs Association. However, I would have preferred this matter to have been raised in a ministerial statement rather than have the time of the House taken up with a debate. I am sure the Minister would have received the support he seeks if he had adopted that mechanism. The Minister has effectively blocked debate on a motion of serious concern to country people. That motion related to the clearing of forests, the freeze on their activities and the resulting economic disadvantage. If the motion had contained the word "supports", the manner in which the matter was brought before the House might have been a little less unbecoming.

All honourable members would like the Minister's objectives to be met. I did not hear anything I would reject or to which I would object. I doubt whether any member of the Opposition would take umbrage at anything the Minister said. The only issue is whether the increase in penalties will be applied by courts. A District Court judge who is on circuit at present in my electorate regards the culpability of those who commit the more serious crimes referred to by the Minister as being diminished by the effects of alcohol. I want to ask more questions about that judge in due course. What hope is there when a judge treats the effects of alcohol and drugs as diminishing the responsibility of offenders and imposes powder puff sentences?

Mr Face: A bill will be introduced to deal with that.

Mr SCHIPP: The Minister has advised that a bill is to be introduced to deal with that. I will welcome such a bill with open arms and will speak strongly in support of it. This debate should not be construed as an attack on the responsible people within the hospitality industry. I refer particularly to members of the Australian Hotels Association, who in many ways are battling to survive, especially those in smaller hotels. The majority of people serving in hotels across the industry are responsible people. Many of those hotels are family-run, and operate in a responsible way. When the Minister visited Wagga Wagga he heard from representatives of the Australian Hotels Association that they are equally concerned about the changes in the nocturnal habits of our society.

At a time when I and others of my era - and perhaps even a later era - were heading home to bed, people are now leaving their homes to start their activities. That cultural change introduces a new
Page 1470
perspective. Embargoes have been mentioned - and no-one is talking about prohibitions or bans. However, modern packaging allows alcoholic beverages to be easily transported. One must be realistic. That will be a difficult matter to police, and one will have to be careful not to point the finger in the wrong direction and blame the wrong people. The actions of parents with regard to their children should be considered. Suppliers, who might have to make the difficult decisions referred to by the Minister, should not have the finger pointed at them. I support the Minister's comments relating to education being necessary to achieve a more responsible attitude at the hotel bar.

Modern parents often believe they have to supply liquor at parties. That seems to be a strange way to educate children, particularly when the parents know that many parties get out of hand because of the overimbibing of alcoholic beverages. When my youngest son turned 16 my wife and I hosted a party at home. We do not have a great deal to do with alcohol. It is in our home, and is used occasionally when friends visit. My wife said she would not supply alcohol at the party, but that she would make a range of punches. The young fellow put on a turn and said he would not have a party. However, the party was held and a range of punches was supplied. We believe that two young people probably broke ranks and got something from the boot of their car, but the remaining 35 young people enjoyed the party as it was. Many people phoned with praise and thanks and said it was the best party they had been to. However, my son felt left out because it was the only party without grog.

Parents should realise they can be trendsetters rather than followers of other people. They will be more respected not only by their own families but by other families. Overimbibing of alcohol leads to more serious crime. That issue, as well as the issue of intoxication, is being addressed in this debate The Minister alluded to the problem of motor vehicle accidents. Honourable members know that young people are involved in many accidents. Many of those accidents result from inexperience behind the wheel but more result from the effects of alcohol. I understand that the presence of drugs cannot be detected by simple measures, and young people are sometimes under the influence of a combination of alcohol and drugs. Although I do not have medical knowledge of those matters, I imagine that such a combination would exacerbate the problem.

Recently the Minister was asked in an interview on ABC radio about the supply of liquor to underage people. The interviewer asked him, "How would you police this? You will not have a policeman in every home." The answer is that when authorities become aware that young people have misbehaved or have been involved in serious situations as a result of the consumption of alcohol, those matters should be dealt with at that time. Obviously, when a young person is apprehended because of such misbehaviour, the source of the alcohol can be pinned down. That is when the legislation will hit its mark. Earlier I mentioned the courts. The Parliament should be sending a strong message to the courts that there is no point in legislators trying to enact measures to resolve the problem if the courts will not apply the penalties and mechanisms available to them. As I have said, I am pleased that the Minister has indicated that some action is contemplated in that regard.

The problem should not be shifted from established licence areas. The requirement for the liberalisation of hours will result in conflict as Olympic Games fever approaches and as tourists who believe that we have archaic liquor laws visit New South Wales. We do not want people drinking until all hours of the night and then making nuisances of themselves or committing offences. A balance is required. If a solution to one problem with the liquor laws is pinned down, a different problem may be created in another area; the problem may be transferred from hotels to nightclubs. The committee on trading hours held the strong view that the matter was so sensitively balanced that either people could be put out of business unfairly or a problem could be transferred to another area. A little caution is required. I support the motion. However, as I have said I would have preferred the motion to include the word "support" rather than "commend". The use of that word infers self-praise, and self-praise is not always the best way to go.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [3.52]: The results of a survey released in the early 1990s speak for themselves. The survey found that 60 per cent of violent crimes or violent incidents attended by the police were alcohol related, and 60 per cent of that 60 per cent occurred in or around licensed premises. That clearly indicates the link between alcohol and violence. In 1992 the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research indicated a link between alcohol and violence. In a document entitled "Family, Acquaintance and Stranger Homicide in New South Wales", a study of patterns of homicide, the bureau analysed 1,667 cases of homicide between 1968 and 1986. The bureau found, among other things, that three or four people were killed each month in homicides involving family members, and that the rate significantly increased at Easter and Christmas. The study concluded that these homicides probably resulted from a combination of alcohol and family stress. That is a very unhappy statistic.

The same study found that of the 3,500 violent incidents to which the police were called, assaults peaked on Friday and Saturday nights. That is perhaps another indicator of the link between alcohol and violence. I now want to refer to a matter that has not been touched on so far in the debate: domestic violence and alcohol. Plenty of anecdotal and statistical evidence is available to suggest that in some cases there is a correlation between domestic violence and alcohol. I stress, however, that domestic violence is not only correlated to alcohol, although it is a factor. Indeed, approximately 30 per cent of domestic violence does not involve the use of alcohol. I emphasise that because I do not want to be taken to be suggesting that in some way alcohol is an excuse for
Page 1471
domestic violence, or that the elimination of alcohol consumption will result in the elimination of domestic violence. That would not necessarily be the case. A document entitled "For Better or Worse - Family Violence in Australia" stated:

Men are responsible for most family violence, using their physical strength to beat their partners and their children. Very few acts of violence are committed by women against men or children against adults, although some women have reported violence from teenage sons. The statistics from three state phone-in surveys show clearly that men are the perpetrators of family violence.

In Queensland, the percentage of female victims as callers to phone-in surveys was 98.3 per cent; in Western Australia, 92.1 per cent; and in Victoria, 94.4 per cent The document further stated:

Thus, when a man becomes involved in a conflict or fears losing control he is physically able to lash out to maintain some form of authority. While there are sometimes individual factors involved, such as stress, power remains the key to family violence.

The study outlined a number of other factors that might lead to family violence, including such obvious matters as work-related or financial stress, inability to communicate in a non-violent manner, socialisation factors, conflict over children and, of course, alcohol. The study found - and again these figures relate to female victims - that in 31 per cent of the cases alcohol was identified as always being a factor in domestic violence, in 16 per cent of the cases the violence was usually alcohol-related, and in 20 per cent of the cases the violence was sometimes related to alcohol. As I said earlier, 32 per cent of the cases did not involve alcohol at all. In my view even 5 per cent would be too great a percentage because domestic violence takes a terrible toll on families; women and children live together in fear. It is destructive and antisocial behaviour. Everything possible should be done to minimise its occurrence. Therefore, responsible drinking and serving habits - [Time expired.]

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [3.57]: The Minister has invited honourable members to support his motion commending the Government for its action to combat alcohol-related violence. I am not sure that he has provided many initiatives, but I shall suggest a couple. The electorate of Manly, which I represent, was particularly affected by the changes introduced by Premier Greiner in 1989 to deregulate licensing hours and to designate Manly as a tourism area. Deregulation resulted in 24-hour licensing, which led to enormous problems. I suggest that 24-hour licensing was unnecessary. The community was left with the burden of having to deal with the impact of 24-hour licensing, and of having to appeal to the Liquor Administration Board. The burden of proving that the change had created problems remained with the community.

My first suggestion to this Government - I made this suggestion to the previous Government - is that it should change the Liquor Act to give local government a much stronger role in determining licensing hours. It should not be left merely to local government to deal with the problems. The problems that have been found in Manly have already been alluded to by the honourable member for Port Jackson. There is a clear nexus between licensing hours and the harm that flows from them. As a result, our community established a pilot committee known as the community safety committee which has worked very hard to try to address the problems and to try to address the harm reduction measures referred to by the Minister. I appeal to this Government to use that committee as a pilot committee throughout the State - one which I hope this Government will see fit to fund.

Pursuant to resolution of the House business interrupted.


Bills introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.02], on behalf of Mr Carr: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise honourable members that the House has requested the attendance of the Hon. Michael Rueben Egan, MLC. Members should extend to him the usual courtesy and listen in silence to his speech.

The Hon. M. R. Egan may be admitted.

The Hon. M. R. Egan, who was conducted by the Serjeant-at-Arms on to the floor of the Chamber, said:

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [4.04]: This budget, the first of the Carr Labor Government, is designed to set things right, right from the start.

For too long, New South Wales has mortgaged its future, mortgaged the future of our kids and theirs.

This is the budget that begins to pay our way.

This is a Labor budget, a budget that delivers on Labor's priorities in health, education, community services and safety.

Page 1472

For too long we have put up with long hospital waiting lists, an understaffed police service, inadequate child protection and lack of accommodation for the disabled.

This budget delivers major improvements in hospitals, schools, police and crime prevention and community services.

For too long, New South Wales has done too little to protect the quality of our environment.

This is the budget that begins the repair of our forests, our rivers, and our land.

For too long, too many taxpayers' dollars have simply been wasted.

This is the budget that begins to cut the waste, a budget that focuses on fundamentals, and begins to give taxpayers much better value for their money.

This is because we are determined to set things right, right from the start.

In their first budgets, Nick Greiner, Jeff Kennett and Dean Brown all cut basic government services.

They said times were tough and they took the easy way out.

Their budgets were Liberal budgets, with Liberal priorities.

This is every inch a Labor budget, a budget that delivers social reform - the very purpose of Labor's existence.

Above all else, our commitment is to the future, to ensure that New South Wales has the competitive edge to attract the investment and business we need to provide jobs, and improve the standard of living and quality of life of this generation and the next.

Key features for the coming year include:

•meeting our fiscal targets;

•no new taxes or tax increases;

•additional funding for hospitals to slash waiting lists and improve patient care;

•additional resources in school education for new technology and more teachers;

•increased police numbers and better crime prevention;

•major initiatives in community services, especially for people with disabilities, and in child protection and child care;

•a major restructuring of the forest industry to save our old growth forests while maximising long-term job prospects in a sustainable industry;

•an increased commitment to help country people recover from the drought;

•the creation of new national and urban parks;

•expansion of public transport facilities; and

•a major supplementary roads program for the west and southwest regions of Sydney.

FISCAL FRAMEWORK

The financial strategy of this budget positions New South Wales for the long term.

In keeping with our commitment prior to the election, this budget starts the process of gradually but steadfastly paying off the State's $17 billion budget sector net debt.

The General Government Debt Elimination Bill, which I tabled in June, is cognate to the appropriation bills introduced by the Leader of the House.

It is pathfinding legislation that provides a comprehensive fiscal framework for the State.

It has four key elements:

•fiscal targets for the short, medium and long term;

•fiscal principles against which this and future budgets should be assessed;

•reporting requirements for the general government sector; and

•standards for the coverage and presentation of the budget and consolidated financial statement.

It will introduce standards of honesty and accountability into the budget process that are unparalleled in any Australian jurisdiction.

The centrepiece of the legislation, however, is its commitment to completely eliminate general government net debt by the year 2020.

To this end I set out in the June financial statement fiscal targets for the next three years, building to a sustainable budget surplus by 1997-98.

This budget delivers on these targets.

Our aim is to pay off the $17 billion debt in the same commonsense way that a family pays off its mortgage.

We should always keep in mind that the next generation will be seeking jobs in a fiercely competitive world economy.

We have an obligation to ensure that they are not lumbered with our debts.

A debt-free general government sector will be one of the legacies we leave them.

Currently, $1.6 billion of budget payments are consumed by debt servicing costs, simply paying the interest.

That is nearly $1 in every $10 of current outlays, or the equivalent of half of what we spend to run our school system.

The budget is also vulnerable to the impact of the economic and property cycle.

In the last major recession, the previous Liberal-National Party Government only just stayed solvent, by increasing taxes by broadly $1 billion per annum.

Page 1473

It is vital that we are in a position to absorb the impact of future economic and property cycles without resorting to tax hikes or slashing core services.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Ermington that he is on three calls to order and of my request that members be silent while the stranger is in the House. More importantly, I remind him that the Hon. M. R. Egan is not able to reply to interjections.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Debt reduction puts us in that position.

ECONOMIC CONTEXT

The 1995-96 budget is framed within the context of four years of economic recovery and growth, with continuing growth projected into 1995-96.

National economic growth is projected to slow from 4½ per cent real growth in 1994-95 to about 3¼ per cent in 1995-96.

New South Wales growth is projected to be modestly higher at 3¾ per cent largely because of the recent easing of the drought.

We expect a mild slowdown in 1996-97 due to slower world demand and a pause in business investment, before returning to a higher, long-term trend growth rate in 1997-98.

The consumer price index is projected to increase to 4.3 per cent in 1995-96 and then gradually decline.

Employment should continue to grow at a relatively strong rate, of the order of 3 per cent.

Over the course of this Parliament, it is projected that New South Wales will gain an additional 260,000 jobs.

BUDGET RESULT

On an unchanged policy basis, the starting point for the preparation of the 1995-96 budget was a deficit of broadly $400 million.

In addition, commitments of the previous Government, totalling $54 million in 1995-96 and rising to $80 million per annum, had not been included in the forward estimates.

These additional commitments did not include a range of other unfunded decisions of the previous Government, such as the $400 million Parramatta to Hornsby rail line, Luna Park commitments, the allocation of untied Commonwealth road grants of $110 million per year to non-road purposes, $115 million per year for computers in schools and an unfunded liability in the Government's self-insurance scheme of $117 million.

In addition, the Government will be hit for up to $55 million this year for costs associated with the sale of the State Bank, an amount which was also not provided for in the forward estimates.

The Government's own commitments totalled broadly $300 million per annum.

In summary, the starting point was a completely unsustainable deficit both for this year and future years.

Attacking that deficit and fulfilling our commitments has been a massive task. I believe we have succeeded.

Subject to the economic and revenue forecasts and the full realisation of our savings strategies, the measures needed to reach our fiscal targets, not just for this year but also for 1996-97 and 1997-98, are already built into this budget.

This year's underlying budget result is a deficit of $238 million with a projected small surplus next year and a projected surplus of $268 million in 1997-98.

The projected result for 1997-98 exceeds our targets and may therefore provide some leeway in future years.

These results, I must emphasise, are underlying. In other words, they are the real results we must focus on in determining whether we are paying our way.

The actual bottom line results are much better with large surpluses for both this year and next.

However, they include substantial non-recurring items, principally the commercial equity restructuring of business enterprises.

The budget proceeds from these once-off items will not be squandered on annual consumption expenditure, but will be used to significantly reduce general government debt.

MAJOR INITIATIVES

I now turn to some of our major new spending initiatives.

Health

Our recurrent spending on hospitals and health this year will total a record $5,008 million, which includes an 8.8 per cent, or $344 million, increase in budget support.

A key feature is the additional $64 million to slash waiting lists.

Other priority areas include the upgrade of emergency departments and additional funding for Aboriginal health, mental health and women's health, more nurses and ambulance officers.

A capital program of $483 million will finance a wide range of new facilities, including construction of new public hospitals at Blacktown, Lithgow and West Wyalong, as well as a new ambulatory care clinic at the Prince of Wales Hospital - a facility that was to be privatised by our predecessors, but will be publicly owned and operated under Labor.

Page 1474

Education

Recurrent spending for the education and training portfolio will total $4,751 million, an increase of $308 million or 6.9 per cent.

This enables us to make a significant start on our plans for additional teaching positions and our other commitments.

Specifically $86 million will be provided over three years for the computers and technology in schools program.

As a first step to fulfilling the Government's commitment to increase teacher numbers, an additional 339 teacher positions will be funded in 1995-96.

They comprise literacy, community languages, technology, small schools and HSC coaching and advice positions.

Also, the cleaning standards for primary schools will be considerably enhanced by an additional annual allocation of $18 million.

In TAFE, we will create 5,000 additional student places by 1997.

Crime Prevention

Recurrent spending for the police portfolio will total $911 million, an increase of $46 million or 5.3 per cent. This enables the Government to fulfil its commitment to increase police numbers.

Our priority is putting police on the street to protect the community from crime.

We will provide an additional 650 police officers by the end of 1997-98. The objective is to halve the delay in police response to crime.

By the end of this financial year more than half of these additional officers will be available for duty.

The Council on Crime Prevention has been established to develop a strategic crime prevention framework for New South Wales.

We will also revitalise the neighbourhood watch scheme and the safety house program.

We will intensify the focus on reducing delays and backlogs in the courts area, while enhancing the community's access to the justice system.

Additional funding has been provided for extended sitting hours and night court sittings in Local Courts, to enhance the use of arbitration as a means of alternate dispute resolution, to introduce family mediation in community justice centres and to increase funding for the Legal Aid Commission.

The Attorney General has asked the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to undertake a review of sentencing laws in New South Wales.

Following the sentencing review, the Government proposes to introduce legislation designed to divert from custody fine defaulters and those offenders sentenced for six months or less for non-serious crimes.

This not only honours our commitments, but the previous Government's unfulfilled pledge to divert fine defaulters from the prison system.

The consequential lower inmate population will further reduce costs of incarceration.

The Government proposes to reform the victims' compensation scheme to speed up payments to victims of violent crime and eliminate abuses. The proposed new scheme will make it easier for the victims of violent crime to receive compensation and place a strong emphasis on counselling support services for victims.

Savings made by overhauling the scheme will be directed to a new $6.8 million victims' support initiative.

A Victims of Crime Bureau is to be established within the Attorney General's Department. The bureau will provide support and referral services to victims of crime and coordinate the delivery of victims' support and counselling services by government and community agencies.

Community Services

Recurrent spending for the community, aged and disability services portfolio is $1,105 million, an increase of $157 million or 16.5 per cent. Capital payments are $46 million, an increase of $30 million.

Our key initiatives and priorities in the 1995-96 budget include:

•additional funding for child protection;

•expansion in child care, with an additional 13,000 child care places to be provided over the next three years;

•additional funding for drought assistance for needy families; and

•expanded funding for supported accommodation for people with disabilities, with an additional $24 million per annum to provide 300 new places in community-based accommodation.

Environment

Recurrent spending for the environment portfolio for 1995-96 totals $214 million, an increase of $18 million or 9.3 per cent.

Key initiatives in the 1995-96 budget include:

•delivery of the Government's clean air strategy;

•establishment and funding of regional waste authorities to monitor the impact of waste reduction, reuse and recycling strategies;

•$50 million commitment over four years for the creation and management of 24 new national parks funded through the environment trusts; and

•$3.9 million this year for the establishment and management of Horsley and Rouse Hill urban parks.

Page 1475

Forestry and Natural Resources

Consistent with our forestry policy released in March 1995, the Government has embarked upon a number of strategies to transfer logging from old growth to regrowth and plantation forests.

The Government recognises that these reforms will impact on the forestry industry and on forestry workers.

Accordingly, as set out in the Government's forestry policy, $60 million will be made available over five years to assist in forestry industry restructuring. This initiative will be funded from the environmental trusts.

In addition, in 1995-96 the Government will provide State Forests with $8.5 million to fund the development of 3,000 hectares of additional hardwood plantations. This grant will be funded from an increased dividend to be paid by State Forests.

The Government will also consider further funding for hardwood plantation development in future years.

In line with our commitment to a comprehensive approach to land management, there will be a major expansion of the total catchment management initiative at a cost of $5 million per annum.

This initiative will consolidate the benefits achieved to date in addressing natural resource management issues through community participation.

Funding will assist 41 catchment management committees and some 800 Landcare groups, as well as allowing for strategic planning.

Rural Sector

Many people in rural New South Wales are struggling under the combined effects of drought, high levels of farm debt and a decade of volatile commodity prices.

They needed help and the Government responded.

One of our first moves on coming into Government was to boost the State's drought assistance to a record $78 million in 1994-95.

Despite the recent rainfall, many rural people remain in real financial difficulty.

So in 1995-96 the Government will spend $84 million on drought relief and rural assistance measures.

The Government will also fund a range of measures to repair damage to land and waterways that has reduced the long-term competitiveness of many farming businesses.

The Government will spend $19.3 million on a land and waterways repair package for irrigators, and a further $23.9 million to improve infrastructure and resource management for irrigators and other water users.

These initiatives more than fulfil the Government's commitment to spend $27 million on irrigation areas in 1995-96.

Public Transport

The Government is committed to providing an environmentally sensitive transport system which allows for increasing patronage on safe public transport and efficient movement of freight, and is based upon sensible land use and transport planning.

The quality of life for all New South Wales residents will be enhanced by a safe, reliable, clean and efficient transport system which meets our State's social and business needs.

The Government will ensure bus, ferry and train services cooperate fully to maximise the benefit to the community.

Funding from the budget for the State Rail Authority's capital and major periodic maintenance works amounts to $595 million compared with $506 million in 1994-95.

The authority's capital program includes continuation of the new southern railway which is being jointly funded by the private sector and a State contribution of $544 million.

Work will also start on the $60 million amplification of the East Hills line between Turrella and Riverwood. The Richmond line amplification is being accelerated.

We have restored passenger services to Broken Hill and the Riverina at a cost of $3.5 million a year.

The Homebush Bay rail connection to the Olympic site will also be commenced.

Provision has been made for signal renewal and modernisation and city underground fire safety and ventilation improvement projects.

Sport and Recreation

This Government will further its commitment to the development of the State's athletes by establishing a New South Wales Institute of Sport at a cost of $3.6 million and provide further assistance for the development of regional academies of sport. It is committed to increasing the community's involvement in sport and recreational activities.

In all, the budget provides an increase in recurrent funding to the Department of Sport and Recreation of 9.6 per cent in 1995-96.

Olympics

The Government has moved quickly to get ready for the Olympics.

Already, we have called tenders for the Olympic stadium, committed $60 million to a rail system for Homebush Bay, released a master plan for Homebush Bay, negotiated the purchase and remediation of the land at Newington and asked for expressions of interest from the private sector for the Olympic village.

Page 1476

For the first time spending has been consolidated into the one cost structure.

While these projects are all included under the Olympics budget, they are, in reality, projects that will be used by millions of Australians.

Over the next three years, we will be spending $830 million on facilities, venues and infrastructure at Homebush Bay.

Importantly, the amount of money allocated to the redevelopment of Homebush Bay, the new showground and the construction of sporting facilities over the next five years will account for approximately 1 per cent of total State budget outlays over the corresponding period.

These projects are well within our means and will last us a lifetime.

They are an investment that our children will thank us for.

SAVINGS

To pay for Labor's priorities in health, education and other key services and to rein in the deficit, it has been necessary to undertake a rigorous review of overheads, programs and priorities across portfolios.

Savings of $70 million per annum will be achieved by 1996-97 through a 10 per cent cut in corporate support costs.

The budget also reflects substantial cuts to government advertising, use of consultants and office relocation and refurbishment.

Agency restructuring, implemented shortly after our election, will save $60 million per annum by 1997-98.

Major savings amounting to $100 million a year by 1997 will also be made by reining in the blowout in the school student transport scheme.

Even after the reforms, the scheme will remain the most generous in Australia. Without the savings, the scheme would cost over $350 million this year alone, $260 million more than in Victoria or Queensland.

Savings will come from:

•extending the distance criterion, for high school students only, from 1.6 kilometres to 2 kilometres;

•paying operators for actual usage; and

•from the beginning of the 1997 school year, applying a maximum annual subsidy per student of $450, in urban areas only.

In view of the Commonwealth's responsibility for employment programs, the very substantial increase in Commonwealth funding for these programs and continued employment growth, the State Government will redirect expenditure from most State-based employment schemes, to training and education.

In 1995-96 we will be providing 1,000 more training places in technical and further education while retaining employment schemes for mature age workers, Aboriginal people and migrants.

Budget sector capital payments will increase significantly this year to $3,399 million. The capital program has grown substantially in real terms over the years and is substantially higher than in most other States.

If the same per capita expenditure were undertaken in New South Wales as for Victoria, the capital program would be some $850 million lower.

The budget sector capital program will be pared back by $200 million or approximately 5 per cent by 1997-98 and will involve a delay in some projects that may otherwise have been undertaken.

However, we hope to be over the Olympic expenditure hump by the end of 1997-98, which may allow, depending on overall budgetary considerations, a re-evaluation of the capital program around that time.

In the area of freight rail, we will be expecting significant ongoing savings following corporatisation and the reining in of non-commercial programs.

In some areas, we expect both to achieve better operational outcomes and budgetary savings from a consolidation of activities.

New South Wales Agriculture will refocus research programs to major sites known as key centres and, where possible, integrate them with universities and the CSIRO.

We will work harder to make research relevant to industry needs, develop sustainable agricultural systems and focus on import replacement industries.

The major research facility at Rydalmere in Sydney will be decentralised to boost research at key centres in more than 15 towns in regional New South Wales.

In my own area of State development, significant savings will be made from the amalgamation of the Department of State Development and the Department of Business and Regional Development, yet I believe the consolidation of activities will lead to much better results.

The merged department will ensure the very best result for jobs and investment in regional New South Wales.

WINNING JOBS

I now turn to the wider challenge facing the New South Wales economy.

Our overriding goal is, of course, to provide an opportunity for everyone in this State to enjoy a good and improving quality of life and standard of living.

That requires the availability of satisfying and rewarding jobs for those who seek them.

Page 1477

And it requires also a level of community prosperity that gives us the financial wherewithal to fund the quality of services and infrastructure, public and private, social and economic, that is necessary for a civilised and fair society.

But none of those things come automatically. They have to be worked for, they have to be achieved.

Unless we can maintain or establish a competitive advantage, there is absolutely no reason why the world should buy anything which we produce here in New South Wales.

If people can buy goods and services elsewhere at a better price and quality combination they will.

New South Wales is but a small part of a vast and now fiercely competitive world economy.

We will only have jobs, we will only have wealth, we will only maintain and improve our standard of living if we are competitive.

That is why we have to constrain the level of taxes and charges that impact upon our business costs.

And that is why, in the June financial statement, the Government announced that it was embarking on major reforms across the New South Wales public sector - in ports, in rail, in energy, in water and in the budget sector.

Those reforms are not driven by academic fascination with abstract theories. They are driven by a common sense determination to win the investment, the business and the jobs that we need.

As part of our drive for business and jobs, the Government will be taking advantage of the show casing potential the Olympic Games offer to market New South Wales as a business, investment and trade location.

Early next year, the Government will be releasing a green paper on its State and regional development strategies.

1996, in particular, will be regarded by the Government as the year of regional development.

As a first step, the Government will fulfil its commitment to hold summits in each region to listen to regional businesses and community leaders.

As part of this process, the Department of State and Regional Development, in conjunction with regional industries and local government, will be required by June next year to undertake an audit of the current economic strengths and potential of all the regions.

With a strategic blueprint for each region we will then be identifying the industries and firms, national and international, small and large, for which our regions offer natural synergies.

This is a vital task given the changes that have taken place in the State's farming industry, the traditional backbone of non-metropolitan New South Wales.

We will then be targeting those industries and firms with a major marketing onslaught to highlight the natural advantages we have and the competitive advantages we are forging, particularly during the period of international focus which the 2000 Olympics gives us.

EQUITY RESTRUCTURING AND ASSET SALES

All Australian governments have committed themselves, under the Council of Australian Governments' resolution on competition policy, to the principle of competitive neutrality and commerciality with respect to their government trading enterprises.

An important element of the competitive neutrality principle is the implementation of commercially appropriate capital structures.

The previous Government developed and approved a policy on the capital structure of government trading enterprises. We endorse that policy and the broad approach that was developed on commercialisation and corporatisation.

These principles have been applied to a range of entities, as part of an ongoing process of review and reform.

As I announced in the June statement, principal among the areas identified for equity restructuring is the electricity sector, where the Government is implementing major structural reform. To date there has not been a commercial capital structure for the distribution and transmission sectors, a situation which needs to be rectified prior to the establishment of both the State and national electricity market.

The distribution sector has had very little debt while the debt of the generating sector has fallen significantly in recent years to or below a commercially appropriate level.

The net result of these two factors is an assessed return of surplus capital from the electricity sector to the Consolidated Fund of $1.5 billion spread over the next two years.

Other capital restructures to be effected over the next two years include the Public Trustee, lotteries, Building Industry Long Service Leave Payments Corporation, Treasury Corporation and Darling Harbour Authority.

And as I indicated earlier, these returns are being treated as extraordinary revenue items so as not to mask the underlying Budget position.

In addition, the Government has decided to sell a number of non-core assets, subject to full financial assessment. The State Office Block will be sold rather than refurbished.

It is also intended to vacate commercial land development activities undertaken by Landcom and to gradually realise the large land bank built up over the years.

In total these measures will return about $1.5 billion to the budget sector in 1995-96 and almost $700 million in 1996-97.

Page 1478

In subsequent years they will have a significant impact on the debt servicing costs of the general government sector.

However, in the case of the equity restructures they will also have an offsetting effect on the commercial dividends which the Government, on behalf of the taxpayers, should expect from them.

It is important to note also that these changes should have no effect on the prices consumers will be charged.

As these businesses are expected to earn a commercial rate of return and pay a commercial dividend, the debt servicing costs they incur will largely be at the expense of dividends.

That is why the forward revenue estimates project reduced dividend and other payments from government trading enterprises.

In the area of electricity, for example, significant price reductions for consumers will occur. Over the next five years electricity prices will drop in real terms by 7 per cent for households, 25 per cent for large businesses and 51 per cent for small and medium businesses - a massive boost to our competitiveness and a massive boost to jobs.

The capital restructures, therefore, are designed to meet the principles of competitive neutrality and drive efficiency gains in the business enterprises.

The capital proceeds will be applied to debt reduction, not consumption spending.

CONCLUSION

As I foreshadowed well before the budget, this is a budget that is tough on spending. It had to be.

But it is a fair budget, and I believe a far-sighted budget.

It delivers our responsible fiscal targets.

And, more importantly, it delivers our core priorities - better hospitals, better schooling, better policing, a cleaner, greener environment, a helping hand to the less fortunate.

It is a budget aimed at setting things right, right from the start.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member for Baulkham Hills for disorderly conduct. The member will also take with him the sign he was attempting to display.

[The honourable member for Baulkham Hills left the Chamber, accompanied by the Serjeant-at-Arms.]

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As I said, it is a budget aimed at setting things right, right from the start. What is more, after only six months of our first four years in office more than 100 promises have been kept in this budget alone.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Collins.

Copies of the Budget Speech, Budget Information, Budget Estimates Volumes 1 and 2, State Capital Program, Government Finance Statistics and Loan Council Reporting, tabled and ordered to be printed.


Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.42], by leave: It has been brought to my attention that the second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill, which I made on 20 September, contained a number of inaccuracies. One of the primary objects of the bill is to provide that disputes concerning the validity of the election of a councillor to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council may be settled by the Land and Environment Court. The inaccuracies in the second reading speech surround these provisions, particularly with respect to the powers of the Land and Environment Court and the procedures for disputes concerning the validity of the election of a councillor.

Firstly, I indicated that the bill provides that the validity of any election or return may be disputed by petition addressed to the Court of Disputed Returns and not otherwise. In fact, clause 27AC(1) provides that the validity of an election for a councillor to represent a regional Aboriginal land council area, or of any return or statement showing the voting in any such election, may be disputed by an application to the court, and not otherwise. Clause 27AC(2) provides that any person may make an application to the court under this section within 28 days after the returning officer has publicly declared the result of the election that is the subject of the application.

Secondly, I indicated that the bill provides that there shall be a deposit as a security for costs associated with disputing elections and returns. The bill provides also that the court has the power to award costs. This is incorrect. There is no provision within the bill for paying a deposit as a security for costs and clause 27AF(3) of the bill specifically provides that the court is not to make orders for costs in respect of an application. Thirdly, I indicated that if the Minister thinks fit he or she will be entitled to enter an appearance in any proceedings. The bill contains no such provision. Fourthly, I indicated that the powers of the court are specified in the bill. This is technically incorrect. Clause 27AD of the bill provides that in determining an application it has the same powers as are conferred by section 161 of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 on the Court of Disputed Returns. The bill therefore incorporates by reference these powers.

Fifthly, I indicated that the bill provides powers of inquiry to the court. This is not correct and such powers are not included in the bill. Finally, I
Page 1479
indicated that the bill provides that no party to an election petition shall, except by consent of all parties or by leave of the court, be represented by counsel or a solicitor, and in no case shall more than one counsel or one solicitor appear on behalf of any party. The bill is silent on this matter. However, with respect to the procedures of the court, clause 27AF(1) states that the procedure of the court on application under clause 27AC is to be determined by rules of court, or in the absence of rules of court, by the court or a judge of the court. Clause 27AF(2) states that the court is not bound by the rules or practice of evidence and can inform itself on any matter in such manner as it considers appropriate.

In the course of these inaccuracies being raised, it has been suggested that the court should have the power to award costs. I will be seeking advice as a matter of urgency on this matter with a view to considering whether it is appropriate to amend the bill at the Committee stage. I regret that the House was provided with inaccurate information on these provisions. I have raised the seriousness of this matter with the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and requested a detailed explanation as to how the second reading speech provided to me by that department could have contained these errors. I will be taking all appropriate action to ensure that systems of accountability are in place to prevent this situation arising in the future.

Aboriginal affairs is one of the Government's key priorities and an important aspect of my responsibilities. The matters which I have brought to the attention of the House today should not be hidden under the carpet. To do so would be an indication that Aboriginal affairs does not matter to the Government. It does. I have discussed the matters I have referred to with the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Pittwater. I appreciate his support in maintaining a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs. Despite the inaccuracies contained in my second reading speech, the value of the bill cannot be underestimated. The Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill, which was introduced on 20 September, is central to this Government's intention to address the significant deficits in the current New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act. At an appropriate time it is likely that I will seek to deliver an amended second reading speech.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [4.48]: I acknowledge the statement by the Minister with regard to the five inaccuracies in his second reading speech in relation to the following matters: firstly, that any person may make an application to the Court of Disputed Returns; secondly, that no deposit is needed; thirdly, that the Minister is not entitled to enter an appearance in proceedings; fourthly, that the court powers are incorporated by reference; fifthly, that the bill provides powers of inquiry to the court; sixthly, that the bill is silent on legal representation; and, finally, that the court can be flexible on rules of evidence and that the power to award costs will be the subject of further advice. The Opposition recognises the importance of setting the record straight both because Aboriginal affairs is a particularly important sphere of government - and, indeed, it is important for society as a whole - and because of the Interpretation Act, which makes the Minister's second reading speech so important. The Opposition appreciates the transparent dealings of the Minister in providing the substance of his comments to us. We look forward to the bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs continuing.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [4.51]: Before I was interrupted by the stranger in the House I was talking about the initiatives taken by Manly Council to address the harm resulting from alcohol abuse and the establishment of the community safety committee. I had directed some remarks to the Minister at the table about the need for support for such initiatives. Governments can only do so much by legislation and regulation, and they should realise that if useful initiatives are being taken by the community those initiatives must have more than tacit support. The Manly community safety committee initiated research into 24-hour extended licensing in Manly. The committee obtained an agreement from the publicans that hotels would close voluntarily at 3 a.m. However, that was only for 12 months. The publicans are now talking about going back to 24-hour licensing. For 12 months licensing hours have been reduced. Funding is needed for research into the impact of that reduction.

Manly has had an alcohol-free zone for about 12 months in the same way as some other areas. The impact of the introduction of that alcohol-free zone also needs to be assessed. Proper retrospective research is needed into the impact of these harm reduction measures. The Minister referred to the desirability of a responsible alcohol industry. The Minister talked about a code of conduct, which is currently voluntary. I put it to the Minister that a mandatory code of conduct for the serving of alcohol not only in hotels but particularly in bottle shops needs to be considered. A great deal of interest is directed to the Australian Hotels Association and to hotels, but bottle shops account for much of the distribution of alcohol.

Initiatives by hotels designed to increase the consumption of alcohol - for example, happy hours - need to be considered. Harm reduction methods, such as encouraging the hotel industry to serve food and to have responsible serving staff, should also be looked at. Initiatives such as those in the United States under which identified drivers receive free non-alcoholic drinks, as well as the provision of music in pubs, also need to be considered. All these matters require consideration as a package by a responsible alcohol industry.

Page 1480

I want to comment on the Australian Hotels Association and some of the elements within the alcohol industry. I do not receive any political donations from the alcohol industry or the AHA, but they campaigned very heavily against me at the last election because I dared to stand up to them. All of their staff were wearing T-shirts which said, "A vote for Macdonald is a vote for early closing." They did their damnedest to get me out of that electorate. I believe that the campaign was a misuse of some of their resources. However, they ended up with mud in their eyes because their campaign was not successful. One has to take on these lobby groups, whether they are from the tobacco industry or the alcohol industry. I commend the Minister for having the guts to take on the alcohol industry in the broadest sense. Alcohol in small amounts is fine, and I have no difficulty with its use. However, the abuse of alcohol is a damaging problem within our community. Extended licensing hours are not needed; 24-hour licensing is not needed. I am pleased with the attitude taken by the Minister. However, the two additional measures I seek are a stronger role for local government and funding for the examination of harm reduction methods by pilot community groups.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [4.53]: I am pleased to support the motion commending the Government for its actions to combat alcohol-related violence. The Government has placed at the top of the agenda harm minimisation from alcohol-related violence and, indeed, other negative consequences from the consumption of alcohol. I assure the honourable member for Wagga Wagga that blame is not part of the concept of harm minimisation. Therefore, the industry will not be threatened in the sense he outlined. The honourable member for Manly urged the maintenance of a research basis as proposals are developed under a harm-minimisation approach to combating alcohol-related violence. The example I will give in a moment will illustrate that research was very important for one successful harm-minimisation program that has already been initiated in New South Wales. As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga has indicated, we live in a lucky country. We like parties, we are extroverted, we live an outdoor life, and we love a celebration and a punt. Australians are basically a happy people. Part of that happiness is a booze culture. I have mentioned a number of the upsides, but because of the nature of the substance of alcohol there are downsides: for some, it is addictive and habitual; for others, it leads to substance abuse and depression. Alcohol is a depressant drug. However, for some, that depression leads to too much aggression and violence. It is also worth remembering the serious impairment of brain function and motor functions of the body that result from the consumption of alcohol. All of the downsides can probably best be described as various aspects of violence.

It seems that each new generation of Australians has to learn afresh the need to deal with alcohol-related violence and with the other problems resulting from the consumption of alcohol. In the early 1980s a previous generation of law-makers in New South Wales found a way of tackling one of the worst manifestations of alcohol-related violence. That was the carnage on our roads: the death, the injury, the wreckage. Through the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety, those legislators took a harm-minimisation approach. What was done involved a number of key factors. Random breath testing was introduced as a deterrent. It was found that the fear of being caught, and the consequent punishment in dollars or loss of licence, is the deterrent. Education accompanied the development of that deterrent. People, especially the young, were educated about the need for driver responsibility. They were educated about self-knowledge of their actions. They were educated about peer support. Members of the community, especially young people, were encouraged to support each other in being responsible when driving. Information was also provided. Most people still do not realise that one's driving ability is impaired by even the smallest quantity of alcohol. Honourable members can imagine its effect on all of the other social situations one faces from day to day. Some of that research needs to be followed through. Random breath testing worked; it was a great harm-minimisation model. That model should be kept in mind so that each new generation is able to learn how to reduce alcohol-related violence.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.58], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to this important debate. As the honourable member for Manly said, if the matter is not on the agenda, there will not be any reform. He is aware of my strong views on this matter. New section 2A refers to harm minimisation and states:

A primary object of this Act is harm minimisation, that is, the minimisation of harm associated with the misuse and abuse of liquor (such as harm arising from violence and other anti-social behaviour). The court, the Board, the Director, Commissioner of Police and all other persons having functions under this Act are required to have due regard to the need for harm minimisation when exercising functions under this Act. In particular, due regard is to be had to the need for harm minimisation when considering for the purposes of this Act what is or is not in the public interest.

It is a giant step forward and is long overdue. The honourable member for Manly is aware that for some time I have been concerned about off-licence retail variation of trading hours. Under section 27 an application may not be granted for an extension of trading hours unless the court is satisfied that practices are in place and will remain in place at the licensed premises that ensure as far as reasonably practicable that liquor is sold, supplied and served responsibly on the premises. Again this proposed legislation attempts to rectify the problem. The proposed regulation-making power will recognise industry codes of practice. Subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 125C state:

(3) Without limiting subsection (2)(c), the regulations may adopt with or without modification the standards contained in an industry code of practice as standards to be observed on licensed premises in the sale or service of liquor.

Page 1481

(4) The regulations under this section can create offences punishable by a penalty not exceeding 50 penalty units.

That equates to a substantial fine. I do not believe that any government has undertaken this level of consultation, involving as it does the following bodies: Attorney General's Department; Department of Health; Police Service; Drug Offensive Council; Department of Business and Regional Development, which in the past has never been involved and has a role to play; Department of Consumer Affairs; Department of Women; Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which I insisted on because of associated problems; Department of Community Services; Liquor Industry Consultative Council, which was chaired admirably at one stage by the honourable member for Cronulla; Club Industry Advisory Council; and the Committee on Underage Drinking, one of my innovations since I have been Minister that will go a long way to overcoming the problems that have been described today. For the information of the honourable member for Manly, alcohol-free zones will be debated again in the Parliament. Those zones can be designated, but the problem is transferred to nearby streets.

The practice of happy hours is not looked upon with any favour by this Government, nor was it by the previous Government. It is a deplorable activity and does not help the industry or its image. Hours of operation for licensed premises will also be considered. Departmental officers will confer with the honourable member for Manly about the Manly pilot committee and community safety committee, and will undertake research. I am willing to listen to anything that may be gleaned from such committees. I certainly do not have a closed mind on the topic: it is one that will continue to be debated in the Parliament. As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga said, the process is long term and will not change overnight the problems of binge drinking in this country or the mentality of the young thinking that they can drink themselves out of their brains. The problems will not be resolved overnight, but we must start with young people. Most people in the industry provide a responsible service, but secondary purchasing has become a problem. I thank honourable members for participating in this worthwhile exercise.

Motion agreed to.


Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [5.03]: I ask the House to take note of a matter of public importance concerning problems for the New South Wales timber industry arising from the Federal Government's deferred forest areas proposal. Over the past 20 years, particularly in the past 10 years, the timber industry has been subjected to an unparalleled attack by the Green movement in conjunction with elements of the Labor Party and unions that have undertaken a program to progressively erode the stability of the industry and strangle it in such a fashion as to render it inoperable and unviable, such that it will eventually collapse. As part of that process the Federal Government recently released the draft deferred forest areas report for New South Wales. The object of the DFA review process is as follows:

To identify, on a regional basis, those forest areas in current wood production tenures that may need to be set aside from logging so as not to foreclose options for their possible inclusion in a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system.

This draft report provides details of the results of the DFA review conducted in NSW as a joint State-Commonwealth exercise. The draft report is being released for a three week period for public review and will be amended after this consultation. It is intended that the final report will be jointly agreed to by the NSW and Commonwealth Governments and made publicly available.

This document contains much scientific and statistical information and was not made available to the majority of the industry for a week after its presentation, thereby giving the industry only 14 days in which to comment on it. The maps that were included were almost illegible, incomprehensible and certainly of no use to those who were to undergo the so-called consultation process that would determine the future of their vast investment in an industry in which they had been employed for a significant number of years. I have with me one of the maps that were provided; they are certainly of no assistance to those attempting a determination as part of the consultation process. The maps are absolutely useless!

[Interruption]

The Minister says, "Oh." Regrettably the timber industry is not represented today in the public gallery.

[Interruption]

The Minister says, "What a shame. Oh." That is typical of the arrogant response I expect from him. Is it any wonder John Laws refers to him as the shop steward; that is precisely the attitude to be expected of the Minister! Eventually he will be drawn to account by his unions and his mates because his arrogance will not be accepted by the average Australian. In time he will cop it and I am prepared to wait for that to happen. The time frame for consultation in this exercise is totally inadequate. The timber industry has not had the opportunity to adequately assess all the issues. This policy announcement has two specific aims. The first is the payback to the Greens for their contribution to the Labor Party campaign during the last State election. It is worth referring to an article by Padraic P. McGuinness that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 September 1995 under the heading "Environmental Propaganda Passes Point of Diminishing Returns for the Young". The Minister for Land and Water Conservation should contemplate this message:

Page 1482

It is pretty clear that environmental propaganda has entered the stage of what the economists used to call diminishing returns. The zealots and alarmists, the schoolteachers and the virtuous, have been crying wolf for so long and so loudly that although people agree that care is needed, they are bored with the subject.

Those in the timber industry would agree with that opinion, as would the many public commentators who have been trying to get the Minister to listen to and heed what the people of New South Wales are saying. But he is paying little attention. Unfortunately, his policies will bring the demise of a once great industry. Padraic P. McGuinness stated further in his article:

It is notable that despite the near-hysteria which often emanates from these, and the crazy notions of the "deep greens" who have persuaded themselves that humanity is the biggest threat to the environment and therefore ought to be controlled or culled, only a minority rate care for the environment as more important than economic growth.

Never were truer words said. I repeat them: near-hysteria and crazy notions. Similar statements are being echoed across the State by those who defend the timber industry and also by those who depend on it for their livelihood. It is notable that during this process of consultation, on this very day, tomorrow and the next day, the same form of consultation process is taking place in Grafton, Taree and Eden. I am pleased that the honourable member for Clarence follows me in this debate; he will no doubt raise this issue. It is no coincidence that these consultative meetings are taking place at a time when local members are occupied in the Parliament. That in itself is offensive not only to local members but also to the people who elected them as their representatives in this Parliament. Members of Parliament should have had the opportunity to attend those meetings during this period of consultation.

The great haste of the consultative process, first to pay back the Greens, has not allowed local members opportunity for consultation. Elected representatives will not have an opportunity to be briefed on the subject. The second reason for haste is to protect the seats of Federal Labor members the likes of Jim Snow, the Federal member for Monaro. This delaying process, which has been foist on both the Federal and State Parliaments, is designed to withhold all the tough decisions until after the Federal election. I remind the Minister for Land and Water Conservation of a couple of matters of which he may not be aware. The total area of New South Wales is approximately 80 million hectares. Of that area, 5 million hectares are set aside for national parks and other reserves; 3.75 million hectares of the State's forests are potentially devoted to timber production, and of that area 60,000 hectares are harvested each year. If the Minister makes a quick assessment, he will find that it will take 61 years to harvest the 3.7 million hectares of forest - adequate time for those forests to regenerate.

Each year this State's timber industry contributes $2.4 billion to the economy of New South Wales and provides about 25,000 jobs, which contribute $96,000 per year per job - a significant contribution. The Minister will be responsible for the demise of this industry, and will go down in history as the one who cost the economy of this State $2.4 billion. How is the Minister going to replace that loss to the economy other than through increased taxes on the people of New South Wales and reduced services and diminished availability of funds for hospitals and other services? The Minister will be responsible for it. [Time expired.]

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted.



Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [5.13]: I wish to raise an issue concerning public transport in the Bathurst electorate. I advised the Minister for Transport that I intended to speak on this matter, and I ask the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to convey what I have to say to the Minister. I congratulate the Government on its move today to remove the $10 booking fee for pre-travel arrangements. I accept removal of that fee with pleasure on behalf of the many pensioners in the Bathurst electorate - in Bathurst, Blayney and Oberon - who use rail services That decision is much appreciated and is an indication that the Government is looking after those living in country New South Wales. I thank the Minister also for his rapid action.

Prior to the election of the Carr Government, people travelling from Bathurst to Sydney had to buy a ticket from Bathurst directly through to Sydney but could not avail themselves of the $2 fare available from Lithgow to the metropolitan area. That has all changed. The booking staff at Lithgow are issuing those $2 tickets. The major problem that still affects us in the central west is the question of a daily return train service from Bathurst to Sydney. It is a startling criticism of the outgoing Government that there was not a single carriage of rolling stock available to put into service to provide a one-day return service from Bathurst to Sydney.

The previous Government had no rolling stock whatsoever to allocate; it will be up to the new Government to provide it. Three refurbished carriages are currently stabled in the Bathurst railway workshops - they have been there for some time. I understand that the maintenance that was to be carried out on them has been completed and they are now ready for service. Those carriages must not be badly needed elsewhere, otherwise they would have been quickly put into service. I appeal to the Minister for Transport, through the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, to look at the disposition of those carriages and introduce them on a daily return service from Bathurst to Sydney. Those carriages, which are airconditioned, could provide a modicum of comfort for the people of Bathurst, particularly during the winter months.


Page 1483
It was a sad reflection on the State Rail Authority during the last few months of the Unsworth Government that the rolling stock made available for that service was antiquated and affected by dry rot. It did not take the new coalition Government long to knock over any arrangements that were in place. That Government was elected in March 1988 and by September 1988 had cancelled all train services in the central west. Not long after that the same Government took railway bus services out of action and put them into the hands of private operators. It is important for the provision of safe public transport that train services be restored in the central west and made available at a cost that pensioners, in particular, can afford. Those carriages are in the workshop and, on the face of it, are available. Groups of railway unions meet regularly under my chairmanship on the first Friday of every month to bring to the attention of the Minister wide-ranging matters affecting railway personnel in the central west. That has proved to be successful and I believe its value will be proved once the rolling stock is available to introduce the service from Bathurst to Sydney and return in one day. I urge the Minister to refer this important project to the Minister for Transport.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.18]: It will give me much pleasure to raise this matter with the Minister for Transport on behalf of the honourable member for Bathurst, who is renowned for his representations in this House. He takes to heart representations made to him by his constituents, and is keen and dedicated in ensuring that his constituents are put first at all times. Government members are well aware of his commitment to employees and members of trade unions within his electorate, and to the provision of adequate rail services to and from Bathurst. I am sure the Minister for Transport will take his representations to heart and provide a positive response at an appropriate time.


Mr MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [5.20]: I bring to the attention of the House the case of a unique young man and I appeal to the Minister for Health to approve an ex gratia payment of $50,000 to meet an urgent need. Many honourable members will have heard or read about the boy in the bubble. This description was used in the media some time ago to describe the life of Jonathan Wilson-Fuller, who, due to his severe allergic reactions, is restricted to living in purified sealed rooms. Jonathan strongly dislikes such descriptions because he feels it concentrates on his disability whereas he would rather that people focus on his ability. Jonathan Wilson-Fuller is a unique individual in a unique situation who needs special help. The Government should not ignore Jonathan's case, simply because it is so rare.

His intellect and determination under extreme difficulty are also extremely rare and therefore worth nurturing. I have been privileged to meet and talk with Jonathan Wilson-Fuller. I saw a young man who has a lot to offer, not only to the community but also to the world. He has two fine parents who have invested a lot of love, time and money in trying to create a safe haven for him so that he can live with minimised pain and disability, a sense of security and be allowed to develop his numerous talents to the full. Jonathan Wilson-Fuller is possibly one of Australia's most gifted children. Associate Professor Miraca Gross, a world authority on giftedness from the University of New South Wales, has stated that Jonathan's IQ is in the range of 160-plus.

Some of the finest minds of our day, such as Yehudi Menuhin and David Suzuki, honour and encourage Jonathan. Jonathan Wilson-Fuller was admitted to bachelor of science university studies at the age of 14 and his first year results of high distinction in both pure maths 1 and chemistry 1 are a testimony to his tremendous courage and tenacity. The potential for Jonathan to make academic contributions to society is affirmed by academics both within the field of education and within specific disciplines. A number of these people have written to me seeking government support for Jonathan. Jonathan's mind holds a vision for humanity which speaks to people all over the world, yet he is trapped in a body which is held hostage by the society he strives to help.

I repeat, Jonathan Wilson-Fuller is unique. Many of us have heard of chemically intolerant children and adults, but the severity of Jonathan's condition relates to the large range of chemicals to which he reacts and the many reactions that his body goes through. Jonathan's health problems and resultant disabilities have posed a range of management challenges for his parents, Yvonne and Kevin Wilson-Fuller of Baulkham Hills. It is hard to imagine the distress of a mother who frequently sees her child's throat swell to such an extent that he cannot speak and breathing is difficult. Yet despite his constant pain Jonathan accepts his life and he achieves by sheer strength of will and determination. He is a courageous young man and he is an example of the mind being stronger than the body.

However, over the past two years Jonathan's health has noticeably deteriorated and there is an urgent need to install a positive internal air pressure purification system before Jonathan deteriorates even further. Such equipment costs $50,000. We, as parliamentarians, represent the community and I believe the community would want us to allocate these funds for such a purpose. To my knowledge there is no other child in this country who is so severely intolerant to a wide range of ingested and inhaled chemicals. This really is a basic human rights issue. Yvonne and Kevin Wilson-Fuller are able to control the chemicals that Jonathan ingests, but what he inhales is the remaining problem and the cause of his continual and intense suffering.

Jonathan's parents cannot effectively control chemical contamination from outside sources. Pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, solid fuel for
Page 1484
heating, chainsaws, lawn mowers, cars, paints, cleaners, glues, odorous plants, outdoor insect repellents and disinfectants, the chlorination of pools, and smoke are just some of the everyday things that produce pollutants in the air. They cause an immense amount of unbelievable suffering when they leak in and contaminate the purified air of Jonathan's environment. It is totally unacceptable that a person as vulnerable as Jonathan should not have a safe haven within the confines of his own home. To be safe in one's own home is assumed by all to be a basic right, and it is a basic human right for Jonathan Wilson-Fuller to be able to breathe air to support his life. The breath that we draw so freely and unthinkingly does not come freely to Jonathan. The Commonwealth's disability strategy, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the United Nations Standard Rules on Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, to which Australia is a signatory, are all designed to ensure equal rights for disabled people to access and partake in normal community life. What this family is requesting is most basic - the opportunity for Jonathan to be safe in his own home. [Time expired.]


Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [5.25]: I place on record the appreciation of this Parliament and the people of New South Wales to the Fo Kuang Buddhist sect, an organisation which officially opened the Nan Tien Temple at Berkeley, in the Wollongong electorate, on the weekend. Nan Tien is Chinese and means paradise of the Southern Hemisphere. The temple was opened by Grand Master Yun on Sunday, and the Premier and the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism were in attendance at the opening. The temple project, which took three years to build and cost $50 million, covers a 22-hectare site. There are 185,000 glazed orange tiles in the complex. The annual expected visitor rate is in the order of 200,000.

The project was designed in accordance with the Sung period of Chinese culture. It incorporates many western building principles within a Chinese period skin. The roof structures took 2,800 hours to draft. The project is a credit to Jones Brewster Regan, Sydney architects and designers, and to A. W. Edwards, the Sydney firm that specialises in large building complexes. The main temple has been specifically positioned so that a line drawn from the summit of Flagstaff Hill through the centre of the temple exactly dissects the angle between the temple and the two prominent mountain peaks to the north - Mount Kembla and Mount Keira. It is a multifunctional complex and is divided into four basic areas: the courtyard building; the main shrine building; the pagoda; and the external area, which includes a 98-room pilgrims' retreat, a boundary wall, a landscaped garden area and a 260-vehicle car park.

The courtyard building contains dining rooms, meeting rooms, a library, meditation rooms, a front shrine, a kitchen, a laundry and other facilities. The main shrine building, which is within the courtyard complex, can accommodate 800 devotees. It houses five large statues of Buddha. There is a separate 350-seat auditorium and a separate 190-seat conference facility. There is a Buddhist cultural museum, and within the main hall are 1,000 Buddha statues, each located in a niche with its own light. The pagoda is eight storeys high, 40 metres. Its cross-section is octagonal, tapering towards the top, and will hold the cremated remains of departed worshippers. There is room in the facility for the remains of 7,300 worshippers. The pagoda also contains two small chapels.

The gardens and grounds contain car parking facilities and so on, and there is accommodation for 98 devotees. It is interesting that the gardens and grounds are planted with 10,000 Australian native trees and shrubs. At the official opening ceremony on Sunday the grand master made a point of indicating that the sect was interested in acquiring further land in that locality on the side of Flagstaff Hill with a view to extending the grounds and constructing a major Chinese garden. That would enhance the existing temple and its surrounding buildings, and add to the overall interest of that particular complex as a tourist attraction in the Illawarra.

I raise that point because some of the land involved is owned by Wollongong City Council. Some of the land is also under the control of Pacific Power and as such is under the control ultimately of the State Government. If the proposal of the Buddhist sect is formalised with Wollongong City Council, and if it is necessary to acquire additional land under the control of the State Government, I will be most happy to forward that request to the Government. I hope that such a request will be viewed favourably. The complex is a great tribute to the Illawarra. It is the largest complex of its type in the Southern Hemisphere. It shows great confidence in the future of the Illawarra, and it certainly adds to its reputation as one of the major multicultural centres of the State.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.30]: I have much pleasure noting the words and the recommendation of the honourable member for Wollongong. Recently, while driving through the region I saw the complex and was impressed by its prestigious place of honour on the Wollongong landscape. The Buddhist community is a growing community within the New South Wales multicultural sector and has made a valuable contribution to the multicultural diversity of this nation. It is appropriate for the community to have a place of worship that is suited to its needs and that truly encapsulates the multicultural and religious tolerance of the people of New South Wales.


Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.32]: My statement relates to the term exceptional circumstances with regard to drought relief. I thank the Minister for Agriculture for being here to listen to my speech. I
Page 1485
make specific reference to the Homebush landcare group. Members of that group, chairman Mr Ron Hoare and Mrs Lorraine Ayson, together with representatives of the Balranald Rural Lands Protection Board, approached me only a few days ago expressing concern about the term exceptional circumstances. The Rural Lands Protection Board identifies areas under exceptional circumstances to help those people who are struggling because of severe drought conditions. Recently the Hay Rural Lands Protection Board was classified under the exceptional circumstances provision. At the same time I suggest that some areas under the control of the Moulamein Rural Lands Protection Board, which adjoined the Hay Rural Lands Protection Board, and the Balranald Rural Lands Protection Board, were perhaps in even worse condition than land masses within the Hay Rural Lands Protection Board area.

It is difficult to identify all areas that qualify for relief under exceptional circumstances. The amount of rainfall in areas triggers the criteria for relief. Earlier this year representatives of the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council - RASAC - visited the Balranald and Wentworth area. They also visited Homebush. Many landholders met with representatives of the Rural Lands Protection Board and the rural council to explain their circumstances and the seriousness of the position. Unfortunately, the Balranald and Wentworth area once again missed out on the exceptional circumstances classification. While I travelled through the area over the weekend, I realised that landholders are in a worse position today than they were 12 months ago when drought conditions were supposed to be at their worst. However, one needs to travel only 30 or 40 kilometres to find reasonable conditions in areas in which some rain has fallen.

Over the past year or so we have had numerous heavy storms and prolonged periods of showers but overall the general rainfall has not been significant. Rural people are suffering physically and financially. I am sure the Minister will genuinely look at the situation. When he was the shadow minister he always did his homework and he knew what he was talking about. I believe he genuinely wants to help those in rural areas who are suffering. I give credit also to Graham Maslen, the former chief executive of the Rural Assistance Authority. I used to phone him regularly, and he was good enough to speak personally to these people. I pay homage to him, as the head of the department, for his work in that regard.

A balance must be struck with regard to long-term drought conditions and considerations of genuine hardship. The Federal Government and the State Government are working in harmony, and indeed with other States, but it is difficult to decide on the ideal criteria to identify all landholders who are hurting. I appeal to the Government to do whatever it can for the farmers within the Balranald Rural Lands Protection Board area. I ask the Government also to identify more suitable and satisfactory criteria.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [5.37]: I thank the honourable member for Murray for his comments and for giving me notice of his concerns about the failure of the rural lands protection board in his electorate to obtain exceptional circumstances assistance in the latest round announced by the Federal Minister over the long weekend. The areas to which the honourable member referred - Balranald and Moulamein, divisions A, particularly the north-west section - were part of a list that the State Government submitted to the Federal authorities for consideration for exceptional circumstances assistance. However, they were not among those areas identified by the Federal Minister. As I explained in question time today, the announcement by the Minister referred to $20 million backdated to 29 May.

I will ask the Rural Assistance Authority to discuss with the honourable member for Murray the reason that those particular areas were not granted assistance by RASAC in the last round. Obviously when areas are included there is a lot of relief, and when areas miss out or are excluded there is a lot of distress. I applaud the Federal Minister and the Federal Government for allocating $600 million for drought assistance under the exceptional circumstances and other assistance provision. I am sure the honourable member for Murray is not at fault in this regard but it is a shame the Federal Minister was criticised when some areas did not receive assistance. It is relevant to remember that the Federal Government has made available $600 million for rural assistance programs. I note the matters raised by the honourable member for Murray and assure him that they will be investigated. He will receive a response in due course.


Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [5.39]: The recent temporary closure of the obstetrics ward of the Shellharbour Hospital caused a great deal of concern among local residents, especially expectant mothers. Among the many expressions of concern I received was the following:

As a concerned member of the community I wish to register my protest over the closure of the labour ward at the Shellharbour Hospital.

It is my belief that this service belongs to the community and as such should be retained at the Shellharbour Hospital for the families of this area.

I also received the following comment from the United Hospital Auxiliaries of NSW Inc., Shellharbour Branch:

We wish to bring to your attention the concern of the Shellharbour Hospital Auxiliary as to the downgrading of the Obstetrics Unit at our Hospital.

This following the closure of the Childrens Ward is of the utmost concern to us and the Shellharbour and Kiama municipalities.

As you are no doubt aware, the Shellharbour area is growing at a great rate and a large number of the residents have young children or fall within the child-bearing age.

Page 1486

Another concerned resident wrote:

We are concerned as a family of three children, almost four, and part of the Community, about Shellharbour Hospitals labour ward.

It is Vital that this be reopened as there are So many mothers waiting to have their babys there.

We need this Service in our area, not only because it is more Convenient but also because of the high Standard of Care there.

Many similar letters have been forwarded to the Minister for Health on this issue. Thankfully, the ward was closed for only a short period. I ask the Minister what steps have been taken to ensure that anaesthetists do not withdraw their services? Furthermore, what measure has been taken to ensure that the maternity ward will be kept open on a permanent basis?

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.42]: I have noted the comments of the honourable member for Illawarra in relation to the closure of the ward at Shellharbour Hospital. He has already communicated at length with the Minister for Health about this matter. I am sure the Minister will respond with compassion to those representations and the needs of the constituents of the Illawarra. Hospital services are of great concern to local communities. They are, of course, an integral part of the bread and butter issues in our State, as highlighted today by the Treasurer, who delivered the first Carr budget.


Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [5.43]: Hurstville City Council on behalf of its residents and councillors has expressed concerns to me regarding the M5 east, environmental impact study. A supplementary response was required by Hurstville City Council from the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads on 16 June 1995. After four months no response is to hand. The residents and council request consideration of the following matters by the Minister:

That the R.T.A. be requested to give a commitment to reconstruct the intersection of Stoney Creek Road and King Georges Road no later than the 1996/97 financial year . . .

That the R.T.A. be required to acknowledge the existing traffic problems and give a commitment to continue to monitor traffic impacts brought about by the termination of the existing M5 Motorway at King Georges Road and surrounding residential precincts and to fund immediate implementation of any necessary amelioration measures . . .

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment that any changes to road configuration and/or traffic measures in Stoney Creek Road be carried out in close consultation with Council, giving recognition to the road's continued status as both a State road and an important local arterial.

That . . . the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to jointly carry out with Council a study of traffic effects on residential streets related to the M5 East and further commit to fund, in full, agreed amelioration works found necessary.

That, as a toll is to be imposed, the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to implement toll collection devices at all on and off ramps in order to eliminate the need for a toll plaza east of Beverly Grove Park . . . Should the toll plaza ultimately proceed, the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to consult with Council on the final appearance of the toll plaza as seen from the southern (Hurstville Council) side of the Motorway to a level at least equivalent to that proposed for the Northern (Canterbury Council) side.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to pursue additional on and off ramps to give greater distribution of traffic along the M5 East and to relieve congestion on King Georges Road, including the provision of an additional interchange at or near Kingsgrove Road, to service the Kingsgrove Industrial Area.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment that the level of toll, particularly for heavy vehicles, be set at such a rate as to offer an attractive alternative to the existing Urban Arterial Network.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to compensate Council for the loss of existing active recreation areas in Beverly Grove Park, by an equivalent upgrading of sporting facilities elsewhere as determined and agreed with Hurstville City Council, together with upgrading and landscaping of the residue of Beverly Grove Park for local residents and employees of the adjacent industrial estates . . .

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to consult and agree with local councils on appropriate levels of landscaping or such other measures to minimise any adverse visual impact of the extension of the M5 East, particularly in relation to the King Georges Road interchange, the embankments generally between King Georges Road and Kingsgrove Road, sound barriers, the toll plaza (if required) and the Kingsgrove Road overpass.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to redesign the M5/King Georges Road interchange so that the M5 passes beneath King Georges Road and Cooloongatta Road.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment that the second carriageway to carry west-bound traffic on the existing M5 motorway would NOT be constructed prior to the implementation of the M5 East.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to comply with E.P.A. requirements and immediately prohibit the use of excessively noisy exhaust braking systems, not only on the M5 East and West but on surrounding residential streets and State Roads.

That the R.T.A. be required to give a commitment to consult with Councils and adjacent residents regarding the provision of 5 metre high noise barriers in lieu of suggested 3.5 metre barriers throughout the length of the M5 East and the duplicated section of the M5 West.

That the R.T.A. be required to review directional signposting facilities along King Georges Road from Blakehurst to the M5 in consultation with council.

The residents of Hurstville City Council area and the council itself have a right to a response to these matters. In a recent meeting with the newly elected Mayor of Hurstville, Councillor Peter Olah, and some of the concerned councillors and traffic engineers much concern was expressed - [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.48]: I will be pleased to pass on the comments of the honourable member for Georges River to the relevant Minister. However, I suggest that the honourable member work out precisely what she wants to do and where she wants
Page 1487
to be. Members have just spent five minutes listening to the honourable member read a council resolution. If she wants to do work on behalf of council, I propose that she resign her seat as a member of Parliament and go back to being a councillor on Hurstville City Council.


Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [5.49]: I speak on behalf of a constituent, Mr Vince Churchill of Strathfield South, concerning the registration of motorcycles and motor scooters. Mr Churchill is what I would term a motorbike enthusiast. He has tinkered with and owned many motorbikes and motor scooters over the years. He used to be a member of a number of motorcycle clubs. There is not much that he does not know about motorcycles and like vehicles. Mr Churchill is critical of the registration criteria for such vehicles and he has put to me a number of arguments in support of changing the criteria. These days Mr Churchill is not all that interested in registration fees because he has very few, if any, motorcycles, but he perceives anomalies in the system and he would like the Government to do something about them.

He once owned a Yamaha SRH 500cc single cylinder motorbike. Because of the 500 cubic centimetre engine capacity the vehicle was placed in the highest category for registration fees, even though it produced only a maximum speed of 135 kilometres per hour. On the other hand, a Yamaha RGV 250cc attracts a lesser registration fee, despite the fact that it has a maximum speed of 190 to 200 kilometres per hour. Mr Churchill believes, therefore, that it would be much fairer to base registration fees on the power output of the back wheel of the cycle rather than on engine size. He also points out that the current system of registration is open to abuse as owners of motorbikes with low cubic centimetre engines can add superchargers to their vehicles that produce higher speeds than bikes that have larger cubic centimetre engines.

It seems unfair that a motorcycle with a 250cc output, which is capable of travelling at speeds faster than that of earlier model cycles with twice the cubic centimetre capacity, should attract a lower registration fee. According to Mr Churchill, a motor scooter - and I use the term motor scooter to distinguish such vehicles from the more powerful cycles to which I have just referred - with a capacity of less than 200 watts does not have to be registered at all, yet a Yamaha SA50, which is only a two-speed vehicle, has to be registered because its output exceeds 200 watts. I am informed that the SA50 has a maximum speed of only 60 kilometres per hour, and runs no faster than scooters with less than 200 watts. At present the SA50 models attracts the same registration fee as that of a larger, more powerful scooter capable of holding a pillion passenger. Mr Churchill suggests, therefore, that the registration of motor scooters should be based on seating capacity.

Not every motor scooter can accommodate a passenger, yet solo seat scooters attract the same registration fee as pillion seat equipped vehicles. The Yamaha SA50, which has a 50 cubic centimetre engine, is a very low-powered vehicle. One can purchase Victa lawn-mowers with a 160 cubic centimetre engine capacity. I am not suggesting that we register lawn-mowers, but I think there should be a scale of fees whereby the less powerful scooters attract lower registration fees. This could be achieved by setting one fee for solo seater scooters and another fee for scooters that can accommodate passengers - which I believe is the situation in Queensland. I ask the Minister for Roads to seriously consider Mr Churchill's suggestion of basing registration fees for these vehicles - [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.54]: I have listened with great interest to the concerns of the honourable member for Canterbury for the predicament of his constituent Mr Churchill. I am sure the Minister for Roads will respond to him in due course. In the meantime I suggest that the honourable member for Canterbury discuss the matter with our friend and colleague the honourable member for The Entrance, who in some quarters is known as the Yamaha Kid and who, of course, knows all about such matters.


Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [5.55]: I address the House on the very positive issue of the rescue of Timbertown, an enterprise that is much more than a theme park at Wauchope in my electorate. I am pleased that the Minister for Tourism is in the Chamber tonight to listen to my praise of this tourist facility. On Sunday, 10 September, I attended the grand reopening of Timbertown. It was indeed a great day for the Wauchope and Hastings communities. A total of 6,000 people witnessed the re-emergence of a precious piece of Hastings history. The Friends of Timbertown, including my wife Margaret, dressed in period costume. As always, they did a marvellous job providing authenticity, commitment and a wealth of knowledge to the occasion.

A local public company, Timbertown Community Enterprises Limited, was formed to take over the lease and management of Timbertown. Its primary objective was the early reopening of Timbertown to the general public and the efficient long-term operation of this magnificent facility. One of the most important aspects of Timbertown's reopening is the add-on value to all members of the community. The directors of the company believe that the reopening will enhance the long-term growth and stability of the community and will create employment not only directly in the operation of Timbertown, but also indirectly in many other local businesses. The company is encouraging maximum local community participation commercially, financially, culturally and socially. The enthusiasm has been infectious and all subscribed capital has been raised by members of the Hastings community.

Page 1488

I congratulate the people of Wauchope and the people of the Hastings, who have shown true community spirit in revitalising this outstanding example of our early history. Investors have come from all areas of the community, and with the town of Wauchope right behind the project the future looks bright. Timbertown is poised to continue its significant contribution to the development and success of tourism in the Hastings and the mid-north coast region. I know that the Minister would welcome that sentiment. With regard to the lease and management the reopening has been carefully planned and orchestrated by Timbertown Community Enterprises Limited. The company's seven-member board has done a marvellous job. I particularly congratulate the chairman, Peter Wall; the company secretary, Russell Harris; the deputy chairman, Ken Saunders; and Mr Bill Overstead, who has been appointed Manager of Timbertown. The staff, the Friends of Timbertown and everyone involved deserve high praise for their outstanding efforts to date. I wish this first-class team well in its future endeavours.

Timbertown first opened in 1976 and it remains the area's most popular tourist attraction. It has delighted almost two million visitors over the years of its operation. During the September-October school holidays, record crowds beyond expectations visited Timbertown. It is set in 87 acres of Broken Bago forest and is a classic example of a village of the 1880s, accurately reflecting life as it was for the timber-getting pioneers of the Hastings valley. This outstanding re-creation of life in a late nineteenth century timber-getters village is an integral part of the heritage and history of New South Wales.

The preservation of Timbertown is essential for tourism and as a tribute to our rich past and to our hard-working pioneers. The extent of the involvement of the people of Wauchope, many of whom are descendants of these early settlers, is an affirmation of their pride at being part of Timbertown's future, which is now firmly and appropriately in the hands of the Hastings community. As the timber industry enters a period of great change, Timbertown will play a vital role in the preservation of our colonial heritage. I invite the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Brian Langton, to visit Timbertown. We will really look after him and show him what Timbertown has to offer. He will be able to see first hand this wonderful tribute to the Wauchope community, both past and present. I am sure that the Minister will be impressed, as I was, by the recently reopened Timbertown. I look forward to the continued success of this great tourist facility.

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [6.00]: I join the honourable member for Oxley in congratulating the board of management of Timbertown on the reopening of Timbertown on 10 September. It was closed for a few months for major upgrading and for investment in its next five-year plan. The New South Wales tourism master plan identified the need to upgrade first-generation tourist facilities and attractions like Timbertown to ensure that they are able to compete with more modern attractions. The Timbertown concept fits in perfectly with the Government's plans for tourism in New South Wales. This Government strongly believes that it needs to use as a magnet the international and national attraction of the Olympic Games to encourage people to visit Sydney and the rest of New South Wales.

Last week I had the pleasure of launching the revised tourism strategy for New South Wales, which incorporated a further addition to the budget for regional tourism in New South Wales. The Government believes that the future economy of towns and districts like Wauchope and the Hastings shire will be based on tourism. As many traditional rural industries decline, the Government believes that tourism will pick up a lot of the resulting unemployment. In fact, it has been predicted that over the next 10 years 15 per cent of all new employment in New South Wales will be in tourism. I would be delighted to accept the offer of the honourable member for Oxley to visit Timbertown. I join the honourable member in congratulating the board of management and, in particular, Hastings Shire Council, which, in the early 1970s, had the foresight to fund this project. That debt has obviously been repaid by Timbertown, but the council had the foresight to put in the seeding money to ensure that this project got off the ground. Timbertown fits in perfectly with the Labor Government's strategy for tourism. I look forward to joining the honourable member for Oxley the next time I am in Port Macquarie.


Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [6.02]: On behalf of the people of the central coast I congratulate the Premier on the declaration of the central coast as an official economic region of this State. This was an election commitment by the then Leader of the Opposition some three years ago. Today, as Premier of this State, he has honoured that commitment. I believe this is one of the most significant decisions for my region made by any government. This decision is seminal to the growth and development of the region. It is an issue that I have vigorously pursued since my election to this Parliament. I have spoken on this issue on many occasions in this House. In fact, as recently as 21 September this year I raised the issue in this House. I said:

This issue is fundamental -

that is, the establishment of the central coast as an economic region -

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 potential.

I do not believe that my speech actually influenced the Premier but -

Page 1489

Mr Jeffrey: It was Bob Graham when he was the member.

Mr McBRIDE: He never mentioned the issue. I believe that the Premier, who has listened to that argument, has been influenced not only by me but also by a number of other representatives from the coast who have also been pushing this issue. For too long the central coast has been treated as a pimple on the backside of Sydney or as a distant cousin of the Hunter. Government at all levels - local, State and Federal - public service bureaucracies, private sector business and commerce, and both private and public agencies have for decades treated the central coast as an undefined dormitory area without a defined identity. This has led to ad hoc pattern of development of infrastructure and services. The development of arterial roads is a classic example. For decades funding allocations have been characterised by State electorate boundaries without well-defined regional objectives. The result has been a pattern of quality works being completed in isolation without sufficient concern for the positive effects resulting from an integrated plan.

I use the issue of roads as an example of the debilitating effects of the lack of a regional approach. However, this situation is reflected in all areas of infrastructure and development. My comments apply equally to education, health, police, community services, juvenile justice, public works and many other spheres of State Government infrastructure and service. I note that the Minister for Education and Training is at the table. He may comment later about education. The central coast, which is a dynamic region, is growing rapidly both economically and in population. For example, in each of the last two decades the population on the central coast has doubled. In 1975 the population in the central coast was around 65,000. In 1985 the population was around 120,000, so it doubled in a 10-year period.

In 1995 the population in the central coast is around 250,000. Honourable members can imagine what the situation would be if that increase was duplicated statewide or in Sydney. Resources and infrastructure are constantly being outstripped by growth. I believe that today's announcement by the Premier will be instrumental in breaking that cycle for the benefit of all people on the central coast. I congratulate the Premier. This promise, which was made three years ago, has been honoured in the first budget of the Carr Labor Government. The announcement will benefit all people on the central coast. Most importantly, the announcement will lead to better development, better infrastructure and a more balanced society on the central coast.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.07]: I will be delighted to pass on to the Premier the complimentary remarks made by the honourable member for The Entrance. I note the pleasure and gratitude expressed by the honourable member at the Carr Government keeping yet another promise. I forget how many promises the Government has kept; there have been so many of them. I stopped counting a long time ago. The people of New South Wales know only too well that the Carr Government honours its promises. As the honourable member for The Entrance said so eloquently, this is a major promise that has been honoured. I was flattered that the honourable member for The Entrance included in his remarks some comments relating to my education and training portfolio. He knows the importance that this Government has placed on education and training on the central coast. In six months our record of achievement overshadows completely the dismal efforts of the previous coalition Government over seven years.

I refer, for example, to the joint facility at Ourimbah. I draw to the attention of all honourable members today's budget papers, which reflect the contribution by this Government to developing the TAFE facilities within that joint complex and to developing the annexe to the University of Newcastle. Recently I had the pleasure of talking to Raoul Mortley, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, who informed me of the enormous plans of that university to develop its campus. I was honoured that the honourable member for The Entrance was recently able to represent me at the official opening of the annexe of the University of Newcastle by the Governor-General, the Hon. Bill Hayden. As the honourable member for The Entrance is aware, in the new decentralised and revitalised structure for the Department of School Education the Gosford district office employs 23 people.


Mr KERR (Cronulla) [6.09]: I raise the subject of Cronulla beaches and, particularly, the surf clubs in the electorate of Cronulla. It is appropriate to raise these matters having regard to an answer given in question time today by the Minister for Sport and Recreation. She mentioned the number of rescues that have been effected by surf-lifesaving clubs. I want to draw the attention of honourable members of the House to the substance of the answer. We should all be grateful for the activities undertaken by the surf-lifesaving movement. I have no need to tell the House about the magnificent clubs in the Cronulla electorate.

Mr McBride: The Cronulla workers club?

Mr KERR: I will come to the Cronulla workers club in a moment. I am referring to the Cronulla club, the North Cronulla club, the Elouera surf club and the Wanda surf club. They are all voluntary organisations. I might divert for a moment to the Cronulla workers club.

Mr McBride: On a point of order: I understand that the Cronulla workers club has nothing to do with the statement of the honourable member for Cronulla. At the outset he said that he was talking about surf club issues and matters pertaining to the loss of sand and erosion of Cronulla beach. There was no reference to Cronulla workers club.

Page 1490

Mr KERR: On the point of order: I was simply responding to an interjection by the honourable member. I would have thought he would have been assisted if I briefly responded.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr KERR: My response to the point of order is simply that the Cronulla workers club is not involved with any lifesaving movement, if you happen to be a dividend holder, by the former honourable member for Cronulla. Honourable members should be proud of the surf-lifesaving movement. The best clubs happen to be in my electorate, but other clubs are also good. There are two aspects I wish to speak about. The first is the removal of the threat of litigation when surf-lifesavers act in good faith.

Mr Jeffery: Hear! Hear!

Mr KERR: That matter was becoming a problem, as the honourable member for Oxley indicates.

Mr McBride: I agree.

Mr KERR: The honourable member for The Entrance also agrees. The subject has tripartisan support. It is time to remove the threat of litigation from those who have risked their lives over the years to save members of the public. In her answer this afternoon the Minister for Sport and Recreation mentioned naivety surfing - surfing outside the flags - which often results in surf-lifesavers being called upon to rescue people who are careless with their own lives. If a surf-lifesaver rescues someone who is then injured and suffers brain damage, the surf-lifesaver should be protected from the threat of legal action. Perhaps a gratuity fund could be established to satisfy such claims. The second matter is the distribution of grants to surf-lifesaving from the State Government. This distribution could be done locally rather than centrally. The surf-lifesaving movement has established branches to deal with local issues, for example, the Sydney branch. All member clubs meet monthly to deal with branch issues. Those branches are best equipped to deal with the distribution of grants as they are aware of what is happening at the foundation level of Surf Life Saving Australia Limited.

State centres, for example, Surf Life Saving New South Wales, which perhaps has its thinking dominated by professionals, is removed from direct surf club input. The wishes at the State centres are very often markedly different to the wishes of clubs and their members. In relation to Cronulla beaches, the previous Government undertook extensive consultation with the community about ocean outfalls and the sewage treatment plant at Potter Point. It is necessary that the treatment plant be upgraded to tertiary level, as promised by the previous Government and by this Government. The Minister for Education and Training said he lost track of promises. That is one promise that should be kept. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.14]: I join the honourable member for Cronulla in placing on record the Government's support of, and commitment to, the efforts of the surf-lifesaving movement. The honourable member mentioned specific clubs in his electorate - North Cronulla, Cronulla, Elouera and Wanda - but of course the efforts of the surf-lifesaving club movement extend up and down the coastline and play an extremely valuable role in monitoring and protecting our beaches. I shall certainly pass on to the Minister for Sport and Recreation the concerns of the honourable member for Cronulla relating to the threat of litigation and the need to distribute grants on a more localised or regional level rather than from central administration. The issue of ocean outfalls is within my portfolio. Some months ago the honourable member for Cronulla in a private member's statement railed on about the need to maintain the community consultation process, which was indeed started by the previous Government. He has my commitment that in the context of present Government policy the consultation process will continue in order to achieve the best possible outcomes. I will be interested to hear the outcome of the community consultation process once it is completed.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 6.16 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [7.30]: I would like to acknowledge and welcome here this evening those in the gallery from the Bennelong Australian Labor Party federal electorate council. The people of New South Wales were confronted on 25 March with a stark choice on forest conservation. They chose Labor's balanced approach. They rejected the conservative's plea that we could have forest conservation or jobs, but not both. They rejected the previous Government, which settled for inaction rather than trying to resolve a difficult issue. That was the hallmark of the previous Government - inaction. Timber industry workers and their families have been callously and needlessly traumatised by the false claims of the honourable member for Monaro and his cronies that the deferred forest area process would cause social dislocation. Their cynical scaremongering ought to be exposed - and it will be. The facts are that there will be no shutdown of the industry as a result of deferred forest areas. When the Federal Government announced its draft list of deferred forest areas, or DFAs, on 29 September, I also released a list of 2,130 forest compartments potentially available for timber supply over the next nine months. These maps have been sent out progressively since last Tuesday. Even more explicit maps and details of forest types have been sent out over the last week.

Page 1491

Mr Cochran: Which was a week after it started.

Mr YEADON: The initial maps were available almost immediately. The interminable whinger on the other side, the member for Monaro, did nothing when in Government, but now as a member of the Opposition he has all the answers. When I made these maps public I was confident that both Governments had taken into account the reasonable needs of industry to maintain production and employment. This pool of compartments should provide an adequate log supply over the next nine months without compromising forest values or foreclosing any future conservation options. The Federal Government's announcement of provisional DFAs followed months of consultation, which ensured that the Commonwealth list would meet the needs of forest conservation without undermining our strategy to protect jobs. This Government has been involved in continuous consultation with the industry both prior to and after the election and right up until this point of time, and will be so involved into the future - more consultation than the honourable member for Monaro ever thought of when he was a member of the previous Government. Our representations with the Commonwealth Government ensured that our forest policy objectives have been integrated in the deferred forest area process. We have protected forest but have maintained supply to the industry - something the coalition could never do.

Importantly, this Government has retained the central role of the regional resource and conservation assessment council. The areas of deferred forest will be defined and replaced by the RRCAC assessment, a process which involves all stakeholders, and for which this Government has a clear mandate. In reaching agreement with the Commonwealth, New South Wales proposed the interim protection of an additional 1 million hectares of forest outside existing reserves. We have met the 15 per cent benchmark for biodiversity, but in meeting those conservation objectives we have kept the needs of the industry in mind. In regions where the Commonwealth criteria would have affected timber supply to a committed level, we have ensured sufficient areas remain available to the industry. In the Grafton-Casino areas we have used this pragmatic approach to take account of socioeconomic imperatives. We have applied a lower percentage to the reservation of certain forest types - spotted gum to be particular - which are critical to industry in the region.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Clarence is being all too cynical. We are taking a very practical approach to this policy. If the honourable member had any concern for his constituents he would stop scaring the daylights out of them about their future employment prospects. Spotted gum is well represented elsewhere, and so our conservation values continue to be protected. Timber workers, sawmill owners and dependent small businesses can be confident there will be no job losses as a result of DFAs. But uncertainty and anxiety have been spread by the doomsayers of the State and Federal Oppositions and by some industry spokesmen.

Mr Cochran: People are losing jobs. Can you get that into your head? Can you wake up to it?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will have an opportunity to respond at the appropriate time.

Mr YEADON: They lost jobs on the forest floor when the coalition was in office because that Government would do nothing about it by value-adding the industry and creating jobs. The honourable member for Monaro did nothing. He should not sit in this Chamber spouting his pious rhetoric. He is a disgrace to his constituents and to this Parliament. The honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Monaro and their political cronies have been all too willing to make political capital by exploiting the inevitable anxiety being experienced by timber workers and rural communities faced with changes to their industry. Those changes were long overdue, but all the member does is exploit their anxieties. He ought to be ashamed of himself for that. Let us examine some of the claims made by the Opposition spokesman on forestry and others about the implications of DFAs. Mr Page has said that the DFA process was a mere political exercise and predicted a devastating social impact on communities. What a shameful and disgraceful statement. Mr Page is scaremongering among his own constituents. When Mr Page and his mates were in Government, the industry shrunk by 13 per cent.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: in accordance with previous rulings, the honourable member should use the name of a member's electorate to refer to that member.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will refer to the member by his electorate.

Mr YEADON: The honourable member makes such a worthwhile contribution to this Parliament. When the honourable member for Ballina and his mates were in Government, the industry sank by 13 per cent. Members opposite did nothing - they just sat and watched. Six hundred and fifty-five jobs were lost, but the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Monaro have the hide to say that Labor's policies will have a devastating social impact. They sat and watched while their policies - or lack of them - had a devastating impact. If Labor had not won power the industry would have continued to shrink. It would have been crushed under the pressure of conservation demands and lack of investment, and by lack of competitive viability in the international market. Workers would have had no support from the Government to help them through this inevitable decline. The honourable member for Ballina and his cronies would have abandoned workers in the same way they are preying on their anxieties now. The industry would not have had the promise of resource security which we are going to offer - and will deliver. They would have been faced
Page 1492
only with continual conflict. That is all we had under the previous Government - seven years of continual conflict.

Late last month the Federal Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Fischer, claimed that many jobs will be lost in the timber industry, particularly in northern New South Wales. Mr Fischer must lack a sense of irony, because after making that dire prediction he went on to call for a better working relationship between the Premier and the Prime Minister. How profound! I can assure this House that this Government's relationship with Canberra is, and always will be, far smoother than the former Government's relationship with Canberra. Even on drought assistance, all that Government did was to play politics; it did not care at all about its constituents.

The Executive Director of the National Association of Forest Industries, Dr Robert Bain, is another doomsayer, both in his public statements and through his association's irresponsible advertising campaign. Dr Bain referred to the "alarming social and economic cost" of the decision, and claimed that "the economic development work just hasn't been done". Dr Bain should be well aware that the DFAs represent areas afforded interim protection pending comprehensive regional assessments as laid down in the national forest policy statement, signed by the coalition when in Government. He also knows that the socioeconomic values of forests will be assessed side by side with their environmental values. The State and Commonwealth Governments based their decisions on DFAs on the precautionary principle. This Government does not endorse the extreme approach of the lock-everything-up brigade. It is neither necessary nor desirable to close down the entire native forest dependent timber industry.

Once comprehensive regional assessments have identified the areas required for a reserve system those areas will be permanently preserved and will continue with well-managed and sustainable logging. The honourable member for Monaro went on and on about extremes. It is ironic that he does not realise that he takes an extreme position on his side of the debate. The Government does not pander to extremes on either side of the debate - that includes the honourable member for Monaro and it includes extreme environmental groups. The Government has always said that it will always take a balanced approach to forest policy and conservation, and that is precisely what it is doing.

Mr CAUSLEY (Clarence) [7.40]: The Parliament could well do without the kind of nasty comments heard from the Minister, and I dare say that it will not be long before it does do without them. Frankly, the Minister knows nothing about forests or the management of forests. He has accepted the arguments put forward by the extreme environmental movement; those arguments have captured him. The Minister says that the deferred forest areas will not have any effect on the timber industry. I should like the Minister to explain to New South Wales why that process will not have an effect on the industry because, of the 1.9 million hectares available to forestry in this State, 1.5 million hectares are in deferred forest areas. How can the Minister possibly say with any credibility that there will be no effect on the timber industry? Yes, we do have agreements that state that there will be a resource for six months. The Minister is putting timber cutters back into areas that should not be logged until the year 2011.

Mr Yeadon: That's rubbish.

Mr CAUSLEY: The Minister should come to Grafton - that is the problem with the Minister; he sits here in his little foxhole and will not come to the country to examine problems. There are 800 jobs on the line but the Minister will not even listen. The Minister has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, which is why John Laws says that he is wet behind the ears, that he is a shop steward. John Laws is right: the Minister does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that people's jobs are on the line. There are little towns such as Woodenbong, Urbenville, Drake and Grevillia - does the Minister want me to go through them?

Mr Yeadon: If you like.

Mr CAUSLEY: Those small towns have sawmills, and the Minister is about to destroy them. What else do they do? In Lismore the other day Gavin Hillier said that people would be retrained and relocated. I would like the Minister to tell me how someone who owns a house in Woodenbong would be able to sell his house after the Government has closed down the sawmill there. The Government's move is based on a false premise; an international convention that was signed by the Federal Government, without debate in the Parliament.

Mr Yeadon: You signed the national forest policy statement.

Mr CAUSLEY: The national forest policy statement mentions nothing about 15 per cent.

Mr Yeadon: It talks about a comprehensive reserve system.

Mr CAUSLEY: Yes, but it does not talk about 15 per cent. Where did that figure come from? The Prime Minister's office thought that figure was a good idea. Then the greenies wanted to expand it, so they talked about the forests as at 1750. No-one knows what the forests were in 1750. We now have the National Parks and Wildlife Service trying to carry out computer modelling to find out what the forests were in 1750. There is no species at risk.

Mr Yeadon: No?

Mr CAUSLEY: I was reared in the forest. The Minister should listen and he might learn something. There is no species at risk but there are plenty of jobs at risk. Saying that there will be no loss of jobs is the greatest lie ever perpetrated; the greatest lie ever put forward to try to lull people into a false sense of security. We have a Federal member of Parliament in our area too, the Federal member for Page. He has not opened his mouth to support his local community, the small towns that will be decimated.

Page 1493

Mr Yeadon: He has not preyed on their anxieties.

Mr CAUSLEY: Has he not? Of course he has. The Federal member for Page has not opened his mouth because he is going along with the Government's little ploy. Today in the budget there was mention of 24 national parks. I challenge the Minister to tell the House where the 24 national parks will be.

Mr Yeadon: They are written in the policy.

Mr CAUSLEY: The Government has told us about four. It will not be long before I go to the electorate of Page. The Labor Party cannot hold the seat. The Labor Party holds the seat by 193 votes, and it will not retain it. The Government has no idea about industries in New South Wales and how they operate. The budget that came down this afternoon is doomed to failure because the Government has destroyed the very industries that are trying to produce income for the budget. People are not stupid -

Mr Mills: Is that right?

Mr CAUSLEY: The honourable member for Wallsend should listen to John Laws for a while to hear what the country people are saying. The one thing that the Government has done is to consolidate the National Party vote in country New South Wales for two generations. [Time expired.]

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [7.45], in reply: Thank you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, for another opportunity to refute some of the arguments made by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. In regard to the result of the State election, I want to make it clear that the number of votes for National Party and Liberal Party members who represent forestry areas was increased in every instance. All of those members represent their areas in such a way that people are confident that the views of their electorates are being represented, and therefore the number of votes for those members increased in the election. The Minister cannot claim a mandate to close down the forest industry. He cannot claim that in some way the 48 per cent of the people of New South Wales who voted for the Labor Party gave the Government good reason to take the actions it has in forest areas across the State.

It is incomprehensible that the Minister should stand before the House as he did today and say that there would be no shutdowns as a result of the deferred forest areas process and that no jobs would be lost as a result of the Government's policies. In fact, jobs have already been lost and uncertainty has already been created as a result of Labor Party policies enunciated before and since the election. The Minister spoke of uncertainty, anxiety and anguish about the future of the timber industry. He alleged that this was being caused by the honourable member for Ballina, who is the shadow minister for land and water conservation, the honourable member for Clarence, me and others.

I want to talk about the uncertainty created by the Labor Party when in opposition until March this year. The anxiety and concern in the industry resulted from the Labor Party's introduction and support of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Bill and the South East Forests Protection Bill and its support of the honourable member for Bligh in her undermining of the timber industry. The Labor Party refused to accept regulations that would have overthrown the Chaelundi decision. It is such actions that created the anxiety in the minds of those in the timber industry - families who were traditionally Labor Party supporters. It should not be forgotten that the seat of Monaro was held by the Labor Party for 12 years.

Mr Causley: So was the seat of Clarence.

Mr COCHRAN: Indeed. The reason that voters there now vote for the National Party is that National Party members have supported them unequivocally for the past seven or eight years - certainly since I have represented the Monaro electorate. In the minds of those that support the continuation of the small communities there is no doubt where their faith lies. There has been no anxiety created by the National Party. The predictions that I made about the timber industry have come true on each and every occasion. I predict now that as soon as the Federal election is over, regardless of the outcome, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation will preside over the greatest reduction in manpower in the forest industry in the history of this State. The forest industry of New South Wales provides 25,000 jobs. Those jobs are at risk because the Minister for Land and Water Conservation holds that portfolio and he is in the hands of the greenies. The Greens have him well and truly.

People in the northern part of the State depend heavily on the future of the timber industry. Members in these electorates must now be concerned about the future of their schools. A number of those small schools rely on 25 students. If one timber worker and his family are lost, the school could lose one teacher. Hospitals in these small country towns depend on the population base to sustain their viability. Service stations, shops and other services depend on the continuation of the timber industry. The Minister is presiding over the destruction of the timber industry as no other Minister in no other government has done before. He will be called to account at the next election and the Opposition will make plenty of capital about it in the meantime.

The Minister has been asked in a question upon notice whether he will undertake to provide compensation from a promised $60 million to the O'Reilly and Johnston families of Cooma, who have been displaced by the forest policy. He has not provided a dammed cent to them. He has lied through his back teeth. Where is the money? [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.

Page 1494

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the bills being brought in and proceeded with up to and including the Ministers' second reading speeches.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [7.52]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Fair Trading Act 1987 makes provision for consumers to apply for legal assistance to conduct legal proceedings when the matter arises out of the supply of goods or services. Section 13(1) sets out the criteria for the grant of legal assistance. It states that the commissioner may grant legal assistance if there are reasonable grounds for the action; if assistance is desirable in the public interest; if the proceedings are for the recovery of a liquidated or unliquidated amount that will not exceed the prescribed amount; and if the Minister has given approval.

The legal assistance program has been used to assist consumers in civil litigation matters. In the past this program was utilised to assist consumers who were parties to appeals from the Consumer Claims Tribunal and the Building Disputes Tribunal. Appeals against decisions of these two tribunals are made in the Supreme Court and are restricted by section 12(2) of the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act 1987 to matters of jurisdiction and natural justice. The basis for such action is a mistake by a referee and does not reflect the merits of the claim. Consequently, a consumer who has sought a low-cost resolution to a dispute, often at the advice of the Department of Consumer Affairs, may be subject to expensive court proceedings due to an alleged mistake of the tribunal.

It has been accepted that it is within the general consumer interest for legal assistance to be granted in these cases so as to protect the consumer against excessive cost and to permit the commissioner to provide legal input on matters which involve judicial interpretation of consumer protection legislation. The Department of Consumer Affairs received advice from the New South Wales Solicitor General in April 1995 that legal assistance cannot be granted in proceedings for judicial review of decisions of courts or tribunals. That is because section 13(1)(c) of the Fair Trading Act limits the commissioner to granting legal assistance where the proceedings involve recovery of a liquidated or unliquidated amount. The bill seeks to clarify the criteria for which legal assistance may be granted under the Fair Trading Act 1987. I turn now to the provisions of the bill.

Schedule 1[1] of the bill inserts a new section 11A, which will state that "court" includes a tribunal. This will ensure that where legal representation is permitted the commissioner may grant legal assistance in proceedings before a tribunal. Schedule 1[2] and 1[5] amend sections 12 and 13 to provide that legal assistance can only be granted in civil proceedings, and to remove the requirement that proceedings must be for a liquidated or unliquidated amount. Schedule 1[3] amends section 12(1) to make it clear that legal assistance can be granted for judicial reviews or appeals. Section 12(1)(b) will permit applications for legal assistance for judicial review or appeal proceedings where the originating action arose from the supply of goods or services. Section 12(1)(c) will ensure that assistance can be granted whether the consumer is the plaintiff or the defendant.

Schedule 1[7] provides some transitional provisions. Proposed clause 11B of schedule 5 to the Act will allow the commissioner to grant legal assistance in proceedings which arose before or after the commencement of the amendment. However, any application that was refused prior to the amendment cannot be remade. This will not unfairly affect any party to proceedings, because any person who would have received assistance under these provisions in relation to CCT or BDT appeals would have benefited from the intervention of the Minister under section 44(1) of the Consumer Claims Tribunals Act.

It was discovered that the commissioner did not have the power to provide legal assistance to people who considered they were aggrieved by a tribunal decision. This power is particularly important in cases where the referee may have made an error and people who sought to resolve their problems in a cost-effective way have found themselves in the Supreme Court, unable to pay their expenses. The bill will ensure that such people may be given legal assistance. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Ms Machin.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [7.57]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Access to a parcel of land that has no frontage to a public road would most likely be via a right of way over a neighbour's land. That right of way is a common example of an easement. Other common examples are easements for drainage, sewerage and transmission lines. In general terms an easement may be described as a right belonging to a parcel of land, for the owner of that parcel to use a parcel of land owned by someone else. The laws governing easements are a confusing mix of old English common law and local statutory provisions, and are crying out for reform. The Director of Land Titles has prepared
Page 1495
and circulated a discussion paper identifying problem areas in the law of easements, suggesting proposals for reform, and calling for comments. Many comments were received and the director subsequently convened a consultative committee to consider the submissions and formulate a final proposal. The committee comprised representatives of government, legal, surveying and academic groups and has suggested the reforms embodied in this bill.

Many of the reforms are of a technical, legal nature but I will concentrate on those that have the greatest practical effect. Let me begin by illustrating an existing problem which must be solved. A multistorey building was being erected in the city. During the course of construction a crane would sometimes swing over neighbouring land, and scaffolding also encroached into the airspace of the neighbouring land. None of these activities had a detrimental effect on the neighbouring land or impeded its use. Indeed, the scaffolding was erected in order to comply with construction safety regulations. Nevertheless, the owner of the neighbouring land was able to obtain an injunction preventing the building activities from encroaching into the owner's airspace. This forced the building to be erected using different methods and greatly increased the cost of construction. It is not hard to imagine other situations where such an injunction would prevent a building from being erected at all. It may well be that in cases like these the real motivation in seeking an injunction is not so much to prevent an actual trespass into airspace, but rather to force other parties to pay an exorbitant amount for the use of that airspace.

Clearly there is a need in such a case for a court to be able to grant an easement for the encroaching activity. Of course the easement would be granted on condition that the party having its benefit pay reasonable compensation to the party whose land is burdened. This bill provides the Supreme Court with such a power. The power, however, can only be used in the following circumstances. First, it must not be inconsistent with the public interest for the land having the benefit of the easement to be used in the manner proposed; for example, the construction of a multistorey building. Secondly, the owner of the land burdened must be able to be adequately compensated for any loss suffered as a result of the imposition of the easement. Thirdly, all reasonable attempts made by the applicant to obtain the easement must have been unsuccessful. This condition will be satisfied either where the owner of the land to be burdened has unreasonably refused to grant the easement, or where the owner of the land cannot be found.

The court will be empowered to specify all the terms of the easement including any limitation on the times during which it is to apply. The applicant for the order will ordinarily bear the cost of the proceedings for both parties, and the easement can be varied either by agreement of the parties, or by order of the court. It is recognised that this law impacts on private property rights. However it must also be recognised that when government is carrying out development for housing, drainage or electricity, it routinely resumes the necessary easements needed for the development. All that these provisions reflect is a realisation that private development may also be beneficial for the public, and that such developments should not be unreasonably frustrated or held to ransom. Honourable members will be aware that this is not the only legislative provision in New South Wales that allows a court to impose an easement on privately owned land for the benefit of other privately owned land.

Since 1922 the Encroachment of Buildings Act has authorised a court to create an easement over private land for encroachment of a building, in favour of the owner of the adjoining land on which the rest of the building stands. So these provisions are not entirely innovative, but they are very necessary. They will aid the development of land whilst still ensuring that just compensation will be paid for any erosion of property rights. They are therefore appropriate measures for enactment by the Parliament. Another important issue dealt with by this legislation concerns the variation of easements affecting land held under the Real Property Act - or Torrens title land, as it is more commonly known. The following comments apply only to land held under that type of title. At present the parties to an easement may agree to vary its terms. However, there is no facility to ensure that the agreed variation will bind subsequent owners of the relevant parcels of land. For example, the parties to an easement for right of way may agree to vary its terms so as to provide that it shall not be used by any trucks.

If the parcel of land having the benefit of the easement is sold, that variation to the easement will not bind the new owner of that parcel. The only method available for varying an easement so that it binds subsequent parties is to obtain a court order for variation. Obviously this method is expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, an application for variation can be made in only very limited situations such as where the character of the neighbourhood has changed, or where the use of the land benefited by the easement has changed. Because of these difficulties, parties wanting to create a binding variation of an easement have been forced to extinguish the existing easement and enter into a new one in the desired terms. This method is also obviously unduly cumbersome and expensive. Other interests in land, such as leases, mortgages and restrictive covenants, can be varied by consent of the parties to the interest. That variation can then be registered against the title of the subject land so that future owners of the land are bound by the terms of the variation. It is anomalous that the same facility is not available for easements, and this legislation corrects that anomaly.

The parties to an easement will be able to enter into a simple form of variation, and have that variation registered against the relevant titles for the land benefited and burdened by the easement. The registered variation will then bind subsequent owners of those parcels of land. They are two of the major reforms which this bill effects, but there are others which I now draw to the attention of honourable members. The bill defines clearly the instances in
Page 1496
which easements not registered on the title for Real Property Act land will nevertheless affect that land. This reform, which is consistent with the 1991 New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in Dobbie v Davidson, will end any existing speculation and confusion on this issue. The bill allows easier creation of cross-easements for support in respect of party walls. Party walls are shared walls that usually exist in semidetached or terrace houses. Unfortunately, because of the highly technical requirements of the current law, many premises which need cross-easements for support do not have them.

Covenants which deal with responsibility for the maintenance and repair of an easement will now be permitted to bind subsequent owners of the lands benefited and burdened by the easement. Up until now such covenants bound only the original parties to their creation. Authority is given to the Registrar General to investigate and remove from the register easements that have been abandoned by non-use. This provision will aid in the removal of obsolete data from the register. Similarly, the Registrar General is empowered to remove from the register an easement that has become unnecessary due to subdivision or consolidation of parcels of land. The opportunity will also be taken to correct a drafting error in the Conveyancing Act which wrongly implies that a third party to an easement may have the power to vary it. More flexibility is provided for the definition of the site of an easement. This will facilitate the creation of easements over large parcels of land normally in rural areas where the present strict requirements for site definition make it too expensive for the creation of easements.

The bill expressly allows the Registrar General to record an easement on the title for the land burdened by the easement as well as on the title for the land benefited. This provision merely gives express authority for a long-standing, accepted and beneficial practice of the Registrar General. The existing list of short forms of easement contained in the Conveyancing Act are revised and expanded. Short forms of easement allow a document to describe an easement in a certain way, for example right of carriageway. The use of those precise words means that the full text of that easement as set out in the Conveyancing Act is deemed to be incorporated in the document. The reforms that I have outlined will simplify and clarify the law relating to easements. I thank the members of the consultative committee for their work in formulating the reforms and I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr D. L. Page.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [8.09]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The measures in this bill represent the first substantive amendments to the Casino Control Act since that Act was passed by the Parliament in 1992. The amendments flow from a report and recommendation received from the Casino Control Authority, which has had the benefit of some three years experience with the operation of the Act. The amendments have the full support of the authority. The proposals in the bill have two main objectives. First, the bill aims to enhance the operational effectiveness of existing statutory controls over the supply of goods and services to the Sydney casino. I will come to that in more detail shortly. The second main purpose of the bill is to broaden the range of persons who may preside over an inquiry established by the Casino Control Authority.

Section 143 of the Casino Control Act empowers the authority, for the purpose of exercising its functions, to arrange for the holding of inquiries in public or in private. To date, only one inquiry of this nature has been held. That was an inquiry by Mr Murray Tobias, QC, into allegations vented last year by the Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and others about the probity of the Leighton group and the Showboat group. The nature of those allegations need not be canvassed again. Suffice it to say that the allegations were serious enough for the authority to commission the inquiry by Mr Tobias. The Act provides that an inquiry of this kind must be presided over by a member of the authority. Legal advice obtained concludes that the Act provides no alternative to a member of the authority being the presiding officer at an inquiry.

The Government believes that it is appropriate that the authority have the power to delegate the conduct of such an inquiry to another person with appropriate expertise when it is considered prudent to do so. Circumstances in which it may be considered desirable to delegate responsibility for conducting an inquiry to a non-member of the authority include when the authority member with relevant expertise in the area has a conflict of interest or is unavailable, when a person other than an authority member has special expertise relevant to the circumstances surrounding a particular inquiry or when it is appropriate to divide responsibility for conducting a particular inquiry between a member and a non-member of the authority in order to expedite the finalisation of proceedings.

The bill seeks to amend section 143 of the Casino Control Act in order that, if the authority so determines, an inquiry may be presided over by a person appointed by, but who is not a member of, the Casino Control Authority. Under the proposed amendment any person so appointed will be required to report to the authority. In this way it will be plain that a presiding officer, not being a member of the authority, is responsible to the authority. The provisions of the Act requiring a member of staff of the authority, or a consultant to the authority, to be of the highest standard of integrity will apply to any person appointed to conduct an inquiry. A
Page 1497
consequential amendment will be made to the Defamation Act to extend the defence of absolute privilege to any person who presides over an inquiry established under section 143 of the Casino Control Act. Currently the defence is available only to an authority member who presides at such an inquiry.

I now turn to the control of contracts involving the casino. It is generally accepted that casino legislation in Australia is more than adequate for providing a framework to ensure that gaming in casinos is conducted honestly and that casino operators are effectively monitored. However, casinos are susceptible to the infiltration of organised crime through contracts for the provision of goods and services. This was recognised by Mr Xavier Connor, then a Victorian Supreme Court judge, who wrote in his 1983 report on the introduction of casino gaming in Australia that:

Experience in the USA has shown that considerable pressure can be exerted on casino management by the supplies of services or labour to a casino which is an institution particularly vulnerable to threats of stoppages of labour or vital supplies. A casino whose management is free of direct organised crime influence can in this way be subjected indirectly to organised crime influence. Consequently, in New Jersey all substantial suppliers are investigated and registered and the casino is obliged to disclose copies of contracts with suppliers.

In Australia, only New South Wales and Victoria have legislation which contemplates the vetting of persons and organisations that provide goods or services to a casino in a way which is similar to the New Jersey model. There is a well-known case in which money was skimmed off by way of products supplied to the casino. It is known as the jam case. Inflated prices were paid for jam and money was being skimmed off as ill-gotten gains. With the Sydney casino it has been estimated that over the 12-year exclusivity period the casino operator will outlay hundreds of millions of dollars in obtaining goods or services by way of major contracts. It is in the interests of the community that this money does not support organised crime in New South Wales.

Sections 36 to 42 of the Casino Control Act set out the powers of control in relation to the contractual relationship between the casino operator and those providing goods or services to the operator. A controlled contract includes any kind of agreement or arrangement that relates wholly or partly to the supply of goods or services to the casino. This could include, for example, contracts for cleaning the casino premises, the supply of gaming equipment or the provision of food and beverages to the Sydney casino. Section 37 provides that the casino operator must not enter into or become a party to a controlled contract, or the variation of a controlled contract, unless the operator has notified the Casino Control Authority of the details of the proposed contract at least 14 days - or an approved shorter period - before entering into or becoming a party to it and, in turn, the authority has not within that period notified the operator that it objects to the proposed contract.

A process for proper consideration of controlled contracts was established prior to the commencement of casino gaming operations at the Sydney casino on 13 September 1995. However, the authority has advised the Government that it is not satisfied that the current time frame within which it may object to a contract is adequate, having regard to the extent and the complexity of investigations required in some cases. The Government believes that the period within which the authority may object to a proposed controlled contract should be increased from no more than 14 days, as at present, to no more than 28 days in most cases. However, scope will be provided by the authority to extend the 28-day period by a notice given to the casino operator, provided that any extension is in the public interest and is for no more than six months from when the proposed controlled contract or proposed variation to a controlled contract was lodged with the authority.

In the view of the Government a proposed six months upper limit on the period of extensions is necessary in the public interest. The selection of the six months limit is deliberate and accords with precedent. It is the same as the period available under the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act to investigate applications for licences lodged with the Licensing Court, to which similar considerations apply. The proposal brings this State's casino legislation into line with similar legislation which applies to the Melbourne casino. Consistency of approach between the two jurisdictions is advantageous from a control and regulatory viewpoint, as well as from the viewpoint of those involved in supplying goods and services to the casinos in the two States.

The bill will ensure that the existing power available to the authority to approve a shorter period is retained. This power may be exercised in cases when the investigations can be completed in a shorter period or when all significant information is already known about the proposed contractor, thus assisting the casino operator and the contractor involved. An additional difficulty faced by the authority and the director relates to the cost of investigation of controlled contracts. It is presently provided that applicants for licensing as a casino employee under part 4 of the Casino Control Act are required to meet the reasonable costs of having their applications investigated by the authority and the director. However, there is no provision in the Act that permits the authority or the director to charge for the reasonable costs of investigating a proposed controlled contract or a variation of a controlled contract.

It is inequitable that casino employees should be required to meet the reasonable costs of investigations while contractors, as entrepreneurs, do not. Contractors can expect to obtain significant commercial benefit from contracts with the casino operator, and investigations into business operators are often much more complex than those into individuals. Accordingly, the bill will insert a provision which allows for the recovery of the reasonable costs of investigating proposed controlled
Page 1498
contracts or variations. Costs will be defrayed by a specified fee, prescribed by regulation, which will be payable to the authority by each proposed controlled contractor at the time that the proposed contract is lodged with the authority. As is the case with casino employee licences, it is intended that a standard fee will apply, irrespective of the cost of investigations in each case. The Government will consult the Casino Control Authority and the casino operator prior to determining the fee.

The Government believes that these enhancements of the contract control provisions are essential to ensure the operational effectiveness and integrity of current controls over the provision of goods and services to the Sydney casino. Before concluding I draw attention to a further, but minor, amendment contained in the bill. When the Casino Control Act commenced, it required that at least one member of the authority be a person who is or has been a judge, a barrister of not less than five years standing, or a solicitor of not less than seven years standing. The distinction between barristers and solicitors was abolished in 1994 when the Legal Profession Reform Act became law. One of three Casino Control Act provisions which drew from the traditional distinction between barristers and solicitors was amended by the Legal Profession Reform Act. As a result the requirement is now seven years experience as a legal practitioner. The bill will amend the two remaining references, in sections 23 and 59, to bring them into line with the changes made by the Legal Profession Reform Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.


Debate resumed from 19 September.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [8.22]: It is now clear why the Premier was so keen that Helen Darville-Demidenko not be included on the short list for the Premier's literary awards. The fact is that he simply could not stand the competition. The Premier was wrong to exclude Ms Darville. He could out-Demidenko her any day and this legislation is but his latest example. The Premier is one of the greatest myth makers of his age. Myth number one: Labor cares for the people of western Sydney and the south-west of Sydney. That myth was exploded by the broken tollway promise and the decision to junk Eastern Creek Raceway. Myth number two: Labor cares about battlers. That one was detonated by decisions to raise taxes and charges, including the school students transport scheme, the tax on cigarettes and the decision to sack workers in areas of rural New South Wales where employment is difficult. Myth number three: the Premier has tight control over his parliamentary party. That was burst by the tantrum of the honourable member for Kogarah and the revolt by Hunter Valley members of Parliament and the honourable member for Bathurst over changes to electricity administration.

This bill is based on the myth that the Premier and Labor were robbed of victory in the 1991 State election. It had its genesis in the Premier's desire to protect his leadership from the ambitions of the former member for Liverpool during the last Parliament, and the fact that he feels it necessary to continue the charade into this Parliament speaks volumes for his insecurity and for the loyalty of his colleagues. The Opposition categorically rejects the myth upon which the bill is based. There is one major reason why Labor came close to winning government in 1991 and why it finally won in 1995: it was prepared to lie to the electorate - lies in 1991 on tolls and taxes; lies in 1995 on tolls and hospital waiting lists. Labor's 1991 myth is as truthful as claims by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism that he exercises influence in this Government. Yes, there is evidence that the informal vote increased - in 1988 it was 3 per cent and in 1991 it was 9.3 per cent. However, there is no evidence as to what proportion of the informal voting was attributable to the use of ticks and crosses. Antony Green in his parliamentary library background paper, New South Wales Elections 1984-1991, stated:

Without work on the actual ballot papers it would be impossible to estimate what percentage of the 316,832 informal votes were informal because of the use of ticks and crosses, and what percentage of these were cast for each of the political parties.

No, there is no evidence to suggest that the high informal vote hurt Labor more than it hurt the coalition. The New South Wales State Electoral Office Annual Report for 1991-92 stated:

The level of informality and the examination of certain particular electorates indicate that these anomalies would not have affected the election results.

In his study Mr Green stated:

While we can thus explain the level of informal voting in 1991, we still have no answer as to what political effect it had.

He further stated:

. . . informal voting in 1991 was not unusual in its distribution. The model shows that informal voting was high or low in electorates in exactly the same way it was high or low in the past. It appears to have had the same social causes as has traditionally been seen.

Finally, it is worth remembering that Labor lost those elements of its Supreme Court case on the 1991 election results which related to ticks and crosses. This gives the lie to Labor's myth. It is more than likely that both parties were equally affected. I prefer the view of the well-known numbers man, the honourable member for Campbelltown, who in debate on the 1990 changes said in relation to the banning of ticks and crosses:

. . . this provision will not disproportionately disadvantage Labor Party voters . . . We do not have a problem winning when ticks and crosses are not counted.

Page 1499

Mr Nagle: You should read what Tim Moore had to say about it.

Mr O'FARRELL: I will deal with that later. It is more likely that the cause of the 1991 informal vote was dissatisfaction with government. No surprises: dissatisfaction with government. Historically, at both Federal and State levels there have been elections in which voters wanted to give governments a kick in the pants but did not want them defeated. That happened in the 1984 Federal election when Bob Hawke was given the scare of his life; it happened in 1991 in New South Wales when voters wanted to teach what they saw as an arrogant Greiner Government a lesson but did not want it defeated. Labor ignores intentional informality. The State Electoral Office has provided some facts on this issue. It stated, in respect of the Davidson by-election, that research into informal papers indicated a large level of intentional informality. It stated, in relation to The Entrance by-election, that subsequent research of the informal ballot papers indicated that the majority were blank or intentionally marked informal - no myth: blank or intentionally marked informal.

Intentional informality combined with the 1991 electoral changes resulted in a high informal vote at that election. The fact is that where a significant voter trend is apparent, informal voting is low. In the 1975 Federal election the informal vote was 1.9 per cent, the lowest ever, at a time when the Liberal-National Party coalition had a greater swing to it than any previous government had experienced. In the 1988 State election which resulted in one of the largest swings to the Liberal-National Party coalition in this State, informal voting was at a very low level. In The Entrance by-election in 1991 the informal vote was 8.26 per cent but when the by-election was held and people voted in greater numbers for Labor, what happened? The informal vote dropped and the swing was greater.

Not surprisingly the Liberal Party and National Party strongly oppose this legislation. It is Labor's latest attempt to rort the State's electoral laws and it ranks with Barrie Unsworth's 1987 redistribution as an outrageous attempt to cling to office. Indeed, it was predicted by my colleague the honourable member for Gosford in debate on this very measure in 1992 when he told the House it is typical of the Labor Party's attitude that it will refine, work on and play around with the electoral systems until it gets one that really suits it. Neville Wran did it in 1982, Barrie Unsworth did it when he increased the size of the House and had a redistribution that would have made Joh Bjelke-Petersen blush, and Bob Carr is trying it now. That is not worthy of a Premier who claims admiration for Abraham Lincoln and other great democrats. Indeed, the length of his second reading speech gives the lie to his own commitment to it. The honourable member for Ashfield made far better speeches than that in 1992 and 1994.

These actions are not worthy of a Premier who recently told an audience a lie: that the one-vote-one-value principle had been critical to the election of Labor governments, including his own. Wrong! It was elected on 48 per cent of the vote. I suppose that is what the Australian Society of Labor Lawyers wants to know. The Premier also announced in that speech that the New South Wales Government was joining the Keating, Goss and Carr governments in supporting the challenge of the Western Australian Labor Party against that State's electoral laws. I am not surprised.

What do all three of those governments have in common? They have been elected on a minority of the vote. They do not believe in one vote one value; they believe in getting in at any cost. For democracy to operate effectively its rules and methods of election must be understood by its citizenry. Better understanding is promoted by greater familiarity. This bill will achieve the opposite - yet another change, and yet more confusion in voters' minds. Rather than decrease informality, it is likely to increase it. That was the case with the Federal election in 1984 - with changes to the system, up went informality. Look at what happened between 1991 and 1995: the informal vote went down 4.3 per cent as voters became more familiar with the system.

If this principle were as important as the Premier claims, why does not this legislation also cover the local government elections? Perhaps, however, the results of the elections, particularly in places like Hurstville and Kogarah, will ensure that similar changes are introduced in future. It is possible that in 1999 New South Wales voters could go to three elections, all with different methods of voting. There will be a State election in which, under this proposal, ticks and crosses will be allowed; and there will be a Federal election and local government elections in which, of course, ticks and crosses will not be allowed. That is a recipe for disaster; it is a recipe for increased informality.

There will be three elections, three different education campaigns by two different electoral authorities. That is crazy, it is madness, and it exposes this measure for what it is: an ill-considered, half-hearted attempt at an Orwellian rewriting of history. Voters have had five elections to absorb the system: 1990 Federal election - no ticks and crosses allowed; 1991 State election - no ticks and crosses allowed; 1993 Federal election; 1995 State election; and the 1995 local government election. It is clear that the decline in informal voting indicates that voters are getting used to the new system. In 1991 the informal vote was 9.3 per cent, in this election it was 5 per cent. And that was despite the claims of the honourable member for Ashfield on 5 December 1994 that the informal vote was set to increase again when the Parliament last rejected this legislation.

This State is about to proceed, if this legislation is passed, with further confusion around Australia at Commonwealth, Victorian, Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory levels where ticks and crosses are not permitted as formal votes. We are going to further confuse those people who migrate to New South Wales from other States - 250,000 people
Page 1500
over the four years from 1991 to 1995. Add to the confusion, add to greater informality but do not pretend that this bill is going to decrease informality. If the Labor Party genuinely wanted greater understanding of the electoral process and a resultant further decrease in informal voting, the status quo would remain. The energy that the party has put into this bill for four years would be better put into voter education. That is an issue referred to in the State Electoral Office 1991-92 annual report. In referring to the low level informal vote at The Entrance by-election the Commissioner stated:

This expected improvement in the level of formality from the 1991 General Election reflected electors' appreciating the need to closely follow the directions on the ballot papers.

The Government is about to change that and, if successful, will increase the informal vote. The decision to move back to ticks and crosses rather than to better educate the population is akin to Marshall Perron's answer to euthanasia: vote for euthanasia; do not put in palliative care beds. That is just crazy. The Labor Party has no right to claim that its voters are stupid or illiterate. This point has been made by every Labor Party member of Parliament whenever the measure has been debated. It has been made particularly in debate by the honourable members for Ashfield and Maroubra. Rightly, the honourable member for Campbelltown has always rejected it. Voting using numbers is clearly the most obvious form of voting. Ticks and crosses are open to misinterpretation - ask any child what a cross means and he or she will tell you it is a negative.

The majority of people would regard a cross against a name as a protest; they would not regard it as an endorsement. The accepted voting system in this State is an optional preferential one. People can use the number 1 by itself or extend preferences using sequential numbers. One cannot extend a preference with a tick or a cross. One would simply further confuse voters if one proceeded down that route. The practice in those other countries where optional preferential voting is used, Ireland and Malta - and the honourable member for Strathfield would know a bit about this - is that ticks and crosses are not used. One must use numbers in order to lodge a formal vote.

The bill seeks to perpetuate a racist myth that people from New South Wales ethnic communities are unable to properly fill out ballot papers. The myth is based on claims made by the Labor Party in earlier Parliaments that the changes made by the 1990 Greiner Government were designed to disfranchise ethnic voters. On that claim, the proof of the lie is in the eating. The informal vote is falling; it has reduced from 9.3 per cent to 5 per cent. The claim has also been refuted by the 1991-92 report of the New South Wales State Electoral Office, which said:

There was no evidence that a particular category of elector was affected as against other electors.

There is no evidence of that at all. This bill is a sham. It is based on a myth rather than being supported by fact. In 1988, the last year that Labor's ideal voting system was used, the informal vote was 3 per cent. Eleven Labor Party held seats recorded twice that level of informal votes in the 1988 election. The electorates of Ashfield, Auburn, Cabramatta, Fairfield, Granville, Lakemba, Londonderry, Macquarie Fields, Marrickville, Riverstone and Smithfield all recorded twice the 3 per cent average level of informal votes. Does that mean that the Labor Party was disfranchising those voters? No, of course it does not. In Lakemba the informal vote was 6.5 per cent; it is now at a level equivalent to the average. In Macquarie Fields, now the electorate of Moorebank, it is back to a similar level. In Riverstone it is back to a similar level.

The informal glitch of 1991, which in part related to disenchantment with the Greiner Government - a view that the Greiner Government was arrogant and a voter desire to give that Government a kick in the pants but not defeat it - has now worked its way out of the system. There has been a change of government and a fall in the informal vote. If the Premier and the Government were serious about electoral reform they would address real issues in this area. They would address reform of the State's electoral laws to ensure that the party or parties receiving 50 per cent plus one of the two-party preferred vote also received the majority of seats in this Chamber and won government. They would address the reform of the laws to ensure that postal votes were not excluded simply because electoral office procedures had not kept up with the practices of Australia Post. They would reform the law to guarantee that proof of identity was required when people applied to enrol to vote and when they presented themselves at polling booths. The Opposition opposes this bill.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [8.40]: It gives me a great feeling of pride and honour to speak in the House tonight in support of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Method of Voting) Bill. I am proud to be part of a Government, a Labor Government, that will make history in New South Wales with the bill. Tonight the Labor Government will restore democracy in New South Wales and put an end to the five-year gerrymander craftily conceived by those sitting opposite. It was not a geographical gerrymander - it was far more insidious than that. The 1990 Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Bill was crafted to disenfranchise certain categories of people. The Greiner coalition preyed on the elderly, the less educated and - perhaps most shamefully - those for whom English and, in many cases, democracy are relatively new experiences: people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

In a cynical sweep of a legislator's pen those opposite placed one's unquestionable right to vote under siege, and in doing so they laid their cards on the table. The 1990 amendment flagged two things. First it showed that Greiner and his mob were here to represent only the top end of town - those with the education and keen political awareness to keep pace with his savvy election tricks. But most significantly, it showed that in the run-up to the 1991 election the
Page 1501
Greiner Government did not want to be judged by those who rely most heavily on government services. The coalition knew it had failed the people of New South Wales and was frightened of the backlash. In its rush to privatise New South Wales it had failed to meet the health care needs of working people.

In industrial relations it failed: it let workers be exploited in sweatshops. In child care it failed: it refused to sign the national child care strategy, denying New South Wales families 13,000 extra places. In environment it failed: it let the chainsaws into our native forests. In corrective services it failed and in crime prevention it failed. With such a report card all coalition members should have been sent back to school. But by that time there was no point: with Metherell on the loose they failed the people in relation to their fundamental right to a decent education. Even the opinion polls of that period showed coalition members were in trouble. As the campaign progressed the coalition experienced greater difficulty. It knew it was in trouble so to hang on to power it rorted the system. The people of western Sydney had borne the brunt of the coalition's ineptitude. Coalition members, to protect themselves from the backlash of the people and to hang on to their marginal seats, systematically disenfranchised workers, the frail, the less educated and non-English speaking citizens - traditionally Labor voters.

Mr O'Farrell: Where is the evidence?

Ms MEAGHER: I am glad you asked. It can be seen by comparing the election results of 1984, 1988 and 1991. In 1988 the informal vote was 3.7 per cent and in 1984 it was only 2.4 per cent. But at the 1991 election more than 300,000 citizens of New South Wales were disenfranchised. A staggering 10 per cent of the votes cast at that election were ruled informal. In fact, the 1991 election has the shameful notoriety of recording the highest informal vote in a lower House election. Antony Green, in his analysis of the 1991 election results, stated:

Records in the area are uncertain, but it is definitely the highest informal vote percentage in a lower house election in Australia since the 1920s, and may well be the highest ever recorded at a democratic election anywhere in the world.

The coalition's success in disenfranchising people from non-English speaking backgrounds was no more apparent than in my electorate of Cabramatta. In the 1991 general election the informal vote was a mind-boggling 17.8 per cent. In fact, in a field of seven candidates the informal vote romped into second place to the successful candidate, the late John Newman. And it was a trend repeated throughout New South Wales. The honourable member for Ashfield said at the time of Labor's defeat in 1991, "We was robbed", and I have to say that our Minister for Police knows a crime when he sees one. We were robbed, but far more importantly the people of New South Wales were robbed. The immoral piece of legislation enabled the Greiner mob to survive the censure of the New South Wales electorate in 1991.

The architects of this despicable legislation made sure that they had put themselves out of the harmful reach of the people of New South Wales. Fortified with the knowledge that ticks and crosses are an acceptable way of indicating a preference in elections throughout the world, these immoral men passed their disenfranchisement bill. In fact the word "immoral" only in part describes their actions. The coalition fully understood the relation of informal voting, socioeconomic factors, education and ethnicity, and in the dying days of the Parliament in November 1990 they manipulated the voting system and effectively disenfranchised 10 per cent of the people of this State. My colleague the honourable member for Hurstville just told me an interesting story. The day after the 1991 election Tim Moore called him and said, "Bad luck, mate." He said that it was his amendment in the party room, with the deliberate intention of disenfranchising ethnic voters, that had got the coalition across the line. That is shameful bragging.

Instead of pursuing a voting system of inclusion, coalition members said to the people of New South Wales, "Scale this tall building, jump through this hoop, leap this obstacle and then we will consider your right to cast a valid vote." The deceit of it all was sickening. While it may not have been phrased as such, the amendment sought to remove as many Labor voters from the electoral process as possible. As I have already stated, more than 300,000 votes were declared informal at the 1991 elections. In fact, 316,832 people had their vote thrown in the bin. The coalition deliberately set about to disenfranchise specific groups of people and then made cynical assertions that it had not affected ethnic voters.

Let there be no misunderstanding, even after the 1991 result when it was obvious to all commentators that the amendment bill had increased the informal vote, the then Minister for Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs embarked on a breathtaking course of denial. He ludicrously claimed that the people of New South Wales needed a consistent voting system to help their understanding of voting requirements. Even in the face of a 290 per cent increase in the informal vote at the 1991 election the honourable member for Ermington told the House in November 1994 that the system had benefited New South Wales voters. But the only people to benefit from the legislation were coalition members who, because of their rort, managed to survive the electorate's censure.

The Labor Party was robbed of victory in 1991. Four years later we beat the coalition on its terms, and victory is sweet. Step by step the Labor Government will undo the damage caused by seven years of coalition neglect. We are putting the police back on the streets, we are putting teachers back into schools, we are slashing hospital waiting lists and we are creating national parks. We are attracting business investment and at the same time creating social welfare programs and delivering assistance where it is most needed. But our proudest achievement - it is happening here tonight - will be to restore democracy in New South Wales. Through the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment
Page 1502
(Method of Voting) Bill the Labor Government is saying that it wants the citizens of New South Wales to have their vote acknowledged.

The legislation signals that irrespective of age, education, ethnicity or locality you have the right to determine how you want politicians and government to service your needs. The legislation says to the people of New South Wales that the Labor Government respects their human dignity and their right to choose. It is with great pride that I shall relate to the people of Cabramatta the steps taken by the Government tonight. It is with pride and honour that I shall inform the ethnic communities of my electorate that Labor has restored their vote. I shall tell them that we respect their maturity and welcome their contribution.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [8.48]:

This bill is not about democracy; it is about the reverse of democracy - about trying to keep in office a government with less than 50 per cent of the vote.

Does that sound funny? That is a quote taken from Michael Knight when he debated the electoral legislation on 28 November 1990. That is Labor's idea of democracy. This legislation is all about the Labor Party trying to rort the system, as it has done so successfully in the State of New South Wales for many years. The honourable member for Cabramatta is known to her colleagues as McDonald's because she can organise any vote that she likes by slipping out and giving $20 to people eating in a McDonald's restaurant. For years the Labor Party has rorted the electoral system by rorting the electoral rolls in this State.

In 1993 Alan Jones stated that approximately 400,000 people on the electoral rolls in Australia should not be there. This legislation is about such votes belonging to the Labor Party. They shift not only into New South Wales, but also into other States. The Labor Party has a group of people that visits all the polling booths. Although there may be 15 candidates, they do not have time to number them 1 to 15; it is easier for them to put a tick or a cross next to the name given to them by head office. Honourable members opposite are seeking to rort democracy in this State. The Government will not bring on legislation that we in Opposition introduced to improve democracy in New South Wales. As the honourable member for Northcott said, that bill is real reform of electoral legislation in this State.

The Opposition wants a system of one vote one value. The people of New South Wales should be given the opportunity to cast their votes in the knowledge that their votes will count. The underlying agenda of the Labor Party is to get rid of preferential voting. Let us analyse that situation. The results of the 1995 election reveal that the Labor Party would not have won office on that occasion on first-past-the-post voting. For example, it would have lost Bathurst. The No Aircraft Noise Party was set up by the Labor Party Mayor of Marrickville to give Labor Party faithfuls who could not stand the policies being brought in by their Federal colleagues the opportunity to vote first for the No Aircraft Noise Party - to make them feel better - and then vote second for the Labor Party.

Legislation before the House introduced by the Premier will give the Labor Party the opportunity to dispense with preferential voting, the system that helped the Government win office in March. The Labor Party wants to take away the right of the citizens of New South Wales to make their votes count. In other words, to give first preference to the party of their choice, but knowing full well that if there were nine candidates, nine votes could count, that somewhere along the line their preference would be given consideration. Accordingly, the opportunity to participate in the democratic process to elect their most preferred candidate - and thereby their most preferred Government - is available to them. The Labor Party won government in this State on 48 per cent of the popular vote. If honourable members opposite were really serious about democracy, they would support the legislation of the honourable member for Northcott, which advocates a redistribution to ensure that a party with 48 per cent of the vote - a party that promises to lift tolls, that promises hospitals in Coffs Harbour and school halls in Woolgoolga - could not win an election. The Government has not fulfilled any of its promises. It offered a pack of lies.

Mr Knight: I promised the jetty, and I am fixing it.

Mr FRASER: The Minister who has delayed Coffs Harbour jetty by seven months - because funding was allocated in the last budget - is making mumbling noises. Tell us what you have knocked out of Coffs Harbour, you clown! It is a cross for you; your ticks are gone. The Government wants to take away the preferential system. It wants to take away democracy from the people of New South Wales. It wants to claim a mandate. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation, even though his candidate in Dorrigo has about 20 per cent of the vote, claims a mandate on those sorts of numbers. This rubbish legislation will do nothing to enhance democracy in this State.

As the honourable member for Northcott said, there is compulsory preferential voting in Federal elections. Local government elections have preferential voting. Under the local government voting system how would ticks and crosses go? Does a cross or a tick mean you want the candidate? What does a cross mean? What does a tick mean? Who knows? The Labor Government is denigrating constituents in its own electorate. The honourable member for Cabramatta spoke about the frail and the elderly. What on earth do ticks and crosses have to do with the frail and the elderly? Is she suggesting that someone who is frail and elderly cannot put four, five, six, seven, eight or nine numbers on a ballot paper? Does she suggest that such a people are only capable of using a cross or a tick? Is she suggesting that the ethnic communities in this State, having regard to the education and literacy programs of
Page 1503
which the Minister is so proud, are unable to differentiate between figures and ticks and crosses? That is an insult to the members of those communities.

Government members spoke about the record informal vote in 1991. The record informal vote occurred because the present Premier told another great porky in Sydney electorates about the State Government bringing in a goods and services tax. The informal vote had nothing to do with ticks and crosses; it had everything to do with people who were scared because of the lie told by the then Leader of the Opposition. That lie was similar to those he told to gain power in this State in 1995 with 48 per cent of the vote. Under this proposal there would be three separate voting systems in New South Wales: a local government system, a Federal Government system and a State Government system of ticks and crosses.

I would like the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the honourable member for Cabramatta, the Premier, and the Minister for Public Works and Services to tell me how a preferential voting system with ticks and crosses can survive in New South Wales. Is it a big tick for number 1, a slightly smaller tick for number 2, a slightly smaller tick again for number 3, a little cross for number 4 and a small cross for number 5? Before honourable members opposite throw out the preferential voting system they should have a look at the statistics for the 1995 election. Without that system they would still be on the Opposition benches.

Mr Yeadon: That is where you are.

Mr FRASER: And that is where you are going, my friend.

Mr Yeadon: You will be in opposition for four years.

Mr FRASER: You will have only four years. The Minister has the unique distinction of presiding over the demise of his own department, yet he sits there and grins about it. He is a disgrace. Why does he not come up and talk to the forestry people in my electorate?

Mr Yeadon: I have been there.

Mr FRASER: The Minister has not. He will not come up and talk to the real people. When he visits the area he hides behind closed doors. Honourable members on the other side of the House want to further entrench the systems they have put into place in the electoral system in this State. I would suggest that all people in New South Wales re-enrol for the vote to give some proof of their identity. I wonder where the Labor Party would then be in 1999. I am sure it will not be on the Government benches. I challenge honourable members opposite to pass the Opposition's bill. It is fair and it will bring real reform to the voting system in this State. It will give everyone an opportunity to have one vote one value and at the same time give them the opportunity to have a preferential voting system that ensures that their vote counts. They can either put in number 1 or use numbers 1 to 9, depending on the number of candidates. Their vote will be protected.

But honourable members opposite do not want that. They have rorted the system for so long that they do not want any change. They want to retain a system that is dishonest, that does not allow the people of this State to have one vote one value. The ticks and crosses proposal is nothing but a sham. At the end of the day the people of New South Wales will not thank the Government for this legislation. The Independent members of this House should pay very close attention to what the Labor Party is up to. The honourable member for Bligh gained her seat in the 1995 election by optional preferential voting - preferences flowed through to her. Under the ticks and crosses system, without preferential voting, neither she nor the honourable member for Manly would be a member of this House.

Members of the Labor Party have to gain the support of the Independents in this House and then they have to gain the support of the upper House for this proposal to pass. The smaller parties in the upper House will not support the Labor Party on ticks and crosses; it will mean their demise. Labor wants to continue to rort the system which it had in place in New South Wales and throughout Australia for many years. It is about time that honourable members opposite accepted the real reforms that have been put forward by honourable members on this side of the House. If the Government wants real reform in democracy in this State, if it wants democratic results in all elections, it should support the legislation of the honourable member for Northcott. It should throw this piece of garbage into the bin where it belongs. A one-vote-one-value system is the only true democratic system.

I cannot support this bill. I urge all honourable members, particularly the honourable member for Bathurst, to exercise care when they vote on the legislation. The honourable member for Bathurst would not be a member of this House if it were not for the optional preferential voting system currently in place. Ticks and crosses are nothing but a smokescreen. The Government should tell us what its real agenda is. It should then support the legislation put forward by the Opposition. I urge all honourable members not to support the Government's legislation, but to support the sensible Opposition legislation which has been put forward.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [9.01]: I cannot think of any legislation passed in this House between 1988 and 1991 that was more controversial than the amendment by the Government of the day to declare informal ticks and crosses on lower House ballot papers. I remember the date quite clearly. I remember the night that more than 30 Labor Opposition members spoke against the legislation. We spoke passionately against the legislation because we saw it for what it was: nothing more than a blatant political manoeuvre brought about by the then Government's attempt - tantamount to a rort - to win
Page 1504
the 1991 general election. And win the election it did. The coalition won that election, I believe, by disregarding the legitimate votes of people who chose to show their clear intent by voting with a tick or a cross.

There is no question about it: it paid off for the coalition at the 1991 election. It was nothing more than a rort of the system for the coalition to regain control of the State. I have a real interest in the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Method of Voting) Bill. I wish to reverse the current situation because of the effect the removal of ticks and crosses has had in my electorate. The Canterbury electorate has one of the highest non-English speaking populations of any electorate in the State. It has been said that the racial line is being pushed in this debate. I inform the honourable member for Northcott that the Labor Party has every good reason to argue in support of the ethnic community in this regard. It is not a racial issue at all. It is a fact that people from non-English speaking backgrounds have difficulty voting 1, 2 and 3. A great number of people from non-English speaking backgrounds come from countries that vote with ticks and crosses.

On election day people are bombarded with how-to-vote cards from a dozen different candidates. When they walk into a polling booth they are faced with a ballot paper a mile long. Some people cannot speak very good English and they are not too sure what they should be doing. They remember that in their country they were able to vote for the candidate of their choice with a tick or a cross, and that is the simple way of doing it. I believe that most people who voted with a tick and a cross in the 1991 and 1995 elections did so legitimately, feeling that they were lodging a formal vote.

At the last election the Canterbury electorate recorded the second highest number of informal votes in the State. The highest level of informal votes was recorded in the Liverpool electorate. I believe that the high level of informal votes in the Liverpool electorate occurred because there were only two candidates: a Labor candidate and a Liberal candidate. Some experts tell us that when there is only a Labor candidate and a Liberal candidate people tend to vote only with ticks and crosses. I think there is another reason for that, and some members opposite might agree with me. When there is the choice of only a Labor candidate or a Liberal candidate there are a certain number of cynics in the electorate who do not want to vote for either major party. Some people deliberately vote informal because there is no Independent or minor party running in the election. That might be why the Liverpool electorate topped the Canterbury electorate in the ticks and crosses scale.

I believe that in the Canterbury electorate voters made an honest mistake. The honourable member for Northcott said on a number of occasions in his speech that in 1991 the State average of informal votes was 9.3 per cent. In 1995 the figure was down to 5.2 per cent. Is that not wonderful? I have news for the honourable member for Northcott: in the 1995 election in the Canterbury electorate the total informal vote was 10.2 per cent. The informal rate in my electorate is still 1 per cent higher than the average State informal rate at the 1991 election. The average State informal rate was 5.2 per cent at the 1995 election.

In 1988 the informal vote in the Canterbury electorate was 3.3 per cent - when ticks and crosses were legitimate. Between 1988 and 1991 the informal rate in Canterbury jumped from 3.3 per cent to a staggering 15.3 per cent. That will give honourable members an idea of how ticks and crosses are used by voters who are quite genuine and come out to vote. They do not intend to vote informal; they find themselves caught up with this most unjust system. No-one could argue that my constituents deliberately vote informal. That is an argument that is often put forward when there is a high level of informal votes. Some people say, "They deliberately voted informal." That may be the case in the more yuppified areas of the State, but I do not believe that is so in the Canterbury electorate.

Although Canterbury recorded the second highest informal vote in the State at the last election, it recorded the fifth highest voter turnout - only four other electorates had a higher turnout of voters than Canterbury. That shows that the constituents in my electorate are quite genuine about voting; they are genuine about casting a vote; they want to vote. Canterbury recorded the fifth highest voter turnout in the State, yet there was a 10.2 per cent informal vote in 1995, and a staggering 15.3 per cent informal vote in 1991. Honourable members can see the effect the removal of ticks and crosses has had on my electorate.

I point out that the highest number of informal votes came from Labor electorates and from the areas where ethnic communities reside. The two local government regions with the highest populations of people from non-English speaking backgrounds are Canterbury and Fairfield. The predominant electorates in the Canterbury municipality are Canterbury and Lakemba. The predominant electorates in the Fairfield municipality are Fairfield, Cabramatta and Smithfield. After Liverpool, the next five seats that recorded the highest informal vote in New South Wales at the last State election were Canterbury, Fairfield, Cabramatta, Lakemba and Smithfield.

The removal of ticks and crosses was designed to attack Labor voters of non-English speaking backgrounds. The coalition succeeded in doing that by introducing that disastrous piece of legislation in 1990. What we are doing tonight is righting the wrong. In 1991-92 the then Government was quite hypocritical. It suggested that it was legitimate for a voter to put a tick in the yes box or the no box at the 1991 referendum, but that it was not legitimate for a voter to use a tick when voting for members of the lower House. How hypocritical could the coalition be?

Page 1505

Another question that was asked was: what are the exact figures from the State Electoral Office? What did the State Electoral Office have to say about this? I have news for the honourable member for Northcott. The State Electoral Office has advised that 7.6 per cent of the 9.3 per cent of informal votes were considered to have been ticks or crosses. If ticks and crosses had not been regarded as informal votes at the last State election, the informal vote in this State would more likely have been 1.7 per cent. This legislation will right the wrong. In the words of the Premier in his second reading speech - and I could not put it better - "We are reversing a very grave injustice. We are validating all votes of clear intent." I fully support the bill.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.11]: Here we go again! Every few years - every few months it seems to me - we discuss the issue of ticks and crosses. Members of the Labor Party have an obsession with this issue. They believe it will give them some sort of electoral advantage. If they have to lie and cheat their way into office with 48 per cent of the vote, they will need an electoral advantage next time round. The electorate is a wake-up to them. They will need all the help they can get next time around to remain in power. The honourable member for Cabramatta spoke earlier about honour and pride. How can this Government speak of honour and pride?

[Interruption]

I am reminded by the honourable member for Cronulla that the honourable member for Cabramatta talked of honour and pride, but how did she gain preselection? We all know of and have read The Abuse of Power. This is a classic example of Labor's tricks and its abuse of power. I think all honourable members would have read Graham Richardson's book Whatever It Takes, the new version of The Prince by Machiavelli. Richo, in his book, says that, no matter what it takes, the end justifies the means. The end is staying in power. Labor will do whatever it can to stay in power. We have heard tonight's debate before. We heard it earlier this year, we heard it in 1992 and we heard it in 1990. Nothing new has come out of this debate.

One of the things that I find rather extraordinary about this debate is that all members on the Government benches, including the Premier in his second reading speech, keep referring to 1991. They have a real chip on their shoulders about 1991. They did not get a majority of the votes; they got a disproportionate number of seats, just as they have now. But that is not enough for them. They would like to get into office with 25 per cent of the vote if they possibly can. A high number of informal votes were recorded in 1991 because of referenda that were held at the same time as the election. The ticks and crosses which were acceptable at those referenda actually confused voters. The Electoral Commissioner, who agreed with this, said that the ballots from all electorates provided no evidence to suggest that the confusion was confined to those electoral districts with a higher proportion of people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

The Electoral Commissioner considered that directions contained in the third referendum ballot paper, which was issued at the time of the election, contributed to the confusion. That is the nub of the matter. It is interesting to note that at the last election - a fact which most Opposition members have conveniently glossed over - the informal vote dropped from 9.3 per cent to 5.2 per cent. It would have dropped even further if no referenda had been held at the same time as the election. We can see a consistent pattern where referenda have been held in conjunction with Federal elections. The informal vote was 6.3 per cent in 1984 and 4.9 per cent in 1987 but 2.1 per cent in 1983, 3.2 per cent in 1990, and 3 per cent in 1993. On those last mentioned occasions no referenda were held in conjunction with the general election.

The Government is approaching this matter from the wrong perspective. I challenge it to consider changing the law relating to referenda. If it did that, its problems might be solved. It might actually reduce the informal vote that it is so concerned about and it would provide fairness, justice, honour and pride - matters about which the honourable member for Cabramatta spoke earlier. She used almost identical words to those used by the Minister for Police, who in 1993, when he was speaking about this matter, referred to the elderly, the young, ethnic voters, workers and the frail. What an insult to those people! There is a suggestion that in some way those people are more stupid than the average population. Opposition members do not treat those people in the same way. We do not regard them as stupid because they are elderly. In fact, in the Mowll Village complex in my electorate - the largest concentration of aged people in Australia - 82 per cent of aged people vote Liberal. They understand which end is up.

Mr Whelan: They are not stupid; they are certifiable.

Mr RICHARDSON: I will take that on board. The average age of those people is 75 to 80, but the informal vote is no higher than it is elsewhere in my electorate. They understand how to vote. They have been voting for a long time by using numbers, not ticks and crosses. We will have a Federal election very soon. Those people will go to the booths to vote and will vote using numbers only. They will use the preferential voting system and will not be using ticks and crosses. They will not be confused. This Government thinks it will gain an electoral advantage by adopting this system, but votes will be lost at Federal elections. Next time around voting will take place on the basis that it has always done, but once this ridiculous piece of legislation is in place there will be a much higher proportion of informal votes at the next Federal election, or the one after that. I do not think Labor's Federal colleagues will be at all happy about that.

Members of the Government have not proved to anyone's satisfaction that the majority of informal votes are because of ticks and crosses. Many people will vote informally for a range of reasons: they do
Page 1506
not like any of the candidates or they do not agree with compulsory voting - a matter which Opposition members understand. I recall voting informally in 1973. I was living in Harry Jago's electorate at the time. Honourable members might recall that Harry Jago did not nominate. I wrote on the ballot paper, "My candidate did not stand". I could not vote for the Australian Labor Party. The Government's proposal would have made no difference to the outcome in that electorate, and it will not make a difference to a large number of informal votes cast at any election. I wonder whether honourable members opposite understand the meaning of a tick or a cross.

Mr Jeffery: Bob Debus knows what a tick is. He got ticked off.

Mr RICHARDSON: He got ticked off - very much so. More than 80 per cent of children go to school and learn numbers and mathematics; they understand these things. They are taught civics and leave school as a well-educated group of young people. They understand issues better than their forebears, and they do not have a problem with voting by numbers. They do not need to use ticks or crosses. When children used ticks and crosses during their school years they understood that a tick meant yes and a cross meant no. Government members are now claiming that they are all equal: a tick can be a cross, a cross can be a tick, a tick can be a "1" and a cross can be a "1". They claim that everything is interchangeable. The bill states that as long as the intention of the voter is clear, the vote will be valid.

Mr O'Farrell: It cannot be clear.

Mr RICHARDSON: The honourable member for Northcott reminds me that it cannot be clear. In fact, the bill makes matters even more confusing. It will lead to more debates in close marginal seats such as Badgerys Creek, where I was scrutineering after the last election. More and more discretion will be exercised by the returning officer at the booth, as was the case before Neville Wran changed the rules in
1982. It is interesting to note that in 1978, as soon as Neville Wran had gained the largest majority in New South Wales history, one of the first things he did was to change the voting system from preferential voting, which had been in place throughout Australia since the 1920s, to optional preferential voting. The reason for that goes back to the old Machiavellian motive of Graham Richardson: whatever it takes. Neville Wran believed that would give Labor an advantage, so he changed the law.

In 1982 Neville Wran thought he could gain another advantage and he proposed introducing a system of ticks and crosses. He believed that if he could pick up another couple of per cent, Labor would remain in office for another few years. The Opposition does not feel that way about the electoral system, and it does not share the views of the honourable member for Cabramatta. The Opposition does not believe that rorting the system by getting into power with 48 per cent of the vote is a matter of honour or pride. Opposition members believe that an election should be won honestly and fairly with 50 per cent plus one of the vote, as set out in the bill to be introduced by the honourable member for Northcott. I would encourage the Government to support that legislation in the context of genuine electoral reform and genuine fairness for the voters of New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr McBride.


Bill received and read a first time.


The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:

Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Bill.