Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 2 May 1996 (includes Friday, 3 May), 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.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.01]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill requires that members of the Legislative Assembly who resign their seats during their term of office except on certified medical grounds meet the costs of any resulting by-election brought on by their resignation. In other words, members of the Legislative Assembly who cut and run, usually for personal gain, will have to bear the consequent costs, not the people of New South Wales. The bill will amend section 79 to insert a pledge that a new member will be required to make to document a commitment to his or her electorate. Recently on Nightline Senator Bob Woods said that he signed such a pledge with his party in a clear effort to make a public statement that he intends to serve his term. The costs that a member would be required to pay in connection with a by-election would commence with the cost of the issue of the writ for the by-election. That cost would be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown. Recovery from the member's superannuation entitlement by way of a garnishee order could be an option.

The bill allows for exemptions on medical grounds. A member or former member would be exempt from payment if he or she resigned because of ill health or physical or mental incapacity, or the ill health or physical or mental incapacity of a close relative or other person who required the full-time care of the member or former member. A member would have a genuine reason for resigning under those circumstances. Resignations for other than medical reasons do not constitute good grounds for exemption. I do not agree with the practice of some members who resign prematurely to pursue other careers, particularly in the Federal parliamentary sphere. They should be required to pay. The background to and justification for my proposal is in part due to the low regard in which politics and politicians are held. Honourable members must attempt to raise the status of politics and politicians in this disillusioned community. Hugh MacKay, in his book Reinventing Australia, said that one of the seven big changes in our society that have threatened our sense of personal community identity is that a significant shift in the character of Australian politics has left voters confused and cynical and inclined to ask searching questions about the system. One of MacKay's characters, a young schoolboy, Jason, reflected a mixture of cynicism, confusion and helplessness when he said:

It's a bit hard to know what to say about politics. None of my friends at school ever really talk about it, except when something really sleazy has happened. Everyone is pretty cynical about it.

That is a sad interpretation. Many who enter politics do so for the right reasons and to work hard within the system. I am concerned that the public has received a message that politicians are engaged in personal gain, that they do not keep promises that they make to their electorate, and that politics is merely caught up in the adversarial nature of the two-party political system. The cynicism also reflects a mixture of lack of leadership in politics, lack of trust, broken promises and opportunism. Restoration of political integrity could be achieved through parliamentary, democratic and electoral reform. In the past six months five members have resigned from the Opposition. Why should the public have to pay the $750,000 it will cost to hold the by-elections on 25 May? On Nightline Senator Bob Woods debated the issue with Elaine Thompson and Stephen Loosely. Bob Woods was strongly in favour of a member who resigns voluntarily having to pay for a by-election. He was referring to the Keating resignation that had occurred several days previously. Clearly I have an ally in Bob Woods.

The line used by Mr Kennett prior to the Victorian election and by Jim Longley when I debated the matter on radio with him was that by-elections should be scrapped in favour of an appointment system. Kennett's argument was economic but my bill solves that, because the by-election would be paid for by the retiring member of Parliament. The concept of appointment rather than by-election merely emphasises the flaws of the party political duopoly: electors vote for a party and party pawns, not for individual representative members of Parliament. People will vote for anyone that a party puts up. If an Independent member resigned the appointment system would break down. The method of voting for Legislative Assembly members to some extent allows the electorate to vote for an individual in contrast with the method of voting for upper House members in which the ticket is predetermined. Automatic replacement is more consistent with the proportional voting system in the upper House, and that is the proper process. It is a democratic right of the electorate to express an opinion in a by-election following a resignation. It gives the electorate an opportunity to express its unhappiness at the resignation. The United Kingdom provides a litmus test on government, and John Major has been given
Page 726
a message over the past couple of years about the future of his Government.The by-election system has benefits in cases where a members resigns for genuine reasons.

The road back to political integrity is long. My bill is an attempt to make members of Parliament accountable and to introduce political honesty into the system. A member who pledges to serve his term will have to do so. If he cuts and runs to seek higher office or employment in the private sector, he will pay the cost. Politics is at a low ebb as a result of broken promises, a lack of political honesty and an abuse of process. It is probably outside the ambit of the bill for me to comment on this but the character assassination of a couple of Opposition members over the past few days is disgraceful. When honourable members bandy documents containing unsubstantiated or unauthenticated material about the honourable member for Sutherland, the public assume that he has done something wrong. I do not know whether he has done anything wrong.

We need an independent system. Accountability measures are provided in the form of the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption to deal with such matters. The kangaroo court that has been held over the past few days does nothing for the respect and status of politics. I cannot deal with that matter in relation to the bill but I can mention it because it is part of the political landscape and fabric that is being eroded. Honourable members are part of the political landscape and they need to examine ways of restoring some respect for it. I hope that my bill will help to rebuild confidence and enhance in a small way the status of politics, and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Nagle.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [9.12]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was previously introduced on 23 November 1995, before Parliament was prorogued. The purpose of this speech is essentially to reintroduce the bill. I refer honourable members to the speech I made on 23 November 1995. That the bill is important is evidenced by the number of honourable members in the House and the number of members of the press gallery who have come to listen to my speech. The bill will test the commitment of the Government and the Opposition to the rhetoric that is heard much too often in country areas. Statements are made encouraging growth and regional development but little is delivered. I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture is in the Chamber because the bill refers specifically to the exemption from payroll tax of agriculturally based value-adding industries. People on both sides of politics have said that the future of the nation and the State will revolve around the exportation of product and value adding to product. As Australia is essentially an agricultural nation it relies on agriculture to a great degree for its economic wellbeing. The more we can encourage value adding to agricultural product, the better our State and national economies will be.

It is paramount that the Minister for Agriculture takes on board what this bill attempts to do. Economically, it attempts to add value to raw primary products in country areas. That will have positive benefits for the economies of country areas in terms of employment and wellbeing. The bill recognises that changes are taking place in country communities, and is an attempt to address those changes by sending positive economic signals to those communities. The bill will also send positive signals to metropolitan areas that are experiencing social and environmental problems as a result of the urban sprawl of Sydney. Not long after the election the Premier spent some time - he was applauded for it at the time - travelling around country New South Wales and talking about the problems experienced by country areas, which are different from city-based problems. He said that he was prepared to address the short-term problems, as well as the medium-term and longer-term urban environmental and social problems.

The bill gives the Premier the opportunity to show his commitment to what he said in country areas and to address the problems in western Sydney. If the Government has a vision about balanced development of the State and the environmental and social problems in major urban areas, it should accept the bill. I hope it will be accepted also by the Opposition. As I said, value adding to primary products is important to this nation. The bill will provide a win-win situation for country and city communities. Only two days ago it was announced that a major mushroom processing industry has been encouraged to relocate to the Tamworth area by the correct economic signals. The industry will employ about 120 people and when fully developed will increase its staff to about 300. The process of encouraging that industry to move from the fringe of Sydney to Tamworth was lengthy and obviously involved some economic considerations. If this bill had been in place it would have sent a positive signal to existing processing industries that add value to raw primary products to relocate. The relocation of environmentally unfriendly industries that could adopt new technology would have had consequent benefits for the fringe of Sydney.

I encourage honourable members to read my previous speech. I recognise the involvement of the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and the honourable member for Dubbo in structuring the bill. They have a real interest in regional development and the positive economic signals that
Page 727
the bill will send to country areas. I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture is in the Chamber because I am sure that he recognises the real benefits that the bill would provide, such as expanding the profitability of agriculture and encouraging some agricultural sectors of the public service, which have taken a battering recently, to have a positive vision for the future. The bill will not be expensive in terms of its impact on Treasury. It will not divide country and city communities because it refers specifically to primary produce in non-metropolitan areas. It will test the Government's commitment to regional growth. It could be funded from payroll tax receipts, which will increase in the next year. I encourage all honourable members to consider the bill seriously and to examine the economics and benefits it would bring as well as the environmental and social problems that the State could face in the medium term and the long term. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [9.20]: I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 259, the Graffiti Control (Spray Paint Can Display) Bill, which was introduced in the Assembly during the previous session of the present Parliament, and lapsed due to the prorogation of that session, be now restored to the business paper as if its passage had not been interrupted by prorogation.

In the six months since this bill was first introduced, I have taken an opportunity to consult widely with industry and retailers about its possible ramifications. I have learned that revenue from the sale of aerosol spray paint cans in this State is approximately $42 million compared with a total damages bill of $100 million a year. I am sure most honourable members would agree that that ratio is extreme. I am disappointed that industry has not accepted any responsibility for the damage its products cause, in particular by showing a willingness to help fund the cost of cleaning up the damage that graffitists cause by using spray paint cans. In our discussions retailers and the industry focused on stiffer penalties. They did not seem to realise that under the Fahey Government two bills were passed that provided for a maximum gaol sentence of six months or a $2,000 fine for acts of graffiti vandalism - a substantial penalty.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member but I remind him that he has to convince the House that the bill should be restored to the business paper. Rather than outlining the contents of the bill he should be establishing the reasons for restoring the matter to the notice paper, in much the same way as urgency motions must be established when notice is given of more than one matter for urgent consideration.

Mr RICHARDSON: The bill has not been debated. I had only delivered my second reading speech. This is an issue that should concern all members of this House, and I believe it should be fully debated.

Motion agreed to.

Bill restored.


Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.24]: I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 259, the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill, which was introduced in the Assembly during the previous session of the present Parliament, and lapsed due to the prorogation of that session, be now restored to the business paper as if its passage had not been interrupted by prorogation.

The bill should be restored to the business paper with priority. During the previous session of this Parliament I had made my second reading speech well before the Parliament was prorogued. It deals with the key issues of the accountability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Parliament and of enhancing his independence by suggesting a mechanism for his more independent accountability to the Parliament. The matter should be restored to its former priority because the issue of the accountability and independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions remains a fundamental and important issue in this State. There is no better illustration of that than the debate yesterday on the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill, which underscored the fact that the DPP had had a strong difference of opinion with the Minister for Police and the Premier in the present Government and had been castigated in the Parliament for that difference of opinion.

In that context it is urgent that the DPP be given a forum in which he can express his views on issues that are important to his office when matters arising in this Parliament, particularly legislation, have an impact on the workings of his office and the conduct of prosecutions. That was the case with the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill. The restoration of priority for this bill will allow more expeditious consideration by this House of that matter and, in particular, the question of giving the Director of Public Prosecutions a privileged forum wherein all members of this House - as distinct from the Attorney General alone - can have the benefit of his views. At present the only alternative that the Director of Public Prosecutions has is to approach the media direct or be approached by the media for comments on contentious issues. That is not fair to the DPP. Given the ongoing public issues and disputes between the DPP and the Government, this bill would provide that forum. The bill therefore deserves the consideration of this House in the same order of priority it had before Parliament was
Page 728
prorogued. For those reasons I urge honourable members to support this motion. I believe the accountability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Parliament ought to be a priority consideration. I commend the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Bill restored.


Debate resumed from 18 April.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.28]: The coalition supports the bill, which is basically a procedural bill to wind up the Public Servant Housing Authority. It results from a review undertaken between 1990 and 1993 that strongly recommended that the assets and the responsibilities of the Public Servant Housing Authority be transferred to various other departments. Treasury directed that the authority be wound up and that all assets be transferred to the Crown. The process commenced in 1989 with a review of public service housing, and implementation of the recommendation that individual departments should become responsible for managing housing for their employees has been completed. In June 1993 Treasury directed the authority to wind up and transfer its assets to the Crown, and it has obviously been a successful process. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [9.30], in reply: On behalf of the honourable member for Badgerys Creek I thank the Opposition for its support for the Public Servant Housing Authority (Dissolution) Bill. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it is a procedural bill. I also take the opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for Badgerys Creek on introducing her first private member's bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Debate resumed from 18 April.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [9.33]: This legislation introduced by the honourable member -

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order. I recall that on 7 December the honourable member for Auburn made an excellent contribution to the bill. As the debate has been resumed as though it had not been interrupted by prorogation, he is not entitled to speak again.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is right. A member may not speak twice in a second reading debate.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [9.33]: I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the Opposition. Since the election on 25 March last year the Liberal and National Party coalition has suggested a series of changes to the legislation. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour put forward a proposal, and today we are debating the second proposal from the honourable member for Northcott, who is attempting to change the procedures for redistribution of electoral boundaries. In continuing with this proposed legislation it is obvious that the Opposition does not believe it lost the election last year. When I last spoke in the debate I stated that the bill would superimpose certain requirements on the Constitution Act. The Government will not support the bill. From my dealings with the honourable member for Northcott before he entered Parliament I have a great deal of respect for him, but I do not believe that the bill should be supported by the House.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [9.34], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in the debate, and those who tried to participate again. When the bill was debated during the latter part of last year it suffered from its proximity to the media Christmas party, which was an enjoyable affair. Unfortunately, according to a note on the press gallery board, the party managed to record its first loss in history. Many points were made in the debate, but few of those advanced by the Government related to the bill. The honourable member for Hurstville led for the Government, and I should like to address a number of issues to set his mind at ease. It may come as a shock to the honourable member for Hurstville that the legislation is based on principle, not on electoral advantage. I realise that that concept is difficult for any member of the New South Wales Right to grasp, but that is what the bill is about.

The word "principle" is understandably novel to members of the New South Wales Right, but we have to work on it. I am happy to compare my electoral record with that of the honourable member for Hurstville. I may have to answer for many things that occurred in the March 1995 election, but the honourable member for Hurstville has to answer for a number of things that occurred in the Hurstville and Kogarah council elections last year, both of which were lost to Labor. Both councils are now controlled by Liberals and Independents. This bill is not a radical, conservative proposal to rort the electoral system; rather, it will protect the
Page 729
principle of one vote one value, a principle that those on Labor's side, at least those of the non-Right, should hold dear. It is actually based on a South Australian precedent which arose from a similar electoral experience in that State in 1989.

Mr Nagle: A State that has the greatest history of gerrymandering in Australia.

Mr O'FARRELL: The honourable member should talk about the record of Don Dunstan on another occasion. The implementation of such a system in South Australia was recommended by a bipartisan parliamentary committee, again a novel concept to members of the New South Wales Right. It was put to the people via referendum by the Bannon Labor Government - that other great rorter of electoral systems - and it has formed the basis of two successful, fair and acclaimed redistributions. It is not novel. Contrary to the claims of the honourable member for Hurstville, such a system has not led to the demise of democratic government and its replacement by some form of right-wing oligarchy. It has not led to the abolition of single-member constituencies, as claimed by the honourable member for Hurstville. It has not produced the rorted redistributions of the type initiated by Labor in Queensland in the 1950s, and it has not introduced weighting of votes from Liberal and National Party electorates.

The honourable member for Hurstville went on to talk at great length about the weighting of votes. The fact is that the weighting of votes is a hallmark of Labor governments. The 1987 redistribution gave the Unsworth Government, in its dying days, a 3.5 per cent bias. The 1991 redistribution of the Greiner Government reduced that bias to 2 per cent; that is, there was still a Labor bias but it had been reduced from 3.5 per cent to 2 per cent. On the 1987 boundaries, Labor would have won the 1981 election with just 47 per cent of the vote. As I said in my second reading speech, the remaining bias would have been ironed out if there had been another redistribution, which is due now.

The honourable member for Hurstville stated in his contribution that the South Australian scheme referred to in my second reading speech and introduced into law and put into practice by a Labor government does just that. I appreciate the contribution of the honourable member, but I recognise that it had more to do with the criticisms of the Sydney Morning Herald last year of his lack of performance. The honourable member is endeavouring to upgrade his performance in this House so that, like the honourable member for Auburn, he can soon be fitted for a ministerial car. I again make the plea that they should go for wide-body Camrys. Other matters raised by the honourable member for Hurstville deserve comment. As to the absence of the National Party in the Tasmanian Parliament, the fact is that that party has never contested elections in that State.

Mr Jeffery: But they may.

Mr O'FARRELL: They did, but regrettably did not do well. The honourable member for Hurstville went on to speak about a so-called National Party rural rump. What he failed to do was recognise that honourable members such as the honourable member for Oxley win their seats with more than 50 per cent of the votes cast in their electorates. So there is no particular weighting in that; there is no rural rump. The honourable member for Oxley, a National Party member, won his seat with more than 50 per cent of the vote. The honourable member for Burrinjuck, a Liberal Party member, won his seat with a considerably higher vote than that. So there is no rural weighting. The suggestion by the honourable member for Hurstville that this bill is all about a rural weighting is completely wrong. The honourable member for Hurstville also went on to speak at length about that great reform of Neville Wran, the introduction of the system of one vote one value. That is to be applauded. If it is applauded by the honourable member for Hurstville, he should support the bill.

The honourable member for Davidson spoke in the debate on this bill. Clearly, he is an honourable member who understands electoral matters and appreciates the principles involved; he supports the principles involved. The honourable member is proud to stand in that great line of democrats, including some past members of the Australian Labor Party, who are prepared to fight for the principle of one vote one value. The honourable member for Davidson rightly pointed out that at present New South Wales voters have no assurance that the party to which they give the majority of their votes will end up governing. That is indicative of a sick democracy. This bill seeks to provide a remedy for that illness, a remedy tried and tested by a Labor government of the past.

The honourable member for The Entrance also made a contribution to this debate - at least, that is what some might call it. He expressed concern at the level of activity of Opposition members on electoral matters. I have to say that I and other members of the Opposition will continue to raise electoral matters in this House and outside it so that for every member of this House and for every member of the other place, of which I am not a great fan, we will try to have the fairest possible electoral system. I include within that general concern my concern that the Government is unnecessarily delaying the redistribution which was required to be put into effect last April.

Mr Jeffery: What about a preferential system in the Blaxland pre-selection?

Mr O'FARRELL: We will talk about pre-selection matters later. The honourable member for The Entrance at least addressed, sort of, the principles involved in this bill. Those principles are that a person's vote should carry the same weight as the vote of his or her neighbour. The honourable member for The Entrance went on at great length to
Page 730
make out a case as to why we had not remedied the bias in the system and why the proposal contained in the bill had not been moved while the coalition was in government. As I have said, in 1991 we sought to reduce the bias inserted in our electoral system by the Unsworth Government. We were successful in those endeavours to some extent, but the problem is that one cannot definitively work out a bias until after the result is made known.

The 1995 result has shown that there is still a 2 per cent bias in our system. It is that bias that we should all be seeking to eliminate, not for any sectional advantage but to ensure that we have a fair voting system. That is at the heart of this bill. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour participated in this debate. I have to say to the honourable member for Oxley that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is living proof of why the National Party holds its seats. He understands democracy; he understands fairness; and he understands the rorts and ramps engaged in by those opposite and is prepared to expose them. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour summarised this legislation well when he said:

The legislation is imperative and important not only to members of this House but to the people of New South Wales. It is important that the people of New South Wales be given an opportunity to elect a Government that has majority support in the community. This legislation will guarantee that majority support.

Again I say to honourable members opposite that that is an issue that they should not be concerned about. The contribution of the honourable member for Auburn was, as usual, enjoyable and entertaining. Unfortunately, again it was riddled with fiction, not fact. Nevertheless, I confidently predict that he will soon join the ministry. That will be a well-deserved break for him - and it would be a break for those on this side of the House. His ministry will probably come within the Whelan ministry, so it will not be that long before it occurs. The honourable member for Auburn commenced his contribution by talking about gerrymanders. I would have to say, without any sleight intended, that he had a hide to do that. He was a member of this House when Barrie Unsworth rorted the electoral system in 1987.

Mr Nagle: On a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House. I was elected in 1988, and I would never be a party to rorting the electoral system.

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

Mr O'FARRELL: I apologise for impugning the reputation of the honourable member. I will watch his actions in the upcoming redistribution to see whether he shows any symptoms of the Unsworth disease. What we saw in 1987 was a clear effort to try to cling to office by not only increasing the number of members of the Parliament but by rorting electoral boundaries so that the Greiner-Murray coalition had to win 53.5 per cent of the vote in order to gain a majority of seats. As the honourable member for Oxley knows, the coalition did much better than that - surprisingly better, as a few members on that side of the House who were returned to the House know. Nevertheless, if there are gerrymanders to be talked of in this place, they relate to Barrie Unsworth and those of his ilk. That is a history that no-one should want to talk about. The honourable member for Auburn demonstrated his distain for democracy when he said of me on 7 December:

I assure him that whether the Liberal Party wins 52 per cent or 48 per cent of the vote, it will still lose . . .

It is a basic precept of democracy that whoever wins a majority should win government. I repeat: the honourable member for Auburn showed his complete disdain for democracy. The concept of majority rule goes to the heart of democracy. That is something which many of his constituents who come from other countries were denied in those countries, as the honourable member knows well. I would have to say that the comments to which I have referred do not represent their heritage very well.

The honourable member for Auburn is in another life a barrister, a person supposed to be an upholder of law and principles. As a Minister in waiting, I thought he would have been the type of person prepared to see a wrong and right it. Yet he opposes a bill designed to remedy the sick democracy that exists in this State - a bill that was born of his Labor Party in South Australia and which should be supported in this House. The honourable member for Auburn went on at length about Neville Wran and his reforms. The honourable member should note that the reason I am a Liberal and not a conservative is that I am happy to improve on the past. I accept the Wran reforms. I simply say that the bill before the House will further refine those reforms. I also accept that, now, further advances to those reforms made by Neville Wran are required; in fact, they are essential to protect the reforms made by Neville Wran. I would have hoped that the honourable member for Auburn would have recognised that fact and expressed his support for the bill.

The honourable member for Auburn falsely accused the coalition of once again crying, "We was robbed." Of course, that is not an Opposition chorus; it was the chorus led by the Labor Party after the 1991 election. It was a song written by the Premier and the Minister for Police and sung loud and long from 1991 to 1995. This bill is about principle, about one vote one value, which is the basis of democracy. It is about a proven system that was tried and tested in South Australia and initiated by a Labor administration. The honourable member cited statistics from the Federal election and voting results. Once again he missed the point that this bill refers to the two-party, preferred-vote system and not the primary-vote system. He brought that sort of accuracy to an earlier debate when he wrongly cited English history, as the honourable member for Hawkesbury pointed out.

Page 731

The honourable member for Auburn claimed the National Party's 11.1 per cent statewide vote was overrepresented. What an outrageous claim against the honourable member for Oxley and his colleagues. The National Party contested only 19 seats and won 17 - not a bad result. Each seat was won with more than 50 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote. The honourable member for Auburn concluded by saying, "The bill draws no distinction between a vote given to a candidate in his or her personal capacity and a vote given to a candidate in his or her party capacity." I understand the honourable member's concern about the future of popular local members. No doubt even under this legislation he would be re-elected.

Mr Nagle: As a popular member.

Mr O'FARRELL: As a popular local member and someone destined to serve many years back on this side of the House. The last two speakers in this debate were the honourable member for Wyong and the honourable member for Lake Macquarie. Early in the debate the honourable member for The Entrance referred to a born-to-rule attitude. The honourable member for Wyong epitomises that attitude in this House. There could be a no more favoured son of the New South Wales Right and no greater example of why the New South Wales Right needs reform. The honourable member made no attempt to talk about principle, but every attempt to talk about electoral advantage. Vigilance is the requirement in democracy, not consistency. I thank the honourable member for Lake Macquarie for his considered contribution to the debate. He was roped into the debate at the last minute on an earlier occasion and again today.

I regret that he was not able to support an honourable member for Northcott - me - despite former honourable members for Northcott having supported him strongly on issues about Morisset and other aspects. I will remind former honourable members of Northcott of the ways these matters have progressed. This bill is about one person's vote carrying equal weight to that of his neighbours. The bill seeks to build on reforms presented by Labor and Liberal sides. I do not wish to reduce the contribution of the Wran Government by seeking to obtain a fair electoral system. I would have hoped that the Carr Government, with significantly high principled people like the Minister for Police and the honourable member for Auburn, would have acknowledged that and supported the bill.

Motion negatived.


Debate resumed from 18 April.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [9.53]: I lead for the Government. At the outset I indicate that the Government opposes the bill, and I will shortly explain the reasons. The Privacy and Data Protection Bill 1996 introduced by the honourable member for Eastwood is in identical terms to the Privacy and Data Protection Bill 1994 introduced into the Legislative Council by the previous Government. The honourable member for Eastwood introduced a similar bill last year. At that time the Government referred to the fundamental flaws in the bill and made it clear that its own legislation would be introduced as soon as practicable. That is basically the reason the Government opposes this bill.

I assure honourable members that the Government will honour its commitment to introduce that bill. As previously announced by the Premier and the Attorney General, the Government has already approved proposals for the preparation of far-reaching privacy and data protection legislation. The Government's bill is currently being drafted. I remind honourable members of the stinging criticisms of the New South Wales Privacy Committee about the former Government's legislation, which is now proposed by the honourable member for Eastwood. In its submission to the Legislative Council select committee considering the bill the Privacy Committee said:

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

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

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

•the bill permits virtually unrestricted data matching between public authorities;

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

•the privacy commissioner is given no power to act on complaints other than to write reports;

•the bill has very weak application to the private sector.

At page 24 of its submission the committee stated:

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

The bill currently being drafted will address issues raised by the Privacy Committee. It will not be a matter of choice for public sector agencies to comply with data protection principles. The legislation will make those principles applicable to and binding on all public sector agencies. There will be no broad exemption for intergovernmental transfers of information. I assure the honourable member for Eastwood that the bill will include criminal penalties for public officials abusing their position by using personal information held by the Government for their own benefit.

Page 732

The Government's legislation will provide for enforceable remedies, including damages, for those affected by breaches of the data protection principles by public sector agencies. This Government is serious about providing real privacy protection and rights to members of the community. The privacy commissioner will be given a wide range of powers, including responsibility for the conciliation of complaints, and wide audit and reporting powers. The bill will allow for codes of practice to be made to extend the application of the legislation, including remedy provisions, to the private sector. The privacy commissioner will advise on codes and will have power to initiate consultation with industry on areas where codes may be needed. The codes will be made by regulation by the responsible Minister.

While the Government has no doubt that there is need for an appropriate legislative response to the findings of the Independent Commission Against Corruption report, there can equally be no doubt that this bill does not go even close to doing the job properly. The Government is serious about protecting privacy. It has formulated its own proposals, which go further than those developed by the previous Government and ensure that New South Wales leads Australia on this matter. There is no point seeking to remedy this bill. As I have stated, the Government's bill is being drafted and will be introduced into Parliament as soon as it becomes available. With those comments, the Government opposes the private member's bill introduced by the honourable member for Eastwood. The Opposition must be patient; the legislation will be forthcoming as soon as it is available to the Government.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Chikarovski.


Debate resumed from 18 April.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [10.00]: I commend the honourable member for Eastwood for introducing this bill. He has a great interest in publicity, and that interest is serving him well as a member of the Opposition's frontbench. This bill highlights yet another broken promise of the Carr Government. This is a measure promised by the Labor Party in opposition and not delivered by the Labor Party in government. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 February 1995, under the banner headline "Labor to curb government ads", stated:

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Carr, vowed yesterday that a Labor government would not allow the blatant use of taxpayers' money to be used for political messages in the guise of government advertising.

Mr Carr told the Labor Council's annual meeting that the Australian Labor Party would introduce a publicity control bill to regulate government advertising.

The article continued:

The bill will set up a committee comprising the State Electoral Commissioner, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, all of whom will have the power to veto government advertising.

That was the promise in February 1995 and here we are in May 1996 with nothing on the record. In March 1992 the Premier, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, told the House that the purpose of what was then his Government Publicity Control Bill was:

. . . to end the waste of public funds on government publicity designed to influence public support for the government. It would ensure that so far as possible public authorities do not utilise their funds on publicity for a partisan political purpose.

One has to ask what has changed. One would think that the Labor Party was born in March 1995 and had no previous history. It is a sad day when Labor disowns both its Federal and State history. The bill is not directed at the actions of the former Liberal-National Party Government, as was made clear in the second reading speech of the honourable member for Eastwood. As the honourable member said:

The finding of the Australian Broadcasting Authority on the advertising of the previous Government about which the Premier complained, which included Cleanwater 2000, the health-emergency department, State forest plantations and CityRail safety stations, was that in each case the advertisements did not constitute the broadcast of political material.

The bill is not about those alleged abuses, but the same cannot be said for the Labor Party. The Labor Party is a past master at using taxpayers' funds to support its electoral activities. One need only glance through Hansard from 1988 back to note the kinds of efforts made by the Labor Party. For instance, a former member for Coffs Harbour told the House on 17 May 1988 that in the nine months to 31 March 1988 a total of $19 million had been spent on campaign advertising by the former Labor Government -

Mr Amery: Are you going to mention 1991 and 1995?

Mr O'FARRELL: - which was well above the total budget for the previous 12 months of slightly more than $17.89 million. In the last two years of the Unsworth Government $19 million and $17.9 million were spent on government publicity. The former member for Coffs Harbour went on to say that in November 1987 the cost of campaign advertising increased by 33 per cent compared with the previous year's costs and that in January, when Labor was trying to warm up for the election, the cost of campaign advertising rose by 259 per cent compared with the previous year's costs. The interjection as to what happened at the 1988 election -

Mr Amery: I said 1991 and 1995.

Page 733

Mr O'FARRELL: - is worthy, because at the end of the day the people can see through attempts to use taxpayers' funds to support a government - and that is precisely the reason that those opposite should support the bill and should honour the promise made by their leader, soon to be their former leader, in February 1995. In 1986 the former member for Gordon was able to advise the House of government advertisements in a supplement to the Daily Telegraph of Tuesday, 8 April 1986, entitled "New South Wales - The Premier State", the total cost of which was $35,000. In 1986 the former member for Northcott referred to a magazine promoting Darling Harbour which appeared in newspapers on Saturday, 1 November 1986. The magazine cost 22¢ a copy and, as 540,000 copies were printed, the total expenditure would have been more than $1 million. Things got so good under the former Government that when the former member for Gordon asked how many plaques were inscribed with the name of the former Minister for Public Works and Ports, and Minister for Roads he was told:

The provision of this information would not serve any useful purpose and consequently the cost of the research necessary to collate the information cannot be justified.

Clearly, the task was so great that not even a government bureaucracy was able to track the efforts of the former member for Heffron to have his name plastered across the State. Back in 1986 the honourable member for Murrumbidgee asked the Unsworth Government about the number of signs that had been erected, and was provided with the same answer. Under the Unsworth and Wran governments funds were spent willy-nilly in support of government electoral advantage, which is what this bill seeks to end. The bill should be welcomed by all members of the House because it will ensure that in future unfounded political attacks are avoided. All governments are subject to allegations about advertising for authorities and instrumentalities. This measure will ensure that such debate is kept to a sensible level and cannot be used for sectional advantage. I would have welcomed this kind of legislation when I was State Director of the Liberal Party; it would have given the lie to many of the claims made by the Australian Labor Party about Liberal Party advertising. As I have already said, that advertising was subsequently approved by the Australian Broadcasting Authority.

This bill is reasonable and sensible, as evidenced by the quotation from the Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, on 6 March 1992. It is based on a bill introduced at that time by the Premier. The legislation was subject to amendment by a legislation committee, which picked up an amendment moved by the honourable member for Campbelltown, who is now the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. Opposition to this kind of measure is critical. How can anyone object to a committee which comprises the Auditor-General? Although some might have thought that the Auditor-General was the twenty-first member of the shadow ministry during the term of office of the previous Government, he is now demonstrating a significant degree of bipartisanship in his coverage of the state of the accounts. Who could object to a committee comprising the Ombudsman, who similarly gives good protection to the State? Who could object to a part-time member of the committee who, I understand, has to have experience in advertising?

The Opposition could suggest a number of people who would make good part-time members. I think of former members of the House such as Laurie Brereton, Frank Walker and Barrie Unsworth, all of whom have personal experience of government publicity - although perhaps not government publicity control. The honourable member for Eastwood is to be congratulated on bringing forward this considered measure. The matter has been before a legislation committee of the House. The committee made two reports, a majority report and a minority report. The minority report was put together by the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads when he was in opposition. It is worth recording that even the minority report made it plain that the bill of the former Leader of the Opposition, the Premier, was completely unworkable. This bill seeks to remedy the defects found in the former legislation by incorporating recommendations contained in the report of the legislation committee.

The bill proposes that the publicity committee should have the power to review any government publicity but that it should not have a pro-active obligation to review the publicity in advance. It will also have the capacity to act on complaints from the public regarding advertising. The definition of "government publicity" has been refined in this bill to limit it to paid advertising. Once again the honourable member for Eastwood is to be commended for this legislation. It would be hypocritical for Government members to oppose this bill, as I expect them to do. They would be disdainful of the electorate if they reneged on a promise made by the Premier in February last year, a promise which has still not been delivered. It would be hypocritical for the Government to oppose a measure which it pursued when it was in opposition. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [10.11]: I join with the honourable member for Northcott in supporting this bill. I imagine that Government members will support it also because it is a modification of the bill introduced in 1992 by the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition. The former Leader of the Opposition said in his second reading speech:

The purpose of this bill is to end the waste of public funds on government publicity designed to influence public support for the government. It would ensure that so far as possible public authorities do not utilise their funds on publicity for a partisan political purpose.

Page 734

The Premier has been slow to put into practice that laudable aim now that he is in government. It is interesting to note how people's enthusiasm for measures like this bill diminishes when they come into office. It is all very well to speak fine words when one is in opposition, but when one's programs are scrutinised daily by the public, by the media and by this House, one's enthusiasm tends to diminish somewhat. I wonder whether that might not have resulted from the criticisms made in November last year by the Auditor-General of the eight-page newsletter from the Premier's office entitled "The Carr Government Achieving" - one of the greatest oxymorons from this Government in the last 13 months.

As recently as February 1995 the Premier, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, was extolling the virtues of a bill designed to control government publicity. Speaking at the annual meeting of the Labor Council only a month before the election, he said that the Australian Labor Party would introduce a publicity control bill to regulate government advertising. Where is the bill? Honourable members have not seen it yet. The only bill that has been introduced is the one brought forward by the honourable member for Eastwood, which takes into account issues that were raised by the legislation committee that was formed in 1992 to investigate this issue. I concur with the honourable member for Northcott that the honourable member for Eastwood is to be commended for introducing this bill.

The honourable member for Eastwood, as chairman of the legislation committee, attempted to tidy up the bill introduced by the Premier to make it acceptable to all honourable members. A major change has been the replacement of the Electoral Commissioner, as it was evident that there was a clear conflict of interest. The Electoral Commissioner, who, as a member of the committee, would have been vetting government advertising, is to be replaced by a person with advertising experience. I am sure all honourable members can see the virtues and benefits of that replacement. A lack of creative flair in the bureaucracy is evident. Advertising is not something that is easily understood by members of the bureaucracy. The documents that members of this House have to peruse every day of their working lives are poor advertisements for bureaucrats' communication skills. In fact, the legislation committee, when speaking about the New Zealand Auditor-General, said:

The New Zealand Auditor-General produced advertisements which were as informative as an encyclopaedia and about as exciting to read.

Labor members of the committee agreed to replace the Electoral Commissioner with someone who has a substantial background in the advertising industry. The New South Wales Auditor-General, in his report on government advertising, stated:

The New Zealand Auditor-General had the ultimate right of scrutiny and absolute veto over the content and distribution of government advertising. While this arrangement ensured greater propriety in government advertising campaigns, the colourless but factual end product could fail to reach its desired target audience, thereby constituting an effective use of taxpayers' money in terms of meeting the designated campaign and overriding policy objectives.

I will return to that issue later. The problem with the New Zealand guidelines, which were appended to the report of the legislation committee, was that they had been modified by the New Zealand Auditor-General, who was imposing on others his bureaucratic view of what constituted good advertising. It was also agreed by Labor members of the committee that the Auditor-General's amending criteria to the New Zealand guidelines should be deleted. The second change incorporated into the original bill by the honourable member for Eastwood relates to the definition of government advertising, which is now to be only paid advertising and will not include press releases. The honourable member for Eastwood clearly spelt out exactly what should come within the ambit of the bill. That issue was also agreed to by Labor members of the legislation committee. It is apparent that the proposal by the honourable member for Eastwood had bipartisan support.

The third change to the bill is that the committee should take a reactive, not pro-active, role. In other words, it should not have to vet every advertisement that is produced by the government; it should react to issues that are placed before it. That meritorious change will mean that the work of the part-time members of the committee will not be unduly onerous. In 1992 about 1,500 advertisements were placed with the Government Advertising Agency. They included advertisements for lotteries, road safety, Landcom, Darling Harbour, the register of encumbered vehicles, REVs, local government, universities and job advertisements. Clearly, it would be pointless for the proposed committee to evaluate all of those advertisements. I believe it is universally accepted that government advertising has an advocacy role: programs introduced by a government need to be promoted. The honourable member for Eastwood, as chairman of the legislation committee, said:

We consider that if a government has been elected with a mandate to introduce new policies it not only has the right, but also an obligation to explain the implementation of these policies to the voting public.

It is important to understand that all government advertising might carry some sort of covert political message. It could be argued that advertisements promoting road safety, or even advertisements promoting safe sex, or the Me No Fry anti-cancer campaign mounted by the Department of Health, may be regarded by some as promoting the image of a caring government, a government that wants to do something about the road toll and reduce the incidence of cancer in the community. The former Government was criticised for the advertisement
Page 735
"Train's the Way to Go", which it was running before the last election. Obviously, government programs must be publicised. Patronage must be attracted to the public transport system. The public transport system competes with private transport. It is a service; it is a product; and, as such, it must be promoted in the same way as other services and products, but not in some dreary bureaucratic fashion that no-one other than those who dreamed up the advertisements would read.

The ultimate intention of the bill is to prevent the outrageous use of public money for political purposes, as happened in late 1987 and early 1988 during the term of office of the Unsworth Government, when advertising by some departments increased by as much as 400 per cent. This issue transcends national boundaries; it is not unique to New South Wales. The Canadian lawyer Mr J. Patrick Boyer discussed the issue in the winter 1982 edition of the Business Quarterly, so it is a fairly longstanding issue. At the time the Canadian Government was the biggest advertiser in the nation. Mr Boyer wrote:

The issue of government spending on promotional advertising, which is intended to enhance the political position of the party in power or to win wider acceptance of its policies and programs, becomes increasingly significant as government spending in this area keeps rising. One might ignore these lapses if they occurred only rarely but the thesis here is that this practice of official self-promotion by manipulating issues through tax-funded advertising is becoming a deep-seated cancer in our system of public government.

It is interesting to note that in the province of Saskatchewan the Government is restricted during elections to advertisements necessary in the public interest or of an emergency nature. If the Government supports the bill it might consider subsequently amending the Act to include similar restrictions. The Auditor-General recommended that a separately constituted committee be legally given the ultimate responsibility and authority to adjudicate and decide on compliance of proposed campaign advertising with an established advertising code. Previously the task of reviewing all advertisements was too onerous, particularly given the broad definition of government advertising by the Auditor-General. He suggested the definition should encompass, for example, all promotional material released by agencies, including policy statements and promotional brochures.

The Auditor-General conceded that government advertising has a legitimate and increasingly important role to play in advocating and influencing spending and behavioural responses and attitudes in the community. This, in part, is a reason for the growth in advertising expenditure over the past decade. The major difficulties are the timing of these advertising campaigns and the inadequate guidelines within which this advertising takes place. That assertion in the Auditor-General's performance audit report on government advertising strengthens the need for an independent authority to act as a watchdog on government advertising. Government advertising must not only be apolitical, it must be seen to be apolitical. The bill, which takes into account all of the issues raised by the legislation committee, many of which received bipartisan support, provides this mechanism in the most appropriate way. Since this measure has been advocated by the Premier and by the Government, I hope that the bill will receive support from both sides of the House.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development) [10.22]: I lead for the Government. I am astounded that the honourable member for Northcott would have the sheer gall to lecture honourable members about the appropriateness or otherwise of using taxpayers' money for political purposes. Honourable members will recall that he was the campaign manager for the Liberal Party at the last State election. I cannot believe he is serious. He must have come into the House with tongue firmly in cheek, because no-one would believe that he was genuine in what he said, given his record in the last State election.

Is the honourable member for Northcott suggesting that as campaign director for the Liberal Party in the last State election he was unaware of the plans by various former State Ministers to dramatically increase the advertising expenditure of their departments in the lead-up to the State election? Will he seriously suggest that as campaign director for the Liberal Party he never met with former Premier Fahey, with Treasurer Collins, with transport Minister Baird, and with health Ministers, and discussed with them the advantages of misappropriating taxpayers' money to assist the Liberal-National Party in the State election campaign?

I refuse to believe that the honourable member for Northcott, in the tactics and campaign management meetings, did not suggest to the Premier of the day that taxpayers' money be used to advantage the party in the upcoming election campaign. Is he suggesting that he sat back in his Liberal Party office and expressed great surprise and disappointment that the Liberal Party-National Party Government misappropriated taxpayers' money for the purpose of gaining extra votes in the election? I cannot believe that to be the case.

The honourable member for Northcott has shown himself to be the biggest hypocrite this Parliament has ever seen. He sat in tactics and campaign management meetings with senior Ministers of the previous Government and planned expenditure from October-November 1994 through to March 1995 that dramatically ramped up the expenditure of those departments and promoted each agency so that the people in the community would feel comfortable that the Government at the time was doing a good job. For him to have the nerve to express concern about government expenditure and the gall to skate over the matters I have referred to without even a mention is a poor show indeed.

Page 736

Bearing in mind the role of the honourable member for Northcott as campaign manager and his role today, honourable members must see this bill for what it is. It is a stunt, a sham, an empty vessel. It is merely a device to deflect the serious criticism that was laid upon the shoulders of the Liberal-National Party as a result of its gross misuse of taxpayers' money in the period October-November 1994 through to March 1995. The bill is a stunt to try to hide the valid criticism that the Liberal-National Party misappropriated taxpayers' money - not only hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars or tens of thousands of dollars, but taxpayers' money to the tune of millions of dollars - with a view to gaining political support at the forthcoming election.

It is appropriate to look at some of those excesses. If the honourable member for Northcott is listening, I would be interested to hear whether he sat in any of the tactics meetings with Ministers of the day, their chiefs of staff, and representatives of their advertising agency, which was obviously crafting the synergy between advertisements paid for by the Liberal Party and advertisements paid for by the Government to make sure they gave the same message, that is, to vote for the coalition at the election. Did he say, "We will pay for some of the advertisements out of Liberal Party coffers but most of them will be paid for out of taxpayer coffers and I, Barry O'Farrell, will make sure that it all leads to one end of the pyramid, which is that we will get re-elected"?

I want to know whether he was involved in any of those decisions, for example, the ferry campaign "You Can't Beat A Ferry". The expenditure for Sydney Ferries in 1993-94 was $1.4 million and - surprise, surprise - it increased to just under $2 million in 1994-95. I am sure the Opposition would claim that was sheer coincidence. Another example is the SydneyPass Explorer campaign. It was important for the coalition Government to give a good transport message that people felt comfortable with when they went to the ballot box. In 1993-94 the expenditure increased from $1.78 million to $2.2 million, a rise of $500,000 in one year. Was it a coincidence that there happened to be an election in March 1995? The Roads and Traffic Authority was an issue of great concern to the voters, and the Government was concerned about its image in that area of responsibility. Campaigns were conducted in relation to drinking and driving, speed, fatigue and bicycle safety. Expenditure increased from $6.2 million to $9.8 million - a massive increase.

It gets worse because, apart from those dramatic increases, specific campaigns provided for within some expenditures were directly related to improving the coalition's performance at the State election. The Auditor-General's report mentioned the Homebush Bay update newsletter which emanated from the Homebush Bay Corporation. That newsletter, which set out the details of the alleged achievements of the Homebush Bay Corporation, contained - surprise - a photo of the then Premier, John Fahey, and was distributed on the day before the election. Clearly, that document was produced to gain votes at the election the following day.

If the honourable member for Northcott is listening, I would be astounded if he could honestly say he knew nothing about the Homebush Bay update, that he was unaware that it was being produced at taxpayers' expense, and that it was about to be distributed prior to the State election. Another matter of extreme concern raised by the Auditor-General was the tilt train campaign which ran from 7 March to 22 March 1995 - not November 1994, January or February 1995. That campaign was not a bipartisan attempt by the former Government, in unison with the Labor Opposition, to present a good idea to the community. Only 23 Government members attended the launch of the tilt train, and I am told it travelled from station to station, all over the place, but rarely stopped at a station in a Labor electorate. The cost of that theft of taxpayers' money for political purposes was just under $700,000.

Where was the honourable member for Northcott when the meetings were conducted to discuss that expenditure? Was he so busy in the head office of the Liberal Party that he did not know anything about 23 coalition members of Parliament, hopping on board with Bruce Baird and company, getting out at station after station and saying, "Toot! Toot! Here we are, vote for us. We did not pay for this, we did not pay a cent"? The honourable member for Northcott worked this out and went to Premier Fahey's office and said, "Let us knock off $700,000 because it will help us in all these marginal seats if we can `Toot! Toot!' as we travel through." I cannot believe that the Opposition has the gall to come in here and lecture the Government about the misuse of taxpayers' money for political purposes.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member for Oxley will cease interjecting. He will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate at the appropriate time.

Mr SCULLY: The Government has the Opposition on toast on this matter. The honourable member for Northcott is the hypocrite's hypocrite. These examples that are enunciated in the Auditor-General's report outline lock, stock and barrel that sheer hypocrisy. The tilt train campaign is probably the worst and most bizarre example of the former coalition Government misusing taxpayers' money for political purposes in promoting its image leading up to the State election. Unfortunately, there are more examples; the list goes on and on. I am glad to see the honourable member for Ermington in the Chamber.

Mr Photios: Tell us about the Tangara train that went to all these stations in 1988.

Page 737

Mr SCULLY: It is all very well for the Opposition to be talking about what happened in 1987 and 1988, but that is getting a little long in the tooth. I was not then a member of this House, nor were honourable members opposite. I would like the Opposition to talk about the 1994-95 period and the ethnic grants. I understand the honourable member for Ermington is regularly involved in these tactics; he is a senior player; he gets in and talks about strategies and about what marginal seats they should campaign in. He is a well-regarded, upcoming young man and he would have been well aware of these expenditure programs. I would like him to comment on the Sutherland Shire discussion paper concerning Sydney Water. The honourable member for Sutherland at the time was rightly worried about the campaign by Genevieve Rankin and he was re-elected, as we all know. A discussion paper was produced by Sydney Water - I quote from the Auditor-General's report - which stated:

. . . in the view of The Audit Office, in contravention of government guidelines pertaining to advertising during an election campaign period.

This is particularly the case given the apparent potential political overtones of the commentary included therein, such as:

Essential reading for anyone who enjoys the beaches and bays in the Sutherland Shire.

The quality of water in the Sutherland Shire beaches has been improving steadily over the past two years.

That information would be almost enough to make constituents stand in line to vote for the then honourable member for Sutherland, but it was not enough for more follows:

The March 1995 issue -

it is a coincidence that in March 1995 there happened to be a State election -

of Choices, (a newsletter of Sydney Water), distributed to over 1,000 groups -

I cannot believe it would have been distributed only in his electorate, but perhaps I am being a little too cynical-

and individuals via a mailing list, also included such comments as:

Water quality at the beaches in this area has been good and improving over the last two years due to a number of works that have been carried out at the Cronulla plant.

I am certainly not going to list the myriad excesses set out in the Auditor-General's report, but referring to the Department of Health the Auditor-General said:

The month of February 1995 recorded the highest ever level of campaign expenditure by NSW Health. It was more than double any other monthly figure in 1994-95 . . .

The Fit 200 campaign was established at the direction of the former Minister for Health, with a request in late January 1995 to develop, in three weeks, an awareness campaign and television commercial building upon the Olympic 2000 program.

Is that not enough to convince this House of this sham legislation? Perhaps the House wants to hear more from the Auditor-General. I note that Tony Packard's successor, the honourable member for The Hills, spoke in this Chamber about the Auditor-General, but he did not mention this expenditure. The report further states:

The circumstances surrounding the above advertisements give rise to a concern that they are characterised by political intent. The reasons for that concern are:

•the campaigns appeared to be organised at short notice and in the vicinity of an impending election

•there is a linkage between the press advertisement Why NSW is the World's Safest place to have Surgery, the Emergency Departments campaign and the Community Attitudes Research undertaken by the Office of Strategic Planning (Cabinet Office), discussed later in this report

•the press advertisement Why NSW is the World's Safest place to have Surgery was not specifically linked to any program objective of the department, but rather sold a message to the public that concerns about health care standards were being addressed

•these campaigns had the capacity to influence public support for the incumbent political party.

To conclude my comments need I say more than what the Auditor-General said?

Mr Photios: If nothing else this demonstrates the need for such a committee.

Mr SCULLY: I am astounded. How can the honourable member seriously suggest that, having stolen from the public purse, he wants to take action. Does the honourable member for Ermington seriously suggest that?

Mr Photios: I stole, or the Minister stole?

Mr SCULLY: This is the financial rapist -

Mr Photios: On a point of order. It would not be appropriate for the Minister to launch an attack on a member suggesting that he or she stole from the general public without reference to the precise allegation. Is the Minister referring to the Auditor-General's report in respect of those Ministers or is he referring to me?

Mr SCULLY: On the point of order. Clearly, the honourable member is able to understand what I said: namely, that the previous Government as a whole misappropriated taxpayers' money. The Auditor-General made that point clear. If the member looks in his Roget's Thesaurus he will see that the word "misappropriation" can be used synonymously with "theft", "stealing", "knocking off", "raping the public purse" -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The Minister has made his point. He will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr SCULLY: The Auditor-General made a statement about the election campaign of the previous Government, of which the honourable member for Ermington was a Minister, as follows:

Page 738

In the case of CountryLink, Homebush Bay Corporation, Sydney Water and Sydney Buses, advertising/promotional practices appear to have convened the above guidelines for advertising during an election campaign period. In addition, they can be seen as having been subject to Government influences not wholly related to the advertising campaign.

That sums up the record of the Liberal and National parties in relation to government advertising and the misuse of taxpayers' money. The Government has made it plain that it wants to end the excesses of the previous Government. Coming clean today, with members opposite saying that they have sinned and wish to sin no more, is refreshingly honest. The Government is happy to avail itself of this opportunity to remove the temptation of sin from members opposite. Later this session the Government will introduce its own legislation to deal with this issue.

This bill before the House has a number of deficiencies, primarily because the honourable member for Eastwood has trotted out this legislation, which is a sham and a stunt, to deal with the embarrassment he and his party face as a result of the Auditor-General's report. Had he been without sin and were he genuine in his attempts to deal with this problem, he would have much better legislation before this House. One of the deficiencies of the bill is that it contains no ban on advertising during election campaigns. I record that when the Government introduces its legislation later this session, it will include a ban on election period advertising - full stop. Obviously, exemptions will be necessary in relation to natural disasters, emergencies and the conventional classified advertisements, but apart from those exemptions a blanket ban will apply to advertising during election campaign periods. This legislation before the House does not deal with that issue. A government in an election campaign could still probably comply with the provisions of the Tink bill and get away with what was done by the previous Government; that is, engage in a massive ramping up of expenditure with the sole purpose of making the community feel good about State issues. It will see advertising depicting trains and ferries running -

Mr Photios: From what date will your ban take effect?

Mr SCULLY: I am happy to answer that. The ban will apply for the next election. The Government is happy to deny itself the opportunity to do what members opposite did so wantonly in October-November 1994 until March 1995. The Government is on record as indicating that it will introduce legislation dealing with this matter, and the Government will fulfil that commitment this year. The other problem in this issue is the role of the Government Advertising Agency, and this aspect is not dealt with in this legislation. The Government Advertising Agency, as members would be aware, is a business unit within the Department of Public Works and Services and has the role of collating and booking advertising space with television, radio and newspapers. The Auditor-General made a good point in this regard: that is, that we need to look at whether that agency's role should be expanded. I am currently considering that issue and it will be addressed when I introduce legislation later this session. That is another reason for rejecting this bill today.

The honourable member for Eastwood is almost falling over himself to shake off the shackles of the Auditor-General's report, yet he has not dealt with the substantive problem of preventing these inappropriate actions. He has plucked out of the air the composition of the committee as the means to fix the problem. He claims that by putting the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and another person on the committee, the problem will be fixed. That would make the committee reactive, relying upon the status of those positions in the community. The Government believes that we need to be more prescriptive in how we deal with the powers and operations of that committee. I am concerned that the honourable member for Eastwood has made his provision far too discretionary.

Over the next few weeks the Government will consider how to beef up the committee's role. Its role will not be too restricted, and I accept the point made by the honourable member for The Hills that the wheels of government should not come to a standstill through our making the committee too prescriptive so that an advertisement for a government receptionist position cannot be placed in the weekend classifieds without checking with the head of the government advertising committee. That is one extreme and the Tink committee is the other extreme as it is given no function at all apart from relying upon its composition. We must work somewhere in between. I am currently considering and seeking advice on those matters. I will be taking the matter to Cabinet in the near future and introducing a bill in ensuing weeks.

The Government is committed to dealing with this issue. We are fair dinkum about avoiding the problems created by the record of the previous Government. We reject the Tink bill for the reasons outlined, and I hope that the Opposition sees the error of its ways: this problem is not only about removing the shackles of the Auditor-General's report and removing sin. Members opposite have undertaken this exercise because of their guilt and shame, which they want to put into the past. Members opposite did it - and they meant to do it - but they came clean today. We must move forward, but in so doing we must deal with this issue properly. This legislation is a clumsy exercise. If a government had this legislation, with its many loopholes, before it as a means of controlling political advertising, that government would not be restricted.

The Government would do the right thing under the provisions contained in the bill, it would not abuse its position of power, but if the coalition were in government after the 1999 election I am
Page 739
sure that at the 2003 election it would rely on those provisions to run a campaign similar to that of 1995. I am pleased to have had the time to present the Government's view on the bill. The concept or principle is sound but the bill is bad, ill advised and ill prepared. For those technical reasons the Government urges the House to reject the bill.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [10.50]: I speak on the bill unexpectedly but with some enthusiasm, having heard the Minister for Public Works and Services, and Minister for Ports address the bill articulately, in his usual manner. As a Minister in the previous Government I enjoyed an exemplary reputation of being non-political in the administration of my portfolio. I worked assiduously to ensure that nothing in the multicultural or ethnic affairs portfolio - not least the grants - operated for political purposes. I, more than most, know how important it is to discharge one's responsibilities in an apolitical and community-based way. As the Minister for Public Works and Services has done, I too have read much of what the Auditor-General has said on government expenditure in the past.

I welcome what I could only describe as a crossbench presentation by the Minister. In a rather extraordinary speech he gave chapter and verse, quote after quote, each one of which I welcome, ample evidence of why the Tink bill is needed. He suggested, rightly or wrongly, like the Auditor-General, that the previous Government may or may not have indulged in some political advertising. Of course, as a former Minister I would be the last to concede on that point. But taking the remarks of the Minister and the views of the Auditor-General at face value, the Minister has demonstrated the need for the Government Publicity Control Bill. We welcome the crossbench speech by the Minister. I am particularly pleased that presentation of the bill by the honourable member for Eastwood has forced the Government's hand.

At some future date the Government will have to present a bill to ban political advertising. There was an admission of guilt by the Minister that the Government had every intention without the bill to carry out a determined campaign to orchestrate and manipulate public opinion. However, there is something amiss in what the Minister said today. On the one hand he said that government advertising can and will be misused. That is to say, Government expenditure will be misused in presenting a government message in an election campaign. He unqualifiedly concedes that advertising can and will be misused in an election campaign. Therefore, why is it not the case that advertising could not be misused throughout the Government's term of office right up until the time the writs are issued for an election?

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that his Government will misuse the expenditure available to it in political campaigns for three years and 10 months and then in the final two months the brakes will be put on, the gears will be thrown into reverse and for just two months - maybe two weeks, but a time so far undefined - the Government will go to the public without any abuse of public money. This Minister - he is pretty good at it - and his colleagues are going to run the rorts right up to the wire, for three years and ten months and ten hours. They will abuse the Government expenditure available to them. That is why they want to bring in a bill which will restrict their use of public expenditure on Government advertising for only the final hours of their term in government.

The Minister, who is sitting across the table, is trying to give me a message. Is he suggesting that government advertising will be restricted for just six days in the final week? Public advertising by political parties on the airwaves is banned for the final three days of an election campaign. We want to hear from the Minister on how long in advance of an election government advertising will be banned. The Minister's crossbench presentation has given ample evidence of why we need the bill passed now, why we need an independent committee to monitor government expenditure day by day, month by month and year in and year out. Government advertising and government rorting should be restricted not just for a matter of weeks but for the whole four-year term. With those few words I support the substance of the Minister's speech, if not the final message. I welcome the bill and congratulate the honourable member for Eastwood. As a previous Minister who diligently pursued a non-political approach in discharging my responsibilities, I can see every reason for making sure that we control the Minister every day of his political life.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Jeffery.


Debate resumed from 24 April.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [11.00]: Staysafe 27 deals with traffic stops, police chases and police pursuits of motor vehicles. When Staysafe was established in approximately 1982 about 1,260 lives were lost on the roads each year. Road deaths last year were less than half that figure. Of course, the number is still far too high and we should aim to prevent all road deaths. We have a duty of care to save lives and the recommendations of Staysafe are directed at doing this. Staysafe 27 contains recommendations which require action by the Minister for Transport and the Attorney General. The report is comprehensive: it contains 34 recommendations and is of 238 pages. Police involved in traffic pursuits, even under extreme pressure, must nevertheless drive safely, and the report contains recommendations in this regard. It also sets out a comprehensive training curriculum for senior police.

The committee also suggested amendments to the Traffic Act 1909 in relation to police acting reasonably during pursuits. This is an old Act and many changes have occurred since its passage in
Page 740
relation to police pursuits in modern, fast and powerful vehicles. All the issues outlined in the report are applicable to police chases. Amber flashing lights are used on ambulances and fire-engines as well as in other emergency services areas. The report contains a recommendation which could prove to have safety advantages if the police vehicle headlights, particularly during day time, could flash as well as having the amber lights flash. This would enable other road users and members of the public to know that a police pursuit was in progress.

The visibility and identity of marked police vehicles has improved dramatically in recent times by the use of colourful stripes and marks. No recommendation is made in the report to change the provisions for roadblocks and checkpoints, or the provisions relating to the ramming of motor vehicles being pursued. However, several committee members, including me, travelled to Wellington, New Zealand, and with the Deputy Commissioner of Police and senior police examined New Zealand's policy on police chases. The New Zealand police vehicle is made structurally stronger than ours with the use of external bars. In a pursuit it can get ahead of the offending vehicle and push it aside. While that may have proved satisfactory for skilled drivers with fast and powerful vehicles, it could also create dangerous situations for other road users and the general public. That initiative may seem appealing but some committee members do not consider that it should be a recommendation.

The use of helicopters, which are easily identified, is of tremendous advantage in pursuing motor vehicles. In metropolitan areas helicopters can take off soon after the need is identified and can land on a site within a built-up area. However, helicopters are expensive. They are probably not practical on the open highways where a fixed-wing aircraft is more appropriate. The current use of aircraft for motor vehicle pursuit and surveillance work is satisfactory and the committee recommends no change in that area.

The report contains a recommendation for the trial of tyre deflation devices. The committee members inspected spiked belts placed across a road by police prior to the offending vehicle travelling down that road. As the vehicle went over the spiked belt its tyres deflated very quickly - although not so quickly that the vehicle went out of control - and could travel no more than a couple of hundred metres. It is an efficient way of chasing and stopping a vehicle. However, honourable members appreciate that there could be many vehicles on a busy highway - [Time expired.]

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [11.05]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "by" with a view to adding instead "the matter being referred to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police to liaise with the Staysafe Committee concerning the recommendations of Staysafe Report No. 27."

I move this motion after discussions with the Minister for Police. I was a member of the Staysafe committee at the time of the discussion of the recommendations that ultimately appeared in this report. I am pleased to support the thrust of the recommendations. Many of them have been implemented in one form or another and I commend all those involved in the production of the report and its recommendations for their efforts. The Minister considers that this document is of such importance to the public that there must be complete consultation about the recommendations. Because this report relates to issues that are the subject of interpretation by police, such as police chases, police pursuits of motor vehicles and so forth, the matter should be referred for liaison between the Staysafe committee, with which I would be pleased to be once again connected, and the Minister for Police.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [11.08], in reply: I will deal with the amendment after I conclude my contribution on the motion. I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate. I refer here to the honourable member for Bega, the honourable member for Londonderry - Chairman of the Staysafe committee - the honourable member for Rockdale, the honourable member for Murray and, very briefly, the honourable member for Bulli. I am concerned about the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bulli. The amendment has been forced upon the House by the honourable member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police and a former member of the Staysafe committee. As a former member of the committee he knew of the recommendations, yet he now finds it necessary for the committee to liaise with him about the recommendations. He knows all about them! It is ludicrous that he should come in here with this stunt, and without notice. The Staysafe committee is bipartisan. Its members are always willing to listen to arguments and discuss them. But, for the matter to be hijacked at the eleventh hour is improper. I will pursue my motion because the interest and support shown by all honourable members for the recommendations in this report demonstrates how important this issue is to the community.

I am sure that honourable members on both sides of this House will agree with the finding of the Staysafe committee that an agreement between the New South Wales Office of the Ombudsman and the New South Wales Police Service to investigate police pursuits should have legislative force. In other jurisdictions where this type of statutory reporting requirement exists for police there have been positive outcomes. In cases where death has resulted from a violent or unnatural cause, the Coroner must be notified. It is considered that in the case of police pursuits the Office of the Ombudsman should also be notified. I refer to my comments in this debate last week, on a sad note
Page 741
because it was on the completion of the Staysafe 27 report that the committee recorded the major contribution of the late John Newman, the former member for Cabramatta and a longstanding member of the Staysafe committee. This report serves as a memorial to John Newman's strong desire to address road safety issues in a realistic and achievable way.

I thank honourable members for their participation. I also thank the former chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Wakehurst, who chaired the inquiry, and former ministers of police for their support. I hope the present Minister for Police will extend to the committee the same support and consideration as has occurred in the past. I would like to put on record the major contribution made by a former member of the Police Service, former Assistant Superintendent of Traffic, Merv Lane. He had a special and unique perspective on the evolution of traffic policies in New South Wales and the techniques used, and his assistance and advice were invaluable in the preparation of this report. I will not accept the proposed amendment because the Opposition has been ambushed but I am, as a matter of good faith - and having just spoken to the Minister for Police - prepared to have the matter resolved next week. The honourable member for Bulli was a member of the committee when this report was prepared and I believe he has made an absolute fool of himself. He has attempted to make an idiot of the Chair and of other members of the House.

Mr Martin: He did not have to try hard.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister should not talk; he is an expert on idiots. I am annoyed at having been ambushed. The honourable member for Bulli is totally out of order and I will not accept the amendment. However, I will accept in good faith the discussions I have had with the Minister for Police and will seek to have the matter adjourned until the next sitting week, on the proviso that the matter is sensibly resolved at that time. On that basis I seek to adjourn the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The honourable member for Oxley has sought to adjourn the debate. However, as the mover of the motion he has already replied to the substantive motion. Therefore, the matter cannot be adjourned. By agreement between the honourable member for Bulli and the honourable member for Oxley, leave may be sought to withdraw the amendment.

Mr McManus: I do not propose to do that but I would suggest suspending discussion of the matter.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the putting of the question "That the amendment be agreed to" being deferred until the conclusion of general business this day.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.16]: I move:

That this House:

(1) Expresses its concern at the closure of The Earth Exchange;

(2) Condemns the Government for the withdrawal of funding that has led to this closure;

(3) Calls on the Government to reconsider its decision to force the closure of The Earth Exchange;

(4) Calls on the Government to ensure the proper maintenance and display of the Chapman Collection;

(5) Calls on the Government to guarantee adequate funding for the collections currently held by The Earth Exchange wherever they may be relocated;

(6) Condemns the Government for the loss of an outstanding educational and tourist facility; and

(7) Condemns the lack of effort by the Minister for Mineral Resources to keep The Earth Exchange open.

This matter has been on the notice paper for some time. I moved a motion relating to this late last year, not long after the Opposition became aware that the Earth Exchange museum was to close. For the benefit of honourable members it is probably best if I explain what the Earth Exchange is, because it has an unusual name. Regrettably, many of us did not have an opportunity to visit the museum when it was in existence. Comments had been made to me by many people who had been involved in the establishment of the Earth Exchange and others who had subsequently visited it - including my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who will speak in this debate at a later stage - and I was looking forward to visiting the museum. The honourable member told me that during his visit to the museum he had experienced a simulated earthquake rated at 6.5 on the Richter scale, which is a significant earthquake. He told me it was a very interesting experience.

The Earth Exchange museum was established when Mr Neil Pickard was Minister for Mineral Resources. It is located in an old building in Sydney's Rocks area, a very popular tourist destination. The museum was largely assisted by industry and in this respect I mention in particular Mr Mark Bethwaite of a company called RGC who, in conjunction with the Government, encouraged industry to support the project and was instrumental in bringing the project to fruition. The museum attracted numerous tourists and groups of schoolchildren and it played an important role in promoting the benefits of the mining industry to New South Wales - something that the present Government does not seem to appreciate. The museum was an important educational resource for students, as well as being an interesting place for tourists to see something slightly different.

The Earth Exchange is well summed up in a brochure entitled "A Teacher's Guide" which the museum provided to teachers. It contains an
Page 742
overview of the sorts of things one could expect to see in the museum. The museum had discovery boxes and touch-screen computers called "infomines" - similar to one that I saw in the geological museum at Broken Hill. If one puts one's hand into it there is a blasting sound as if a charge had been detonated. It takes the visitor by surprise and certainly makes for a very entertaining and hands-on experience in every sense of the word. It is a little different from the traditional museum that we are all used to. That was what the Earth Exchange museum was all about.

The Earth Exchange encouraged students to read the messages that were hidden inside those discovery boxes - to touch, hear and experience things. It had a working coalmine shaft, complete with a coal cage full of miners. The lift used to travel between levels one and four, presenting lifelike mining scenes and featuring aspects of a working mine that could be seen from the stairwell. That was an exhibit which many government members should appreciate, especially those who represent coalmining areas. Had those honourable members realised what was to happen with the Earth Exchange - and I suspect they did not - I think they would have promoted the museum a little more strongly, pointing out the work that many of their constituents do in mining the very valuable coal resources of New South Wales. The museum had an exhibit on longwall mining, a continuous mining machine and so on.

The Earth Exchange had an energy information centre, dealing with an issue that is of increasing interest and importance to all citizens of New South Wales and all consumers of this energy conscious society in which we live. The museum also had Lava Land. Students and visitors entered the gallery through Lava Land, which recreated an active Hawaiian shield volcano. The dome-shaped volcano produced a thin stream of running lava that was capable of flowing for considerable distances, simulating the sorts of natural phenomena which we in Australia do not often see - fortunately so in the case of volcanoes.

Earlier I mentioned the earthquake exhibit. My colleague the honourable member for Upper Hunter has experienced an earthquake equivalent to a reading of 6.5 on the Richter scale, and I am sure the earth did move for him on that occasion, but the Earth Exchange earthquake simulated walls caving in and buildings crashing down. That mock experience enabled people to know what it is really like to be in an area having an earthquake. The Earth Exchange also had a collection of numerous rocks, minerals and so on. Those exhibits were of great assistance to students studying the history of the formation of the earth and subjects such as geology and geography. Some were unique exhibits, among which were the Chapman collection, which I shall refer to a little later on.

The museum also gave talks about local features, such as the Sydney sandstone landscapes. That attraction had a mining and processing tunnel, giving students the opportunity to experience what mineral processing is like. Many of us have had the chance to visit large mining operations and see the real thing, but the average Sydney person does not get the opportunity to go to the bush and see first hand where the paint used on our cars comes from, or the source of the material that goes into hip joint replacements, et cetera. Often, they do not realise the important connection between the processing of those natural resources and the items that we use in our everyday lives. It is an interesting exercise to cast an eye on the many items atop the table of this House that result from the mining industry in this State.

The Earth Exchange was a fascinating place to visit. I know from representations I have had that many people enjoyed going to the museum. Many schools benefited from its existence. A great number of people are most disappointed that they no longer will be able to experience the unusual sorts of displays that were part of the museum. Happily, in recent years, there has been a move away from the traditional museum in which fauna exhibits were literally stuffed, or exhibits were sitting on shelves or under glass in a case, and the visitor could only look at them. That can be dull and boring, certainly not particularly exciting, for visitors.

The development of a new philosophy in museums was very much encapsulated in the Earth Exchange. Real life experiences should be available for the people. Because those exhibits were so much fun, people went away not only having learned something but saying to their friends, "What a great experience! You should go there." In the past year I have had representations from a number of people expressing concern about the closure of the Earth Exchange. The mining industry is one group that is most disappointed. Now that the closure has occurred, we will have to accept that fact. But I hope the Minister will explain the events that led to that closure and where various exhibits of the museum are now located.

One letter I received summed up the feeling of many groups and citizens in our community. It is from the Parramatta-Holroyd Lapidary Club, a group of people who are most interested in this sort of museum. We sometimes forget about the many people who love to fossick for gemstones and precious minerals and who have friends and relatives working in the industry as miners or in processing mined materials. Many people have a genuine interest in minerals, gemstones and so on. The secretary of the Parramatta-Holroyd Lapidary Club, Mrs Val Guthrie, pointed that out in the letter that she had written to me and said that I was the only one courteous enough to acknowledge her letter. I hope that if she wrote to the Minister he will have now replied to her letter.

In her letter Val Guthrie expressed disappointment at the way in which the closure decision was made, because the Earth Exchange had been advised that funding for it would be continued. I have a letter from one of the former museum staff
Page 743
relating to the forward estimates. It indicates that the museum would receive about $3 million for the next three years. That advice was given on about 12 August. Within a few days the museum was advised that it was to close on 29 October and would receive only $1.5 million, basically as wind-up residual funding. That decision took everyone by surprise. I think one industry group had planned to have an annual meeting, dinner or other function at the Earth Exchange, and was unsure about the future of that function. The process was most peculiar. I take it that the Treasury, seeing the potential to save money, had a hand in the matter. I think it will be demonstrated that no such savings resulted. Perhaps the Minister could advise about that matter in reply.

I repeat, at one stage there was a letter advising the Earth Exchange that it would receive about $3.5 million over a three-year period, but within a few days that indication had been turned around and there was to be wind-up funding and closure of the museum. Part of the rationale for the closure, I am advised, is that the museum was costing the Government a lot of money, was not being well patronised, was just not working and that the industry should have put more into it. I would appreciate comment from the Minister on that matter. I am not familiar with the background to the closure, and I would be more than happy to hear the Minister speak about what figures he has. I have been advised by some interest groups closely associated with the museum that it had good bookings, from teachers and pupils alone, in the latter half of 1995. I am informed that some 30,000 students and teachers had made bookings over the subsequent year. If that information is accurate, the figures are impressive and would make the Australian Museum and Powerhouse Museum seem undervisited by comparison.

I think that on merit the Earth Exchange deserves to be still operating. Because I do not have statistics and I am genuinely seeking information, I do not know whether they support claims that the museum was not being well visited. I should like figures on some of the other museums in Sydney so that I can make comparisons of their level of funding, visitation figures and the consequent cost of their operations on government. I suspect that the Earth Exchange was not such a large drain on government resources. I suspect also that if the Government had gone to the industry and said, "Look, we have a problem. We may need more promotional programs and to review the cost of running the museum," the industry would have been more than happy to come to the party. So it was disappointing that the decision was made in the manner it was.

Part of the motion urges the Government to reconsider its decision to force the closure of the Earth Exchange. I suspect, now that so much time has elapsed between drafting of the motion and its debate today, that is not a possibility. I ask the Minister to advise whether there are any plans afoot for a similar sort of showcase for the State's mining industry, if that is a reasonable option. I should also like to know whether the existing building has been in use. I saw some media reports some six or eight months ago that a cultural group was likely to occupy the premises, but I have been unable to confirm those reports. I and many other people who have taken an interest in this matter would like to know what has happened with those premises and whether the Government continues to be involved in any funding for it. If that is the case, what is the overall saving to the Government?

My motion also refers to the Chapman collection, which I understand was probably the single-most valuable collection held by the museum. The collection was an expensive acquisition by the museum and there has been considerable concern about where it might be relocated. The Opposition and interested observers would appreciate knowing where the collection has gone. The motion is critical of the Minister - reluctant as I am to criticise him - for his lack of effort to keep the Earth Exchange open. As was revealed by my colleague Ian Causley, the former Minister for Natural Resources, the present Minister has not visited the museum. That is disappointing; the Minister would have enjoyed the museum, as it was very interesting.

Mr Martin: That is wrong.

Ms MACHIN: If I am wrong, I am happy to stand corrected. If I am wrong, the Minister is condemned in any case, because there has been no hint of an effort to head off the closure of the exchange. The Minister has made no effort to stand up for the mining industry on several issues that have been raised in the past year in this House, in the other Chamber and publicly. The issue boils down to whether there is a commitment on the part of the State Government to stand up for the mining industry and say that the industry is important to our State and our economy, that we want to encourage the industry to explore and invest here - as the department is doing through its Discovery 2000 program. The mining industry is given confused signals. The Premier basically says that he does not care what the information is on Lake Cowal; he does not like the idea of mining there so it will not happen. The Government has decided that it does not want the Earth Exchange because it costs too much money, so the museum will be closed without proper examination of the facts. The signals going out to the mining industry are very bad. This is important in terms not only of its economic impact on the State but of encouraging new people into the industry, and the museum did that.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [11.31]: I am glad to have the opportunity to put on the public record some clear and concise facts about the Earth Exchange, which was closed on 29 September 1995 because of falling attendance figures and the museum's inability to attain its
Page 744
intended goal of becoming financially self-supporting. The Government was not prepared to subsidise, without the assistance of industry, the continued operation of what had become a costly business. I might point out that the previous Government agreed with not continuing to subsidise the operations of the exchange. On 10 March 1994 the former Treasurer, now the Leader of the Opposition, wrote to his Premier, Mr Fahey, saying that he was unconvinced that the museum should be funded indefinitely from Consolidated Fund, particularly if the museum continued to be financially unviable. Those presently on the Opposition benches realised that the future of the exchange could not be assured. It is surprising to now find the honourable member for Port Macquarie questioning what was being done by her side of the House and the rationale of her leader.

Another reason that loomed large in the Government's decision was that the museum's fine array of exhibits could be housed in an equally impressive manner in some of the city's other major galleries and museums without causing undue inconvenience to those interested in observing these matters of cultural significance. I am pleased to report that all of the exhibits have either been transferred to new locations or are in the final stages of being rehoused. Funding has been guaranteed for this financial year to complete the important task of transferring the remainder of the items. The public is able to enjoy the mining and mineral collections of the former museum, and that will continue to be the case. For instance, the spectacular Albert Chapman mineral collection has been lodged with the Australian Museum; and it has not been downgraded or depleted, as was the inference from my opponent on the other side. Rather, the collection is being showcased for public benefit in what is arguably Australia's most famous gallery of historic artefacts. The Australian Museum is a highly appropriate forum for such an important collection.

As another example of the way in which the exhibits of the former Earth Exchange have been carefully rearranged, the economic mineral collection has been returned to the New South Wales Geological Survey. Items of mining and historic interest have gone to the Powerhouse Museum - another appropriate forum for tourists, school children and citizens alike - and the Maitland bar gold nugget is on permanent loan to the Sydney Mint Museum for public display. I should have thought that it was patently obvious that the Government's action to rationalise the exchange's functions was well thought out and carefully considered. Further, the Government has taken much effort to ensure that the unique displays have been rehoused in venues in which they are able to blend with surrounding exhibits in a harmonious and fitting way.

Another feature of the Earth Exchange that bears attention is the way in which the Government acted to protect the welfare of staff. Action was taken in a prudent manner that took into account the trust's outstanding liabilities and assured that they were met. Indeed, $1 million was allocated to ensure that staff were given adequate compensation upon being made redundant. I might add that the Government, in taking this responsible course, was horrified to learn that the previous Government's uncaring approach had seen Earth Exchange workers employed in a position in which they would receive little or no redundancy upon a change of circumstances. This would have amounted to a sour outcome for that dedicated and enthusiastic group of people. This side is proud of the compassionate stance of the Carr Government, which resulted in satisfactory and appropriate settlements being reached for the 26 full-time and 22 part-time staff.

Expressions of interest for exchange contents deemed available for disposal closed on 21 November 1995 and major items were disposed of by tender. The remainder of the items were auctioned in early December. I wish to reflect on the state of affairs that persuaded the Government that remedial action was required. Taxpayers simply were not getting value for money; visitation numbers had fallen from 120,000 three years ago to 82,000 in the 1994-95 financial year; and it was unlikely, because the operating deficit for that financial year was $1.5 million, that the exchange could ever have extricated itself from its financial problems. Another factor in the decision to close the exchange, which was a necessary but unhappy decision, was that the facility was poorly located, as is probably reflected in the continued poor attendance figures. It is important to note that the Earth Exchange - its staff, its exhibits and its important cultural heritage - has not been forsaken. The Government has made sure that the museum's valuable items continue to be displayed prominently in other museums, at which public attendance and interest have traditionally been high. For that reason, I am sure that the exhibits will be showcased in no less an impressive manner than previously.

In the context of this motion it is important to point out the excellent work of the staff and those charged with winding up the premises at a particularly difficult time. The Government gave Mr Paul Crombie the delicate task of ensuring that the Earth Exchange was closed in an orderly fashion, bearing in mind the need to ensure that all stakeholders were properly catered for and that staff, those who had contractual obligations, and other interested parties were consulted. I am pleased to report that Mr Crombie and his assistants were most professional in fulfilling that considerable function. I take this opportunity to place on the record the Government's appreciation for the work done.

There is another matter that flows from the motion. As I said earlier, one of the prime reasons behind the closing of the Earth Exchange was that as an education facility it was not reaching its intended audience, or rather the intended audience
Page 745
was not visiting the facility. I am pleased to report to honourable members that only this week I launched a significant education package, "The New Miners", which is now available as a curriculum item for New South Wales schools. This is a reflection of the Government's commitment to take the vital message of what is happening in the mining industry to the community, especially to young people. This is a pleasing development. "The New Miners" education module, with its very informative video, will give students and teachers alike stimulation and information that can form a basis for developing their own views on mining and the environment. "The New Miners" video has been combined with an excellent series of student activities relating directly to aspects of the schools curriculum.

"The New Miners" module has two sponsors - the Minerals Council of New South Wales, of which honourable members have heard, and the State Minerals Advisory Council. I am the chairman of the latter, which is a group of industry leaders who seven years ago saw a need to establish a vehicle such as an award for environmental excellence. It has been useful in publicising the industry's environmental achievements, to encourage best practice within the industry, and to let the community know what the new generation of miners can, and indeed must, do to protect their environment. These important educational achievements with respect to the mining industry will continue. It is regrettable that the Earth Exchange had to close, but the Government is continuing to find ways of education and information being directly relayed to the people.

Mr Souris: When did you visit it?

Mr MARTIN: I visited it on a number of occasions. Its staff were dedicated. It is sad that the Earth Exchange has closed, but it had to close because the admittance fee was $27 a family against $14 at the Australian Museum. The Government will do all it can to educate people in mining. The building is owned by the Farm Cove Authority, and the Earth Exchange had a lease with that authority. Negotiations are continuing about its future, which I hope answers the question sought by the mover of the motion, the honourable member for Port Macquarie. The Government is dedicated to improving mining and mining education in this State and will continue to do that with pride.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [11.41]: It is very sad to hear a Minister talking about the destruction of a part of his portfolio for which he should have been the champion. It is depressing that the Minister has just blindly read through a file of bureaucratic exposition justifying the unjustifiable. He ought to be ashamed. He must have realised the dreadful thing he has done in closing the Earth Exchange and is now seeking to justify it. He said that the former Government had expressed a desire that the museum be self-funding. So what! Of course the former Government would have hade that goal and would have been striving to achieve it. However, that desire, in whatever form it was expressed, does not give the Government carte blanche to destroy the museum.

Indeed, the Minister does not even know what is going on in his own department. Four days before the Minister informed the Earth Exchange that it was going to be closed, the Department of Mineral Resources wrote a letter to the administration manager of the Earth Exchange stating that it had received confirmation from Mr M. Lambert, secretary to the Treasury, dated 15 August 1995 - this letter being dated 18 August - approving the following for the Earth Exchange.

Mr Martin: Seek leave, and table the document.

Mr SOURIS: I will table it; that is not the problem. The funding was $1.355 million per annum for the three financial years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Earth Exchange was told it was going to be funded until the end of 1998, yet four days later the Minister, who was supposed to be its champion, told it the grim news that he was going to put the knife clean through it. I seek leave to table the letter.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! Standing orders provide that only Ministers may table documents. The member must identify the letter and vouch for its authenticity.

Mr SOURIS: The Minister has destroyed a specialist museum, something of which Australia had been very proud. He seeks to justify that by saying that some of the priceless, world-class items had been moved from the Earth Exchange to other general purposes museums. That does not justify the closure of a specialist museum. If that is the argument, perhaps all specialist museums in Australia should be abolished and put into one big museum called the Australia museum. There would not then be any need for specialist museums, particularly an industry museum of this nature. The Minister is denying the importance of the coal industry in the history of New South Wales and the importance of the modern-day coal industry, especially the New South Wales industry, to Australia.

Does the Minister realise that 50 per cent of coal exports come from New South Wales? New South Wales should be the leader in preserving the heritage of the coal industry. In New South Wales 80 per cent of the revenue of the State Rail Authority comes from the coal industry. Does the Minister realise the extent of royalties that will be taken from the coal industry? He has an obligation to preserve the history and heritage of an industry that is virtually as long as the history of New South Wales itself. He does not take his responsibilities seriously and should be ashamed.

Page 746

The Minister's electorate is close to my electorate of Upper Hunter and therefore he should be more aware of the importance of the coal industry, particularly as the area exports most of New South Wales coal exports. In fact, 44 million tonnes are exported through the coal loader at Newcastle, which is almost half of Australia's coal exports. A further 12 million tonnes is produced locally in the Hunter Valley and consumed in the two power stations in the upper Hunter. A further amount is produced in the Hunter Valley and consumed in other power stations in the lower Hunter. This is a massive industry with a very proud history. This Labor Minister has betrayed the trust of many of his union colleagues in the coal industry who would have expected him to be their champion.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [11.46]: That was an amazing outburst from the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who was the finance Minister in the former coalition Government. The Minister said it was the former Premier and the Treasurer, Mr Collins, and the finance Minister who rang the warning bells about what was likely to happen at this facility. The Earth Exchange was under extraordinary pressure at the time the Government decided upon its closure. There was pressure because of the ongoing decline in the number of visitors and its unsustainable financial position, which ultimately required in a taxpayer-funded subsidy of $1.35 million a year.

People were simply not going there in sufficient numbers, and it was being propped up to the extent of $1.35 million per annum. The position was obviously untenable and something had to be done. The Government has acted in a responsible and professional manner. It has redistributed the exhibits on display and ensured that the entitlements and redundancy payments of staff who were employed at the facility were properly looked after. It is sad that the Earth Exchange had to close. No government enjoys taking this type of action, but it had to be done.

The exhibits of the Earth Exchange are being preserved for all time, many in venues where they will be viewed by a far greater number of people than was possible previously. This is preferable to what had been happening in previous years. What is the point of having a facility that people do not support? The redistribution of exhibits to other venues where people could, and would, see them was not only logical and sensible but was eminently proper. The Earth Exchange had failed to meet its expectations as an educational and tourist facility.

Mr Souris: When did you visit it?

Mr THOMPSON: I visited it about two years ago and that is why I can talk with even greater conviction about the foolhardiness of the location, which was quite poor. It was unable to capture the number of visitors that would make it viable. It was originally intended to function as an interactive museum with exhibits and public programs on mining, geology, energy and the Australian environment, but in its three years of operation it went only some of the way towards achieving that aim. Part of the reason for deciding to close the Earth Exchange was that it was not competing effectively with the vast number of other museums in Sydney. For example, the Australian Museum and the Powerhouse Museum, as the Minister noted, are recipients of the Exchange's former exhibits and will no doubt be better and more accessible showcases. When considering the operations of these other museums it is useful to look at the high cost of admission to the Exchange and how that was contributing, no doubt, to the falling number of visitors.

The cost of admission for a family of four was $27 at the Earth Exchange, compared with $14 at the Powerhouse and Australian museums. It is no wonder that the Exchange was decreasing in its attraction and importance on the tourist agenda - people were voting with their feet as fewer people visited the Exchange because of the cost of admission. The Government believes that the relocation of the Exchange's important exhibits overcomes the problems of both its poor location and high admission cost. It is hoped that this will mean that the exhibits will be seen and that their historical and cultural importance will be appreciated by a far broader and more diverse group of people. What is the point of having a facility if its position and cost of admission deter visitors?

Clearly, the Government never intended to play an ongoing role in the function of the Exchange, and it expected a greater contribution from industry. However, as this was not forthcoming it was left to the State's taxpayers to pick up the tab to the extent of $1.35 million a year. Obviously, that could not be allowed to continue and the Government acted in a responsible and proper fashion in taking the action it did. If any criticism is to be made in this matter, the former Government should wear the flak because the pricing policy of the Earth Exchange was ill-advised and its location was stupid. The Government simply found that the Earth Exchange was unsustainable. It was not paying its way and was not even covering its running costs. [Time expired.]

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [11.51], in reply: What a sorry performance by the Government. We hoped we might gain some information about this decision, and justification for it, but we heard little information and a pathetic argument. It was admitted that at least one member of the Government had visited the Earth Exchange before it closed, but we did not hear whether the Minister's visit was before the decision was made
Page 747
for its closure - I suspect that it was not. The museum's figures show that between 1994 and 1995, revenue increased by almost 30 per cent, as is indicated in its annual statements; it is easy to check. That blows away any Treasury criticism of the Exchange.

The coalition may have been considering visitation rates at the Exchange - it would have been derelict in its duty if it did not - but the former Government made absolutely no decision to close the Exchange. The closure was the decision of the Carr Government. The previous Government had a strong mining Minister and it is likely that the facility would have remained open under that Government. The Deputy Leader of the National Party referred to advice from the Department of Mineral Resources to the museum about its recurrent funding allocations for the 1995-96 financial year, which reads:

We have received written confirmation from Mr M. Lambert, secretary to the Treasurer, dated 15 August approving the following for the Earth Exchange:

It then indicated consolidated recurrent funds through to 1997-98 at a level of $1.355 million. But suddenly, within a week, the museum was closing. Everybody was out, bookings and functions were cancelled, and the doors were to close because the Exchange was costing too much money. If that rationale were applied elsewhere, perhaps we should charge for entry to the Art Gallery and the other museums. By this Government's criteria, we should close those facilities because they cost money.

Museums have a public benefit: they are a tourist attraction and provide educational benefit, and most members would accept that we have a responsibility to provide public resources to such facilities. The Government's argument in that respect was spurious. The location of the Earth Exchange was described as inappropriate; however, I would have thought that the middle of Sydney's Rocks region, perhaps the most visited part of the city, was an appropriate location because it was accessible for visitors.

Mr Thompson: You have not visited it as you clearly do not know where it is.

Ms MACHIN: Well, I was going to visit, but the Government closed it before I could get there. I hardly blinked and it was closed! The location argument is spurious. The Australian Museum is at the other end of Hyde Park, not part of the central business district. Why is the location suddenly a big issue, given that the visitation figures were quite good and were on the rise, which the Government knew? I touched on the Minister's role earlier. He has clearly changed his view. The report of the director of the museum states that on 8 August the chairman, Mr McDonald, met with the Minister, among others, to discuss a reduction in consolidated funding and the capital grant. The Minister said at the meeting that he recognised concerns about funding matters, and that he would raise them at a meeting with the Premier later in the day. He also said that he would make representations to the Treasurer. That was a big success! Within two weeks following the 8 August meeting the facility was closed.

Whatever the industry wants, at all costs it should not ask the Minister to make representations on its behalf. The Government conceded that it had an auction and some of the goods were relocated, which defeated the purpose of this specialist museum with special attraction. How does the Government relocate a simulated coal shaft or simulated earthquake? Where did they end up? The Government also had a fire sale and flogged off the items collected over the years. So much for promoting the industry! The Minister stands condemned. Members opposite claim that I and other coalition members did not visit the Exchange, but we did not have a chance; within a matter of months it was to be closed, and the Government changed its position within a week.

This Minister failed to stand up for that facility. He let down many people, including his colleagues in the union movement. As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party mentioned, the school groups booked to visit the Exchange were let down. It is not good enough to simply claim that the number of visits to the Exchange was not enough and to then simply pack up and go home. Why did the Government not look at some alternative funding arrangement with more industry involvement? Why did it not look at a better marketing arrangement to ensure that this wonderful resource remained? [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Beck Mr Peacocke
Mr Blackmore Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Kinross Mr Tink
Dr Macdonald Mr Turner
Ms Machin Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Page 748

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

Mr Downy Ms Allan
Mr Humpherson Mr Carr
Dr Kernohan Mr Knowles
Mr D. L. Page Mr Markham

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Mr STEWART (Lakemba) [12.06]: I move:

That this House congratulates the Government for its decision to provide $50 million for urgent road upgrading at the intersection of the Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive, Chullora.

I am advised by the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads that the full upgrading of this intersection, one of Sydney's worst traffic bottlenecks, will now be completed by the end of 1998. The acceleration of the project, to build a flyover and on and off ramps at the intersection, is a direct result of the election of the Labor Government with a committed roads Minister in Michael Knight, who was determined to ensure that real equity was put back into State road funding initiatives, particularly in the western Sydney area. In stark contrast to this approach, under the previous coalition Government this important project, amazingly, would not have been completed or funded until the next century. In fact, I am advised by the Minister that the coalition Government did not even include plans for the works in its five-year forward program - an absolute disgrace.

Given that the intersection of Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive carries an average of more than 65,000 vehicles a day, and also given that the intersection is one of Sydney's major gateways and arterial traffic feeders into the Olympic site at Homebush Bay, the coalition Government's inaction on the matter can only be described as shameful and a blight on the western Sydney motorists who use the intersection each day. Clearly, the previous Government's approach to this issue and the many other urgently needed roadworks in the western Sydney area was to put funding on the backburner. While the coalition Government pushed millions of dollars into plush, blue-ribbon Liberal electorates, it ignored the needs of western Sydney motorists and pedestrians.

The people of western Sydney deserve and need good roads and should not have to wait until next century for improved roads to be put in place. The Government's decision is a quick response to their needs. The decision by the Carr Labor Government to spend $50 million to get rid of one of Sydney's worst traffic bottlenecks is another major tick for the Carr Labor Government. The decision is the result of long and intense lobbying by Labor members of State Parliament Doug Shedden, Peter Nagle, Kevin Moss, my predecessor Wes Davoren, and me as the present member for Lakemba. Unfortunately, constant lobbying by Labor members of Parliament, local councils and active community groups in the main fell on deaf ears under the previous Government.

Finally, the best the former Government could do was to put forward a proposal to upgrade this busy intersection in two stages. The first stage was to be completed by the end of 1997 or thereabouts. Construction of the second and most crucial stage, the overpass, was not planned to begin until after the turn of the century. A quick examination of the previous Government's approach to this important road upgrading provides an interesting insight into the stalling tactics and apparent dishonesty used by that Government in its approach to this issue. On 3 December 1991 Strathfield Municipal Council, which had been very active in pursuing this issue, wrote to the former member for Lakemba, Mr Wes Davoren. The letter, which cites a resolution of the council, stated:

That the RTA be advised that Council rejects the plan as submitted and favours a form of overpass/underpass which retains the existing school grounds and Council seek the support of the Minister, Local Members and Bankstown City Council for the proposal.

Council expressed particular concern about the "land taken" on the High School corner, about the likely congestion and stop start nature of traffic movements, about reduced pedestrian safety and about the apparent decision to provide a "cheap" solution to the problems at the intersection.

A cheap way out, and that is what the previous Government was after; it did not care about the motoring needs of western Sydney residents. It simply wanted a cheap way out and wanted to procrastinate. In response to this important concern
Page 749
raised by Strathfield council and the obvious deficiencies of the proposal brought forward by the previous Government for the upgrading of the Roberts Road-Centenary Drive intersection, my predecessor, Wes Davoren, wrote to the Minister for Roads at that time, Mr Wal Murray, in an attempt to meet with the Minister and Strathfield council in order to constructively discuss and resolve this proposal. After waiting three months, Mr Davoren received a reply from the Minister, Wal Murray, which concluded:

Council may be assured that the final determination will take into account the community's concerns and wishes with a view to achieving the most beneficial and cost effective solution to present and future transport problems of the area.

And this is the crunch line:

Having regard to the foregoing, I feel that matters could not be advanced by my meeting you and representatives of Council at this time.

In other words the Minister did not want to consult. He did not want to sit down with the local council or the local members; he simply wanted to bulldoze a cheap decision through without provision for real recourse and accountability. In May 1993 Wes Davoren, being diligent in this matter, again wrote to the Minister for Roads urgently requesting advice and consultation on this issue. At that stage we were playing musical chairs with roads ministers, and Bruce Baird took over. Bruce Baird replied to Wes Davoren on 29 July 1993 and spoke about the number of options the Government was canvassing. The letter stated:

A preferred option will now be determined based on community feedback, environmental and economic grounds.

The letter concluded, again with a crunch line which stated:

However, commencement of construction will depend on the project costs, availability of funds and the relative benefit compared with other projects throughout the State.

In other words, this is not going to happen, not in terms of the real needs of people. Instead, truckloads of money will go to plush Liberal electorates, not to the western Sydney areas where it is needed most. After the deliberate procrastination by the previous Government during February 1994, that infamous speed king, Paul Zammit, former member for Strathfield, issued a press release of dubious content. He indicated that something might actually happen in terms of upgrading this intersection. He said that 200 public responses had been received on this issue. The number one response was for an overbridge over the Hume Highway as the favoured option. This option was considered the most efficient and feasible and had strong community support. Mr Zammit spoke about further community consultation despite the fact that 200 responses had been received. The real agenda of the previous Government was contained in the press release, which concluded with this crunch line:

The construction of the overbridge over the Hume Highway will not proceed until the extra traffic capacity of stage one (the widening of Roberts Road and construction of the railway bridge) has been used up by the traffic growth.

What he is really saying is that this is not going to happen, that the Government will give a few bucks towards a bit of an upgrading with signals at that intersection but will not provide an overpass. The former Government did not really care about the needs of western Sydney. The best summary of the response of the community to the former member for Strathfield is contained in a letter received from Strathfield council by Wes Davoren on 21 February 1994. The council's letter stated:

On March 3 the Roads and Traffic Authority will be making a presentation on their proposals for the upgrading . . . It is the unanimous opinion of the Councillors and our professional staff that the proposal in its present form is totally unacceptable.

This is the great dream put forward by Paul Zammit. The letter continued:

The first stage is only an amplification of the present "at grade" intersection with no guarantee as to when the "grade separation" will be installed only vague promises.

Even this minor amplification will not be completed until 1998.

The major reason advanced for the problem is lack of finance.

The previous Government, which thought it might get a guernsey to take it into the next century, was not going to put money into a project it did not care about. I am pleased that within seven months of being elected the Carr Labor Government announced a full upgrading of the Hume Highway. Work on this project began immediately after the Government's announcement. The community will benefit significantly from the flyover linking Centenary Drive and Roberts Road, with two lanes in each direction and ramps on and off the Hume Highway. The upgrading of the intersection will also feature appropriate road widening on its approaches, a pedestrian footbridge and also a road bridge across the roadway. After seven years in office the previous coalition Government produced no result for what is possibly the worst bottleneck in Sydney. After seven months in office, the Carr Labor Government delivered. The Government delivered $50 million to the people of western Sydney, who now commend its actions. The Minister for Roads has worked hard to deliver real equity back where it is deserved so that residents in Sydney's west will no longer have to negotiate an embarrassing bottleneck that they have put up with for many years.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [12.16]: The upgrading which the honourable member for Lakemba has described and praised is both vital and necessary. I do not intend to suggest that the project is not worthy or urgent, for it most certainly is, and I am pleased that the work is being undertaken. I have a personal knowledge of that road and intersection as
Page 750
I travel it frequently to visit my mother who is in a nursing home in Lakemba. On 5 October 1995 Minister Knight announced that $50 million would be spent on fixing, by the end of 1998, one of Sydney's worst bottlenecks. The Minister's press release stated that 65,000 vehicles use the intersection each day. Major features of the works include a flyover linking Centenary Drive and Roberts Road with two lanes in each direction and ramps on and off the Hume Highway. Other features are the widening of the Hume Highway to six lanes through the intersection, with additional left and right turning lanes, a pedestrian overbridge across the highway, and noise barriers along Centenary Drive and adjacent to Strathfield High School.

The Minister claimed that had the Liberals and Nationals remained in government this project would not have been completed until after the turn of the century. The Minister's assertion that the project was not on the coalition's five-year forward program is incorrect. I welcome the work, and it should continue. An examination of the 1994-95 Budget Paper No. 4 reveals that reconstruction of the Hume Highway-Roberts Road intersection is due for completion in 1997. Forward expenditure has been provided, though I am not sure for how many years. The budget papers cover a period of three years, and forward estimates beyond that period are not given. Budget Paper No. 4 shows that work had commenced and almost $3 million had been spent on the project prior to Labor's first budget. The project was under way and expenditure had commenced in accordance with the forward estimates and the former Government's master five-year strategy. The State Road Network Strategy, a technical report for public discussion released by the coalition in December 1994, makes the following point on page 53:

The following components of the strategic road opportunities shown in Figure VI-7 are included in the RTA's current five-year capital works program . . .

The document lists seven major developments including the north-west link, the south-west link, the National Highway metropolitan link, the Engadine-Carlingford link, the north-west sector, including the upgrading of Sunnyholt Road and Old Windsor Road, the city-west corridor and the Campbelltown-Penrith-Windsor link. The document continued:

In addition to these strategic corridor priorities, other priorities requiring completion include: a major upgrading of the route 3 (Roberts Road) intersection with the Hume Highway, to improve safety and capacity . . .

The document went on to list several other projects. The coalition clearly recognised that the bottleneck exists and was committed to its improvement. The main reason for the Labor Government's increased expenditure on the project is to make up for breaking its promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 - a promise which was arguably the most expensive promise in the history of New South Wales politics, a promise valued at $1.7 billion; a promise which Labor had no hope of ever implementing, with or without the tax problems that the Government has used to justify its actions.

The Labor Party's longstanding promise to lift those tolls, which was broken on Victory in the Pacific Day in August, is at the heart of this renewed effort by local members of Parliament. They are seeking to initiate a discussion and have it recorded in Hansard so that they can fax copies to their constituents to show that they are working hard in respect of a project which was already on the drawing board and in the budget papers and for which expenditure had been committed under the previous Government. To claim that the expenditure in western Sydney of $73 million per annum for four years somehow replaces the promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 - a promise that represented $73 million per annum for 30 years - is really a joke. It hardly justifies the Premier's broken promise. It is no compensation for western Sydney and some of the money is from Federal sources.

It is a fraud and it does not compensate the people of western Sydney for the biggest political backdown and broken promise in the history of New South Wales. That is why the grins on the faces of honourable members opposite are unwarranted, Labor having lost so many seats in the recent Federal election. There is no doubt the Carr Government contributed to Labor's downfall and to the utter decimation of the Keating Government. There is no doubt that the most prominent part of the Carr Government's style was reflected in the backlash that Labor suffered, and deservedly suffered, for breaking the promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5. The people of New South Wales obviously saw through this fake replacement promise to spend $73 million, some of which is Federal money, for only four years.

It is a pathetic attempt at a smokescreen to cover the broken promise. The promise was made before the last State election and broken soon after. The effect of that broken promise has been reflected in the voting patterns in several electorates in western Sydney. I am pleased to note that the Minister for Sport and Recreation has taken something of an interest in this debate because the backlash was felt in her electorate and the former Federal Labor member is no longer in Parliament. The Labor Party should not think there has been any political respite since the time of the Federal election. The opinion polls show that the Howard Government has continued to improve its position. That is why members opposite are wasting the time of this House; that is why they are bowling up, one after the other, to repeat the same speech. They are probably using each other's speech notes! That is what is at the heart of this motion. It is a pathetic attempt to restore some semblance of Labor standing in western Sydney. Until honourable members opposite replace their leader, they have not got a hope.

Page 751

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.25]: I wholeheartedly support the motion, which congratulates the Government on attending to what has been regarded as the worst bottleneck in Sydney. I would go so far as to say that the Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive intersection would be among the worst bottlenecks in Australia. Since the announcement was made in October last year that the Government proposed to do something about the problem, I have mentioned the project all over the place, to various individuals and groups throughout Sydney and in rural New South Wales. It does not matter where I have spoken about the project, people have expressed their satisfaction about what the Government is doing to improve that intersection. That proves that it does not matter where one lives in New South Wales, one is aware of that tremendous bottleneck and the problems associated with that intersection.

When it was in office for seven long years the current Opposition did nothing whatever about the problem. There was a very good reason for that. The reason is that the Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive intersection is situated within Labor heartland. The intersection abuts the Labor electorates of Canterbury, Lakemba and Auburn and is within a stone's throw of the electorate of Bankstown. The only Liberal electorate anywhere near the intersection is the south Strathfield end of the Strathfield electorate. The majority of voters in the south Strathfield end are Labor voters. That is why this intersection was ignored for so long. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has claimed the intersection was not ignored by the previous Government; that the previous Government was committed to the project. I am sure the mover of the motion, the honourable member for Lakemba, will elaborate on that false claim in his reply.

If honourable members opposite were still in government, there would be no upgrading of the intersection in time for the Olympics, despite the fact that it provides a very important link between the south-western suburbs of Sydney and Homebush Bay. The intersection was ignored by the previous Government despite the fact that a high school accommodating 780 students is located near the intersection and a primary school is just down the road. The Government is doing more than merely upgrading the intersection. The fact is that 65,000 vehicles per day pass through the intersection and the upgrading will include a pedestrian footbridge mainly for the use of the school children, to enable them to cross Liverpool Road and avoid traffic entirely.

There are three major features of the project. The first is a new railway bridge. The Government has put its money where its mouth is. Work has already commenced at the intersection and the Government has allocated more than $800,000, almost $1 million, for the construction of a new railway bridge across the Enfield marshalling yards at the point of the intersection. The work is very much under way and will be completed before the end of this year. A second major feature is the flyover across the highway from Roberts Road to Centenary Drive. That is the most important feature in terms of relieving traffic congestion. The other main feature is that the intersection will consist of eight traffic lanes - six through lanes, three each way, and a fourth left-right turning lane at every access point at the intersection. It is an incredible project and the Government deserves to be congratulated on its work.

About two months ago I left my electorate office in Campsie to travel to a funeral at the Rookwood Cemetery and had to allow an additional 30 minutes of travelling time to negotiate the intersection at Roberts Road. It would have taken 20 minutes for the journey if the intersection had been functioning adequately. Earlier I mentioned that the previous Government had ignored this project. It is interesting that on 5 October, when the Minister launched this project at Strathfield Golf Club, a number of Labor members of Parliament were present to celebrate with the Minister this important announcement. But who else came along to celebrate the occasion? Non other than the former member for Strathfield, Paul Zammit. What a bunch of hypocrites these coalition members are. They did nothing in their seven years in office about trying to solve the problems at the intersection, but now want to celebrate this colossal project. [Time expired.]

Mr SHEDDEN (Bankstown) [12.30]: I am delighted to speak to the motion that the House congratulates the Government for its decision to provide $50 million for the urgent road upgrading at the intersection of the Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive at South Strathfield. I was amazed that the honourable member for Upper Hunter told the House a moment ago that this Labor Government was not spending any significant amount of money on the roads of south-western and western Sydney. Everyone knows the large sum of money being spent in those areas, and that such sums will continue to be spent while this Government is in office. Not only is the Government spending $50 million on upgrading the intersection, but over the next couple of years it will spend between $8 million to $10 million on roadworks just a few kilometres along the Hume Highway at the intersection of Stacey Street and Rookwood Road. Naturally, those roadworks will dramatically improve the flow of traffic in that area. Those works have been badly needed for a number of years.

The upgrading of the Hume Highway intersection at Roberts Road and Centenary Drive at South Strathfield is of great significance not only in respect of its benefits in improved traffic flow along the Hume Highway but also for the benefits it will have for traffic flow and management in that area of south-western Sydney. At this stage it is worthwhile putting on record what the development will mean in real terms. A major feature of the
Page 752
upgrading is a flyover to link Centenary Drive and Roberts Road, with two traffic lanes in each direction. The flyover and associated ramps will merge with the existing six-lane sections of Centenary Drive to the north and Roberts Road to the south.

Upgrading of the intersection will make driving safer by widening approaches, providing additional lanes, and realigning Roberts Road with Centenary Drive. This will improve traffic flow, reduce frustration for drivers, and improve travelling times along the Hume Highway and Metro Road 3. Other features of the project include widening of the Hume Highway to provide three lanes in each direction, with additional turning lanes; building a pedestrian bridge - an important aspect of this development - over the Hume Highway near Hedges Avenue, for safe access to Strathfield South High School and residential areas; and installing noise walls to shield residential areas along Roberts Road, Centenary Drive and Strathfield South High School.

The previous Government continued to ignore the great need for this upgrading in the seven years that it was in office. Prior to the last redistribution my electorate of Bankstown covered part of this intersection. In the relevant period I continued to make representations, but they fell on the deaf ears of the previous Government. I think it is worth while to indicate some of the real benefits associated with this project. It will free the movement of northbound and southbound traffic on Roberts Road and Centenary Drive. We all know that the freeing of traffic movements in those directions will be of considerable benefit for the Olympic Games, but it will also alleviate the present day-to-day problems faced by motorists. Developments such as the Sydney Markets create considerable traffic movements in that area, and this project will alleviate concerns about traffic congestion.

As to the movement of eastbound and westbound traffic along the Hume Highway, I am sure we all appreciate the benefits to flow from widening of the Hume Highway at this intersection. There will be easy access in all directions for heavy vehicles using facilities in the vicinity of the intersection. Anyone who has negotiated that intersection would appreciate the tremendous benefits that will flow from this project. Heavy vehicles are finding it almost impossible at this stage to move through the intersection without interrupting the present flow of traffic. Of course there will be savings in fuel usage caused by traffic congestion. The project will result in less infiltration of traffic through local streets, allaying concerns of local residents. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would appreciate - [Time expired.]

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [12.35]: I congratulate the Government and the honourable member for Lakemba for bringing on this motion. I, as a person who has lived near the extension and overhead bridge since 1949 and has been travelling that road since the mid-1960s, can assure honourable members that the intersection is a disastrous bottleneck and causes some of the worst delays on roads in the Sydney metropolitan area. Let me first deal with what was said by the honourable member for Upper Hunter when speaking to the motion. He claimed that the work would have been done before the turn of the century under a coalition Government. A brief look at correspondence going back to 1993 could only lead one to the conclusion that the former coalition Government did not have plans for other than minor work at that intersection. In a letter to Strathfield council, former Deputy Premier and Minister for Roads Mr Wal Murray said:

Council may be assured that the final determination will take into account the community's concerns and wishes with a view to achieving the most beneficial and cost effective solution to present and future transport problems of the area.

Having regard to the foregoing, I feel that the matter could not be advanced by my meeting you and representatives of Council at this time.

So the former Deputy Premier and Minister for Roads had no intention back in April 1993 of advancing the matter, because he would not even speak to the council concerning the council's views on the matter. Then along came a new Minister for Roads, Bruce Baird, who wrote a letter of 29 July 1993 telling former member for Lakemba Mr Wes Davoren:

However, commencement of construction will depend on the project cost, availability of funds and the relevant benefit compared with other projects throughout the State.

I will return to his reference to "compared with other projects throughout the State". Therefore, in July 1993 the previous Government had no plans to upgrade the intersection. Of course, in 1994 its forward plans were not dealt with. The Mayor of Strathfield, Mr Leo O'Donnell, wrote to the former member for Lakemba, Mr Wes Davoren, on 21 February 1994 as follows:

On March 3 the Roads and Traffic Authority will be making a presentation on their proposals for the upgrading.

So in February 1994 there was only a presentation of a proposal. The letter from the council concluded:

It is the unanimous opinion of the Councillors and our professional staff that the proposal in its present form is totally unacceptable. The first stage is only an amplification of the present "at grade" intersection, with no guarantee as to when the "grade separation" will be installed - only vague promises.

Even this minor amplification will not be completed until 1998. The major reason advanced for the problem is lack of finance.

Yet, when a Labor Government was elected in March 1995 the Minister for Roads, the honourable member for Campbelltown, discovered that $50 million was available for the upgrading of the intersection. In the run-up to the elections, the honourable member for Eastwood had persuaded his
Page 753
Minister for Roads that that $50 million should be spent on looking after affairs in his electorate, ignoring the needs of western Sydney and these roadworks. That shows the nonsense of the comments made by the honourable member for Upper Hunter that his Government was doing everything it could to assist the people of western Sydney.

The people of western Sydney, particularly those in the electorates of Bankstown, Lakemba, Auburn and Strathfield - at present a Liberal-held seat, but maybe soon it will be a Labor seat - are appreciative of this upgrading project. People can now move out of the Regents Park area, where I live, and be in Sydney 15 minutes earlier than was possible with the delays along the monstrosity. The necessary work has been delayed for too long, for seven long years under a Liberal-National Government. I commend the honourable member for Lakemba for the motion, I commend the Minister for Roads for the great work, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr STEWART (Lakemba) [12.40], in reply: It is clear that the Deputy Leader of the National Party was embarrassed about trying to defend the indefensible seven years of inaction by the previous Government, of which he was part. The Deputy Leader of the National Party could point to no tangible action of the previous Government in regard to the intersection. He said that the intersection had been included in the previous Government's five-year plan. The Deputy Leader of the National Party did not understand - probably because he did not have the detail in front of him - that the five-year plan simply involved stage one of the intended roadworks.

This Government is taking the opportunity to upgrade the intersection in its entirety. Stage one would simply have given an upgraded version of the traffic light signals and provided for some noise barrier work in the vicinity. It would not have included overpass work, which was needed. That proposal would have cost $12.5 million, not the $50 million that this Government has committed to the project. The press release of the former member for Strathfield of 7 February 1994 refers to the five-year plan to which the previous Government was committed. It stated:

. . . the first stage of the scheme, which involves duplications of the Hume Highway bridge over the railway and the widening of Roberts Road to four lanes at a cost of $12.5 million, will provide early easing of traffic congestion.

That scheme would not have solved the traffic congestion; it avoided the real issue of getting 65,000 motorists over the intersection each day. The press release of the former member for Strathfield also stated:

. . . a pedestrian bridge across the Hume Highway near Hedges Avenue was also planned in the first stage to improve pedestrian safety . . .

That is as far as the previous Government went. It certainly did not include in its five-year plan the construction of the overpass; that matter was put on the backburner. The Roads and Traffic Authority in advice to the Minister has confirmed that the plan was to examine the need for an overpass in the next century - a ridiculous decision for western Sydney motorists. Support for the Government's work ranges far and wide. The honourable member for Rockdale has told me that his barber in Bexley is very pleased with the Government's decision because his family uses that intersection all the time, which is a reflection of the impact of the decision to put $50 million into upgrading what is probably Sydney's worst traffic bottleneck.

The Deputy Leader of the National Party tried to tie in the toll issue. I wonder how long Opposition members think they can cling to the toll issue. The Government's decision had nothing to do with the toll issue. It is simple: the Government was elected on the basis of delivering for the people in western Sydney, and that is exactly what it is doing. The Government is putting equity back into the western Sydney road system. I am proud to be part of that approach. The Deputy Leader of the National Party tried to raise a smokescreen that this decision was a replacement promise. His suggestion is ridiculous and without foundation. The Deputy Leader of the National Party knows, and admitted in his contribution today, that the previous Government recognised the need for the roadworks, urgent roadworks, but did nothing about it. For seven years the coalition was in government but did nothing about the problem at one of Sydney's worst traffic bottlenecks.

The development of the intersection of the Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive, Chullora, caters for all aspects of vehicle, resident, pedestrian and cycle safety. It is a massive project of which the Government is proud. As some of my colleagues and I have already pointed out, the Liberal-National coalition ignored the need for road upgrading in the area. The previous Government came up with a band-aid solution that would not work - it was a $12.5 million band-aid but it did not go as far as delivering on what was needed at the intersection and by the community. The Carr Labor Government has committed $50 million to the project and in doing so has demonstrated that western Sydney motorists will at long last get equity in roads funding. I am proud to be part of the Labor Government that cares about the real needs of western Sydney. I commend to the House the Government's decision to accelerate a full upgrading of the Hume Highway, Roberts Road and Centenary Drive intersection.

Motion agreed to.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Jeffery agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to defer the putting of the question "That the amendment be agreed to" as an order of the day for tomorrow.

Page 754

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [12.46]: I move:

That this House congratulates the Government for establishing a Council on Crime Prevention to advise on crime prevention initiatives.

Today I congratulate the Carr Government on the establishment of the Council on Crime Prevention. The Labor Party made a commitment prior to the last election to establish a council on crime prevention which would be chaired by the Premier. That commitment has been fulfilled and I am delighted to bring this matter before the House today. The council is the centrepiece of the Government's strategy to reduce crime and fear of crime. It is about attacking crime at its cause. The Council on Crime Prevention gives community representatives a say in the process of developing crime prevention strategies and initiatives. It ensures that the victims of crime have a voice - a say - in the criminal justice system.

The council gives community members the opportunity to sit alongside government Ministers, in a spirit of cooperation, to develop positive solutions to the problems of crime in our community. The council coordinates action by government departments and agencies and industry as well as local community initiatives. The aim is the development of safer communities. The council's membership includes: the Premier as chairperson; the Minister for Police as deputy chairperson; other Government Ministers including the Attorney General, the Minister for Education and Training, the Minister for Women, and the Minister for Transport; and community representatives including journalist and author Susan Geason, senior law lecturer Russell Hogg, retired Children's Court magistrate Barbara Holborow, and the Director of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn.

The council's charter embraces crime prevention broadly and thoroughly. Specific matters include developing a strategic crime prevention network for New South Wales; advising on legislation and programs to facilitate crime prevention; ensuring interagency cooperation and coordination; liaising with other jurisdictions on national crime prevention initiatives; and examining the formulation of local crime prevention committees in high-crime areas to encourage local communities to undertake safety audits and identify action to reduce the emergence of crime in such areas.

The most recent crime statistics, released by Dr Don Weatherburn on 9 April, demonstrate the importance of the work that the council is undertaking. They also show that there is still a great deal to be done. Whilst it was pleasing to note that there was no recorded increase in the rates of murder, sexual assault, robbery with a firearm, motor vehicle theft, theft from a vehicle, stealing from homes, and fraud, the upward trends in other recorded crimes require a detailed and thorough response. Robbery without a weapon and with weapons other than a firearm increased. Assault increased, as did break and enter.

I am pleased to say, however, that the Government has a comprehensive plan to address these trends. A vital part of the plan is the Council on Crime Prevention. The council has made property theft its focus. Non-ministerial members met early this year and agreed that as a first step the council should focus on the most prevalent of crimes - property theft. A coherent strategy is being developed in relation to crimes such as car theft, robbery, shop stealing and stealing generally. This good work is complementary to the initiatives that the Carr Government has taken to address property-related crime. The Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women has now introduced legislation to tighten up - and it is about time - the laws relating to pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. Property theft is a market-based crime. As I said earlier, the Government is committed to attacking crime at its source. In this case, attacking the market in stolen goods is an enormous step in reducing the incidence of property crime.

Not only is the council considering property theft, it is actively working in other areas. The council is currently considering the issue of violence against women. This is part of the Carr Government's commitment to promoting women's equality. Domestic violence is a particular problem. At the last meeting of the council it was recommended that violence against women be treated as a community-wide issue and that it become an integral part of the agenda of the council. The council is liaising with the Minister for Women to ensure that there is a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to tackling this scourge. The Department for Women is working with all government agencies to ensure each accepts responsibility for meeting the needs of women through their respective policies and programs. The Minister will be raising detailed proposals at the next meeting of the council.

Again, this is part of the Carr Government's wider agenda for tackling domestic violence. Last week the Premier and the Minister for Police launched a new campaign which encourages victims of domestic violence to take the step - to end the violence - to call the police. The occasion was National Stop Violence Against Women Day. As the Premier said, the campaign is a worthwhile initiative by the Police Service to encourage victims to speak out about their abuse, to seek justice and support. Police statistics show an increase in the number of reports of domestic violence and a survey of victims conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1995 found that more than 45,000 women had been the victims of an assault - either at home or in another location.

Whilst domestic violence and sexual assault are the most visible elements of violence against women, it must be remembered that other forms of violence are prevalent. These include: abuse of the
Page 755
elderly; the lack of a safe environment, particularly with respect to public places and transport; violence against women with disabilities; violence against Aboriginal women; violence against lesbians; and violence against women of non-English speaking background. The statistics I mentioned before do not tell the whole story. Countless more women - often from the groups I just mentioned - suffer silently and are apprehensive about lodging complaints for fear of the consequences. It is time for these victims to have a voice. That is why it was agreed that the Minister for Women would report to the council on these matters. The council is also providing a forum for local communities to demonstrate the initiatives they are taking. Best practice models are being examined.

At the last meeting of the council, Barbara Armitage, Mayor of Waverley Council, gave a presentation about Waverley Council's crime prevention work. Also, Councillor Armitage circulated the local council's community crime prevention policy and development plan No. 9 - community crime prevention. Some key components of the Waverley plan include provision of housing, child care, family support services, services for seniors, youth and women's refuges; crime prevention through environmental design principles, such as those adopted in the upgrading of Campbell Parade; provision of special space for young people, such as the skateboard ramp at Bondi Beach; active encouragement of liaison between police and local schools - another plank in Labor's pre-election platform; a project on the responsible serving of alcohol, including a successful training package for bar staff; and the safer-by-design project, which is part of the Police Service trial of its community safety and crime prevention program.

Under this program, development applications are referred to police for assessment from a crime prevention perspective. On this last point, the Minister for Police is currently awaiting a report on the trial in light of the apparent successes at Waverley. I think the above catalogue illustrates what a local community can do to protect its own. Waverley Council and Mayor Armitage deserve the recognition of the House for the work they have undertaken. The Council on Crime Prevention agreed, after the presentation, that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and the Minister for Local Government should consider Waverley Council's crime prevention policy and plans with a view to their circulation to other councils as a model for local action.

Another focus of the council is the revitalisation of Neighbourhood Watch, which I will not elaborate on now because of time constraints. However, I could not let today pass without mentioning the awful tragedy at Port Arthur last weekend. As the Premier said on Tuesday, violence is an issue for the whole of society. Something good must come from last weekend's carnage. Let us all hope and pray that we can redouble our efforts to make our community safer. There has never been a more appropriate time.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Small.

Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [12.56]: This is the third last volume of the review of the Audit Office of New South Wales, which was commissioned by the Public Accounts Committee under section 48A of the Public Finance and Audit Act. It contains transcripts of evidence taken by the Public Accounts Committee at public hearings, as well as a report from Mr Tom Sheridan on the independence, mandate and mission of the Auditor-General. I would like to point out at the outset that this report is not the usual report of the Public Accounts Committee in that it was not prepared by the committee or its staff. Instead, as the legislation required, the Public Accounts Committee appointed a panel of experts to conduct the review. The panel was completely independent of the Public Accounts Committee, of the Auditor-General and of any government agency. In reaching its conclusions, the panel was guided only by its own experience and expertise.

In fact, the Public Accounts Committee would not share several of the panel's conclusions. This does not diminish the value of the review process, but instead highlights the total independence of the expert panel. However, the Public Accounts Committee contributed the questioning and public examination that can only be obtained by a parliamentary committee in public hearings. The panel of experts could draw on their own experience and investigations, but clearly could not examine witnesses under oath in a public and formal setting. This report, which is the transcript of those public hearings, was tabled in the House yesterday.

Report noted.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 12.58 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.15]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

[Interruption]

The National Party opens this debate by attacking the legislation. If a case can be made for the Commonwealth Government to be clothed with powers on any subject, it is surely on the power to control firearms. If national power makes sense on any subject, it surely makes sense on the capacity to
Page 756
import, to sell, to trade in and to own a firearm. The gun which killed people at the Strathfield massacre in 1992 was purchased outside New South Wales. A member of this House told me today that a constituent told him that he purchased a fully automatic weapon - which could be called a machine gun, as he called it - in Queensland with the intention of bringing it back to this State.

If the Commonwealth disappoints on Friday week, we will enact State legislation. However, any legislation we enact will be undercut unless a comprehensive national approach is adopted. That fact should be clear to anyone who has considered, first, the huge black market in firearms and ammunition in this State, and, second, the capacity of States like Queensland and Tasmania, which have weaker powers than New South Wales, to undercut any action we take. I repeat: if a national approach makes sense on any subject, it does on what in the final analysis is a matter of life and death.

No-one moved by the tragedy of Port Arthur could regret a move towards a single, national approach on this subject. Clearly, if the national approach fails and the Commonwealth is not prepared to use the comprehensive national powers the New South Wales Government is prepared to give to it, we will return to this Parliament with a package of measures agreed to between this Government, the Commonwealth and, I hope, the coalition. We will do that as soon as we can after the national meeting to be held on Friday week. I urge bipartisan support for not only this measure, but -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat and remain quiet.

Mr CARR: I will give the House an account of the talks between the Leader of the Opposition and me yesterday: I was prepared yesterday to put my signature to a joint Carr-Collins statement -

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

Mr CARR: I am happy to distribute the draft, which was vetoed by the Leader of the National Party.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. No copies of the bill are available to members on this side of the House, and I ask that they be distributed now so that members will at least have some understanding of what the Premier is saying.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the available copies have run out and that the Clerk has arranged for additional photocopies to be brought to the Chamber.

Mr CARR: Let me make another thing very clear: any uniform national approach arrived at either through this legislation or through negotiations that take place at the meeting on Friday week must represent a net gain for gun control from the viewpoint of this State's standing. There will be no reduction in the level of gun control as it exists in New South Wales at present. We will not be dragged back by Queensland. Any change must represent a net gain for community safety. It must be a case of all States moving beyond the minimum of the standard existing in this State; a net gain for community safety. I also make clear that any referral of power to the Commonwealth will be repealed if we can achieve more at the State level than can be achieved by a uniform national approach. There will be no reduction in the standards achieved here.

Only uniform national gun controls can provide the level of safety that the community demands. It is a lunatic proposition to suggest that any other approach can work when there is an interstate trade in guns that permits what we can loosely describe as a machine gun to be sold over the counter in Queensland and brought into this State. A national approach can be taken only if in other States the trade in military-style weapons is prohibited as it is in New South Wales. When a huge black market in guns exists, only a Commonwealth-financed buy-back scheme can do what we have attempted to do in New South Wales through our current guns amnesty. In short, we need Commonwealth funding to offer cash in hand for gun owners to surrender their weapons, and only the Commonwealth can finance such an ambitious scheme. We will take that proposal, among others, to the Commonwealth at Friday week's meeting. We will take a range of strong and constructive proposals from New South Wales. We will urge a national approach, and we will expect bipartisan support for it. If the Commonwealth does not avail itself of the power we are referring, when this House returns we will bring forward our own measures.

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

Mr CARR: But at 6 o'clock yesterday we were still waiting for the agreed statement that I offered the Leader of the Opposition. The word came back that it would not be endorsed by the Leader of the National Party. In other words, the National Party -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Gosford on three calls to order. As Leader of the House for Opposition business he should act with decorum. If he attracts my attention again he will be removed from the House.

Mr CARR: The bill refers power to the Commonwealth Government to enable it to legislate in relation to the regulation of firearms. The events at Port Arthur on the weekend have left their mark on all of us. As the nation grieves it is the responsibility of governments around the country to ensure that they take measures to reduce the possibility of similar tragedies occurring in the
Page 757
future. As I said in the House on Tuesday, the New South Wales Government is firmly of the view that the best way to ensure that adequate laws relating to firearms are put in place is by referring power to the Commonwealth. Only with a national scheme, only by lifting the standards of other States to and beyond the standard in New South Wales, will we give the community the protection it deserves and demands. Only with a national scheme will it be possible to properly control cross-border trade, the purchase of weapons by mail order and the importation of these dreadful weapons in the first place. As I said, only this morning I was told the story of a person who crossed the border into Queensland - a seven-hour drive - and bought a machine gun over the counter in the knowledge that it could be transported back to New South Wales.

Mr Cruickshank: You are exaggerating.

Mr CARR: The member for Murrumbidgee says that I am exaggerating. Well, sir, I am not. That is a fact of life. Weapons prohibited in New South Wales are sold over the counter in Queensland and can be brought back to this State. A fully automatic weapon can be brought back to this State. New South Wales law alone cannot deal with these sorts of problems; they can be addressed only by a national scheme. We must act as a nation to resolve the problems of firearms. We must have national laws and national standards. The tragic events of the weekend give us an unprecedented opportunity to act. It is absolutely clear that the public wants this action. The bill will cede power to the Commonwealth to introduce comprehensive national laws on firearms: in other words, to do the things that the Prime Minister, to his very great credit, has said he wants to do. We stand behind John Howard and his initiative to the extent that we will give him the power to implement all that he put forward on Tuesday.

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

Mr CARR: The national laws will be able to deal with registration, possession, use, purchase, acquisition, sale, disposal, storage and manufacture. Licensing and prohibition will also be covered. The reference of power is deliberately broad because it is aimed at ensuring that the Federal Government will have all necessary powers to introduce a comprehensive set of national laws. I call on the Opposition to support the bill and thereby show that it is sincere in wanting to tackle problems that can be resolved only by laws that deal with importation, cross-border trade, transactions in ammunition and the purchase of weapons in one State and their importation to another.

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

Mr CARR: Only a single standard on firearms across this country can go any of the way to resolving this problem.

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

Mr CARR: Uniform laws have been debated for decades and still nothing has been done, and that is why we this proposition is necessary. If all Australian jurisdictions were to join with New South Wales in making a similar reference of power to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth could enact an Australia-wide standard to control guns embodying, in that national legislation, all that the Prime Minister - the leader of the national coalition - has said is desirable. For the reasons I have outlined, this Government is of the view, and I hope the House is of the view, that there should be a single, uniform, national gun law in this country. That ought to be achieved in a true spirit of bipartisanship. The alternative view gives Queensland the power to undercut everything that not only this State chooses to do but that John Howard has said is desirable. The alternative to this legislation is to say that Queensland and its standards can rule the roost. The Queensland standard, allowing trade in this weaponry and associated ammunition, would become the lowest common denominator in Australia.

That view is deeply defeatist to the nth degree. It suggests that we should not even bother to have the best possible national standards in gun laws because some State might oppose them. If Queensland, or any other State, refuses to adopt national laws or even uniform State-based laws, the national approach advocated by the Prime Minister will not be achieved. Faced with a choice between standard State laws and a single national code, clearly the single national code is a desirable option. But if it is not available, if other States fail the test or do not meet the standard we are setting, clearly it would fall to every State Parliament to enact legislation on its own. We will not fail that test. But by any measure, the more favourable option, the one that offers greater community safety, is a single overriding comprehensive national law. If the national Government is to have power on anything it ought to be on a matter involving life or death.

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

Mr CARR: We have to take all the States with us on that. I would think that all clear-thinking Australians would agree that those who buy weapons of mass destruction for illegal use will not be deterred by a seven-hour drive across a State border and that they should not be able to buy those weapons by mail order. The mail order purchase of guns is outlawed in New South Wales but is available because of the lax laws that apply in other States.

[Interruption]

How does this help us? In the approach we take on this -

Page 758

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst is testing my patience with his constant interruptions to debate. I place him on three calls to order.

Mr CARR: The Government's approach is to insist that New South Wales standards, as they presently prevail, should be the base minimum. One way or another we will move beyond them. Under no circumstances will we be dragged back to Queensland levels of protection. We are after a net gain in community safety and only a national approach can work. This legislation can be repealed if the other States do not cooperate. If forced to, we will enact legislation on our own. At the very least it ought to be legislation that would be followed in other States after bipartisan national level agreement at the conference on Friday week. But the clearly preferable approach, the approach we are proud to lead on, the approach we are proud to place on the agenda today, is one that gives the national Government that clear, strong comprehensive power it ought to have.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.35]: The Government cannot wait to wash its hands of this responsibility. It cannot wait -

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

Mr COLLINS: It cannot wait to try to pass the buck. At the outset I say that honourable members on this side totally endorse every word of Prime Minister John Howard and the initiative that he has taken in bringing forward the Australasian Police Ministers' Council. The Premier has already absented himself from the Chamber. He is saying that he cannot trust the Minister for Police to handle this matter tomorrow week when the police Ministers meet. At the bar of the House two days ago I stopped the Premier and said to him, "I want to let you know that we are absolutely determined to see gun law reform on this side. We are not going to see this opportunity pass. We are going to do everything we can to support constructive effective changes to gun laws in this State and right across Australia." As a result of the initiative that I took - it was not an invitation from the Premier - on behalf of the coalition to express bipartisanship, a meeting between the Premier and me was held in his office. At my suggestion I went to his office to sit down and draft some principles that we might agree on. At this time the people of this State are not looking for stunts.

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

Mr COLLINS: The time for stunts is over. The time for solutions, the time for ownership of responsibility, is here. This lot opposite cannot wait to wash their hands of it all and say, "We wanted to give it to the Commonwealth." I sat down with the Premier yesterday -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appeal to Government members to listen to the Leader of the Opposition in silence. It is very difficult for Hansard to hear the member speaking when five or six members are interjecting. I will place on three calls to order any member who has already been called to order and attracts my attention again.

Mr COLLINS: I sat down with the Premier yesterday and between us we dictated a document. That document was changed very quickly by the Premier's staff after we dictated it. We sat in the Premier's office and agreed that we should try to act together to get genuine reform as quickly as possible.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Port Jackson on three calls to order.

Mr COLLINS: The fundamental stumbling block was the Premier's determination to refer power to the national Government to introduce national legislation rather than have uniform legislation which we, the State legislators, embrace and own and enforce. I said emphatically that the best, fastest and most effective way of doing this was to introduce uniform gun law legislation the length and breadth of Australia. When the Minister for Police goes to the Australasian Police Ministers' Council, that should be what he pursues. The Premier said, "Yes, but how about if we give this power to the national Government; we will cede the power." I replied, "You have to look to the constitutional history of this country. What you are proposing has many obstacles in front of it because all you need is one Government, one Parliament, to say no and whatever gun law reforms you want to introduce will fall like a house of cards." I cautioned the Premier against the course of action on which he has now embarked. I want to put on the record the principles which the Leader of the National Party and I, and all of our colleagues, agree on. I will indicate just where the point of difference is between us and the Premier. I say again that it is over national, as in Federal, laws; ceding of powers to the Commonwealth versus uniform laws. Let me read those principles.

Mr Whelan: You have no principles.

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member does not have any. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council represents a unique opportunity for Australian politicians in all State and Territories of the Commonwealth to establish national standards for gun control and uniformity of gun laws throughout Australia. What the Premier wanted was national gun laws; not uniformity of gun laws. The second point is that it is crucial that all government representatives attending the conference do so with determination to achieve an effective national approach on gun control.

Mr Whelan: There were no national laws.

Page 759

Mr COLLINS: The honourable member will not have any laws, the way he is going on, and he knows it. The primary objective of the meeting tomorrow week should be to expedite a national approach. Under the present system the gun laws of any State are only as effective as those of the weakest State. Any uniform gun laws should not be based on the weakest laws in any given State. There was a tightening of gun laws in New South Wales, with bipartisan support, following the Strathfield massacre. The Opposition recognises that bipartisanship is crucial to parliamentary consideration of these issues. The statement of principles is signed by me and the Leader of the National Party.

Until the betrayal of the Premier's word this morning, the Premier would have been able to also sign that document, had he conceded that we, as State legislators, have responsibility and must meet that responsibility. The States must accept responsibility for gun laws and must enact uniform gun laws, tough uniform gun laws, throughout the length and breadth of Australia. The Carr Government is washing its hands of the gun control issue by rushing to give these powers to the Commonwealth. The Premier's plans to give responsibility for gun laws to the Federal Government is an abrogation of the State Parliament's responsibility on gun laws.

This approach - as the cynical Minister for Police well knows, having betrayed the confidence of those meetings held during the past two days when I attempted to offer bipartisan support - that is, the course of action proposed by the Opposition for uniform gun laws across Australia, offers the best chance of successful and immediate gun law reform. The Commonwealth needs to be equally bound by such uniform legislation. By signalling now that the Federal Government should be given constitutional power over gun control, the Carr Government has set itself a more difficult obstacle that is likely to delay the swift, decisive action which the Australian community rightly demands. If a single State or Territory refuses to hand over gun control the entire national approach to reform will be undermined; if a single State or Territory does not accept the Premier's proposition, everything he has said counts for nothing and gun law reform will be delayed.

The Australasian Police Ministers' Council represents a unique opportunity for Federal, State and Territory politicians to establish national standards of gun control and uniformity of gun laws throughout Australia. There is a real opportunity in eight days time for State and Territory Governments to work towards uniform legislation which can be introduced and embraced by every State and Territory jurisdiction. All governments, all politicians, every Australian politician regardless of party, must accept the responsibility to approach that council in a way which will result in effective uniform gun laws at the earliest possible moment.

Some States have traditionally resisted the transfer of powers to the Commonwealth and the cynicism in the Premier's move is underlined by his knowledge of constitutional history. As someone who professes an interest in history, he cannot disclaim knowledge of this. The stage is being set. The Minister for Police yesterday gave me an assurance that this legislation would not be introduced today and that he would await the outcome of the Australasian Police Ministers' Council before taking this action. That promise has been broken like so many other promises; that confidence has been broken like so many other confidences. The Minister cannot walk away from it.

The proposal by the Premier today threatens to jeopardise the national approach which John Howard has taken up on behalf of the Australian people. I make it clear to the people of this State, and to this House, that I endorse to the letter every word that the Prime Minister has said on the gun control issue, and so do members of the coalition. This bill should not be considered until the Minister for Police is able to report progress from the Australasian Police Ministers' Council, which is to be held one week from tomorrow.

For the Government to introduce this legislation at this stage, for the Government to wash its hands of the constitutional responsibility that all States and Territories have borne since European settlement in Australia, is a clear indication of the Government's cynicism and determination to rid itself of this issue as quickly as possible. This bill should be deferred until the Australasian Police Ministers' Council has been held, one week from tomorrow. That is what I said to the Minister for Police yesterday and that is a point which yesterday he seemed to grasp. However, it is a new day for the Carr Government and it is a new story. Yesterday's promise has been broken and today's stunt has arrived.

If the Government had any decency at all it would put this legislation aside; let it lie on the table of the House, just for next week. If the Minister for Police was worth two bob he would be able to report progress when the Parliament next sits. I suspect that the Minister is setting the stage so that he can come back and say, "Our unilateral decision, taken without consultation with the Prime Minister or any other State or Territory leader in this country, has failed. What a shame. What a shame our approach has failed." That is what the Carr Government is about. That is the shabby offering of the Minister for Police. For that reason the bill should be deferred.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Whelan.


The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Bread Repeal Bill

Page 760

Petitions praying against the downgrading of the office of Governor of New South Wales, and seeking that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from Mr Armstrong, Mr Blackmore, Mr Chappell, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Mr Jeffery, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr Merton, Mr O'Doherty, Mr O'Farrell, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Rixon, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith, Mr Tink, Mr Turner, and Mr Windsor.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following reports for 1995 be printed:

Macquarie University
University of New South Wales
University of Sydney
University of Wollongong

Mr COLLINS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Did he promise before the election not to close any hospital? Why does a memorandum from the North Sydney Area Health Service state that Manly hospital will close?

Mr CARR: They say that this question was written by the honourable member for Northcott. We might move a motion in this House tomorrow noting the great contribution of the honourable member in his previous job as the Liberal Party's campaign manager. With talk about hospitals, my attention is drawn to the absence of the honourable member for Sutherland; I think about hospitals and I think about the honourable member for Sutherland.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The Premier's remark about the absence of a member of this House, when that member is in hospital at this moment because of injuries he has suffered, is extremely offensive. Pursuant to Standing Order 81, I ask that he be directed to withdraw it.

Mr CARR: All right, the honourable member for Sutherland is in Manly Hospital. One way or another, I can report to the House that this is the fifth occasion on which he has avoided an interview with the inspectors.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order. No ruling was made on the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understood that the Premier withdrew his remark.

Mr Collins: He did not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understood the Premier had said he would withdraw the remark.

Mr CARR: Of course I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair believes that is what happened.

Mr CARR: And the Chair is always right. Manly hospital will not close.


Mr ARMSTRONG: I address a question without notice to the Premier. What selection process was used to elevate Ken Cripps from a junior senior executive service level 1 employee at Taronga Zoo and the Urban Parks Agency to the State's second most senior public servant? Was the process based solely on his personal friendship with the Premier and his previous employment as the Premier's ministerial private secretary?

Mr CARR: I guess the same process as was used to elevate Mr Ian Kortlang to head the Department of State Development, or Mr Gary Sturgess to head the Cabinet Office. I guess he enjoyed the same confidence as he enjoyed during the seven years of coalition government when he occupied senior public service positions, or the kind of confidence he enjoyed from Mr Ken Baxter when he was nominated for the public service medal, which he will receive on Friday.


Mr NAGLE: I ask the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads what the Government is doing in regard to the overhead powerlines at the Olympic site at Homebush Bay.

Mr KNIGHT: The honourable member for Auburn takes a great interest in the happenings at the Homebush Bay site, which falls largely within his electorate. I was hoping to find a little more of a bipartisan spirit on the Olympics issue than is evidenced from the honourable member for Northcott. For a long time the Government has acknowledged that the high voltage overhead powerlines at Homebush Bay are a visual blight on our Olympic landscape. All along the Government has made it clear that the powerlines would be removed if that could be done at a cost taxpayers could afford. Advice last May, however, indicated that the cost of undergrounding the powerlines that crisscross the Homebush site was about $70 million. That was a cost that the Government simply could not justify. But, unlike some members opposite, we did not give up. The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Government privately kept on working to try to find a solution.

I am now pleased to tell the House that the Government, in conjunction with SOCOG, has come up with a way to underground the powerlines at a greatly reduced cost to the taxpayers. The
Page 761
Government, along with SOCOG, Energy Australia and OLEX Cables will now put the powerlines underground. The Government will contribute only a fraction of the original $70 million estimate to underground the powerlines. The other organisations will contribute the rest and will become sponsors of the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The Government's contribution will be limited to a maximum of $20 million, and it is quite likely to be a little less. That amount includes the $5 million allocated by the Government last year for relocating some of the towers that carry the powerlines.

Energy Australia will be the project manager and will carry the full risk of any cost overruns on the project. I would like to point out to the House, however, that although OLEX is the preferred supplier on this job, that does not give the organisation any preferential status on the other projects at Homebush Bay that are being managed by the Olympic Co-ordination Authority. The powerlines are a scar on the landscape of Homebush Bay. They are the first thing that people notice when they visit the site. And in the year 2000 the eyes of the world will be focusing on our Olympic site. With the undergrounding of the powerlines, vision will be clearer.

As well as removing the visual pollution of the powerlines, their undergrounding will bring a number of benefits to the Olympic Co-ordination Authority planning processes for Olympic Park. First, the removal of the powerlines will free up 10 hectares that can be used by the OCA for improved access to the Olympic site. Second, construction of the tennis and hockey centres will be made much easier and cheaper with the removal of the powerlines. They will not have to be built around the constraints of huge electricity towers, and this will result in savings of about $2.5 million to the Government and taxpayers on the construction of those two venues.

Without the powerlines the Homebush Bay area will become a more attractive place, and more people will want to work, live and play there. This will mean that projects such as the athletes' village will become an even more attractive prospect to the private sector. SOCOG and its partners are to be congratulated on working with the Government to bring about this creative solution. In particular, I pay tribute to the SOCOG Chief Executive, Mal Hemmerling, for his efforts on this project. It is a great delight to work with smart people - something that the Leader of the Opposition would not understand. The honourable member for Northcott persists in interjecting. Everybody on this side of the House appreciates the contribution he made to our election campaign. And we all enjoyed enormously his inaugural address in which he likened himself to Robert Gordon Menzies - he has the girth, the suit and the eyebrows. But, as a result of his behaviour at the last election, to the Liberal Party he will always be one of the forgotten people.

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

Mr KNIGHT: I return to the important question on the undergrounding of the powerlines at Homebush Bay. This project is an illustration of the good work being done by both SOCOG and the OCA in the management and planning of the Sydney 2000 Games. It represents yet another successful example of the partnership between SOCOG, the Government and the private sector as we head towards the Olympic Games in the year 2000.


Mr SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What plans does the Government have to further develop Gunnedah health services?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for Wollongong for his interest in rural and regional New South Wales and in improvements in health services. It is depressing that no-one from the National Party is raising issues of health in rural New South Wales. I have no doubt that even the Deputy Leader of the National Party, who may jump up in time to ask the next question, will not raise an issue relevant to health.

Mrs Skinner: Have a look at the estimates committees -

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore chips in with an interjection about estimates committees. At last year's health estimates committee no-one from the National Party turned up. National Party members have no interest in health. Gunnedah is an important part of rural New South Wales, as the honourable member for Wollongong so obviously realises. One would have thought that the honourable member for Barwon might raise this issue. For quite some time Gunnedah has needed improvements to its health services. The Carr Government is investing in the improvement of health services in Gunnedah to the tune of $750,000 this year. An amount of $250,000 will be spent to renovate the old hospital site for a new community health centre. Improvements will be made for a community health facility.

The sum of $500,000 will be spent to build a new diagnostic facility, including a new x-ray unit, at Gunnedah. For years health services in rural New South Wales have been wound down and have suffered through productivity cuts. I remember the honourable member for Dubbo regularly telling me that he could not get his views across in Cabinet to stop productivity cuts in the bush. His colleague the honourable member for Wagga Wagga faced the same problem. The honourable member for Dubbo, having spent years in the House fighting as best he
Page 762
could for his electorate, even during the coalition's seven years in government, could not get Dubbo Base Hospital onto the capital works program. That took the present Government less than seven months. What about Wollongong Hospital? This Government has Wollongong Hospital on the program to be built and redeveloped.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Leader of the National Party has been in the House for years - he took forever to become leader - but he never managed to get West Wyalong on the program. The last time I raised this issue, he said that the previous Government promised it. Of course the previous Government promised it. The previous Government promised thousands of things, but it never delivered on them. The first money to go into West Wyalong hospital -

[Interruption]

This Government is about rebuilding the bush. The people of Gunnedah have been hanging out for this announcement, despite the fact that they had as their representative the former Leader of the National Party - the Deputy Premier in those days - who never gave Gunnedah what it needed. I know the honourable member for Barwon is getting around to asking me a question about Gunnedah. He has been a member of Parliament for only a year, so he should be allowed a little leeway to get the measure of the Parliament before he asks a question about health and actually stands up for the people of Gunnedah.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: We should not judge him too harshly because I knew he was going to ask the question; it was on the tips of his lips. He should be given due credit to make representations to ensure that $750,000 is provided for extra facilities, X-ray services and a new health facility that will make a difference for the people of Gunnedah.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: I know that the honourable member for North Shore has been outside the city; she has actually travelled to the bush. There was one time when she travelled outside Sydney and went into the bush. She went to Port Macquarie. Why did she go to Port Macquarie? Port Macquarie has the only hospital outside metropolitan Sydney that the coalition privatised. She had to go up there to see the privatised hospital. It is still the coalition's policy to privatise hospitals. There would not be a Gunnedah hospital or any services in Gunnedah if the honourable member for North Shore was the Minister for Health.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: She has been up to Port Macquarie and spoken to the entrepreneurs, who are costing the Government a fortune. It is costing so much to run that hospital, much more than an equivalent public hospital would cost. In fact, money is being sucked into that private hospital contract at Port Macquarie, money that the Government would like to spend in country New South Wales on further developing rural health services. The funds are being taken from other electorates and sucked into that private contract at Port Macquarie. I know the honourable member for Barwon is desperate to put out a press release thanking the Government for providing the health services at Gunnedah and I thank the honourable member for Wollongong for raising this important issue.


Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Will he explain why it was necessary for the Commissioner of the Public Employment Office, Ken Cripps, to travel to Melbourne at the time of the election policy launch of the Federal Australian Labor Party and stay in the same official ALP hotel as the Premier? What official engagements did Mr Cripps have over the two days he was with the Premier in Melbourne at taxpayers' expense?

Mr CARR: He was not with me in Melbourne. I will inquire from the Public Employment Office and obtain a reply for the House. I would have thought that is the kind of question the honourable member for Sutherland, above all, could have asked me. One cannot blame me for continuing to refer to the absence from this place of my old mate, the honourable member for Sutherland. When last I checked he was still avoiding the inspectors.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Yesterday in question time a number of frivolous points of order were taken. I would have expected the member to hear more of the answer before seeking to take a point of order, and I hope it is not frivolous.

Mr O'Doherty: It certainly is not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will judge that.

Mr O'Doherty: I rise on an extremely serious point of order, which relates to Standing Order 82. Rather than rising peremptorily on this matter, I have avoided rising on a number of occasions.

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

Page 763

Mr O'Doherty: The point of order is that in answer to every question in the past three days the Premier has found reason to discuss matters relating to the honourable member for Sutherland - nothing to do with the relevance of the question in hand. Mr Speaker, you are the preserver of the dignity of this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This point of order is in the frivolous category. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr CARR: On the point of order. The three questions I was asked were about the honourable member for Sutherland.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled that there is no point of order. Does the Premier wish to resume his reply?

Mr CARR: No, I have finished.


Ms MEAGHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services. Is the Minister aware of incidents when non-English speaking residents have been unable to understand the orders of firefighters to flee burning buildings? What action is the Government taking?

Mr DEBUS: I thank the honourable member for Cabramatta for her continuing interest in New South Wales Fire Brigades issues and in the needs of the people of her electorate. The Government has been working across a number of portfolios to improve fire safety measures and education in New South Wales. In the last budget funding for the New South Wales Fire Brigades was increased by 14 per cent, as a result of which I have been able to announce the construction of a new fire station where it is most needed - in Sydney's south-west.

Last December I hosted a seminar to investigate the use of smoke alarms and ways of getting more people to install them. That summit, attended by firefighters and representatives from government, insurance and fire suppression industries, adopted a recommendation by State Coroner, Derrick Hand. The State Coroner contends that people must be educated to take responsibility for installing and maintaining smoke alarms through a major television advertising campaign. Work is now well advanced on such a campaign and it will run throughout the winter on television stations across the State.

In addition, my colleague the Minister for Housing has announced that a multimillion dollar smoke alarm installation program is under way in public housing and has ensured that public housing tenants are being offered battery-operated smoke alarms for as little as $6. Last Tuesday I was able to announce a series of seminars being run by the New South Wales Fire Brigades, in conjunction with the National Electrical Contractors Association, designed to improve people's knowledge of smoke alarms. Today I am pleased to be able to inform the House of a further fire safety measure. Firefighters at two Sydney stations, Cabramatta and Marrickville, are now undertaking Vietnamese lessons. The need for these lessons appears to be unquestionable. Indeed, it is surprising that lessons had not begun a long time ago.

In Cabramatta 47 per cent of residents come from non-English speaking backgrounds, and the predominant non-English language is Vietnamese. Firefighters in both areas have dozens of examples of language barriers threatening the safety of residents and firefighters. Of greatest concern are situations where firefighters have had to search every room of a burning building because the communication barrier made it impossible for the residents to tell officers if anyone remained inside. Conversely, there have been occasions when Vietnamese residents have been attempting to direct firefighters to people trapped but have been unable to make the point understood. Firefighters in Cabramatta and Marrickville are now learning how to ask the number of people living in the building, whether anyone is trapped, where, and if anyone is injured.

Cabramatta firefighters have also informed me that they feel these language skills will be of great assistance when a death or injury has been suffered. One officer has told of an occasion when people have been greatly distressed and agitated and the language barrier made it impossible for him to offer any words of comfort. The weekly lessons in Vietnamese will solve this problem in the Cabramatta and Marrickville areas. I am pleased to inform the House that the Fire Brigade Employees Union fully supports this measure as it believes it will improve operational procedures and make its members safer. If the program proves to be a success - all indications are that it will be - the fire safety language training program will be considered for expansion to other areas of the State which have large communities of non-English speaking people.


Mr HUMPHERSON: I direct my question without notice to the Premier. Will he explain why it was necessary for the Commissioner of the Public Employment Office, Ken Cripps, to accompany him on his failed travels to Korea and Japan in 1995? How many interviews were conducted, and how many appointments were made following Mr Cripps' excursion with the Premier into Japan and Korea at taxpayers' expense?

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The question is clearly argumentative and is too long.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the question.

Mr CARR: Mr Cripps was addressing a public service conference and was negotiating with the Government of Seoul. I will provide full details to the House.

Page 764

Mr SHEDDEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What is the current state of regulations concerning the abalone fishery in New South Wales?

Mr MARTIN: I thank the honourable member for his question and his genuine interest in fishing and the abalone industry. His focus on fishery matters flows in part from his position on the Regulation Review Committee, which has responsibility for adjudicating on the merits of particular regulations. One wonders why, in respect of this regulation, the Opposition connived to bypass that committee when ample time was still available for a review to be undertaken. On Tuesday, the Legislative Council voted to disallow amendments to the general regulation 1995 of the Fisheries Management Act. By so doing, the Opposition signalled its desire to dismantle, piece by piece, legislation it introduced into this House.

When the legislation was passed, Labor members expressed reservations about its future impact, but since assuming office the Government has tried to do all it can to make the Act work. The Opposition is now doing all it can to unravel its own legislation and to stop it being implemented. Perhaps these mistakes are excusable: indeed, the honourable member for Port Macquarie has been distracted of late, and it is conceivable that she has forgotten that the legislation she is attacking was introduced by her side of politics. The regulation which was disallowed in the upper House provided for management arrangements during the limited access phase of the abalone share management fishery. It provided for the collection of fees to be used for the administration of the share management provisions of the Act; for the nomination of a fisher to take abalone on behalf of the shareholder; and for the application for an endorsement in the fishery.

The regulation allowed the Director of New South Wales Fisheries to approve payment of fees by instalment to ease the burden of payment on the divers; the orderly allocation of quota; the transfer of quota between divers; and the special licence conditions for those nominated to take abalone on behalf of shareholders in the fishery. Importantly, the fees also contributed to critical compliance work and funded the ongoing effort of New South Wales Fisheries - backed by the Government - to crack down on what is a worrying black market abalone trade. In essence, the regulation provided certainty, surety, stability and continuity in what is a complex and widely misunderstood industry.

Honourable members would be interested to learn that since the disallowance New South Wales Fisheries and I have received numerous queries from worried and deeply distressed abalone divers. I can only inform them that the Opposition has failed to show vision and an understanding of its own legislation. Members opposite are trying to overturn their own legislation and inflict pain and suffering. Despite the disallowance, the abalone fishery remains under schedule 1 of the Act as a share management fishery. By order - I have been advised in detailed interim legal advice - the fishery remains a limited access fishery. There is no reverting to a restricted fishery for abalone and the previous restricted fishery regulation does not apply. The provisions of the Act which the previous Government strove hard to enact, along with other regulations which relate to share management fisheries, still apply. These still dictate the dealings in shares in this fishery. This is exactly the same position that existed before the disallowance motion was passed.

I refer the House to the words of the Hon. Ron Dyer in the other place on Tuesday last week when he warned that "members may not be sufficiently well informed to make a proper decision on the disallowance". Those words appear to have been proved correct. Despite the disallowance, the abalone share management fishery will continue to be managed and the abalone stock protected. Fortunately, the powers of the Act still provide for this situation, although the process may be a little slower and divers may be more inconvenienced than if the regulation had not been disallowed. The Government regrets that inconvenience, but it is the Opposition that has inflicted this grief.

I am advised that the disallowance motion achieved little. It caused distress and confusion in the industry and removed the ability of the Government to collect fees that, among other things, are vital for the funding of critical compliance work. It is important to alert honourable members to the Government's determination to ensure compliance work continues, and that those involved in the black market harvesting and selling of this precious species are detected and punished according to the full force of the law. With prices soaring from about $4 a kilogram in the 1970s to something more than $50 per kilogram currently, my department and I are conscious of the acute opportunity for illegal acts to be committed. This is a serious matter.

No data is available on how much the black market industry is worth but, lamentably, despite the departments best endeavours, it is probably the case that the majority of abalone consumed and/or sold in New South Wales comes from an illegal source. This problem has the Government's full attention. Steps have been taken, and will continue to be taken, to ensure those involved are caught and punished and, further, that a message is sent to the community indicating that the Government is serious about this matter.

More than 20 fisheries inspectors on the south coast have, as part of their duties, the responsibility to detect illegal abalone harvesting. These inspectors are in addition to two dedicated officers who are assigned to the specific problem. The fact that those positions are funded by the industry reflects the concern about the problem. Also, a
Page 765
special operations group is in place which conducts raids from time to time. Despite the disallowance of the regulation, New South Wales Fisheries has assured me that this important compliance work will continue. The result of the compliance work to date has been impressive, but also serves to highlight the scope of the problem.

Illegal abalone harvesting and sale has been targeted at all levels; namely, in restaurants, fish shops and wholesale and retail operations. I am informed that between March 1995 and March of this year 182 restaurants, 159 fish shops and 55 abalone processing establishments have been inspected. Although prosecutions have declined over the past 10 years, New South Wales Fisheries intelligence indicates the problem has gone underground and further, more rigorous investigation is being undertaken. It was a tragedy that members opposite played politics at the expense of hard-working people. They attempted to downgrade their own legislation and, at the same time, they have brought discredit upon themselves.


Mr HAZZARD: My question is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts, and Acting Minister for the Environment. Why has your Government failed to honour Labor's election promise to the Nature Conservation Council to establish a "substantial fund" for rehabilitation of degraded wetlands? In view of your stated commitment to Lake Cowal wetlands, when will substantial funds be made available to rehabilitate the closest wetland to Sydney: Towra Point Nature Reserve, Botany Bay?

Mr DEBUS: It is extraordinary that that is the first question on an environmental issue that I have been asked this session. I will obtain the information and report back to the House.


Ms NORI: My question is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. What action is the Government taking to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol on the community?

Mr FACE: There have been considerable industry concerns about the content of and the alleged lack of consultation in relation to the harm minimisation bill the Government proposes to introduce in this session of Parliament. The Government is taking a strong stand on alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour associated with the consumption of alcohol. In August 1995 the Premier organised a special alcohol forum within the confines of this House which emphasised the importance the Government gives to addressing alcohol-related problems. The Government is pleased that the forum endorsed the Government's harm minimisation and preventive approach to alcohol problems in society.

The approach does not in any way advocate prohibition or wowserism. As I have said in this House before, it is about sensible and realistic programs. It is recognised that alcohol is consumed in moderation by many people without harm to themselves or anybody else in the community. That is not to say that the Government does not recognise the problems associated with alcohol. We are only too well aware of the problems. Particular priorities of the Government include programs to deal with under-age drinking and to ensure the reasonable promotion, service and consumption of alcohol.

A range of initiatives is being pursued in the gaming and racing portfolio which will have an impact on alcohol-related problems in the community. These are initiatives of the Labor Government and give effect to the Government's policies as stated prior to the last election. An important initiative is a legislative package introduced to this House in October last year which will reorientate licensing laws so that they encompass clear harm minimisation objectives. The Government intends to proceed with the liquor and registered clubs registration amendment bill - the harm minimisation bill - in this session. The harm minimisation object in the licensing laws is significant. I believe it may be a first for Australia and may be used as a model throughout the world.

It is significant because the law will provide explicitly that minimisation of harm associated with the misuse and abuse of liquor is a primary object of each Act. It will require due regard to be had to the need for harm minimisation by persons exercising functions under the Acts, particularly in considering the public interest. The Government also intends to introduce compulsory responsible server training across the industry. When the proposed legislation is passed it will provide for the development of detailed regulations to allow the staged introduction of compulsory training for all licensees and liquor serving staff across the industry. This is a sticking point for some people in the industry. I harken back to what we are about to discuss in the Chamber today. We do not want another Crescent Head tragedy on our hands. The proposed legislation is about preventing a recurrence.

People keep saying that we should not hark back to the events at Crescent Head, but had there been responsible liquor serving in that case two police might not have been killed, their wives left widows and their children fatherless. I emphasise that the development will be staged, in full consultation with the industry and with the assistance of the industry, so that the proposals will work. The measures will also strengthen the legislation in relation to minors in accordance with the Government's policy to act on under-age drinking - a continuing matter of concern for all members of Parliament. Though the legislation was foreshadowed by the Premier in his address to the alcohol forum in August last year, it appears that it
Page 766
may have moved forward too quickly for some. People may not have comprehended the reasoning for the legislation. The Government has attracted criticism from some elements of the liquor industry for not consulting more fully on the harm minimisation bill.

The facts do not bear this out, as I will demonstrate. The three consultative and advisory councils in the gaming and racing portfolio - along with no fewer than 10 government agencies - were provided with information about the package, and those councils and agencies provided very useful input. While it is pleasing that the agencies and industry, in the main, have given their support to the package, there remain some elements in the industry not fully satisfied with the consultation process. Frankly, even if we consulted for another three years some people would not be happy with the entire package, because it does not suit their ends. Some people are also not happy with the thrust and content of the bill because they want to go on doing as they like.

The peak liquor industry associations were advised by my office of the content of the proposed package prior to its introduction into Parliament. I sought their comments at the time. Further, I provided all industry associations with a copy of the bill on 19 October - the morning after I introduced it. That sort of thing did not happen in the time of the previous Government. In fact, all 10,000 members of the liquor and registered clubs industries around New South Wales were advised of the Government's legislated proposals in the Industry Liquor and Gaming Bulletin in October. It is a bulletin published regularly by the Department of Gaming and Racing for the information of licensees.

Since then I have had discussions about the bill with a number of the peak industry associations and I attended a special meeting of the liquor industry consultative council at which the harm minimisation package was discussed at some length. I have also provided a number of detailed written responses to industry submissions on the bill in the period it has been lying on the table. The consultation processes have been comprehensive. I have no hesitation in saying that the harm minimisation proposal has been well circulated throughout the State, including all sectors of the industry. Despite the extensive consultation process, some elements of the industry will continue to disagree with the thrust of the bill and the measures introduced to deal with alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises. Each time I visit country towns people express concerns to me about the problems associated with alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. The Mayor of Albury City Council, Councillor Amanda Duncan-Strelec, and the councillors, to their credit, are trying to be trailblazers in creating a better understanding within that industry and making certain that the streets of Albury are safe. They are finally getting the industry together. Despite one of the mavericks in my party, we will get there. It also appears to me that there has been a campaign to undermine the very important objects of the bill. As evidence of this I refer to various misinformed media reports that have muddied the waters and attempted to create confusion about the intent of the bill. I deprecate the actions of one of the leading legal practices in this State. One individual within that practice has gone around trying to peddle programs -

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister is entitled to complete his answer.

Mr FACE: He has attempted to create confusion about the intent of the bill by suggesting that the Government is introducing draconian new server liability measures for bar staff. As I have said many times in recent months, that is just not going to happen in New South Wales. It may be appropriate for American and Canadian jurisdictions, but New South Wales is not going down that litigation path. The Government's bill does not contain anything of that sort, and Piggott Stinson ought to stop what it is doing. The industry associations may also be assured that their assistance will be sought in the formulation of the new regulations concerning responsible serving and promotion of liquor. I have given them that commitment and am pleased to repeat it in this House.


Mr DEBUS: I seek to provide supplementary information in respect of a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Wakehurst.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is attempting to give information to the House which was not available earlier. He is at liberty to do that and the House will listen in silence.

Mr DEBUS: In a sense the information was not available at all. I am advised that the Labor nature conservation policy referred to by the honourable member for Wakehurst had no reference whatsoever to wetlands funding. The World Wildlife Fund recently congratulated the New South Wales Government on its management of wetlands, saying that it had the best policy framework in Australia to protect wetlands.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.45]: I indicate that the Government will permit the notice for urgent consideration of the Leader of the National Party to proceed; followed by the matter of public importance lodged by the
Page 767
honourable member for North Shore, with 10 minutes only for each side; and then the resumption of debate on the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill. I indicate also that at this stage it appears almost certain that this House will be sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m.


Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [3.47]: I move:

That this House views with concern the State Government's decision to disallow a goldmining project at Lake Cowal.

This matter has taken on added urgency in the light of the Government's deliberate and contemptuous action in the other place of refusing to table relevant documents in relation to the proposed Lake Cowal goldmining project. The Government is now immersed in a morass of arrogance and stupidity. Its leader in the Legislative Council has been censured for failing to obey a direction of that House that he produce the documents. This morning the Government has thumbed its nose at the second deadline, putting it further in contempt of Parliament. Considering the awful cost of having a leader censured and then suspended, some questions must be asked. What is the Government so terrified of making public in relation to the Lake Cowal goldmine decision by the Premier? What has the Carr Labor Government got to hide on Lake Cowal? Why will it not come clean? Why has its Minister for State and Regional Development, who is also the Treasurer, acted in contempt of the Parliament? What is it covering up? Where is the cover-up on Lake Cowal? Why will the Government not tell the people, through this Parliament, how it made its decisions and why it made them? What signals is this sending for mining in New South Wales, indeed in Australia, as far as future investment is concerned?

This is a contemptuous act by a government of ignorance, by a government which does not care about jobs, does not care about investment, and will not talk to the people, let alone the promoters of the mine. What is in the papers about this project that the Government believes it must blatantly cover up, and in the process risk bringing on a sequence of constitutional events which ultimately will take control of the issue out of the hands of Parliament and the Government? Or, is it the lack of papers that the Government is worried about? Could it be that the Premier's arbitrary decision in overruling the commission of inquiry lacks any authoritative support other than compliant reports from public servants which could not stand critical analysis? This House has seen a few spurious documents and reports presented this week by the Government. And there are more! Surely, this is a matter of great urgency because not only is a multimillion dollar project that would create a large number of jobs in jeopardy, but the integrity of the democratic parliamentary system is being trashed by a seemingly unconcerned and arrogant government.

This matter is urgent because at least 200 permanent jobs vitally needed to invigorate the West Wyalong region's economy are being wilfully wasted by a government that refuses to allow common sense to play a part in its decision on the Lake Cowal goldmining project. Some 200 permanent direct jobs and - on the basis of a multiplier factor of four to one - 700 indirect jobs would be created by this $1.2 billion mine over 11 years in the centre of the State. It is urgent because the Premier's vetoing of the commission of inquiry's recommendations sends an alarming signal about future investment and development in New South Wales. Mining investment, a major contributor to our State and national wealth and to employment, will be driven from New South Wales to other States. Despite the concerns of scores of responsible business and local government people in the central west, despite the concerns of the mining industry - representatives of which are in the gallery - and despite the concerns of many families and unemployed people, the Carr Government continues to treat the community with high-handed contempt.

This matter is urgent because the Premier listened to cogent arguments from a deputation of civic leaders from the Council of Bland on Tuesday, yet stubbornly refused to recognise the common sense put forward by those concerned citizens. The main argument used to denigrate the North Limited project is that the 50 parts per million of cyanide used to separate the gold from the ore will wipe out bird populations on Lake Cowal. The 50 parts per million is exactly in conformity with world best practice - a level recognised around the world as being a safe level. Yet we have the Premier challenging this worldwide standard as being incorrect and capable of wiping out bird life at Lake Cowal while the same level does not affect bird life in other parts of the world.

Frightened acolytes surround the Premier, agreeing that 50 parts per million will leave the area moonscaped. North Limited has even suggested the possibility that a lower level of cyanide could be used in the extraction process, albeit less efficient and more costly, but the Premier's brainwashing has been complete; he cannot even bring himself to agree to that. What is the Carr Government, and most importantly the Premier, hiding on this matter? The decision to veto Lake Cowal lacks common sense. It is based on a media-driven campaign by the Premier to create a new image after a series of inept and ill-informed decisions, such as the Department of Agriculture cuts, State environmental planning policy 46, the decision in respect of the Governor, hospital waiting lists, school bus travel, the M4 and M5 tolls and the 3 x 3 formula. The list goes on.

This is a premier in free fall. The Premier has lost the plot, lost his party's support and the support of the people, and lost credibility in the Australian political system. The Premier has not only lost the plot; he is now very much prone to
Page 768
simply making decisions without any logical reason behind them. The decision to prevent North Limited developing a $1.2 billion gold deposit that would provide more than 200 jobs and last for 11 years completely contradicts the Premier's suggestion that New South Wales is leading the investment race. North Limited has already spent $14 million and would have spent nearly $200 million in developing this major mine in the central west of New South Wales.

This matter is urgent because the Premier's decision was taken against all expert opinion, against the recommendations of a government commission of inquiry - which received more than 118 submissions - and contrary to the agreement of the government departments and North Limited on the strict conditions of consent. It is important to note for the record that the Minister for Mineral Resources, who is not in the Chamber this afternoon, on more than two occasions publicly supported the project going ahead. Where is the Minister for Agriculture? Where is the Minister for State and Regional Development?

I know why the Minister for State and Regional Development will not table those papers in the upper House: because he does not have the intestinal fortitude, as the honourable member for Monaro has said. More importantly, he knows that, as Minister for State and Regional Development, he has shirked his responsibilities by not challenging the Premier through the Cabinet process and in this Parliament and demanding that the Premier allow this project to go ahead because it has passed all the necessary tests and would be a major producer of activity in State development. He has shirked his responsibility. He hides in the upper House and says he will not answer questions. I ask you, is that the action of a fair dinkum Minister for State and Regional Development? Let me refer to the inquiry's letter of last month to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. The letter was signed by chairman William Simpson and deputy chairman Kevin Cleland, and said:

Our report canvasses the various conservation, environmental, development and social issues brought before the Commission of Inquiry. We have weighed and balanced these aspects of the proposed development and are satisfied, subject to compliance with the strict conditions we recommend, that conservation and environmental considerations do not preclude you granting consent to the Lake Cowal gold project.

The statement is clear, it is precise and it gives the Premier and the Government the absolute imprimatur to go ahead with this magnificent project. Yet the Premier, who will not release the papers and will not talk to North Limited, and the Minister for State and Regional Development, who has blocked the tabling of papers, are effectively saying that they do not believe the chairman and the deputy chairman of the commission of inquiry. They are effectively downgrading the professional integrity reputation of those two people. They are the Government's own men. It was the Government's own inquiry, but they are saying they will not abide by the commission's recommendations. The matter is urgent because the inquiry's executive summary spelled out in great detail - no doubt so that even the Premier would get the message - that this mining venture, so important to the economy of the region and to the State and the nation, is not only safe but desirable. The summary stated:

On weighing and balancing the scientific and technical evidence before the inquiry we are satisfied that the impact of the Lake Cowal gold project on the environment of Lake Cowal will be low and will not be ecologically significant in the short or long term. The contrary views of some parties are not supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, the Company and government agencies consider that the remaining risk and uncertainty requires extensive monitoring procedures to ensure the mine and associated facilities maintain a low environmental impact and that if variations occur they are quickly detected and remedied.

[Time expired.]

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [3.57]: This motion is not urgent. The decision on Lake Cowal is a responsible one taken by a responsible Government, and the advice provided by the Director-General of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has been made public in the media and to every member of this House. Lake Cowal is an ephemeral lake of international significance. It is home to more than 170 species of birds, many of them threatened or endangered. The lake is on the register of the National Estate as being one of the most significant waterbird concentration areas in New South Wales and it is subject to three international agreements on the protection of migratory birds. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has refused the development application by North Limited for an open-cut goldmine at Lake Cowal because the effects on the lake and the surrounding wildlife of the mining proposal are not known.

The proposed mine would use deadly cyanide to extract gold from the ore. A tailings dam the size of 450 football fields would be required on the shores of Lake Cowal. The mine pit would be a kilometre wide and 300 metres deep. The Premier and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning stated before the commission of inquiry that there would have to be no impact on the environment if the mine was to proceed. Any risk posed by the mine and by cyanide is unacceptable, given the significance and location of the development. Neither the commission of inquiry nor the company could guarantee that mining operations would not affect the environment at Lake Cowal. The Environment Protection Authority, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning have all raised concerns about the impact of the mine on this most precious environment. Even with stringent conditions, there are two major risks.

Page 769

First, the use of cyanide at 50 parts per million, if allowed, may result in bird fatalities. Given the significance and location of the development, such a risk is unacceptable. Lower levels of cyanide have unknown effects on young birds, and its effects on breeding or birds' eggs is entirely unknown. The effects of chronic exposure to cyanide are unknown. Second, there is a risk that the tailings dam could fail from known risks, such as saturation of earth walls, predictable strength earthquakes, and unknown risks such as unprecedented earthquakes. Other reasons include seepage of saline pit water into the freshwater lake, blasting and vibration effects on bird breeding, and dust containing cyanide and heavy metals settling on birds, stock and humans.

Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning is required to make a determination on developments such as the Lake Cowal project. After obtaining advice from his department, the Minister made the decision in compliance with every aspect of the law. It is not at all clear to me that members of the Opposition have read the report. If they had, they certainly would not be saying the sorts of things we have just heard from the Leader of the National Party. If he had bothered to read the report he would have noted at page 17 that the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning expressed concern about the long-term impact on the environment of the proposal; and, at page 18, that the Environment Protection Authority considered that there was no doubt the proposal would have an impact on Lake Cowal and its surroundings in the short term and in the long term.

The report said at page 21 that any unforeseen accident or failure at the mine site may cause serious environmental damage and affect the productivity and possibly the ecological integrity of the lake. Also on page 21 the report notes that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is still concerned about the compatibility of the mine with such a significant wetland. Again, the National Parks and Wildlife Service considers that the project still involves a high level of risk and uncertainty which could conceivably cause significant or serious environmental damage should the assessment of environmental impacts prove to be inaccurate or fail to see future operating conditions.

At page 45 the point is made that the evidence does not convince the inquiry that the company can achieve the aim of zero bird deaths as a result of cyanide toxicity if the cyanide level in the tailings discharge is controlled to a maximum of 50 milligrams per litre. There are too many uncertainties, and the empirical data indicates otherwise. A final reference from page 46 is that although the level of bird deaths is likely to be low, the potential impact as to the number of species, which may include threatened species, is unknown.

That is what the commissioners' report said. That is the evidence. On the basis of that evidence and on advice from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the Minister refused the development. It is as simple as that. The Leader of the National Party on this occasion, and the Leader of the Opposition on a previous occasion, have tried to argue that the planning process in New South Wales is discouraging investment. Here are the facts. Eight developments are currently under consideration, and a further nine are expected to be lodged this year. They have the potential to create a further 2,560 jobs and have a total value of around $1.5 billion.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. I wish to correct the Minister. From his notes, I inform the House that the figure is $1.51 billion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party has the right of reply and may then seek to correct the record. Obviously he is trying to waste the time of the Minister.

Mr DEBUS: This is on top of the $1.85 billion of industrial investments since the election. It was this Government that approved the Bengalla mine and is mounting a legal challenge to ensure certainty and clarity of the planning process for mining. Since the Carr Government was elected in March 1995 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning has approved 10 major industrial developments, most of them in rural and regional New South Wales, two further developments determined by Orange and Wollongong city councils, and the upgrade of the BHP tin mill at the Port Kembla steelworks. Those projects have the potential to create another 166 jobs, at a total cost of $304 million. The overall levels of investment in New South Wales are a great improvement on the appalling record of the previous Government. In the past year the Carr Government has secured $9.4 billion of new investment, with the potential to create 35,000 new jobs.

Business investment in the six months to September 1995 was up 11.9 per cent on the same period in 1994 - higher than the national average. Private investment over the same period was up 5.1 per cent compared to the same period under the coalition. New South Wales investment was 12 times the national average, the best result of any State. New South Wales leads the nation in job creation, with 83,000 new jobs created since March 1995. During the last year New South Wales has consistently had the lowest level of unemployment in Australia.

I would like to mention the ways in which the previous Government handled planning matters. Of course, that Government held its own commission of inquiry into the M2 tollway. The commission of inquiry recommended against building the M2 motorway, but the previous Government forced it through anyway. So, by the test that the Opposition has been proposing should apply to us, Bruce Baird and Robert Webster acted corruptly in approving the M2 motorway. The bottom line is that the Leader of the National Party would allow a cyanide tailings dam the size of 450 football fields to be built on the shores of Lake Cowal.

Page 770

If he were asked would he allow the mine on the edge of Lake Cowal, what would he say? Of course, he would say yes, and the Liberal Party does not have the courage to stand against him. I know that many people in the Liberal Party agree with the decision that the Government has taken but, as in the case of guns and quite a few other matters, the Liberals are not game to stand against the Leader of the National Party. The decision-making process that we have gone through in this circumstance is clear and it is open, and the advice upon which the decision was made has already been made public. The Government asserts that the decision to stop the mining of Lake Cowal was correct and that the correct processes were followed.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [4.05]: I support the Leader of the National Party on this very important motion that we are most anxious to debate. It is the subject of a grave charge in the other House and the possible expulsion of the Treasurer from the services of that House. That indicates that the Government has failed to answer questions in every forum on this important matter. To stand in the Chamber and claim job creation is an absolute joke. An hour or so ago the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party and I had lunch with a number of mining company executives operating mines in New South Wales. They are extremely concerned about the Government's actions, partisanship, lack of consultation, and the way in which the Premier went about arriving at this decision. They have real concerns about investing in this State.

It is a shame that this is occurring at a time when the Government is spending at this stage some $35 million on an exciting exploration project throughout New South Wales known as Discovery 2000. That has led to confirmation of some very prospective areas in New South Wales, particularly in Lake Cowal and the whole of the central west region, which could be one of the richest areas of gold and other minerals deposits - possibly even richer than Kalgoorlie in Western Australia is now. All of a sudden one Sunday night the Premier told 60 Minutes that some birds were killed on a dam a while ago and that the Government was frightened that something similar might happen again in the future. He expressed their concern about the unknown things that could not be assessed because they did not know what they might be.

Mr Debus: You have not read the advice that I have.

Ms MACHIN: I have read a lot of advice on this. The Government will just walk away from the project. Members on this side of the House have the Minister's briefing notes, so there is no need for him to show them to me. The Department of Mineral Resources, as one of its numerous publications, issues a publication on new mining developments. Lake Cowal was one that the Minister for Mining constantly talked about. I read one of his speeches in which he said, "We need to look for elephants in elephant country." What a great statement! He was speaking specifically of developments such as Cadia Hill near Orange and Lake Cowal. How embarrassed the Minister must be to be steamrolled like this, without consultation or advice. A major development coming within his portfolio was just canned because the Premier wanted to gain a few green points.

The issue is much more serious than I think the Government realises. The mining industry is still the single biggest contributor to the New South Wales economy if one includes coal exports as well. Many mining executives are now seriously reconsidering, in light of not only the Lake Cowal decision but various other decisions involving what is known as sovereign risk, whether they should stay in New South Wales. I have here a speech given by the chief executive of RGC recently at an international forum in New Zealand. He said:

The prospectivity/sovereign risk equation has moved against Australia. All mining companies operating away from their home jurisdiction are in the process of treating sovereign risk against geological prospectivity.

In other words, they are weighing up whether it is worth doing business in New South Wales, even if the area of the State is highly prospective. He went on to say:

Australia remains prospective but the degree of difficulty, particularly in gaining access to land and the cost of exploration, is rising.

That is the statement from the chief executive of one of the largest companies in Australia, expressing increasing concern about doing business in this State. That flies in the face of what the Premier said. I now turn to the Lake Cowal decision. I have had numerous briefings on this from the project manager and sat on a platform with him about a week ago to discuss the matter. I had the benefit of a very lengthy briefing on the matter. No project could meet the standards potentially set by the Premier when he ruled out this project. No housing subdivision, no environmental or ecotourism proposal could possibly meet the standards, because the Premier and apparently his advisers claim they do not know what the difficulties might be, are afraid of unforeseen circumstances, and therefore cannot take the risk. I should point out that since 1981 this area has been explored. For at least three years before the change of government in 1988 the present Premier was Minister for Planning and Environment and was responsible for these matters. If the area is such a valuable wetland, it certainly did not become so valuable overnight. Why did the Premier not declare the area a no-go zone at that stage? Why did he allow a company to spend $20 million or more to explore an area, only to tell the company 15 years or so down the track that all bets were off?

Mr Debus: Did you say that it was only 15 years ago?

Ms MACHIN: No, I said some 15 years ago. It is no wonder that the industries are looking to other States and to other nations, where they could quite easily go.

Page 771

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [4.10]: I listened to the presentation made by the Leader of the National Party and was reminded of a comment made to me at the caucus meeting today that the Nationals could be shamed into doing something. There is no way that anybody can shame the Nationals into doing anything, particularly into representing those whom they claim to represent here. Whenever an agricultural issue is being discussed in the House, National Party members are notable for their absence. Yesterday not a single member of the National Party was in the Chamber during the debate on ovine Johne's disease. The National Party opposed the Farm Debt Mediation Bill last year. Whenever there is a discussion about a mining project, however, National Party members rush to the support of the mining lobby.

I intend to present a few facts about the Lake Cowal issue. First, the ore is very low grade. Between 15 and 17 tonnes of ore has to be processed to produce one ounce of gold. One ounce of gold on today's market brings in about $500. It has been said that there are plans to reduce the cyanide content from 50 parts to 20 parts. The use of 50 parts of cyanide would assume that residual gold will be left in the skimp. There is no doubt that the skimp dump will contain residual gold - though it may not be a large amount. In areas in the eastern and north-eastern goldfields in Western Australia where I was stationed for many years the skimp dumps contain residual gold. If the cyanide content is to be reduced from 50 parts to 20 parts, the requisite amount of gold will not be obtained from the ore. The residual left in the mullock that goes out onto the plain or wherever it is to be dumped will contain a residual of gold.

The viability of the project diminishes because the return anticipated is reduced by virtue of the use of a lesser cyanide content. There is a solution to the problem. If the area is so good, the mining company should be prepared to deep mine, pull the ore to the surface and truck or rail it to plants already established at Parkes. There is nothing that can be done about the fiasco at Parkes. The cyanide treatment work is there and is having its effect on the ecology in that anything that alights on it dies. The manager of NorthParkes Mines wrote to me at Lithgow and asked for my comments. I wrote back to him saying that I had spent a number of years in the Kalgoorlie-Leonora district in Western Australia and observed the various forms of goldmining and the extraction of gold and would have to question the use of cyanide on site. The reason for using cyanide on site is that the ore is extremely marginal, to say the least. An operation to mine ore that carries a little more than one pennyweight of gold to the tonne of ore processed is marginal. It would be necessary to pull out huge amounts of ore in order to crush 15 tonnes to produce one ounce of gold.

In New South Wales there are probably 100 such areas - areas where years ago the gold content was insufficient to make mining a viable proposition. The mining companies are out scouting and they do not give a damn about the environment. The mining company proposes for the Lake Cowal area an open-cut mine a kilometre wide and a thousand feet deep. The result would be not a little scar on the environment. There would be no responsibility on the mining company to restore that area when it walks away from the mining operation. This has to be the greatest smokescreen I have ever seen. The goldmining professionals in Western Australia would not touch this project with a 40-foot pole. They have had the experience of having to clean up the Kalgoorlie dumps. Honourable members should go to the back of Boulder and the back of Fimiston and have a look at the moonscape there. The mining companies are now cleaning up the environment, and it is costing them millions to rehabilitate that area. I oppose this development - development that I would normally support. I oppose this development because its location and the effect upon the ecology of the district is too high a price to have to pay.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [4.15]: I join the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Port Macquarie in supporting the motion. I am surprised that the honourable member for Bathurst has spoken in opposition to this development. In the past he has built a good reputation amongst the productive sector of this State as being pro-industry, pro-development, pro-forestry, pro-mining and pro-worker - including union workers - in all of those industries. His turnaround in attitude is a shock to people who regard him as one of the few voices on the Labor Party benches in support of industry. His change in position has gone over very badly. I am very disappointed that the honourable member for Bathurst has made such a turn against his previous pro-industry and pro-development position.

The Labor Government has in one swoop, by one decision, jeopardised the general level of investment in New South Wales. I am not talking about investment in Australia but about investment in this State. I put it that way because there is a considerable volume and a continuous flow of domestic Australian investment to New South Wales. That investment has been jeopardised, in addition to the obvious jeopardy of mining investment from overseas. The fact that a company can undertake at extraordinary expense all of the preparatory work for assessment and then suffer a summary decision imposed dictatorially by the Premier of this State means that there is now a new element of risk in investment and greater uncertainty. I was interested that the honourable member for Bathurst sought to lecture the international merchant banking community on the pros and cons of this investment decision. He should have focused on the extraordinary way in which the Premier intervened personally to destroy a decision and an investment of this nature.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie referred to this as a new element of sovereign risk, which it is. Many quarters of the financial sector
Page 772
have put it that the question of sovereign risk in New South Wales is now assessed differently from the question of sovereign risk in the rest of Australia. That is a shocking indictment on the Premier of New South Wales, a person who makes out - and I think he did so earlier this week or last week - that he goes on overseas missions to Japan, Korea, Vietnam and the United States seeking job-creating investment for this State. With one personal action the Premier has destroyed any semblance of investment prospects in New South Wales and the jobs and prosperity that would flow from that.

The Premier's style of leadership is absolutely hypocritical. The State will never forgive him for the loss of potential jobs from this venture. What is to be said of the process of environmental assessment, given that the Premier summarily announced on Sunday morning that the venture is dead? What is the purpose of the process of obtaining prospecting and exploratory licences, planning focuses, environmental impact statements, assessments, and preparation for, and local government involvement in, the assessment process, commissions of inquiry and various appeal avenues? The entire planning process under the Act is in complete disarray in New South Wales. That process has fallen apart because of the dictatorial summary intervention of the Premier. No consultation has taken place nor was notice given to the company, even as a matter of courtesy. Surely the general manager, the chief executive officer or the chairman of the board could have received a telephone call to be told that the project would not go ahead. Dictatorship is the way things are done in this State. [Time expired.]

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [4.20], in reply: The one significant issue in this debate, apart from the excellent contributions by my colleagues the honourable member for Port Macquarie and the Deputy Leader of the National Party, is the complete lack of integrity and sincerity with which the Government off-handedly responded to the motion for urgent consideration that is so important for mining investment and productivity in this State. The Government put forward a junior Minister to argue its case, and could only find one following speaker, who totally discredited himself in his opening statement. The honourable member for Bathurst spoke about gold bringing $500 an ounce. It is a long time since gold was $500 an ounce in this country. Gold topped $400 an ounce only about six weeks ago, the first time for a long while.

The Minister for Corrective Services, and Minister for Emergency Services did not have one original thought. I have his notes. He read them parrot fashion. He just rattled through notes which must have been prepared by an industrious bureaucrat. He did not offer one expression of his own or seek to explain his understanding of the subject. What an insult to the people of New South Wales, to West Wyalong and to the mining industry. The Government has treated this matter in a cavalier fashion. The Treasurer, Minister for Energy, and Minister for State and Regional Development is totally ignoring in the upper House the processes of Parliament and is refusing to comply with the Parliament after being censured, yet the Government has put forward this pathetic Minister who has relied upon bureaucratic notes.

Mr Debus: How many times have you moved this motion?

Mr ARMSTRONG: That is a good question because each time I have moved this motion the Government has blocked it. The Government is frightened to produce the papers and has been frightened to have debate in this House on this issue.

Mr Debus: This must be the fourth time we have had this debate.

Mr ARMSTRONG: This is probably the fourth time. Three times the Government has blocked the motion because it has not been game to front this issue. The Government finally has fronted the issue, but the Minister had to use pathetic notes because he does not have any ideas of his own. The Government does not have any other defence for its actions or any explanation for why the Minister for Mineral Resources supported this issue publicly on no less than two occasions, perhaps more, this year. The Minister supported it yet the Premier does not.

The Minister for Corrective Services did not say whether the matter was discussed in Cabinet. Why did he not refer it to Cabinet or for consultation with the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for State and Regional Development? When did the Minister for State and Regional Development know that the Premier was going to decline this project? Was he informed? When was the Minister for Mineral Resources informed? Did he have any consultation in the decision-making process?

This inept Minister for Corrective Services parroted lines from notes that have been floating around this place for a couple of weeks but did not answer any of the pertinent questions. The Government must be embarrassed that Cabinet Ministers who have sworn an oath to uphold their portfolio and accept responsibility were not even told. The Minister for Corrective Services made no attempt to get them off the hook. They are condemned by the fact that the Minister did not try to defend them. He presented no argument to counter the proposition put forward by me, by the Deputy Leader of the National Party and by the honourable member for Port Macquarie that the commission of inquiry - the ultimate judge and jury in matters of this type in New South Wales - under the auspices of the Government of the day found in favour of the project.

Page 773

The Government cannot wriggle out of that because it is on the record. The Government can discredit the commissioners and the process by ignoring the commission's findings until its members are blue in the face, but the pages of history can never be changed. The Government ignored the commission of inquiry on the whim of the Premier. He was not going to face the press on Easter Sunday at 11 a.m. However, he sneaked in and spoke on television that night - so he would not have to face the press - and announced that this project would not be going ahead. It was widely rumoured on the Thursday preceding the announcement that he was going to announce it on Sunday morning, but he wriggled out of it. That was a cowardly act. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr Peacocke
Mr Beck Mr Phillips
Mr Blackmore Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schultz
Mr Debnam Mrs Skinner
Mr Ellis Mr Slack-Smith
Ms Ficarra Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

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

Mr Downy Ms Allan
Mr Fraser Mr Knowles
Mr D. L. Page Mr Markham

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [4.35]: My matter of public importance relates to the future of helicopter medical rescue services in New South Wales with five separate revisions of the tender to provide rescue helicopters and the plan to abolish CareFlight's medical retrieval team. Obviously, this matter is important to everyone, but none more than those for whom this service provides an essential tool in ensuring that their health needs are met in moments of trauma and crisis. For example, a 17-year-old Moss Vale girl became extremely ill after a picnic only this Monday. She was with her two brothers in the State's Southern Highlands. They walked to the Shoalhaven River from Long Point Lookout, and tried to negotiate the long climb out of the river gorge. It became very dark, and by 1 a.m. this young pregnant woman became very ill. One of her brothers walked out of the gorge and raised the alarm, but the ambulance could not gain access to the area because of rugged terrain. The National Roads and Motorists Association CareFlight rescue helicopter rescued this sick girl.

On Sunday, 28 April, two critically ill people were rescued from Bathurst. It is a pity that the honourable member for Bathurst is not in the Chamber, because those people who were rescued would hope that he is very concerned about the possibility of the unavailability of CareFlight to lift them from a distressing and dangerous situation. A man and a woman were airlifted from Bathurst to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in separate flights, and the woman required ongoing care after suffering respiratory distress. Another example is a Kenthurst trail bike rider who was injured in an accident on Anzac Day. Last week a Korean tourist was rescued at night from Bondi. Burn and car crash patients were rescued in two separate incidents by the NRMA CareFlight helicopter from Nowra and Canowindra last week. The list goes on. These people are very concerned about the maintenance of helicopter retrieval services.

What has the Government done? Last August the Minister said that we would have two helicopter services in Sydney and another in Canberra. For some time calls have been made for a helicopter service in Canberra - which the Opposition supports - particularly since Dick Smith made a helicopter available for use by that service. After a long delay, the Minister said that a helicopter service will be available in Canberra, but at the
Page 774
expense of one of the Sydney services. That is simply not good enough. The people of Sydney, particularly western Sydney, and of country areas serviced by CareFlight, should not have their services reduced to provide an extra helicopter in Canberra. Additional services should be provided.

There is no question that CareFlight's future is in doubt, because the Minister has made it plain that he does not want to retain the independently run aeromedical retrieval services attached to CareFlight. In August last year expressions of interest to run the Sydney and Canberra services were called for by the Minister. It took until January for the three existing community-based services operating in Sydney to be invited to tender for the service, along with an international company. The Minister made up his mind in August, tenders were invited in January and since then the tender has been reviewed on five separate occasions. Tender arrangements and proposals are familiar procedures in my household. My husband has been very involved with tendering for large Commonwealth Government contracts over a long time. I have heard of nothing as ridiculous as five separate revisions of a tender. They were not simple revisions because of information being left out; they were major revisions.

In August last year the Minister announced that two helicopters would be required in Sydney, but the Government now requires a backup with a third helicopter. The unprofessional way in which the department has handled the process has raised doubt about the capability of the department and the Minister to decide how to ensure that a full helicopter medical retrieval service is available for the people of this State. A major consideration is the future of the CareFlight medical retrieval team. At the moment 20 doctors and medical staff are attached to the team. The department and the Minister have made clear that the bottom line is that the Government does not want the team to be independently run; it wants it to be under the control of the health department - more specifically, the Ambulance Service. This would change the focus of the service from clinical need to transport, which is not in the best interest of patients.

The CareFlight service has been evaluated and found to be of excellent quality and value, with standards second to none. The people of New South Wales deserve continuation of such a level of service. The Government funds only 44 per cent of the service. The rest is provided by major sponsors and individuals in the community who provide small amounts in gratitude to a service which has been of tremendous assistance when the needs of individuals have been great. I am not surprised that there is huge community support for CareFlight and the other community-based helicopters involved with Child Flight and the surf lifesaving organisations.

The doctors staffing the services are trained in the special requirements which the flying services involve. They are able to provide assistance to doctors in small country towns, regional centres and even suburban areas when doctors from the local hospital or medical practices are not available to accompany patients to the tertiary hospital to which they are transported. CareFlight is supported not only by the people who receive its service; it has enormous and documented support from people within the health department, hospitals, doctors and those who make it their business to ensure that the injured and sick have the best possible means of ensuring they are able to get to treatment which may make the difference between life and death or between complete recovery and part recovery. The Government's lack of determination about the location of the helicopters and who will provide the services is indicative of its lack of interest in how the helicopter services will continue to run.

People have also been disturbed that the Dick Smith helicopter, which was donated 10 months ago, is still sitting in a hangar. It has not been used for one medical retrieval. I am sure that the Minister will come up with a plausible explanation, that it has not been refitted to carry a stretcher and what have you. However, the Minister has not ensured progress of the tendering process so that the matter can be resolved. He has been delaying introduction of the service. The tender has been revised five times and there is no way that he can get out of that. The people of New South Wales have signed petitions in their thousands. They are giving the Minister the message loud and clear that they want the established medical retrieval team and the helicopter services guaranteed. [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.45]: This is the first health matter raised for debate by the Opposition. It was raised yesterday by the shadow minister, knowing full well that I was representing the people of New South Wales at the memorial service for the Port Arthur massacre victims. It was an act of cowardice that the Opposition should be ashamed of and one that the Leader of the Opposition should not have allowed to occur. New South Wales presently has five helicopter retrieval services. Three of them service the residents of Sydney and the surrounding areas. The other two are located in Newcastle and Lismore. It is ironic that the Opposition has chosen to raise this matter. In 1994 the Fahey Liberal Government commissioned a review of New South Wales aeromedical services. The terms of reference for the review were to advise on the most appropriate - [Quorum formed.]

The terms of reference of the review commissioned in 1994 by the Fahey Government were to advise on the most appropriate organisational structure, management arrangements, aircraft and base locations, staffing requirements, standards, and financing and charging arrangements for the efficient and effective delivery of aeromedical services in New South Wales. In May 1995 the report of the review was released by the New South Wales health department for public consultation for two months. The recommendations
Page 775
of the review have been considered in the context of the best use of all forms of transport and networking, to achieve better management and utilisation of aeromedical services.

On 23 August 1995 the Government announced a joint development with the Australian Capital Territory Government of a rotary wing aeromedical service for the south-eastern region of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The establishment of this base is occurring in conjunction with a realignment of Sydney-based helicopter services. Helicopter services in Lismore and Newcastle will remain unchanged. Overall five helicopter services will continue to provide retrieval services for the residents of New South Wales. The configuration of helicopter services includes the location of the joint-funded service in Canberra and two bases located in Sydney. This will improve the existing aeromedical patient transport and retrieval system by providing better area coverage, more rapid response times, and improved services for patients in a greater area of New South Wales, including the south coast.

The contracts for the five helicopter retrieval services expired in December 1995. To enable a tender process to be undertaken, the contracts for all helicopter retrieval services were extended for six months. A further extension of contracts will enable the best possible contracts to be drawn up. Expressions of interest for the provision of Sydney- and Canberra-based services were called for in 1995. Responses were evaluated and a selective tender process was then commenced, with tenders being called in January 1996. An open tender process for the provision of Newcastle- and Lismore-based services has been undertaken simultaneously. Tenders closed on 1 February and are currently being evaluated.

With respect to the tender process, two tender documents were issued, one for the Australian Capital Territory and Sydney services which was conducted on a selective basis following a call for expressions of interest, and one for the Newcastle and Lismore services which was conducted on an open basis. As with any tender process, a period of review and clarification occurred. I am advised that central to this process was ensuring that full information was provided to all tenderers. Shortly after the tenders were issued two briefing sessions were held, one for the Australian Capital Territory and Sydney services and one for the two northern New South Wales services. During the briefing sessions the prospective tenderers asked questions of a technical nature. The Department of Health took these questions on notice as agreed at the outset of the meeting and subsequently issued addenda to the tender documents. Upon receipt of the tender submissions, a tender evaluation committee was formed and the process of reviewing the submissions commenced.

Some of the tenderers provided information in their submissions which required clarification. The department subsequently wrote to these tenderers seeking the necessary clarification. I understand that a number of the tenderers interpreted this as a revision of the tender, which in the view of the tender committee it was not. In response, a number of the tenderers sought a further briefing. The department acceded to this request and a further two briefing sessions were held, one for Sydney and the Australian Capital Territory services and one for the two northern New South Wales services. All tenderers were invited to these sessions. Again, transcripts of the briefing sessions were issued. The tenderers who were asked to provide clarifying information then submitted it to the department. To provide any further information would jeopardise the tender process which is in its final stages.

It should be pointed out to honourable members that the tender essentially called for the provision of aircraft, hangar and basing facilities, air crew and engineering services only. It did not call for the provision of medical staff. These will be provided for all operations by the New South Wales Department of Health, the New South Wales Ambulance Service or the Australian Capital Territory Department of Health and Community Care, and the Australian Capital Territory Ambulance Service. At present CareFlight is the only operator which employs and provides dedicated medical staff. The other four services simply provide the helicopter platform, with medical services being delivered by medical practitioners employed through the New South Wales health system.

For the information of honourable members CareFlight has advocated a proposal which involves contracting the medical team from CareFlight to deliver retrieval services. The difficulty with this approach is that it merely maintains the status quo and the cycle of instability that exists every time CareFlight is required to tender commercially for the provision of New South Wales aeromedical services. Clearly, there is valid rationale for the separation of the medical team and the vehicle operator. The doctors currently employed by CareFlight will be offered positions under the proposed arrangements. Obviously the decision to accept these positions will be up to the doctors.

It should be stressed that under the revised configuration of services in Sydney one base will be retained in the west of Sydney and the other in the east. Establishment of a medical retrieval unit is proposed to integrate and coordinate all aspects of medical retrieval. The unit is being developed in consultation with all involved parties including the CareFlight medical team. The medical retrieval unit will function as more than a team coordination centre. It will provide a functionally integrated adult emergency transport system allowing predictable and uniform system responsiveness, guidelines and protocol development, and employment of appropriate staff and staff mix, as
Page 776
well as the efficient use of resources and stable employment and service provision, independent of commercial or tender considerations.

It has been proposed that the medical retrieval unit and the air ambulance coordination centre be administratively linked. Again, this will not have an impact upon the location of the clinical bases in Sydney, which will continue to be located at the western and eastern helicopter sites. I am aware that concerns have been raised about CareFlight's accredited training positions. The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists have indicated to the department that the accredited registrar positions would be continued if accreditation requirements continue to be met, irrespective of the employing body. [Time expired.]

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [4.55], in reply: The Minister's response was clearly indicative of how much he cares about this issue. All he did was rattle off in the most monotonous tone possible a prepared script given to him by his bureaucrats. It was the most insincere delivery I have ever heard.

Dr Refshauge: ICAC.

Mrs SKINNER: Yes, the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I have got stuff on you for ICAC. The Minister said that there is instability in CareFlight. Watch out mate, ICAC. Instability! What an outrageous claim to make. All people who have been so complimentary about the medical retrieval teams that have been provided through CareFlight will be interested to hear the Minister's words on that. The Minister rattled off exactly what I have been saying about how the tender process was set up six months ago, extensions had been granted, but no decision made. The Minister supported what I was saying; that it is a matter of concern to people. It seems to me that the Minister has made up his mind, as has the department, that CareFlight will be pulled apart, as will the retrieval team.

Those services are absolutely critical for the assistance they provide to people, not only in western Sydney but in rural parts of New South Wales around the towns where I described rescues and retrievals to have taken place in recent times, such as Bathurst and Orange, and in the southern highlands. When people are seriously injured, sick, or in distress they need to get to a hospital as quickly as possible. The Minister knows full well, because of his background, that critical to the recovery is the time taken to get a person to hospital for tertiary treatment. The Minister was quite comfortable rattling off a script which said: do not worry, we do not need the specialist teams because the Department of Health will take it over - he knows jolly well that the hospitals and the department are having enormous difficulties in coping with demand. The hospitals that patients will be flying from will not be able to afford relief staff to accompany them. Hospitals in country towns and other places will not be able to afford doctors who are attending accident and ill-health sites to travel with these patients.

The Minister is doing a great disservice to people who rely heavily on helicopters for retrieval services. I do not know why the Minister had to rattle off a speech like that. I am sure he and his staff - and I see some of them here - must be getting phone calls, as I am, from doctors and patients in country towns who are concerned about the future of CareFlight. They must know that hundreds of people have been crawling over helicopters that have been on country tours. By making the helicopter retrieval services open and accessible, people have been providing financial support to keep CareFlight going. It is extraordinary that the Government, which is strapped for funds for health expenditure, would dismiss the future role of medical helicopter services that receive support from individuals in the community and from the corporate sector as well.

The Government pays only 44 per cent of the costs of running the service and it is anticipated that that figure will decrease. I would have thought that this is the type of service that the Government would encourage, not criticise. I thank the Minister for reminding me about the colleges which are very keen to ensure that the training provided by CareFlight is maintained. If there is instability and the service is not as good as I suggest it is, why has the Minister said that the Government will continue to provide that training? The Minister knows that the colleges are very complimentary about CareFlight and the service it provides, as are the more than 60,000 citizens who signed a petition. The Minister is rolling his eyes skywards because he really does not want to hear this, but the people of New South Wales who have been using CareFlight and who know what an excellent service it provides will give him the message. [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [5.00]: In my view this bill is one of the most disgraceful cop-outs I have witnessed in my 15 years in Parliament. It is no more than a callous and cynical stunt by the Premier in a desperate attempt to regain some of the popularity he has lost. One has to ask why it was necessary for the Government to introduce this legislation and force it through the House today and tomorrow. Has the Prime Minister asked for a ceding of powers? I think not. I say it is a cop-out because the law relating to the control of weapons in New South Wales has been a vexed problem for all State Governments over a long period, but tomorrow week all State Ministers for Police will attend a conference at which discussions on uniform laws will be had in some considerable depth.

Page 777

Only a madman would oppose uniform gun laws throughout Australia. That is not the question here, however; it is a question of methodology. Taking this precipitate action now, when it has not been requested and is totally unnecessary, will have the possible effect of putting a number of States off side in the discussions, because some States guard State powers very jealously. As I said earlier, gun control laws have always been a vexed problem in the State of New South Wales, but if tomorrow we were to ban guns of all types in private ownership and give ourselves a warm inner glow about it, if we were to increase the penalties for the possession of firearms, it would not take weapons out of the hands of criminals, people who are deranged and those who have a reason to retain their weapons.

What will happen is that honest and law-abiding citizens will obey the law as they always have done. They will hand in their guns, but others will not. As parliamentarians, as sensible, sane, rational people, we have to consider ways and means of preventing horrible crimes such as that which took place at Port Arthur last Sunday. I must say that my heart goes out to those who have been left bereaved by that terrible tragedy. Everyone would be saddened and would weep on hearing that two little children were shot down in cold blood. It is a terrible crime; it is a crime which has generated an intense emotional reaction within the State of New South Wales and throughout the country. People cannot understand why a madman, or anyone for that matter, would commit such a terrible crime. I believe that the Premier has introduced legislation at this time to capitalise on the horror, bereavement and emotions of people. If that is his motivation, it is a cruel and callous thing to do. As well as examining the gun laws and seeking uniformity, and ways and means of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are totally irresponsible or insane, the Government has to have regard to the sources of violence in our society.

Mr E. T. Page: Are you going to give yours up?

Mr PEACOCKE: I will give them up to the honourable member in a different way, in a moment. This is not a joking matter; it is deadly serious and important. I have not heard many members of this House make reference to the sources of violence in the community. For instance, how is it possible that a man who struck a three-year-old boy in the stomach, ruptured his intestines and allowed him to die a horrible death, could be charged, convicted and released on a bond? How could such a thing happen?

Mr E. T. Page: You should ask the judge.

Mr PEACOCKE: That is what I would like to do. Someone ought to ask the judge how a man in my electorate who discharged a weapon through the window of a shop and might have killed someone - it was only by good fortune that he did not - received a gaol term of only three months when convicted of that offence. Why is it that hoodlums who attack people in the streets and assault them or attack people and occasion them actual bodily harm are released on bonds? Why are husbands who attack their wives in the most brutal fashion not dealt with harshly? There are many facets to this horrible problem that we have to think about rationally, carefully and seriously. These are issues that should be above party politics; they should be above politics in general. Society has become conditioned to violence.

Many people have been desensitised as a consequence of the use of television, computers, films, constant violence in our midst and the very soft, miserable and wimpish reaction of the courts in the early stages of violence which often leads to serious violence later on. There is another aspect to the legislation which I dislike. If powers to control weapons are ceded to the Commonwealth, what will happen down the track if an irrational government is in office and wants to ban all weapons? It would probably be all right if a rational coalition government was in office and it would probably be all right with a rational Labor government in office; perhaps there is no such thing. But if down the track there is an irrational government in office and it wants to ban all weapons -

Mr E. T. Page: If the Left gets control.

Mr PEACOCKE: Yes, exactly. That would be equally disastrous for the country. A number of people have a responsible, necessary use for firearms - farmers who have to kill vermin and who can be prosecuted if they do not; people who enjoy shooting in a responsible fashion, target shooting for instance; and a number of others who have a good reason, if not a definite need, to possess firearms. If firearms are banned innocent people, responsible people, will suffer. I take the view that if ultimately there is no other way to achieve responsibility and uniformity in respect of gun control laws, we would have to seriously consider a ceding of powers to the Commonwealth. In the meantime a multitude of precedents exist for uniformity without ceding of power.

A typical example is financial institutions: the State acknowledged that it needed uniformity but did not need to cede its powers. Each State has identical powers in respect of financial institutions other than banks, and that arrangement works well. Every Government in the Commonwealth, including the Federal Government, meets regularly on a wide range of issues that are of concern to us all. We have achieved remarkable uniformity in a number of ways. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier in this debate, there is no reason why that route could not be taken and a desirable result achieved in that method.

I suppose because of the view that I have taken of this legislation I will be called a redneck or other names that people who consider themselves politically correct can think up. But let me say to the whitenecks, who are not thinking about the issue but rely on the distress and emotions of people to
Page 778
score cheap political points, who put up arguments which in retrospect will not stand close scrutiny later on, that they are the people who will let down the citizens of this country. This is not a problem which can be solved solely by toughening up our gun laws. It is a problem which has a huge number of facets, and a problem which the people of this State and country are saying needs to be resolved and must be resolved quickly in all its aspects.

People are sick and tired of violence. They are sick of men, women and children being attacked in the street, and of reading every day in the press of shootings and knifings and of people being battered to death with baseball bats. The people are demanding that the Government and the Parliament ensure that proper penalties be paid by those who commit these offences and that violence is addressed early, before it graduates to more serious violence. They are demanding that the courts take a much tougher stand. They are demanding that the Parliament ensures that that happens. They are demanding that there be uniform gun laws for the whole of the State, the matter we have just discussed. But, above all, the people are demanding a rational reappraisal of the way of life of the people of this State and this country.

I conclude by saying how distressed I am by the extent of the coverage by the press and other media of the tragic incident in Tasmania. Yesterday's edition of the Daily Telegraph devoted the first 11 pages to that matter. Today the Sydney Morning Herald has a huge amount of matter about that tragedy. Every paper has. The television coverage was not as extensive but it still featured considerable matter on Port Arthur. Monday morning last on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation I heard this matter mentioned at length on five occasions within a space of two hours. It is one thing to report crimes of this nature; it is proper for the media to report them. But we must ask ourselves: is it proper that the whole of the events be reported chapter and verse, day after day, ad nauseam? Is it proper for the media to extract every last ounce from this horrible story? Is it proper that the media gives to any lunatic, madman or criminal in the community in which we live a road map on how to become famous by killing innocent men, women and children?

Mr McBride: Famous is hardly the correct term.

Mr PEACOCKE: That is what such people seem to think. I suspect that the extensive reporting of the horrible massacre in Scotland was part of the reason for the triggering of the Port Arthur incident. We must consider what needs to be done about the reporting of such incidents. What needs to be done about the disgraceful extent to which every possible aspect of the tragedy is developed by the press, with even people who are in shock and grief being interviewed merely to gain the last column inch. I oppose the legislation at this time. If ultimately it proves to be the only answer, that is when my opposition will be withdrawn.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [5.14]: After listening to the speeches of the honourable member for Dubbo and the Leader of the Opposition I am convinced that the Opposition is opposed outright to the bill. The Leader of the Opposition concluded his remarks by arguing that the debate on the bill should be deferred. Opposition members do not mean that. They are opposed to the bill. They do not want it to progress any further than debate in this Chamber. That is why they are reacting so much this afternoon to this measure. The honourable member for Dubbo asked why the bill had to be dealt with urgently today, why the matter could not be deferred. There is very good reason for that. It is that this Parliament will not meet next week. Indeed, the last people who would want to meet in this Chamber next week are members of the National Party. Only this afternoon, when it was suggested that the House sit tomorrow, the first reaction came from National Party members.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. This debate is on the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, not about the days and hours of sittings of this House. I ask that the honourable member be brought back to the leave of the bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The leave of the bill is limited, but it has always been the practice to permit honourable members to make introductory comments before addressing the subject matter under discussion. The honourable member is in order, but I ask him to return to the leave of the bill.

Mr MOSS: It is absolutely necessary that this motion be adopted today because the Parliament will recess after tomorrow and will not sit again until after the police Ministers conference on Friday week, and the Government wants to take a clear statement to that conference. Members of the Opposition might not like the fact that the only Labor State in Australia is determined to take a positive proposal to that conference, which has been convened by the Federal coalition Government. Honourable members opposite do not like it, but that is why the Government wants this legislation passed now - so that when we go to Canberra it will not be just to talk about what should be done, but to put proposals to the delegates to that conference.

Mr Jeffery: Come back next week. We have no worries about that.

Mr MOSS: Come back next week? You were the first to react about honourable members returning here tomorrow.

Mr Jeffery: I am happy to come back any day.

Mr MOSS: The performance of Opposition members so far in this debate has been very weak. All we have heard is an argument for uniform laws. That is their great catchcry - not national laws, but uniform laws. Why are they so keen on uniform laws and so violently opposed to national laws? I
Page 779
suggest there are a number of good reasons. The first is that they are probably scared that laws controlled by a Federal government may turn out to be tougher than laws that honourable members opposite would like enacted in this State. Another reason for their opposition to national laws is their jealousy that a State Labor government is taking the initiative in supporting a proposal of the Federal coalition Government. If I am right, then I am sorry, but honourable members opposite still have not got over the fact that Labor is in power in New South Wales and calls the shots here.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! All honourable members will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Though some interjection encourages vigorous debate, I ask those who have been interjecting to conduct themselves with decorum in the Chamber.

Mr MOSS: The main reason that Opposition members are opposed to the measures that the Government wants to introduce is that they do not want their gun-slinging mates to lose the right to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. Furthermore, they do not want their gun-slinging mates to lose the right to jump a border, go to Queensland - as we heard from the Premier earlier today - buy a machine-gun and then bring it back across the border into New South Wales. National laws would prevent that.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate at the appropriate time. Should he do so, I will ensure that he is afforded the same protection as I am now affording the honourable member for Canterbury.

Mr MOSS: I am appalled, as are most Government members, that even before the 35 Port Arthur victims are buried the New South Wales Parliament is backing away from the all-important issue of controlling guns by the imposition of national gun laws. That backing away will have the effect of not protecting innocent and vulnerable people who may be victims of gun violence in the future. The Opposition stands condemned for that. The Government favours national laws, as opposed to uniform laws, for a very good reason. In Australia we have one national government, half a dozen State governments and two Territory governments - a total of nine governing bodies.

If the Opposition argument for so-called uniform laws were taken to its logical conclusion and the nine governing bodies agreed on uniform laws, it could happen that no sooner does the agreement come into force than there is a change of government in one State. In that event the new government could fall out of kilter with the other eight in relation to the agreement, and the agreement would break down. That could easily happen. In fact, I can readily think of an example. One had only to see on television in the past few days the demonstration of the mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy attitude of the Queensland Government to realise how a uniform agreement could break down. It is only a few years ago that the National Party held power in Queensland in its own right.

If there were uniform laws, as opposed to a national law, and the Queensland National Party were to once again gain office in its own right, it is very likely that a National Party government would not agree to uniform laws to control guns to prevent the sale and distribution of automatic and semiautomatic guns. One has only to witness the attitude of National Party members now, straight after the Hobart massacre. It is ridiculous to talk about uniform laws. If we are to get tough on guns, we have to have a national law. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government was giving away State powers to the Commonwealth. He was very annoyed about that. It is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition is not familiar with the legislation. The bill does not seek power outright. There is a provision that the reference has effect until terminated by proclamation. Clause 4(2) states:

The Governor may, at any time, fix by proclamation a day as the day on which the reference terminates.

It is only natural to include such a clause in the bill. The Labor Government in New South Wales would not be so stupid as to cede its powers to a national coalition government without a means by which it could pull out if it wanted to. That measure is included in case the Federal Government introduces something that we do not consider to be strong enough. The Leader of the Opposition has it wrong when he talks about New South Wales losing control of any power over guns for time immemorial. That is not right. Now is the time to act on gun laws. It is not the time to just talk about this. National laws are the way to go to place greater restriction and control on the sale and importation of lethal weapons such as automatic and semiautomatic guns. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [5.25]: I draw the attention of the House to what I would suggest is the impropriety of this debate today. As this debate proceeds, a memorial service is taking place for the 35 victims of the tragic shooting at Port Arthur in Tasmania. I find it abhorrent to be forced into a political debate while that is occurring. The bottom line is, however, that I am prepared and the National Party is prepared to debate with the Government at any time the good welfare of the people of New South Wales. I find it abhorrent that the last speaker chose to make a political speech on this issue in this week of national sorrow.

There is no secret about my attitude, and I related this to the Minister for Police some three days ago. I believe that this is the week when the nation should be allowed to grieve and should be allowed to consider its position on violence. A gun is one of a number of tools used occasionally to perpetrate crimes of extreme viciousness and
Page 780
violence. To talk about guns in isolation from other acts of violence is to short-circuit and short-suit one of the most important questions for individuals, families, the nation and government. The Government's rush to introduce legislation, to flick its responsibilities to the Commonwealth, is premature, ill-timed and politically shoddy. The most shoddy thing to occur today - and I cannot let it pass - is that the Premier told two lies when he introduced the bill. He first attributed statements to me that were simply not true. Then he went on to talk about the ability to purchase machine-guns in Queensland. That was another deliberate and direct lie.

I have a statement from the Inspector of Weapons and Licensing, Queensland police, Mr John McCombes, that the Queensland Weapons Act 1990 categorises weapons in three categories. Schedule 1 prohibits the sale of machine-guns. The only licences that can be obtained for machine-guns are restricted licences for collectors' items, which must be inoperable, and theatrical supplies, which can fire blanks only. He advises that one cannot legally buy machine-guns over the counter in Queensland and that no licensed dealer in Queensland deals in machine guns. Let us put that lie in the record, because that places anything else that the Premier may have to say on the matter of guns into total disrepute - he shoots himself in the foot. I would also like to have recorded in Hansard the statement made by me, as Leader of the National Party, and the Leader of the Opposition on national gun control initiatives. The statement reads:

•The Police Minister's Council represents a unique opportunity for politicians from all States and Territories and the Commonwealth to establish national standards for gun control and uniformity of gun laws throughout Australia.

•It is crucial that all government representatives attending the conference do so with determination to achieve an effective national approach on gun control.

•The primary objective of the meeting should be to expedite a national approach.

•Under the present system the gun laws of any State are only as effective as those of the weakest State.

•Any uniform gun laws should not be based on the weakest laws in any given State.

•There was a tightening of gun laws in New South Wales with bi-partisan support following the Strathfield massacre.

•We recognise that bi-partisanship is crucial to Parliamentary consideration of these issues.

That is the most important statement that has been made in the entire discussions that have erupted this week as a result of last weekend's tragedy. As the Government has decided to turn this into a political debate, one must be clear as to policy. In 1992 the coalition Government introduced the toughest gun laws in Australia.

Mr E. T. Page: That is not true. Western Australia has the toughest gun laws, you goose.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The Minister will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr ARMSTRONG: The Premier and other Government members made much about Queensland gun laws, which were introduced and presided over by the Queensland Labor Goss Government. The Premier has repeatedly advocated an attitude on gun laws that is different from that which he has espoused today. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 July 1995 Bernard Lagan reported:

But Carr has a problem: before the 1991 State election he clearly ruled out any further tightening of gun controls, under any Government he formed, saying: "Oh well, first of all I think guns is dead as an issue in NSW. There's no bipartisanship on it: there'll be no change in the gun laws under a Carr Labor Government."

This Premier has performed a charade, a theatrical act, in saying that he cares. Nathan Vass, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 July 1995, reported:

Three years later, in 1991, the then Opposition Leader, Mr Carr, echoed Mr Easson when he said: "There'll be no change in the gun laws under a Carr Labor Government."

Following the tragic shooting last year of the two constables at Crescent Head, Adrian Bradley and Jonathon Porter wrote an article in the Australian of 11 July 1995 which stated:

As condolences for the families of the dead policemen flooded in, the Premier, Mr Carr, revealed the coroner would examine whether tighter gun laws or bullet-proof vests would have saved the lives of Senior Constables Peter Addison and Robert Spears.

The Premier well knows that the State Coroner is due to bring down his report on the coronial inquiry next week. He has instructed him to report back on those two aspects. Should he not at least take advice on the report he commissioned from the Coroner? Should he not at least have respect for his own program? The Premier has decided to play penny-ante politics. He has seen this as an opportunity to flick the responsibility to the Commonwealth, to get rid of it, because for a long time he has considered gun laws a hot potato.

In the rhetoric this week from the Premier and Government members no reference has been made to the broader question of violence in the community. Latest statistics from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that 57 per cent of crime involving violence is by methods other than guns. Also, no direct reference has been made about the effect of television programs or videos on children and adults. It is short-circuiting any real endeavours to reduce violence and the trauma associated with it to debate this in isolation and discuss reducing violence in New South Wales without making reference to broader issues and using guns as the scapegoat.

The Prime Minister has given a lead to every State government, and the Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon that the Opposition entirely
Page 781
supports the principles espoused yesterday by the Prime Minister. The State Opposition will endeavour to comply with the principles he espoused. However, I am not prepared to allow the debate to be curtailed or wound up, with the Government washing its hands of the matter by flicking the issue to the Commonwealth. I call on the New South Wales Government to honour its responsibilities for the monitoring of videos. The censorship of videos is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, but the administration of the Act is the responsibility of the New South Wales Police Service. What action is the Government taking to ensure that children and susceptible, gullible adults are not exposed to the extreme violence that researchers in recent times have highlighted as having a detrimental effect on young people and society?

The Government has misread the intelligence of the people of New South Wales, who will not be hoodwinked. The Leader of the Opposition and I will ensure that we make precise representations as these issues are debated over coming days and weeks. The honourable member for Monaro, who has done considerable work on this issue, will articulate some of the detail. The timing of the debate is premature; the debate should not have been held for at least another week so that a balanced perspective could be achieved and so the people of New South Wales could come to grips with the enormity of what was perpetrated last Sunday.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [5.37]: I speak tonight with a saddened heart and wish first to convey my sincere sorrow to the people of Tasmania and to the families of the 35 people who were killed unnecessarily in recent days. I say that not only as a member of Parliament but as a father who usually sees his children nightly and is constantly reminded that in this day and age and in this country it is possible that my children could become victims of a callous crime.

I did not want this debate to be political, and I intended to speak as one who many years ago was trained in the use of military weapons. The point that has been lost in this debate thus far is that these weapons are not sporting weapons or weapons used by farmers on vermin; they are weaponry designed specifically to maim, mutilate and kill other human beings. Yesterday, even the Prime Minister in his speech to Parliament acknowledged that this type of weapon has no use. It has been said before, and I will say again, that I am disappointed that the honourable member for Dubbo made political capital out of this debate. He termed this bill as a cop-out by the Carr Labor Government. The people of New South Wales will see it as exactly the opposite. Today the Premier has put everyone on notice that this State has had enough, it has had a gutful, and something must be done.

Yesterday the honourable member for Manly pointed out his concern and shame that politicians throughout Australia have allowed this problem to perpetuate. We have had Hoddle Street, Strathfield and now Tasmania, yet very little has been done in the way of national registration. The only way to achieve rational gun laws in this country is to place them under the umbrella of the Federal Government, which has the ability to establish national gun registration. Also, through customs it can police and ensure that guns do not come into the country illegally, and the post office can ensure that people are afforded protection through various means. The States are not geared for that type of work. It might be fine to regulate a gun shop, but we have no way of protecting our children from the onslaught of guns entering the country.

In recent hours I have received a number of questionnaires from the media. I indicated the Government's stance to the Sydney Morning Herald, and I received a questionnaire from the Daily Telegraph, to which I shall allude. It asks three questions, and I will indicate my answers to them. The first question asked whether I supported Prime Minister John Howard's proposal for an effective national registration of gun ownership. I answered that I supported the Prime Minister's statement of yesterday. In that question "national" is the key word; it is national uniform registration, and members opposite want to bring that control back to the State.

The second question asked whether I supported Prime Minister John Howard's proposal on a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semiautomatic weapons. My answer to this question was that I support the statement of the Prime Minister of yesterday. I have the Hansard of the Prime Minister's statement, and the Liberal-National coalition should listen to two aspects of the speech. He said that he hoped that in a small way members can demonstrate cross-party expressions of solidarity and concern. We have already lost that. Here we have an opportunity to send a message to the Prime Minister that we support what he is trying to do, and we want to protect the people of our State. He also said:

There is a proposal for effective national registration of gun ownership in this country. They will also include a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semi- automatic weapons.

I hope that the Prime Minister has given a clear message to his charges in New South Wales in the Liberal-National coalition on this issue. National Party credibility in this place would be questioned if its members did not answer the questionnaire, or provided answers that were at odds with the Prime Minister. That is why this legislation is so important. As a result of the division between the Liberal Party and the National Party on this issue, it is imperative that the Government ensures that the Prime Minister and his Government understand that the New South Wales Parliament supports a proposal to ensure the safety of its citizens, and that we want other States to follow that lead. Also, the Government has acted on this legislation because we know that the National Party in Queensland does not support the Prime Minister's proposal. The party in Queensland will head down the same track as the mob opposite. It will do everything in its power to
Page 782
ensure that the gun laws it wants remain, and it does not want the redneck gun lobby on its tail again. That is what it is all about.

Mr Cochran: Is Wayne Goss a redneck? It is his legislation.

Mr McMANUS: It is not Wayne Goss's - he has gone. The opportunity exists for the Queensland police Minister to speak strongly in support of changing Goss's legislation, but he will not do so. Instead, Cooper is on television every night telling the people of this country that he does not support John Howard. Honourable members opposite have been given their riding orders in defending Cooper, but this will not work. Even John Howard knows that the people of this country have had enough; they are sick of seeing their children killed. The kids of this country have a right to have a picnic without being mowed down by weaponry not designed for recreation or sport.

The Premier has clearly indicated to the Federal Government, without politics, that he wants to support the Prime Minister. On Friday, 10 May the Premier wants to take an agenda to the meeting with the Prime Minister. He wants to say, "We have thought long and hard in our Parliament about this issue, and we make suggestions to you which you can expect to get the ball rolling." I do not again want to speak in this House about another Strathfield, Hoddle Street, or Tasmanian massacre. It is time that the States were brought together under the umbrella of the Federal Government on this matter. I do not suggest that every time we have a problem we throw it to the Federal Government. We have tried to deal with this issue on a State basis, but it has simply not worked. This bill will provide an opportunity for the Federal Government to ensure that certain action can be taken. If the Federal Government pulls out and goes to water on this issue, we will take the powers back and do something about this problem.

I will be interested to see the actions of the National Party as I have been hearing that they have been changing horses midstream. Rather than talking about the destruction which guns and rifles cause, they have been talking about domestic violence. That has nothing to do with this bill. The Hon. Ron Dyer has taken action on domestic violence, and the Government will provide 650 extra police on the beat within the next couple of years. That is something which members opposite did nothing about for seven years. They allowed police numbers to be reduced, allowed domestic violence to go unchecked, allowed violent videos to be available and allowed violence to continue on television. Members opposite now condone weapons which kill and maim in New South Wales. Members opposite are on the wrong track. The honourable member for Cronulla should be careful. The people of Cronulla will not be impressed if he votes the wrong way on this issue; if he does, I will make sure that they know about it.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Cochran.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would preclude the Speaker leaving the chair at the conclusion of private members' statements until the ringing of one long bell at 10.00 a.m. on Friday, 3 May 1996.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [5.51]: I raise a matter of great concern, a matter which has caused great distress to a number of people who live in Swansea electorate and work at Charlestown Square, a shopping centre in the electorate of my colleague, the Hon. Richard Face. The shopping centre has prohibited all staff parking in the shopping centre car park.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. The honourable member has just stated that she is raising an issue in the electorate of the honourable member for Charlestown. Therefore, it is not within her constituency. I ask you to rule that the member is not in order.

Ms HALL: It refers to my constituents, Mr Acting-Speaker.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member is in order. She is referring to constituents.

Ms HALL: If staff are caught parking in the car park on more than two occasions their cars are wheel clamped by a security firm, Pro Security, engaged by the centre management, Lend Lease Corporation Limited, and the staff then have to pay $60 to have the wheel clamp removed. The centre management obtained the registration numbers of most staff members by asking them to enter a competition which involved the submitting of registration numbers. The rationale for prohibiting staff parking in the centre car park is that the centre is undergoing extensions and initially had a reduced number of car spaces. Although the centre is now advertising an additional 500 car spaces, staff are still prevented from using the car park. Arrangements have been made for the staff to park on an oval or in a council car park some distance from the centre - in an area where a young girl was recently abducted.

When I received complaints from people living in Swansea electorate I contacted the police to determine whether the security firm and Charlestown Square management could legally engage in the practise of wheel clamping. I must admit that I was most surprised to receive police advice that "no criminal offence has been committed by the person clamping the wheels of motor
Page 783
vehicles". It is ludicrous that a security firm can place a wheel clamp on a car, forcing the owner to pay money to have the clamp removed, especially when that person has parked a vehicle legally in a public parking area where one of the development conditions imposed by the local council is that the centre must provide parking for its employees.

What I have talked about so far affects the residents of Swansea electorate but I guarantee it is not restricted to Swansea. I am sure all members have read reports of what is happening in Victoria with wheel clamping: private companies are clamping motor vehicles and charging $150 or more to remove the clamps and release the vehicles. I have read about elderly people in Victoria who parked in delineated parking spaces while attending a meeting and, on returning to their cars, found a tow truck parked across the entrance to the car park and all the cars in the car park wheel clamped. This situation is not unlike what has happened to the employees at Charlestown Square - employees who live in the Swansea electorate - who have parked in a public parking area. It is a practice that is causing extreme distress to citizens in both New South Wales and Victoria. I understand that it is planned to introduce legislation in the Victorian Parliament outlawing the practice of wheel clamping. Wheel clamping cannot be allowed to continue in this State. It must stop. Shopping centres such as Charlestown Square and private security firms such as Pro Security must not be allowed to jeopardise the safety of people and their vehicles. I give notice that I will pursue the matter further. I ask for support to end this practice.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [5.56]: The honourable member has raised a valid matter. Wheel clamping is an abhorrent practice. It has not been as prevalent in New South Wales as it has been in Victoria. In my view it should be banned. I shall refer the matter to the appropriate Minister. If there is a council requirement that the car park be made available for the public at large, I will take the matter up with Lake Macquarie Council to make sure that this requirement is fulfilled.

An advantage of raising the matter in Parliament is that Lend Lease will get the message as a developer of a shopping centre that it requires goodwill from the people who live in the area and whom it wishes to attract to the centre. I hope the company will come to its senses and realise that it requires cooperation of the people of the area for the viability of the centre. I am also concerned that employees are being targeted by the company. It is an abhorrent practice and I hope the union has taken an active role by making representations to the company to ensure that the interests of people who work at the site are not compromised by this undemocratic action.


Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [5.57]: I raise the issue of police numbers in the Shoalhaven. I find it particularly galling that in the lead-up to the State election Labor made law and order an issue. It said it would take action to meet the need for more police. There were the usual promises that action would be taken when Labor got in. It is in and we are still waiting. When the Minister for Police visited Bomaderry last year for a first-hand look I thought we would see some action. There was coverage in the local press and photographs of the local State and Federal Labor members looking very serious. The Minister said, "Yes, it is very crook. We will change the rosters. We will ask the police to blitz the area." He admitted there was a problem and that we needed more police. He promised more police for the Illawarra but he did not say when or how many. And what is his solution to the problem now? He ordered the poor local constables to be more vigilant. That is Labor's solution to the problem: "Keep yours eyes open, men."

Mr E. T. Page: And women.

Mr ELLIS: "Keep your eyes open, ladies and gentlemen." On the weekend of 28 and 29 October, shortly after the Minister's visit, local police resources were stretched to the absolute limit. They had to provide a presence for the local spring festival parade on the Saturday and provide support for a bike race on Sunday. The only policeman in Kangaroo Valley was taken off his regular duties and used to assist in the bike rally. In addition to the usual routine duties, there was a spate of incidents that was headlined in the local newspaper as the "Weekend of Rampage" - fires, assaults, ram raids, vandalism, teenage intoxication, domestic violence and vehicle accidents. On one shift a single patrol car had to deal with seven domestic violence call-outs. When I asked local police for details they were reluctant to brief me for fear of repercussions.

When police cannot keep the local member of Parliament informed for fear of bureaucratic intimidation, something is wrong with the system. I want to know why the police would be prevented from discussing with their local member incidents at the weekend or at any other time. Their first objective should be to fix the problem, to cooperate with the community, and to maximise cooperation. I am amazed that the police are prevented from talking to me, a parliamentary representative of constituents. This situation is unhealthy for the community and for the process of government. I can only assume that there is something to hide. I am not surprised. After all, we have been promised a further 650 police for the State - but when will they be appointed, and how many?

I am sure the victims of domestic violence on that weekend rampage wished those police were already in place. But what about repeat episodes? Just a couple of weeks ago business owners of a north Nowra shopping centre held a public meeting to discuss escalating juvenile crime in their area. Shops were being vandalised, customers were intimidated, and kids as young as 10 years of age were freely roaming the area up to 4 o'clock in the
Page 784
morning. Surely the absence of police encourages crime and civil disobedience. It has often been stated that the best deterrence to crime is the potential of being caught.

Continued police understaffing reinforces the perception that the chances of being caught are marginal. It is well documented that the record of domestic violence in the Shoalhaven is high, and that the community is concerned at the breakdown of law and order. I am not suggesting that the shortfall in police numbers is the sole cause; obviously other factors such as social and economic conditions come into play. The Shoalhaven has a low per capita income experience, and its economic fortunes have been seriously retarded by an almost obsessive preoccupation with environmental restrictions. The scope for employment opportunities has been severely curtailed and investment has been scared off by the spectre of further onerous environmental controls. At the same time the population is growing beyond the capacity of the Shoalhaven to sustain it. This is a formula for social disaster and highlights the preoccupation of this Government with environmental dogma at the expense of the welfare of the people. I would like the Minister for Police to communicate with me and indicate when we may have an increase in police numbers in the Nowra patrol.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.02]: I would like to congratulate the honourable member for South Coast. He has now joined the long list of Opposition members who complain about the poor service this State received in the seven years when the coalition was in Government. He is complaining about police numbers that were the same when the Opposition was in Government. I am surprised the honourable member did not complain to the former Minister for Police.

[Interruption]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The honourable member for South Coast will cease interjecting.

Mr E. T. PAGE: When the honourable member for South Coast was a candidate prior to his election as a member of this House, he should have been castigating the former coalition Government for not providing proper police resources in the Shoalhaven area. I am terribly sorry that he is so disappointed with the efforts of that Government, which was responsible for providing those resources. Promises were made by the Labor Opposition, but I never promised that all our undertakings would be fulfilled in the first 12 months after winning office. It is not easy to overcome seven years of incompetence in such a short time. I am very surprised that local police are not talking to the honourable member about what is happening in the area he represents. That is certainly not a requirement of the current Minister. Perhaps the police do not see any point in discussing sensitive problems with a member of Parliament who does not understand what is going on.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [6.03]: I rise this evening to bring a very important public health issue to the attention of the House, and in particular the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. On Monday this week I was formally advised by the director of the Cabramatta Community Centre, Miss Jan Collie, that the centre will be forced to close the secondary outlet needle exchange program unless the Department of Health through the South Western Area Health Service provides urgently needed additional funding. The needle exchange program is a harm minimisation initiative that provides intravenous drug users with sterilised injecting equipment and a safe means of disposal of used needles. The program is designed to prevent the spread of HIV-AIDS and other communicable diseases by reducing the likelihood that users will share needles, and to ensure that they have a safe means by which to dispose of used needles and thereby reduce the risks to the wider community.

In June 1993 the Cabramatta Community Centre began offering a low-key needle exchange service through the Cabramatta Youth Team. Initially the service operated well as a low-key secondary outlet seeing about four or five clients per day. However, the number of clients using the service has continued to increase to the point where the centre now services 1,000 people per month. To date the centre has maintained the program on a shoestring budget. Equipment was purchased by using the centre's interest income, and distribution of the equipment was performed by staff with little or no health training who were funded by different government departments to perform other duties. Escalating client demand has led to funding difficulties and a range of other problems which make the continuation of the service impracticable under the current arrangements. In order to alleviate the funding crisis the South Western Area Health Service stepped in at the beginning of the year and gave assistance to ensure the survival of the program until June 1996. As of June 1996 the program will be forced to close if the Government does not come good with the necessary funding to engage a worker to administer the service.

The increased use of the service demonstrates two very important reasons why the Government should commit the necessary resources. First, increased demand for injecting equipment is one indicator that intravenous abuse of narcotics is on the increase, despite additional resourcing by the Government for enforcement. Secondly, demand for the service and the high return rate to the centre of used syringes demonstrates heightened awareness amongst intravenous drug users of the need for safe practice. However, ensuring the continuation of the existing service for a period of time should only be considered as an interim measure to allow time to develop a suitable longer term solution. Over time it will be necessary to develop an alternative location for the service. The Cabramatta Community Centre is not a suitable venue to accommodate the increasing volume of clients.

Page 785

The community centre is a multipurpose neighbourhood centre that is designed to provide a range of services to different groups in Cabramatta. Intravenous drug users now constitute the largest single group attending the centre, and that has led to complaints from other service providers within the centre. Furthermore, the centre is an inappropriate location for the service because of the layout of the building. The many entrances and exits prevent the proper monitoring of clients. I believe that over time the Government must address the need for a primary fixed outlet needle exchange service that is able to cope with the growing number of clients, and offer with it counselling, support and education alternatives.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.07]: I congratulate the honourable member for Cabramatta on raising this significant issue. The honourable member is obviously someone who has her finger on the pulse of her community. It is great that funds have been made available until the honourable member can present a case for maintaining an improved service in a more sensitive location. I will have great pleasure taking up this matter with the Minister. I believe there will be a satisfactory answer.


Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [6.08]: After the present Government gained office in 1995 -

Mr E. T. Page: You are still shell-shocked.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: I was not shell-shocked by the election loss but rather by the Premier's incredible cynicism in visiting Temora and hugging and embracing farmers. Whatever the problems of Temora farmers, the Premier was there to fix it for them. I turn to the water supply system run by the northern Riverina county council in Temora. The Premier landed in Temora and there made his statements, which turned out to be pretty damn stupid on his part. Temora has a goldmine where there are ducks swimming on the cyanide dams. Temora is a fairly well run little community. Temora was the headquarters of the northern Riverina county council, which administered the electricity supply for that area and was responsible for the south-west tablelands water supply system, which starts at Jugiong and flows through to Temora, West Wyalong and other towns. The scheme has been well administered. It joined up with a scheme that started in the shire of Carrathool, and it has ensured a tremendous supply of water to the people in all of that area. With the crash-bash activities of this Government in ripping up the electricity supply councils no-one ever said "Hang on, what is going to happen to the water supply?"

Mr Harrison: Electrify it.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: That is a great way to win votes. It will get them into rather a shocking state. The councils are in a state of shock because the Government has left the whole matter high and dry without any indication of who is going to run the scheme or where the headquarters will be. The headquarters were in Temora, so I suppose on an interim basis they are still in Temora. But all of the rumours and indications are that it will go through under the strange rationalisation-centralisation that all Labor governments believe in. The number of health boards has been reduced from 23 to eight, and the number of electricity councils has been greatly reduced. The pot of gold was a far greater attraction from the electricity councils than it was from the health boards. But it has happened! On 31 July last year an article appeared in the Temora Independent under the headline "Early decision on water control expected". The article stated:

Temora residents could know the future of water management within the area as early as next week.

Mr E. T. Page: They are not even on the committee. How would they know?

Mr CRUICKSHANK: The Government is fooling around with people's lives and expectations, and the Minister makes cynical goddamn remarks like that.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! The member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: Why don't you ask the Minister to keep his trap shut if he wants to say stupid things like that?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to resume his seat.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: You would or you are?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to resume his seat.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: Now?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr CRUICKSHANK: I think that is very poor treatment, if I might say so.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume his seat.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. Under what ruling are you asking -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Is the honourable member canvassing my ruling?

Mr Photios: No, I am not canvassing your ruling. I am seeking advice from you. Under what ruling are you asking the member to resume his seat?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ermington will resume his seat. I asked the member for Murrumbidgee to resume his seat because of his disrespect to the Chair.

Page 786

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.13]: It is interesting that the honourable member should refer to Temora, which is a significant country centre with an agricultural facility. Last week the honourable member's leader skited about the fact that he had not been to Temora for four years. I am glad the honourable member knows where Temora is, because his leader does not. I would hope he can convince his leader to pay some interest in Temora. These water supplies were controlled by the electricity groups. A committee meeting was held to sort out how the management of the three water supplies in the area will be organised in the future. I believe that a decision will be made in the near future. I point out, however, that water is still being supplied; the supply has not been cut off. While the future management is being worked out the same good, clear water is being supplied. There is no doubt that in the reasonably near future the Government will work out an efficient form of management to ensure that the people in this area get a good clean water supply even if they cannot get decent representation in Parliament.


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [6.14]: I bring to the attention of the House the need for amalgamation of the primary and infants schools in the township of Kiama. Construction of a new school on a greenfields site has been ruled out because of the lack of a suitably large area of vacant land. It is now proposed that the two schools should be amalgamated on the present site of the Kiama primary school. Since June 1995 there has been overwhelming support from the parents and citizens association and the community for this amalgamation to proceed. Although the parents and citizens association has been advised verbally by members of the education department that it is intended that the amalgamation should proceed, no formal advice of this intention has been announced by either the department or the Minister. Correspondence from the Minister to myself dated 29 September 1995 stated:

The feasibility study is nearing completion and that considerable consultation with the school and the community has occurred to ascertain available options.

The Minister's letter stated also:

Once this information is received, I will give careful consideration to the relative priority of the project, to enable formal planning to proceed in light of the availability of resources.

On Monday 29 April I attended a night-time meeting with the parents and citizens association at which strong support for the amalgamation proposal was reaffirmed. I was requested to seek from the Minister positive confirmation that the amalgamation would proceed. I was also asked to pursue the matter of an early allocation of resources to bring about the commencement of construction work. The members of the parents and citizens association are concerned about the inadequate facilities at the infants school site along with the occupational health and safety issues associated with such an old building. The building has high heritage significance, and if and when the building eventually passes into the ownership of some other person or organisation, its heritage value will have to be determined.

The members of the parents and citizens association and the staff are also concerned about the lack of necessary facilities at the Kiama primary school, facilities such as an assembly hall where the pupils and staff can assemble in times of inclement weather and a sick bay where children can be placed and kept under observation by members of staff as they perform their other duties. I am pleased that the Minister for Education and Training is present in the House. I look forward to his reply at the end of my statement. I would be pleased if the Minister would indicate to the House a positive intention to proceed with the amalgamation of the Kiama primary and infants schools at the earliest possible time, and give an indication of the likelihood of an early allocation of finances to bring about a commencement of this much-needed action.

I express my gratitude to the previous Government, which heeded my call for new primary schools in the townships of Gerringong and Albion Park. Energy efficiency has been taken into account in the construction of those facilities. They are light and airy and are orientated in the right direction to give the best possible outlook for the students. One is a little shocked by a comparison between those new schools and the schools in Kiama, where there is a chronic lack of necessary facilities for the welfare of the children.

It is inappropriate for the infants and primary schools to be separated by a distance that involves extra expense in the duplication of telephones, fax machines and additional staff. Having regard to those matters, it makes sense to amalgamate. In the long term amalgamation will save the Government money and will provide a better opportunity for the education of primary school children in Kiama. Amalgamation of the two schools will certainly ease a great deal of community concern. I am not privy to what the Minister will say, but I hope he will bring some joy to the people of Kiama.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.19]: I am grateful to the honourable member for Kiama for the courtesy he has shown in advising me that he would be raising this matter, thus enabling me to make some preliminary inquiries on his behalf. I acknowledge the comments he has made. Kiama Public School is currently split, with the infants department on one site and the primary department on the other. I also acknowledge the facilities overall are below the new standard code. Amalgamation on the one site is desirable. The Government has carried out preliminary feasibility studies which show that the
Page 787
cost of amalgamating the schools will be about $2.2 million. I regret to advise the honourable member for Kiama that it will not be possible to allocate funding in the 1996-97 budget for this work to be carried out, but the amount required to upgrade Kiama Public School will be considered in the 1997-98 budget.

My department strongly endorses the comments of the honourable member for Kiama. The project is worthy of support. Education benefits would result from the amalgamation and the upgrading of facilities to new school standards. Officers from the properties directorate of the Department of School Education will meet with representatives of the Council of the Municipality of Kiama tomorrow to discuss the council's views about the use of the infants school site and the amalgamation. Although I cannot give any guarantees about the 1996-97 budget, the 1997-98 budget will possibly provide funds for that purpose.


Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [6.21]: I address my remarks to a matter of solemn significance: the first genocide of the twentieth century. It began on 24 April 1915 and lasted until 1923. That genocide, of course, was the sad, tragic and devastating loss to humanity and to a nation of 1.5 million Armenians, who were massacred under the most horrific circumstances. On a smaller scale, the tragic loss in Tasmania of the lives of 35 Australians and international tourists puts into context the almost overwhelming significance of the loss of 1.5 million people at the turn of the century. In addition, scores of thousands were forced to flee their homeland. Most of those Armenians sought refuge in other Middle Eastern countries, but fortunately, both for our nation and for themselves, many arrived in Australia.

Many generations ago my family fled, like the Armenians, from the horrors of the Ottoman Empire, so it is with some personal knowledge and empathy that I reflect on the loss of the 1.5 million human lives in horrific circumstances. The vast majority of the 30,000 or so Armenian-Australians are direct descendants of the survivors. They are products of the political volatility of the Middle East that has resulted in a second phase of immigration to countries like the United States of America, Canada and, of course, Australia. In many respects it is difficult to collate accurate census figures on the Armenian community in Australia because about 95 per cent were not born in Armenia.

As a former Minister for multicultural and ethnic affairs I enjoyed a close friendship with members of the Armenian community. I enjoyed working with them on projects of significance to them, both around the State and, more appropriately, within the area I represent of Ryde and Ermington. Even today, I and others around the world note that the perpetrators of the genocide continue to deny their heinous crime. I want to restate the history without censorship, on a bipartisan basis. I also want to offer to those direct descendants and to those who share the hurt of the tragedy and devastation of that loss our absolute determination to remember, now and in future years as the anniversary of the loss of the 1.5 million Armenians is noted, the crimes for which they were positively condemned, which allegedly provided the Ottomans with the justification to commit genocidal crimes again and again.

The genocide has been recognised by many parliaments around the world. Recently my colleague the honourable member for Gladesville spoke about the genocide. It is appropriate that each and every year the world is reminded on a bipartisan basis of the first genocide of the twentieth century. The European Parliament and the Russian Duma, the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide, continue to dismiss the events of 1915 as wartime losses. That rewrite of history is completely unacceptable both to me and to the Parliament.

The Armenian community in Australia has a rich and vibrant culture. That culture was threatened in the early part of this century. To achieve its objective of pan-Turkism, the Ottoman Empire intended to wipe every Armenian in the Ottoman Empire off the face of this planet. That is to be rejected and condemned. Truth cannot be allowed to be the final victim of the Armenian genocide. As many of the survivors are now in their eighties at least, their descendants all over the world are committed to ensuring that the world never forgets the first genocide of this century. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, in whose electorate a great many Armenians live, I and my parliamentary colleagues note on this solemn occasion the tragic loss of 1.5 million Armenians who were massacred in horrific circumstances.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [6.26]: I commend the honourable member for bringing this matter to the notice of the House. This evening people all over the world were shown on television identifying with the relatives and friends of those slain in the Port Arthur massacre. People who were involved in the McDonald's massacre in America have returned to the scene, and those in Dunblane have spoken about the events that took place there. Such tragedies bind us together across the world and across different cultures. The honourable member is correct: the massacre of the Armenians should never be forgotten.


Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [6.27]: This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the St George Rugby League Football Club entering the first grade competition in 1921. On behalf of the people of Rockdale I take this opportunity to congratulate the club and to acknowledge the fine efforts of the club's players, administrators and
Page 788
supporters over the past 75 years. Few clubs in any sport enjoy as solid a reputation as St George Rugby League Football Club. In the 75 years since it entered first grade competition in 1921 it has enjoyed incredible success. The club has won 15 premierships, 11 of which were won in succession in a phenomenal history-making period between 1956 and 1966. My electorate of Rockdale sits firmly in the heart of the St George district, and although the ethnic and cultural mix of the local population has changed dramatically over the years, the St George football club still enjoys wide support and affection.

The St George team has played in no less than a remarkable 49 finals since the club's inception in 1921. During the 1990s the success story continued with grand final appearances in 1992 and 1993 and a heroic quarter-final position in 1995. The St George team was also a finalist in 1990 and 1994. As well as having strong local support the club holds, or has held, the crowd attendance record at the Sydney Cricket Ground, Parramatta Stadium, ANZ Stadium, Steelers Stadium, Belmore Sports Ground and Bruce Stadium. Clearly, St George has wide appeal well beyond the St George district. Indeed, such is the support for St George that recent research has shown it to be the most supported club in rugby league anywhere. The club has an outstanding reputation for its ethical and progressive administration and holds a special place in the history of the game for its achievements on and off the field, including the longest sponsorship in rugby league.

The administration of the St George club has been of especially high calibre. Who will ever forget the work of Frank Facer, Snowy Justice, Glyn Price and a host of others over the years? Today the club has people like Warren Lockwood and Brian Johnston, and a stable and progressive board with which people such as Doug McClelland are involved. Many great players have represented St George over the years. Rarely has there been an Australian team without St George representatives. Some of the players who have represented the club with distinction are those referred to as the greats: Reg Gasnier, Johnny Raper, Graeme Langlands, Norm Provan, Kevin Ryan, Eddie Lumsden and Johnny King. Such is the great depth and proud history of St George that I could speak endlessly in this vein.

In contemporary times the club has fine players such as Mark Coyne, Ricky Walford, Scott Gourlay, and Jeff Hardy. These players exemplify the St George spirit and all are great role models for young people, not only in the St George area but wherever there is interest in Rugby League. In recent months the St George club has confounded its critics and the doomsayers who predicted that the club would disintegrate as a result of the Super League debacle. There were predictions and assertions that the club had lost its way, that 1996 would bring despair and disaster. That has not happened.

Far from 1996 being a year of calamity, it is already proving to be a year of renaissance, of renewal. What better way to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the St George club than for a whole new wave of talented new players to come through at a time of the club's greatest need? The excellent start to the 1996 season is a credit to the team and to their coach, David Waite. It is also a credit to the club's administrators that there was fertile ground for the famous St George pride and spirit to grow in and to flourish. In an article in the April issue of Big League Malcolm Andrews stated:

ST GEORGE certainly has a record in the Test arena as far as captains are concerned. With Wests, it is one of only two clubs to have provided three different Kangaroo skippers - Ken Kearney . . . Reg Gasnier . . . and Graeme Langlands . . .

And other post-War Test and World Cup captains include Phil Hawthorne, Johnny Raper, Ian Walsh, Billy Smith and Bill Wilson.

But what about the Dragons' 1968 record?

That season every representative team involving Sydney players was led out by a St George player. Chook Raper was City Firsts' captain, while Elton Rasmussen led City Seconds. Raper and Smith captained NSW and Raper was the victorious skipper in Australia's World Cup campaign.

In its seventy-fifth year the mighty St George rugby league club is yet again producing a crop of wonderfully talented young footballers, all imbued with the famous St George brand of pride and spirit. On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the club on the occasion of its seventy-fifth anniversary. Long may the red and white tradition thrive!

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [6.31]: I add my congratulations to the St George club. I have to confess that I used to be a St George supporter. Then the Penrith Panthers were formed, and one cannot live in Penrith and not be a Panthers supporter. I remember the days when I supported St George, and they gave everyone a thrill. St George won the premiership 11 years in a row and the club is to be commended for its sterling work. But I am a staunch Panthers supporter.


Mr SMALL (Murray) [6.32]: I speak about flood levee banks, a matter of great importance in the municipality of Deniliquin. I am genuinely concerned for the Deniliquin council and the local ratepayers about the situation that has developed in the district. For many years a planning process has been in place for the flood levee banks at Deniliquin and a lot of designing and planning has occurred. To date the levee banks have had to be one-metre freeboard over and above the one-in-100-year flood level. The statistics recorded for the Deniliquin area, which is situated on the Edward River, a subsidiary of the Murray River, show that the worst flood occurred in 1870. Serious floods also occurred in 1917 and 1956. Although there have been numerous other floods, particularly in the 1970s and the early 1990s, they were the three major floods.

Page 789

If the one-in-100-year figure is disregarded, the 1870 flood is eliminated and the 1917 flood becomes the major flood, it being slightly worse than the 1956 flood. Since I have been a member of Parliament I have organised meetings between representatives of the Department of Water Resources and the Deniliquin council in an attempt to have the requirement for a one-metre freeboard reduced. However, the department has always insisted that the council would receive no funding if the height of the levees was less than one metre. The funding ratio is 40:40:20. That is, 40 per cent of funds is provided by the Federal Government, 40 per cent is provided by the State Government and 20 per cent is provided by the local council and the ratepayers. The department stood firm, no doubt to protect itself from possible insurance claims in the event that a major flood causes the levee banks to collapse. I have appealed to the various governments in an attempt to assist members of the community whose houses front the river. The requirement for a one-metre freeboard means that a high levee is necessary.

Recently the council has engaged contractors to carry out the work on the levees. After a public meeting in Deniliquin concern was expressed about the levees, particularly those involving a height of possibly six or seven feet above ground level. The ground area coverage can be as much as approximately 15 metres and that takes up a great deal of the property around some homes and creates an enormous problem. However, the levee banks that have been constructed to date have been very well done. Recently the council was informed by a representative from the department that the one-metre freeboard is no longer a requirement.

I indicated to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation that I proposed to raise this matter. Unfortunately, he is committed to attending a meeting and is unable to be in the Chamber. I ask the Minister whether it is correct that the one-metre freeboard is no longer a requirement. If that is so, will the funding approvals still be provided by the Federal and State governments on the 40:40:20 ratio? If my information is not correct, given that inflation has brought about an increase in the cost of construction of levee banks, will the State and Federal governments maintain their share of the costs since construction was first approved? The department has always insisted on the one-metre freeboard and only recently has a representative of the department suggested that the council can build the levees to a level below the one-metre freeboard. The Minister's answers are important and relevant.


Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [6.37]: I refer to an organisation that is active in the electorate of Liverpool: the South West Lebanese Australian Association, or SWLAA. It has been the target of a dishonest and probably racist campaign in the Liverpool City Champion newspaper. A number of false claims have been made during that campaign. Firstly, it was claimed that no rent at all was paid by the SWLAA for the rent of Liverpool Council office space. That is untrue. Rent, albeit not the full sum, was paid by the group but council banked it in the wrong account. There was also a dispute about whether it should be paid, which was of course not acknowledged in the claims made in the Liverpool City Champion.

Secondly, it was claimed that no other group received treatment as favourable as the SWLAA, because that group stayed in the office without paying rent. It was claimed that that was because the group was somehow supporting Australian Labor Party politicians. That is a lie. To my knowledge, a number of groups have been treated far more favourably by the council than the SWLAA. At the moment a host of hirers of council facilities are behind with payments of rent. I am reliably informed that the Green Valley Music Centre is $36,000 in arrears of rent. I am not calling for that group to be evicted because that fundamentally misinterprets the nature of a council's community service obligation. I say, however, that those attacking the SWLAA are dishonest and hypocritical for focusing on that organisation for its alleged arrears of rent when other organisations owe far more.

Thirdly, there are now claims that Liverpool Council grants to the SWLAA should be investigated. These claims come mainly from Councillor Glavich. The claims are monumental hypocrisy. When modest council grants were made, that was done in the normal course of council business and in open council. Councillor Glavich was present at the meetings and has made no complaints then or since. It is not appropriate for him to now decide to rewrite history. He cannot now complain about the process, having been part of it himself. It is also claimed that I have assisted the SWLAA in obtaining council premises, as if I, as a councillor, was somehow precluded from making representations on behalf of community groups. In fact, the decision to allocate these premises was not mine; it was taken by the full council on 11 May 1992 and not on 13 April, as Councillor Glavich falsely asserts.

The relevant resolution was moved by Alderman Moon and seconded by Alderman Harrington. Neither of them was an Australian Labor Party alderman, and it is absurd to suggest that they were part of an ALP conspiracy. Once again Councillor Glavich was present at the meeting and did not oppose the proposal. He must now stand condemned for his hypocrisy. It is not open to him to support the recommendation and then try years later to rewrite history. The process for the selection of the premises was so open that the proposal had been referred to local community-based precinct committees for more than a month.

Page 790

Another person who deserves mention in this context is William Verity, a journalist for the Liverpool City Champion. Mr Verity has moved from being a reporter of news to being a participant in the political process. I say that because the matters raised in the speech of the Hon. J. F. Ryan in another place on 18 April were not provided to the honourable member by Councillor Glavich, as one might think, but by William Verity. I know that because Mr Glavich has said precisely that to two members of Liverpool Council. Of course, I will revise my opinion if Mr Verity can establish that that is not the case. Mr Verity needs to explain his transmission by facsimile of a copy of the Hansard proof of the speech of the Hon. J. F. Ryan. That facsimile bears a Liberal Party logo, indicating that the journalist was in direct contact with the honourable member. Mr Verity prompted the honourable member to make his speech.

Mr Verity also needs to explain why he did not give the Federal member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, the Deputy Mayor of Liverpool City Council, Alex Sanchez or me the opportunity to respond to the speech of the Hon. J. F. Ryan in the issue of the Liverpool City Champion in which the speech was reported. That denial of an opportunity to respond is a denial of basic journalistic ethics. Mr Verity has exhibited a thorough disregard for the facts and a contempt for journalistic ethics. Mr Verity also needs to explain why he consistently misspelt the name of the president of SWLAA, thus underlining his inadequate research. He has consistently refused to acknowledge that mistake, and he has consistently refused to publish the letter sent to his newspaper in that regard.

Freedom of the press is important to a democratic parliamentary system. However, it should not be abused by reporters and newspapers who fail to get the facts right, fail to do adequate research and become participants in the political process, indicating a bias and partiality. Councillor Glavich is also blameworthy. His motivation is clearly political, and he has conceded precisely that to Councillor Alec Sanchez. He indicated to Councillor Sanchez that he has a very narrow political agenda on this matter. It is instructive that during my time as the member for Liverpool the only representations I received from Councillor Glavich related to real estate matters. Councillor Glavich has a direct interest in such matters as he is a real estate agent. I regret that the only matters on which Councillor Glavich is able to make representations to his local member of Parliament relate to real estate.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [6.42]: The speech of the honourable member for Liverpool put the Hansard reporters on their mettle; it was fast but they kept up with him. The honourable member for Gordon did not have to dress up for this occasion.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [6.43]: A by-election in the Roseville ward of Ku-ring-gai Council, part of which is in my electorate, is set down for 11 May. One of the candidates in the by-election is the former mayor of Ku-ring-gai Council, Peter Derwent. I refer to the serious issues that the electors in Roseville ward must consider if they endorse Peter Derwent as their representative on the local council. The by-election is necessary because of the death of Councillor Geoff Swinson in February this year. It surprised many people that Geoff Swinson was a candidate in the local government election for Ku-ring-gai Council because unfortunately he had been in ill health for some years, while he was on the council and certainly since I had known him.

When the former mayor, Peter Derwent, ran for election in the Gordon ward in September last year, he not only lost his seat but was precluded, naturally, from standing as a candidate for mayor. He has now decided to contest the vacant seat in the Roseville ward. During the time that Peter Derwent was mayor of Ku-ring-gai Council he was investigated by the Ombudsman. Indeed, the 1994 report of the Ombudsman adversely named Mr Derwent and referred to his stewardship of Ku-ring-gai Council. Of the 177 councils in New South Wales, Ku-ring-gai Council was mentioned most frequently in the report. Mr Derwent is currently being investigated by the Ombudsman in relation to another matter. I am concerned, as are the residents in Roseville ward, that an adverse finding against Mr Derwent will mean that the residents in that ward must go to the polls for the third time in 12 months.

The residents went to the polls in September last year and they must go to the polls on 11 May. If Mr Derwent is successful in the by-election, and if the Ombudsman finds against him - not to mention the previous adverse findings in relation to his conduct when he was mayor and his handling of council matters - it is fair to say that he will have to consider standing aside or even resigning his position, although that may not be required under the law. That would then require residents in Roseville ward to elect another representative. The cost of a by-election is enormous. The 20,000 electors in Roseville ward voted in the local government election in September last year, as they are required to do every four years, and they must vote in the by-election on 11 May. A further by-election would mean additional costs.

On 23 and 24 November 1994 I raised matters relating to Ku-ring-gai Council and the Ombudsman. This matter needs to be addressed as I do not think that the community can afford any more by-elections. I ask the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women and the Minister for Local Government to bear these matters in mind. The matter should be investigated, given that the Ombudsman is currently investigating former mayor Peter Derwent.

Private members' statements noted.

Page 791

The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:

Jury Amendment Bill

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 6.48 p.m., Thursday.]

[Continuation of Thursday's sitting.]

[The House resumed at 10.00 a.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [10.00]: I join each and every member of this Parliament and, in fact, all Australians in expressing grave concern at the results of last Sunday's tragedy in Port Arthur. The deranged mind of the killer has left us all in a state of shock, with a list of names and families who have been subjected to the unreasonable and unjustified wrath of an insane mind. Words cannot express the tragedy that has befallen the normally very peaceful Apple Isle. The tragedy brings home to us all how susceptible we are to the culture of violence that has swept across Australia over recent years. However, it is not the issue of violence that I will address today; it is the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill, which, regrettably, has been brought into this Chamber to manipulate the situation politically, to put political spin on the gun issue, without seriously considering effective ways in which to address this horrendous problem.

The problem is the attitudes of people towards gun ownership, of political leaders towards saving political face and of the general public, who no doubt are bewildered by the tragedy that beset Tasmania and by previous tragedies, such as the Wade Frankum case and others. A newspaper recently stated correctly that this issue should be above politics. Regrettably, it is not. The move by Premier Bob Carr to introduce the bill into the House is a political exercise. It is an abrogation of responsibilities, buck passing - call it what you will - but it is not a solution to the problem. That has been recognised now by the media and by many other political leaders across the country. I particularly commend to the House the words of John Howard in the Federal Parliament on 1 May. He said:

Those proposals will at a minimum include a proposal for an effective national registration of gun ownership in this country. They will also include a total ban throughout Australia on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Those words encompass the views of many Australians, though difficulties may arise in the practicalities of introducing legislation to establish a national register. The concept of a State ceding powers to the Commonwealth in order to overcome a problem in that State is an unconscionable act that will not achieve anything. I agree, however, with the concept of joint meetings of the States under the Council of Australian Governments arriving at template legislation to produce uniform legislation to control guns - and gun ownership in particular - across the country. Then we will begin to achieve something worth while. Regrettably it has been proved in recent years that the methods of licensing throughout the country are ineffective and that they do not identify those who are placing our community at risk. In that regard uniform legislation is needed to identify those who are inappropriately in possession of firearms so that the firearms can be withdrawn from them. Any law-abiding and understanding person in this country would agree.

Along with many honourable members in this House, I am a father who is concerned about the welfare and future of our children. I express grave concern, as the honourable member for Dubbo did yesterday, about the increasing level of violence in society and the attitude of the media towards violence. Over recent days the media have been on a feeding frenzy, frothing at the mouth over ways in which they believe they can solve the gun law problems facing this country. They are not experts on gun laws, nor is any honourable member. We are learning through tragic experiences, and it would be wise for the media to take the counsel of those who are considering genuine scientific and political arguments for and against firearms registration, registration of owners and the criteria for gun ownership, which need to be examined.

We need to come up with an effective solution. We do not want a whitewash or a politically expedient solution but a solution that will identify the people who should not own a firearm so that their weapons can be withdrawn. If anything is to come out of this debate, it should be that message and the message that the people of Australia do not want further political manipulation, such as this bill, that will abrogate responsibilities. Honourable members in this place and in the other Chamber have a responsibility to address gun laws in this State. They are charged with that task and constitutional responsibility when they become members, and that responsibility should not be handed to someone else for political expediency. That is not the answer.

The Prime Minister has given a lead to us all. The recommendations that he intends to make to the police Ministers conference will set a benchmark for the conference. We need to encourage the police Ministers to investigate all avenues thoroughly so that the owners of firearms can be identified. The licensing system in this State has demonstrated its ineffectiveness. Bernard Lagan, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 May, pointed out the ineffectiveness of the system in failing to identify owners of firearms and members of the community who should not have firearms' licences. I place on record these wise words of Bernard Lagan:

Page 792

. . . since June 1992, the number of people in NSW allowed to possess a gun (those issued by the police with a shooter's licence) has fallen from 300,000 to about 150,000; yet there is no evidence that the level of gun ownership is dropping.

It is true that shooter's licences on issue have increased by about 14,000 since Mr Carr announced last September that the $75 licence fee would be waived to encourage more illegal gun owners to get a licence. The waiver expires next month, leaving the 164,000 licensed NSW gun-owners well short of the actual number, estimated by John Tingle, who represents the Shooters Party in the State Upper House, to be as high as 700,000.

It must concern people that of a possible 700,000 firearm owners only 164,000 are licensed in this State. The Prime Minister's statement that an effective national registration of gun ownership is essential is the most accurate and pertinent statement on this issue in the history of this nation. I urge honourable members on the Government benches to consider seriously the hypocrisy of introducing this bill and claiming that the House must sit an extra day in order to pass this legislation when the upper House has been dismissed!

Mr Jeffery: It's a joke.

Mr COCHRAN: The honourable member for Oxley is correct; it is an absolute joke. It is an absolute farce! No doubt the shadow minister for police will speak at length on this issue. It is extraordinary that the Government claims to have some credibility and integrity in this debate when it is prepared to go through the farcical exercise of introducing a piece of legislation to the House, claiming urgency about the matter but abrogating responsibility, and then dismissing the upper House so that the legislation cannot be passed.

Mr Tink: It can't be debated.

Mr COCHRAN: It cannot be debated. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council will have concluded before the legislation is passed by the upper House. That is the most hypocritical move in this Parliament by the Carr Government. It is an absolute joke and honourable members on the Government benches should be ashamed. The Government claims that it will resolve the gun law problems of this State, yet it introduces a bill into the House knowing full well that it will not pass through both Houses before the conclusion of the police Ministers conference. The Government should be damn well ashamed.

Mr Windsor: It's a disgrace.

Mr COCHRAN: It is a disgrace. This is the sort of farcical exercise that the Government engages in. Yesterday the Premier was poncing up and down this Chamber saying, "You can buy machine guns across the counter in Queensland."

[Interruption]

The honourable member would not know one end of a gun from another. It was the Government's hypocritical mate Wayne Goss who introduced laws in Queensland in 1990 and amended them in 1994 to allow machine guns to be sold across the counter. Queensland laws have allowed automatic firearms to find their way to places like Tasmania. You lot should judge your conscience on whether Mr Goss's legislation allowed those firearms to go from Queensland to Tasmania to be used in that offence last Sunday. What a bunch of hypocrites!

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

Mr COCHRAN: The problem faced by this crowd on the other side of the Chamber is that their memories are clear about 1988. That is why Goss did not have the guts to introduce appropriate legislation in Queensland. That is why your Premier is accurate when he says -

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

Mr COCHRAN: If automatic machine guns are available across the counter in Queensland, it is the fault of Wayne Goss, the former Premier of Queensland. The problem lies with him. The Queensland Government did not have the guts to address the problem, like this lot opposite who are now passing the responsibility to the Federal Government. They too do not have the guts to take on the issue! I challenge the Premier and the Government to take up this issue and address the gun law problem. John Howard has had the courage; it is printed in black and white. He will set the template for legislation. You lot should see if you can develop the intestinal fortitude to introduce it into this Parliament. See if you have the guts. The Premier said he will introduce it to the House. I say that he does not have the guts because he has passed it off to the Federal Government. The Opposition knows that Wayne Goss and Bob Carr had the opportunity and did nothing. The Government has done nothing in the 12 months it has been in office. [Time expired.]

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [10.15]: I completely support the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill but I regret that such a matter must be debated in this House. Yesterday I listened intently to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins. It was the most wimpish cop-out I had ever heard. It was indicative of his cop-outs when he was health Minister of this State. He destroyed the New South Wales health system and is now destroying a move to introduce uniform legislation in this country to control the use of guns. His performance can only be described as wimpish, and the performance of the Leader of the National Party can only be described as duplicitous.

Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is hoping that the rage will die down after the death of 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, and that in a week's time he will be able to sniff out the reaction throughout the State, particularly in rural areas. The bill is not aimed at farmers or those on the land, who obviously need guns; it is not aimed at vermin shooters or at members of sports shooting
Page 793
clubs, pistol clubs or rifle clubs, or at people who have a genuine interest in sports shooting. The bill is aimed at removing from the hands of people dangerous assault weapons that are designed to kill and maim. Weapons should not be in the hands of anybody in the community, especially some of the lunatics who have managed to get hold of them. Tasmania is usually a quiet and peaceful State, but last Sunday everybody was shocked and horrified by the senseless slaughter of 35 citizens, who were mainly holiday-makers visiting Port Arthur.

That feeling of shock and revulsion did not rest only with the people of Tasmania; it spread throughout Australia. Last Sunday's events are in everybody's thoughts. I lived in Tasmania for four years, and I have friends and in-laws there. My brother-in-law and his family live about 15 miles from where this event occurred, and on last Sunday evening we found it impossible to telephone him. I do not know whether the lines were jammed or his phone was out of order; nevertheless, it was a worrisome time, particularly for my wife, who was concerned about the welfare of her brother and his family. Thank God they were not caught up in that terrible incident.

I visited Tasmania only a few months ago and visited Port Arthur with my brother-in-law and his family. We had a nice lunch there and enjoyed looking at the remnants of the penal settlement. It is unthinkable that people enjoying a holiday in Australia should worry about being gunned down mercilessly. We hear about such things in Beirut, but Australia has always been regarded as a safe tourist destination. This is the end of the age of innocence, although this is not the first such atrocity. The honourable member for Monaro said that the media are starting to oppose the Government's proposal, but he must be reading different newspapers from me. The editorial in today's Daily Telegraph reads in part:

Premier Bob Carr's legislation to hand over NSW's gun control powers to the Federal Government provides a mechanism at last by which effective and uniform weapons laws may be enacted.

The editorial is particularly scathing in its comments about Mr Armstrong; it states:

The suspicion is that Mr Armstrong is leaving his options open until he is able to gauge the response of his rural constituents to new gun control laws; until he is able to assess the degree to which his party could exploit the legislation.

It is absolutely shameful that political leaders in this country should be sitting on their hands waiting to see whether political advantage can be found in the murder of 35 people.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. Standing orders refer to newspaper and other media reports in the following manner:

In broad generality members should not quote editorials from newspapers in Parliament, because by so doing, newspapers are given a voice in Parliament.

I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to this reference in the standing orders.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the member to be quoting from Decisions from the Chair. It has been a general practice that members may quote from newspapers, as long as the quotes do not constitute the major portion of the speech. On this occasion the honourable member is quoting only in a cursory manner.

Mr HARRISON: I was not going to refer to that editorial further. Obviously, such media comment is hurting members opposite. Earlier in debate the honourable member for Monaro said that the media was taking a certain position on this proposal, and I wanted to correct that statement. He must be reading different media reports from me. The question of Commonwealth control of gun law is extremely important. It is nothing less than a cop-out to talk about uniform attitudes by the States, because any attempt to make a State like Queensland agree to relinquish or alter its gun law control will fail. Honourable members know that. If we were to rely upon uniform State laws, we would set the lowest common denominator for gun control. This country needs rigid gun control. Weapons of mass murder and destruction must be removed from the hands of irresponsible elements not only in New South Wales but everywhere else in the country.

The Tasmanian incident has galvanised everyone's attitude to gun laws. In reality, it is no more horrific than one housewife being gunned down by a drunken bully of a husband, but this incident grabs one in the gut more because it involves 35 people. However, one murder is a 100 per cent result for the person killed. Women of child-bearing age are most vulnerable, and we must be mindful of that when considering gun control. I was in the Northern Territory in 1987 shortly after the north-end murders. A visitor from overseas was able to buy a number of very deadly weapons in Queensland before he went on a murder rampage in the Northern Territory.

It is nothing new for weapons to be taken out of Queensland. Wayne Goss cannot be blamed for this as he was not in government in 1987. The murderer took the weapons from Queensland into the Northern Territory and shot Australians for sport. He gunned down five Australians. His tactic was to say, "Take your clothes off and run," and then proceed to blow them away. One of his victims was a deputy mayor of a Sydney council. Seven people were murdered at Strathfield in 1991, six died at Terrigal in 1992, six died at Hillcrest and 35 died at Port Arthur in 1996. Increasingly, people are looking at violence as a way to settle their personal disputes or to write themselves into the history books by murdering a significant number of people.

We must consider the credibility of the Opposition on gun control. Earlier speakers referred to the 1988 situation. I make no apologies for the way the Labor Government, of which I was a member, tried to bring the situation under control
Page 794
in 1988. The only thing we did wrong was mishandle our public relations badly, but the intention was completely honourable. Let us now consider some of the statements made by coalition members in 1988 as they adopted an absolutely miserable populist line of the very worst kind. The Sun-Herald of 24 February 1985 quoted Ted Pickering, the then shadow minister for police, as follows:

To restrict access to guns is an infringement of basic liberties in my view.

Hansard of 27 February 1985 contains the following words of John Dowd, the then shadow attorney general:

It is all very well for those who say "Why should people be able to have guns"? Guns are themselves part of this Australian tradition . . . We are a people psychologically predisposed to the freedom that is involved in having our own possessions and doing what we like with them.

When the coalition came to office and introduced gun legislation John Dowd interjected repeatedly and took points of order as honourable members tried to put arguments. As legislators in this country, we must be particularly mindful of people's right to expect safety when on holiday and for women of child-bearing age to expect safety in the home. We must face up to that. The most telling comment of all that emanated from the coalition can be found in the Coffs Harbour Advocate of 6 January 1988. Matt Singleton, the then shadow minister for industrial development and decentralisation, said:

Send your guns to friends in Queensland until we have changed the Government of this State.

Wayne Goss was not in government at that time. However, people were told by members of the then Opposition, "Send your guns to people in Queensland and as soon as we win the election you can bring them back, and we will have open slather all over again." The coalition parties did win the election. In the Sun-Herald of 17 January 1988 the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated:

A future coalition government will never threaten the right of the public to own and use firearms.

This legislation does not threaten the rights of legitimate firearm owners and pistol and rifle club members. The mass murders to which I have referred today were not perpetrated by members of licensed shooting organisations; they were all wildcat events perpetrated by lunatics who managed to get hold of guns. Members of shooting clubs have to observe more stringent rules and regulations than members of other sporting clubs. Shooting is recognised as an Olympic sport. Members of the Government - and I am sure Prime Minister John Howard - are not trying to crack down on the ownership of guns by club members or to take guns out of the hands of farmers or people on the land, who clearly have a use for them.

This proposal is about uniform legislation throughout Australia to ensure that those who have guns in their possession have a legitimate use for them. I hope that the legislation will greatly reduce, and in time eliminate altogether, mass murders of the kind that have occurred - the most recent being in Port Arthur, Tasmania. I support the bill. I condemn the Leader of the Opposition for his wimpishness and in particular I condemn the Leader of the National Party for his duplicity in this matter. The Leader of the National Party is sparring for time.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.30]: I express condolences to all those involved in the Port Arthur massacre, a really appalling event. I hope that some good will come out of it. In my view the Government's proposed legislation plainly is not appropriate at this time. The States can achieve uniform gun laws. In 1991 a tragedy of significant proportions happened at Strathfield. As a result, the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which was established by this Parliament, did some of its best work. A number of changes were made to difficult legislation. At the time the bipartisan support for those changes reflected the maturity of the Parliament. On page 4 of today's Sydney Morning Herald Bernard Lagan said that New South Wales and Western Australia were two States that had the toughest gun laws in the nation. The honourable member for Kiama said earlier that Mr Lagan has more than a passing interest in gun and legal issues. I give great weight to what Mr Lagan said.

This Parliament introduced extremely tough gun control measures. However, we should not rest on our laurels, and I am not suggesting that that is what we should do now. This legislation will give the Commonwealth Government control of these matters. If this legislation is passed we will be washing our hands of our responsibilities. As I have said, in the past we determined these matters in a mature and bipartisan way. It is an extremely serious criminal offence for anyone to be in possession of the sort of weapon that was used in the Port Arthur massacre. Anyone in possession of such a weapon can be sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Legislation was enacted in this Parliament following the work done by the Joint Committee upon Gun Law Reform.

If we accept the legislation proposed by the Premier we will be putting to one side all the work that has been done on this issue. Another threshold matter about which I am concerned is that the Premier has already skewed debate on this issue. States no longer have to consider what steps they need to take on gun control; they now have to consider what powers they should cede to the Federal Government. It is critical that we do something now to resolve this problem. However, because of the legislation introduced by the Premier all attention is being focused on the Commonwealth-State fight and not on the nitty-gritty changes that
Page 795
need to be made to the law.

I hope the Premier will reconsider his decision, not just because of what members of the Opposition are saying but because the Coalition for Gun Control and Simon Chapman are saying that this is the wrong way to go - a matter that is also reported in today's newspapers. The Coalition for Gun Control is saying to the Premier, "Do not go down this path." This legislation is a red herring; it is deflecting Premiers, police Ministers, the Prime Minister and the Federal Attorney-General away from key issues, such as strengthening the law, and it is focusing attention on this Federal-State donnybrook. In light of what Mr Chapman and the Coalition for Gun Control are saying I ask the Premier to reconsider his decision.

I wish to raise some of the matters that the Leader of the Opposition raised with the Minister for Police and matters that he raised yesterday concerning the difficulties Opposition members are experiencing when they talk to the Minister for Police about anything. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition and I were to attend a meeting in the office of the Minister for Police. We were met at the door of his office by representatives from Channel 10 and other media organisations. We thought that the meeting was to determine whether or not we could reach agreement on this issue. It was an inauspicious start to our meeting. During the course of the meeting the Leader of the Opposition said, "I hope we do not have the same nonsense occurring as occurred in debate on the euthanasia issue." Debate on the euthanasia issue was supposed to be non-political but the Premier changed tack halfway through discussions. We received an assurance from the Minister for Police that that was not the case - I have with me my notes of the meeting. We were assured that a national and bipartisan approach would be taken and would prevail until the meeting of police Ministers next Friday.

I am not sure whether in true Labor style the Minister for Police was kneecapped after our meeting. I do not know where the truth lies. Within about 48 hours after our meeting all that was said at that meeting counted for nothing. The Leader of the Opposition has subsequently had an identical experience with the Premier. Yesterday's Hansard will show that the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier had a meeting and reached some agreement concerning draft legislation. People in the Premier's office who, no doubt, have the carriage of the Machin and Downy matters, are putting in place damage control at the Independent Commission Against Corruption in the same way as Nixon's plumbers did. At some stage someone got out a red pen and changed everything. Games such as this can be fun, political and nice, but it is tragic when the Leader of the Opposition and I cannot receive, in good faith, undertakings from the Minister for Police. Forty-eight hours after our meeting with the Minister for Police all the undertakings that we were given no longer applied.

When members of the New South Wales Police Service conduct interviews they use video cameras. The day has arrived when we will have to take a video camera with us when we meet the Minister for Police. In light of the nonsense that is occurring at the moment, which passes for bipartisan public interest discussions, in future we will have to take a videotape record of everything that is said. The Premier is offside with the other States, the Opposition, the Coalition for Gun Control and, I suspect, a large section of his backbench in the way he is handling this issue. He is also offside with the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. I refer honourable members to Mr Beazley's speech in the House of Representatives on 30 April 1996. His remarks are very similar to what was said to the Leader of the Opposition and to me when we met with the Minister for Police. It would be appropriate for Mr Beazley and the police Minister to confer on a joint approach to the issue.

It is a tragedy that the police Minister and the Premier are now in a position of fundamental disagreement with Mr Beazley. They are burning up their goodwill with the Opposition in relation to achieving a bipartisan approach in the public interest. They are also offside with the Coalition for Gun Control and everybody else taking the issue seriously. The bill may have been a one-day wonder in the Daily Telegraph but that newspaper might look at what Mr Chapman is saying today. I think that down the track there will be reconsideration of this matter.

Yesterday was an eventful day in the Legislative Council. It is not every day that the Treasurer orders a cappuccino out on the footpath of Macquarie Street. In a way, the Opposition is grateful to the Treasurer for managing to draw away some of the totally unjustified media coverage that the Premier received about the bill yesterday. Page 36 of the Hansard proof shows that the Legislative Council adjourned at 5.47 p.m. until Tuesday, 14 May 1996, at 2.30 p.m. Is the Government serious? Ministers in the upper House had been instructed to adjourn the Legislative Council until Tuesday week - five days after the police Ministers conference - and in the lower House the Premier was posturing around like a demented hyena saying, "This matter is very serious. It is of the utmost importance. The Parliament must deal with this matter right now." What a farce!

While the Premier was saying in this Chamber that this is an urgent and nationally important matter, steps had been taken in the upper House to ensure that the bill will not be passed by the Parliament in time for the critical meeting next Friday. What sort of a low joke is that? Members can draw no conclusion about these events other than that the exercise was a complete and utter
Page 796
stunt. Clause 3(1)(a) of the bill refers to the sale, transfer and disposal of firearms. The Government's record in this respect is a disgrace. On 18 April in this Chamber the police Minister stated in relation to providing police with new guns - which we support - that the Government was considering trading in 13,000 hand guns. I would not want the incompetence of the Carr Government in the handling of the disposal of police firearms to be an excuse to pass this legislation. The challenge for the Government is to do better.

In my letterbox at home last night I found a notice from the Police Service referring to the guns and knives amnesty. The Government received just over 5,000 firearms from the gun amnesty but it wanted to put 13,000 hand guns back on the market. It was not until I moved to raise the matter urgently a couple of days ago that the police Minister hurriedly issued a press release saying that the hand guns would be melted down, as the Opposition had been suggesting for three weeks. That is the real record of the Government on handling gun-related issues. The Premier talked up a gun amnesty and then contemplated putting back on the market, from police sources, three times as many guns as were handed in. That is an absolute farce.

An even bigger farce is this bill. Yesterday the Premier referred to the ease with which someone could buy a machine gun in Queensland. It is astonishing that the Premier should talk about the Queensland example when such action is made possible under 1990 Labor Party legislation in Queensland. That example was given in this House by Australian Labor Party fellow traveller Bob Carr. It was Goss legislation and it had Australian Labor Party fingerprints all over it. This shows how much the Premier understands about the legislation. The bill is a farce. It cannot be passed by the Parliament because the upper House was specifically adjourned yesterday to avoid that happening. The Coalition for Gun Control, the Opposition and all right-thinking people condemn the stunt that was pulled yesterday.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [10.45]: I commence my speech by complying with the request from a constituent from Millers Point who asked that I, as the member for Port Jackson, convey to the people of Port Arthur from the constituents of Port Jackson our sincere condolences in relation to the tragic events over the weekend. I commend both the Premier and the Minister for Police for their courageous and intelligent approach to achieving a bipartisan solution to the problem. I have every confidence that both men have made every attempt to achieve a bipartisan approach with the Opposition in New South Wales.

Mr Phillips: What a joke!

Ms NORI: Yes, you are a joke, and your side of politics is showing itself to be a joke on this issue. I find it depressing that, given the events of Sunday, there is not a higher calling in this Chamber to achieve a result that I hope will prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy. It is a great shame. I cannot believe that the coalition cannot put the greater good of the community ahead of its narrow political interest. From listening to the debate and observing the Opposition during question time in the last day or so I am inclined to believe that the Leader of the Opposition may be genuine in seeking a cooperative approach. It is only an inclination. But after observing the behaviour and body language of the Leader of the National Party at question time yesterday I have no doubt that he is undertaking a most cynical, shameful, base and disgraceful exercise in this sad time. Why is he being silent? Why can he not be pinned down? Is he the one who behind the scenes is vetoing anything that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do? I do not know.

The behaviour of the Opposition in this matter leaves a great deal to be desired. The Leader of the Opposition is a hypocrite. He declared his support for a bipartisan approach simply to get the good headline. The Opposition is with the Government all the way - all the way to the second-last ditch. No-one would want to be in the trenches with Opposition members. The Leader of the Opposition has been exposed as being weak, embarrassed and devious. He made a pathetic attempt yesterday to explain why the Opposition would not support the bill and why he believed that it was wrong. The behaviour of Opposition members is bringing the Parliament and politicians in Australia into grave disrepute. Although they did not think this was the perfect way to go, and gave their reasons for that belief, they should have said that in the interests of solidarity and to put forward a united approach, they would back the Government.

Instead of adopting that approach, the Opposition put up the most spineless argument. They are a bunch of do-nothing politicians. The argument of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was that the bill is premature. One must ask the obvious question: how many more dead bodies does it take, how many more victims, injuries and deaths must there be before the Opposition will take some action? The Leader of the Opposition also argued that the bill should be deferred until after next week's police Ministers conference. At best that is naive, and at worst it is hypocritical. One cannot escape the observation that perhaps the Opposition is trying to undermine the police Ministers conference. The New South Wales Government has introduced this bill to put pressure on the recalcitrant States that will be represented at that conference. That is a legitimate tactic. As politicians Opposition members should understand that at this type of conference one applies maximum pressure up front in the knowledge that not everyone will give his support. Obviously pressure will have to be applied to Queensland's National Party regime.

Opposition members have argued that the 1990 legislation introduced by former Premier Wayne Goss may have led to the situation that was alluded
Page 797
to by the Premier. I am not sure whether that is so, but if it is and the Queensland legislation needs to be reformed, so be it. That was introduced in 1990 and this is 1996. I do not give a damn who has done what in the past: let bygones be bygones and get on with what must be done now, rather than attempt to resurrect ancient history and score political points. If Goss did the wrong thing in 1990, he has got to wear it. The honourable member for South Coast, who is attempting to interject, was not a member of this House in 1988 when his colleagues did the wrong thing. Mr Barrie Unsworth is one person who can sleep easy.

Mr Smith: This is 1996.

Ms NORI: Yes it is. The honourable member for Bega is a genius. If Opposition members had simply said that passing this legislation was not the best strategy, we could have had a sensible debate. I believe this is the right strategy, because it is important to show leadership. By setting a strong example New South Wales will apply pressure to the other States. That is the right tactic to adopt in the lead-up to this conference. The behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition is undermining and belittling this process. I wonder what threat the Leader of the National Party has made. What have the Nats threatened to do? The Government of New South Wales, the Federal Government, the community and indeed the media are all trying to use this tragedy in a positive way, as an impetus for a bipartisan approach. The time has come to strike a blow in favour of protecting the community. Why does the Opposition baulk? I ask representatives of the media not to let the Opposition get away with this, to look beyond the rhetoric and see the inconsistency. Why has the Leader of the National Party been silent on this issue? The media should find out what he is doing and thinking, as if it is not obvious, and expose once and for all the hypocrisy of the coalition.

The Leader of the National Party hopes that the national approach to gun law will break down and that it will be left to a State Labor Government to show courage and leadership. That is exactly what the National Party wants. Its strategy is to try to win votes in the bush. That is pathetic! I take this opportunity to put on the public record what I told the Sun-Herald by telephone yesterday. Though I understand that the media wants to survey members of Parliament, those so-called easy "yes or no" surveys do not necessarily promote the cause that they are intended to promote. For example, I answered the three questions posed by the Sun-Herald in its survey with a yes. When I rang I said that I was not happy about answering yes to the third question - about storing guns in a vault in a secure place in the city - because that has some obvious drawbacks. The question did not allow me to qualify my concerns.

The danger would be that the press could report that any politician who tried to qualify the answers and make an intelligent contribution had given less than full support for a particular issue. I made it clear that I had responded yes to the three questions, but I did not appreciate having this complex issue reduced to a yes or no choice. I made it clear to the Sun-Herald that if this was Ireland or a place with a stormy political background I would not have answered yes. I would not want a lot of guns to be stored in one place that could be vulnerable to attack.

Mr Ellis: I agree 100 per cent.

Ms NORI: That is a worry; the honourable member for South Coast is agreeing with me. What have I done? It is not surprising that I support national uniform gun laws. There must be solidarity on this issue, and the Labor Party understands all about solidarity; it is consistent with my personal view that there should be compulsory unionism and closed shops. Honourable members know what happens when people scab. The Labor Party is showing leadership on this issue by legislating for uniform national gun laws. It is telling the people of Australia that we must attack this issue together. The Government of New South Wales is asking the waverers to follow its lead. The agenda at next Friday's conference must be set by the determined, not by the cynical or the spineless. Everyone is aware of the weakness of the State by State approach. How can a State government legislate to control the importation of weapons? That matter is clearly one for the Federal Government. [Extension of time agreed to.]

If Australia takes the State-by-State approach, New South Wales might well be stymied and find itself being dictated to by the weakest State, the State most unwilling to take a tough stand. Why should New South Wales suffer because of the National Party Government in Queensland? I support the approach the Government is taking. It is the best way to put pressure on those who will attend the conference next week. If the conference fails and the Federal Government and the Prime Minister go to water, or for whatever reason it is not possible to get decent uniform gun control in Australia, the bill gives us an out: it provides that at any time the ceding of the powers to the Federal Government can be revoked. The bill covers that possibility. New South Wales is willing to give up the relevant powers and some of its authority in the greater interest of Australia and Australians, because the Labor Party believes that to be in the best interest of the State that it now governs. But should that process fail, the bill provides a mechanism for the State to implement its own laws.

That should allay the fears of the Opposition and its concern that the bill will not achieve anything. At the end of the day, if it goes wrong in Canberra, we can come back and deal with it. I am concerned that Opposition members do not understand that. It seems to me that all they want to do is sabotage the conference and minimise its chances of succeeding. Opposition members hide behind that claim and say that the conference will
Page 798
not work; but their day will come. If they are right and the national conference fails - I do not agree that it will fail because of this bill; that idea is hopeless - or if the Prime Minister goes to water, and if the Liberals and Nationals in Canberra go to water, then, as the Premier made clear yesterday, this State will proceed on its own. If that does happen what will the members of the Opposition do then? They will not be able to hide behind the bill; they will not be able to hide behind their cynicism; and they will not be able to hide behind the Leader of the National Party.

Mr Chappell: We will deal with all the issues.

Ms NORI: Yes, I know what the honourable member wants: he wants gun control in New South Wales to be perceived as something emanating from the Government. The Opposition members could then hide behind it and go around the bush before the next election and win votes. That is the bottom line: dead bodies for votes. You make me sick. I do not want to see a United States-style society, where somewhere down the track people who are opposed to guns find themselves wanting to buy a gun because everyone else has one. I do not want to see that spin-off, chain effect. Guns beget guns. I have no problem with people, such as farmers, owning a gun for legitimate reasons. I have absolutely no argument with people in the bush owning guns, but I can think of few good reasons why someone in the city might need a gun.

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

Ms NORI: I feel uncomfortable with people who have no good reason for owning a gun but seem to need one to prop up their egos. It is almost an exclusively male trait and comes close to being a fairly sick, psycho-sexual response. What I am about to say is a personal view, and I stress that. People applying for a gun licence should have good and cogent reasons. They ought to be able to demonstrate fit and proper character and that they have a psychological profile that makes them suitable people to own a gun. Military personnel are tested as to their psychological profile and it is comforting to know that international pilots have to go through the most strenuous psychological tests to make sure that they have the right personality to fly a plane. I see no reason that that should not apply to people who apply to possess a dangerous weapon.

This debate highlights another problem that society has been facing. I want to stick up for the rights of the community. Sometimes we go too far in saying that the individual has a right; sometimes that right overrides the greater good of the community. I do not accept the line that it is everyone's right to own a gun. It is not a right; it is a privilege if one meets the standards and really needs to own a gun. A gun is not a toy. The greater good of society dictates that we have to look at community needs. There is an assumption that if we protect individual rights, somehow the community as a whole is protected. Unfortunately it is not like synergy - synergy being greater than the sum of its parts. The community is being let down. The interests of the community are sometimes greater than the sum of its parts.

We have to strike a blow for the interests of the community. We are individuals and we have individual rights, but we are also a community that has its own dynamics and its own needs. I feel so strongly about this that I have to say that sometimes the community has to come first. I am concerned that as a consequence of these unfortunate and tragic incidents, a copy-cat element might creep in. So we have to strike now. I have a long-held fear that as society becomes more complex, people become more alienated. I am not a religious person, but I can see how a decline in religion without a concomitant rise in a secular moral code, coupled with a sense of powerlessness, is leading to more disconnectedness. People no longer have a sense that they belong to a community. My understanding of my cursory reading on the nature of mass murderers is that they have an incredible sense of not belonging, of feeling no sense of responsibility toward the community. They are very alienated, disconnected individuals. I am terrified that as society becomes more complex we will see more of this bizarre behaviour in response to people feeling alienated. Having said that we need tight gun control, I also make the plea that we need to look at the psychological aspects of the problem as well.

Mr Chappell: You are 100 per cent right.

Ms NORI: Absolutely. Gun control is necessary but it is not the total answer. It is a mechanistic approach to the problem, but we have to look at the broader issue. I cannot stress this any further, other than to repeat that on the question of gun ownership it is important that governments - and I am proud to be part of a government that is doing this - stand up for the principle that the right of the community is more important than the right of the individual to hold a gun. I have a personal view about the need to ensure that gun owners are fit and proper people. My personal view is that gun ownership should be subject to a character test-psychological clearance. I stress that I recognise that there are people for whom ownership of a gun is valid, legitimate and necessary. Surely, as decent human beings - and I hope all honourable members are that - we can come together and find a solution to this problem. That is why I ask the coalition to work together on this issue. It is too important not to. Not only is the issue itself important, but if we get it right on this we may well set an important pattern, an important example, for other related issues, and once again reassert the right of the community to be protected. [Time expired.]

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [11.05]: After the devastating tragedy of Port Arthur it comes as no surprise that there are calls throughout the community for tighter uniform gun
Page 799
controls. I feel that as much as anyone, short of the immediate family of those impacted by this dreadful tragedy. I knew Jim Pollard, whose photograph appeared on the top left-hand corner of the Sydney Morning Herald last Wednesday. I knew Jim very well; he lived about three houses from me. I used to get a lift to work with him. We socialised; he was a good bloke. He retired from Armidale several years ago and moved to the coast. He was one of the three who were shot in the car at the toll booth. So I feel this tragedy as much as many people throughout Australia. Everyone in Australia has been touched. It is a watershed event, and it is a further imperative on all of us as legislators to grapple, again, with the issues and to do our best to make sure that we introduce effective, workable gun controls appropriate to this country and appropriate to our culture. We have to protect the community, yet still protect the rights of people who have a valid reason for owning and using appropriate firearms.

It is no surprise that Premier Carr seeks opportunistically to exploit the situation by pulling this stunt of introducing the Commonwealth Powers (Firearms) Bill. It is typical of the Premier to pull such a stunt when clearly there is a need and a willingness to grapple with those complex and controversial issues in a bipartisan way, not only within New South Wales but throughout Australia. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he initiated discussions with the Premier about common gun laws and related issues. He offered to seek a bipartisan position in good faith and in recognition of the past controversies which have attended the whole issue.

The Premier, acting hypocritically - as is his habit and style - introduced this bill entirely without notice. When he commenced his delivery in this Chamber, copies of the bill were not available for honourable members to read. This action by the Premier is supposed to attract bipartisan support! He is a hypocrite. The Premier wants to big-note himself by pre-empting the meeting of State police Ministers called by the Prime Minister for the end of next week. He is engaging in shameful political opportunism when what is desperately needed is apolitical, rational debate leading to genuine nationwide laws on firearms. That is, laws that will work. But how can the Premier expect to sustain the lie that he is taking the lead on gun control, showing the way to the rest of Australia, when he is prepared to squib the issue by flick passing the responsibility for gun control to the Commonwealth Government?

Although it may be one of the most difficult and sensitive political issues on the agenda of government in Australia, gun control is properly a matter for State governments. That is not to say that uniform gun control laws are not absolutely necessary; they are. Clearly, restrictions on access to military-style automatic and semiautomatic self-loading firearms are not feasible if different States have different laws. Now is the time for national uniformity. The Opposition entirely supports the principles outlined by the Prime Minister on control of automatic and semiautomatic firearms, and entirely supports the principle of adopting effective national registration of gun ownership. But the method by which those principles are attained requires national consideration, not the quick-fix tricksterism of this cynical opportunist Premier.

To hand over the State's gun laws and responsibilities to the Commonwealth Government is to avoid the issue - to squib it. State police services will have to enforce gun control. The States have databanks and mechanisms for managing gun ownership. They should have the laws and the fortitude to carry out proper gun controls. It is not adequate to flick pass this issue because it is politically dangerous and administratively difficult. Yet that was the basis of the message of the honourable member for Port Jackson when she said the Opposition was trying to force responsibility for this issue back onto the Labor Government so it could beat Labor at the next election. We should have bipartisan nationwide laws that can be made to work. We should have laws across Australia that are effective, enforceable, protective of the community to the highest possible level, and fair to law abiding, bona fide sporting shooters, farmers and others who have a genuine interest in firearms. But most of all we should have laws that will keep guns out of the hands of madmen, and the tightest possible controls over weapons that have no place in Australia.

It is proposed that this bill should set the lead in Australia, but it cannot be passed because upper House members have gone home. The Premier would have us believe that handing over gun control to the Commonwealth Government will stop tragedies like those that have occurred at Port Arthur, Strathfield and Hoddle Street. As the previous speaker said, gun laws are necessary but they are not the total answer; they are but one part of the solution to the problem. Yet yesterday the message was that New South Wales would take the lead by enacting legislation which would put a stop to tragedies like that which occurred in Port Arthur. The message delivered in this Chamber yesterday by the Premier was a joke, a farce and a lie. Uniform gun laws are necessary, and the Opposition will see that they are adopted in Australia.

The appropriate mechanism for that is the meeting of police Ministers in Canberra next week, which will specify benchmarks and establish a platform from which the States can enact legislation for their administration of gun laws. If the States and politicians around Australia, together with the community and the media, have the spirit of the time - as I am sure they have - effective laws can be enacted. The understanding of the management of this issue is effectively -

Mr McBride: Put it on the record.

Mr CHAPPELL: I am putting it on the record, you goose. You will have your say later
Page 800
on. At the State level we need to develop appropriate mechanisms to license firearm owners and shooters; regulations that will work. Clearly, the present laws do not work. A relatively small proportion of gun owners and users in New South Wales are licensed. That has to be fixed, and it can be fixed. It is the responsibility of this State, in a bipartisan way, to fix it. It is appropriate to introduce laws and regulations, and to enforce them. The appropriate time for all the States to do this urgently but rationally is after next Friday, after the Prime Minister and the State police Ministers have laid down national benchmarks for the registration of gun ownership and a ban on automatic and semiautomatic firearms. As legislators, we should read all the editorials, and I refer members to the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph.

Mr McBride: Are you going to vote for this bill or not?

Mr CHAPPELL: Be quiet. You will get your go later on.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance will have an opportunity to speak in the debate at the appropriate time.

Mr CHAPPELL: Honourable members should read the editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald, which poses the question of whether Carr's proposal is the way to go. The Coalition for Gun Control -

Mr McBride: Haven't you got the guts to answer the question? How are you going to vote?

Mr CHAPPELL: I will answer the question.

Mr McBride: Good. When?

Mr CHAPPELL: Be quiet.

Mr McBride: When are you going to answer it?

Mr CHAPPELL: Mr Deputy-Speaker, will you shut him up.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for The Entrance will cease interjecting.

Mr CHAPPELL: The Coalition for Gun Control has described Carr's proposals as buck-passing. The Newcastle Herald states:

No consideration had been given to what might happen if other States did not want to hand over their powers in the same way.

That is the issue that we are grappling with. The bill does not provide for that; it assumes. The State Labor caucus approved the bill. But the Newcastle Herald continues:

At Tuesdays ALP Caucus meeting, Mr Gaudry was one of several Left backbenchers who spoke for a motion for special NSW legislation to have all firearms registered.

The motion was defeated after the Minister for Police, Mr Whelan, said it was `politically unachievable' and would leave Labor vulnerable to a National Party-led backlash.

Mr Whelan's stance was supported by Mr Stan Neilly, MLA Cessnock, who lost his seat in 1988 amid anger in rural areas over the Unsworth Government's proposed gun laws.

People who are genuinely concerned about this issue, including the Coalition for Gun Control, are questioning whether the proposal of the Premier and the Government is the right approach. We are united on what we want to achieve. We are querying whether the way the Government is proposing to go is the right way. We say no, that this is a Carr stunt, a trick. It is not going to achieve a single thing.

Mr McBride: You are going to vote against it, are you?

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands address his remarks through the Chair and ignore the interjections.

Mr CHAPPELL: Bernard Lagan states in today's Sydney Morning Herald:

Mr Carr's action was also strongly criticised by the main anti-gun lobby group, the Coalition for Gun Control . . .

Genuine people who have the same concerns as those expressed by honourable members are saying this proposal will not work. We clearly and actively support the principles outlined by the Prime Minister on effective national registration of gun ownership, and on automatic and semiautomatic weapons. We believe that the fastest, most effective means of achieving uniform gun laws is for every parliament in Australia to introduce template legislation. We are not the only people saying that; many responsible people are saying it. That is what this debate is about. We should have a rational debate and we in this Parliament should fulfil our responsibility. We should do the job that we have to do and not become involved in the Premier's political tricksterism of trying to do a hospital pass off to Canberra. We should not say, "If they can sort it out we will not have the worry any longer", because we will have the worry; we will continue to have the worry in this State because this approach will not fix the problem.

One of the issues to be addressed is identification of the nut cases and others in society who should never have access to a firearm. This legislation will not deal with that issue, and it will not deal with the classifications and capacities of differe