Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 11 October 1995, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [9.01]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill is probably one of the most significant pieces of legislation affecting the environment of this State that this Parliament will ever debate. The legislation will facilitate the most far-reaching and important conservation gains in the State's history. It is about passing on to future generations of Australians the legacy of a world-class reserve system, protecting biodiversity and endangered species while providing recreational opportunities for people of this city and the State. In short the legislation allows the Government to deliver on its vision to save our ancient forests and wilderness areas for all time. And we have the mandate from the people to do it - using environmental trust moneys to fund this historic opportunity.

This is in line with the financially responsible approach the Government has taken to the State's finances. Today we can achieve this breakthrough for conservation in New South Wales without impacting on budgets for schools, hospitals or police. This bill is the crucial step in fulfilling the Carr Government's commitment to fund programs for forestry industry restructuring and land acquisition for national parks and related nature conservation works. The bill allows the income and capital of the trust funds under the three Environmental Trust Acts - the Environmental Education Trust Act 1990, the Environmental Research Trust Act 1990 and the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act 1990 - to be accessed to meet this important commitment.

Over the next four years, $50 million will be made available from the trust funds for obtaining land for reservation as new national parks and implementing related nature conservation strategies. Sixty million dollars will be made available over the next five years from the trust funds for the purpose of implementing our historic program of forestry industry restructuring, to provide long-term ecologically sustainable jobs in the timber industry while protecting high conservation old growth forests and wilderness areas. Access to the funds will occur by way of reimbursement of the Consolidated Fund to offset amounts paid from the Consolidated Fund for these purposes.

The bill also provides for the funding of 13 other environmental initiatives, to a maximum of $20.025 million, to which the Carr Government is committed. These initiatives involve various schemes and programs for environment protection or nature conservation, including the acquisition of land to be dedicated as nature reserves, the management of wild and scenic rivers and the management of biodiversity surveys across government agencies. This delivers on a variety of commitments made by the Government prior to the March election. The majority of the listed items were contained in Labor's 22 March costings document which clearly nominated the environmental trusts as the revenue source for these commitments.

However, expenditure on forestry restructuring and nature conservation takes priority over payments towards these additional initiatives. Making the funds available will not require the abolition of the trusts which were established to fund important environmental purposes. Instead, the majority of the grant-making functions of the trusts will be temporarily suspended to allow high priority environmental initiatives of the Government to be implemented, principally, the expansion of the State's national parks and the restructuring of the forestry industry to protect New South Wales forests. This action is being taken against the background of strict fiscal restraint imposed by the Government. Simply, there is no other way to fund these initiatives than from the trusts.

This is an important point which should not be lost on members in this place and in the Legislative Council. If this bill is not passed we will not have the money to establish 24 new national parks. It means there will be no money for timber industry restructuring, no money to ensure timber workers have long-term, viable jobs in what can become a high-tech industry, and no finances to save our high conservation old growth and wilderness forests. It is no secret that some sections of the timber industry are still rooted firmly in the 1950s. Some workers in the industry run around like, as the timber workers union affectionately refer to them, a singlets and thongs brigade. They have a saw on the back of a utility, they drive into a forest, get out of their vehicle and proceed to log without appropriate protective clothing or footwear.

There is no value adding or investment in the industry, just archaic technology, outdated logging techniques and industrial accidents. This goes to the very heart of our forestry reforms and the need for legislation to fund restructure. The responsible sectors of the industry want the shonky operators out
Page 1554
of the forests. This will allow them to get on with the job of providing investment and value adding to timber products so the industry can flourish. It makes more sense for workers to be retrained and accommodated in timber mills or factories with better pay and working conditions producing high quality timber products for domestic consumption and export, than for resources to be squandered on ecologically unsustainable logging operations.

This is the only way we can guarantee a brighter future for timber workers and their families in an industry in which employment levels have declined quite sharply over the past decade - largely as a result of the failure to invest and value add. In order to preserve the original concept of the environmental trusts the Government has moved to ensure as part of the legislation that the program of payments under the bill sunsets in five years time, when it is expected that the three trusts will resume their normal functions. During the five years, grants may still be made under the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act to community organisations and schools.

These payments have been guaranteed in recognition of the extremely important work undertaken by these groups and followed consultations with conservation groups and members of the crossbenches in the Legislative Council. The legislation will make available a total of $0.85 million a year for rehabilitation and restoration projects run by non-government community organisations. This is the same level of support that community groups received from the environmental trusts last year. The bill will also allow the continuation of the very successful greening of schools program with grants to local schools, maintained at the current level of $80,000 a year. The bill also allows the continuation of the emergency pollution clean-up program by providing access to the capital funds if insufficient income is available. This scheme remains intact in order to avoid a major gap in the State's emergency response structure.

This ensures we have the financial flexibility to respond quickly and effectively with measures for the removal, dispersal or mitigation of serious pollution, when accidents occur. Retaining this emergency clean-up capability answers the concerns of the Hon. John Tingle in the other place about the continuation of funding for emergency clean-ups. The present structure of each trust will be retained to accumulate the necessary capital and interest to fund these commitments over the next five years, and the trusts will be able to meet the financial commitments of grants already made prior to the commencement of the bill. When determining whether payments are to be made, the bill requires the Minister to be mindful of the need for the funds to earn enough income to meet all of the Government's commitments in this package during the next five years.

The Government has gone to great pains to ensure that the draw down of trust funds occurs in a transparent and publicly accountable fashion. The Minister responsible for the agency spending the funds must report to Parliament twice yearly giving details of the expenditure. In addition, the Auditor-General must audit annually all accounts relating to the funds, including an audit of the payments made from the funds. This will ensure that there is independent public accountability for the expenditure from the funds. Members of this Parliament have a very important decision to make on this bill over the coming weeks. The legislation can be voted down and with it the hopes and aspirations of the conservation movement, timber families across New South Wales and our grandchildren. Or, as legislators, we can support this bill and give New South Wales its greatest leap forward in nature conservation and timber industry reform.

In the early 1980s a former Premier of this State, the Hon. Neville Wran, and his Labor Cabinet made the landmark rainforest decision which resulted in the establishment of two new national parks, one new nature reserve and the extension of five existing national parks. This was seen as the most significant conservation initiative of its time. Neville Wran was rightly applauded for this visionary move. Yet let us compare his action then with the conservation plans that the current Government is considering through this legislation. There will be 24 new national parks in the first year of government alone, conserving a range of ecosystems including sensitive coastal lands, rainforest and habitat for endangered species. The Government forestry reforms will meet community expectations to move beyond the preservation of just one forest value such as rainforest to old growth, wilderness and other high conservation values.

It would be short-sighted and naive for members to vote against this bill and pretend that this will in some absurd way help the timber industry. The coalition parties have demonstrated that loud voices and grandstanding alone are not sufficient to help this important industry restructure and move into the twenty-first century. The industry requires financial support - support that can only be provided by the environmental trusts as part of a coherent and responsible strategy that has at last been able to balance industry and conservation needs. This is our last chance to get it right on the protection of forests. If we falter now these grand remnants of our forest past will be lost for ever. I urge all members to support this very rational and reasonable resolution to conflict in the forests. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Longley.


Debate resumed from 10 October 1995.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [9.13]: The purpose of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Method of Voting) Bill is clear and simple. It is designed, by restoring the validity of
Page 1555
ticks and crosses when giving a first preference vote, to reverse a rort by the former Greiner Government to finesse the electoral system to the advantage of the former coalition Government.

Mr O'Farrell: Two rorts don't make a right.

Mr McBRIDE: We have heard that expression so many times that it does not matter now. Before 1982 the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act provided that the ballot papers for Legislative Assembly elections should not be regarded as invalid if in the opinion of a returning officer a voter's intention was clearly indicated on such ballot papers. That is what democracy is about. Are we about giving people a vote? Are we about democracy, or are we about finessing the system? We shall come to that later, and Opposition members can claim credit for the change made at that time. In 1982 a statutory provision was inserted in the legislation by the Wran Government to ensure that when an elector in a Legislative Assembly election voted for only one candidate that vote would not be declared informal by reason of the voter placing a tick or cross beside the name of the relevant candidate.

Why did the Wran Government do that? As a regular scrutineer, the honourable member for Northcott would know of a number of brawls amongst scrutineers at polling booths on election night about the determination by a local electoral officer as to what was or was not a valid vote. What the Wran Government did in 1982 was not unusual; it merely formalised what was the intent and had been the practice in this State since the last century. I realise that the honourable member for Northcott is young, but he is old enough to have participated in the process, he is old enough to have been at the booths as a scrutineer. That is the problem with Opposition members: they never go out to do the work on the ground. Opposition members are generals, they do their work from the office. Had they gone out in the field a little more often they would not be sitting on the Opposition benches now. The amendment made by the Wran Government provided greater uniformity in electoral practices in the recognition of ballot papers marked with ticks or crosses, as it was no longer left to the discretion of the individual returning officer to determine whether a vote should be treated as formal.

The amendment merely confirmed what had been the practice, that if a voter's intention was clearly indicated on the ballot paper then the vote was counted as formal. Surely there is no problem with that, although it would appear that Opposition members do have a problem. I cannot count the number of times I have been involved in a polling-booth dispute about whether votes should be accepted as formal when a voter's intention is clear. In 1989 the Greiner Government repealed the 1982 provision and inserted a new provision that ticks and crosses were not of themselves sufficient to indicate a voter's intention. Ballot papers marked solely with a tick or a cross could no longer be regarded as formal votes. New South Wales operates under an optional preferential voting system. A voter only has to indicate a preference for one candidate - he or she is not required to indicate a preference for five candidates. That is the system that existed in this State. The Wran Government move formalised recognition of ticks and crosses. Opposition members are quite happy to acknowledge ticks and crosses in other matters. They are satisfied, therefore, to have confusion in the polling booth on polling day. Why do they oppose recognition of ticks and crosses in Legislative Assembly elections?

Mr O'Farrell: Why don't you change the local government system?

Mr McBRIDE: The honourable member for Northcott will have a turn to speak in the debate. He should not call from the sidelines; he should get out in the field and do something - that might trim him down a bit. Following the 1989 amendment the number of informal votes cast in the 1991 State election was the highest ever recorded. A significant proportion of informal votes could be attributed to voter confusion - those are not my words, that is what the experts say. That is the opinion of people such as Antony Green who were given the job of examining election results. It is the conclusion of those who write about election issues that the high number of informal votes in the 1991 election resulted from voter confusion.

Mr O'Farrell: What about the most recent election?

Mr McBRIDE: I shall come to that matter, I have not finished yet. A significant proportion of the informal votes cast in the 1991 election can be attributed to voter confusion about valid voting procedures. At the 1988 election there were 108,705 informal votes but at the 1991 election there were 316,832. The number of informal votes increased by 291 per cent or 208,127. The 1991 increase in informal votes over the 1988 election represented six electoral seats. A number of voters were disfranchised. Is that democracy? This House consists of 99 members. The Labor Party holds government by one seat. Following the 1991 election the coalition held government by one seat and, but for the $5 million deal it cooked up with the honourable member for Tamworth, it would not have been in government at all. He made a deal to give the Government his vote for $5 million.

[Interruption]

Did the honourable member negotiate with Tony Windsor? How much did it cost to buy his vote in the House?

Mr O'Farrell: I was fixing up State Rail.

Mr McBRIDE: We have heard about the honourable member's job in State Rail. The equivalent of six seats out of 99 were disfranchised. Others in the area of the honourable member for Northcott were disfranchised as well.

Mr O'Farrell: We would be in government. We would have another six seats.

Page 1556

Mr McBRIDE: That is the point. The informal vote was equivalent to the number of voters in six seats. Independents were concerned because they held the balance of power at that time. There were four Independents but only three serious Independent. Honourable members may ask why. The reason was that the coalition stitched up a deal with one, at a cost of $5 million. Including the total number of informal votes, nine seats or 10 per cent were disfranchised. Is that democracy, is it fair dinkum?

Mr O'Farrell: Let us have another election. Resign!

Mr McBRIDE: The coalition could have had an election after 1991. The simple fact is it stuffed up in the last election and that is why it is in opposition.

Mr O'Farrell: Our vote went up 10 per cent last time.

Mr McBRIDE: It does not matter what the honourable member says. Between 1992 and 1994 the Government, when in Opposition, sought without success to amend the ticks and crosses provision introduced by the Greiner Government. The bill it proposed to introduce would have reversed the Greiner Government's 1991 amendment by reinstating the provision whereby ballot papers marked with a tick or a cross could be considered to evidence a clear voting intention and would therefore be admitted to the count. It would have restored fairness to the electoral system by ensuring as far as possible that every person's vote would count. Is that the intention of democracy? Is that what we want? If people make the effort to vote on polling day, to fill out the ballot paper, do we want their vote to count or not? The view of Opposition members is clear: if it does not suit them, they do not want the vote. The results of the 1991 election show the finesse of the system.

Mr O'Farrell: That is a big word for you.

Mr McBRIDE: That is right. I am increasing my vocabulary because I listen to the honourable member for Dubbo. In 1988 there were 108,000 informal votes; in 1991 there were 316,000 informal votes. The number increased by 291 per cent. Does the Opposition want to defend this situation? Does the Opposition say that the equivalent number of voters in six electorates should not have a vote? Who are the disfranchised voters who represent the equivalent of six electorates? An analysis was carried out by Antony Green and others from the Electoral Commission. I did not carry out this analysis. They say the disfranchised voters are the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged and immigrants.

Mr O'Farrell: The Electoral Office does not say that.

Mr McBRIDE: Are you sure?

Mr O'Farrell: Yes.

Mr McBRIDE: They say it can be an issue and that further research should be carried out. The seats most affected were Liverpool, with 12.1 per cent informal vote; Fairfield, 9.8 per cent; Cabramatta, 9.7 per cent; Lakemba, 8.8 per cent; and Smithfield, 8.2 per cent. Has the honourable member for Northcott ever been there? I know that he has done a lot of polling out there but I lived in that area for 10 years and I know something about the people and the ethnic composition in that area. There are many non-English speaking people in that community. Most people know the ethnic composition of areas such as Liverpool, Fairfield, Cabramatta and Smithfield; we see it on television every night. There are huge numbers of informal votes in those seats. Fairfield has four times the average informal vote. That was not the situation in the past. Similar results occurred in the 1995 election. In these safe Labor seats the margin after the 1991 election was 16.5 per cent in Liverpool; Fairfield, 11.4 per cent; 16.1 per cent in Cabramatta -

Mr Jeffery: Now we know what you are up to.

Mr McBRIDE: I am coming to the point. It is good that you are listening. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Lakemba was 9.5 per cent and Smithfield 7 per cent. The results in the safe Labor seats clearly demonstrate the impact and intent of the change. However, this was not the target zone.

Mr O'Farrell: What is the intent?

Mr McBRIDE: Mr Speaker, can you quieten him down?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to direct his statements to other members, he must expect a response.

Mr McBRIDE: Struth! However, this was not the target zone. The target zone was at the marginal seats.

Dr Kernohan: What happened in Camden?

Mr McBRIDE: Is the honourable member awake? When did she wake up? The target zone was the marginal seats, where a handful of votes can change the results. That is a fact that is well known and understood by all parties. The finesse was directed to the target zone, the marginal seats. There was a major impact in the safe Labor seats with a high ethnic content, but that was not the issue; the issue was the finesse. It amazes me that no-one is prepared to take credit for the finesse. The success of this strategy is all too well demonstrated in the seats of Maitland and The Entrance. In those seats if ticks and crosses had been recognised the results would have changed. The target was the marginal seats, and the coalition was successful.

The final result was Labor 47, coalition 48 and Independents four. I have explained the situation with the Independents. Ticks and crosses would have been included in the election result if the previous Government had not made the change. The result would have been different, and the Labor Party would have been in government - after three years in government the coalition would have been out. The modesty of the Opposition annoys me. I have never seen Opposition members so modest. No-one will stand up and say, "I was the architect. That was one of the truly clever things I did." The coalition parties successfully pulled off one of the smartest electoral stings in the history of this State. Opposition
Page 1557
members should admit that, but no-one wants to take the credit for the success. It is said that success has many fathers but defeat is an orphan. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Askin, Playford, et al, rorted the system by altering the boundaries in a crude attempt to give people extra votes. But it is all over now that the coalition parties are in opposition.

Mr Jeffery: Not for long.

Mr McBRIDE: I want the Opposition, and particularly the honourable member for Northcott, to admit that sometimes members of the coalition parties are capable of real cleverness. The other possibility is that it was an unintentional accident. I ask members opposite to choose whether it was an accident or a clever decision? I know it is Hobson's choice, but they should choose because it will influence the Independents' consideration.

Mr O'Farrell: What about a fair electoral system?

Mr McBRIDE: That is what I am talking about; it was a finesse.

Mr Jeffery: You are talking about a rort.

Mr McBRIDE: The honourable member said it was a rort; I did not say that.

Mr O'Farrell: You want another rort.

Mr McBRIDE: No. The Opposition rabbits on about the confusion the 1991 referendums caused voters. That is one of its furphies. Voters were confused because they were able to use ticks, crosses or numbers validly in the referendums and when voting for the upper House, but were unable to do so when voting for lower House candidates. The coalition parties were therefore able to recognise some ticks and crosses. It was a finesse used by the coalition parties successfully to rort the system. I can never understand the modesty of the honourable member for Northcott.

Mr Jeffery: I am very shy.

Mr McBRIDE: I can understand why they did not tell the honourable member for Oxley anything about it, but the honourable member for Northcott was one of the architects. He tells us he was running the trains at the time. He was, however, associated with the party. So in two cases ticks and crosses were valid and in the third they were not. Ticks and crosses had always been valid in State elections.

Mr O'Farrell: For eight years?

Mr McBRIDE: No. Did the honourable member start voting only in 1982? I have been working on polling booths and scrutineering all my life.

Mr O'Farrell: How old are you?

Mr McBRIDE: A lot older than you. I have a child your age.

Mr Jeffery: I hope he is not as ugly.

Mr McBRIDE: Everyone has a mother, though not all of them own up to their children. The Opposition pulled off a swiftie. Honourable members opposite should put up their hands and take the credit for a true finesse. The intention was clear. [Time expired.]

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.33]: This disillusioning debate should have been about a fair electoral system, but it has been about power play. The debate has continued over the years I have been a member of this House. When it was first introduced I had some sympathy for the argument, which was put forcefully, that the disallowance of ticks and crosses disfranchised people from a non-English speaking background and the aged. That is a spurious argument. I oppose the bill because I believe in the principles of choice and of a fair, democratic process in which all members of the community can participate. Neville Wran, the former Premier, is a constituent of mine and we have had many discussions over the years. Before the Independents' reform passed through this Parliament I recall us discussing whether a four-year term was a good idea. Neville Wran said that was a bad idea because government was about getting power and keeping it. In this debate honourable members have heard a lot about what he did to ensure the re-election of the Australian Labor Party and about the action the coalition parties took to ensure re-election.

I think the community would like us to debate and pursue the opportunity for everyone to participate in the process and to maximise their vote by giving them a choice. I believe in a democratic process that provides for a consistent preferential voting system at Federal, State and local levels and allows voters to maximise their vote. I support the principle of choice. A preferential system - a numbering system - enables a voter to make a second choice if his first choice is unsuccessful. I also support an alternative for minority parties and Independents to be elected to our parliaments. The achievements of the Fiftieth Parliament demonstrate the contribution the Independents have made to that process. Honourable members would have to agree that having that choice, that alternative, was good for the system.

The Independents reformed the democratic process and were able to put referendums to the people for a four-year parliamentary term and increased judicial independence, both of which received strong support. The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, another Independent initiative, will lead to major structural reform of the system. The Hon. Ted Pickering, in his retirement speech last night, pointed out that neither of the major parties had the strength of character to take on the police and to initiate a royal commission; it had to be the initiative of people like John Hatton and Lis Kirkby. Gingering up the system by allowing the Independents and the minor parties to take part leads to a healthier system, and that is good for everyone. We should encourage Federal and State governments and local government to adopt a consistent preferential voting system using numbers and a referendum system that educates the community about yes and no voting.

The honourable member for Northcott pointed out that in 1999 it will be confusing for the aged and people from a non-English speaking background to
Page 1558
vote in a State election, where they will be able to use ticks and crosses, and in local government and Federal elections where they will not. I hope there will be referendums at all the elections because they are a good way of monitoring community opinion on major issues. A vigorous education program that taught people about the benefits of the preferential system - having a second choice if the first choice is not successful - and about putting a yes or a no, would lead to a much better system for the community. That is what this elected Parliament should be about.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.38]: I have noted what the honourable member for Bligh has said, but I want to cut through the rhetoric. The former member for South Coast, Mr John Hatton, went to the very heart of this issue when he said in debate on 23 November 1994:

Cutting through all of that we must ask about the good Australian idea of a fair go. The idea of a fair go is that if someone at the ballot box indicates a preference, and that intention is clear, that vote should be counted. An analogy would be that if a vote were called on a show of hands at a public meeting, it would be nonsensical to count only those who raised their left hand, rather than their right hand. The intention of the vote would be clear, regardless of which hand is used.

If a ballot paper is marked with a number or a cross and the intention is clear, the fair go, honest and decent thing to do would be to accept that vote as valid.

He concluded his speech by saying:

They are self-evident. The basic principle of a democracy is a fair go for all people of all backgrounds. If the intention of the voter is clear, at least count the vote. By all means educate people - I commend the Democrats for their education campaign in this regard - to record preferences. The reward for that is that their vote is far from effective.

That is fundamental. People take their time to go to a polling booth to have their name taken off the roll and to cast a vote. They may not be well educated because they may have come from a village in Turkey, Lebanon or Vietnam; they may not be able to read all the instructions on the ballot paper. As elderly people are frail, they can make a mistake. If people voted by recording the numbers one, two, three and four, as advocated by the Opposition, and if someone voted by recording the numbers one, three and four, the vote would be invalid. That would be an absurdity and an insult to people. In 1988, the informal vote in the seat of Auburn was 1,645; in 1991, 5,076; and in 1995, 2,765. That decrease resulted from a strong education program conducted by me, in conjunction with other candidates, to educate elderly people and the ethnic community about the importance of ticks and crosses. But the seat was still won by 1,300 votes.

Mr O'Farrell: The honourable member does not know what he is talking about.

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member for Northcott does not want to learn. I have always made the point as a lawyer and a politician that people who interrupt all the time and get angry know that their situation is indefensible. I know that the art of politics is to defend the indefensible, but in this case I cannot defend it. In 1995 the number for informal votes in the seat of Auburn was 2,765. The reduction in the number of informal votes was a result of my efforts and those of other candidates, including the Liberal candidate, Camille Harb, to have people cast a formal vote one way or another. In 1991, 1,850 informal votes were cast at the town hall polling booth in Auburn, the largest polling booth in the electorate. The majority of ethnic people go there. In 1991 people went to that booth because they wanted to cast a vote - perhaps for me or not for me, but it does not matter because they made the effort. It is not right not to count a vote because of a technicality. On 21 November 1990 the Hon. Tim Moore introduced a bill to eliminate ticks and crosses. There is no mention of ticks and crosses in his second reading speech, yet they were part of the bill. The Hon. Ted Pickering had the foresight to mention it when he took the lead in the upper House. He said:

The new provision will make it clear that a tick or a cross, by itself, will not be sufficient to constitute a formal vote.

There was no justification for the Hon. Tim Moore, the then Minister for Environment and Leader of the House, not mentioning ticks and crosses, yet it is a fundamental issue that ultimately culminated in 5,076 informal votes in the electorate of Auburn. That is almost 4,000 more informal votes than were cast in 1988. That is important. The House should also understand that the nature of the legislation is to give people who go to polling booths the right to have their vote counted. If they wish to show a preference, so be it and good on them. I draw the attention of the House to some of the marginal seats. At the last election there were only two candidates for the seat of Liverpool yet the informal vote was 12.07 per cent. In Canterbury, it was 10.23 per cent; Cabramatta, 9.72 per cent; Fairfield, 9.78 per cent; Granville, 7.74 per cent; Lakemba, 8.75 per cent; and Smithfield, 8.15 per cent. In Auburn the number of informal votes was substantially reduced because of my efforts and those of the Liberal candidate and the Independent candidates who wanted to ensure that the people had the right to vote.

At the 1991 election the seat of The Entrance was won by the Liberal Party by 116 votes, which gave the coalition parties government in New South Wales. However, the number of informal votes was 2,801, or 8.26 per cent of the total vote. The Liberal Party won the seat of Maitland by 345 votes, and the number of informal votes was 2,671, or 7.5 per cent of the total vote. Suffice it to say that politics is involved. Those informal votes would have resulted in the seats being won by the Labor Party. The seat of Badgerys Creek was won by the Liberal Party by 1,464 votes. The number of informal votes was 4,045, or 11.77 per cent of the total vote. Honourable members saw how the seat of Badgerys Creek was lost at the last election. The seat of Blue Mountains was retained by the Liberal Party by 1,570 votes. The number of informal votes was 1,913, or 5.62 per cent of the total vote. That is disgraceful. People attend a polling booth to exercise their democratic right. People in other countries are dying for the right we have: to go to the ballot box to cast their vote. I support the bill. Honourable members with any decency should, as John Hatton said, vote for the bill.

Page 1559

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [9.47], in reply: I have nothing to add.

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

The House divided.

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

Mr 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
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Beck
Mr Gaudry Mr Rozzoli

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [9.55]: This important legislation is designed, as the Minister has said, to repeal the Wine Grape Processing Industry Act 1979 to enable the wine grape growers and processors in the Murray Valley to organise themselves into a negotiating committee under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 for three years, pending a review of their powers under the national competition principles agreement. The Marketing of Primary Products Act enables groups of growers of any type of produce to vote to organise themselves into boards and committees to improve the marketing of their produce. That is the nub of this legislation.

Honourable members in this Chamber will agree that Australian farmers are, if not the most efficient in the world, equal to any others and that their ability to produce clean, quality agricultural products is undisputed. Historically, they have encountered many problems in marketing their produce and are now facing increasing competition, particularly from the emerging economies of South America. The products covered by this legislation, notably table grapes, are grown in the Sunraysia area. Chile is a major exporter of table grapes, principally to North America through the port of Philadelphia. More than 40 million boxes of table grapes are exported each year from Santiago to Philadelphia.

That is done through a very well-organised control system that emanated from the Port of Philadelphia Marketing Authority and is supported by the Government of Chile. Growers' produce is handled through a single desk marketing operation from the point of picking through to its disposal on the supermarket shelves. Quality control and packaging control is applied, and shipping, quarantine and health of the product are at all times monitored and carefully administered. Of course, it is not just control; an extensive and comprehensive advisory service is provided to growers, packers, shippers and people involved in the agency of those products. The wine grape processing industry in the Sunraysia area of New South Wales is seeking to make itself more competitive and to ensure that it is viable. It appreciates that changes will occur in the marketing of primary products and it wants to remain a market leader.

New South Wales is fortunate that over the years the people of Sunraysia have been able to withstand all sorts of difficulties, in particular the enormous
Page 1560
variation in the price paid for their product. They also experience seasonal difficulties. In January 1991, as my colleague the honourable member for Murray pointed out only the other day, a natural catastrophe in the form of a heatwave of 47 degrees Celsius wiped out many of the crops. Of course the then National-Liberal Government made aid available to those producers, but that is one instance of the way in which producers have been affected. Another factor with which producers must contend is violent marketing fluctuations. Producers are capable of increasing their production and of generating considerably more export income than is generated at the moment. Of course, such increased production and increased export income results in an increase in jobs, both in the industry itself and in its support infrastructure.

The Opposition supports this bill: the measures contained in it were under consideration by the previous Government at the time of the election. The Opposition looks forward to assisting the wine industry and wine growers to be leaders in the marketing of Australian wine products, particularly as we move closer to the year 2000. The bill proposes a compromise in the short term in that wine grape growers and processors in the Murray Valley have agreed to give up the strong powers of the Wine Grape Processing Industry Act, which will be repealed. Instead, for the next three years, under the provisions of the Marketing of Primary Products Act, they will form themselves into a committee that will meet jointly with the corresponding Victorian committee on the Murray Valley industry.

That committee structure will have lesser powers than exist at present, but will be able to set minimum terms of payment for wine grapes, issue recommended prices, and analyse and report on the market outlook for the wine industry. This legislation clearly puts the responsibility on growers to form the committee and to make the committee work. It is incumbent upon growers to ensure that they get the expertise they need to make the committee work, and it is incumbent upon the Minister for Agriculture to support the growers in this regard. This dramatic change in the ability of the industry to market itself must be supported by the Department of Agriculture. Growers in the Australian wine industry should be encouraged to become market leaders in this worldwide competitive industry.

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [10.01]: I support the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment Bill which seeks to amend the Marketing of Primary Products Act, and to repeal the Wine Grape Processing Industry Act. I support also the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The legislation results from an agreement between growers and the Government to enable the freeing up of the wine growing industry. The bill deals predominantly with the growing and marketing of wine grapes in the Murray Valley area. The current legislation is in a sense a cooperative endeavour between the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales. The industry itself has determined to free itself of some of the structures that inhibit its marketing operations and also to relieve itself of some of the administrative pressures that prevail under the current legislation. The Act as proposed to be amended will enable the Minister to make marketing orders either in conjunction with Victoria, or alone.

The wine grape industry has a fairly chequered career during the past 20 years. I recall that in the mid-1980s the South Australian Government paid bounties to Barossa Valley growers to pull out grape vines because of the very competitive nature of the industry and the demand that was occurring in Australia for wine grapes. The endeavours the industry has made during the past 10 years to increase export orders have been really phenomenal, as evidenced by the success of the industry's activities in that regard. I recall that in about 1984 an approach was made to the New South Wales Government for assistance in exporting wine products to Japan, and the Government made available some $50,000.

The industry was successful in intruding into the Japanese market but I think it forgot that selling overseas is not merely about making the initial inroads, introducing the product, and exporting a few bottles. It is also a question of servicing the market. The market expectation, not just in Japan but also in the United States and Europe, is that exporters must service their customers. They must ask their customers whether the products meet the customer's demands, specifications and so on. I do not know what is ahead for the industry, but I hope that the recent small downturn in wine exports is but a temporary hiatus and that the industry goes ahead in leaps and bounds. It is symptomatic for the future of the industry that over the past two years some grape growers have had difficulty securing slips for planting. Extensive planting operations have occurred in South Australia and around the Victorian border region of the Murray Valley, but there has been a widespread expansion of the growing of wine grapes in New South Wales, essentially for conversion to wine product by the vineyard operations. The wine industry is well and truly alive.

It is incumbent on the Government to support the industry and to relieve it of some of the administrative burdens that are currently placed on it by the provisions of the Marketing of Primary Products Act. In conclusion, this bill takes us in one direction - the freeing up and deregulation of an agricultural industry. Only last year I was a member of a the Select Committee upon the Sydney Market Authority. Some of the matters the committee examined in relation to the marketing of agricultural products through the Sydney Market Authority led me to think that perhaps we are not stringent enough in protecting the interests of growers, yet that is precisely what we are doing here by passing this legislation. I believe that, given the large amount of work undertaken by the select committee, it would be appropriate at some time to re-establish that committee to enable it to complete its job. I am pleased to support the bill.

Page 1561

Mr SMALL (Murray) [10.07]: I also support the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment Bill, the objects of which are:

. . . to amend the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983:

(a) to enable the making of a marketing order with respect to the Murray Valley wine grape processing industry without the need for the formal consultation requirements set out in the Act, and

(b) to specify the matters that may be included in the order, and

(c) to prevent such an order being extended or a further such order being made, and

(d) to include savings and transitional provisions.

This bill relates to part of my electorate, particularly the Sunraysia area which covers a wide scope of horticultural industries within the north-western part of Victoria and, of course, the south-western part of New South Wales. Wine growers in that region have suffered extreme circumstances over a number of years. As the former Deputy Premier and Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, just said, during 1990 there were very severe heatwave conditions with very hot winds. On one day the temperature reached 47 degrees and nine bushfires started in the electorate. That all occurred at a very late stage in the development of the industry and consequently the growers needed help to overcome those exceptional circumstances, just as they need help now from the Minister for Agriculture to overcome the present exceptional circumstances.

The marketing order will enable growers to secure markets necessary for their well-being. Growers who consulted the horticulturalist at the research station at Dareton in particular received loans of up to $60,000 but because of seasonal difficulties many growers have not been able to repay the money. It is essential that wine grape growers are given assistance. Only recently they have suffered the effects of severe frosts. In the last year some of the coldest days in the last 50 years have been experienced. A remarkably severe frost in September damaged buds on grape vines. It also affected the stone fruit industry. Horticulturalists, particularly those in the wine industry, have spent enormous amounts on environmental improvements. They have undertaken joint ventures with the Government, the Department of Water Resources, to install underground water pipelines to overcome the problem of leakage from open channel systems raising the watertable. Microjet drip irrigation systems and undervine spray systems have been installed, saving as much as 40 per cent of water previously used in the open furrow system.

As Chairman of the SAFE committee, Salinity Action for Economy, a tri-State committee, I have learned that downstream from the Sunraysia area in the Riverland region horticulturalists are using soil probes to optimise irrigation. Previously sprays were left on all night for two nights of the week but it has been found to be more efficient not to water for as long. Probes within the root zone have shown that only two or three hours of watering is needed. Excess irrigation is no longer raising the watertable. The cost of introducing these efficiencies has been enormous. This bill will assist in recouping the costs through improved marketing help. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of the bill. It will assist horticulturalists, particularly those in the wine grape industry. I commend the bill.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [10.13], in reply: I thank the Opposition and all members who have spoken in the debate for their support for this commonsense bill. The Leader of the National Party, who led for the coalition, supported the bill and pointed out that it was well along the path of formulation during the term of the previous Government. He recognised the work and consultation with the industry done during the term of previous Ministers. He reminded us that Australian wine grape growers, like other primary producers, are among the most efficient in the world. Australian farmers can claim to be the most efficient when competing on overseas markets. Many countries subsidise their products to compete with the Australian product.

He also referred to some of the problems affecting the industry. The frost damage was also mentioned by the honourable member for Murray. Extreme heat and frost damage are both problems for farmers in his region. Picking up on the remarks of the Leader of the National Party, we can be excited about the growth of the wine industry. The honourable member for Cessnock touched on the history of the South Australian wine industry. Wine growing was virtually isolated in South Australia in the early days but now it is an Australia-wide growth industry. The Sunraysia district is the subject of this bill but the Hunter region is world renowned for its quality products. Wine grapes are also grown at Cowra in the electorate of the Leader of the National Party. Mudgee and parts of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and other areas mentioned in the debate can now claim to be part of an ever growing industry with exciting export prospects.

Part of the Hunter region is represented by the honourable member for Cessnock. That area has produced a product which is internationally recognised, and the honourable member has supported the industry. He pointed out that the bill is the result of a cooperative spirit between New South Wales and Victoria, and that the growers themselves have pushed for reforms to establish the marketing order. The honourable member referred to the rate of growth in the last 10 years and the expectation of a push into Asian markets in addition to the well established European market. He said that he hoped the recent decline in exports was, in his words, "a temporary hiatus". Members have pointed out that many of the State's agricultural industries have been affected by drought and frost.

The contribution of the honourable member for Murray reflects that he represents a major part of the Sunraysia area. He pointed out that the region to benefit from the bill will extend beyond his electorate to Victoria. He mentioned many of the problems affecting the grape industry. Members may have been
Page 1562
surprised at his remarks about the severe heatwave in 1990 when 47 degree temperatures were suffered, which caused major damage to crops in the region. I note his comments about frost damage and the fact that one of the coldest days in 50 years was experienced. I refer the honourable member to my ministerial statement in the last week of the session when I recognised the damage to the industry caused by the frost. The Government has made an exceptional circumstances application to the relevant Federal Minister in the hope that for the first time growers suffering the effects of frost damage to their crops will receive Federal assistance. Previously natural disaster assistance has not included frost damage within its criteria.

The honourable member for Murray also referred to growers entering into joint ventures with the Department of Water Resources to undertake environmental programs. All members applaud the farmers for their efforts. He referred to the salinity program, an issue causing the State major concern because of the effects on the environment and the loss of production. Salinity in the State is increasing at between 10 per cent and 15 per cent per year. That is why we have a number of policies in place in an endeavour to reverse this trend.

I acknowledge the comments made by the honourable member for Murray that the case of environmentalists and farmers is not black and white, but is very much a grey area. In this industry, as in many others, farmers are leading the fight to resolve many of the environmental problems that are causing loss of production, land degradation and, of course, various problems with our waterways. In this regard all honourable members would acknowledge the work done by farmers around the State, particularly through land care projects and total catchment management programs. Last week I attended a meeting of a land care group in the Burrinjuck electorate where well established farmers, whose families have farmed for many generations, are keenly involved in salinity control programs and environmental programs which, I believe, will have long-term benefits for the State and its agricultural production.

Farmers are leading the way in environmental reforms to ensure that inland soil and water reserves are protected. I thank all honourable members for their support of the bill, which will tidy up a conflict between the regulations in Victoria and New South Wales. The bill relates specifically to one region of this industry, extending into both New South Wales and Victoria. The Government is trying to avoid a situation where the States of Victoria and New South Wales have conflicting legislation for the same regional industry. This marketing order will bring the whole region, in both parts of the State, under the one set of rules. The legislation should be applauded as a commonsense measure. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Cessnock, it has been driven by the farming community.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 20 September.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.22]: It is with great pleasure that I speak to the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Barwon was to have led for the Opposition, but he has a longstanding commitment to lead a very important deputation to the Minister and cannot be here. Over the years I have had a great deal to do with veterinary surgeons, both on a professional basis as a secretary of a rural lands protection board, and as a consumer taking pets to veterinary surgeons for attention or treatment. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the professional approach adopted by the 2,000 or so veterinary surgeons in New South Wales. In the main they do a very good job, as highlighted by the relatively low number of complaints made about them compared with the number of complaints made about members of other professions. That is a tribute to the profession.

The bill will amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 by increasing the membership of both the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee and the Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal to include a member who is not a veterinary surgeon to represent the interests of users of veterinary services. The legislation will confer additional powers on the investigating committee and on the disciplinary tribunal and will enable the committee to impose conditions on a veterinary surgeon's right to continue to practise veterinary science. This will involve judgment by their peers, and that is the best type of judgment one can have. The legislation also transfers the responsibility for the making of disciplinary orders against veterinary surgeons from the full disciplinary tribunal to the chairperson of that tribunal to ensure strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. That provision is acceptable to the Opposition, so long as the right of appeal is retained and veterinary surgeons are able to practise while the appeal is being heard. I hope the Minister will address that aspect of natural justice in his reply.

I believe that additional powers for the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee are not desirable because its activity should be confined to investigations; perhaps the Minister could clarify that. I should like the Minister to comment also on my view that the power of possible deregistration of a veterinary surgeon should remain the responsibility of the tribunal rather than just the chairman. The addition of a consumer representative on the VSIC meets with general approval. However, the proposal for an extra person on the tribunal is not considered all that desirable or appropriate. In relation to the staff of the Board of Veterinary Surgeons, if the profession is to be responsible for full cost recovery, the appointment of staff, job specifications and salaries should be matters determined by the board, thus making veterinary surgeons financially responsible for their governing body.

Page 1563

The appointment of staff should not be confined to members of the public service. It is a bit like the policy of the Australian Labor Party: no ticket, no job. The provision that allows for the certificate of the president or the registrar of the board to be evidence should be confined to the president. The legislation should contain a definition of veterinary surgeon-client relationship, in line with similar definitions in other professions. As I mentioned earlier, there should also be a mechanism to allow a person found guilty by the tribunal of a serious offence to continue to practise pending an appeal. The amendments to the Veterinary Surgeons Act meet with the general approval of members of the Opposition. The legislation will make the board financially self-reliant and those amendments are welcomed. I would be very pleased if the Minister could answer the concerns that I have raised. I am sure that if they are taken on board and addressed, the Act will become not only workable but effective, particularly in the long haul. Subject to those matters I have raised, I have pleasure in supporting the bill.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [10.28]: As a member of the caucus agriculture committee, I am pleased to support the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill. The legislation has the ability to give a great deal of independence to veterinary surgeons in this State. It is important legislation that could easily be clouded by other legislation. It is part of the Government's agricultural policy guidelines and I am very pleased to support it. I shall outline the objects of the bill, which will increase the membership of both the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee and the Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal by including a member who is not a veterinary surgeon to represent the interests of users of veterinary services. It will confer additional powers on the investigating committee and on the disciplinary tribunal to deal with complaints against veterinary surgeons. The bill will also transfer responsibility for the making of disciplinary orders against veterinary surgeons from the full disciplinary tribunal to the chairperson of the tribunal following a finding of the full tribunal that a complaint has been proved.

The bill will transfer the responsibility for licensing veterinary hospitals from the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture to the Board of Veterinary Surgeons of New South Wales. It will also transfer responsibility for financing the operations of the board from the Treasury to the board. The bill will also make other changes of a minor or consequential nature. This is an important bill because it will enable the Board of Veterinary Surgeons to become a self-reliant body. This proposal is in line with the Government's accountability principles and the development of responsibility for industry and self-regulation. The board's major duty is the registration of veterinary surgeons, veterinary hospitals and clinics, and the regulation of the profession to ensure that a high standard of service is maintained. Fees and other money received by the board are currently remitted to Treasury and carried into consolidated revenue.

The responsibilities of the board, the Department of Agriculture and the Government are unclear under this system, and anomalies between the profession and the Government have to be cleared up. The lack of clarity is of serious concern to the Government. The bill provides that all revenue raised by the board will be deposited in a designated account to be used solely for the purpose of funding the operations of the board. This is completely in line with the Government's accountability principles. It is important that the Opposition realises the need for an accountability procedure to be followed by boards such as the Board of Veterinary Surgeons. Under this bill the Board of Veterinary Surgeons will become self-funding. This is consistent with the administration of other professions and the veterinary profession in other States. This legislation will be uniform with that in other States, and it should be applauded by veterinary surgeons. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 requires that veterinary surgeons be registered with the board to practise in New South Wales. Veterinary hospitals are also required to be licensed.

The Board of Veterinary Surgeons derives most of its income - 85 per cent - from registration fees of veterinary surgeons. A further 10 per cent of its income is acquired from veterinary hospital licence fees. The proposed amendments will ensure the board has a more independent and assured financial basis, removed from the fluctuations of government budgeting. I am sure the Opposition will appreciate the need for the legislation, which will provide a financial benefit to the Government by placing responsibility on the appropriate people, the members of the board. That is the case with most other boards of this nature and it is important that the Opposition recognises the importance of the bill. Veterinary surgeons need this sort of support to know exactly where they are going; and with complaints, they will know exactly with whom they are dealing. There will be no interference from government. I support the bill.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [10.35]: I support the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill. I have a large number of veterinary surgeons throughout the Murray electorate as almost 45 per cent of my constituents earn their living from the land and agriculture - from stock, horticulture, cereals and rice. I used to have a murray grey stud, and I have had cattle all my life. So, on numerous occasions I have depended enormously on veterinary surgeons. I also have sheep and so many things can happen with them that require the attention of a veterinary surgeon. The bill increases the membership of the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee - the committee that investigates complains against veterinary surgeons - by including a member who will represent the interests of consumers of veterinary services, and that is a valid addition. When I was a member of the Rice Marketing Board, five growers and two government nominees were on that board. A lot of people would ask, "Why would you want a government nominee? You only need the growers." With respect, the nominees play an important role. They are
Page 1564
independent people who can look at production and needs within the area. A grower - or in this case a veterinary surgeon - might look only inward rather than outward at the industry, and it is extremely important to have such a member on the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee.

The bill confers additional power on the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee and on the Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal to impose conditions relating to a veterinary surgeon's right to continue to practise veterinary science. People now live an average of eight years longer than they did 40 years ago. Similarly, with improved technology veterinary science is helping animals, stock and breeding programs; and support systems maintain the health of our stock. The bill also transfers responsibility for the making of disciplinary orders against veterinary surgeons from the full disciplinary tribunal to the chairperson of the tribunal to ensure strict adherence to principles of natural justice. The program ensures that existing management procedures are carried out correctly.

The bill provides a right of appeal to the disciplinary tribunal against decisions of the investigating committee. It also transfers responsibility for licensing veterinary hospitals from the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture to the Board of Veterinary Surgeons. These are all relevant matters. A bill such as this may not be seen to be of any great significance, but it is surprising what it can do to provide the necessary support for an industry. The industry is vital to the community. A farmer and veterinary surgeon, Doug Killeen of Finley, has spoken to me on a number of occasions about veterinary matters. I am sure he would be interested in this bill and would support it. He is a grower representative as well as a surgeon, so he can see both sides of the issue. I support the bill.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [10.40], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their support for the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill. The honourable member for Oxley, while supporting the bill, asked a number of questions about it. He and the honourable member for Murray praised the work of veterinary surgeons in rural New South Wales and the support that they give the farming community. The honourable member for Oxley expressed concern about the role of the chairman of the investigating committee. This legislation will take remove a conflict of interest between veterinary surgeons on the board and veterinary surgeons who are the subject of a complaint. As the chairman is to be a judge of the District Court there will be a more independent investigation of complaints.

The honourable member for Murray supported the appeal mechanism in the legislation, which offers protection to a person who is the subject of a complaint. The honourable member for Oxley asked whether staff would have to be public servants. This legislation will not change the present position in that respect. Until we move to the second stage of reform, public servants will continue to be appointed. When we move to the second stage of reform, non-public servants will be able to be employed, and staff members will have full autonomy. When another piece of legislation is presented in this place, Opposition members will have an opportunity to make other contributions.

The honourable member for Oxley also expressed concern about the need to define the relationship between a client and a veterinary surgeon. The legal advice that I have received is that this course of action is not advisable as it would narrow the ability to conduct investigations and obtain certain evidence, and would make it difficult for investigations or allegations to be proved. The honourable member for Bulli referred to the Government's policy of self-regulation and accountability, which is what this legislation is all about. He pointed out - a matter to which I referred in my second reading speech - that the primary aim of this legislation is to ensure that the Board of Veterinary Surgeons becomes more self-funding and self-reliant.

The Government is moving away from dictating to the board how it should conduct its business. This applies not only to financial considerations but also to investigations and appeal mechanisms. The Government wants the board to be more autonomous. This is the first stage of reform. The second stage will probably deal with many of the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Oxley. The honourable member for Murray strongly supported the appointment to the board of a person from a non-veterinary background. He referred to the fact that a board comprised only of industry representatives would be far too inward looking. The main thrust of the bill is to give the board more autonomy and to ensure that consumer representatives are able to deal with public concerns and complaints.

Members referred to the value of veterinary science and the work that is done to support the farming community. The honourable member for Murray answered the question asked by the honourable member for Oxley concerning the right of a veterinary surgeon to appeal against a decision. Also raised was the importance of supporting the industry and the need for consultation with all appropriate persons before a consumer representative is appointed to the board. I will consult with all persons involved in the process. It is important for representatives on this board to have bipartisan support. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.47]: It is with pleasure that I speak to the Stock Diseases Amendment bill - a commonsense piece of legislation which reflects the expertise that is available in New
Page 1565
South Wales Agriculture and the ministry. Governments change but usually the departmental officers remain. I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture on introducing this amending legislation. As a stock owner and having been secretary of a pasture protection board - they are now called rural land protection boards - I have dealt with a number of stock diseases over a period of 16 years. I have seen what can happen if stock diseases are not controlled properly. I used to run several thousand sheep and in 1972-73 I had 450 cattle. Unfortunately that was the time of the crash in cattle prices, and I went broke as a result. However, I did very well with sheep as I understood them.

When I was a farmer and grazier, on only one occasion did my sheep contract footrot, which I thought was an abscess. As the honourable member for Wagga Wagga is not in the Chamber I am at liberty to say that my father once said to me, "Do not buy sheep from Wagga saleyards unless they have been cleared of footrot." On many occasions I have sat on tins paring the hooves of sheep. They suffer trauma when they are put in formalin baths, particularly in wet weather and when they are heavy with lamb and wool. It is something I would not like to experience again. Under this legislation, if stock are diseased they can be sent to an abattoir without a permit, as was previously required. That makes common sense. Affected sheep need to be hospitalised, and I used to have what was called a hospital paddock. Once shearing was completed and lambs had been taken from the ewes we fattened the ewes - which in the circumstances was difficult to do - and they were sent for slaughter. In those days we required a permit.

The Act currently makes it an offence to refuse to provide information to stock inspectors. This bill provides that the inspector must advise a person of the offence, to ensure that the person is aware of his or her rights and obligations. That again is commonsense. It is also currently an offence to transport diseased stock without a permit from an inspector. The bill removes this restriction for certain common diseases where sheep are being taken direct to slaughter at the abattoirs, as I mentioned earlier. The Act requires that the appointment of inspectors be published in the Government Gazette. No benefit is gained from this. Inspectors are required to carry and produce identification, and the gazettal requirement has been dropped. As that was a slow and cumbersome procedure, this amendment is commonsense.

Inspectors will be able to detain stock in saleyards before sale in order to determine disease status or ownership where stock is not properly identified. This avoids the need for costly tracing after sale and early identification of the need for disease control. Provisions for swill feeding of stock were formerly in the regulations, not the Act. Those provisions will now be incorporated into the Act because of their importance to public health and disease. Some time ago I had pigs and at that time my father-in-law was a publican. It was great that the pigs were able to be given the scraps from the hotel, but it then became an offence to take out swill because of the risk of disease, no matter how slight that risk might be. This highlighted the importance of having the best possible regulations in place to ensure that public health is maintained.

The Act plays an important role in ensuring the provision of clean, wholesome food for human consumption. I am pleased that on this issue the Minister has spoken in almost identical terms. Difficulties have been experienced also in implementing the nationally agreed hormonal growth promotants program due to deficiencies in the present Act. That matter has been addressed and the bill strengthens the provision for identification of stock to allow for traceback of disease or residue-affected animals. The vendor declaration system has been amended to provide for better market assurance. The bill complements quality assurance programs being implemented by the industry, such as the cattle care program, and provides a regulatory backup for such schemes. New section 12B relates to bans on shows or sales. It states:

(1) The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, prohibit, or impose conditions on, the holding of agricultural shows or public sales of stock in a specified area if the Minister considers that such shows or sales are likely to facilitate the spread of a disease among stock.

Sometimes people whinge by suggesting that the show must go on. It is important to ensure that stock is disease free and it is even more important that at shows and sales disease is not spread to other stock, not only throughout this State but also interstate. It is equally important that other States have similar safeguards. That again is a commonsense measure. I refer now to the power to order destruction. Some years ago I undertook droving when I had a property adjacent to a travelling stock route and a camping reserve next-door. I did not live on the farm and when I returned to the property I would find dead stock left on the reserve. This was of concern because the cause of death was unknown and I had to bury stock left by others. The stock was difficult to trace, though sometimes my fences were cut to enable stock to be put into my paddock; and the cause of death could then be traced. As secretary of a rural lands protection board I was successful because I had access to permits. I was strict on this subject because new section 17(1) states:

An order may be given to a person to destroy or dispose of infected stock or any carcass, or produce, of infected stock, or fodder or other thing used in connection with infected stock.

That power to order destruction is very important. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this amending legislation. In many parts of New South Wales the Minister has represented even a National Party member of Parliament. He has visited areas such as Byabarra and Wauchope. The Minister is on a learning curve and on his return to Sydney he has tried to convince some of his caucus mates that this is the direction to be taken. I was a bit concerned that he might be becoming a bit too popular, but after last
Page 1566
night's budget the Opposition has no longer any concerns about that. In the normal course the honourable member for Barwon would have been leading for the Opposition because as a man of the land he has a wealth of experience and knows the Act backwards. Unfortunately, because of a pre-arranged ministerial deputation, he could not be in the Chamber, but I have had much pleasure in leading for the Opposition on this bill.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [10.55]: The amendments in the bill reflect the continuing commitment of the Government to the eradication and control of disease in stock. The amendments make substantive changes to the Act. Basically the legislation is the working document for stock inspectors and provides the basis upon which disease eradication and control measures are founded. The amendments clarify and modernise administrative provisions of the Act. As the honourable member for Oxley said, one of the main substantive measures in the bill relates to sheep that are infected with footrot, sheep lice or Brucella ovis. The bill streamlines administrative provisions and removes the need for movement orders to take affected stock directly to a special sale of diseased stock or to an abattoir.

I shall speak briefly because there is broad agreement about the administrative amendments relating to stock diseases. The bill deals with matters relating to fencing in quarantine areas and the Minister instituting his powers to prevent the holding of agricultural shows following an outbreak of disease in a particular area. More important, it demonstrates the Minister's commitment to streamlining the administrative arrangements in his department and ensuring, as the Treasurer said yesterday, that the bureaucracy and the way government functions are organised, not sacrosanct; that they are open to change and adaptation over time. This bill achieves that aim and I commend it to the House.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [10.57], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Oxley, who led for the Opposition, and the honourable member for Wyong for their support for the bill. The honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Wyong recognise that the measure is best described as a commonsense amendment. The Act is actually a working document for stock inspectors: it sets out clearly the role of inspectors, the obligations of stock owners and the various regulations of day-to-day procedures experienced by stock inspectors. This is similar to the Motor Traffic Act, which is a working document for the day-to-day operations of police officers, and particularly uniformed police officers. That is an excellent way to describe the bill and the way it has been structured. The inspectors will keep the legislation in their motor vehicles to use as a day-to-day working document. I was impressed with the vast experience of the honourable member for Oxley in matters relating to stock diseases. I was not aware that he had contracted footrot.

Mr Jeffery: I did not; the sheep did, and only once.

Mr AMERY: The way the honourable member was putting the matter I was going to wish him a speedy recovery. The honourable member was a representative on the former pasture protection boards, now called rural protection boards. I am sure that in future there will be debate in this House on the reform of those boards. I flagged those reforms in the media and in my address to the conference. The experience of the honourable member for Oxley will ensure he contributes to those changes when the Government announces them. The changes are based on a report of the previous Government. The honourable member for Oxley also rightly points out the concerns about the powers of an inspector to allow stock to go directly to abattoirs for slaughter. He expressed his support of the provisions in the bill dealing with swill feeding. The honourable member for Oxley also referred to that part of the bill that makes it an offence to refuse to provide information to a stock inspector. That has always been an offence, but the problem has been that a person may not have been aware that he was committing an offence under the Act by being uncooperative and not supplying information required by a stock inspector.

It is important that a stock owner is aware that he is required under the Act to provide that information. Clarifying that issue may avoid many prosecutions of an unnecessary offence. The honourable member for Oxley also noted that general directions about appointments of inspectors will no longer be required to be published in the Government Gazette. This matter was raised by members in caucus. The bill states that inspectors are required to carry and produce appropriate identification. Continuing to publish personal details of inspectors in the Government Gazette will not provide a safeguard. New forms of identification will avoid impersonations of inspectors. A number of further amendments related to stock diseases and medicines will be considered in future by the Parliament. Those amendments will ensure that our record as an exporter and producer of clean produce, particularly clean meat, is maintained. We should be very proud of that record.

Members should all be aware of the dramatic impact on our farming community and export trade should any produce containing diseases be exported overseas. That is one of the reasons this Government has moved quickly on issues such as the CFZ contamination that occurred in the northern part of the State. The Government will diligently monitor stock diseases and any outbreaks. It will also monitor legislation to address changing trends and the strong scrutiny of produce and consumer habits in our domestic and export markets. The honourable member for Oxley referred to growth hormones and the concern of European markets with countries that use them. This bill represents continual reform to ensure that our reputation as a producer of clean stock is maintained and that our export markets are protected. We will work with Federal authorities and
Page 1567
all other States to ensure our good record is maintained. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House and I thank all honourable members for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.04]: I lead for the Opposition, which is in accord with the Government on these proposals and supports their passage through the Parliament. This legislation was prepared under the coalition Government. The proposed changes have had a long gestation period, for a number of reasons - some political, some simply associated with the weight of parliamentary business and priority given to other legislation. The chairman of the tribunal has been pushing for these changes for some time. Essentially the changes are of a housekeeping nature. As the Minister said, the object is to streamline the functions of the tribunal, to clarify a few areas and basically to make the tribunal operate in the way it was originally intended, that is, as a less formal forum than a court and at lower cost, being more customer friendly and having a greater degree of flexibility. These changes will enhance that philosophy and mode of operation.

The proposed amendments will make the appointment of a deputy registrar discretionary rather than obligatory, as is the case at present. This will introduce increased flexibility. The chairman or deputy chairman will be allowed to sit alone when dealing with certain matters. Again that will streamline the process a little and give greater flexibility to the chairman and deputy chairman, who are legal professionals. Under certain circumstances the tribunal will be permitted to continue proceedings in the absence of a member or allow the chairman to substitute a member or continue with two members, as opposed to the usual three. This change has resulted from practical experience. For example, a member may become sick or have to retire, as happened with one of the deputies in the past, who retired on grounds of ill health. If that should occur part way through a hearing, which is quite likely during the ongoing work of the tribunal, it seems silly to restart the proceedings.

The bill sets out proposals that the member of the tribunal may be replaced with or without the consent of the parties but only under certain circumstances, that is, essentially if the matter has not proceeded too far or if the chairman is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not be substantially affected. Another proposed change is to select as part-time members those with knowledge or experience of a certain industry, though they might not necessarily be drawn from that industry. The tribunal has been criticised, particularly by consumer groups and especially in the building area, because it is said that people do not have confidence in the tribunal and they believe that the builders' mates sit as part-time members of the tribunal. That is a valid criticism, and this is a most important change to improve the perception of the customers or users of the tribunal.

It is important that part-time members have the expertise to determine matters. One good point about the tribunal is that it can draw from a pool of people who understand issues from a consumer or industry point of view. It is important that they be seen to be impartial. The bill will give greater flexibility to the tribunal and to the Minister to appoint those part-time members. The time in which the tribunal must give written reasons, if required, has been increased from 14 to 28 days. Usually oral or written reasons are given. In large cases, such as the State Bank case that was recently completed, obviously reasons are given. This extension of time will encourage the chairman or whoever hears the case to give prompt written reasons. Given the busy lifestyles of many people these days, 14 days is not a great deal of time within which to prepare reasons for decisions. Again this is a sensible tidying up exercise.

The tribunal will be given the power to dismiss proceedings for want of jurisdiction or prosecution. If it is clear that cases are wanting in jurisdiction or that a prosecution is unlikely, there is no need to take up the time of the tribunal or the courts. This is clarified in the principal Act under which the tribunal exercises jurisdiction. However, I presume that will have to be amended slightly because it is proposed under new conveyancing legislation to give the tribunal jurisdiction over licensing appeals. That is a matter for the Parliament to decide. The bill also provides that the rules of evidence do not apply. Currently they apply only in regard to licensing and disciplining credit providers and finance brokers.

The aim of the measure is not to disadvantage anyone but to emphasise that the tribunal is meant to be a less formal forum, and to make the process more flexible and less formal. This welcome package of reforms, which I regret I did not have the chance to finish off as Minister, has been some time coming. However, the original minute - I do not know whether the Minister has seen it on the files - was almost incomprehensible. I do not know who wrote it, but it was so legalistic that even the chairman and senior people in the Cabinet Office were at a loss as to what it meant. Some redrafting of the original minute was necessary so that everyone could understand what we were proposing. I am happy that measure has come to fruition, for I am sure it will help the operations of the Tribunal.

It is important that there be a system of tribunals to deal with these matters. The average consumer, in particular, is far less intimidated going to a tribunal, be it a consumer claims tribunal or a building disputes tribunal, than to a court, with all its trappings and
Page 1568
associated costs. Measures that enhance speedy alternative dispute resolution by providing more options to the public or by streamlining the operation of existing options are welcome. The bill will streamline the operations of the Commercial Tribunal and will lead to a slight reduction in operating costs. Such reduction, though not significant, will make consumers' lives easier and will introduce greater flexibility through changes that will be welcomed by those who use the tribunal. The coalition supports the legislation.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [11.12]: The Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales is a quasi-judicial body with a specialist jurisdiction. The tribunal is vested with jurisdiction by legislation including the Credit Act, the Building Services Corporation Act, the Motor Dealers Act, the Fair Trading Act, and the Registration of Interests in Goods Act. The purpose of the bill is to provide for alternative dispute resolution so that the formality of the court system does not bog down those who wish to deal with disciplinary or commercial matters under the various Acts that vest jurisdiction. Alternative dispute resolution is the way to go, and this measure streamlines that option.

Section 7(1) of the Commercial Tribunal Act provides that the criterion for appointing part-time members is that they are to represent the interests of a specific industry or consumer group. The wording of section 7(l) implies that a person is appointed to represent a group, and thus creates an impression of partiality. The bill amends section 7(l) to remove that inference by providing that persons may be appointed as part-time members if they have knowledge of, or experience in conducting, the business or activity that is regulated by the Act under which they are appointed, or if they have knowledge of, or experience in dealing with, consumer issues concerning that business or activity.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, in its administrative jurisdiction, for a long time has said that those appointed to these types of tribunals are deemed to be acting impartially even though they may represent a particular group or groups in the community. I have had experience of a lengthy case in which three people were appointed - one was appointed by the employer group, one by the employee group, and one was an independent appointment. The result was an impartial assessment of evidence and an impartial awarding of damages. Though two of those appointees represented conflicting views, they conducted themselves impartially - for which they should be commended. It is gratifying that people experienced in the building or credit providing industry will be able to be members of such tribunals and exercise their knowledge to assist in these matters. Those who have been involved in hearing of this type often tended to diverge from their partial views.

I turn to interlocutory matters that could be described as partly law and partly procedure. Under the amended section 19(3) of the Act an application to amend an application or other document, an application to set aside a summons, an application to strike out proceedings, or an application under section 86A of the Credit Act may be heard by a panel of three members of the tribunal. The amendment provides that such applications will be jurisdictional interlocutory matters that will deal with questions of law and procedure, thus streamlining the process and allowing applicants or respondents to put their cases more cheaply.

Under proposed new section 19A a substitute member can be appointed if something happens to a member, thus avoiding delaying proceedings until a new member becomes available. That excellent step resolves costs problems involved when a part-time member is absent. The principal Act provides that the tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and can inform itself on any matter in such manner as it sees fit, and shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms. But there does come a time in licensing and disciplinary matters when the law, especially the rules of evidence, has to be applied to avoid irrelevancies and hearsay upon hearsay. That provision has been amended so that those who are being disciplined or who are seeking to become licensed will be able to put their case in a formal legal manner.

The broad objectives of the tribunal are to hear matters fairly quickly and cost effectively, as part of a growing process of alternative dispute resolution. An appeal mechanism is necessary where fundamental facts are disregarded or if bias creeps into the deliberations. A period of 14 to 28 days is allowed for an appeal. Schedule 3 will amend the Building Services Corporation Act to allow the tribunal to extend beyond 30 days the period in which an appeal can be lodged against the Building Services Corporation - an excellent reform. I commend the Minister for bringing the bill before the House. The former Minister said that the bill was in the pipeline prior to the March election. I am sure Labor would have supported it had we remained in Opposition. I commend the bill.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [11.17]: As mentioned by the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the shadow minister for consumer affairs, the bill offers a number of procedural and other excellent amendments. I congratulate the Government on picking up amendments which were proposed when the coalition was in office. I and, I am sure, the honourable member for Auburn have practised in this jurisdiction. I have enormous respect for the recently appointed chairman of the tribunal, Mr Stephen Cavanagh, a resident of the Gordon electorate. I knew him long before in his involvement with the University of New South Wales, through his regular teaching and research and authorship of a number of textbooks on commercial and consumer law, not to mention in his role as a barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and before that the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia.

Page 1569

The bill brings together important aspects of legislation. Though there is agreement about the measure on both sides of the House, I wish to raise issues that the Minister might clarify in reply or, alternatively, consider amending, if required, in due course. First, schedule 1[1] will omit from section 4 the definition of deputy registrar, and schedule 1[4] will omit from section 8 the words "and Deputy Registrar". If any immunity associated specifically with the deputy registrar is to be removed, we must ensure nevertheless that should an appointment to that position be made at a later time, such immunity is conferred on the person appointed. I do not have a barrow to push, but I know that for the free flow of immunity and privilege staff must feel secure in their jobs and know there is no chance of their being sued. That may be covered in an interpretation Act. The increase from 14 to 28 days within which a tribunal is required to give written reasons following the announcement of its decision is reasonable.

Accountability applies across all sectors, not only in relation to parliamentarians. Although the recent referendum voted for independence of the judiciary, when men and women involved in important disputes put arguments before courts and tribunals they need to be confident that their disputes will be readily resolved. At the conclusion of argument there is no accountability by the tribunal as to when it must hand down its decision. Some time ago I acted for a consumer in a matter that was taken on appeal and settled. A decision was not handed down until a year after the conclusion of argument. The delay in handing down a decision in the matter caused the gentleman involved, who had guaranteed a loan on behalf of his daughter on the central coast, much anxiety. Ben Slade, of the Consumer Credit Legal Service, supported my comments on this matter.

The judiciary should also address this issue; I am not singling out the tribunal. However, tribunals are important to the consumers who appear before them. Schedule 1[10] refers to the various Acts that confer jurisdiction on the tribunal - the Credit Act, the Credit (Finance Brokers) Act, the Fair Trading Act, the Motor Dealers Act and the Retail Leases Act. Those Acts have an enormous impact on members of the public. It is important that consumers achieve justice and that the remedial action is taken to shorten the time within which final written judgments are handed down by a tribunal. The chairman of the tribunal may have a code, practice or policy relating to the time in which decisions should be handed down, as is the case in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A mandate or an entrenched policy is necessary to make people confident that judgment will be delivered within a reasonable time following litigation.

I have referred to the range of Acts under section 18, which relates to jurisdiction. I speak in support of class actions, with some provisos. Class actions have the benefit of reducing delays and the enormous drain on the public resources of the court system. Recently AGC Limited was involved with about 5,000 credit loan contracts which had to be redressed as a consequence of certain conduct by the company. It may be more effective to deal with such matters in a formalised class action procedure. Previous speakers in this debate have addressed the other amendments, and I do not wish to add to them. I trust that the Minister will address some of my comments and consider whether further amendments will be moved.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [11.25], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the honourable member for Auburn and the honourable member for Gordon for participating in the debate. The bill has bipartisan support. The honourable member for Gordon is clearly experienced in this field and I thank him for his comments. He referred to the immunity that attaches to the position of deputy registrar, and I am sure that immunity will remain. The Government supports the increase from 14 to 28 days for the giving of written reasons for a decision made by the tribunal. As the honourable member for Port Macquarie said, this is an important issue. People who do not have the funds to go through the court system need the support of tribunals. The clarification of these important points will ensure that consumers understand that they are in good hands when they appear before tribunals. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [11.27]: I support the bill. With the Olympic Games to be held in the year 2000, we must take some positive steps towards the development of athletes and their training, and the institution of proper drug testing procedures. Millions of people throughout the world will focus on Sydney in the year 2000. They will watch this great celebration of achievement by representatives of countries of every size and level of development. As proud Australians we want our athletes to excel whenever they perform. As we near the year 2000 the pressures to perform will become greater. We want to give our athletes the best opportunities to ensure fairness and equity, free of drugs and free of cheats. I am outraged when I hear of those who take an unfair advantage in sport by using illegal substances.

I have been a great lover of sport and played many sports prior to entering politics. We need to focus firmly on the needs of athletes and on creating favourable conditions to help competitors reach peak performance without drugs. I have always held the view that sport is, and should be, above politics. Sport can build bridges; it breaks down barriers; it is a wonderful communicator; it is a great leveller.
Page 1570
People from all walks of life can become involved in sport. Nothing is better than sport. The sportsmen and sportswomen of our nation are role models for our young people. They carry the responsibility not only of excellence but of clean and honest competition.

While it is hoped that the use of drugs in sport in New South Wales continues to be a rare occurrence, functions and powers must be in place relating to State competitions and competitors. The legislation provides for the testing of State-level competitors aged 12 years and over for the presence of performance-enhancing substances. Basically, the bill is the same as that proposed by the former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, the honourable member for Sutherland, who is in the Chamber. The bill brings the testing procedures and functions in New South Wales into line with those of the Commonwealth. Those procedures and functions are outlined in the objects of the bill.

I should like to refer to the comments of the President of the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations, Ms Ros Brennan, that were reported in an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 October. I have a great deal of respect for Ms Brennan as a person and for most of what she says. However, I do not believe that her comment describing urine testing of elite junior athletes for performance-enhancing drugs as an ill-founded invasion of children's privacy reflects the view of the community. I do not usually agree with anything I read in the Sydney Morning Herald, but the editorial stated:

The unfortunate fact is that even very young athletes are using illegal performance-enhancing drugs. An Australian Customs Services report has detailed an extensive black market for steroids that are sold to high school students when they work out in gymnasiums. Boys as young as 14 are involved in the use and sale of steroids. Young girls, too, are vulnerable to pressure to use illegal drugs. In April, for example, a 14-year-old South African female athlete tested positive to banned substances.

The editorial also stated:

The real question, therefore, is not whether there should be testing but whether the regime being put in place is adequate. The concentration will be on elite young athletes, the group that is under the greatest pressure to succeed and the greatest temptation to use banned substances.

That is a good point. The bill is about protecting kids rather than about drug testing, which is the end product. The exploitation of our young athletes must be avoided at all times. Peer group pressure and other incentives to use drugs must be detected at an early stage. The legislation is aimed at elite athletes. If a child under 12 years has been introduced to performance-enhancing drugs, those drugs should be detected once the child reaches a certain age. That is what the bill is about. It is also important that adequate education and support is provided to deter athletes from using performance-enhancing drugs. I commend the consistent approach taken in the bill to the issue. I commend also the former Minister, who proposed the same legislation prior to the last State election. The functions and powers outlined in the bill include the testing of competitors for the use of drugs, and the notifying and recording of positive test results and the failure to provide test samples.

The legislation is not a reflection on our athletes. Proper testing procedures must be put in place, and the agency must be given the necessary powers and functions to adequately carry out appropriate procedures. The procedures must fall into line with the regulations of the Commonwealth Australian Sports Drug Agency. Australia's reputation in the international sporting community is that of a nation of elite sportsmen and sportswomen who have achieved greatness without drugs. Australia has set an example for other countries, and that is a great tribute to Australian sportsmen and sportswomen. Australia must continue to demonstrate to the rest of the world its commitment to ensuring that our sporting fraternity remains drug free. Basically, this is an Opposition bill because it was proposed when we were in government. It meets with my approval and with the approval of the former Minister. I have pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [11.35]: One could almost be forgiven for assuming that the honourable member for Oxley is the Opposition. He has led for the Opposition on a number of bills, and this bill was no exception. I concur with the comments made by the honourable member for Oxley with regard to the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, 9 October. The Sydney Morning Herald and, indeed, the honourable member were right - and it is not often that I can say that! The description by the President of the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations, Ms Ros Brennan, of urine testing of elite junior athletes as an ill-founded invasion of children's privacy is most regrettable. In today's society rights and privacy are often spoken about, but responsibilities are also important. In a number of sports, particularly female gymnastics, New South Wales, Australian and international standards with regard to drug testing must be maintained.

The Government must ensure that young people understand that if they take performance-enhancing drugs they will not get a second chance. They are given one opportunity to use their natural talents to the best of their ability. That is all they can rely on, apart from the training regimes instituted by the athletes and their coaches. It is important to realise that the Minister has acted sensibly in providing that parents will still have the right to object to children between 12 and 18 years of age being tested. No government money will be spent on a child's sporting endeavours if the parents refuse to have that child tested.

Public money cannot be spent willy-nilly on athletes who will not subject themselves to the international standard for ensuring that our athletes are drug free. In April a 14-year-old South African female athlete tested positive to banned substances. That is happening in a range of sports, and it has been happening for some time. Honourable members will
Page 1571
all remember that in the 1976 Olympic Games Nadia Comaneci, the former Romanian gymnast, scored the perfect 10. She was the first female gymnast to do so. At that time she was a young woman of about 16. Female gymnasts now reach their peak at around 12 or 13 years of age. We need to ensure that they meet New South Wales standards and the standards demanded by society. I support the bill.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [11.38]: I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. Perhaps I should correct one matter. One of the reasons this legislation dates back to 1991 is because at a ministerial conference in 1990 it was agreed that all States should introduce legislation that was complementary to Federal legislation which allowed the Australian Sports Drug Agency to test State competitors. This is important legislation. The honourable member for Oxley, the honourable member for Wyong and the Minister for Sport and Recreation have indicated how important it is. In recent days there has been some controversy about the testing of children. I am somewhat surprised that the president of the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations of New South Wales should regard the testing of children as a civil liberties issue.

The objective of the legislation is to ensure that the high standard of drug-free sport in this country is upheld. It is not a measure that is designed to impose restrictions or penalties on young children. It is designed to ensure that young people realise that taking drugs in sport is just not acceptable. It is most important for governments - and, indeed, the whole sporting community - to make that point to our young competitors. Some weeks ago I had an opportunity to talk with the Victorian Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing and one of his advisers about this issue. Earlier this year the Victorian Government introduced similar legislation. The Minister and his adviser emphasised the importance of an education strategy before the legislation is enacted. Previous speakers have talked about the need for education and, of course, it is most important: prevention is always far better than cure.

The Victorian Government is currently in the middle of an education campaign. That campaign has formed an important component of the sport and recreation budget for 1995-96. The other point made by the Victorian Minister and his adviser - and perhaps the Minister might take this on board - is that in Victoria the Institute of Sport has the responsibility for drug testing. That is a good idea. I do not know if the Government intends to allow the proposed Institute of Sport in New South Wales to be responsible for drug testing. In the case of young athletes, I suppose we are talking about talent identification; we are not talking about the New South Wales Academy of Sport having some role to play in the testing of young athletes for drugs.

I point out also that the bill does not relate only to children; it relates to all State competitors of any age. Some might say the legislation is long overdue. That has more to do with the new era of cooperation between the States. Cooperation between the States and the Commonwealth is important, and I sometimes wonder whether New South Wales should wait for the other States and the Commonwealth to fall into line before legislation is introduced here. As my colleague the honourable member for Oxley has said, the Opposition does not oppose this bill and looks forward to its early implementation.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [11.43]: I am pleased to follow the shadow minister, the honourable member for Sutherland, in the debate on this important legislation. As he said, the bill originated in 1991. To some extent drug testing in sport has come to world prominence because of concern about Chinese athletes. The leading radio commentator, Alan Jones, has made a great deal of reference to the difficulty in obtaining a fair playing field in sport when competitors in swimming events particularly are probably on drug-enhancement programs. This legislation is most welcome; it will go a long way towards remedying the concerns of many people about the excessive use of drugs and steroids in sport. It is well known in Australia that the basis of all sport is that everyone should get a fair go. It is obvious that not everyone gets a fair go when the ability of any athlete is boosted by drug enhancement.

The honourable member for Sutherland referred to Ros Brennan's comments about civil liberties. In one sense Ms Brennan may be right. About six months ago the Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that the taking of blood from an accused person was unauthorised assault. Accordingly, legislation was introduced to facilitate what would be regarded by police as fair and reasonable conduct to try to minimise crime. I regard drug testing of athletes as fair and reasonable conduct to minimise unfair inconsistencies between athletes and, as I said earlier, to give everyone a fair go. In some respects civil liberties in a civilised society have to be intruded upon. I well remember that when random breath testing was introduced it was regarded by some - indeed, by some members of my family, although it was never my view - as an invasion of civil liberties. However, the need for legislation such as this is clearly recognised, and for that reason the coalition supports this bill.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [11.46], in reply: The Government is pleased by the widespread community support for this legislation, and the Opposition is to be congratulated for its bipartisan approach to the initiative. The honourable member for Oxley said that sport is a great leveller. That is why Australians embrace sport so enthusiastically. The aim of this legislation is to make sure that sport is a great leveller. When athletes line up at the start of a race, they should know that they have a chance of beating the other competitors in the race because the other competitors have not used performance-enhancing drugs. The former Minister for Sport, Recreation and Racing, the honourable member for Sutherland, asked who will do the testing. The Australian Sports Drug Agency will do the testing. Through this legislation
Page 1572
Parliament will send a clear message that the use of performance-enhancing drugs by children involved in elite competition will not be tolerated.

Since introducing this legislation I have received many letters of support and congratulations. Many of those letters have been from the parents of young athletes who believe that their children are now guaranteed a fair go in competition. I have noted the concerns of Ms Ros Brennan from the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations of New South Wales, who has described the legislation as an ill-founded invasion of children's privacy. I have noted also the remarks of the honourable member for Gordon in relation to that matter. I should make it clear that the legislation is not about blood testing; it is about urine sampling. The editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald summed up the situation very well when it stated that the remarks of Ms Brennan were an emotional response. We have a duty to provide a drug-free environment for our children. The Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations of New South Wales is naturally concerned to protect the wellbeing of young people, and I respect that concern. I wrote to Ms Brennan following her comments to ensure that the association understood that this legislation was designed to protect young people and was not detrimental to them.

Under the Government's testing program unscrupulous coaches or over-enthusiastic parents will find it difficult to exploit young people by encouraging them to use performance-enhancing drugs. The legislation is specific in its definition of an elite athlete, thereby ensuring that only the State's top competitors will be subject to random testing. A small number of athletes under the age of 18 will be affected by the proposed legislation. Because of that I have ensured that tight guidelines will be put in place for the testing of minors. No athlete under the age of 18 will be tested without parental consent and no athlete under the age of 12 will be tested at all. Each year approximately 300 random tests of elite sports people will take place. Only a small percentage of those 300 tests will be on athletes under 18 years of age.

It is well documented that athletes in some sports are as young as 12 year of age, and sometimes even younger. Gymnastics and swimming are two such sports that come immediately to mind. It is anticipated that under this legislation fewer than 50 athletes between the ages of 12 and 15 years of age will be tested each year. The test is not intrusive and, as I said, is conducted by the taking of a urine sample. Bearing in mind that elite athletes undergo intensive medical examination, performance monitoring, and training, such a test does not place a great burden on young people. The legislation will ensure that our elite athletes program is a model for the rest of the world. The honourable member for Oxley was correct when he said that all eyes are focused on New South Wales in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympics. If we do as much as we can to rid the sport of drug taking, we will be able to claim that the Sydney 2000 Olympics will be the cleanest Games on record. The future of sport in New South Wales demands the approach taken by the Government. Drugs in sport are not acceptable in New South Wales.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.51]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. I should like to look at some of the issues surrounding the publicity given to the bill when it was first announced a few weeks ago, the circumstances surrounding the development of the legislation, and some historical matters. This is not the first time that this type of legislation has been before the Parliament, or discussed by members of Parliament regardless of their political allegiance. Deregulation of conveyancing, initially in relation to the residential market, caused some debate in 1992. At that time total deregulation was also canvassed, but was not proceeded with by the coalition Government because of genuine concerns.

Shortly before the bill was announced about two or three weeks ago, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Premier were at Northmead visiting a coffee shop. The Premier appeared to be upset when he learned of the amount the couple who owned the coffee shop had paid in solicitor's fees in relation to the purchase of their business. I do not have available an analysis of figures in relation to similar purchases and the likely prices, but I was a little surprised by the amount the couple had paid; it seemed rather high. I am not sure of the circumstances of the sale. Perhaps the Minister can advise the House of the circumstances, as she was there. However, one would have thought that the couple would have had a chance to shop around. The market is fairly competitive at present. A number of others who saw the story were also surprised at the amount the couple paid. It seems as though that was the prompt to proceed with the legislation.

There does not seem to have been a great deal of consultation in relation to the bill. The story appeared, and the minute then went through Cabinet. I am told by people in the legal profession that not long after, they were advised by the Minister in some of their standard meetings with her that they would be kept abreast of all developments. However, that did not occur until after the Cabinet minute had gone through. That is not an unusual gripe about this Government, which tends to do things in a fairly rushed manner. Before the election the Labor Party promised all sorts of consultation generally, but when it was elected consultation went out the door. The classic example of a Minister who does not consult would be the Minister for Land and Water
Page 1573
Conservation, who would have to be, without doubt, the most unpopular Minister in the Government outside Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong.

Why is this degree of deregulation needed? That is a valid question, and deregulation is a good subject to debate in the context of competition policy and a more competitive market generally. Consumer protection must not be forgotten. Competition is a double-edged sword. Although some may be slaves to market forces and a free market, it must not be forgotten that a free market is not a perfect market. An appropriate degree of regulation is necessary to ensure that customers are protected. That is a important facet of consumer affairs. All legislation - not only legislation relating to consumer affairs issues - should be examined to ensure that consumers get a fair go and that they are in an equal bargaining position in whatever businesses or transactions they might be involved.

Is the bill seeking to introduce greater competition, as stated by the Minister in her second reading speech and in some of the public comment about this debate? Is it a question of consumer demand? I am not sure. Although this aspect of the present portfolio was not under my control at the time, when I was the Minister the former Government certainly was not approached by people claiming that the market should be totally deregulated. At present approximately 45 to 50 licensed conveyancers operate in New South Wales, one of whom is in the gallery this morning. To date they have carried out their work in a satisfactory manner. There is much greater competition in the market, especially in the residential market. That has resulted from a number of factors. It has possibly resulted from the introduction of licensed conveyancers, or from changes made to the legal profession when the coalition was in office, changes that were not always welcomed by all quarters of the legal profession.

One of the changes made by the former Government was allowing lawyers to advertise their fees and to be more gung-ho. Some lawyers have done that in a number of areas, not just in property transactions or conveyancing. People in both the conveyancing and legal professions would acknowledge that such changes have had a major impact on introducing competition and reducing fees. Prices are now particularly competitive. Fixed-rate conveyancing prices are now offered by both lawyers and conveyancing firms. The market for transactions of residential property is competitive indeed. When the coalition was in government and the issue of deregulation was considered, the same sorts of comments were made and a similar debate was held about both residential property transactions and the wider range of transactions. Those comments and that debate centred on two things: the complexity of the transaction and associated matters attached thereto. Some of my colleagues from the National Party will speak about the many matters associated with rural transactions that are not always obvious. I refer to transactions such as mining leases, water licences, water rights and Crown issues. Such transactions can become extremely complicated.

Mr Kinross: Easements.

Ms MACHIN: Easements are also involved in rural transactions, as my colleague the honourable member for Gordon reminds me. The Opposition has had, and continues to have, concerns about the complexity of some of the transactions conveyancers will have to deal with if the scope of conveyancing is widened. The legislation proposes that conveyancers would have to undertake a three-year training course. Bridging training will be available for those who are already in the residential market. The legislation does not spell out - and this is one of the Opposition's main concerns - the educational requirements. As I, and those who advise me, read the bill, the determination of those requirements will be left to the discretion of the Minister. One of the concerns is the lack of specific information about the type of training that will be required in a totally deregulated market. Perhaps the Minister could deal with that in reply.

The sorts of matters people are concerned about - and I include particularly consumers in rural areas - are issues relating to rural properties and rural transactions, company structures, the types of business arrangements in which vendors might be involved, the need for expertise in laws relating to commerce, finance, income tax, succession, superannuation, and in other complex areas of the law. I acknowledge that one does not have to study conveyancing to be a lawyer. As I understand it, one does some general property studies, but it is not compulsory to do full conveyancing studies to obtain a legal degree. However, many other areas of the law that touch on property matters are compulsory, and it is those sorts of areas about which the Opposition is concerned if the scope of conveyancing work is to be broadened. There are a number of conflicts in the bill which I will again raise in debate. The Minister might like to clarify them in her reply. The scope of conveyancing work is set out in the bill, but there is a bit of confusion about it, particularly the role of the different people who may be in it.

Clause 4 contains the new definition of conveyancing work. Basically it appears wide enough in its scope to allow conveyancers to undertake the legal work involved in any transaction affecting real or personal property, including the sale or lease of land, the sale of a business, including stock-in-trade, and the grant of a mortgage. The restrictions currently in section 4 of the Act that prevent conveyancers from preparing mortgages except in certain circumstances, have been removed. Other restrictions prevent a conveyancer from giving investment or financial advice. On the one hand conveyancers are permitted to prepare mortgages, as restrictions have been lifted, but on the other hand they are precluded from giving investment or financial advice. That seems to me to be a little inconsistent. I would like to know the reason for that. Some other areas of conflict relate to expertise and training in the field and the issue of professional indemnity and a fidelity fund. I note that it is proposed that there will be a fund and that conveyancers will have to contribute to that fund. I also note that there has been a similar arrangement which used to work quite effectively.

Page 1574

According to the advice that I have been given, there has been no cause to call on a fund in the residential property market. Solicitors contribute $475 per annum to their fund and conveyancers contribute $135 per annum. If it was proposed that the market be totally deregulated and that people in the field compete against one other, those contributions at least should be the same because at the end of the day they are there for consumer protection. One would like to think that the contributions were the same and, therefore, the amount of money being accumulated was the same. A similar inconsistency seems to exist in regard to the cap on the fund. I am advised that currently there is no cap on the fund, but it is proposed to have a $1 million cap for conveyancing. If the market were to be totally deregulated, transactions involving sums in excess of $1 million would not be out of the question. It seems reasonable that the rules that apply to solicitors should apply also to conveyancers. I would appreciate the Minister's comment on that.

Rural conveyancing is dear to the hearts of members of the National Party. There is a lot of concern - about which all honourable members would be aware because of various changes in policy - about the viability of the small legal firm and the country legal firm. I come back to my original point about competition. If the purpose of this proposal were to develop a competitive market, that would not be unreasonable - and I do not rule that out; I think we may reach that point in time. It has been demonstrated that the residential property market is very competitive. Many people agree that the principal influencing factors have been changes to the legal profession and to the advertising of fees within the legal profession. However, that does not necessarily mean that we have to go down this path.

Among the few solicitors who conduct business in the larger country towns there is a reasonable degree of competition in all markets. Figures in the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday showed that the number of solicitors earning $50,000 or less, who are mainly in smaller towns, has increased sixfold. I do not carry a brief for solicitors; I am not here to defend them. But I am concerned about the impact on the total community and the economic welfare of that community. All honourable members, in particular country members of Parliament, would know that solicitors in country towns carry out a wide range of services, many of them for free or at a very low price. They are concerned that this measure, combined with others, may threaten their viability to the point where they cease operating.

Clearly, the market is not really big enough to accommodate both. If it were, in country areas in particular we would have seen the expansion of conveyancers in the residential property market. I understand from current practising conveyancers that there are conveyancers in Coffs Harbour and one other country centre. The remainder are in Wollongong, Sydney, Newcastle and Gosford. It is not as if there has been a ground swell of demand in country areas. Obviously people are voting with their feet and market forces are working reasonably well. People are going to solicitors because of the range of services that they offer and their desire to utilise them. There is no widespread availability in the rural market. I can only assume that that is because the market is simply not big enough.

Opposition members are not exactly supporting the notion of competition; we are talking about protecting the interests of country people and people in smaller communities. I guess this concern applies equally to some outer metropolitan communities and suburban areas. For those reasons the coalition will not be supporting this legislation. We understand the rationale for it, but we believe that the deregulated residential market has worked quite well. For the same reasons that were advanced some years ago when some people wanted to totally deregulate the market - matters relating to competency and the variety of issues that will arise in a large rural property transaction - our view is that we should hasten slowly. As I said at the outset, it is not as if there has been a huge demand. This seems to be more a political step. There are some real questions about consumer protection, not only with regard to the qualifications and the necessary training of those involved.

Let us face it, if we want them to come up to speed we will almost have to force them to complete a law degree. Then the purpose would be defeated. There is a lack of demand; there is no ground swell. The market is pretty competitive and it is working quite well. The coalition has some reservations, which I have enunciated, about inconsistencies in the bill. The legislation precludes solicitors and barristers from holding a licence, but it also permits them to practise in a partnership. I do not really understand the rationale for the provision. Again that seems to be an inconsistency. I know that some of my colleagues will further expand on their concerns as they apply to their constituencies. As I have said, the coalition will not be supporting the legislation at this stage.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [12.07]: The object of the Conveyancers Licensing Bill, a very important bill, is to repeal and re-enact the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992. The old Act is to be replaced with a new Act that will transfer all administrative functions relating to the licensing and regulation of conveyancers to the General Manager of the Real Estate Services Council, which will be renamed the Property Services Council, and expand the scope of work of licensed conveyancers to include any conveyancing work, including goodwill and stock-in-trade. It will allow for multi-disciplinary partnerships for conveyancers. The bill will expand the range of conveyancing work that can be performed by licensed conveyancers to encompass all real and property transactions, including goodwill and stock-in-trade and the grant of a mortgage or other charge.

At present conveyancing work is undertaken by licensed conveyancers and is limited to residential land transactions. In the lead-up to the March 1995
Page 1575
election the Labor Party, through its leader the Hon. Bob Carr, made a commitment to expand the scope of work of conveyancers to allow small business operators to use licensed conveyancers for property transactions. The provisions in this bill will deliver on that promise. This bill also provides for multi-disciplinary partnerships including licensed conveyancers, but only with the consent of the Real Estate Services Council, which, as I said earlier, will become the Property Services Council, subject to any regulations that may be made restricting multi-disciplinary partnerships. A partnership between a licensed conveyancer and a real estate or other agent is not permitted under the 1941 Act.

Questions have been asked about the fairness of conveyancers being regulated by their only competitors, the Law Society Council. This arrangement is clearly inappropriate as it is not in line with the national competition policy nor with this Government's desire for greater competition in all spheres of commercial activity, leading to lower costs to consumers, whether they are big or small businesses or ordinary citizens. Conveyancers must be able to conduct their business on terms equal to those of their competitors for competition to have meaning and to produce discernible consumer benefits. The ability to conduct multidisciplinary partnerships will enable conveyancers to offer a wide range of services to consumers and will assist to carry them through times of difficult markets. Conveyancers are subject to the vagaries of the property market, and variations in market activity can be quite dramatic. For example, in August 1994 there were 27,404 conveyances in New South Wales, but two years prior, in August 1992, there were only 18,574.

Conveyancers must survive hard economic times on conveyancing matters alone. A solicitor can have the assistance of practice partnerships. Revenue of the conveyancer's business is derived exclusively from conveyancing but a solicitor's revenue may be derived from any or all of more than 140 different branches of law and practice partnerships. On 30 June 1992 when introducing the Conveyancers Licensing Bill the Minister for Consumer Affairs, the Hon. P. Collins, said that bill was "part of the Government's clear commitment to promoting competition and efficiency in all sectors through microeconomic reform". The Fahey Government reluctantly introduced the bill in response to public demand for conveyancing reform after the reform had been rejected by the Greiner-Murray Cabinet in November 1991. Premier Fahey had been one of the most strident proponents of the reform. Opposition to Mr Fahey was understandable when consideration was given to his career as a solicitor and his close association with the Law Society of New South Wales, particularly his close personal relationship with the then president of the society, Mr John Marsden.

Mr Marsden had vowed, to use his words, "to fight to the death" any attempt to formally recognise conveyancers. As President of the Law Society he also warned Mr Fahey in an article in the Law Society Journal of the dangers of "transmogrification amnesia" on becoming Premier. Mr Fahey was reminded of his legal background and where his loyalty belonged. Mr Marsden was later appointed to the Conveyancers Licensing Committee. I intend no personal criticism of Mr Fahey or Mr Marsden, but their positions are an example of the reasons for the lack of resolve of the then Government and the intense lobbying of the Law Society that inevitably led to a heavily compromised reform. The Law Society demanded and received what it called a level playing field. It argued that conveyancers must be equal in every respect to solicitors and, therefore, because the Law Society regulated its solicitors, it should also regulate conveyancers.

A major provision of the bill is the transfer to the Property Services Council of the licensing and regulatory functions conferred by the 1992 Act on the Conveyancers Licensing Committee, the Association of Property Conveyancers and the Law Society Council. The membership of the Property Services Council is to be expanded by one part-time member to include a person nominated to represent the licensed conveyancing industry. The Conveyancers Licensing Committee is to be abolished. Under the present Act the concept of that committee in theory may have provided some autonomy. However, examination of its structure and history, particularly during the all-important formative and policy development phase when conveyancers were denied committee representation, dispels all doubt that the committee was little more than an extension of the Law Society Council.

Ostensibly the playing field was level but the effect was that conveyancers had difficulty establishing their identify as conveyancers. The public had equal or greater difficulty in making the distinction. The bill delivers microeconomic reform: it delivers and imposes an improved regime of competition that will inevitably lead to lower costs in most forms of conveyancing. This bill creates a regulatory scheme which is more efficient and streamlined than at present and is better able to serve the public interest. The bill provides the necessary regulation for these changes and also maintains comparability with particular features of the regulatory scheme of solicitors. As I said before, the key points of this bill are reforms that will expand the scope of licensed conveyancing activity and lead to greater consumer choice and business competition. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [12.15]: I am genuinely concerned about the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. I do not think my criticisms of the bill are tainted because, as most honourable members are aware, I have practised as a barrister for many years. I never actually undertook conveyancing work, maybe because of limitations imposed by the Bar Council at the time; however, on occasions I appeared as advocate for consumers in negligence cases involving conveyancing work carried out by solicitors, not conveyancers. My concern with this legislation relates to the educational requirements provision and
Page 1576
the proposed cap on liability in any potential negligence action. I will come to that a little later. All honourable members are accountable to their constituents and act on their representations. There are not an enormous number of solicitor firms in my electorate. However, quite a proportion of the work of the firms that operate in the electorate is conveyancing.

The reforms referred to by the honourable member for Port Macquarie - the shadow minister for consumer affairs - have resulted in enormous change, specifically in fee structures in New South Wales. One has only to read the metropolitan daily newspapers, and indeed some rural newspapers, to learn that a conveyance can be undertaken for as low as $475, excluding disbursements. The fee in the bad old days of regulation, as some might say, was of the order of $2,000. The property market has had an enormous impact on the fee structure. Whilst on one side of the coin there is considerable support for market forces, on the other side of the coin there is concomitant cover of liability. In economic life that test is always the moment of truth. Unfortunately, frequently that is when things go wrong. Whom do we turn to when something goes wrong? Of course we look for redress, and often against the person who has done that wrong. In this case it will be the conveyancing profession.

Clearly the bill will transfer all administrative functions relating to the licensing and regulation of conveyancers from the Conveyancers Licensing Committee to the Property Services Council. Indeed, the committee will have representation on the council. The bill will also establish committee representation by the appointment of an additional part-time member to specifically represent licensed conveyancers; and it will enable conveyancers to contribute to the Property Services Council compensation fund in lieu of the present fidelity insurance arrangements. It will define conveyancing work to include conveyancers to undertake commercial and rural work. This is where the importance of insurance comes to the fore.

Under clause 4, conveyancing work will include all real or personal property transactions, including the sale or lease of land, the sale of a business, including the sale of goodwill and stock-in-trade, and the grant of a mortgage or other charge. At present, conveyancing work is limited to residential land transactions. Existing restrictions on the drawing up of mortgages and obtaining consents to the various work required in conveyancing will be removed, thus opening up a wider range of work. The bill also makes the necessary amendments to associated Acts: the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act, the Real Estate Services Council Act and the Legal Profession Act 1987.

The regulation of conveyancers will occur through a new regulatory arrangement whereby the Conveyancers Licensing Committee will be abolished and the Law Society Council will no longer influence or control the regulation of conveyancers. Arrangements will be integrated within the existing system, and licensing authority will be given to the General Manager of the Property Services Council, formerly the Real Estate Services Council. The bulk of the 50 or so conveyancing practices in New South Wales - which service about 5 per cent of the market - are in the Sydney metropolitan area.

Education and training are necessary before a person can deal with and provide satisfaction and assurance to the public so that claims, should they be made, can be met and so that sufficient damages cover is provided to those affected. The Opposition might consider such a move after educational standards are raised, but that has not yet occurred. Currently, a person who wishes to work as a conveyancer must complete a two-year course and undertake continuing conveyancing education. It is proposed that training in a deregulated market be for a period of three years, with a one-year upgrade required for existing conveyancers who seek to enter a non-residential market. However, the bill is silent on the level of education, and this is to be determined by the Minister.

Having studied law and practised at the bar, I am aware that other areas of law have impacted on the ability of professional conveyancers to deliver a service that satisfies public expectation of professional practice. That impact does not appear to have been addressed in the bill. For example, a knowledge of simple property law and or conveyancing law is essential, not to mention the requirement to undertake a College of Law training course following an undergraduate degree, or the necessity to study areas as fundamental to a conveyance as contract law. A conveyance, after all, is basically a property contract. A deep understanding of the detailed areas of law involved in a property transaction is vital. In what seems to be a quantum leap, clause 4 does not adopt an incremental approach but suddenly opens up the floodgates and allows all this work to continue to flow to potential conveyancers.

Labor policy or ideology generally allows regulations and provisions to be thrown out the window, letting everyone in so that the consumers will be better off. But consumers are not always better off. The coalition acknowledged with regard to some of the programs it introduced when in office that things sometimes do not always go according to plan, and that the market needs other protective mechanisms in place if it is to be fully informed and fully protective for consumers. The bill addresses one attempt, desirable perhaps, to open up the market, but it does not protect consumers sufficiently through protective mechanisms such as the Law Society fidelity fund and the stringent requirements imposed on practitioners by the Law Society, especially the mandatory continuing education requirement for solicitors. Some of the courses offered specifically target conveyancing work.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie referred to the restriction on preparation of mortgages. There is also conflict about who may hold a licence. Clause 5 defines a disqualified person, and
Page 1577
clause 19 limits the formation of a partnership. However, clause 22 sanctions a partnership between a licensee and a barrister or solicitor, who by themselves are not able to hold a licence alone. On a level playing field, solicitors and barristers ought not be disqualified from holding a licence. Discipline, investigation of complaints, and prosecution before the Legal Services Tribunal, which was set up by the former coalition Government, are in the hands of the General Manager of the Property Services Council. However, the bill provides that the costs of the disciplinary system will come from the statutory interest account established under the Legal Profession Act.

Professional indemnity insurance, in conjunction with education and contribution to a fidelity fund, must be required. To date few claims have been made against professional indemnity insurance, although two or three notifications have been made. There are discrepancies between, and confusion about, limitations that are important in relation to the protection of consumers. A solicitor can be sued six years from the date of the cause of action. For conveyances, if I am not mistaken, the limitation is two years. If the Government truly wants to protect consumers, they must be allowed sufficient time to lodge a claim. Currently, the Fair Trading Act - which on a later day will be amended by the Fair Trading Amendment Bill under the aegis of the Minister for Consumer Affairs - provides a limitation period of three years.

Limitation periods should be consistent across the board. Causes of action, if justified and maintained, should have uniform limitation periods; different limitation periods should not apply. Sufficient discretion is available under the Limitation Act 1969 to allow the judiciary to extend certain periods. I do not think that approach is adopted in the bill. A two-year period is far too short, and discriminates against solicitors, who can be sued six years after an event - four years later than for a conveyancer. The public will not be protected sufficiently by a two-year limitation period. Sufficient information may not be obtained in that time to mount a case, or a party may not be in a position to know whether there is a case, or may be unable to lodge a claim until investigations have been conducted. History has shown, certainly since I have been practising law, that the fact-gathering period in such cases could easily extend beyond two years. That difficulty needs to be addressed by the Minister.

There is clearly a substantial difference in contributions to the Solicitors' Fidelity Fund. Solicitors currently contribute more than $475 annually, and conveyancers contribute about $135. There is no cap on the solicitors' fund. When I was practising at the bar I appeared in negligence cases, and my experience is that a cap of $1 million for conveyancing is not enough - and not simply because one might think a battler's home in Struggle Street is never worth $1 million. The figure of $1 million has been set for other reasons; liability can flow way beyond the conveyance. [Time expired.]

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.30]: I fully support the bill because I support any measure that sets out to increase competition, free up monopolies, provide greater consumer choice and reduce costs to consumers. I congratulate the Minister on this progressive legislation, which is very detailed and appears to cover all aspects of regulating conveyancers, who it is intended will deal with business transactions. I will speak briefly on a number of minor aspects of the bill. It makes a lot of sense that conveyancers will be permitted to partner solicitors, and it is also expected that the licensing authority will permit partnerships with other property-related consultants such as builders, engineers and the like.

Wisely, the bill stipulates that conveyancers and real estate agents cannot form a partnership. If reputable real estate agents and conveyancers are genuine about their roles, it would not be wise for them to form partnerships. Consumers should be concerned that the sale of a property may be the prime concern of a partnership between a conveyancer and a real estate agent, and it makes a lot of sense to stipulate that such a partnership should not take place. I agree fully with the administrative functions relating to the licensing and regulation of conveyancers being handed over to the General Manager of the Property Services Council. Conveyancers should not be regulated by their own competitors, as is the case with the Law Society Council. The procedure that the Government is adopting is correct, because the current system runs contrary to national competition policy.

It is important that the bill stipulates that conveyancing work will be defined to allow conveyancers to convey commercial and rural property as well as residential property, whether or not it is connected to a land transaction, because business transactions such as the sale of taxis and milk runs do not necessarily involve the sale of land. The Law Society is concerned about this legislation and has lobbied members of Parliament about it. One of its arguments is that the bill will create a subclass of lawyers, and that people do not want to have second-class lawyers acting for them. For many years a tremendous amount of the conveyancing work that has been carried out by firms of solicitors has been done by employees who are not necessarily solicitors. If the truth be known, there is already a subclass of lawyers carrying out conveyancing on behalf of their bosses.

The Law Society has said that 9,000 law students in the State have made major sacrifices to enter the legal profession and that their opportunities for employment will be greatly diminished if the area of work available to them is eroded. It is true that many law students aim to enter the legal profession, but is the society suggesting that law students are the only people studying conveyancing? That is not the case. Law students complete a four-year course that includes some study in conveyancing.

Mrs Lo Po': Sometimes.

Page 1578

Mr MOSS: It sometimes includes some study in conveyancing. Conveyancers have to undergo a two-year study course, and it has been recommended that they will have to complete a 12-month bridging course before they qualify to conduct commercial property and business transactions. Law students undergo four years study covering all aspects of law; conveyancers, who deal with conveyancing, study for three years. Who is better equipped to handle conveyancing? The Premier has pointed out that since conveyancers have been able to handle property transactions the costs involved for an average home costing $200,000 have been reduced from $1,200 to $700. That is a reduction of 42 per cent. The Government predicts that under the bill costs could be reduced by as much as 60 per cent. Earlier in the debate the honourable member for Port Macquarie referred to a couple who purchased a coffee shop for $12,000 and had to pay the disproportionate amount of $3,000 for conveyancing work. If the 42 per cent reduction applied to the coffee shop, the $3,000 would be reduced to $1,700; and with the anticipated 60 per cent reduction it would be much less.

I was amazed that the honourable member for Port Macquarie said she was surprised this couple had to pay $3,000 for a business that only cost $12,000. She said it is a competitive market and they should have shopped around. They did not have a chance to shop around among conveyancers because that opportunity will not be available until the bill is passed. It is all very well to say that it is a competitive market and people can shop around. All that couple would have done was to shop around a number of solicitors who probably charged the same fee of $3,000 as the solicitor whom they went to. The bill will enable people to shop around in the future. It is absolutely ridiculous that at present a conveyancer can act for the purchaser of a residential property, provided the property is less than 10 hectares and does not cost more than $10 million. That is feasible because some properties around Sydney Harbour that cost about $10 million are nowhere near 10 hectares in size; and a conveyancer can handle such a transaction. But a conveyancer is not allowed to handle the sale of a small business worth $10,000. That is the anomaly as I see it, and this legislation will solve that problem.

I am surprised that Opposition members have not been more fiery about this bill. I think that deep down they support it, but that someone has put pressure on them to make a few negative gestures. The rural sector certainly has not put pressure on them. I was surprised that the honourable member for Port Macquarie led for the Opposition in this debate because the New South Wales Farmers Association, as recently as 22 September, wrote to the president of the Association of Property Conveyancers as follows:

As you could expect, the Association supports the broad principles to free up conveyancing, and certainly welcomes proposals to lift the scope of work that could be undertaken to include not just residential conveyancing but also rural and business conveyancing . . . As you will be aware, the Association's concerns and support for deregulation of conveyancing have been long held.

It is little wonder that Opposition members are standing up with tongue in cheek on this matter when the Farmers Association, to name one organisation, supports the bill. There is a role for non-lawyer conveyancing of both real estate and other commercial activities, primarily for the reasons that I stated earlier. This bill is all about providing greater choice to consumers, reducing costs to consumers and freeing up monopolies. It will also introduce much more competition and give consumers a greater choice.

Mr Hazzard: Have you ever used a conveyancer?

Mr MOSS: I have never had the opportunity to use a conveyancer because the properties that I have owned were purchased before we were allowed to use conveyancers.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hazzard.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 12.45 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Petition praying that recycling bins be provided on Manly ferries and JetCats, received from Dr Macdonald.

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 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.

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

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 additional police be provided in the Wyong Shire, received from Mr Crittenden.

Petition praying that the CareFlight helicopter and the CareFlight medical retrieval service be continued, received from Dr Kernohan.

Page 1579

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 the Earth Exchange Museum not be closed, received from Mr Chappell.

Petition praying that Monaro be excluded from SEPP 46, received from Mr Cochran.



Mr COLLINS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Is he aware of statements made by News Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive, Rupert Murdoch, that the Australian economy is terrible and a disgrace because the Keating Government has done nothing about youth unemployment? Why has he axed youth unemployment programs worth $22 million?

Mr CARR: After the budget, this is the best he can do. Under the Government in which he was briefly and ingloriously Treasurer, 50,000 jobs were axed from the government sector. When it comes to public sector jobs, this financial year we have set aside $30 million less for voluntary redundancies than the coalition Government spent last year. He talks about opportunities for young people.

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

Mr CARR: Under this Government this budget provides for 5,000 additional TAFE places, and the Department of School Education's coordination budget for 1995-96 has increased by 58.5 per cent.

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

Mr CARR: As the Minister for Education and Training says, that is a massive boost. That is our record and that is our investment.


Mr NAGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Has he seen Opposition criticisms of yesterday's budget? What can he tell the House about that?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that the former members who are present in the gallery today are far from impressed by the performance of members during question time. I warn members that if the standard of behaviour does not improve the Chair will not hesitate to remove offending members from the Chamber.

Mr CARR: I have spent a good part of the morning looking for any evidence that the Leader of the Opposition has criticised the budget. I have been reading the papers from 5.00 a.m., but I have not found, nor has anyone seen, a report that the Leader of the Opposition has criticised the budget? The police have one. There it is. This is what Collins has had to say about the budget.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order: many esteemed Speakers who have preceded you, Mr Speaker, have ruled that the kind of display indulged in by the Premier is disorderly conduct, and for a very good reason. It is impossible to record in Hansard for the benefit of generations to come the kind of theatrical charade the Premier engaged in. I ask you to direct the Premier not to engage in those tactics in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai knows full well that if the Premier wishes to table material he may seek leave to do so.

Mr CARR: I thought that as the Leader of the Opposition had said virtually nothing I should look at what the honourable member for Lane Cove had to say about the budget. The only notice on the public record of news by her is a lilac-coloured piece of paper.

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

Mr CARR: It is an invitation to a black tie dinner in Lane Cove.

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

Mr CARR: What a witches' sabbath that turned out to be! It was an invitation to a fundraising dinner for the fox-hunting set.

Ms Machin: On a point of order: my point of order has to do with relevance. As entertaining, as well scripted and as costly as Mr Ellis's jokes might be for the Premier, the question was not about the honourable member for Lane Cove or articles in the newspapers; it was about the budget. The matter is serious and we would like to hear the Premier discuss that.

Mr CARR: On the point of order: the question was, "Has the Premier seen Opposition criticisms of the Budget?"

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

Mr CARR: So this was a rather interesting invitation to a black tie gathering, a fundraising event in Lane Cove with the honourable member for Lane
Page 1580
Cove. I wondered who would be the guest of honour. Surely it was going to be the Leader of the Opposition. Logical, but not true.

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

Mr CARR: Would it be at all possible -

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

Mr CARR: Would it be at all possible that the guest of honour might be, by contrast, our old friend the honourable member for the Southern Highlands? Yes, in fact it is! Honourable members can imagine the touching scene there, the glittering black tie occasion, the candelabra, the silver, the cut glass -

[Interruption]

There she is, the Burmese cobra of Lane Cove!

Mr Kerr: On a point of order: I have been listening for some time to the answer given by the Premier to the probing forensic question asked by the honourable member for Auburn. Mr Speaker, I ask you to draw the Premier back to matters that are relevant to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure the Premier has in mind the essence of the question.

Mr CARR: I can only assume -

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

Mr CARR: Honourable members can imagine the scene at this lovely little dinner. Imagine the moment! They are just about to get into the rattling sunflower or whatever they call it at Liberal Party gatherings.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order: the question that was asked was clearly about the budget. There has been a long diversion from that question. I draw your attention to your ruling on 1 June when you said that you had no power to direct the Minister to answer the question as long as the Minister's answer was relevant to the question. I ask you to draw the Premier back to the question that was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The situation is being exacerbated by constant interjections from the Opposition. The Premier was responding to matters raised by the honourable member for Lane Cove about aspects of his dissertation. I suggest that if Opposition members remain silent and cease interjecting the Premier will soon return to the subject matter of the question.

Mr CARR: In view of the total absence of criticism of the budget from the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thought he would dash out to the 7.30 Report last night. When he got to the studio I have to say that his comments - and I have read the transcript -

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

Mr CARR: - on the whole were not a model of coherence, but we make allowances. Since Menzies, that side of politics has never produced anyone who is comfortable with the English language.

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

Mr CARR: I wrestled with the transcript for some time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did say at one stage - high praise for the budget was a different tactic - "The best part of the budget is the programs with extra staff in health, with extra staff in police and extra staff in education." He praised the budget! He gave it a ringing endorsement. It is one thing to be praised by Terry McCrann, by Ross Gittins and by every editorial that appears in the papers today, but to be praised by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party on the 7.30 Report is positively thought provoking. Then there were the comments of our old canine friend, the honourable member for Ermington.

[Interruption]

There he goes! He said, "This is a budget that will kill children".

Mr Photios: It will too!

Mr CARR: That is as absurd as it is offensive, and it is reflective -

Mr Photios: What about the parent tax?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington is on three calls to order. If he attracts the adverse attention of the Chair again, he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr CARR: That is reflective of the deeply sick mind that we know lurks in those quarters. The honourable member for Ermington spoke of a parent tax. If it is a parent's tax it was precisely the parent's tax sought by Bruce Baird, John Fahey, Nick Greiner and the honourable member for Eastwood. In a press release announcing the report of the Public Accounts Committee on this subject on 15 January 1993, he said, "The Committee recommended a parental contribution of $10 per term." The honourable member for Ermington talks about a parent tax! His colleague, who is sitting two people away from him, was recommending a parental contribution. What did Nick Greiner say about this? Nick Greiner, at his farewell press conference, said that he deeply regretted not having succeeded in cutting the cost of the school subsidy transport scheme. Bruce Baird was more reflective.

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

Mr CARR: On 18 June he stated that he favoured a $10 per term parental contribution and he would take it to Cabinet soon.

Mr Collins: What are you going to cost parents?

Page 1581

Mr CARR: I will come back to you in a moment. In a moment I will close the circle and come right back to you. What did the honourable member for the Southern Highlands say about this? He said he would take to Cabinet a proposal for parental contribution because the costs of the scheme were unsustainable.

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

Mr CARR: The challenge for the Leader of the Opposition is quite simply this: he should state today unequivocally that he intends to say to the people at the next election that he will reinstate the $100 million in cuts in this scheme that we have produced in this budget. Are you committed to reinstating it?

Mr Collins: What are you going to say to the parents?

Mr CARR: Are you committed to reinstating it?

Mr Collins: What are you going to say?

Mr CARR: Are you committed to reinstating it?

Mr Collins: What are you going to say? You will not answer that.

Mr CARR: I will ask the question again. Are you going to reinstate those cuts? The clock is ticking. I will ask the question one more time. Are you committed to reinstating those cuts, yes or no?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition has made it very plain this afternoon in the House that he will not give a commitment to the people, as we have done in this budget. I put him on the spot and said, "You give a commitment you will reverse our cuts".

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

Mr CARR: He will not take up the challenge.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The volatile nature of the subject matter does not entitle members to breach the rules of decorum of the House. I remind members that only two questions have been asked thus far in question time. Yesterday it was necessary for the Chair to have a member removed from the Chamber for disorderly conduct. In the interests of preserving the image of the Parliament I would be loath to require another member to leave today. Already a number of members have been placed on three calls to order. Should it be necessary for the Chair to call for order in the House again, all members will be deemed to be on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: Five times I asked the question; five times I gave him the chance to say -

Mr Collins: On a point of order.

Mr CARR: - that he would go to the people at the next election -

Mr Collins: Sit down! On a point of order -

Mr CARR: - that he would go to the people -

Mr Collins: Sit down!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. No point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: Five times! It has upset you, but it is going to be driven home.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai will resume his seat. The member is well aware that a member wishing to take a point of order should first seek the call from the Chair. When the call is given the member is invited to state his or her point either from where he or she sits or at the rostrum at the table of the House. Members certainly should not usurp the role of the Chair by seeking to instruct other members as to their behaviour. For that reason I directed the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to resume their seats. Members who wish to take points of order will do so using the appropriate forms and procedures of the House or they will not be recognised.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order: I suppose it is little wonder that members are starting to get a little rowdy in this place. Mr Speaker, you have ruled time and again -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair needs no assistance to make determinations of matters raised by way of points of order.

Mr Phillips: You have ruled, Mr Speaker, constantly that all comments and questions should be directed through you rather than provocatively across the Chamber. The Premier has continued to flout that ruling with an attempt to invite you -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Premier will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr CARR: Mr Speaker, you will note that on five occasions the Leader of the Opposition was given the chance to state that he would go to the people at the next election committed to reinstating -

Mr Collins: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members of the Opposition of the futility of taking unnecessary points of order.

Mr Collins: On a point of order: by repeatedly referring to his five breaches of your rulings the Premier is surely flouting the ruling you have just given. I ask that the Premier recognise the forms of this House and make no such reference and simply answer the question.

Page 1582

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Some allowance must be made for human behaviour. All members are afforded a degree of leniency in this regard provided that for the majority of their contributions they address their remarks through the Char. At the time the point of order was taken the Premier was addressing his remarks through the Chair.

Mr CARR: That whining, self-pitying -

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members who take frivolous points of order will be called to order. I remind the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai that he is already on three calls to order. I trust that his point of order has some substance.

Mr O'Doherty: My point of order has to do with the making of a substantive attack on another member. The Premier has attempted to verbal the Leader of the Opposition by making certain claims about a position that the Leader of the Opposition is purported to hold.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved. Debate in this Chamber is often robust, and members who interject can expect responses of a similar nature from the member with the call.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition gives a press conference about once a month these days. I am certain that at his next press conference he will be asked whether he is committed to reinstating the $100 million in cuts that circumstances forced us to make to this scheme, cuts which were advocated by the Public Accounts Committee, chaired by the honourable member for Eastwood, and by Premiers Greiner and Fahey.

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

Mr CARR: On five occasions this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to state whether he would reinstate the $100 million.

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

Mr CARR: He has had the opportunity in this House to say he would reinstate it.

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

Mr CARR: But he will not say it. He is under challenge to say it, just as his leadership is under challenge from the Opposition benches.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order: I refer to fact sheet No. 19 on standing orders, which all members have received. It says:

Answers to questions must be relevant and in answering, a Member must not enter into debate.

It is not up to the Premier to ask this side of the House six questions without notice. I ask you to order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Oxley suggests that questions asked of the Opposition create some disturbance in the House. The questions were obviously rhetorical in nature. I suggest that Opposition members ignore them.

Mr CARR: Perhaps I will put the question on notice. No wonder people are saying to the Leader of the Opposition that he is a man with a great future behind him!


Mr PHOTIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Is it a fact that the cost per student for free school transport will rise to $500 by 1997? Does the $450 cap on free transport mean that in 1997 every school student in urban areas will pay to travel to school regardless of how poor they are, how old they are, or where they live?

Mr LANGTON: It is nice to hear from the honourable member for Ermington now and again. I understand that the good people of Ermington hardly ever see him. In my travels around New South Wales as Minister for Tourism I get to see a few places. One of the most delightful places I have visited is a winery west of Mudgee, where I came across something that reminded me of the honourable member for Ermington. I thought I had heard the name before: it is what they call him in his electorate. They call him Seldom Seen.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will answer the question.

Mr LANGTON: I understand it is a cheeky little red. The school student transport scheme, revisions to which were announced in the budget yesterday, remains by far the most generous school transport subsidy scheme of any in Australia.

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

Mr LANGTON: I ask honourable members to compare the New South Wales scheme with those in States governed by the conservatives. In Victoria the distance criterion is 4.8 kilometres - not to the school a student attends but to the nearest school. A student who lives more than 4.8 kilometres from the nearest school is eligible for free transport, but apart from that must pay. The distance criterion in South Australia is 5 kilometres, again not to the school a student chooses to attend but to the nearest school. In Western Australia the criterion is 4.5 kilometres to the nearest school; in Queensland it is 3.2 kilometres for primary school students and 4.8 kilometres for high school students, but again to the local school. Yesterday we increased, by a mere 400 metres, the radial distance from the student's residence to the school attended. Does the honourable member for Ermington have something to say?

Mr Photios: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, we understand that the Minister for Transport was present in the Chamber when you earlier ruled that rhetorical questions designed to exploit and disrupt
Page 1583
this Chamber should not and would not be entertained. Knowing full well that I was on three calls, appropriately and fairly called by you, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Transport asked me whether I had something to say. I sure have, but I will say it elsewhere.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Earlier I directed that members not interrupt the responses of Ministers. The honourable member for Ermington might wish to abide by that ruling.

Mr LANGTON: If I were to ask a rhetorical question, I would ask the honourable member for Ermington if he is going to commit the Opposition to reinstating the scheme. But, of course, I would not do that. The scheme remains by far the most generous of any in Australia.

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

Mr LANGTON: Extension of the criterion by 400 metres, from 1.6 to 2 kilometres, only, applies to high school students. Primary school students will continue to have the 1.6 kilometre radial criterion, and children in infants classes remain totally exempt from any distance criterion whatsoever. The cost per child of free school student transport in New South Wales is approximately $445 per year - an enormous cost. To put the matter in context, in 1970 the cost was approximately $13 million to taxpayers. By 1994-95 that cost had risen to $324 million, and without any change this year it would have been $350 million. As the Premier correctly pointed out, without any changes that cost would have reached almost $450 million by 1999. A tough, intelligent decision had to be made - a decision which the Opposition, when in government, did not have the intestinal fortitude to make. When that issue went to Cabinet the previous Government kept getting weak-kneed about it. But a decision had to be made.

The Government has decided that from 1997 - not 1996 - in urban areas only, in Newcastle, the central coast, Sydney and the Illawarra, there will be a cap of $450 per student. That means we will continue to contribute up to $450 worth of free travel for every child going to school in New South Wales. Given that the cost this year is about $445 per child, the continued contribution represents an increase in average expenditure per child going to school in New South Wales this year. I do not know what the Opposition's bleatings are about. They are the people who twice tried to get this measure up in Cabinet. They knew something had to be done but they lacked the statesmanship required to get it done.

This Government is giving parents a choice, and they will have 15 clear months to make their educational decisions for 1997. Nothing could be more equitable than that. The measure will be phased in over 15 months. It gives every parent of school-age children 15 months to make those important educational decisions. Just as importantly, it also gives the private bus industry in New South Wales 15 months to restructure. The Government has considered all aspects of this proposal. We have considered the needs of parents, the children and the operators. We have made a decision which is fair and equitable. Most importantly, it is the right decision for New South Wales and for the future of this State's economy. It is the right decision for the educational future of our children.

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

Mr LANGTON: The honourable member has something to say now, has he? I reiterate that outside the areas of Newcastle, Central Coast, Sydney and Wollongong there will be no cap. In other words, children going to school and living in any part of rural New South Wales will have no cap applicable to them. They will be able to travel any distance whatsoever to get to the nearest school. The Government acknowledges, of course, that in areas outside the urban areas of the Hunter, the Illawarra and Sydney children travel long distances to school. School children in those areas will not be subject to the cap, and their total travel will continue to be free. This is the right decision for New South Wales, for parents, for children, and for the operators.


Mr MOSS: I ask the Minister for Transport: what progress has the Government made on its election commitment to establish a safe station program on the CityRail network? What impact have other security measures had on the network?

Mr LANGTON: I am pleased to advise the House today that the safe station program is now ready to proceed. This program has been a commitment of the Labor Party since well before the 1991 State election. On coming to office I requested a full security audit of CityRail's 169 suburban stations. Information from that audit has enabled the selection of 62 CityRail stations to become safe stations. Before the election the Premier and I announced that there would be 50 safe stations. I am now announcing that there will be 62. Features of safe stations will include high illumination lighting, closed-circuit television surveillance and platform passenger help points. All safe stations will have a guaranteed staff presence from the first to the last train.

Every safe station will receive regular services after the evening peak. A small number of frequently serviced safe stations will have some through services to provide shorter evening journey times for longer distance passengers. The safe station program is designed to boost public confidence in the rail system. It is designed to improve security and attract passengers back on to trains by making them feel safer and responding to their demand for higher levels of customer service. In total, the safe station program represents a commitment of more than $14 million. The program will be progressively implemented over the next two years. CityRail has advised me that at least 30 of the 62 stations will have basic equipment installed as early as February next year.

Page 1584

As honourable members would already be aware, Cabramatta will be one of the designated safe stations, with a $2.25 million upgrade already announced by the Premier. Work is expected to commence before the end of the year and should be completed before the end of 1996. Cabramatta station will undergo a complete redesign with passenger safety as the focus. These measures, combined with the increased police presence at Cabramatta, are aimed at clearing the area of drug dealers and thugs. Design improvements to Cabramatta include a more open layout, improved surveillance and reduced congestion; improved lighting of the station, platforms and car park; landscape changes to minimise hiding areas; and removal of hiding places such as physical screens and barriers. A number of security features are already in place at Cabramatta, including closed-circuit television, security guards and a police call box in the police room.

In only six months this Government has introduced a wide range of improvements to security on trains, including a greater transit police strength, private uniformed security guards and an extension of the Nightsafe program so that it commences an hour earlier. The Government is now ready to proceed with the safe station program. Another election commitment fulfilled. It is another step in the direction of restoring public confidence in the rail system, another step towards attracting more passengers on to trains. I am pleased to advise the honourable member for Canterbury that his local railway station will be one of the 62 designated safe stations.

I shall now read out to honourable members the 62 stations that have been designated safe stations. In the Hunter and central coast area: Wyong, Broadmeadow, Gosford, Maitland, Newcastle and Woy Woy. In the north: Chatswood, Epping, Hornsby, North Sydney and Pennant Hills. In the Blue Mountains: Katoomba and Springwood. In the inner city: Ashfield, Central, Circular Quay, Lidcombe, Museum, Redfern, St James, Strathfield, Town Hall and Wynyard. In the west: Auburn, Blacktown, Granville, Mount Druitt, Parramatta, Penrith, Richmond, Riverstone, Seven Hills, St Marys and Westmead. In the south: Bankstown, Cabramatta, Campbelltown, Campsie, Canterbury, East Hills, Fairfield, Glenfield, Kingsgrove, Liverpool, Marrickville, Regents Park, Riverwood, Picton and Moss Vale. On the Illawarra and south coast lines: Bondi Junction, Cronulla, Hurstville, Kings Cross, Kogarah, Martin Place, Miranda, Sutherland, Sydenham, Waterfall, Wollongong, Dapto and Thirroul.

This comprehensive allocation of 62 stations will ensure that passengers will have a choice of travelling to or from their closest station or using a nearby safe station. The stations were selected on the basis of important factors, including their distribution across the network, availability of Nightride bus services, proximity to other transport modes, security risk factors, and existing or planned easy access - that is, accessibility for people with disabilities. I am confident that the safe station program will give a confidence boost to all passengers, particularly women and older people using our public transport system.

The honourable member for Canterbury also asked me about the impact of other security measures. In the first week, patrols of private uniformed security guards on the CityRail network have been well received by passengers. To meet the needs of CityRail commuters, security guards have already begun a new additional service. They will escort passengers to their vehicles in car parks at railway stations if they are requested to do so. Many females and older passengers are already using this service. It is only a week since security guards were first placed on Sydney trains and platforms. Since 3 October they have completed 1,500 patrols of stations and trains, averaging 226 patrols on trains and stations each day. The 66 uniformed security guard patrols are mainly on the south and south-western lines. They focus on trains after 7.00 p.m. until the last service.

On Sundays to Wednesdays 12 two-person teams patrol the trains, and on Thursdays to Saturdays 21 two-person security teams patrol the trains. During a six-hour shift a total of 135 patrols are conducted on 135 stations on a Sunday to Wednesday basis. This will increase to 225 station and train patrols at night on Thursdays to Saturdays. The coverage is extensive. Security guards stay on a train for a few stops, alight to patrol a station, then catch another train for their next patrol. Each patrol carries mobile radios to contact police in the event of an arrest or incident. In the short time since they have commenced patrols they have encountered a range of incidents from abusive drunken customers to the discovery of a shotgun at Cabramatta station.

Most importantly, passengers, particularly women and older people, have said they feel safer on train journeys where security guards are present. On the first night, 3 October, before a service arrived at Redfern station two males and two females pulled a machete on the security guards after passengers complained about rowdy behaviour. Security guards on the train called ahead to advise transit police, but the offenders escaped. Earlier that night security guards discovered a shotgun hidden in the bushes at Cabramatta railway station. They contacted transit police and the weapon was taken away.

Mr Peacocke: On a point of order: I ask you, Mr Speaker, to draw the Minister's attention to his excessive prolixity and lack of propinquity.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the excellent point of order.

Mr LANGTON: I am pleased that the private security patrol program has been developed with the assistance of rail unions, who share the Government's concerns about passenger safety. This Government is acting quickly to fulfil its election commitment to improve rail safety and restore public confidence in the rail system.

Page 1585

Mr PHILLIPS: I direct my question to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. As thousands of parents will now have to pay $24 a week to send their children to school, why has the Premier at the same time given himself a 200 per cent or $170,000 increase in his travel budget?

Mr CARR: The expenditure of this Government on travel compares favourably with that of the previous Government in every year it was in office.

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


Mr ARMSTRONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Did the Minister, in this House yesterday, rule out referring water price increases to the Government Pricing Tribunal only five hours before the tribunal announced an inquiry into water charges following a reference from the Premier? Has the Minister been overruled by the Premier? Is his position as Minister now untenable?

Mr YEADON: The Government has always made clear its position in relation to water reform, including pricing. There will be a Government Pricing Tribunal inquiry, and it will be for the subsequent year.


Ms ANDREWS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Can the Minister provide factual information on changes to the pensioner travel voucher scheme?

Mr LANGTON: Important changes will be made to the pensioner travel voucher scheme from 1 January next year. Most significantly, as was announced in yesterday's budget, Labor is honouring its commitment to restore free pensioner travel vouchers. From next year there will be no $10 fee for pensioner travel vouchers - a fee that was imposed by the former coalition Government. An amount of $3.3 million has been allocated in the budget for this initiative. From 1 January next year the vouchers will truly provide free train travel for pensioners.

Traditionally, the vouchers provided for two intrastate trips a year. That meant that there was no flexibility for pensioners to travel at different times. From 1 January, therefore, pensioners will be issued with four single vouchers, rather than two return vouchers. That will make booking simpler and give pensioners more flexibility and choice. Other schemes to improve the booking system are currently being investigated. Under this Government, continuous improvement in customer service is the goal of all public transport authorities. CountryLink is working hard to provide an even higher standard of service to all customers, and the changes to the pensioner travel voucher scheme are evidence of that.

Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. Can the Minister provide information to the House on the level of education funding, particularly in relation to teacher numbers and computers in the schools program?

Mr AQUILINA: I am delighted that the honourable member for Wyong asked this question. He is a former schoolteacher; indeed, he is a former maths teacher who always got his numbers right - unlike the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, who never gets his numbers right. Earlier today the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai was once again caught fudging the figures on teacher numbers. On lunchtime radio he said that there were only 177 extra teachers, that we were counting extra teachers as a result of growth in enrolments, and that there were no front-line teaching positions.

Mr Scully: Give him the cane.

Mr AQUILINA: No, we cannot give him the cane. Once again the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai has been caught with egg on his face. His claim is utterly false. The extra teachers are in front-line teaching positions and are over and above any entitlement through enrolment growth. When enrolment growth results in extra teaching requirements, extra teachers are automatically provided by the Government through Treasury funding. The 339 extra teaching positions and the extra relief time for computer training - that is equivalent to an additional 62 positions - are additional to any variation in school population levels. I am proud that a substantial part of the additional funding in the budget is for computer education and technology. Among the best and most widely acclaimed features of Labor's education policy is its commitment to boost massively access to computers and technology in schools. A promise made; a promise kept. It is another tick for the Carr Government.

This is an investment in our most precious resource, the children of our State. It is unequivocal good news for education. Over the next three financial years the Carr Government will inject an additional $85.9 million into computers and technology in schools. By the third year this will represent a 300 per cent increase in the level reached by the previous Government. We must prepare the children of our nation for the future. We must produce computer-literate students. We are committed to ensuring that all young people will have keyboard skills by the end of year seven so that when they enter the work force those skills will have been sufficiently honed to meet any vocational challenge that awaits them. As the Treasurer said yesterday, the Carr Labor Government is getting it right from the start, and we are doing it right for children in our schools.

Page 1586

Mr TINK: My question is directed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. I ask the Premier whether, after using a Missionbeat van for publicity earlier this year, he said:

The Mission are the ones on the front line and they need all the Government support they can get.

Why has he subsequently slashed the budget for the Sydney City Mission by more than $3 million, putting up to 60 mission jobs at risk?

Mr CARR: A question from the arch hypocrite! He was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when it produced a report -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Eastwood will resume his seat. If there is a repeat of such an outburst, he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr CARR: - that advocated a parental contribution of $10 a term for school bus transport.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All members are now deemed to be on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: If there was ever a question time during which the honourable member for Eastwood should remain silent, or even absent himself, this would be it. When he was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee he issued a press release, as recently as January 1993, urging a $10 a term parental contribution for school transport.

Mr Tink: On a point of order: my question had nothing to do with what the Premier has spent the last five minutes talking about. I respectfully request that the Premier answer my question, which is of some interest to the Sydney City Mission and to the 60 people at the mission who may lose their jobs.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has no power to direct a Minister to answer a specific question. However, the Premier should return to the subject matter of the question.

Mr CARR: In the budget this Government has increased spending on community services by a whopping 20 per cent. That is an increase of 20 per cent to meet the range of front-line services. That is what we have done. We have increased funding for the underprivileged in society by 20 per cent, including precisely the kinds of services that I discussed with the people on Missionbeat and precisely the kinds of services that the Sydney City Mission wants to see improved for its clientele. Was there ever a budget brought down by the coalition Government that increased community services expenditure and welfare expenditure by 20 per cent? Never! The Greiner Government slashed community services in its first budget. It slashed front-line services and restructured job support schemes. The boost to training was more than adequately covered in the Treasurer's speech yesterday.

Mrs BEAMER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Environment. What action is the Government taking to improve air quality and monitoring?

Ms ALLAN: The issue raised by the honourable member is particularly relevant following today's report in the Daily Telegraph Mirror of high air pollution levels in the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. I advise the House that I have asked the Environment Protection Authority to review emissions data from the tunnel with a view to tightening controls. It is interesting that the honourable member for Port Macquarie lays the blame for this issue with a former State Minister, Laurie Brereton. We should note that the current pollution control licence -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that question time has not concluded. Members who wish to leave the Chamber should do so as quietly and expeditiously as possible.

Ms ALLAN: I am disappointed that the honourable member for Port Macquarie, after her idiotic interjection, has left the Chamber because she should be aware, as we are on this side of the Chamber, that the current pollution control licence covering the tunnel was actually granted by the former Liberal-National Party Government. At the time there were major disagreements between the former State Pollution Control Commission and the tunnel operators over the ventilation monitoring systems. We should thank the former Liberal-National Party Government for the present quality of air pollution in the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Tighter controls can be applied for the Sydney Harbour Tunnel Company. The Environment Protection Authority is currently investigating methods of upgrading the ventilation system in the tunnel to ensure improvements to air quality.

This Government's primary concern is to ensure that motorists are not exposed to harmful levels of air pollution. Of course our commitment to clean air extends well and truly beyond the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. In July of this year we released the preliminary findings of the metropolitan air quality study, which found that air quality in Sydney will seriously deteriorate by the year 2020 unless action is taken now to dramatically reduce pollutant emissions in the air. If we do not act now, the number of high air pollution days will increase significantly. The worst affected areas of air pollution are not in the heartland of the current Opposition, they are in western Sydney where the majority of Sydney's growth is occurring.

Despite these realities the former Government had no commitment whatsoever to improve air quality in Sydney's west or even provide a permanent air quality monitoring network in the region. The former Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to establish the network in the first instance and then it failed to provide the funding to enable it to be monitored in the future. The coalition, led by a
Page 1587
former Treasurer at the time, planned to shut down 25 per cent of Sydney's air quality monitoring networks. In fact, seven of the monitoring stations were due to be closed by December last year. It appears that the coalition kept the monitoring stations open on a short-term basis to avoid embarrassment prior to the March elections this year. It carried out this single act by raising funds otherwise earmarked for other environmental protection programs to fund the stations until after the election. The stations that would have been the first to close were in western Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong - the areas of most need. The closure of those stations would have left these regions without adequate monitoring stations. It would have made it almost impossible to make a proper assessment of air quality in some of the State's biggest air quality trouble spots.

In contrast this Government is committed to the maintenance of the air quality monitoring network. Not only have we found the $1.4 million needed to preserve this network, but I can announce today that the Government will establish two more monitoring stations in Sydney's west and south-west. The first of these stations will be operational in a matter of months; the other is expected to be operational by early next year. The difference between the previous Liberal-National Party Government and the current Labor Government is clear: the previous Government was about perpetrating a short-term confidence trick on the people of western Sydney. This Government is concerned with making lasting improvements to the quality of life of the people of western and south-western Sydney. and it will find the dollars to honour that commitment.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [3.23]: Because it is Fire Awareness Week it is exceedingly important that the public of New South Wales is made aware of our state of preparedness to protect the community against bushfires. I wish also to make clear the real circumstance surrounding the funding of volunteer bush fire brigades in the present financial year.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [3.24]: This matter is urgent because the Minister has misled this House in relation to rural water pricing and the referral of rural water pricing to the Government Pricing Tribunal of New South Wales. On 21 September I asked the Minister a question without notice, the second part of which was:

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

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

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

No matter what slant the Minister now tries to put on what he said then, the fact is that no referral had been made by the Government to the tribunal at that time. Therefore, the Minister has either wittingly or unwittingly misled the House. I know this to be the case because I contacted the Government Pricing Tribunal the day after the Minister gave his response - 22 September - with a view to making a submission to the inquiry. I was advised by the Government Pricing Tribunal that, contrary to the Minister's advice to this House, in fact no referral had been made and that the Government Pricing Tribunal had not received any terms of reference for an inquiry on rural water pricing. Yesterday, some three weeks later, the Government Pricing Tribunal announced an inquiry -

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order: the honourable member should state why his motion is urgent. He is referring in detail to the substantive motion.

Mr D. L. PAGE: On the point of order: I submit that there could be no matter more urgent than that of a Minister of the Crown misleading this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is precisely the matter that the member must address.

Mr Yeadon: Yes, rather than the substantive matters.

Mr D. L. PAGE: Not only has the Minister misled the House; he has also broken a key election promise that the voters could reasonably have assumed would be kept. The election promise was contained -

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I pre-empt the Minister's point of order. The member will address the reasons why his matter should take precedence of the matter raised by the Minister for Corrective Services.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The matter is urgent because the Labor Party prior to the election gave a commitment that if it won office rural water pricing would be referred to the Government Pricing Tribunal. That has not happened and people in country New South Wales in particular have received, as a result of this Minister's arbitrary decision, increases in water prices of up to 88 per cent. Despite his protestations, the Minister cannot deny this fact. Prior to his decision irrigators in southern New South Wales were paying $1.53 per megalitre of water. Now, without any reference to the Government Pricing Tribunal, the Minister has increased the price by $1.35 per megalitre to $2.88 per megalitre.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is canvassing the substantive motion. He must first convince the House that his matter should be given priority over that of the Minister.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The matter is urgent because the Minister misled the House and I believe this matter ought to be discussed and debated in this House, if for no other reason than to give the Minister
Page 1588
an opportunity to defend himself. The Minister has consistently denied that this was part of the Government's election policy. He indicated that he would refer the matter at some future time, when in fact, the policy clearly says -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member why the matter is urgent.

Mr D. L. PAGE: It is urgent because people in New South Wales are suffering as a result of an arbitrary decision; a decision not made in accordance necessarily with the agreement of the Council of Australian Governments.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order: Mr Speaker, this is a deliberate attempt by the honourable member for Ballina to thwart your ruling. He has not attempted to establish priority of the matters of which notice has been given. Rather he is canvassing the substantive motion.

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

Mr Whelan: The honourable member has had ample opportunity to put a series of questions about the matter on the notice paper. He could have asked a question without notice in this House today or given notice of intention to move a motion about the matter. This is the third or fourth time this issue has been raised in the House and the honourable member has failed to hit home. In fact, the House has made decisions on it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member's time for speaking has expired.

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Mr Debus be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Carr Mr Beck
Mr Gaudry Mr Rozzoli

Question so resolved in the affirmative.


Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [3.37]: I move:

That this House commends the Government for introducing the RTA inspection process to improve safety for bushfire volunteer workers.

The bushfire season is upon us and in this Bushfire Awareness Week I wish to assure the House and the people of New South Wales that the volunteers of the bush fire brigades across the State are now better equipped than they have ever been. The bushfires of January 1994 were shocking; they shocked us out of complacency. The coroner inquiring into those fires is yet to bring down his findings, but in the past six months many of the lessons from those frightening days have been translated into action. When the Carr Government took office last March, however, I was startled to discover that the former Government had, in critical ways, hidden from the implications of the January 1994 bushfires. Let me outline the background of the sorry state of affairs with which I was confronted. On 29 January 1994 a young volunteer bush fire brigade member, Clinton John Westwood, was thrown from a tanker and killed at Pheasants Nest. At the inquest into his death on 9 November, Coroner Evans recommended that the
Page 1589
Roads and Traffic Authority ought to be responsible for the examination of the bush fire fighting fleet. On 12 December last year, Coroner Evans -

Mr Cochran: On a point of order: I question whether the matters being raised by the Minister are not sub judice as they are still before the Coroners Court. As chairman of the Select Committee on Bushfires inquiring into the 1994 bushfires I was advised to desist from inquiries into such matters as these, and I would have thought that the Minister would now be restricted in what he can raise in the House. I therefore ask that he be directed not to refer to those matters.

Mr McManus: On the point of order: the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Bushfires is incorrect. We were asked by the coroner not to take witnesses before he spoke to them. I think the honourable member is trying to mislead the House by this spurious point of order.

Mr Cochran: Further to the point of order: I take offence at -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Cochran: The deputy coroner requested that we desist from taking evidence on a matter similar to that which has just been raised by the Minister as we would be in conflict with the court's inquiry. Therefore this matter is sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The sub judice rule is applied in this House when it is determined by the Chair that reference to specific matters may influence the judgment of a court. However, if - as in this case, as I understand it - all relevant matters have been presented to the court for decision, any reference in this House to such matters would not impinge upon the judgment of the court. The Minister is in order and may proceed.

Mr DEBUS: The coroner wrote to the honourable member for Orange, the former Minister for Police. His letter coincided with a letter to the Department of Bush Fire Services from the New South Wales Treasury-managed fund drawing the department's attention to the need for an independent inspection of firefighting vehicles. The department, anxious to act on the coroner's recommendations, wrote to the Minister on 20 January. In any event it is clear that the former Government was aware from newspaper reports and statements by the former Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the honourable member for Georges River, that at least half of the bush fire fighting fleet was over 40 years old. Despite that the then Minister, the honourable member for Orange, took until 9 February to respond to the coroner's urgent recommendations and ordered an audit of the entire firefighting fleet - an audit that was completed in March. However, nothing practical was done by the former Government to address the safety problems raised by the coroner in November 1994.
It was only upon the change of government that the coroner's recommendations were taken seriously and the hard decisions were made. The audit which the former Minister buried, anxious no doubt to avoid any negative publicity in the country prior to the election, revealed an ageing fleet - a matter which I revealed to the House on 8 June There were three immediate consequences. It was clear that the Roads and Traffic Authority inspections of the fleet were vital to prevent a repeat of the kind of accident which took the life of Clinton Westwood, and that additional funds were urgently required to begin upgrading the firefighting fleet through a replacement program. It follows that this Government's undertaking to replace petrol-driven bush fire fighting vehicles will be fulfilled as a consequence of the replacement program. Given that the former Minister had at least signalled to the department that he recognised the importance of these inspections in protecting the lives of thousands of volunteers who fight fires across the State, I was frankly shocked to hear honourable members from his side of politics engaging in a fear campaign, particularly in country areas. On 18 July the honourable member for Murrumbidgee told the West Wyalong Advocate:

. . . farmers with privately owned unroadworthy trucks will be forced to leave them in the shed and watch helplessly while their neighbour's property is destroyed by fire.

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee either was badly informed, or chose to treat the people of his electorate with such contempt that he was willing to engage in cheap political stunts in the vain hope of scoring a few feeble points. He was probably doing both. The facts of the matter are as follows. Councils have always been charged with maintaining bush fire fighting vehicles at a roadworthy standard and with carrying out yearly inspections. The full cost of vehicle inspections is claimable from the New South Wales Bush Fire Fighting Fund. After extensive consultation with the Bush Fire Council Technical Committee, the Bush Fire Council, the Fire Control Officers Association, New South Wales farmers and the Local Government Association it was decided that vehicles less than five tonnes would be inspected by authorised inspection stations, all vehicles over the five-tonne limit would be inspected by the RTA, and all levels of insurance cover for volunteers would remain completely intact. As would be expected, the vast majority of sensible people accepted immediately the need for the safety of our bush fire fighters to be the number one priority.

Groups like the Local Government Association were liaising with me and the department on legitimate concerns about the fate of privately owned and unregistered vehicles which are used occasionally for bush fire fighting. Following those negotiations the RTA has agreed that appropriately qualified council officers will be authorised to carry out such inspections. This approach has been endorsed by the Bush Fire Council. Despite these sensible solutions, certain elements of the Opposition, particularly some members of the National Party, continued to scaremonger. The inspection process is now under
Page 1590
way across the State. Of the 761 vehicles so far inspected, seven have been withdrawn - obviously a far cry from the 90 per cent failure rate predicted by some Opposition members. However, like toadstools after rain, various members of the Opposition, curiously all using the same phrases, began popping up in country areas as part of yet another scare campaign. Obviously satisfied that this Government had addressed the issue of volunteer safety, they then began an attempt to scare the community about a lack of funds. In July the Leader of the National Party and the honourable members for Wakehurst, the Upper Hunter, Coffs Harbour, Monaro, Burrinjuck and Orange, among others, began to warn of impending disaster. The honourable member for Bega went so far as to tell the Milton-Ulladulla Express on 19 July:

We don't need our State funds squandered on crazy election promises like lifting the tolls in Sydney. We need it spent on essential services.

I imagine that the honourable members I have just referred to would have swooned with delight on 2 September when I announced a multimillion dollar support package for the State's volunteer bush fire fighters. The effective 30 per cent funding boost that the Carr Government is giving to our 75,000 volunteer bush fire fighters will be spent improving their safety in a number of ways. I will let those of my colleagues supporting me give more details of these very impressive funding increases indeed. [Time expired.]

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.47]: When the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services moved his motion I thought he said, "This House condemns the Government for introducing the RTA inspection process to improve safety for bushfire volunteer workers." The Government should be condemned for introducing this Roads and Traffic Authority inspection process. No-one on this side of the House would say that there is no need for vehicles to be safe for volunteer bush fire fighters. Members of the coalition are aware that there are 80,000 volunteers in 2,500 brigades. Contrary to what the Minister said, the former coalition Government increased funds during its term of office by 143 per cent - a lot more than this Minister has achieved in his measly budget.

Last year the budget reflected certain needs that were perceived at that time. The coronial inquiry commenced in November 1994. The Minister has had the benefit of some of the work initiated by the former coalition Government. Regrettably, members of the Labor Party fail to understand anything about volunteers. Unfortunately, they have not gone about the process in the correct way. It does not matter what the Minister says today. He knows that he caused a great deal of concern among thousands of volunteers in New South Wales. The Minister has actually admitted that. On 28 July he issued a media release which was headed "Minister Moves to Reassure Communities on Bush Fire Fighting Fleet Inspections".

The Minister said that he was most anxious that everyone involved understood the facts of the matter. Why did he not ensure that the 80,000 volunteers understood the facts of the matter before he issued crazy decrees from Macquarie Street which directed them to fix up the vehicles at great expense? They knew that they would not get the money that they required from this Government. They did not have a hope in Hades of getting a sufficient amount of money. Contrary to the Minister's knowledge, the volunteer firefighters knew that they had been looking after 5,000-odd private vehicles that were not considered by the Labor Government. Once Labor Party members go past the mountains they do not know anything. They only know about the eastern seaboard; in fact, just this small area of Sydney. They had a bit of information about some fire brigades that operate on this side of the great divide.

I implore the Minister to visit the other side of the Great Dividing Range and talk to the volunteers who have written to him and are waiting for replies. They have spoken to Commissioner Koperberg and now ask the Minister to examine the needs of the people west of the dividing range. These people are not volunteers in the true sense; they are workers on farms who fight bushfires, and were doing so long before this Minister or this Government even woke up to the fact that there was a volunteer bush fire service. These people were paying for the repairs to their bush fire vehicles. They housed them in sheds and were called out when needed to extinguish a bushfire on the neighbour's property. These people should receive some care and attention, but they will not get it from the Minister's Government.

This Government came to office and did not understand the first thing about farmers. It issued edicts that basically said, "We will get all of these vehicles up to scratch and it will be done by 31 December!" Volunteer firefighters were scared beyond belief because they thought they would not be able to go on to the next door neighbour's property to put out grass fires. The Minister was forced to back off because he realised that 5,000 vehicles could not be fixed up before 31 December. It has all gone by the board. In fact, the Minister had the commissioner send out letters. Letters were sent flying around willy-nilly to explain what the Minister had done. Poor Commissioner Koperberg must have almost suffered apoplexy issuing them. One letter is dated 28 July 1995. The commissioner had been overseas and did not know what the Minister had done in his absence. The commissioner wrote to the people and said:

Since my return from overseas, I have been made aware of significant levels of concern in respect to the requirements imposed upon operators of firefighting vehicles as detailed in Circulars 30/95 and 35/95.

The Minister was unaware there was so much concern with the vehicle requirements. The commissioner tried to fix it up. What else did he do? He got his departmental people to put out a nice circular under the Minister's name. Of course, that press release went out almost at the same time and said, "Minister
Page 1591
Moves to Reassure Communities on Bush Fire Fighting Fleet Inspections." And so the Minister should have done! He and his Government have let down the people of New South Wales in regard to their volunteer bush fire fighters in a way that has never happened before. In his correspondence the Commissioner went on to say:

I wish to assure your Council -

referring to the Bush Fire Council -

that the Minister and I are doing everything possible to negate the potential adverse impact of those requirements . . .

Minister, the commissioner is talking about your requirements. He had to explain what you and he were doing to negate the adverse impact of those requirements. The motion moved by the Minister should have asked this House to condemn what he has done! He has the temerity and the arrogance to think he should be congratulated! I can only think his colleagues had nothing else to do today so they dragged him out of the cupboard and said, "Take down a motion, Bob, and try to sort it out." The bottom line is that the farmers are concerned and the Minister knows that.

Mr Debus: The only farmers that are concerned are those that you kept writing to and telling lies to.

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister says it is only the people I have written to that cause concern.

Mr Debus: No, you do not write to anyone.

Mr HAZZARD: I have never written to Rod Young from Darouble, via Coonabarabran. He wrote to the Minister on 25 September and was kind enough to send me a copy - many of them do and usually I do not discuss them with the Minister. This man spent some time explaining to the Minister that as a result of certain insurance problems with non-RTA approved vehicles, replacing trailers in the local volunteer bush fire brigade would present much difficulty. That letter was one of probably 50 letters I have received. I had a couple on my desk when I heard the Minister move this urgency motion. One letter was from the Beggan Beggan Bushfire Brigade that was forwarded on 17 July which said:

I write to you in the hope that common sense will prevail re: the introduction of Clause `D' of the Motor Vehicle Inspection Policy, in which the Government -

your Government Minister, a Labor Government -

has hastily decided that all privately owned bushfire vehicles now have to pass a roadworthiness certificate.

The coalition would not have had a problem. It knew after the November inquiry that matters had to be attended to with the bush fire fleet. The coalition was gradually dealing with the matter. It is a bit like this Government's budget: it does not have to be done before you have sorted it out and consulted and discussed.

Mr Debus: You would let a few more volunteers die?

Mr HAZZARD: That is a very emotive argument. For the Minister to reduce himself to that level really begs the question as to whether he should hold this portfolio. The reality is that the people in the volunteer bush fire service, almost to a man west of the dividing range, are furious with this Government, and so they should be. Certainly they want safe vehicles. They want responsibility afforded to them by the Government, but not without consultation. They want to address the issues. They have been fighting fires long before the Minister held this portfolio and they know what is necessary. If the Minister had done what he was later forced to do after discussions with the commissioner, this problem would have been resolved and the big issue would never have been raised. The Minister says, "We have done a wonderful job because we have increased the budget", but I remind him that there are approximately 5,000 privately owned vehicles used for volunteer firefighting that he has not done anything about!

All that has happened is that somewhere along the line the Minister has realised the vehicles exist, but nothing has been offered to the farmers. The Minister talks as if he has offered those farmers the world. If he were to visit any country property west of the range, he would hear the concern about this Government. The volunteer firefighters will tell the Minister that they have been given insufficient funds to address the needs of the Government radio network. They are all waiting for a coalition government to be returned to office to do something decent for bush fire services.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [3.57]: I support the Minister and this Government's action regarding bush fire services in New South Wales. I give that support as the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, as a member and former deputy captain of a bush fire brigade for more than 20 years, and as a member of the Select Committee on Bushfires, which this Opposition refused time and again to establish after the 1994 bushfires. The effective 30 per cent funding boost the Carr Government is giving to our 75,000 volunteer bush fire fighters will improve safety in several ways: $14 million will be spent on equipment such as protective clothing; $2.1 million will be spent on dedicated fixed wing and rotary aircraft, and I will come back to that because the Opposition spokesman on emergency services must be corrected on some aspects of that issue; $11 million will go to local councils for bush fire brigade operating expenses; and a further $7,000 will be spent upgrading the radio network.

Most importantly, $21 million will be spent during 1995-96 on bush fire fighting vehicles. The Minister is to be congratulated. This represents a 50 per cent increase on the previous Government's expenditure on new vehicles. The previous Government could only find $14 million for a vital purpose, despite the devastating January 1994 bushfires. On 13 November 1994 the honourable member for Orange boasted in the Sun Herald that the coalition Government had provided 300 additional
Page 1592
tankers in the previous six years. The huge boost to funds announced in this Government's budget will give volunteers access to nearly 300 replacement vehicles this year. That allows complete replacement of all vehicles classified as beyond economic repair or identified as poor in the February audit.

The former Government knew that the bush fire fighting fleet was inadequate, but the Carr Labor Government has done something about it. It has instigated an independent safety check on all vehicles used by volunteers. It has put its money where the coalition's mouth was, and provided effectively a 30 per cent increase in funds. On 5 July the honourable member for Wakehurst issued a press release that stated that no aircraft would be provided for the bushfire season. The coalition has been putting out that sort of scurrilous nonsense over the past few months, that there have been no funds or any increase in funds available for fixed wing support.

The Minister has outlined the time, money and effort that the Government is prepared to expend to ensure that our 75 volunteer brigades have the correct equipment. When the bushfires were ravaging the national park area in the Bulli electorate, all the previous Government could do was to form itself into a Cabinet committee, hide behind closed doors, and give no information. The honourable member for Wakehurst has the audacity to say that the Minister should consult. The previous coalition Government would not consult with the people of New South Wales. It chose to hide behind closed doors and had to be dragged out, screaming - even the honourable member for Monaro supported the select committee - that it did not want to form a committee because it might cause political damage. Political damage it did. The committee brought to attention that the previous Government was hiding behind cloak and dagger clandestine Cabinet meetings, trying to hide the facts about the bushfires from the people of New South Wales. The coalition is an absolute disgrace. Congratulations to the Minister on his action.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [4.02]: I question the motive for the motion. Why would the Minister need to raise such a motion, having just backtracked on the decision he made which caused such concern in the rural communities of the State? I can only deduce that this is a tail-covering exercise to explain to the community, and to encourage support in the Parliament for, a decision designed to overcome what was so wrong in the first place. In 1983, when George Paciullo was Minister for Police, a full-time fire control officer was appointed in the Cooma-Monaro shire to upgrade equipment. At the time George Paciullo was the responsible Minister, equipment in the Cooma-Monaro Shire included a 1942 Willys Jeep, a 1962 dual-cab Dodge with a pump that did not work, several trailers upturned in backyards without any equipment on them and with their axles pulled off them, and a 1942 Blitz parked in a shed with chooks nesting in the cabin. Yet the Minister has the hide to commend the Labor Government for what it is doing. The work of upgrading equipment was done by the Greiner-Murray Government and by the Fahey-Armstrong Government. The Minister has misled the House. I know only too well when the upgrading was done - when the coalition came to Government, when the Minister was wandering around the Blue Mountains without a job.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Monaro will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr COCHRAN: The equipment upgrading took place during the term of the coalition Government. The Minister is seeking to mislead the House by insinuating that in the past six months he has been responsible in any way for having introduced a system that will make bush fire services better than they are. The Minister, as he well knows, effectively put 5,000 vehicles for bush fire fighters off the road in New South Wales. He put off the road all private bush fire fighting vehicles and all the vehicles purchased by the Bush Fire Council, which also could not meet Roads and Traffic Authority criteria. The greatest act of hypocrisy of all time has been perpetrated by this failed Minister, who rightly lost his job in 1988 because he was not capable of earning a portfolio. Labor rehashed him and brought him back into this House. But he has made a misleading statement and seeks to deceive the people and persuade the Parliament that the Government has done something in the past six months. Honourable members know that the Government has done nothing. Under the former Labor Government volunteers were using Ferguson tractors and tandem wheel trailers, with 100-gallon corrugated iron tanks and water pumps. The Minister, who was a member of that Government at that time, should not make claims about what he has done in the past six months. He has failed the bush fire fighters of New South Wales. We know exactly where he is coming from. The Minister made a statement that exposed his ignorance of bush fire services in this State. He said that the Bush Fire Council was responsible for maintaining bush fire vehicles. Here is news for the Minister, and it will be in Hansard tomorrow morning so that he can read it.

Mr Debus: I did not say that.

MR COCHRAN: The Minister said that, and that will be in Hansard tomorrow morning. He should learn now that the majority of bush fire brigade vehicles are private vehicles that are maintained privately. Quite often they are a farm utility with a five-horsepower Honda engine and a kerosene can stuck on the back of it - which would have been provided when George Paciullo was the Minister. The Minister should not dare to come into this House to berate the coalition about what it did and did not do. The previous Government did it; the Labor Government is now the beneficiary of what it did. It is about time the Minister paid credit to the Government that took the Bush Fire Council in hand and provided this State with some of the best equipment used by any bush fire fighting service in the world. I pay credit to the volunteer bush fire brigade organisations for having put up with 12 years of Australian Labor Party government. [Time expired.]

Page 1593

Mr NEILLY (Cessnock) [4.07]: I support the motion. Members have strayed somewhat from the point of the motion, which seeks to commend the Government for introducing a process of inspection of fire fighting vehicles for use by volunteers. The motion essentially is about occupational health and safety. I do not intend to decry anything done by the previous Government. But the inspection process was bloody well needed. That has been followed up by the Labor Government in the current budget, which provides for the allocation of an additional 50 per cent funding for bush fire vehicles. Back as early as the 1960s, in the days before fire control officers were appointed, I had the role of facilitator of the organisation of bush fire brigades. I well recall that many of the vehicles provided were ex-World War II surplus vehicles, Blitzes and the like. Trying to organise bush fire brigades - which were looked upon with some contempt - was a scratchy old affair. During the past 35 years volunteers have been elevated in status and have been given the respect to which they are entitled.

I turn to occupational health and safety. I envisage that under the process being introduced by the Government many councils with facilities, which in essence are authorised inspection stations, will inspect and pass vehicles weighing five tonnes or more as conforming with RTA requirements. The same process will take place with privately owned vehicles, but they will not be repaired by local councils with assistance from Bush Fire Council funding arrangements. I presume that those vehicles would be repaired only when damage had been sustained in consequence of being used to fight a bushfire. The Government cannot be totally responsible for vehicles in such a situation. Nothing prohibits owners of private vehicles passing them over for bush fire fighting purposes, if they want to do that. Those vehicles will be used in such circumstances, but equity and ownership will be in the hands of the bush fire brigades, and local councils will be fully obliged to ensure road worthiness and carry out full maintenance. A press release issued on 15 August 1995 by the Fire Control Officers Association endorses the concept of bush fire vehicles undergoing the scrutiny of a Roads and Traffic Authority inspection or at least undergoing an appropriate roadworthiness inspection. Part of that press release stated:

At the Bush Fire Management Conference last week, the State's Fire Control Officers gave the strongest support to the Government and the Department of Bush Fire Services initiatives to provide the safest possible workplace environment for the State's volunteer bush fire personnel.

Volunteer bush fire personnel are entitled to work in a safe environment. No-one expects them to stick out their necks for nothing. In the last 15 years recognition has been given to volunteers with the introduction of insurance arrangements. A document entitled "NSW Farmers - News Release", dated 4 October 1995, also recognised the process implemented by the Government and stated, in part:

The Association is pleased to see common sense prevailing with regard to the inspection of bushfire vehicles. These are the sensible minimum safety standards which we have been asking for from the outset.

Mr Hazzard: It took six months, though, to get commonsense.

Mr NEILLY: There is a lot of carping from the Opposition. The Opposition did not tell the public the truth. It was asking for more money even before the State budget was brought down. Why did the Opposition not put the money in the budget when it was in government?

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services) [4.12], in reply: I have an article from the Sun Herald of 13 November 1994 in which a certain angry National Party member, the honourable member for Monaro, complained that the New South Wales Government was dragging its feet in suppling desperately needed equipment to fire fighters as the State faced another summer bush fire disaster. This is the fellow who cannot even stay in the House, having made a perfectly ridiculous speech in which he did not appear to understand the motion. In that same article there is an indication by the then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the honourable member for Orange, stating, in defence of his Government's record, that an additional 300 new tankers had been allocated across the State in the past six years. He said that the Government had come a long way from the years of neglect up until 1988.

The current budget - which members opposite do not appear to have read - allocates 300 additional tankers in one year, not in six years. It is as well that I and the department can keep a certain objectivity about the idiocy of some members opposite notwithstanding the kind of misleading nonsense with which they have been spreading such anxiety in the countryside in the last six months. Allocations from the New South Wales Bush Fire Fighting Fund will represent the largest increase in one year in tankers provided to councils west of the Great Dividing Range. There is a more profound allocation of resources to those councils that are least well off in terms of bush fire equipment than there has ever been before, and it will be a Labor Government that delivers it.

Mr Hazzard: Because we raised the issue.

Mr DEBUS: You raised the issue time and again without appearing to understand that until yesterday the Government was working on the former Government's budget. The Opposition told me a few months ago that I had not allocated money for aircraft. I have now.

Mr Hazzard: You have now?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will listen in silence to the Minister.

Mr DEBUS: There is something that the honourable member for Wakehurst may not have noticed yesterday - it is called a budget. The only reason there has been such anxiety in the country in
Page 1594
the last six months is that a number of members opposite have behaved with such extraordinary irresponsibility. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee told the West Wyalong Advocate that farmers with privately owned unroadworthy trucks will be forced to leave them in the shed and watch helplessly. Others told local people that 90 per cent of the trucks, private or public, will be removed from service by this process.

The process has so far involved an inspection of about 760 trucks, and seven have been removed from service, suggesting that it was entirely appropriate and necessary to conduct this series of inspections. They have had the effect of improving the safety of the great majority of vehicles in the bush fire fighting fleet and have led to the withdrawal of a small number of dangerous vehicles. It is important to say in closing that I have been in consultation, from the beginning and permanently, with not only the Bush Fire Council and the Fire Control Officers Association but with the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Local Government Association. There was never a time when the Government was unwilling to continue to negotiate flexible arrangements for the inspection of private vehicles. The problem is that members opposite engage in such extraordinary misleading and scurrilous propaganda to suggest the contrary. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [4.17]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the need to encourage greater participation by women in sport in New South Wales. This issue has been dear to my heart for some time. The desire to improve the profile of women in sport and increase the access for women to sports and recreational activities is a goal that many young women have throughout their lives. It is nice to be able to do something about it. I am very sad that in the 1990s the achievements of sportswomen do not receive an appropriate level of recognition in the media and that young women are still dropping out of sport and recreational pursuits because of economic and social barriers, and also because of the lack of media coverage. The media has played an enormous role in developing male sports stars as role models for generations of young Australians. I firmly believe that a number of the problems we experience in encouraging young women to stick with sport are caused by the scarcity of role models.

This Government is committed to helping women overcome these barriers. A number of initiatives to help women excel in sport and to participate in sport were announced in yesterday's budget. The Government puts its money where its mouth is. It is not paying lip-service to the idea of helping women achieve their goals in sport, whether to win an Olympic Gold medal or to participate in their local netball teams. I know how difficult it is to participate; I know how tempting it is to chuck it in. Women must get over enormous hurdles to be able to enjoy sport and recreational activities. They have commitments such as holding down a job, being there for family and friends, and housework. Too many women do not have any time for themselves and I am continually amazed that they manage at all and have the energy to get out and do something healthy.

We must do something to assist women participate in sports. We owe it to the community and to those women to help them lead healthier, happier lives. The benefits of exercise are well documented. The benefits to New South Wales of better, healthier women will be found not only in their improved quality of life but later in life in reduced strain on our health services. We will seek the advice of women on issues affecting their participation in sport.

The barriers that prevent many young women continuing sporting activities are principally related to the traditional roles of women, especially their responsibilities with child care. To this end the Government's decision to create another 13,000 child-care places in New South Wales will assist many women wishing to participate in sport. In addition, the State Sports Centre has recently sought funding to establish a child-care centre. The Government is currently examining that submission. The Department of Sport and Recreation will shortly set up a key initiative that was announced in the budget. The women in sport unit will be set up to ensure that this Government's priorities are pursued.

The women in sport unit, with funding of $250,000 a year, will consist of a staff of four, reporting to the director of sports within my department. There will be a unit head, supported by project officers, and the unit will provide administrative support to another key Government initiative, the women's sports task force. I will mention the task force shortly, but I shall expand on the other roles of the women in sport unit. The unit will administer 50 special scholarships each year within the Department of Sport and Recreation to allow women to gain accreditation in sports administration. It will also administer the provision of two travel scholarships of $25,000 a year each, on a competitive basis, to allow women with the potential to become senior sports administrators to travel and study sports management issues. These two initiatives alone have been allotted extra funding of $100,000 a year in the budget.

The Department of Sport and Recreation is committed to providing opportunities for senior sports administrators with the recent appointment of Leanne Evans as deputy director-general. Leanne is a Commonwealth Games silver medallist and we are delighted to have someone of her calibre within the department. The department will continue the gender equity program commenced by the Australian Sports Commission in conjunction with the New South Wales
Page 1595
Department of Sport and Recreation. It will offer the means to encourage women to obtain higher coaching accreditation. It will look at how to provide more creche facilities to allow women to attend sports events and facilities. A pilot program will be undertaken with funding to be introduced in the 1996-97 financial year.

It will use the AussieSports program conducted by the Department of Sport and Recreation to develop skills and approaches of teachers who supervise school sports for girls. It will use the AussieSports program youth leadership component specifically to target the establishment of girls as leaders. It will promote New South Wales women in the Australian Olympic team for the Atlanta games as role models, targeted at high school aged girls and their parents. It will work with the Federal Government to encourage a voluntary code of coverage to guide the electronic and print media in the reporting of women's sporting events. State sporting associations, funded by the department, will be encouraged and supported to develop strategies in their sports development plans to address the issue of fair access for women to sporting opportunities. This includes both the elite level and general participation.

State sporting associations will also be encouraged to provide increased opportunities for women to achieve excellence through the development of coaching, competition and training strategies, ensuring that these adequately address the needs of women. To reinforce this program, the achievements of individual sports will be a factor in determining the levels of government assistance to each sport. Media coverage of women's participation and achievements in sport has been inadequate and selective. It leaves relatively few role models for women. The sports media seem to focus on what sportswomen look like or what they wear. How many times have we heard a football player described as the "darling of rugby league" or a gratuitous comment about the skimpiness of his shorts? But these stereotypes of women continue to be perpetuated by the sports media.

Female ice-skaters, for example, are not gold medallists; they are the darlings of the icerink. Female basketballers seem to get more coverage for their body suits than for their three-point shooting. The sports media continue to tell us that we need to see 16 pages of rugby league with other sports, if they are lucky, getting a mention just before the classified advertisements and shipping news. Some say that people do not want to know about women's sports achievements. Tell that to Kathy Watt, Melinda Gainsford and our world champion netball team. Tell it to the thousands of people who turn up to watch women's basketball - they are not all female. I have no objection to the coverage of rugby league - I am a great fan, although I wish that the Eels were doing better - but we need a greater balance.

There have already been some important improvements. For instance, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation regularly covers netball and women's basketball. It has televised netball tests in prime viewing hours. There are many more women sports reporters on television and radio and working for newspapers. The advent of pay television is an important adjunct to women's media coverage with a number of female sports already signed to both cable providers. Optus Vision announced recently that it has signed netball to a major deal comprising State level competition, league and international games. In addition, increased coverage of athletics and swimming - two sports in which Australian women have excelled - will provide more coverage of our elite women athletes and create the sorts of role models that our children need.

Increased coverage of these sports means that they can and should be highlighted throughout the year, rather than the present situation in which excitement is limited only to the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games and the world championships. This Government has shown its commitment to women's sport through the recent ticker tape parade for our world champion netballers. The players were hailed as heroes - and not only by young girls. Role models of both sexes are needed to give our children a boost. I can remember what it was like when I was running. Male athletes had so many advantages: they received greater prize money, larger appearance fees and a greater choice in the type of events in which they could participate. The accolades always seemed to be just for them. That attitude was so endemic that everyone seemed to accept it as the way things had to be. But it should not be. Women have won more than their fair share of accolades in the international arena. The book Half the Race: A History of Australian Women in Sport by Marion Stell states:

In national terms, women's medal tallies have almost been an embarrassment considering the encouragement and resources directed elsewhere.

Women just kept winning, despite the barriers placed in their way. It was so endemic, it was just something that everyone seemed to accept. We should not accept that. We also should not accept that women who do not achieve a level of celebrity through their sporting achievements earn less in endorsements than their male counterparts. Next month I will set up a task force for women in sport to report on the key issues affecting the participation of women. This will follow on from the efforts of the women in sport ministerial advisory council. The term of this body expires in November. [Time expired.]

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [4.27]: It gives me great pleasure to speak on this issue. Honourable members will agree that there is bipartisan support for women in sport, measures to improve recognition of women in sport and, indeed, financial assistance for women in sport. The Minister for Sport and Recreation, in her closing remarks, mentioned the ministerial advisory council I set up in October 1993. At that time it was necessary from a government point of view to do much more for women in sport and to recognise women in sport. The advisory council fulfilled a valuable role. I am pleased that the Minister indicated today - I think that I understood her correctly - that the task force will succeed the
Page 1596
ministerial advisory council.

One of the roles fulfilled by the council was the establishment of a series of valuable seminars. I remember attending the first seminar at the University of New South Wales Oatley campus. The two topics of discussion at the seminar were, first, the media and women in sport and, secondly, health issues and women in sport. The lecture theatre was packed with women of various ages from various sports and various backgrounds. The feedback I received was very positive. Either early this year or late last year another series of marketing seminars was conducted. I recall a lady from my electorate who is connected with a callisthenics club in the Sutherland shire approaching me in the Sutherland shopping centre and telling me how valuable those seminars were. If the community continues to support those sorts of activities, particularly at the local level, that will fulfil an important role.

There was a kerfuffle regarding the ticker tape parade for the world champion netball team. The Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that the ticker tape parade should be held. Ticker tape parades have never been a problem for the Australian cricket team or for any other male sporting team. I am not too sure the Australian Rugby League World Cup side will get a ticker tape parade, having regard to the way they are playing at the present time. However, the Government did not immediately accept the need for a ticker tape parade for the netball team. I am not saying, of course, that the Minister had anything to do with that. I am sure she fully supported a ticker tape parade, but the Government's reluctance highlights the different attitudes to male and female sporting teams. However, the ticker tape parade was held and it was a resounding success.

I would like to place on the public record my commiserations to Margaret Corbett and the New South Wales side on not winning their ninth consecutive Australian championship. It is a real shame because it is a great side. Margaret is a friend of mine, and she is one of the best coaches in this country. However, I am sure the team will win next year. If we want to confront the issues involved in women in sport, child care is one obstacle to women participating in sport. During the term of office of the previous Government, the honourable member for Pittwater, who was Minister for Community Services at the time, and I launched a program to encourage, through the Department of Community Services and the Department of Sport and Recreation, sporting groups and sporting clubs at all levels to examine the provision of child care facilities at their various venues, be it at a local women's soccer game or at an elite level. A booklet and documents were produced which received a positive response. I understand that material was successful in conveying the idea that large buildings are not necessary for child care.

Child care could be provided in a tent on the side of the oval with the local club would provide a carer for the children while the mothers played their sport. That is the sort of thing suggested in the material. I am pleased that the State Sports Centre is considering building a child-care facility at Homebush. In relation to the provision of opportunities for women to participate in sport and physical activity, regardless of who has been in power, it has generally been believed that there are two groups: women with preschool children and elite sportswomen. Those playing netball are good examples. It is the largest participant sport in Australia. Young girls need role models. Netball, basketball, athletics, swimming, and a wide variety of other sports provide perfect role models for young women. The previous Government set up a register of New South Wales sportswomen which was updated and upgraded to a computer database. I hope that register is being continued.

The register listed more than 180 of the State's leading women athletes and that information was made available to media contacts, schools and community groups. Media coverage of women's sports has improved in the last five years or so. Politicians tend to claim that the media is not doing its job. Compared to six or seven years ago, the amount of space given - the Minister might be right in saying it is selective - to women's sport in recent years has improved. I am not saying that the present coverage is good enough but it has improved. Possibly because of sponsorship there is a growing recognition from the private sector of the need to promote women's sport, for example the Sydney Flames, and the sponsorship of netball in this State by Dairy Farmers. Across a wide variety of sports, the private sector is realising the value of sponsoring women's sport. If women's sport is to be promoted and its profile raised, it must be able to compete for sponsorship at the same level as male-dominated sports, because sponsorship is what makes the world go around in professional sport. To raise its profile women's sport must get the dollars in.

I believe there is a growing recognition by Optus Vision and other major companies that there is a product - if that is the appropriate word - as far as women's sport is concerned. Companies are seeking to provide sponsorship for various forms of women's sport. The establishment of the women's sport unit is a step forward. At the moment I cannot seem to find in the budget papers where the money for that unit is coming from, but I will have another look. There was formerly, of course, a policy unit in the Department of Sport and Recreation. That unit not only dealt with women but also with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, people with disabilities and senior citizens. The workload of that unit was quite heavy. At one stage the unit was headed by Ms Sue Duckworth. I understand she has left the Department, but the officers of the unit did a magnificent job and should be congratulated on the work they did in the early days. [Time expired.]

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [4.37]: A report from the New South Wales Ministerial Women in Sport Advisory Council indicates that more than one-third of all participants between the ages of 10 and 17
Page 1597
withdraw from sport every year and that more girls than boys drop out. The report states:

It would appear that there is an increase in the participation rates up to the age of 12 years, followed by a decline during adolescence and early adulthood. Estimations of the drop-out rate from childhood to adolescence vary from as high as 60 per cent to as low as 22 per cent.

The worrying figure is that more than two-thirds of Australians over the age of 15 years do not take part in any form of sport. Of young people born in Australia, 38 per cent are involved in sport, compared with only 21 per cent of young people born overseas. Males have a significantly higher rate of involvement in sport than females across all age groups, with 39 per cent of men participating in sport compared with only 27 per cent of women. The council's report stated that some of the perceived reasons for young girls discontinuing their participation include: they do not enjoy their sport; sport interferes with their school work; they lack success; they are under too much pressure; they need to spend more time on their careers; they are tired of training; they are subject to time constraints; they want to spend more time with their friends; they lack self-esteem; and they lack access to training facilities. Other reasons included a lack of positive role models, social support, and media coverage.

Perceived ability was among a number of reasons stated for the drop-out rate of young women. As young people link their experiences to their own ability, athletes begin to question their perceived competence. Any failings, perceived or actual, only serve to confirm their apprehensions about continuing in their chosen sport. Too much emphasis is placed on competitive outcomes, and some children may be intimidated by the seriousness of sport before they have had a chance to develop an awareness of the good things it can offer. We need to reinforce to all young women that it is the benefits that come from participating in sport, not only winning, that are important for their health and wellbeing. Not all women who participate in sport will become a Melinda Gainsford or a Michelle Fielke. Successful women athletes provide the sorts of role models that are so important for our young female sportswomen. Unfortunately, in Australia athletes do not have a large number of female sporting heroes to choose from. Activities such as cricket and football traditionally attract the most media and popular attention. That means that young girls are not exposed to the successes of a great number of first-rate individual and team pursuits of women.

Australian sportswomen have excelled in international competition. They have won many of the world's great sporting events: Wimbledon, the British Squash Championship and the US Open Golfing Championship. At Olympic and Commonwealth Games, Australian sportswomen have won 425 medals, including 163 gold. So Australia has no shortage of excellence. To a certain extent we have lacked the recognition of the need to encourage young women to continue to participate in sport. As Marion Stell noted in her book Half the Race: A History of Australian Women in Sport, having the time to participate in sport involves a certain degree of selfishness and choice. Stell says that a very deliberate decision has to be made to put aside time for sport. For many women, their roles as carers and nurturers of others mean that very difficult decisions have to be made. That is why the Government's decision to increase by 13,000 the number of child-care places will provide some women with better opportunities to participate in sport.

As well as the initiatives outlined by the Minister, including a pilot child-care program for sportswomen, the establishment of a women and sport unit within the Department of Sport and Recreation, and the establishment of the Institute of Sport at Homebush Bay will help lift the rate of participating women. In addition, the establishment of new regional academies of sport at Penrith and Campbelltown will help to provide young women athletes with high-class training facilities close to home. Honourable members will be aware of a number of concerns that have been raised by young female gymnasts at the Institute of Sport in Canberra. While this matter is still being investigated, there is little doubt that young athletes are better off living with their families rather than being located in a faraway city, removed from day-to-day parental guidance and support. The publicity surrounding the institute and the Canberra program will make many talented athletes think twice about careers in sport. [Time expired.]

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [4.42], in reply: The honourable member for Cabramatta has ably demonstrated how far we need to go to ensure more opportunities for women in sport. I should like to make a few brief comments on the statements made by the honourable member for Sutherland. I congratulate him on his bipartisan support for women in sport. However, with regard to the ticker tape parade held recently for our world champion netballers, he was mischievous in the extreme in suggesting that the Government was dragged kicking and screaming to put on the ticker tape parade. The Government was very proud to be able to do it. This was not the first time that our netballers have been world champions, yet it is the first time that any New South Wales government has honoured them in such a way. In fact, it was the highest accolade our netballers had ever received. I was very proud to do that, and I must ensure that no urban myths develop from the comments made by the honourable member for Sutherland.

The honourable member for Sutherland also said that there has been change over the last five years, and that is to be noted and commended. There have been changes, and they have been changes in the right direction. But there comes a time when we have to bite the bullet and push those changes, because if we wait for them we will all be fossils. Yesterday's budget for the Department of Sport and Recreation increased funding for sport in New South Wales to record levels. That increase in funding will help to encourage more women to participate in sport at all
Page 1598
levels. Recurrent funding has been increased by 9.6 per cent to $50 million and capital funding has been increased by a massive 30.8 per cent. The participation of women, particularly young women, in sport is dire. We owe it to the community to ensure that women have equal access to sport and recreation activities. We owe it to women to ensure that they gain the physical and emotional benefits associated with fitness and exercise.

The more young women we can encourage to participate in sport, and to aspire towards elite competition, the more opportunities we have as a nation to bask in Olympic glory. Few people would fail to be inspired by the efforts of our Olympic champions, a myriad of world champions and Wimbledon champions. The history of women's success in Australian sport has been rich. Dawn Fraser, Lorraine Crapp, Betty Cuthbert, Marjorie Jackson, Evonne Goolagong, Jan Stephenson, Margaret Court, Heather McKay, Debbie Flintoff-King, Hayley Lewis, Tracey Wickham, Shane Gould, and Pam Burridge are but some of the flag bearers of this great tradition. The list is endless. The first Australian women did not compete at the Olympic Games until 1912 in Stockholm. Since then more than 500 women have represented Australia in Olympic competition, winning more than 120 medals.

I particularly like repeating the following statistics: at the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul women made up 25 per cent of the Australian team and won 36 per cent of the medals; in 1992 in Barcelona women made up 33 per cent of the team and won 37 per cent of the medals. The sight of those women on the victory dais will be remembered by generations to come. Our task is to ensure that we harness that success and use it to encourage more women to participate in sport in New South Wales. There is no doubt that Olympic fever is infecting the whole community. With less than a year to go to the Atlanta Olympic Games, and with less than five years to go before New South Wales has the honour of hosting the year 2000 Games, we must take full advantage of the inspiration such events can provide. The Government is committed to highlighting the achievements of women in sport. The ticker tape parade for our champion netballers was merely a taste of the events the Government will support to give appropriate recognition to our women athletes in the coming years. I intend to ask my department to develop a proposal to provide regular awards to young women athletes, coaches and administrators.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order: the Minister should be addressing what has been said in the debate and winding up the debate; she should not be giving an additional speech. I am only trying to assist the Minister. She should be replying to the points raised in the debate.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! I am at somewhat of a disadvantage, not having been in the chair to hear the early part of the debate. If the Minister can assure me that what she is referring to is in response to matters raised in earlier debate, she may proceed.

Ms HARRISON: I can certainly give you that assurance, Mr Acting-Speaker. The honourable member for Sutherland referred in his comments to the new task force for women in sport. I am happy to inform the honourable member for Sutherland that the task force for women in sport will follow on from the Women in Sport Advisory Council. The term of that body will expire in November. [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [4.47]: I speak on behalf of my constituents, particularly those in the legal profession. I oppose the legislation because the proposals contained in it will not provide proper protection to the community. I was formerly a lawyer. I no longer practice and I no longer hold a certificate, but I spent long years learning all aspects of the law so that I could be competent to act on behalf of my clients at that time. With all due respect to the conveyancers who will participate in the course provided for in the bill, they will not be qualified; they will not have the knowledge to equip them to look at all facets of the law when they are advising people about buying businesses or taking out mortgages.

Some of the larger conveyancing businesses might have to advise on State planning, tax laws, mortgage laws and security and industry laws - a whole plethora of laws. Lawyers undertake extensive studies before they can give such advice. I am not satisfied from what I have seen in the bill that that knowledge will be available to conveyancers. I understand that conveyancers approached the Government and asked for help because lawyers were undercutting them. The intention of this legislation seems to be to make conveyancing more consumer-oriented. Bearing in mind that there are 42 conveyancers and not a great deal of demand for their services, those conveyancers should be competing in the marketplace. They should not come running to the Government asking it to introduce yet another bill to supplement their incomes when lawyers in the community are hurting.

People might say that it does not matter that lawyers are hurting, but once lawyers start hurting they reduce staff numbers, and those staff will then go on to the unemployment list. In country towns it is not worth being a lawyer because a sufficient income is not available. I am concerned about the fact that this Government has not consulted with the people that this legislation will affect: the general public and, more particularly, lawyers. I have been informed by certain sources that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who is at the table, and the Premier promised that they would consult with the Law Society before
Page 1599
any decision was taken. I understand that letters show that the decision was taken three weeks before the Government's proposals were first revealed to the Law Society. It was a nonsense for the Government to claim that it would consult with the Law Society.

I also take issue with the premise on which the Premier proposed this legislation. The Premier, who was grandstanding at a shopping centre, said that a small suburban shopkeeper had paid $3,000 to lawyers for the sale of his business. The Premier said he would introduce legislation which would make it fair and equitable for everyone. The Premier has a great reputation for telling lies. We know that from the election campaign and from his tollway promises. It was opportune that he was in the western suburbs when he made the announcement about this bill. The Law Society now has the bill from the lawyer who acted on behalf of the shopkeeper. The bill was for $1,400. The Premier, who really does not care what he says, embellished his story and said that the shopkeeper paid $3,000. I do not know what disbursements were involved, but the legal fees amounted to $1,400. It was wrong and misleading for the Premier to say that that figure was $3,000. That has been the trademark of this Government since it has been in office.

What is the nucleus of this legislation? Why has it been introduced with undue haste? I cannot answer that question. The Minister might be able to answer that in reply. Why was this legislation introduced without consultation? Why will New South Wales consumers, who will use these conveyancers, not be adequately protected by indemnity? All that has been set aside is $1 million. Under this legislation a conveyancer might do some work that involves a property worth $5 million or $10 million. If something goes wrong, the level of indemnity as I understand it will be $1 million. That level of indemnity is hardly consumer protection. I understand that this indemnity will be available through the Real Estate Institute rather than the Law Society.

Lawyers will tell you at great length that their indemnity will cover any shortfalls. It is quite wrong for the Minister for Consumer Affairs to openly advocate a scheme where consumers will not be adequately covered should there be defalcation by the conveyancer. This legislation should be reconsidered to establish what ramifications it will have. I believe it will come back and haunt this Government. A small number of conveyancers seem to be exerting enormous pressure on the Government to introduce this bill with indecent haste. It could be because conveyancers are being undercut by lawyers. The House should reject this legislation as it is not consumer orientated. It is designed to place many people in jeopardy as they go through their legal processes. I oppose the bill.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party [4.55]: I have no doubt that the intent of the Government's legislation is to pass on benefits to consumers of conveyancing, that is, people who are buying or selling property. I have no doubt that the Government's motivations were well intended, but the Government has been somewhat naive in relation to the ramifications of the legislation on rural properties and small business. There is a vast difference in the tenure, the complexities and requirements in the exchange of farm property or business compared to a residence. In simple terms, a residence has a single title. Normally, there is a single owner or partners such as a husband and wife. Sometimes it involves three or four people, a single company or a single trust. There is seldom anything other than a single stream of mortgages, for example, a mortgage to one or two banks, a mortgage to a previous vendor, or a mortgage to a private financier.

Essentially, a residence is simple. There is no stock on the shelves as there is in a business concern. There is no debt mechanism and no employees involved in company ownership, with superannuation, long-service leave, accumulated benefits or other interests within the business. There are no such things as depreciation schedules, as there are with stock-in-trade in a business. As I have already said, there is usually a single land title. In the case of agricultural land, which this legislation will encompass, it is normal to have a multiplicity of titles. In this day and age an average rural property of a viable size that is capable of running about 5,000 dry sheep equivalents can hold anything up to four or five different titles: closer settlement leaseholds, freehold, Torrens title or old system title. There might be a multiplicity of Crown leases. Many farms that have been in the same family for three or four generations have previous estates. Dormant or semi-dormant family members might have been purchased out by the current owner who has mortgageable rights over that land or portions of it. Such holdings are often complex.

If a transaction is based on the sale of the shares of a family company - and there are thousands of family companies across this State - once the shares are transferred the company has an obligation to existing or former employees and directors by way of superannuation, long-service leave, severance pay or other benefits that pertained to their employment whilst they had a tenure of office or a responsibility in the administration of Government. It has been reported in the Land over the last two weeks that a number of large and well-known properties were being sold on what is called a walk in, walk out basis. That simply means that livestock, working plant and, in some cases, even the sheets on the beds are given in with the property. It is literally walk in, walk out. There has to be a detailed account of what is given in and what is not. Detailed processing is required for the varying degrees of depreciation rates on assets that may be given in. Obviously, it is in the interests of the vendor to use the lowest possible figures in depreciation lists, but it is in the interests of the purchaser to have the highest possible figures in those lists. There are variations in the multiplicity of rates.

Quite clearly in the majority of cases it is not a simple transaction when a family property is being
Page 1600
sold, particularly one that has not been sold for a few generations. This legislation captures small business. Whether the local service station, carpentry and joinery shop, dry cleaner or cafe is involved, complex issues are involved. The first relates, obviously, to the title of the land on which the building sits. The complexities of zoning regulations and so forth must also be considered. I have no doubt that many conveyancers are quite competent, but when business arrangements involving goodwill, plant, stock, perishables and customer relationships are entered into, the process becomes more complex. Indeed, I suspect that much litigation is the result of a breakdown in contractual obligations between vendors and purchasers because matters were not adequately covered to the satisfaction of both parties or because property searches were inadequate.

On the average one would be involved in the sale of one's family farm or small business on no more than two or three occasions in one's lifetime. Probably in regard to one's family farm it would be only once. Why would anyone take the risk? I am not seeking to slight conveyancers, but surely of paramount importance in such transactions would be the protection of the cash asset being invested and the assets being disposed of by the vendor. At the end of the process there must be personal satisfaction. The mortgagor, the family and the dependents must be satisfied and comfortable in the knowledge that the assets are secure and that the process has been correctly carried out so that the expense and personal suffering of litigation is avoided. The Government has misread this process entirely. It is not a process of simple conveyancing; it is about something that is usually quite complex. I seriously urge the Minister for Consumer Affairs to advise people to seek the very best at all times from any conveyancing procedure. I am not seeking to belittle conveyancers in any way, but as with any profession certain levels of excellence are required and this profession is no different. It requires a top level of excellence.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [5.03]: I oppose the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. The proposed legislation appears to have resulted from discussions with conveyancing companies and conveyancers with a vested interest. Of course, I realise the same could be said of lawyers. However, we should consider what lawyers have done in conveyancing over the years. Price pressures were introduced as a result of the introduction of advertising. This proved to be a benefit to consumers. But that is where it should stop. Lawyers and solicitors are still the best people to undertake conveyancing, in the country or the city. As the Leader of the National Party said, it is perhaps far more so in country areas where transactions involving land-holdings are often extremely complex.

It seems that the proposal might have originated with the Premier during one of his doorknocking campaigns - the times when he likes to create policy. No doubt he promised he would do something and he called his bureaucrats together and told his Minister this is what had to be done. Suddenly the Conveyancers Licensing Bill is introduced. It is interesting that we have not heard from the lawyers of note among the membership of those opposite. In fact, the lawyers in the Labor Party have remained steadfastly absent. What has happened to the honourable member for Auburn? I would like to hear his views on the proposal. I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the caucus room when this matter was discussed. I am sure the debate would have been interesting.

Mrs Lo Po': It was as smooth as glass.

Mr HAZZARD: Smooth as glass, was it Minister? I am sure it always is when the Left and Right are sharing, conversing and caring! The honourable member for Hurstville is also conspicuous by his absence. The Left is well represented - the honourable member for Liverpool is champing at the bit to have his say. If his honourable predecessor were here - and an honourable person he was - he certainly would not have supported this legislation. This bill raises an issue of decency. I have no personal difficulty with the Minister for Consumer Affairs, but I am surprised that she failed to honour her promise to the Law Society. In correspondence of 26 July she promised to contact the President of the Law Society "regarding any developments concerning registration of developers". The Minister either deliberately or mistakenly misled the licensing authority for conveyancers, that is, the Law Society, because Cabinet had already approved this little shake-up, this little deal with conveyancers, on 11 July. It is a pathetic effort from a government that promised to be open and to discuss issues. The rug was pulled from under the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I notice the Premier likes doing that to his Ministers.

Mr Jeffery: Mr Cappuccino?

Mr HAZZARD: If the Premier, Mr Cappuccino, has not got his finger firmly on the cappuccino bar - if he is not making it, if he is not drinking it - nothing else happens. But that is good because in the end the responsibility rests with him. He is the dishonest one; he has misled the Law Society and the public. If the Premier wanted to be fair dinkum about cutting costs - and I do not think one ounce of the Premier could be considered fair dinkum - he would consider the issue of stamp duty on conveyances. On an average $200,000 property purchase, the stamp duty is approximately $5,500. Where does it go? Into the Labor Party's pocket to fund its crazy election promises! The Government managed to move very quickly when it had to halve the stamp duty on shares a few months ago.

If the Premier is serious about making conveyancing cheaper for the people of New South Wales and at the same time preserving the integrity offered by the legal profession to the process, he should not get stuck into the lawyers and into the process but should halve the cost of stamp duty. It will be interesting to see if the Premier responds to the challenge. I am sure he will run a mile. Some Government members believe this legislation will result in better service to the public. The honourable member for Canterbury justified the bill by saying
Page 1601
that when it is passed it will better serve the public. I do not want to detract from the integrity of those members; it is possible they believe what they say. If the Government is trying to achieve cheaper costs, the issue of stamp duty should be addressed. If the Government wants to better serve the public, it should ensure that when a conveyance is completed it will not come back and bite them many years down the track when they want to sell. Most members in this place know that I started my working life as a science teacher and then became a lawyer. I have more than a passing knowledge in litigious and commercial matters. I am well aware of the conveyancing process. I am very pleased that the honourable member for Hurstville has joined us in the Chamber.

Mr Jeffery: You flushed him out.

Mr HAZZARD: I flushed him out. At least he is awake. I am pleased that he is here. The reality is that solicitors provide a service that ensures that at the end of the day, and years down the track, the purchaser is not bitten. I remember a woman who had received advice from a friend. Her friend told her she was a conveyancer. In those days they were unlicensed - that distinction needs to be drawn. She and her husband had purchased a property. Unhappily, their marriage fell apart. Ten years after they purchased the property, and following the divorce, she was the lucky recipient of the property. Regrettably, when she came to try to sell it through her conveyancer friend, they suddenly found themselves on the receiving end of Supreme Court proceedings because an unauthorised extension had been made to the house. That extension had been in existence at the time the property was purchased, but no-one had done the proper checks. The property was a standard residential property. A lawyer can, and should, guard against such defects. If a lawyer does not do so, adequate fidelity funds and insurance are available to ensure that purchasers are well protected. As it happens, that lady's problems were resolved because she was being looked after at that stage by a solicitor - me.

Mrs Lo Po': Self-praise is no recommendation.

Mr HAZZARD: It is not a matter of self-praise but of recognising that some people are trained and have special skills for special tasks. I am sure the honourable member for Hurstville would have done just as good a job, probably better. I would give the honourable member ticks and crosses, or whatever is permitted in the legislation, to indicate my approval. I would give him the lot. He is a knowledgable person with the necessary qualifications, and he could probably do the job. Clients need professionals who have qualifications and experience. The Minister sits opposite with a smile on her face - I do not mean to be derogatory. I well remember about 17 years ago attending a property law class at which the professor said, "If you look to your left and to your right, many of those people will not make it through the course at the end of the year." I have heard trite comments about how easy conveyancing is. Of course it is - most of the time. Lawyers are trained to pick up things that are not quite right. That is what seeking the help of a professional person is all about. Most people who attend doctors on finding a lump do not have cancer. They might have a virus or something else, but the doctor can say to them, "You do not have a problem. Go home and relax." A doctor has the qualifications to say that. Exactly the same principle applies to lawyers. I am sure the Minister, if she were in trouble and had to face court proceedings, would not choose a barefoot lawyer but would look for one with qualifications, expertise, an understanding of litigation, and a concept of the fundamental rights of natural justice. She would make sure she had the best representation possible.

But the Minister has been duped by conveyancers who like to create the impression that they know everything there is to know about conveyancing. Many problems arise because people think they could do their own conveyancing. Legal practitioners know that they will be running a property transaction for both parties if a conveyancer represents one of them. Strangely, the Government wants consumers to use conveyancers in agricultural property and small business transactions, knowing full well that in the event of trouble consumers can only claim $1 million from the fidelity fund. I find it odd that a Labor Government should want to do that. A consumer who consults a solicitor - who will probably charge exactly what conveyancers are paid these days, if not less, and that is part of the problem for conveyancers these days - has the backing of an unlimited fidelity fund.

It is extraordinary that the Labor Party could support the use of conveyancer services, knowing that if they go down the gurgler they will be backed to the extent of only $1 million by a fidelity fund. These days many transactions would create losses far in excess of $1 million if a problem arises. It also seems odd that the disciplinary proceedings are to be moved from the Law Society to the Real Estate Services Council, which lawyers will continue to pay for through interest from their statutory fund. Lawyers must be asking why they are still funding conveyancers. There has to be equity and fairness for lawyers as well as for consumers, but those aspects are not manifest in the Minister's proposals. The Minister has suggested that that is not right. I look forward to the Minister's explanation.

I am concerned that the Minister is expanding conveyancers' rights to be able to undertake subdivisional work and other work that can become extremely complex. Speaking from personal experience, I well remember people who thought they knew all the answers, who subdivided a wonderful block of land at St Ives, and came to me five years later after realising that the pathway they had been driving down to get to their property was not an easement. It belonged to neighbours who, out of the goodness of their hearts, allowed them to use it for five years. Unfortunately, when they acquired new neighbours my clients came in and said, "Golly, gee, whiz, we did not realise we did not have access to our property. Can you fix it?" Some quite complex matters are made simple because professionals can
Page 1602
handle problems as they arise. I ask the Government to rethink this whole issue. The Government may believe it is doing this in the best interests of consumers, but at the end of the day the only action that will help is a decision to cut stamp duty on purchases.

At the end of the day, if freeing up the profession through advertising - which had an impact following its introduction under the coalition Government - results in a substantial reduction in costs, similar advertising arrangements might also affect transactions involving agricultural land and small businesses. From my knowledge, that is the situation. If fees have already dropped where such fee reduction has been demanded, it makes no sense that conveyancers without adequate training should be let loose, like cannons, on the consumers. The honourable member for Hurstville studied for some time to gain his legal qualifications. He would have experienced all the difficulties of property law. Even at the end of the degree course some of us come out thinking there is a lot more to learn. But do not tell me or any other lawyer - [Time expired.]

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [5.18]: I oppose the bill. The previous Liberal Party-National Party coalition Government, of which I was a member, gave consideration to the question of business and farm conveyancing. When the previous Government deregulated the industry and admitted licensed conveyancing firms, it chose deliberately at that time not to extend the range of work conveyancers could do to include business or farm conveyancing. The Government made that decision predominantly on the grounds of the potential complexity of such transactions. I address that aspect of my opposition to the bill. Business transactions in particular are complicated. But they are made more complex by the need to assess the goodwill component of a purchase price, the equitable interest in leased equipment in items of plant, equipment, fixtures and fittings that have been partly or wholly depreciated, and the overall value of the business.

It becomes complicated if the business has been operated by a legal entity that is different from the owner of the real estate involved, if any. I refer to corporate or trust structures, and even partnership structures which may or may not be more complicated than what is provided by the Partnership Act. All these potential business structures require considerable experience in the routine aspects of a property conveyance and a good understanding of many aspects of law and/or accounting practice. I know from my own experience as an accountant in public practice that a considerable degree of complexity is involved both from an accounting perspective and a legal perspective in the transactions of businesses and farms.

Rural conveyancing transactions often have other complications, including old system title - which I cannot understand - real estate Crown leases and the various versions of Crown occupancy, easements, travelling stock routes, and permissive occupancies. There are also issues of coal rights. The transfer of water licences, as well as livestock, is often a complicated and expensive part of a transaction. This provides further complexities for which experience and professional training are necessary. Family structures and estate planning that may have existed for years, and even generations, need to be taken into account in respect of estate planning or delicate family structures, arrangements and relationships. I dare say this applies to businesses, but seems to arise more in rural conveyancing.

General taxation planning and income tax planning, whether of a corporate, partnership or trust nature, is very complicated. The taxation Act is very thick and requires a considerable understanding, lest a conveyancer inadvertently creates unacceptable taxation structures while carrying out a routine conveyance. Superannuation is relevant in terms of continuing business and entitlements. Superannuation funds are often operated by the same corporate structure that may be acting as trustee of the business structure. That alone requires a considerable understanding of business law, and a degree of professional training and experience, which may not be available in broadening the scope of routine conveyancing to include complicated transactions.

The cost of conveyancing has been the main subject of argument by the Government. Stamp duty is a predominant factor. The cost of conveyancing in recent years has fallen, not so much as a result of any deregulation by the previous Government in allowing conveyancing firms to enter the market, but more as a result of competitive pressures created by deregulation of advertising; the large number of solicitors in practice; and the large volume of law students who will soon graduate, enter the market and bolster the number of competitors. At present 16,000 lawyers are in practice in this area and 9,000 law students are in the process of receiving law degrees.

I have no doubt that some powerful forces will add to the competitive pressures of pricing of conveyancing. A legal firm does not necessarily have any more or less scope than a conveyancing firm in terms of cost pressures. These firms still incur and have to face the same overheads and costs of professional indemnity insurance. If that is going to be adequate and comparable, the cost will obviously be the same. Likewise, if fidelity fund contributions are to provide comparable benefits, obviously comparable costs will be involved.

Costs to the consumer will only alter as a result of an oversupply or an increased supply of solicitors in practice rather than artificial adjustments and removal of constraints of entry into the market of conveyancing. Legal costs have shown a marked decrease over a period of time. Apart from the complexity of transactions, to which I have already referred, it is important to highlight a crucial distinction between lawyers in practice and this group of conveyancers. The distinction relates essentially to the degree of professional qualification, the degree of difficulty in obtaining a professional qualification, and the degree of difficulty of entry into courses which ultimately lead to a professional qualification.

I have read many contributions that have been
Page 1603
presented to me, including those from the Law Society and many educators. It is very difficult to qualify as a solicitor. A high tertiary entrance score is necessary to undertake various university courses, and difficulties are experienced in obtaining practising certificates from either the Solicitors Admission Board or other tertiary education courses. I accept that it is easier for conveyancers to enter courses designed for those who wish to operate as conveyancers, not to qualify as solicitors and obtain the Law Society's practising certificate. I do not wish to denigrate any course or person, but I accept the arguments that have been presented to me over the last few weeks, that the degree of difficulty for entry to these courses, and therefore the strength of the resultant qualification, is markedly different in respect of conveyancers and lawyers.

There is no comparison between the academic and professional qualifications of the two, even though it seems to be taken as read that there is an almost totally trustworthy and safe complementary approach to the qualifications of both groups, that they are equal in standing and in degree of difficulty. I do not accept that as a fact. Having practised in a related profession, I have a high regard for country and suburban solicitors, because they invariably have a high degree of engagement in community affairs. They are business leaders in their own right. They make a remarkably good contribution to the community, and in many cases they are a source of advice, often free, for businesses and families. It is a resource that we are loath to see go, especially in country areas. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in opposition to the bill. On behalf of the many solicitors in my electorate, I support the profession. I am pleased to make a contribution on what I see as substantial differences in the degree of difficulty of the transaction, the degree of complexity and the marked difference in the academic qualifications that are being touted as of equal standing.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women) [5.30], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie, the honourable member for Rockdale, the honourable member for Gordon, the honourable member for Canterbury, the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Wakehurst, and the Deputy Leader of the National Party for their contributions. This debate comes down to a couple of matters. There is great concern about the education of conveyancers, and about funds. Let us deal with the funds up front. The compensation fund will replace fidelity insurance, and cover fraud, theft, failure to account and moneys handled. Professional indemnity insurance is the same as the current provision, although people will be able to choose whether to negotiate policies individually or as a group. It covers negligence and has the same cover as that for lawyers at present. So concern about coverage and indemnity of conveyancers is not an issue at all.

The argument about educational qualifications is interesting, and a committee will certainly make recommendations to the Minister on that matter. Members of the legal profession take four years to study the various legal subjects. We are talking about conveyancers taking two years to study one aspect of the law. It is unreasonable that people object to that. At present conveyancers train for two years, and they will certainly need to do a bridging course to study the new aspect of the law. The notion that we are foisting untrained conveyancers on the community is silly. That issue has been raised by almost all Opposition members who spoke in the debate.

The Law Society is concerned about not being consulted. I met with representatives of the Law Society in June. I then took confidential things backwards and forwards to the Cabinet, and I felt that I did not need to liaise any further with the society. The opposition of the Law Society to the proposal was wholesome and it has not changed. It is interesting that although four members of the National Party spoke in opposition to the bill, a letter from the New South Wales Farmers Association, signed by the director, F. T. Gulson, stated:

As you could expect, the Association supports the broad principles to free up conveyancing, and certainly welcomes proposals to lift the scope of the work that could be undertaken to include not just residential conveyancing, but also rural and business conveyancing.

I do not know why members of the National Party have ignored the Farmers Association. The association is well and truly on the side of the Government; it is looking for a greater break and a more economic way of dealing with properties, yet Opposition members ignored it. The number of people who have written to my department expressing concern about the way in which solicitors have handled their properties is amazing. I received from a person in Dubbo a four- or five-page sketch of some incredibly mistaken legal arrangement. The person was glad that I was doing something about introducing a conveyancing alternative to solicitors, whom that person had attended. A summary of the letter is that the person went to six different solicitors, but ultimately lost the property and had to move into town.

I received a letter from a doctor containing a list of concerns. So the notion that as the law stands no mistakes are made, and that we are about to embark on an era of mistaken conveyancing, is simply not valid. The most important thing to come out of today's debate is that Opposition members felt no passion for what they were saying. I suspect that most of them probably agree with the legislation but for some reason that I cannot work out decided to go the other way. I am amazed that not one Opposition member spoke with passion. Opposition members said that rural towns will suffer. New South Wales has 42 conveyancers at present, and not one of them is in a rural town. They are all on the coast; none of them are on the other side of the mountains. I do not understand the difference between someone putting up a conveyancer's shingle and someone putting up a solicitor's shingle. The legal profession welcomes other solicitors as colleagues; but it does not welcome conveyancers, because it sees them as competitors. A point that honourable members have largely missed is that not everything in the 1992 legislation has been
Page 1604
changed.

Honourable members said that the compensation scheme and professional indemnity insurance will be different. However, not everything has changed, and Opposition members have missed that. The Leader of the National Party referred to the complication of rural holdings. The Opposition does not recognise that education will overcome that. If one can study all the legal subjects in four years, it makes sense that one can study property conveyancing in half that time. I think that the honourable member for Port Macquarie first said that some legal courses do not cover conveyancing at any level. That means that people can have a university degree, set up a shingle as a lawyer, and convey property although they have not been trained in conveyancing. It does not make one ounce of sense.

The Leader of the National Party also referred to best advice. He insinuated that if people want the best advice they will go to a legal firm. We are saying that the legislation gives choice. We understand that not all people will flock to conveyancers, but not all of them will stay with their solicitors. The legislation gives people a choice, and that is what we are about. Opposition members, when in government, used the same argument about introducing choice for residential conveyancing. The honourable member for Wakehurst was concerned about the fidelity fund. I have covered that matter. The honourable member referred to lawyers funding conveyancers. That is a nonsense. At present lawyers are the gatekeepers for conveyancers, but it is improper for competitors to be gatekeepers. It would be similar to the honourable member for Upper Hunter having a Labor Party person monitoring what he can do in his office.

Mr Souris: I do.

Mrs LO PO': I am glad to hear that. The honourable member would not expect to get a fair deal out of that; nor would we expect to get a fair deal from him if the position were reversed. It is ludicrous to have the Law Society gatekeeping for conveyancers. The suggestion by the honourable member for Wakehurst that lawyers will fund conveyancers is ludicrous. The Deputy Leader of the National Party referred to the degree of transactions. Education will take care of that. The honourable member talked about matters in which conveyancers will be involved. Conveyancers will convey; that will be their training and their job. It is what they will do. Red herrings about what the Opposition might want conveyancers to do are irrelevant. The Deputy Leader of the National Party referred to stamp duty. Stamp duty was never an issue for the previous Government; but suddenly it is an issue for us. Opposition members never talked about changing stamp duty rates during their seven years in government. However, we have been in office for only six months and we are constantly hit on the head about stamp duty.

Opposition members are talking about competition by producing more lawyers; we are talking about competition by producing more conveyancers. This system has worked well in South Australia since 1883. If that is not a sufficient pilot program and Opposition members want to go for another 100 years, they have rocks in their head. We do not hear about disasters in South Australia. In fact in South Australia they have very good multidisciplinary partnerships and if solicitors in this State were smart they would employ these newly trained conveyancers. I have not heard one issue raised by the Opposition that really suggests to me that there is concern. I have heard members of the Opposition saying things but with no compassion or feeling. I think they are just going through the motions of opposing this bill for the mischievousness it will cause. I do not think the Opposition is fair dinkum, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - 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,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Dr Macdonald 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

Page 1605
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.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.



Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [5.50]: I raise a matter of great concern to one of my constituents, Sean Kornelias Ryan, and also to the community. This young man has been dealt a severe injustice, first, by a friend acting with youthful exuberance; second, by the Police Service; and, third, by the community generally. We all owe a debt to this young man, who has been falsely labelled as having a criminal record. Some years ago when Mr Ryan and his friend were younger and, certainly in the case of his friend, less wise, the friend gave Mr Ryan's name as an alias when he was arrested on a drink-driving charge and other matters. The young man owned up the next day, went to Hornsby police station and went to clear the record. However, many years later that false name given by one of his mates still plagues Mr Ryan. In fact, when he recently applied for a job with Skilled Engineering Limited a police records check conducted by the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police Service once again revealed a criminal record recorded against the name of Sean Ryan.

One of the matters I wish to raise is the ambiguity of the form on which the Australian Federal Police are providing prospective employers with information about criminal record checks. Mr Ryan was not told why he was knocked back for the job, but it had happened to him before, and through a contact he was able to establish that the prospective employers thought he had a criminal record. Once again, the false name given by his friend had come back to haunt Sean Ryan. He had no knowledge of it at the time. He was not involved in any way in the giving of a false name. It was simply a matter of grave injustice. He had earlier applied for a job with the New South Wales Police Service, and on that occasion his name also came up as an alias used by someone else. He had to be fingerprinted to prove that he was not the person who had earlier been charged with a criminal offence.

The Police Service eventually worked out that he was not who they thought he was, and the matter was cleared up to the satisfaction of the Police Service. At that time my constituent thought that the entry would be changed on the records of the Police Service. However, the entries have not been changed, and until very recently if anyone conducting a search against the name Sean Kornelias Ryan would have received information that it was an alias given by someone else, and it would continue to plague my constituent to this day. I wrote to the Minister for Police, and I thank the Minister for his response and for some action that has already been taken by the Police Service. Their records now have a warning that the name Sean Kornelias Ryan is an alias used by someone else and to be careful when giving out the information, but my concern is that nothing specific has been done to correct the police record so that it shows that my constituent has had no dealings with the police and has no criminal record.

The form used by the Australian Federal Police contains a rider which, unless you were a lawyer and involved in these things on a regular basis, you would fail to understand. It contains words to the effect that any identity has to be checked against fingerprints. The idea of a prospective employer taking the fingerprints of someone and checking them against police records is laughable; it is a joke. I bring to the attention of the Minister for Police - who is in the Chamber tonight, and I appreciate that - that my constituent has nothing from the Police Service to say that he is not the person whose named was used as an alias or to say that he has no criminal record whatsoever. I would again ask the Minister whether the Police Service can provide him with some document, perhaps an apology, something that he can show to people should this matter arise again. I would also ask the Minister, the Police Service and the Australian Federal Police to again look at the system so that a clear marker can be placed against these mistaken identity cases so that people like Sean Ryan and others are not improperly accused and plagued by it for the rest of their lives. I am very proud of my constituent, as I know his parents are. He recently got the job with Skilled Engineering Limited. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.55]: I am very happy to advise the honourable member that, as he is aware, Mr Ryan supplied comparison fingerprints to Hornsby police to resolve the question of his identity. The comparison fingerprints were found not to be identical with those on the criminal record of the offender mentioned. Accordingly, Mr Ryan is now aware that the police have corrected the identity and that a warning has been placed in the police computer system that he is not the person listed. It is an interesting case because of the prospect that this problem could arise again. For those reasons I will request a review of the criminal records system to ensure that there is no repetition of this matter. It is a serious matter and one that cannot be dismissed. Mr Ryan can be
Page 1606
assured that we will examine it closely.


Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.56]: I raise the issue of the volunteers in policing program. I know that for many, particularly the victims of crime, there is a need for a follow-up service, which the already overworked police find hard to deliver to the full satisfaction of the victims and the community as a whole. A gap could be filled by giving additional support to the victims of crime and allowing the community to work together with the police in their fight against crime. In July 1993 a trial was conducted which saw the introduction of volunteers placed in four country and four city police stations - Coffs Harbour, Gunnedah, Hurstville, Bega, Bankstown, Wagga Wagga, North Sydney and Seven Hills. Following an assessment of the program and owing to the enormous success of the trials, the volunteers in policing program was introduced statewide and became Police Service policy on 8 March. The program has been expanded to an additional 11 Sydney metropolitan patrols, and 104 volunteers have been introduced.

An additional 19 patrols are now being addressed, bringing to 39 the number of patrols throughout the State included in the program. On the central coast the Gosford patrol now has 15 volunteers working in shifts to provide what is a very worthwhile service. Some of the duties performed by the volunteers include supporting victims and carrying out supportive visits where practical; participating in community liaison, consultative committees, neighbourhood watch, business watch and other matters; reporting progress to and liaising with complainants and victims in criminal matters; assisting, where accepted by victims, complainants or informants, in the initial attendance and or follow-up contact; providing non-English language in initial contact with members of the public; assisting police at disaster scenes; providing prisoner welfare and custodial visits; and facilitating attendance of witnesses at court.

I had the opportunity to meet with a number of these volunteers who were working in these situations, and my impressions of the program were very favourable. The fundamental aspect of the volunteers in policing strategy is to provide a professional policing service that utilises the available resources of the community through an effective communication network of cooperation and trust. The volunteers at Gosford have proved a very worthwhile addition to the Police Service and they have been given the full support of all police officers at Gosford. In fact, I have had communications with police officers at Gosford and they have assured me that notwithstanding adverse comments that have been made about the program, it is very successful at the Gosford patrol and has the support of all police officers at that station.

The volunteers working there have recently completed the onerous task of providing a records system which will allow the police to quickly contact business houses, shops and vacant properties should they fall victim to vandalism, fire or break-in. A similar system will be introduced for all industrial sites in the Gosford region. Another valuable service soon to be introduced is maintaining contact with the elderly who are living alone, and who, to some degree, lack contact with others. The project has particular significance to me, given the number of frail aged living on the central coast. The role of the volunteers is best summarised by the comments of Joan Reid, aged 67, a volunteer at Gosford police station who said:

It is a wonderful concept that just takes the role of the police a step further. It has been embraced by both the police and the community. It puts the icing on the cake. It lets the community and victims know that there are people who do care about them.

Of the 39 patrols in New South Wales where volunteers are deployed, after Lismore patrol the Gosford patrol has the highest level of participation in the State, with some 20 deployed volunteers. Many police districts in this State have two and three patrols participating in the scheme. I ask the Minister to consider seriously The Entrance patrol for inclusion in this program. The Minister has already committed an additional four police officers to commence in The Entrance in November. Today he announced that he would allocate $100,000 for the refurbishment of patrol cells: another commitment given and honoured by the Minister for Police. Accordingly, given the Minister's awareness of and interest in policing issues in The Entrance patrol, I ask him to give favourable consideration to my request.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [6.01]: I thank the honourable member for The Entrance for his valuable contribution, and particularly for his comments concerning the volunteers in policing program. It is clear from the honourable member's statement that he is extremely knowledgeable about the goals and ideals of the program. I agree with the honourable member's sentiments that the volunteers in policing program is arguably one of the most important community-based policing programs of recent years. I acknowledge the support given to that service by the former Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon. Ted Pickering, who retired from the Parliament today. I assure the House that I am determined to ensure that there is an increase in the appropriate use of volunteers. As the honourable member for The Entrance said, volunteers play an important role in supporting the victims of crime as well as providing a strong link between the local community and the police. The honourable member for The Entrance spoke of his desire to see volunteers in The Entrance patrol. As he would be aware, I recently visited The Entrance and saw first hand the challenges facing local police. The honourable member referred to the fact that four additional police were stationed at The Entrance after my visit.

The proposal to place volunteers in The Entrance patrol has merit. I will, therefore, be taking the
Page 1607
matter up with the Commissioner of Police. The honourable member will be pleased to know that I met recently with the coordinator of the volunteers in policing program, Superintendent Squires, to discuss the future direction of the program. He informed me that to date the program has been extremely successful in country areas. I am sure that the people of The Entrance will embrace the program, as their neighbours in Gosford have. I commend the honourable member for his continued support for policing and crime prevention initiatives in his electorate.


Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [6.03]: I speak on behalf of Mr John Westfield of 3 Mitchell Street, Eden. He has written to me expressing concern regarding the process used by the Australian Conservation Foundation to raise funds, supposedly in support of its project at Mururoa. The foundation may well be deceiving the public as it is raising funds by selling unauthorised raffle tickets. I would like to read into Hansard the contents of the letter from Mr Westfield. It states:

It remains a toss up as to whom I detest the most. Being an Englishman from SE England I detest the French but as an Englishman resident in Australia I also detest Australian conservationists.

Last year when my son was in Eden both he and his wife joined a green coastal walk and must have given my address as where he was staying. Since then my address has been on a green movement computer and this is the second book of illegal raffle tickets I have received. The first one was to raise funds to combat logging and I passed this on to some Eden workers waiting for transport to the Chip Mill. I believe they returned the stubs without any money.

This time I note the tickets are returnable to a Sydney address and this has caused me to search for any indication of the Secretary Generals approval. As far as I can determine there has been none given and this raises the question as to this raffle being used not against French Nuclear Testing but instead in support of the anti logging movement. If this is so I feel that the Secretary Generals Department should look into this matter that could represent a fraudulent effort to raise funds not against nuclear testing but against Forest Industries in N.S.W. Since these conservationists have already proved they are devoid of any ethics, I did think of contacting someone in the Secretary General's department but since I am not aware who there might be green supporters, I thought I would put the matter in your capable hands. Needless to say I still have a score to settle for the sabotage of power poles that blacked me out on several occasions on last year.

This matter concerns me greatly. The community is concerned about a genuine cause: nuclear testing at Mururoa. I have great sympathy for those who protest against French nuclear testing. I sympathise also with any organisation that wants to raise funds for a particular cause. But I believe that the activities of the Australian Conservation Foundation need to be checked to substantiate whether it is the organisation that is raising these funds and not someone else on its behalf. I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services, who is at the table, to inform the responsible Minister about this matter and to have it checked out to determine whether the tickets and pamphlets are genuine. A letter from the Australian Conservation Foundation purports to establish that it is raising funds for the Mururoa project. The letter mentions other issues which would concern many people in the Eden area. Mr Westfield, an honest person who would have the best interests of the community at heart, is raising this matter only to establish the credentials of those selling the raffle tickets. I will prepare a letter to be forwarded to the appropriate Minister but I ask the Minister at the table to convey this message to the responsible Minister so that he is able to substantiate whether the raffle tickets being sold on behalf of the Australian Conservation Foundation are genuine or fraudulent.


Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [6.07]: Tonight I wish to praise the local police commanders in the Auburn and Lidcombe region, which forms part of the Flemington patrol. In 1988 when I became a member of Parliament a number of problems were being experienced in the Auburn shopping area and in Lidcombe. Over those 7½ years police have worked hard to correct the problems. Honourable members will recall the recent murder of Peter Savage in Lidcombe. The police are working hard on that case. Last night a young girl who was found unconscious on Park Road died in Auburn hospital. The police are doing a lot of work in an attempt to identify her. If anyone listening to this debate or reading my speech is able to identify this girl he or she should contact the police.

Auburn police station is a very old federation-type building. Prior to Jack Lang's dismissal in 1932 police were placed in an office there and equipped with 15 or 20 .303 rifles because of the fear of rioting in the Auburn electorate on the dismissal of Jack Lang. The police station at Auburn is overcrowded. There are two demountable buildings and plans have been in train for several years to rebuild the station. I believe that it is a priority but, like a lot of other things, the plans will probably be postponed. When I meet with the Minister for Police to discuss this matter I will inform him that the police station needs a bit of paint and a bit of renovation. I receive a number of complaints from people who visit that police station. It needs a better customer service area, an environmentally friendly muster room and a separate waiting room for people who do not want to remain in the main waiting area. The facade of the building needs a fair bit of work. If that work is carried out it would assist the police who are doing good work in the Auburn area.

Under the previous Labor Government Lidcombe police station was a 24-hour police station. During the term of office of the previous Liberal-National Party Government that police station was open for only about 12 hours a day. Lidcombe police station should operate for 16 hours a day. I will be speaking to the Minister for Police about that matter as well.
Page 1608
The Olympics will generate work for police in the Lidcombe-Auburn area, but Flemington patrol will pretty well control operations. If Auburn police station receives a category A rating, police officers from that station would be able to join officers from Flemington patrol and perform tasks relating to the Olympics. In the 7½ years that I have been a member of Parliament I have said repeatedly that the upgrading of Auburn police station is an important issue. I hope that under a Labor Government work will be done at some time in the future. In the interim Auburn police station could be renovated to make it more friendly. Lidcombe police station does not need that sort of work. It is a very large building with appropriate parking facilities. I ask all honourable members to endorse the comments that I have made.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [6.09]: I listened with a great deal of interest to the honourable member for Auburn. Auburn police station could be described as being in an appalling state. I ask the honourable member and his constituents to understand that on coming to office in March this year the Government was faced with a backlog of capital works promised by the previous Government valued at somewhere in excess of $400 million. Therefore, it has not been possible in the Government's first capital works program for this Government to make a commitment to build a first-class police station at Auburn. I assure the honourable member that the Government is cognisant that Auburn police station is in a parlous condition; in these modern times it is probably unfit for the purposes for which it was generally intended. I assure the honourable member that the matter will be given high priority, but I ask him and his constituents to bear in mind that because of the capital works backlog and deficit inherited by the Government it will not be possible to accommodate the wishes and needs of the honourable member and his constituents this year. In the following budget the matter will be given the high priority it deserves.


Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [6.11]: I raise a matter of concern to the residents of Como. On 18 September a public meeting was held at Como about the proposal by Vodafone to build a mobile telephone tower in Wolger Street, Como. The meeting was attended by 170 residents of the Como community. It was one of the largest public meetings ever held in Como West, which is where I live. It is a lovely part of the Sutherland shire. Vodafone describes the proposed tower as a candlestick monopole standing 25 metres high. Attached is an equipment house, which is approximately 2.4 metres by 3 metres. The entire arrangement fits within a 10 metre by 5 metre base area. The tower is to be situated in the back of the Como Cellars, a small shopping centre in Como West. Mr Laurie Hutton, a local resident, raised this matter with me some time ago. We had subsequent meetings with officers of Sutherland council and other local councils about positioning of the tower outside the kitchen and bedroom windows of Mr Hutton's two-storey house. Mrs Jea Bargwarna lives on the other side in premises above her son's garage. Her property will also be affected by this tower. Residents in Como West, as well as other areas of Sydney, are concerned about the effects of these towers on their health.

Residents in Jannali and Kareela in the western part of the shire have also expressed concern about the construction of the tower. My concern is that because of Federal Government regulations, companies proposing to construct these towers do not require local planning consent. Councils are basically powerless to do anything about the construction of these towers. These tall ugly structures could pose a health risk. If a neon sign were to be constructed, planning consent would be required from the local council. The residents of Como West say that they do not want the tower and that the Federal Government should overturn the regulation and allow local councils some input into the siting of these towers and in the planning approval. The State Government has an important role to play. Obviously under local planning laws the construction of these towers should be a council responsibility.

I hope that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning will take up this matter with the Federal Government on behalf of the citizens of the Sutherland shire and other parts of Sydney. Because of the proliferation of mobile phones residents understand the need for these towers to be constructed, but the problem is where they are being sited. The picture at Como West is extraordinary: a small shopping centre surrounded by heavy residential development and smack bang in the middle will be a 25-metre tower. No wonder Mr Hutton is upset. No wonder 170 concerned residents attended a public meeting to show their support for Mr Hutton and to express opposition to the siting of this tower. I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services to ask the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to approach the Federal Government and voice the concern of the New South Wales Government about the overriding of local planning laws by the Federal Government regulation. [Time expired.]


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.16]: I draw to the attention of the House my deep concern about an incident that occurred in the main street of Kiama on the night of Monday 14 August. On that occasion threats and abusive language were used against a group of 15 very respectable ladies, including two teenage girls, wives of police officers, doctors wives and other genteel, prominent local citizens. The threats, which included death threats and vile language, reduced some of those ladies to tears. The behaviour was disgraceful. After a phone call was made to the 000 number, two police officers arrived at the scene, an establishment known as Wendy's shop where the ladies were attending a private function. The police are reported to have said, "They have not done anything. What do you want us to do?" The youths later returned and one of their number kicked
Page 1609
in the bottom panel of the front door of the shop. Fortuitously, the wife of the acting police inspector for the area, who was present at the function, was able to use her mobile phone to call her husband, who arranged for police to return to the scene. The youth who had inflicted the damage to the shopfront was later arrested, but was released to bail and was back on the street within one hour of the arrest.

It is little wonder that organisations like Enough is Enough are now attracting so much community support. People have had a gutful of trendies, civil libertarians and assorted do-gooders who have caused authorities to acknowledge the needs of hooligans, perverts and anti-social yobbos as being more important than the needs of everyday law-abiding citizens. The damage has led to the local shopkeeper saying he will close the business and leave town because he has had a gutful of having his life being made an absolute misery by a handful of young people who have even made death threats against him. If this behaviour is allowed to prevail, we have lost control of the streets. I am pleased that the Minister for Police has responded to my request to be in the House tonight. I wrote to him shortly after this matter came to my attention. He has undertaken to meet a deputation from Kiama Council and local citizens later this month to hear complaints and to try to arrive at a solution.

I am particularly concerned that on the night of this incident only one police officer was available at Kiama police station. The six police officers who were supposed to be stationed in Kiama were taken to Warilla police headquarters and given other duties to perform. I seek an assurance that the officers who are stationed in Kiama will, wherever possible, be left there to assist local citizens. It is not good enough to have shopfront police station for some hours of the day and a small handful of young people can make the lives of others absolutely miserable. It is worth noting that these days anyone guilty of telling a politically incorrect joke runs the risk of being set upon by the community and being fined a substantial monetary penalty, but a handful of young people seemingly can make death threats and abuse nice ladies, young and old, almost with impunity. That situation cannot be allowed to prevail. I call on the Minister for Police to state whether any action has been taken on this complaint, which I brought to his attention in August. That might hold out some hope for members of the deputation who will be coming up later this month, on my invitation, to talk to him. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [6.21]: I am aware of the unfortunate incident to which the honourable member for Kiama referred. As he has indicated, he has written to me on behalf of his constituents concerning the matter. I understand that the matter is currently before the court, several people having been charged. I am advised by the patrol commander that during the past 12 months special operations have been conducted in the Kiama area involving beat police, plain clothes police, the special operations group, the drug squad and highway patrol officers. Detectives from Warilla and Kiama have been utilised in proactive street operations, which have been both covert and overt. These operations have resulted in 38 arrests for various offences, and were conducted over and above normal day-to-day policing activities. I have been advised that the Kiama patrol is operating at an authorised staffing level of one sergeant and seven constables. Police are at full strength and the station is manned at all times.

I understand that local police already have a close working relationship with the council, and the patrol commander has had numerous meetings with it to discuss policing issues. A businesswatch committee has recently been formed in the Kiama area. I understand that its inaugural meeting was held last month. I acknowledge what the honourable member for Kiama has said. I will be meeting him and with representatives of Kiama Council this month to discuss this and other policing matters. The honourable member can be assured that local police are committed to working with the community to provide a safe and peaceful environment in which to live. I hope that incidents like the one that he has referred to can be avoided in the future.


Mr TURNER (Myall Lakes) [6.23]: I seek support for a satellite dialysis centre at Manning base hospital in the Myall Lakes electorate. There has been some history in relation to seeking such a facility in the area. Shortly a proposal will go before the Department of Health for the location of a satellite dialysis system at Taree. About eight years ago the Mid North Coast Kidney Association started agitating for such a facility in the Taree area. The association was not sure exactly what it wanted, but it knew there was a demand in the Manning, Great Lakes, and Port Macquarie areas for such a unit. The Mid North Coast Kidney Association, under the presidency of Nita Read, has gone from strength to strength. Given that the association's members suffer renal problems it is somewhat regrettable that membership has increased. One reason for that increase is that the Myall Lakes electorate, in which Taree and Forster are located, is a beautiful area to which many retire. Many of those retirees need to be dialysed from time to time.

Currently there is one machine at Manning base hospital, but it is only used for respite care and to assist people travelling through the area. A community nurse does a wonderful job in helping people to dialyse at home, but there is a real need for a satellite unit. The directors of Manning base hospital were reluctant to go ahead with such a proposal without the recommendation of the Royal Newcastle Hospital nephrologist. They believed they should rely on his expertise to determine whether there was such a need. Recently Dr Gillies, the nephrologist, came to Taree and advised that the need for a dialysis satellite centre in the area was now
Page 1610
accepted, and that Taree was the ideal place for it. As a result, representatives of the Mid North Coast Kidney Association met with the directors and medical staff of Manning base hospital, a meeting that I arranged. It was agreed that a working party would be established comprising members of the Mid North Coast Kidney Association, hospital medical staff and the board to put a submission together to attract funds for a kidney dialysis centre.

That application is progressing well. Although we are working on a timetable of having it ready by about December, I understand it is ready now and, following a final check, will go to the department for consideration. Not all 80 members of the organisation will use the facility. Many of them dialyse at home, but quite a number will use it. The centre should be located at Manning base hospital, the most central area. Such a location will assist those who have to travel from Port Macquarie, but I understand that the great majority of those who will use the facility come from the Taree area. At present dialysis patients have to travel to Newcastle up to three times a week, a trip of about 165 to 170 kilometres, and then home after being dialysed. It is not a pleasant experience. A dialysis satellite centre will bring a real improvement to their quality and enjoyment of life.

I express my support for the marvellous work done to date by the Mid North Coast Kidney Association in its relentless pursuit to have the centre established. I hope when the application goes before the Department of Health those responsible for assessing the proposal will do so with some compassion. I am loath to say this, but I hope politics will not come into the decision. I am sure that will not occur, given the importance of such a facility in the area. The people in need of dialysing will be able to receive treatment in an excellent centre. The director, staff and nurses at the Macquarie base hospital are all compassionate people and will make sure the facility will work, if the Department of Health grants funding for it. I express my support for the proposal.


Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [6.28]: The Georges River National Park is a very scenic picnic area located within the East Hills electorate. The park has something of a history, having been established by a former Labor Government. My predecessor, Mr Joe Kelly, the former member for East Hills, acting on behalf of a group of people who called themselves the Georges River Regatta - people such as the late George Jacobsen, the father of Col Joye, the well-known entertainer, and others - approached the Government, and the Georges River National Park was established. Under the Greiner and Fahey governments the park area was transferred from a State recreation area into a national park. The area is popular with families, fishermen and picnickers. Until fees were substantially increased, attendance of picnickers, sporting groups and others who regularly use the national park at weekends was increasing. In 1986 attendance reached a peak when 54,158 vehicles entered the park.

Regrettably, entrance fees to the park increased alarmingly under the former Government. In 1988 the entry fee for a car with a trailer was $3. By 1994 it had increased to $7.50 for a car and $12.50 for a car with a trailer. The increase in fees has virtually driven away people who once launched their boats in the area. In 1986, 54,158 vehicles gained entry to the park. In 1991 that figure had decreased to a little over 33,000, and in August 1992 it had dropped to about 14,000 vehicles. The park adjoins Canterbury, a high-density suburb of Sydney, and local people used to visit this beautiful recreation area without having to travel great distances.

In a statement in September this year, the Minister for the Environment put a value of $10 million on each national park. It was said that the first contemporary economic study of the recreational value of national parks had found that the community values them as high as $40 million. National parks are a great asset to the community but, regrettably, because of the exorbitant charges imposed by the former Government, the public has stopped visiting them. I know from my discussions with the Minister that the issue of entry fees to national parks is under review. I call for action as bold as that taken by the Wran Government when it slashed fares by about 20 per cent to get people to return to public transport. At the end of the day such action will result in an increased number of people visiting the park and an increase in revenue derived from gate takings. I ask the Minister to consider taking action along the lines I have outlined.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [6.32]: I too am concerned about the matter raised by the honourable member for East Hills. The issue has been raised with me on numerous occasions by the honourable member and by representatives of Bankstown City Council since I became the Minister for the Environment. It was also raised with me when I was spokesperson for the Opposition on environmental issues. In response to representations by the council and by the honourable member, I have requested the National Parks and Wildlife Service to investigate whether it would be appropriate for local residents to be given a free pass to visit Georges River National Park.

For years residents of the local area had free access to the park when it was a State recreation area. My proposition is being considered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service as part of its overall review of the pricing policy for national parks. The review will obviously deal with a range of issues relating to fees and charges, including exemptions and concessions. However, I am aware that the service is reluctant to implement such systems as free passes for local residents because they worry that a precedent may be created. Such precedents do exist, however, in some areas of rural New South Wales. It is entirely appropriate that the local constituents of the honourable member for East Hills be allowed to enjoy
Page 1611
the same benefit that has been extended elsewhere.


Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [6.34]: My statement relates to Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach. I have raised this matter several times in this House. I enthusiastically received the capital projects report from Treasury this afternoon and quickly looked through it hoping to find the $3 million allocation for Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach, only to be disappointed again. Most people are familiar with Bondi Beach and with the fact that it is a major tourist attraction in Sydney, and indeed in Australia. Most tourists to Sydney would visit Bondi Beach. It is acknowledged as a national icon. Over the years the traffic congestion in the Bondi area - but especially along Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach - has built up tremendously. Peak hour congestion is extreme on weekends from Friday nights. The bus route from Bondi Junction to Bondi Beach and back is the busiest of any in Australia, and it is probably the most profitable.

Vehicle and pedestrian safety is a matter of concern in that area, especially along Campbell Parade. As a result the upgrading of Campbell Parade and the general beachfront area has been the subject of debate for many years. In recent years a design proposal has been prepared under the auspices of the local council. It has been generally agreed to by the community, the Roads and Traffic Authority and those who are involved in the area. I was therefore pleased that in the lead-up to the State election the Premier, on 31 January, sent a letter to the local council in which he wrote:

I have pleasure in restating my commitment that under a Carr Labor Government up to $3 million will be allocated to the upgrading program.

He said he appreciated being kept up to date on the detailed work carried out by the council. I first raised this matter in my maiden speech to this House 18 months ago and I have raised it a number of times since. After the State election I wrote to the Premier on 21 April in these terms:

The community and I look forward to your early confirmation of your funding commitment which will enable the long overdue refurbishment of the Bondi Beach Precinct to take place without further delay.

I received the following reply four months later from the Premier:

I have initiated a thorough evaluation of the proposal presented by Waverley Council to determine what assistance my Government can provide . . .

Obviously it has been flicked sideways to the bureaucracy to see if it can be slowed down. Flicking it sideways to the bureaucracy was totally unnecessary. As the Premier noted in his letter of 31 January, he had been kept up to date. A considerable amount of information had been made available by the council in the lead-up to the State election. I wrote to the Premier in August asking for further confirmation of the availability of the funding and pointed out that the project needs to proceed. Indeed, it was hoped that the project would get under way in October, but we needed confirmation from the Premier, or preferably a cheque from the Premier. Neither has been forthcoming. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 September states:

The council has committed $4 million to an upgrade and wants the State and Federal governments to each match the figure. Although the Premier made a written commitment, Cr Armitage says she wants "the money in the bank" to fast-track the project.

Indeed, we want the money in the bank. I fear that this is another pre-election promise that will go the way of the promise about tollways. I ask again that the Premier confirm his commitment to the people of Bondi, and indeed the people of Sydney, for this major tourist attraction and deliver the cheque. We are in a position to proceed with this project as soon as possible. There is broad consensus in the community that this project should be commenced as soon as possible.


Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [6.39]: The matter I raise tonight relates to fisheries. Some years ago in the Lithgow district there was a relatively small creek called Thompsons Creek, located between Wallerawang and Portland. When plans were put in place to build the Mount Piper power station it was decided that Thompsons Creek would be dammed to supply water for the new power station. Today the dam is full and there is a wide expanse of water that provides the cooling requirements for the power station. On a number of occasions I made representations to the Electricity Commission, through the Minister responsible, on behalf of the Central Acclimatisation Society for permission to place fish in the dam.

The Central Acclimatisation Society in my area is very active. It is responsible for putting literally millions of fingerlings into dams and rivers in the district. As honourable members are probably aware, Oberon is a prime trout fishing area. The number of anglers in the district is extremely high. As I said earlier, applications to the Electricity Commission were unsuccessful. The commission's attitude is somewhat dog in the manger because, during the severe drought, I made an application to the commission to permit a farmer to let his starving sheep eat the grass that abounds on the banks of Thompsons Creek dam. That request was also refused.

I do not know the reasons that the commission rejected the application for placing fingerlings in the dam or for not letting people take advantage of the lush growth surrounding the dam, but I believe that they would be difficult to sustain. I appeal to my friend and colleague the Minister for Fisheries to discuss this matter with the Minister for Energy with a view to overturning the decision of the Electricity Commission to prevent members of the Central Acclimatisation Society from feeding fingerlings into the dam. Fingerlings are in profusion in Lake Wallerawang and have caused no problems in that expanse of water, which provides cooling facilities for
Page 1612
the Wallerawang power station. I cannot see any technical or engineering reason that fingerlings should not be introduced into Thompsons Creek dam. I ask the Minister for Fisheries to make the necessary representations on behalf of the Central Acclimatisation Society.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [6.43]: I commend the honourable member for Bathurst for his diligence and keenness to get a fair go for the fishers of central New South Wales. His efforts have been tireless. The efforts of the previous Government have been shown once again to be wanting. I am aware of correspondence about this matter that was sent to the former head of the Department of Energy, who sadly passed away last month. I have been told that high level discussions were taking place with that officer. Before I became a member of Parliament I was responsible for putting bass that were bred at the fisheries research station at Port Stephens into Wallerawang storage.

I commend the honourable member for Bathurst for his efforts. He will be able to report back to the Central Acclimatisation Society that as of tonight the matter will be passed by me into the hands of the Hon. Michael Egan. I am keen for the Central Acclimatisation Society to place fingerlings in the Thompsons Creek storage. I want to be sure that we put the right species in the dam I shall take technical advice on the matter from the authorities. I will ensure that all safety measures have been put in place so that people do not fish near dangerous water intakes. In the long term there is no reason that fingerlings should not be placed in the dam, and that the dam should not be opened for controlled fishing. I shall take up the matter with the Minister for Energy. Once again I commend the honourable member for Bathurst for his tireless efforts on behalf of the Central Acclimatisation Society.

Private members' statements noted.


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

Plant Diseases Amendment Bill
Stock Medicines Amendment Bill

Bill received and read a first time.


Debate resumed from 20 September.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I seek preaudience under Standing Order 93.

Leave granted.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [6.46]: Yesterday, 10 October, I made a ministerial statement in relation to my second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill. In that statement I indicated that my second reading speech contained a number of inaccuracies, and I proceeded to correct them. In the light of this I strongly recommended that those people wishing to refer to the second reading speech to assist their understanding and interpretation of the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill should also refer to my ministerial statement.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [6.47]: I lead for the coalition in debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill. The Minister in his second reading speech, his ministerial statement and his most recent statement outlined what the legislation is about. The legislation contains a number of key elements. First, it will prevent persons from voting more than once in an election of councillors of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and, secondly, it provides that disputes concerning the validity of the election of a councillor may be settled by the Land and Environment Court. The second element - that the Land and Environment Court can act as a court of disputed returns - is an important part of the legislation as it will ensure that any matters in dispute with regard to elections either to local Aboriginal land councils or the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council can be quickly and appropriately resolved.

That means that complications such as happened in the past can be avoided. That is a laudable goal and the Opposition is pleased to support it. It is important that such matters are able to be properly resolved expeditiously. Everyone will know the ground rules beforehand, and there will be no questions or difficulties. That is important. Ancillary to that is the provision that confers a general power on the governor to make regulations concerning disputed returns in elections of councillors of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and, of course, to make various other consequential amendments. Those are important elements.

I would like to spend some time dealing with the provision that a person is not entitled to vote more than once in an election of councillors of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. As indicated in the outline of provisions, accordingly a person may only vote once for a councillor to represent a regional area and may not vote for councillors to represent different regions. If a person is a member of more than one local Aboriginal land council, that person is required to cast his or her vote in respect of the local Aboriginal land council in which the person ordinarily resides. The key function of that provision is to prevent multiple voting, and that provision has universal support and is eminently understandable. There is, however, a question which has been brought to my attention by Burnum Burnum with regard to proposed new section 26(3), which states:

(3) A person who is a member of more than one Local Aboriginal Land Council:

(a) within the same Regional Aboriginal Land

Page 1613
Council area, or

(b) in different Regional Aboriginal Land Council areas,

is only entitled to cast his or her vote in respect of the Local Aboriginal Land Council area in which the person ordinarily resides.

With regard to that section Burnum Burnum wrote to me in the following terms:

If you're an Aboriginal in N.S.W. you can vote in the forthcoming Federal elections, the last State elections, the next Land Council elections, the forthcoming Local Aboriginals Land Council election, the last A.T.S.I.C. elections and the next Aboriginal Legal Service elections - 150 votes per Aboriginal person. If you're a non-Aboriginal person, like my wife, you get three votes (Federal, State and Local Government).

Our next round of elections comes up on the 16th December 1995, for the N.S.W. Aboriginal Land Council (N.S.W.A.L.C.) elections. Of the 40,000 Aboriginal people in N.S.W. eligible to vote, 12,412 were enrolled electors in the last N.S.W.A.L.C. elections held on the 16th November 1991.

Of these 5,559 cast formal votes at a cost to the taxpayer of $7,000,000 through the Electoral Commission of N.S.W. The lowest number of first preference votes was 71 and the highest number was 539 votes which put our politicians into power on the N.S.W.A.L.C. These people are vested with the responsibility of putting ticks and crosses against $100,000,000 annually (7.5% Land Tax plus near Government arrangements).

Currently the Government is rushing through amendments to the Land Rights Act (section 26) unwittingly designed to further erode the formal vote without any proper consultation with each one of the 117 Local Aboriginal Land Councils.

Three decades ago the Government unwisely forced Aboriginal people from their traditional homelands in resettlement programmes to regional growth areas like Albury, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Bathurst, Newcastle and Sydney for employment potential purposes. Their bodies moved but their spirits and emotional earth attachments remained in their homelands.

For the same reasons, others have followed since and all of these people see themselves as foreigners in a strange land when they migrate. Frequently they all return to their mother's country to recharge their land connection batteries. One half of each person resides where they now live. The other half reside back home where land affinity is infinity for Aboriginal people.

One vote, one person under Section 26(2) is correct but Section 26(3) is very doubtful for the above stated reasons. The emotional effect of Section 26(3) is to murder the spirit of Aboriginal people in N.S.W.

A white person living on Lord Howe Island can choose to vote Federally in any electorate on the Australian mainland and Tasman for "emotional" and "association" purposes so why can't Aboriginals do the same for the identical reasons?

The addendum to the communication states:

The amendments (26) should be rejected by the opposition and independents until the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs satisfies you that due diligence has been done in consulting the Aboriginal community about this important issue.

I received this letter from Burnum Burnum only yesterday, although I had spoken with him earlier about the matter. This is a matter of some concern. Because it has just now been raised the Opposition will not cause this House to divide at the completion of the second reading debate. I hope that the issues can be satisfactorily resolved by the Government before the matter is dealt with in the Legislative Council. Furthermore, in informal discussion the Minister has advised me that he has some other comments to make with regard to providing an appropriate outlet or appropriate resolution to this matter. Two key issues have been raised. Essentially the substantive matter is an appropriate amendment to the legislation or, alternatively, an appropriate and satisfactory consultation to resolve the outstanding issues. Although the matters are not entirely transparent in Burnum Burnum's letter, I believe they could be resolved by some amendments to the legislation. Paragraph (b) of proposed new section 26(3) could be amended in these terms:

(b) in different Regional Aboriginal Land Council areas,

is only entitled to cast his or her vote once.

This would achieve the effect of restating the one person, one vote provision referred to in proposed new section 26(2), in addition to removing the "ordinarily resides" requirement. Burnum Burnum's concern was that it may be ambiguous if someone was not ordinarily resident in a particular area but wished to vote because of a particular or special connection. I am not a lawyer so I cannot comment as to the legality or otherwise of the proposition. However, it might be desirable to add a paragraph (c) that provided:

(c) Any person who is entitled to vote, who wishes to cast his or her vote in respect of a Local Aboriginal Land Council area other than the area in which the person is initially registered as ordinarily residing due to a special connection with that area, shall advise the Electoral Commissioner or other relevant person, who shall register the person as eligible to vote in the advised Local Aboriginal Land Council area.

That is a suggestion I put forward for discussion only. Two concerns have been raised with regard to Burnum Burnum's proposed changes: first, the procedural difficulties of implementing such a matter and, second, the nature of the special connection to an area other than that in which the Aboriginal person would ordinarily reside. The procedural matter is not an insurmountable difficulty. The second issue can appropriately be dealt with by the Aboriginal community. It may be a matter for further consultation. I had only preliminary discussions on that matter with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and I am in the process of arranging a further briefing with the council to see if the matter can be resolved. I look forward to a satisfactory resolution.

[Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted at 7.00 p.m. The House continued to sit.]

The Opposition is confident that the Government will amicably resolve this matter to the satisfaction of all involved. I should like to make some general comments in regard to what the Minister said in his second reading speech. He said:

. . . we now have the best Aboriginal land rights legislation in this nation.

That is an important statement and certainly in the
Page 1614
drafting of the Federal native land title legislation greater recognition should have been given to the New South Wales legislation. The Minister also said:

We need to ensure progress and we must not use Aborigines as a political football.

I wholeheartedly endorse that comment and look forward to a continuing bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs issues in this State. The Minister continued:

. . . it is important for us to ensure that we find solutions to Aboriginal affairs issues. We need to work towards ensuring that progress occurs.

Again I wholeheartedly support those comments. It is vital that we make genuine progress as we work towards a substantive resolution of and solution to Aboriginal affairs issues. When I was Minister I worked towards establishing two foundation stones needed within the Aboriginal community. The first - though they are equal - is the role of economic independence for Aboriginal individuals and communities; the second is recognition and encouragement of Aboriginal cultural vitality and an understanding within the Aboriginal community of cultural self-worth, as well as recognition by the wider Australian and international community. Those issues go together and are essential to the continuing progress of Aboriginal affairs issues - economic independence and empowerment, and cultural independence and value. This will result in genuine progress and I look forward to the Opposition having a supportive role in Aboriginal affairs issues to ensure that the full range of issues is advanced and that we can indeed look forward to an Australia in the twenty-first century in which all Australian citizens will be proud, independent people.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [7.03]: I support the Aboriginal Land Rights Amendment Bill, which has been a long time coming. I shall not go through the history of one vote one value as such because that provision will not affect the election on 16 December this year. There will not be time for that measure to be put in place. The most important provision in the bill is the recognition that there should be a Court of Disputed Returns to ensure that the fiasco that occurred four years ago on 16 November 1991 does not recur on 16 December when 13 regional councillors will be elected to become the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council.

A major hiccup occurred at the last New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council election on 16 November 1991 because when two areas were disputed there was no mechanism for a Court of Disputed Returns to adjudicate. In fact, at that time the Land and Environment Court ruled that because the 13 councillors could not be declared duly elected, the then New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council would continue until the 13 councillors were declared duly elected. It took from 16 November 1991 to 18 June 1994 for the disputes to be resolved and the 13 councillors to be duly elected. That meant that in accordance with the ruling of the Land and Environment Court the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council operated with councillors who had actually been voted out at the election in 1991.

Late in the sittings of the Parliament in 1991 an amendment was rushed through the Parliament by the Minister for the Environment, Tim Moore. I had some input into that measure, which sought to allow at least 10 councillors who had been declared elected to actually form the basis of an interim land council so that the business of addressing matters affecting Aboriginal people in this State by elected representatives could be dealt with. On a number of occasions the previous Government was approached to implement this legislation so that the same debacle would not occur in 1995. It failed to do so, and that is beyond my comprehension. The Labor Party campaigned in the March election this year to put in place a Court of Disputed Returns to deal with such issues so that the problem of 1991 would not recur in 1995.

The Government will do everything in its power to ensure that Aboriginal people are not disenfranchised or disadvantaged in any way and the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs has expressed his support for that. In fact, we should be bending over backwards to make sure that Aboriginal people in this State have the full support of the Government and the Opposition. I am pleased that the honourable member for Pittwater has indicated the Opposition's support for the legislative program on Aboriginal affairs that the Government will be implementing over the next few years. I have no doubt that when the honourable member becomes aware of legislation to be put before the Parliament - and in some instances it has already been mooted in past sittings of the House - he will realise what the Government seeks to achieve. It is important to have bipartisan support on Aboriginal affairs, and it is beyond my comprehension that Aboriginal affairs could be used as a political football. For that reason I welcome the guarantee given by the honourable member for Pittwater.

When this issue was raised with the Minister he moved as quickly as humanly possible to ensure that the amending legislation was brought before the House so that the election in December could run smoothly and any disputes could be resolved expeditiously. There is no point whatsoever in having a dispute dragging on for months and years, as happened previously. After the 1991 election there were two disputed seats, the South Coast the Sydney-Newcastle metropolitan area. A further election was called in 1992 and the results of the Sydney-Newcastle metropolitan election were finalised; but in the South Coast seat there was a further dispute which had to go to the Land and Environment Court. That dispute went on and on; it was not resolved until 18 June 1994, which is a big slab out of a four-year term for the very first plebiscite for the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council that was put in train through the amendments to the Act brought in by the previous Government. However, the amendments did not address the important issue of a disputed return being resolved as quickly as possible.

I assure the House that during the course of the
Page 1615
interim land council the broader community was disconcerted, wanted to know what was going on and wanted to know why a properly constituted land council had not been formed. The land council was restricted in some of the activities it could perform. I have great respect for people such as Manuel Ritchie, the Chairperson of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, and Danny Chapman and Nita Scott who are on the executive and who battled under extreme circumstances during that time, when there was a lot of criticism because there was not a fully constituted New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. We do not want that to happen again.

When the legislation has gone through this House tonight and through the upper House as soon as possible, the Court of Disputed Returns can be put in place and be operating prior to the election in December. The honourable member for Pittwater spoke about one vote one value, residential status and other issues. I have no doubt that those issues can be resolved, but they should not delay the passage of this legislation and prevent the Court of Disputed Returns being in place by 16 December. My advice from the land council is that it is happy with the legislation. I know that a small amendment will be moved in the Committee stage which will strengthen the legislation.

Honourable members should listen to what Aboriginal people are saying. I know that the honourable member for Pittwater became the Minister some 18 months or two years ago. I remember when that happened, because I had badgered the Government for a long time to recognise Aboriginal people in this State by appointing a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. When John Fahey became the Premier of this State he appointed Jim Longley, the honourable member for Pittwater, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I congratulated the Government on the appointment at the time, but I also indicated that I would be watching what happened very closely. I also said that I hoped the appointment was not made simply to satisfy criticism that had been levelled at the Government.

What I have learned, and I have learned more tonight after hearing the honourable member for Pittwater give his assurance that Aboriginal affairs in this State will not become a political football, is that he recognises the rights and aspirations of Aboriginal people in this State. I have no doubt that in the next few years of this Government's term honourable members will see a great leap forward in Aboriginal affairs in this State. The Minister has already started to implement policy on Aboriginal affairs that the Labor Party put before the people of this State. He has set up a Cabinet committee on Aboriginal affairs, which has already met and which comprises some high profile Ministers.

The committee is implementing policy and direction that the Minister has put forward. That is a very strong signal to the Aboriginal community in this State that not only this Government but this Parliament has a real understanding, a real commitment and a real drive to enhance not only the economic situation of Aboriginal people but also their social situation. It is also a strong signal that the Government has an understanding that Aboriginal people have been maligned for too long. The Parliament can turn that around. I was very happy to hear what was said tonight by the honourable member for Pittwater. I know that the Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that our policies are brought to the Parliament and implemented in the next three or four years. I assure all honourable members that, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I will do everything in my power to assist him to make sure that legislation is enacted in New South Wales that will give the Aboriginal people of this State a fair go.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [7.16], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Keira, the Parliamentary Secretary for Aboriginal Affairs, for his support for the legislation. Obviously, his clear understanding of the comprehensive nature of Aboriginal issues is well known. His understanding of individual issues and of what is happening in black Australia has shown through not only in his previous speeches in this place but recently as well. I pay tribute to him also for the way he has assisted my caucus colleagues to understand the issues of Aboriginal Australia. He has played a very important role. Part of the reconciliation process is ensuring that non-Aboriginal Australians understand the issues and are part of the solution to the problems that Aboriginal Australians face.

I also thank the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the honourable member for Pittwater, for his contribution, particularly the commitment I know he has to Aboriginal affairs and maintenance of a bipartisan approach. That is the only way that we are going to make the great gains that should be made. I welcome his suggestions on the legislation. Obviously we need to ensure that the court of disputed returns is set up for possible dispute resolution following the election on 16 December. The honourable member raised a number of other issues about one vote one value and whether Aboriginal people should be entitled to vote.

The honourable member for Pittwater has suggested that there may be time between debate here and debate in the other place to sort out these problems, but I have no interest in rushing this issue. If it would be better to delay that aspect of the legislation, that would certainly be in keeping with an appropriate response to ensure further consultation if necessary, and also, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to ensure that we get it right, that we are all comfortable with it and that we are sure that we are going forward. I foreshadow an amendment in regard to courts making orders for costs, which was raised earlier in the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1


Page 1616
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [7.20]: I move:

Page 5, Schedule 1 [2], proposed section 27AF, lines 31 and 32. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(3) Despite section 27AD, the Court may make an order for costs in respect of an application under section 27AC only if the Court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant the making of such an order.

It has been suggested that the court should have the power to award costs on the basis that most successful challenges to elections are a result of errors made by electoral officials through no fault of the parties or candidates involved. Therefore, it would be discriminatory not to provide the right to Aboriginal persons to access orders for costs in electoral disputes. I have sought the advice of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council on this matter, and it considers that costs should be awarded at the discretion of the court when exceptional circumstances warrant the making of such an order. The council has advised that a similar approach is used in land claim appeals, and it has found the system to be fair and reasonable.

Mr LONGLEY (Pittwater) [7.21]: The coalition supports this amendment as it seems to be a sensible way to proceed. The tightness with which cost orders can be made is a model which might be

applied in other areas. During my contribution to the second reading debate I was remiss in not mentioning that the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Michael Stewart, is in the gallery today. This is the first opportunity I have had to commend him for his work in that position. When I was the responsible Minister, Michael did a sterling job. He represents the interests of the Aboriginal people of New South Wales in an exemplary fashion.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:14:30   :   Update this page