Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 23 May 1996, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.


Debate resumed from 2 May.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [9.00]: The Government opposes the bill because of information it has received that the proposed changes are contrary to the wishes of the emergency workers it is claimed it will protect. The Government proposes to develop alternative legislation to increase the protection afforded to emergency workers but to do so in a way that has the full support of those workers. The honourable member for Eastwood in the course of his second reading speech referred to the incident at Villawood that prompted the preparation of the bill. The incident was one that understandably concerned all law-abiding citizens of this State, and it called for an appropriate response.

It is regrettable that on occasions honourable members of this House respond inappropriately. The honourable member for Eastwood saw fit to issue a press release within four days of the Villawood incident announcing that his top priority for the new year would be to introduce tough new legislation to crack down on louts who attack firemen. The tough new legislation has now taken form and deems it fit to introduce 10-year maximum gaol terms for offences of common assault on emergency service workers. It is unfortunate indeed that the honourable member did not take the care to consult properly with the workers in question before he embarked on his political point-scoring exercise. If he had made inquiries he would have discovered that section 35 of the Fire Brigades Act 1989 already affords protection to Fire Brigades officers but that there is no record of a penalty ever being imposed under that section. The honourable member would have learnt that New South Wales Fire Brigades can perceive no practical benefit in an increase in the penalties provided under that section and is most concerned that further attention to the Villawood incident could stimulate imitative behaviour. The honourable member would have learnt, in addition, that New South Wales Fire Brigades and, indeed, the Ambulance Service of New South Wales have followed a deliberate policy of avoiding identification with police and law enforcement officers. He would not then have sensationally announced his plan to associate them with police and prison officers within the terms of his proposed tough new section 58. The management and the union of the Fire Brigades do not agree on many things but they do agree on this issue.

It is the view of the Government that improvements are needed to the existing protections afforded to emergency workers, and it intends to develop proposals that are more in line with the wishes of the workers. Legislation will be brought before this House as soon as necessary consultation can be completed. It appears that the most appropriate way to proceed, given the realities voiced by the Fire Brigades and the Ambulance Service, is to provide for the protection of emergency workers within the terms of their own legislation. Penalty schemes within such legislation will be rationalised where current anomalies and inadequacies exist. In relation to the 10-year maximum penalty proposed by the honourable member for Eastwood, it is to be noted initially that the five-year maximum penalty for which section 58 provides is itself an increase on the former two-year maximum penalty for which the section provided prior to 1988. The five-year penalty is thus already an enlarged penalty introduced to account for the inherently aggravated nature of assaults upon law enforcement personnel. To increase the penalty further would, in reality, be to create a disproportionately high penalty for an offence of assault simpliciter.

It is essential to remember that the Crimes Act contains comprehensive provisions to deal with offences of violence that occasion injury. It is those provisions that quite properly have been used to charge the young man accused in relation to the Villawood incident and that should continue to be used for serious assaults on emergency services personnel. Section 58 was primarily designed to deal with offences of assault simpliciter. The necessity for ensuring that disproportionate penalties are not introduced into the Crimes Act takes on even greater significance in light of the work that the New South Wales Law Reform Commission undertook on that issue. The commission's recently released discussion paper No. 33 on sentencing draws attention to the existence of statutory sentencing disparities and confirms the commission's intention to devote the third phase of its reference to investigating such anomalies.

It would be particularly inappropriate at this time to introduce the 10-year penalty proposed by the honourable member for Eastwood under section 58, as the sentence would be significantly divergent from established maximum penalties. It is unfortunately quite apparent that the honourable member for Eastwood in his attempt to grab a
Page 1451
headline has thrown together a bill without giving due consideration to the important issues to which it gives rise. The Government is very much committed to addressing these issues sensibly rather than hastily and to introducing more appropriate legislation at an early date.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [9.05]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Emergency Workers) Bill introduced by the honourable member for Eastwood. It is an important piece of legislation that I had hoped that the Minister of the Crown whose duty it is to protect the interests of those within his portfolio might have supported. The Minister's contribution - which basically attacked the motivations of the honourable member for Eastwood in introducing the proposed legislation and pointed to the failure of existing legislation to protect emergency service workers who are confronted with incidents - did nothing to advance the debate. It was yet another indictment of the Carr Labor Government's soft attitude towards the perpetrators of crime and indeed in this case of its attitude to those who the community employs to attend to the effects of crimes and other disasters in the community.

The object of the bill is to amend and extend section 58 of the Crimes Act 1900 to include emergency workers and to increase the maximum penalty for an offence under that section from five years to 10 years imprisonment. The definition of "emergency worker" under the Act will include the Commissioner of New South Wales Fire Brigades, any member of a permanent or volunteer fire brigade, any member of the Ambulance Service, any honorary ambulance officer, or an emergency officer within the meaning of the State emergency service legislation. I was interested to hear the Minister say that the proposed legislation does not have the support of those groups. Over the period that the bill has received some media attention, I have been approached by emergency services workers in my electorate who have expressed their concern to me about incidents like the Villawood incident and the apparent lack of any action by people in authority to protect them. That is why I am prepared to support this legislation and why the Minister for Emergency Services, instead of ascribing to the honourable member for Eastwood the sorts of motives that drive Carr Government Ministers, should support the bill.

The honourable member for Eastwood was properly motivated to introduce this legislation because of the disturbances that occurred at the beginning of this year in the suburb of Villawood. On one occasion the Fire Brigades were called to fight a fire but as the officers started to do so, they were attacked by a gang of juveniles. The incident was not a joke and it is not the sort of scenario that Fire Brigades officers should have to face. The Minister should take serious steps to remedy any shortcomings in the legislation. The lives of the public may be put at risk during fires. It is insane for officers to have to watch their backs when tackling fires and not be able to carry out their job with the necessary expedition. The shadow minister was made aware of similar incidents affecting Fire Brigades officers on subsequent occasions in Villawood, and I suspect that he has been advised of similar incidents elsewhere. The honourable member for Eastwood in his second reading speech referred to an incident brought to his attention by Reverend Denis Madigan, Chaplain of the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. To the credit of the honourable member he accepted that he had been unaware of the incident until he received a letter from Reverend Madigan, in which he said:

During my five years with the Service, I have been called to counsel Officers who have been physically beaten, or threatened with guns and knives.

I was interested to hear the Minister for Emergency Services say that provisions exist to protect ambulance officers and other emergency services workers from threatening situations. He said that the legislation had never been used, yet a reverend gentleman, the Chaplain of the Ambulance Service, said that over five years he had been called in on many occasions to counsel people who had been physically beaten or abused while carrying out their duties. Reverend Madigan went on to say:

Presently the Service is trialing white shirts so that we appear dissimilar to the Police with a view to move away from the traditional blue shirt for clearer identification, in case that be a contributing factor to violence.

It is appalling that members of the Ambulance Service, a service designed to save our lives, should have to forsake the traditional blue shirt because they may be mistaken for a police officer and, presumably, bashed or threatened with bashing when attending an accident. That is an indictment of our society. If the Minister does not understand the importance of that, it is an indictment of his administration and of the law and order administration of the Carr Government. Reverend Madigan continued:

You will no doubt be aware of the April 1st hoax call which resulted in Ambulance Officers being pelted with eggs and stones.

Again, that is not a happy description of the society in which we live. I support the legislation introduced by the honourable member for Eastwood, because of incidents such as those at Villawood earlier this year and for the reasons referred to by Reverend Madigan. I fully support the efforts of the honourable member to enact legislation that would double the maximum penalty for assault from five years imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment. The doubling of the penalty might make those who have engaged in such conduct in the past take note of their actions. It might also force Ministers to ensure that these issues are properly addressed and encourage senior levels of the Ambulance Service and other emergency services to seek to protect their employees as they go about their work and to take appropriate action under the existing or the proposed legislation. I support the proposed legislation; emergency workers
Page 1452
who live and work in my electorate legislation support it; all fair-minded people in the community would support it. It is an indictment of the society in which we live that the legislation is necessary.

Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [9.12]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Emergency Workers) Bill. There are thousands of volunteer emergency services workers and volunteer firefighters in the Shoalhaven area. A number who have contacted my office thought they were covered when involved in emergency services operations. Employees and volunteers who in some instances put their lives on the line on behalf of the community should be covered. The Minister for Emergency Services used the words "to consult". I consult with the people on the ground who put their lives at risk, and the last thing they would want is interference from one or two aggravated people. Emergency workers who give their services freely to the community or are paid for their work must be protected by legislation. Honourable members should note the letter from Reverend Denis Madigan, who for many years has counselled officers of the Ambulance Service, some of whom have been attacked by people while helping people injured in car accidents and other emergencies. I support the passage of the bill so that law-breakers will face an increase in the maximum penalty from five years imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment. So far no-one has been gaoled under the existing legislation. Hundreds of thousands of people in Australia give up their free time on a voluntary basis to help the community, and their families work around their absences. We need to look after them.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.15], in reply: I am extremely disappointed with the Government's attitude to the bill. All the feedback I have received from numerous members of the Opposition, including the two who have spoken, shows that many rank and file police, ambulance officers, and emergency services workers support the bill. They are extremely concerned about their safety. I am astonished by the comments of the Minister for Emergency Services. The better part of six months has elapsed since the Villawood incident, but it has taken an Opposition private member's bill to stir the Government to do something. Finally the Minister for Emergency Services has stirred himself sufficiently to review the legislation. Obviously the Government should have done that immediately after Villawood incident. I am sure that it could, if it got its act together, come up with some sensible amendments to the law. In the Minister's response to my second reading speech he recognised that amendments are necessary. At least this bill has achieved one thing: it has stirred the Minister for Emergency Services to follow through on his duty to support the people who work for him and through him on behalf of the Parliament and the State.

I remain utterly convinced that this bill is appropriate. As other speakers have mentioned, I took time in my second reading speech to mention the letter from Reverend Denis Madigan, whose involvement in community issues, as well as his work as the ambulance chaplain, make him well aware of the needs of emergency services workers. Reverend Madigan in his letter, which is quoted at page 231 of Hansard on 18 April, indicates that police, fire and ambulance officers are included in his concerns. His extensive contacts with emergency workers have left him in absolutely no doubt that they support this bill. The letter is doubly significant because, far from talking to union representatives, Reverend Madigan has obviously spoken to people suffering stress who have been in positions of peril. Reverend Madigan would know, as much as anyone else, about the real needs of people who are suffering from stress arising from the civil commotion, disturbance or physical threats that this bill deals with.

The Minister for Police is now in the Chamber. I am astonished that I am speaking in reply and he has not stirred himself to say a word on behalf of the police. A major thrust of the bill is to double the penalties for attacks on police. The Minister's failure to speak in the debate suggests to me that the Government is not serious about attacks on police or other emergency service workers. The Government, acting on behalf of the people, does not care for those uniformed people in its charge. The Opposition will divide the House on this important bill that will provide further protection of all police and emergency service workers. It is extremely serious to attack emergency workers and other workers, and the Opposition believes that the appropriate penalty lies in the Crimes Act. It is astonishing to suggest that consolidating the offences in the Crimes Act will put other emergency service workers at greater peril. If the bill is passed the consolidation of the offences will give a clear indication to all who might cause affray against police and emergency service workers that the Parliament and the courts will not tolerate it; it will be dealt with as an extremely serious criminal matter. That is the underlying message in the bill.

As I said, it is a disgrace that the Minister for Police has not spoken on the bill. The Opposition will persevere with the bill to the extent of calling for a division on the second reading. Should the bill be defeated today, as I expect it will in light of what the Minister has said, I hope at the very least that it acts as a catalyst to get a lazy government off its collective backside to act on a matter that has not been acted on for six months. Finally, there is a little stirring in the brain of the Minister for Emergency Services because the Opposition has introduced a bill to push the Government along. Six months on from what occurred at Villawood the Government has not taken action. Even after the Opposition introduced the bill the Government does not have the good grace, energy or commitment to suggest any constructive amendments. It has made the usual, nonsensical, block-all response, "We will do it in our own way; we will do it in our own time". If there is another Villawood in a couple of
Page 1453
weeks, the Government will say, "What the hell! We are doing it in our way in our time. We are working on Bob Carr time", which means working on the laziest, most slothful time that has been seen in this Parliament for years. I commend the bill.

Pursuant to standing orders division deferred.


Debate resumed from 2 May.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [9.23]: Given that this weekend five State by-elections will be held, I understand the intention of the honourable member for Manly in putting forward the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Terms of Office) Bill. The by-elections follow resignations of Opposition members - the former member for Strathfield, now the Federal member for Lowe; the former member for Goulburn, now the Federal member for Macarthur and finance Minister in the new Federal coalition Government; the former member for Clarence, now the Federal member for Page; and the former member for Pittwater and the former member for Orange, who have found new careers in other fields.

Five resignations in a six-month period is unusual and perhaps an aberration but it is part of the present political system. The honourable member for Manly referred in his second reading speech to the status of politicians in the community. He claimed that politicians are held in low regard in society. In his second reading speech he used the words "cut and run for personal gain" to describe the resignations from the State Parliament to contest Federal seats or to go on to other careers and claimed that such actions devalue politicians. I reject this notion outright. Former members have not left the Parliament for personal gain. He implied that members seek election not for noble intent but only to serve personal goals. I have been a member of Parliament for four years, and I formed the view that all the members who resigned had good intentions. Though on some occasions I disagree strongly with individual members, notwithstanding the fact that they try to irritate me -

Mr Jeffery: Never! Your political judgment is not too good.

Mr McBRIDE: On occasions the honourable member for Oxley tries to provoke me by masticating in the Chamber. He sits there and continues to masticate in front of me. Notwithstanding that provocation, I still regard the honourable member for Oxley as a committed member serving his electorate in the democratic process that exists in this country. On many occasions I have had strong disagreements with honourable members from the other side of the Chamber, but I have discovered from that disagreement that they hold strong personal views and have a strong commitment to them and to their philosophy of life. They also have a strong commitment to their electorate and the service of it. One of the members who resigned is a former Premier of this State, John Fahey. His elevation to the Federal ministry in the first Howard Government is recognition of this. Implying that John Fahey has cut and run for personal gain is not just a personal slur on him; it is a slur on all politicians who have served in this Chamber.

Dr Macdonald: You do not believe that.

Mr McBRIDE: The honourable member for Manly implies that I am not sincere in saying that about John Fahey. I built up a good, strong, personal rapport with the former Premier. Many times we spoke about issues that affected the State and about our personal life. It is arrant nonsense to imply that John Fahey was not fair dinkum, that he just cut and ran and that he was in Parliament just for personal gain. Anyone who heard the last speech in the State Parliament of the former member for Strathfield, Mr Zammit, would realise that he had a genuine commitment to his electorate and ethnic communities throughout Australia.

Dr Macdonald: What about Longley?

Mr McBRIDE: The former member for Pittwater, Jim Longley, was a person of outstanding personal and political integrity. I dealt with Jim Longley on many occasions on a number of issues. No-one could seriously question his integrity. Would the honourable member for Manly like to name any other members?

Dr Macdonald: Ted Mack.

Mr McBRIDE: Ted Mack? The former member for Orange, the Hon. Garry West, is another member who served with distinction in this Chamber over two decades. His parting speech in this Chamber showed his sincerity and commitment to the political system in Australia. No-one could doubt his commitment to his electorate during the time he served and represented the National Party in this Parliament. The honourable member for Manly said he introduced the bill because five members had resigned for personal gain, or so he suggested. That is an insult to those individuals and an insult to all serving members of this Parliament. The bill seeks to impose on members of the Legislative Assembly who resign before the expiry of their term of office the cost of resulting by-elections. However, certain exemptions would be made for resignations due to the ill health or physical or mental incapacity of the retiring member or of a close relative or other person who requires the full-time care of the member.

Members wishing to establish exemption would have to furnish with the letter of resignation a written statement, verified by statutory declaration, setting out the reasons for resignation, and a written
Page 1454
medical certificate signed by two medical practitioners acceptable to the Speaker, certifying the medical aspects of the statement. That requirement is an invasion of privacy of members and their families. All those in public life are subject to public scrutiny, and members of Parliament are available 24 hours a day to their constituents, whether they are in a shopping centre, a bank or a church. All aspects of their lives are made public. I am sure the honourable member for Manly would be recognised anywhere in his electorate and if he visited a club or a hotel his actions would be observed by members of the community. This bill would result in the private lives of members being public. An example of this is the admission to hospital of the President of the United States of America. The issue that will be covered by Cable News Network for the next 48 hours, or until he leaves hospital, will be his state of health.

Mr O'Farrell: A liver spot watch.

Mr McBRIDE: Yes, a liver spot watch. Under the provisions of the bill the private lives of members of Parliament would become part of the public record. If the resignation related to a family member - for example if a spouse or family member had a mental health problem - that would also become part of the public record. It is beyond the pale to subject members of Parliament to that sort of requirement, which is not imposed on any other section of the community. The bill would remove the democratic right of members to leave one Parliament to join another. If members of this Parliament chose to resign to contest a Federal election, which is the right of every member of the community, they would be forced to pay the cost of the resulting by-election. The bill imposes a financial penalty on one section of the community that is not applied to any other section of the community.

The honourable member for Manly has implied that State members of Parliament who resign to contest Federal seats do so for personal gain. They do not receive a retrenchment package or grief counselling if they are not successful. They would be down the tube financially if they had to pay the costs of by-elections and had no income. They would have no time to get used to the idea that they have no income. Those who think this is an easy life should try it. Federal members who lost their seats in the recent election received notices to quit their offices within 24 hours. They are the rules: the moment members of Parliament lose their seats they lose all entitlements. Only major newspapers or television channels would operate under such rigorous terms.

The bill may also have the effect of forcing members to remain in Parliament when they are unwilling to do so. Situations may arise in which members of Parliament feel that they cannot properly represent their electorates and want to resign. The bill would not allow them to do so. It has been claimed that there is enough deadwood in Parliament, but the bill would encourage even more deadwood. Constituents would effectively be unrepresented if local members could resign only if they produced a written statement and a statutory declaration, and if the resignation was on medical grounds. That relies on the integrity of the medical profession and, based on evidence presented to various commissions in this State, it would appear that such medical certificates are freely available.

Dr Macdonald: What is the relevance of that stupid comment?

Mr McBRIDE: The honourable member will have his turn to speak. His first contribution was very brief and, in summary, it related to the integrity of politicians. He said politicians who resign from this Chamber have no integrity. [Time expired.]

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [9.38]: I intended initially to oppose the legislation, but after listening to the honourable member for The Entrance and, regrettably, finding that I agree with so much of what he said, perhaps I should re-examine my position because clearly I got it wrong. At first I thought the bill was commendable and that the honourable member for Manly had come up with something that deserved serious consideration. There is disquiet in the community about by-elections, and in most by-elections that disquiet is reflected. The bill demonstrates a willingness to scrutinise the democratic processes, which all members of this Chamber should do at all times. But, regrettably, it does not stand up to scrutiny. It smacks of opportunism, it is fathered by hypocrisy and it is born of envy. The second reading speech stated:

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.

I said the bill smacks of opportunism, and I base that statement on the fact that next Saturday five by-elections will be held in New South Wales, and in each of those by-elections Labor will be soundly trounced. There is community disquiet about the by-elections, and the honourable member for Manly obviously saw an opportunity for a quick media grab. He rushed in with legislation to get the odd headline, not only in the Manly Daily but also in a couple of Sunday newspapers. The action of the honourable member for Manly endorses Labor's plan to highlight the cost of the by-elections.

Labor has been running around in each of the five electorates, talking at length about the cost to taxpayers of the by-elections - a cost that is certainly worthwhile in the interests of democracy, I should have thought. I do not believe that one can put a price on democracy. I am sure that in Burma, where democracy does not exist, most people would agree. Labor mounted a campaign about the cost of the by-elections and, once again, the honourable
Page 1455
member for Manly took the Labor bait hook, line and sinker. The speech of the honourable member for Manly reads as though he had just arrived in this place. One might have thought him newly-elected in 1995. One has to ask: where was the high-minded principle that this bill is apparently based upon during the period 1991 to 1995? Nine by-elections occurred during that period. Why was there no action then?

Why was there no action when the honourable member for Manly, with two other members, ran a triumvirate of tyranny in this State? During that time they managed to get a government, a parliament and the population to agree to four-year term parliaments - which I have to say is a more significant reform of the electoral process than would be achieved by this bill. Why was it that the honourable member was able to achieve that, yet this proposal was not on the political agenda? The issue was not raised in this House, no bill was introduced and there was no discussion with the Government. Why is it that the honourable member now seeks to lecture us on this issue, as was apparent from the tone of his second reading speech? In his second reading speech the honourable member said:

Honourable members must attempt to raise the status of politics and politicians in this disillusioned community.

He went on to say:

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.

Again I ask: what did the honourable member for Manly do when, together with the honourable member for Bligh and the former member for South Coast, he virtually ran this House? Where was the action then? If the principle is good today, why was it not applicable during the period 1991 to 1995? The answer is that this is a cheap media grab in the lead-up to by-elections, in the hope that the honourable member can say, "A pox on both Labor and Liberal houses. Aren't the Independents great?" The record of the honourable member for Manly in the last Parliament suggests that that is not the case. I mentioned envy. The envy that has motivated the honourable member for Manly is revealed in the second sentence of his second reading speech on this bill when he said:

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.

I do not believe that the honourable member should ascribe his motives to others. Let me refer to those people who created the vacancies that led to the by-elections to be held on Saturday. Three stood for election to the Federal Parliament. Where is the personal gain in that? Three former members resigned from safe State seats that they would have had no problem retaining through many elections.

Mr Jeffery: Why would they go to a cold place such as Canberra, anyway?

Mr O'FARRELL: For some reason they desired to head off for Canberra, which as the honourable member for Oxley said is a reasonably inhospitable place, particularly at this time of the year. All of them were candidates in marginal seats. The honourable member for The Entrance said, and I agree, that being a member of Parliament, particularly in a marginal seat - as the Minister for Sport and Recreation well knows - can be pretty tough. One slip and you are out! All three former members to whom I referred contested Labor-held seats, and all were elected, I am pleased to say. They were candidates in electorates where the margins required to win ranged from a 2 per cent swing to a 6 per cent swing. I fail to understand how that can in any way be viewed as cutting for personal gain.

Paul Zammit, the former Member for Strathfield, took on the biggest challenge. He resigned a safe seat to run against a popular local Labor member and he defeated that Labor member. A former Minister in this House resigned from the safe National Party seat of Clarence - and it will remain in the hands of the National Party this Saturday - to contest the Federal seat of Page. Page was held by Labor with a smaller margin than the electorate of Lowe, by someone who was regarded as a popular local member. There was no personal gain involved. The former member for Southern Highlands, a former Premier of New South Wales, resigned from a seat that has a 9 per cent or 10 per cent margin on the electoral pendulum to contest the seat of Macarthur.

Mr Crittenden: Who will win that seat? The National Party?

Mr O'FARRELL: The party that will not win the seat of Southern Highlands is the Labor Party. I am reminded of something said by Kim Beazley senior when he was first elected to the Federal Parliament in 1949. He said that in those days Labor represented the cream of the working class. When he retired in 1977 he said, "The problem today is that the Labor Party represents the scum of the middle class". No more needs to be said. I agree with the honourable member for The Entrance that none of the three former members who contested the Federal election did so for personal gain. I also agree with him that the former member for Pittwater and the former member for Orange both had long periods in this Chamber and that both served with distinction as Ministers. Their lives were not particularly easy, as Ministers' lives are never easy - a backbencher's life is not easy in this House - and I reject the claim that they have cut and run for personal gain. If they had desired to cut and run for personal gain they were pretty thick to have waited 14 or 15 years to do so. I also make the point that as a final gesture the former member for Pittwater donated $25,000 to an environmental trust in his electorate. I look forward to the time when the honourable member for Manly will match that type of what he calls personal gain when he is rid of this place. Early retirements and resignations are not a new phenomena -

Page 1456

Dr Macdonald: Why don't you go?

Mr O'FARRELL: I appear to have hit a raw nerve; honourable members have no idea how happy that makes me feel. I asked the Parliamentary Library to provide some information on by-elections. I know that is a hard-working outfit, but it has produced the following figures. Since 1976 there has been a plethora of by-elections. During the time of that Parliament there were two; in the following Parliament there were five; in the Parliament after that there were nine; in the Parliament that commenced in 1984 there were 14; and in the first Greiner Parliament there were 11. The library informed me there were 10 in that term, but it appears to have missed the by-election for the electorate of Rockdale. In the last Parliament there were nine by-elections. Fortunately, very few of those by-elections resulted from the death of a sitting member. A large number of the by-elections were caused because members decided to retire - some to contest the Federal election, for example, the former member for Oxley who resigned on 21 February 1981 to contest the Federal seat of Lyne.

Mr Chappell: Without which we would not have Bruce.

Mr O'FARRELL: Indeed.

Mr Jeffery: Without him you would not have had his son-in-law.

Mr O'FARRELL: If Bruce Cowan had not resigned the honourable member for Oxley would not be a member of this House. On that list of resignations are people such as Sir Charles Cutler, who served New South Wales with distinction, the Wran Government was elected - and clearly there had been a generational change in politics - and he, understandably, decided to go; Sir Eric Willis, Neville Wran, Barrie Unsworth and John Fahey. After they had run the show in this State, after they had been Premiers - and whilst I might disagree with some of their policies, all of them put in the hours, all of them took the toll that comes with the job - it was not surprising that, come the swing of the electoral pendulum, they decided to leave this place. In the case of Neville Wran he decided to leave this place when he thought the time was right. They should not be held to account or be required by some mean spirited view to pay for the resultant by-election. [Extension of time agreed to.]

One cannot have hard and fast rules in this place. Despite the short-term political opportunism that the bill represents, at the end of the day this is not what the community expects of members. I also note that Ted Mack was amongst those early resignations. The honourable member for Manly, who owes so much to the Ted Mack phenomenon, would not in any way suggest that Ted Mack had cut for personal gain. For some reason the bill seeks to condemn everyone, including those by whom perhaps his own movement was fathered, and that is a sad thing. The bill is clearly flawed. As the honourable member for The Entrance directly pointed out, and as the honourable member for Manly seemed not to understand, the bill opens up a clear avenue for potential abuse of medical certificates. One can envisage the sorts of parliamentary diseases that might be written up on medical certificates: Maroubra fever, Baulkham Hills back, Manly mania or Drummoyne dementia, all of which might be regarded as suitable medical grounds for early retirement.

As the honourable member for The Entrance said, from time to time medical certificates tendered by people from a range of occupations have been abused before courts and other commissions in this State. Why would they not be abused if the honourable member for Manly is right when he states that people are cutting and running for personal gain? I reject that view. But I concede that the legislation will open up a new avenue for abuse of medical certificates. The bill does nothing to address the Terry Metherell/Richard Jones phenomenon. Both people, representing different political parties, were elected to this place; They had a contract with their electorate, a contract with their voters, to serve them in Parliament for the length of the term; and they undertook to do the things they put themselves forward for election to do. Both gentlemen resigned from their parties. In such circumstances more by-elections are needed, not fewer.

As soon as people resign from a party they ought to be turfed out. If a resignation from this place occurs, an automatic by-election should take place. If it occurs in the other House, the member should be replaced by someone from his or her own party. The bill does not address that issue. Having regard to the state of the upper House it is a far more important issue than the paltry cost of by-elections. The bill is unworkable. Who will provide the test of whether medical grounds are sufficient? Does one have to die in office to get out of this place without incurring a cost? That would be a pretty sad state of affairs. The honourable member for Manly spoke about Jeff Kennett's proposed by-election replacement scheme. In the Victorian case Jeff Kennett wants by-elections scrapped unless the seat falls within a 5 per cent margin of the pendulum. I do not favour such a scheme for reasons I will refer to later.

Mr Schipp: It is undemocratic.

Mr O'FARRELL: Indeed. That is exactly the point I was about to make. In his second reading speech the honourable member for Manly said:

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.

That is a fairly sad indictment on democracy. At the end of the day people will exercise their rights at the ballot box and will reject party candidates on
Page 1457
future occasions, as they have in the past. I should have thought that the honourable member for Manly would have understood the process that occurred in North Sydney -

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

Mr Nagle: Total rudeness on your part.

Mr O'FARRELL: Only to you. No disrespect was intended towards the Chair. A clear example of people exercising their rights at the ballot box was the defeat of John Spender by Ted Mack for the electorate of North Sydney. I should have thought that prior to Ted Mack's arrival North Sydney was equally as safe as Northcott, which proves the point that if I do not look after my electorate I can be turfed out as well. But I assure the honourable member for Manly there is little chance of that happening. The State seat of Rockdale and the Federal seats of Bass and Canberra all recorded massive swings. Lis Kirkby in another place is of the view that by-elections ought to be abolished and that members who resign should be replaced by those from the party from which the original member came. My problem with that approach is that it defeats the purpose of democracy.

For example, the last Parliament would have been condemned to a continuation of that tyranny of power exercised by the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Bligh and the former member for South Coast. As the honourable member for Oxley said a few moments ago, massive swings have occurred in by-elections both Federal and State. That represents the will of the people. In a democracy by-elections can occur and there will be swings. Governments have to accept those swings, because it is the people's will: like it or lump it! As a State director of the Liberal Party I know, and the Minister for Sport and Recreation knows, some swings occurred in the last Parliament about which I was particularly sensitive. Nevertheless, that is basically what democracy is about. The bill allegedly addresses the issue of who should pay for by-elections. The honourable member for Manly is seeking to reduce the number of by-elections and, some may say, abolish by-elections altogether.

I wonder whether the secret agenda behind the bill is to abolish the biggest by-election of all: the general election we face every four years. If the honourable member for Manly is concerned about the cost of by-elections, why does he not do something about public funding? Why does he not abolish public funding, that great rort introduced by the Labor Party to protect its side of politics? I do not support attempts to limit people's rights to be elected, to limit people's rights to serve in this place, to limit people's rights to be judged every four years by electors, and to limit people's rights as they determine it fit and proper to leave this place. There are too many disincentives for good people, for honest people, for people of integrity and experience to come into this place. The bill would impose another disincentive, and would reduce the tone of this place even further.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [9.57]: I have some concerns about the bill introduced by the honourable member for Manly. Unfortunately in this debate, as evidenced by the previous speaker, there has been vilification of the Independents that was evident so often in the Fiftieth Parliament, and that does not help one iota to address the issues of concern to the people of New South Wales. This House should be dealing with issues, not personalities. An Independent in the last Parliament, John Hatton, the former member for South Coast, was a person of conviction and great courage. He congratulated me on my maiden speech, and I would like to quote from his comments of 28 August 1991 when he stated:

I congratulate the honourable member for Wyong on his maiden speech. He shows fire and concern. I hope he takes that comment in the way it is intended. When one loses the fire in one's belly, one should move out of Parliament. That is my personal view.

It is important to note that when one does lose the fire in one's belly and the goal to do good for the people of New South Wales it is time to go, whether that is six months after a general election or six months before it. If it were six months before a general election one would probably stay around, but it is important to realise that human beings are not mechanical objects that can simply be turned on and off like a tap.

Members who do not have the fire in their bellies should give the game away, forthwith. We should all take heed of the words of John Hatton and leave this place when that occurs. I note that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour agrees with me. I make another point. The violent death of John Newman, gunned down in the driveway of his home, irrevocably changed Australian politics. That tragic incident had a major impact on my approach to the job and my thinking about the risks involved in it. Out of this Chamber the discussion at meal times often centres on families. We all know that families suffer because one of the parents or partners is involved in politics. Children of those families pay a price, at school and elsewhere.

Last year a member of this House took the unusual action of not allowing a child to walk to school. That had nothing to do with an incident like that which occurred at Port Arthur; it related to concern about the children of members of this place. Fortunately, most members will carry on, but it is the right of those who decide they have had enough to resign from this place without the threat of having to pay for a by-election. The honourable member for Manly suggested that where the resignation is due to medical grounds, a medical certificate should be provided. It is all very well to categorise reasons, such as those affecting a member or a member's family, but medical certificates will be made available for all and sundry, including the media. Though some will
Page 1458
have strong convictions about not supplying a medical certificate, they will nevertheless determine to leave this place before a general election for the sake of their families. It is the right of every member to make such a decision.

It is important to look at the issues raised by this bill and not pay regard to the trite and stupid approach displayed to the Independents in the Fiftieth Parliament. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Manly believes this bill is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales. I recognise his right to bring it on for debate even though many of us do not agree with its provisions, but we should not return to the sad days of personal abuse and vitriol that so characterised private members' days in the Fiftieth Parliament. The honourable member for Northcott interjected while the honourable member for Manly was speaking and said, "I obviously hit a raw nerve. You have no idea how happy that makes me feel." The issue does not come down to how the honourable member for Northcott feels about hitting a raw nerve; it relates to the measures in this bill and how they will impact on 99 members of this Chamber.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.06]: I oppose this bill on the basis of many arguments put by the honourable member for Wyong, the honourable member for The Entrance and the honourable member for Northcott.

Mr Schipp: And by me later.

Mr FRASER: I know that the honourable member for Armidale and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga will speak on the bill and express their objection to it. At this stage it seems that 98 members of this Chamber are not necessarily in favour of the legislation. To me the bill demonstrates the withdrawal symptoms of the honourable member for Manly caused by loss of the power that he and the other Independents had in the Fiftieth Parliament. At that time, in nine of 10 cases whatever he and his Independent colleagues wished to happen would happen. If they wished a particular issue brought before the House, or chose to undermine the impartiality of members of this House for their own purposes, that would happen - with the agreement of the Government and the Opposition.

Those agreements with the Government and the Opposition were reached on the basis that the Independents would give support to the major parties only if they signed the agreements. The lunacy was that both major parties in this House signed those agreements. So the Independents undermined the impartiality of members of the major parties. They were telling the House that they wanted certain legislation passed and if a party did not support it the Independents would break ranks and take away the power of those parties. By adopting that approach the Independents acknowledged a party system that has no standing under the Constitution.

No member of Parliament has the right to hold the rest of the Parliament and therefore the people of New South Wales to ransom. They destroyed a Premier, later claiming it was not their fault that the Premier had to resign. They marched up Macquarie Street, this gang of three renegades, and delivered a death blow to a Premier who had done a fantastic job for this State. When the media questioned them about their role in that process they said, "We had nothing to do with it. He resigned of his own accord." The pressure that those three members, acting as a party, exerted in this place was an absolute disgrace. I recall one occasion on which a bill on apprehended violence orders was being debated in this House. The honourable member for Manly spoke to two members behind the bar before putting handwritten amendments on the table of the House. Those amendments were not in the interests of this Parliament.

At the time I said to the honourable member for Ashfield, now Leader of the House, "You know these amendments are dangerous. You know they will make apprehended violence orders an absolute laughing-stock in this State." His response was, "I know, but we are not in government." The Independents played party politics to get their way. Now they adopt a different attitude. The honourable member for Manly said in his second reading speech that there is no respect for politicians and politics in this State. He said that Australian politics had left voters confused and cynical. I put it to him and to the House that the cynicism existing in this State relates to the actions of the three Independents, the former honourable member for south coast, the honourable member for Manly, and the honourable member for Bligh, in the term of the Fiftieth Parliament. It is hypocritical of the honourable member for Manly to present legislation like this in this Chamber. He remarked to me last week in a lift, "There are some hypocrites in this game." I have never seen such a hypocrite as he is. He need only look at his own actions in this place to see his hypocrisy.

In agreement with the last Government and Opposition the honourable member for Manly talked a lot about partiality in electorates. He impugned the impartiality of many members from both sides of this House by some of the legislation he proposed, but at the same time he decided that his role should be greater than that of member for Manly. The Independent member for Manly had an agenda that he intended to run statewide. He proposed legislation that affected Coffs Harbour! When he was invited to visit Coffs Harbour he spoke to only one group of people. He was invited to speak to council about a particular issue that concerned sewage outfall. Instead of lobbying for greater effluent treatment in his own electorate, he attempted to stop sewage outfall in Coffs Harbour, which boasted the best effluent treatment in the southern hemisphere. He saw it as his role to interfere in the Coffs Harbour electorate.

Dr Macdonald: You lost that one, didn't you.

Page 1459

Mr FRASER: As he walks out the honourable member for Manly says, "You lost that one." No, I did not lose it; the people of Coffs Harbour lost. The honourable member for Manly placed a charge on the people of Coffs Harbour of more than $13 million. Will he pay for it? Will his ratepayers pay for it? Or is he going to fight for better sewage treatment in his own electorate, which so far he has done nothing about? This is the man who would be king, but he has found that the power he had in the last Parliament no longer exists. He cannot blackmail the House or hold it to ransom. I am surprised that this bill does not contain the provision that he is to issue the medical certificates. He would say, "No, I am sorry, this member does not look sick enough to me. I don't think he should go. The medical certificate he has presented is not good enough. I will become the arbiter; I will become the person who issues the medical certificate."

Mr Schipp: He wants to be judge and jury.

Mr FRASER: Since he came into this place he has wanted to be judge and jury in this State, as the honourable member for Wagga Wagga said. The member for Manly does not realise that, unlike him, the majority of members in this House work hard for their electorates putting in more than 100 hours a week. Time and again the member for Manly was nominated as a member of various parliamentary committees and did not attend hearings. When he wanted to push his legislation for threatened species he would turn up at the meeting, put his pad on the table and disappear. After a four-hour meeting he would send a staff member to pick up the pad he had left earlier. He has also abstained from voting in this place on issues that he raised because he said he did not want to be judge and jury. Why did he raise the issues in the first place?

As I said earlier, the New South Wales Constitution does not specifically provide for a two-party preferred system. The two-party political system exists worldwide. The honourable member for Manly would probably prefer the Italian political system in which elections are held every other Sunday because there are so many independent members. Who pays for those elections? The people! The honourable member for Manly would obviously prefer a fully Independent Parliament. We would have 99 Independent members in this place. They would polarise into what could loosely be termed left and right wings, or could form several groups. The process of determining ministries and the vote procedure would certainly be interesting. Debates would be endless. If the suggestions of other politicians were followed, members would be required to declare pecuniary interests. For example, if a member belonged to a union, he or she would not be able to vote on industrial relations legislation; if a member owned a farm, he or she would not be able to vote on legislation concerning agriculture; and if a member owned a shop, he or she would not be able to vote on legislation concerning business taxes or other matters concerning this State.

The honourable member for Manly would like to see such a wonderful system in Australia. That type of political system would result in costly elections so often that neither Parliament nor the State could afford them. This bill is not about restoring respect to the political system as the honourable member for Manly would have the House believe. If he were to act on issues in this place with a little more accountability, respect would be restored. Honourable members who resigned recently, and in whose electorates consequent by-elections will be held, put in long and hard service in this place. The former honourable member for Orange, Garry West, put in more than 20 years in this Chamber. If his time were averaged by 100 hours a week, in addition to the ministerial duties he capably carried out, it would reveal the busy life he led. Garry West had as much right to leave this Chamber as anyone.

The bill does not allow, for example, for family illnesses or personal situations that would not allow a member to remain in this place. The bill requires that a medical certificate be produced. Who would issue the certificate? As the honourable member for Wyong asked, would debate then proceed about acceptance of that medical certificate? Would that member's personal life be debated in the public arena, which is the what happens in politics these days? This bill is basically flawed. As the honourable member for Northcott said, it is an opportunity for the honourable member for Manly to get a headline. At breakfast today another member in this place, whom I shall not name, spoke of one problem he has with the honourable member for Manly. During the HomeFund debate that member ran an issue in the media. The honourable member for Manly took offence to his comments because he considered he had led the media charge.

The stage has been reached where a dictatorship controlled by the honourable member for Manly would probably be the only way that he would like this State to run. All honourable members know that he is wise and all knowing, and that he knows what is best for the Coffs Harbour and Northcott electorates and for all the people of New South Wales. But local members are not allowed to have an opinion. He should be damned for the cost he has imposed on the people of Coffs Harbour for the sewerage scheme alone. He should not make asides that he is proud of the impost he placed on such a fast-growing area. I suggest that the honourable member for Manly looks in his own backyard and work to bring sewage treatment in his own electorate up to the same standard as in Coffs Harbour so that he could drink it rather than proposing composting toilets in his flat or backyard, as he suggested at one stage. I cannot support the bill, mainly because of the personality of the member who proposes it and his track record of denigrating politicians and the process of Parliament. I do not believe any honourable member of this House, apart from the member for Manly, has any real interest in supporting this bill.

Page 1460

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [10.18]: It is a little sad that the man is being played and not the issue. I do not believe the honourable member for Coffs Harbour meant to say that he would not support the bill because it was introduced by the honourable member for Manly. Perhaps that may have been a slip and he means that he opposes the bill. The issue must be considered, not the man. The honourable member for Northcott implied that perhaps the honourable member for Manly is wrong in proposing this legislation but nevertheless is entitled to do so. As a representative of his constituency and of the people of New South Wales he is entitled to present a bill to the House. Likewise, all honourable members are entitled to debate the issue and either accept or reject the bill. No honourable member has a right to hold up the Parliament, as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said about the honourable member for Manly. That can only occur if the Parliament permits it. If the honourable member for Manly was doing the wrong thing in the Fiftieth Parliament, he was aided and abetted by the former coalition Government, and it is a hypocrisy for the coalition Opposition to now say that he is terrible. Lorry drivers around New South Wales - 38,000 of them - are indebted to the honourable member for Manly for his assistance in saving their homes and families from disaster. He may have destroyed a Premier, but that is the nature of politics; it can happen at any time.

I refer now to the issue of handwritten amendments. It is the right of any honourable member to present amendments to the House, be they typed or handwritten. I have my views about apprehended violence orders. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said that may endanger people; that is his opinion. The honourable member for Manly, who sought to amend the legislation, also has the right to voice his opinion. I do not like being called a hypocrite or being called dishonest; I am neither. I come now to the bill. The bill seeks to impose upon honourable members who have resigned from Parliament before the expiry of their term the cost of the resulting by-election. That is the essence of the bill. Certain exceptions apply to the obligation to pay, that is, in circumstances where resignation is due to ill health or the mental or physical capacity of the retiring member or that of a close relative or other person who may require full-time care by the honourable member. That is the sum of the bill.

To be exempt a member must obtain a written statement, verified by a statutory declaration, setting out reasons for resignation, and provide medical certificates, signed by two medical practitioners, acceptable to the Speaker certifying the medical condition, all within the time limits specified, that is, 14 days and 28 days. The bill is an extreme measure and imposes a significant monetary penalty on members of the Legislative Assembly who may resign early from Parliament for legitimate reasons other than the reasons specified in the bill. This measure would impose an enormous burden and monetary penalties on honourable members and could deter many talented people who could make valuable contributions - such as the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Northcott, the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and the Minister for Gaming and Racing - from seeking to be elected to office. This would be the case, in particular, if prospective candidates were aware that they may have to fork out $150,000 to resign early from the Parliament.

The provision impinges on the rights of honourable members to privacy in regard to their medical condition or that of their family. A member's wife or dependant may be schizophrenic or mentally disturbed and for various reasons the family may wish the condition to be kept under wraps. Under this bill those matters would be raised publicly. The resignation of honourable members would be debated in the Chamber and that would infringe on their privacy.

The regime would also make it difficult for honourable members to resign in order to contest a seat in a Federal election as it would impose on those members a financial penalty to stand for election when the member concerned may or may not be successful. The former member for the Southern Highlands, the Hon. John Fahey, now the Minister for Finance in the Federal Government - and I will not talk about the time I had to add up the bill for him in a restaurant to get to the final tally - is now contributing at the Federal level. He did everything he could in this House and has now moved on to the Federal level. That movement creates the dynamics of this House. He has transposed to the Federal arena what he learned here. He did not enter the private sector; he went back into public service to make a contribution for all Australians, whether or not one agrees with his actions.

I heard the honourable member for Manly being interviewed on radio concerning the legislation, and I accept his sincerity. The honourable member for Northcott laughs. I have had many dealings with the honourable member for Manly and, though I disagree with many of his actions, he puts his heart, soul and mind into working for the benefit of his constituency and the people of New South Wales; his sincerity could not be questioned. Though he may be wrong, in a parliamentary democracy in western society one is entitled to have an opinion and be wrong. The honourable member for Northcott is entitled to his opinion and, if his opinion is right, he is entitled to have that acknowledged.

The honourable member for Manly did not cover the loopholes that may be found in this legislation. Honourable members not wishing to incur a monetary penalty for early resignation may find other ways of retiring from Parliament. For example, honourable members could render themselves liable for disqualification from the
Page 1461
House under the provisions of section 13A of the Constitution Act. I hope the honourable member for Manly examined section 13A of the Constitution Act because I will quote from it ad nauseam so that honourable members understand its import:

13A. If a Member of either House of Parliament:

(a) fails for one whole Session of the Legislative Council and Assembly to give his attendance in the House of which he is a Member, unless excused in that behalf by the permission of that House entered upon its journals;

(b) takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to any foreign prince or power or does or concurs in or adopts any act whereby he may become a subject or citizen of any foreign state or power or become entitled to the rights, privileges or immunities of a subject of any foreign state or power;

(c) becomes bankrupt or takes the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors;

(d) becomes a public defaulter; or

(e) is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or any infamous crime,

his seat as a Member of that House shall thereby become vacant.

In regard to infamous crime, the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics of the Legislative Council heard evidence from a number of eminent Queen's Counsel who had a different view about infamous crimes - anything from a drink-driving charge to a felony. Under this legislation I could deliberately be picked up for drink-driving, and because I had committed that crime the House could resolve to vacate my seat. Will it be necessary to go outside those exceptions and take those extreme steps?

This absurd situation places an enormous burden upon members of Parliament. I had a love and great respect for a former member who served more than two decades in this Parliament. Ultimately his health was destroyed because he would not resign before the general election. This bill would cover that contingency. The former member rendered a great service to the community, but he would not listen to advice and did not look after his health; he should have resigned. However, the converse is true. Honourable members could be held in this Chamber against their will. They may decide to do the minimum required of them, instead of allowing the dynamics in this House to evolve so that new members are elected to the Chamber with fresh ideas and enthusiasms; the same old mob remains for decades.

The average term for a member of this House is 6.7 years. This enables the dynamics of the Parliament to continue. Reference was made to the honourable member for Oxley and his predecessor, but I think a better example is that of the Deputy Prime Minister, The Hon. Tim Fischer. He was a member of this House and later entered Federal Parliament. Even though I disagree with his politics he is making a great contribution in the Federal arena, as did the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. When the use-by date is up, honourable members should know when to retire so that the dynamics of the House can continue. That is an expensive way of doing it. Fresh blood makes the House dynamic. The former member for Strathfield has gone. On Saturday a new member for Strathfield will be elected. I hope it will be someone dynamic. Ian Causley is now in the Federal Government, using the knowledge he gained from his contribution to the people of New South Wales as a Minister in the New South Wales coalition Government. The list goes on.

The honourable member for Wyong quoted what John Hatton, the former member for South Coast, said about fire in the belly. Once honourable members lose their fire in the belly, should they be required to remain in the House for two or three years at least until an election is held? The bill requires members to supply to the Speaker two medical certificates signed by two medical practitioners certifying the medical aspects of the statement. Will those certificates be debated? If the medical certificates are challenged by the honourable member for Manly or other members of this House, what will the House do? Will it set up a panel of medical practitioners to re-examine members of this House to see whether they are ill or whether they have the diseases they claim to have? Will members of the House be humiliated by having to undergo a medical re-examination?

If the tribunal decides that a member of this House is fit and should remain as a member of the House, will that member appeal to another tribunal and then the Supreme Court? The legislation has not been properly thought through and contains enormous dangers. It would be a great shame if members of Parliament were forced to use deceptive means to leave the House when they believed that they had reached their use-by date. It will be a great shame if the Parliament forces members of this House to stay when they want to leave. The High Court decision in Buckley and Others v Tutty, which related to rugby league, ruled that employers can seek damages for a worker's early termination but a worker cannot be forced to work for a particular employer. I cannot allow a comment made by the honourable member for Northcott to pass without comment. He said that the legislation would further lower the tone of the House. That is an insult to the House.

Mr O'Farrell: Were you in the House yesterday?

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member should realise that I have been a member of this House for eight years, and I have seen great and terrible things done here. The tone of the House reflects the tone of honourable members. The behaviour of the honourable member's colleagues yesterday was outrageous, and he was one of the leading lights in that behaviour. This House is dynamic and needs fresh blood to carry on its functions. As Churchill
Page 1462
said, parliamentary democracy is not the greatest institution on earth but, until such time as someone comes up with a fairer institution to replace it, it is the best we have got. I oppose the bill.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [10.33]: Many bills introduced in this House sound attractive at first blush and have clear populist appeal. But, like most simplistic notions that the House grapples with in their initial phases, the proposition in this bill falls far short of rational judgment. I shall pick up on some of the points made by other speakers in the debate. The honourable member for Auburn referred to the dynamics of the Parliament and, indeed, of the political process. That is one of the intangibles of the House that cannot be dealt with properly by imposing new sanctions on the relationship of members to the House and their decisions to pull the pin and change the direction of their lives, whether to another career or to another Parliament. The dynamics, the intangibles, of the Parliament are the lifeblood of the Parliament.

The bill seeks to impede the flow of that lifeblood. To that extent it falls far short of rational judgment about proper processes and the price that the community is and should be prepared to pay for dynamic parliamentary processes and representation in this State. The honourable member for Northcott referred to the opinion of the Victorian Premier that electorates held with a certain margin might not be contested and that they should simply be handed on to the next person pre-selected by the political party with the majority in the electorate. Those sorts of notions are inherently undemocratic and the House should not have anything to do with them. There is no way that we can interfere with the parliamentary processes, although it may save a few dollars here and there.

I believe that the community at large after properly reflecting on this matter would probably agree that the cost of a handful of by-elections over the life of a four-year Parliament is a small price to pay in the affairs of government in this State. When first criticising a member for deciding to resign from Parliament, many may say that a by-election will cost tens of thousands of dollars. It is almost as if they believe that the cost of the by-election will be a cost to the people in that electorate; it will not. It is part of the overall cost of running the democratic parliamentary process in this State. When the total cost of running the Parliament is borne in mind, it is a minor cost indeed.

We should not be distracted by arguments in relation to the immediate cost of a by-election in a particular set of circumstances, or whether a long-term or short-term member of Parliament has imposed the cost of the by-election on the people of their electorate and, therefore, on the taxpayers of the State by his or her own wilful decision. That argument is much too simplistic. It is populist but it falls far short of rational judgment about the reason we are members of this House. The job of a member of Parliament requires a full-on commitment. It requires total drive and dedication, objectivity and all those attributes that we try our hardest to live up to. Virtually all honourable members can ascribe to themselves a degree of sincerity, commitment, enthusiasm, fire in the belly and all those other terms that have been used in this debate. The honourable member for Manly claimed that members of Parliament are insincere to a degree and that they and the parliamentary process lack respect in the community. That is far too simplistic a judgment.

There is a high rate of turnover among members of Parliament, and that is a good thing. The average parliamentary life of a member of this House is between six and seven years. It could be claimed that that leaves the House short on experience, and in many ways it does. However, it is also part of the dynamic process that brings in fresh blood and new ideas. Such changes move the place forward, and it is not necessarily a bad thing. Some remain members of this House for inordinately long periods, 20 or 30 years. That is fine if they are pre-selected by their political party time and time again or if they stand as an Independent and are re-elected. That is their right. That is important because they carry forward the corporate knowledge and wisdom. New members may burst onto the stage for a short period, then lose their seats or decide that parliamentary life is not for them and move on to something else. That is fine as well.

Honourable members may be able get a better handle on this bill by looking to other jurisdictions outside the Parliament. One could refer to leaders who should move on when the time is right. Let us examine recent events in the Federal Parliament. The former Prime Minister had been a member of Parliament for a number of years. Having played his part in his forthright style in the affairs of this nation and having comprehensively lost the election, he decided that he had done his bit, that he had had enough, and that he was of no further value to the Federal Parliament and would in fact be an impediment. So he got out, and so he should have. If Premiers who lose elections, Opposition leaders who lose their positions, or other members of Parliament decide that they have made their contribution, that they have done their best, that they have had their say and that the time has come for them to go, it is perfectly proper for them to do so. If electing a new member of Parliament costs of a few dollars, so be it. Indeed, that adds to the system rather than detracts from it.

Dr Macdonald: That's not what people think.

Mr CHAPPELL: The honourable member for Manly claims that that is not what people think. If a person walking down the street was asked whether members of Parliament should resign mid-term, which is the import of the bill, the answer would be no. However, if people were told about
Page 1463
the processes of Parliament and about democratic representation, 99.9 per cent of the population would probably answer in a totally different way. The honourable member for Manly ought to have sat down and talked to people about the propositions contained in the bill. A four-year fixed-term Parliament has both good and bad features, but it brings with it the likelihood that more members of this House will make judgments early in their terms, in the first year or two of a Parliament, that their days in Parliament are numbered, and the fire has gone out. They may want to do other things or a Federal election may be approaching and they want to stand as candidates in that election. It is likely that there will be more by-elections. That is part of the price we pay for having a four-year fixed-term Parliament. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Members of this House must accept the reality of the process they are part of; they must accept that an occasional by-election is the price they pay for a fixed four-year Parliament.

Apart from their own health or the health of a close family member, there are all sorts of reasons why members may wish to leave the House. Those reasons may involve a matter of disgrace or a conflict of conscience. For any one of a number of reasons members of this House may suddenly find themselves out of sync with their electorate and their party; they are no longer fired up about the job they are doing or may perhaps feel let down by the system. Because the job of being a member of Parliament is so full on and demands so much commitment, drive and energy, people have all sorts of personal and emotional responses to it. Acting on those responses they may validly decide not to continue as a member of Parliament. This bill seeks to make such people sit in this Parliament as logs for another 2½ or three years because of the risk of a serious financial penalty. They will not represent their electorates well or contribute to good government in this State. They will be merely occupying space. Is that what we want? I do not believe it is.

If the propositions contained in the bill were put to the people of this State in those terms, I am sure there would be widespread, almost overwhelming support for the notion that this bill is wrong. As other speakers have said, it is difficult to attract candidates from high levels of business and the professions into Parliament. They are the sort of people we need. It will be more difficult to attract such people if they are fettered with the sanction that if they choose to leave Parliament for any reason other than health, they will have to pay a great wad of money over which they would have no personal control for the privilege of leaving. That is too simplistic a notion. I am not going to add anything further other than to say that a great proportion of us are sincere members of Parliament. We have the best interests of the State as a whole, and particularly of our own electorates, at heart. Most of us have allegiances to political parties, to local branches who support us and work to have us elected, to our families, and to other personal supporters. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to a range of people.

I am sure that the chance of a number of members of this House, or only a few, wilfully deciding in some sort of cavalier way to pull the pin and walk out because it suits them is very slight indeed. Those who do resign leave for good and proper reasons. If one or two slip through the net and decide out of sheer slackness or a lack of moral fibre that they will leave and hang the cost on the community, they will wear the opprobrium of the people in their electorates. I believe that most of us are here for the right reasons and to do the right job. It is implicit in the bill before the House that that is not so. I believe the moral and ethical judgments implied in this bill fall far short of the true situation. I believe that when the bill comes to a vote in this House, as it would come to a vote in the general community of New South Wales, we will all resoundingly vote no.

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga) [10.45]: I will speak only briefly to this bill. I realise that by speaking in the debate I will run the risk of being accused of having some vested interest, given the stage of my political service. However, I want to mention the cost of the impositions placed on the former Government by the honourable member for Manly when he had a degree of control over this House. When I refer to those matters I run the risk of being accused of having caused the State massive losses through HomeFund. When those losses are proved to me, I will cop that. I can only assume that the honourable member for Manly went looking for an issue to return him to the high profile he had before the election when he and others held the balance of power in this Parliament. I would say that the people in the gallery who have listened to the full debate would overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that the bill has no validity and would not lead to the betterment of the parliamentary system.

The bill has no support and it seems to me that the honourable member for Manly did not test the water on either side of this House before he introduced the bill. The contributions made to this debate clearly demonstrate that the bill is flawed in many ways. Although the honourable member for Auburn said that every member has the right to introduce a private member's bill, it is sad that a bill such as this has been introduced. What has been the cost of the debate this morning? Has democracy been advanced in any way whatsoever? The honourable member for Manly wants to lock members into this place. Does that mean that if they turn up once a session, they qualify to remain on the payroll? Are they then able to run a private business? Are they to reimburse the Parliament for time spent in a private business? I am not sure whether the honourable member for Manly is still practising as a doctor. Does he have to refund, pro rata, the value of the time spent in that practice as against his parliamentary duties?

Page 1464

What audacity from a member who represents an electorate that is the size of a pocket handkerchief and is 15 minutes away from Parliament! He can duck over and back whenever he feels like it, during meal breaks or at any other time. Other members are locked in here for almost a week at a time. Why do these Pontius Pilate-type people, who have the best of both worlds, tell everyone else about their consciences and their integrity? Why do people who represent electorates the size of a pocket handkerchief and to which one could walk in 15 minutes demand extra staff to run their electorate offices? Other members have to drive for hour upon hour. That is a very stressful situation that can lead to family and other problems for those members. Are those members to get medical certificates because they can no longer drive long distances?

Dr Macdonald: The bill deals with that.

Mr SCHIPP: Yes, I know. The honourable member would be challenging every medical certificate that is issued. I know how the system works. Once you start down this track you open a Pandora's box and have so restrictive a system that democracy goes out the window. A small group of Independents who from time to time gain control will tell everyone else whether they are good or bad members and whether they should or should not be here. That situation cannot prevail. Honourable members will recall the costs that were imposed on the taxpayers of New South Wales during those dreadful three years when the Independents controlled this State. The Labor Party is patronising to the honourable member for Manly in this debate because they owe him, the honourable member for Bligh and the honourable member for South Coast a great debt. They caused havoc in this State for three years by not allowing the previous Government to govern.

Dr Macdonald: Four.

Mr SCHIPP: Four years, that is even worse. The cost of that four-year period, a cost that should be reimbursed, is far greater than the cost of the three years I mentioned. The Independents virtually rendered this State moribund for that whole three-year period because they ganged up with the former Opposition. Earlier in the debate a remark made by the Minister for Police, who was referred to as the honourable member for Ashfield, was quoted. When he was in Opposition and a couple of totally hopeless and unworkable amendments were moved his comment was, "Why should we care, we're in opposition". That was a great attitude to take. I object to the reflection cast by this bill upon members of Parliament. If the honourable member for Manly wants to resign and give some money to someone, that is his business. The fact of the matter is that members of this House have good and proper reasons for wishing to resign. It would be absolutely shameful to have members of Parliament sitting in this House who were not doing their jobs. As I said earlier, members could run sideline businesses because they need only appear in the Parliament once a session to qualify to remain as a member of Parliament.

As I said earlier, I believe that the House will vote overwhelmingly against the bill, and rightly so. The honourable member for Manly will parade himself through the media, claiming that we are a bunch of people who were not prepared to support this great change in the parliamentary process. The press release will have been written already . He has spoken about integrity. If he is concerned, why did he not ensure that the then chairman of the HomeFund select committee, John Hatton, made certain that I was recalled, as I was promised I would be at the beginning of the committee's hearing, so that I could counter the lies that had been told? Is that his standard of integrity? He sat by and did not allow me to be recalled to that committee.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member should return to the leave of the bill.

Mr SCHIPP: The bill relates to the integrity of honourable members. I have reason to doubt the integrity of people who promote bills of this type. The bill will get its just desserts. The bill has cost the Parliament an hour and a half of debate. The honourable member did not test the waters to gauge the opinions of other members of Parliament. If he had done so, the bill would not have got to first base. The honourable member for Manly has simply found a new issue to get his name back into the public arena after having lost the opportunities that were available to him during the last four years of office of the previous Government.

I cannot believe that a bill of this type warrants the amount of time that has been spent on it. I congratulate every speaker who has spoken in the debate, including the honourable member for The Entrance, the honourable member for Northcott, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, the honourable member for Wyong, the honourable member for Auburn, and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. Every speaker has presented a case that rightly damns the hypocrisy of the legislation. I was rather disturbed to hear the honourable member for Manly say to a member of the Labor Party on the other side of the Chamber, "You are a bunch of hypocrites." Who is he to judge? That is the judgment that I make of him for the way in which he has brought this legislation forward, knowing that it would receive little, if any, support from this House.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.53], in reply: I speak in reply to sum up the debate. In fact, the debate, particularly on the coalition side of the House, has resulted in an unburdening of angst about the Fiftieth Parliament. Although the bill has nothing to do with the Fiftieth Parliament, it has exposed a raw nerve. A number of members, mainly from the Government and one or two from the Opposition, have made useful contributions. I
Page 1465
want to address some of those contributions. The honourable member for The Entrance talked about the electorates that are facing by-elections. In those cases the sitting members did not resign for personal gain, although perhaps in some instances they certainly left for personal ambition. I have no doubt that Jim Longley has vacated the seat of Pittwater because in Opposition he cannot play what he regards as an effective role. He left because of personal ambition and has moved to another pasture.

The point made by the honourable member for The Entrance and a number of other members about the medical issue was pathetic. If the bill needs to be tightened up, by all means let us do so. The bill provides that the medical certificate will be provided to Mr Speaker. If confidentiality provisions, which have concerned some members, are needed, so be it. It would never be my intention, and it certainly need not be the effect of the bill, that confidential medical issues be paraded around this House or in public. To advance that as a valid reason for not supporting the bill is nonsense. I am surprised that the honourable member for The Entrance did so.

The parliamentary superannuation scheme set out arrangements for the provision of medical certificates. I have never heard reports that information about members who resign from Parliament for medical reasons and receive their superannuation, or information about their families, is paraded around the House. The honourable member for The Entrance tried to introduce an emotional element into the argument that is not justified. He talked about the privacy issues relating to families, children, dependents and so on. As I have said, it is not my intention to have that information paraded around in public, and it is certainly not the intention of the bill. I would certainly take on board any guidance about how those provisions could be strengthened.

The honourable member for The Entrance advanced the lame duck argument: that a member who wants to resign but cannot because he may have to pay the cost of the by-election would be a lame duck; he would only come into the House occasionally, he would sit around with a long face, and he would not come into the House for divisions. What a reflection on politicians! Is that the sort of behaviour we would expect - because they cannot get their own way, like children who cannot get the toys they want, they pout the whole time for the next few years? The most effective and high-profile members who resign often argue that if there were obstacles and they had to delay their resignations, they would certainly remain as active as they had been in the past. The reason for the resignations of all five members to whom reference has been made within six to 12 months of the 1995 election was that they ended up in opposition. I did not notice anyone resigning from the Government side of the House. Suddenly they found that they have to adopt a different role. Suddenly they found that they were no longer roosters but were feather dusters, although I hesitate to use that expression because I do not want to refer to members of the Opposition as feather dusters. I will always be in Opposition and I do not want to be described as a feather duster.

Mr Amery: That is a separate faction of the Opposition.

Dr MACDONALD: That is a separate faction. The Opposition certainly plays an important role. But it seems that if certain members are not on the Treasury benches, they do not want to be here and, therefore, they resign. The contribution of the honourable member for Northcott was the beginning of the outpouring of angst; it was the beginning of the "Let's get the Independents" session. It is an ugly aspect of politics that caught me a little by surprise. This is a simple bill that introduces the concept that if a member resigns without good medical reasons he should pay for the by-election. There is nothing particularly revolutionary about that. But the former State President of the Liberal Party seems to have a particular concern about my re-election because he orchestrated the Liberal Party election campaign in my electorate. He seems to have an axe to grind, and that came through.

He claimed that the $150,000, the price of a by-election, is the price of democracy. But who benefits from this price being paid for democracy? It is not for the community but a few individuals. He talked about political opportunism. I reject that. He asked why all these great ideas were not contained in the charter of reform in the Fiftieth Parliament. The Independents covered a lot of ground in the charter of reform. We would have liked the charter to include many things that were not included. The charter of reform in its final form left out a number of matters. I guess that there were missed opportunities. We had a few months to put together the parliamentary and democratic reforms that are included, but time did not allow us to cover all of those aspects of reform.

The honourable member for Northcott made a personal attack that I was being opportunistic. The only opportunism in this matter is the opportunism of those who choose to leave Parliament soon after being elected - they are the opportunists. I agree on one point made by the honourable member for Northcott, that the charter of reform was not complete. This is the kind of issue that should have been covered in the charter. I would like to think that it might be considered as a serious amendment to current practice. It is interesting to note that the only social contract mentioned by the honourable member for Northcott was that between a member of Parliament and his political party. This issue goes to the core of the debate. I believe that there is a social contract between the people and their elected member of Parliament.

We all know the lengths that members of Parliament will go to when seeking election. They beg the electorate to vote them in, they spend
Page 1466
thousands of dollars and they put posters up everywhere, "Vote me in and I'll do everything for you." When a member is elected there is a social contract between that member and his electorate. The honourable member for Northcott talked about a social contract being neglected when a member of a political party has the gall to leave his party. He seemed to infer that it did not matter if a member let the electorate down by resigning, but that it was disgraceful if a member resigned from his political party. He wanted to draw into the debate discussion about Richard Jones and Terry Metherell and action that should be taken when an elected member resigned from his political party.

The honourable member for Northcott was able to focus on the matter of social contracts only when it affected him and his party-political system, which goes to the heart of much of this debate. The honourable member for Northcott also spoke about the contribution made by the previous member for Pittwater. There is nothing in my bill, and certainly there is nothing in my second reading speech, that is intended to cast any aspersions on the contribution made by the previous member for Pittwater. Certainly the previous member for Pittwater served the Parliament well. However, he sought re-election and then within six months or nine months he said he was going, "I'm sorry, I've got a better offer." The honourable member for Auburn quoted the previous member for South Coast and the well-known metaphor about fire in the belly. It is amazing that the fire in the belly could go out within six months of an election. The honourable member for Northcott allowed some personal -

Ms Moore: Frustration?

Dr MACDONALD: - frustration, yes, and I would assume that he has some difficulty with me as a member of Parliament or with some of the events that have occurred in the past five years. It would seem that the honourable member has allowed personal opinions to overshadow the fact that he did not get around to debating some elements of the bill. The honourable member for Wyong made a measured contribution, although I think he was wrong. I would defend the previous member for South Coast in his statement that when the fire in the belly goes out it is time to go, because I do not think for one minute that he would support members resigning from Parliament early. I am sure that the previous member for South Coast meant that in that circumstance one left when one's term was up. I agree with that sentiment entirely. This is such a hard job and a big commitment that when one starts ducking engagements, avoiding appointments and refusing to see people it is of course time to go, but one makes the decision to leave prior to an election and not six months afterwards.

The leader of the pack in having a go at the Independents was a very bitter honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I doubt whether he has read the bill - I would not think he has even picked it up. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour took 15 minutes to make a personal attack on me and the other Independent members. It is clear that he has a lot of anger that he wishes to unburden on the Parliament. I have had an indication that it was Mr Greiner who described the honourable member for Coffs Harbour as "the worst kind of National Party member", yet the honourable member for Coffs Harbour comes to the Chamber and drools over the memory of Greiner. We have moved on from that point. There were good reasons that certain events occurred, yet the honourable member for Coffs Harbour still has a real hate in his heart. That is a great sadness, because one cannot do a really effective job in this place if one carries such enmity and hate.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour does not represent his electorate particularly well when he comes to the Chamber and makes a vicious personal attack on me as the member for Manly. Certainly I involved myself in an issue in the Coffs Harbour electorate, which is not surprising in view of the fact that I am fairly passionately involved in the issue of waste water management and there was a major mistake about to be made at Coffs Harbour. A constituency in the Coffs Harbour electorate felt that it was not being represented, and I talked with that group. It is my opinion that the outcome in the long term for the people of New South Wales will be very good. The honourable member for Auburn made a useful contribution, as he always does. He highlighted difficulties that I do not completely accept.

The honourable member for Auburn said that members would be able to circumvent the provisions of the bill by taking certain actions such as committing a felony or just not turning up. If that means that such members are sacked from Parliament, so be it. My bill would not change anything in that regard. My bill provides that if a member resigns from Parliament early then he will pay for the by-election. If the bill needed some tightening up in that regard, a clause could be added to include those circumstances in which there had been a breach of section 13A of the Constitution Act. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands made a sincere contribution to the debate, and I respect his views. I have already gone through a number of the issues he raised. I respect him for not entering into a vicious personal attack on either me or the Independent members in general.

The contribution made by the honourable member for Northern Tablelands contrasted that made by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. One could see the HomeFund issue boiling up under the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. It is to the credit of present Government members such as the honourable member for Heffron that the HomeFund issue was brought before Parliament. The HomeFund debacle was one of the great sores in the side of the Fiftieth Parliament, and right in the middle of it was the honourable member for
Page 1467
Wagga Wagga. I understand that he has a strong feeling about the issue, but there was no need for his contribution to turn into a personal attack on the Independent members. We merely assisted in bringing significant matters before the House. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga made the point that this debate was taking up two hours of parliamentary time. If the debate were condensed to useful contributions, it would have taken about two minutes of parliamentary time.

It is the Opposition side of the House that has extended the debate, providing a platform on which the Fiftieth Parliament has been attacked. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga said that I should have tested the feelings of members of Parliament before introducing this bill. I acknowledge an oversight. Usually when I introduce a private member's bill I send a copy of the bill and my second reading speech, together with a covering letter, to every member of Parliament. That I did not do that this time was an oversight. Debate on this bill has come up fairly quickly, but I acknowledge that it is important to keep members of Parliament informed. I am one of the few members to follow that procedure and I have made a point of doing so for every private member's bill I have introduced. I certainly would not have altered my decision as to whether to introduce the bill.

Debate on the bill has included a number of issues that are very much to the core of what the Independent members believe in on matters of accountability on which we will not get agreement from either the Government or the Opposition. An ugly alliance develops between the political parties when it comes to some accountability issues, and I do not necessarily expect support from the major political parties. It would have been very interesting to have a conscience vote on this bill. I am sure that there are members on both sides of the House who would feel that there is a lot of merit in the bill. However, we have an adversarial system in this place, and that will not happen.

I have a few more points to make. There has been talk about my describing politicians as being insincere and so on. I think it was the honourable member for Coffs Harbour who talked about my saying that the electorate was confused and cynical about politicians. I did not say that. Had the honourable member for Coffs Harbour read my second reading speech, he would have realised that I was quoting the words of Hugh MacKay from Reinventing Australia, who said that the community is confused and cynical about politics and politicians. If the honourable member wishes to quote me he should at least get it right. There is public disappointment in politicians and lack of respect for them. A code of ethics and a code of conduct are being put together following an amendment to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. We hope to build up community confidence in politicians. The exercise will not necessarily deal with by-elections but with whether members of Parliament should take up certain positions after they leave Parliament and so on.

The bill reflects community wishes in relation to responsibilities of parliamentarians. Perhaps the 97 or 98 communities represented by other members agree with their members that they should not have to pay if they cut and run. My electorate does not think that; it is very sympathetic to the aims of the bill, bringing accountability into the process. Ted Mack was mentioned. I think Ted Mack made a mistake: he should not have resigned. Perhaps he would have decided differently if he had his time over again and we had talked through these issues. He made the same contract that every other member of Parliament makes. He resigned to go to Federal Parliament and there was a by-election which resulted in Robyn Read being elected. Under my bill he would have had to sign a contract to serve out four years and after breaking the contract he would have been publicly condemned and he would have had to pay the cost of the resulting by-election. This case occurred many years ago and the issues involved have much more currency now.

I remind the House that I am not alone in my support for the concept. When Paul Keating resigned Senator Bob Woods went straight on to an evening current affairs program saying that he absolutely believed in the concept and that Paul Keating should pay the by-election cost. So in the Federal arena when a Labor member, Paul Keating, resigned a coalition member said that he should pay the cost of the by-election he caused. So we are not alone; we are in company with Bob Woods. I seek the support of the House for this simple bill which is consistent with community opinion and which, essentially, questions why the community should have to pay by-election costs incurred because a member of Parliament deserts the electorate for reasons of personal gain or ambition. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.

Dr Macdonald
Ms Moore

Question so revolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

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

Page 1468

The House divided.

Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr D. L. Page
Mr Collins Mr Peacocke
Mr Cruickshank Mr Phillips
Mr Debnam Mr Richardson
Mr Ellis Mr Rozzoli
Ms Ficarra Mr Schipp
Mr Fraser Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
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 Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Allan
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Carr
Mr Downy Ms Nori

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 22 May.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [11.26], in reply: Yesterday I addressed the issue raised by the honourable member for Manly about passing on to consumers the benefits that flow from there being no taxation payable on low-alcohol beer. In New South Wales low-alcohol beer attracts no taxation, compared with 13 per cent applied to full-strength beer. There is no Federal excise on low-alcohol beer, which allows those in the liquor industry to make substantial savings with the sale of low-alcohol beer compared with the sale of full-strength beer. I do not want to be overcritical of the club industry but it is the major offender for not passing on that price reduction. I have indicated my displeasure with the situation. It is a very competitive market, but in the main liquor stores are now passing on savings to consumers purchasing low-alcohol packaged liquor. In the main hotels now differentiate between the price of low-alcohol beer and full-strength beer. I have also discussed my concern with casino operators who were charging the same price across the board for low-alcohol and high-range-alcohol beers. If the industry is not responsible in passing on the price saving to the consumer, the Government will review the process.

As Minister in charge of licensing I have to visit clubs and I am constantly told by club directors that drinks in clubs are cheaper than drinks sold in hotels, and there should be a fair go for clubs. The main reason for doing away with taxation on low-alcohol beer was to encourage its consumption instead of the consumption of full-strength beer. The old excuse for drinking full-strength beer was that the low-alcohol beers did not taste as good, but there are now numerous good products on the market, catering for all tastes. However, I remain disturbed that clubs in general, and some restaurants as well, have a common price for beer, regardless of its alcoholic content and price to the wholesalers.

The Government wants the benefits passed on to the consumer. When I talk to the directors of clubs I generally find that many of them are consumers of full-strength beer and therefore they see some advantage in that. If consumers pay the same price for light beer as they pay for full-strength beer they are ripped off. I take the point raised by the honourable member for Manly that other factors related to driving, health and, most importantly, anti-social behaviour are involved. I do not seek to tell consumers what they should drink but when there is no State tax and no Federal excise on light beer consumers are ripped off if they pay the same price as they pay for full-strength beer.

Mr Schipp: Light beer was on sale in Melbourne for $9.10 the other day.

Mr FACE: As I said, the message has got through to some sections of the industry but not to others. I congratulate those who have done the right thing but I emphasise that it appears that two sections of the industry have not responded to the Government's pleas. In his contribution to the debate the honourable member for Manly referred
Page 1469
to a code of conduct that will be drawn up in consultation with the industry and included in the regulations. I also bring to the attention of honourable members the need for a review of trading hours. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga has raised with me his concerns as a representative of a country electorate - Wagga Wagga is a relatively large country city - about the impact of late trading hours on local neighbourhood amenities, and about the alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour that takes place around late trading premises.

This issue has been raised in the context of debate on the bill and is of particular concern in country areas of New South Wales. I believe the honourable member for Northern Tablelands attempted to raise the issue yesterday. I am well aware of the problem and will continue to express my concern. Many problems appear to be related to late night-early morning drinking and I agree it is time to take a good hard look at the impact of late trading on local communities. In many areas of the State late trading has become a constant and very real problem. Some examples of problem areas are Albury, Kempsey, Wagga Wagga, Grafton and Goulburn, just to name a few. I repeat what I said previously: I have attempted to get a commonsense approach to this legislation. I come from an industry-based city where people work hard and want to enjoy some relaxation when they finish work.

As the honourable member for Newcastle would know, some workers in industry-based cities are on permanent swing shift or afternoon shift and they want to relax at a different time of the day. They have not presented a problem to date. But a blanket ban on trading hours that would affect everyone will not work. That was the rationale for the introduction of extended trading hours by the former member for Orange when he was Minister. At that time the Labor Party supported the proposal because it provided greater flexibility and people would not stream out of premises after the last-minute swill that can occur. I say quite frankly that in many instances extended trading hours have not been successful. I recently had discussions with representatives from several councils in New South Wales about this very issue.

In particular I have been monitoring the situation in Albury where the mayor has been energetic in addressing special alcohol-related issues of concern. To her credit she has been seeking to have the licensees of clubs and other premises in Albury abandon happy hour, on a voluntary basis. Earlier in the debate I said there would be no direction by the Government as to what can and cannot be done in a marketing sense; but this was a voluntary attempt. It is remarkable that the mayor has been able to get the support of all except one of the licensees and clubs in Albury. That one exception is the Sailors Soldiers and Airmen's Club, known as the SS and A Club. I have no hesitation in naming that club. It is of real concern to me that, given the commitment of other Albury licensees and clubs, just one club has chosen not to participate and, therefore, could cause the voluntary agreement to fail. The 27 other hotels, licensed clubs and restaurants have agreed to act responsibly, but not the SS and A Club.

Mr Schipp: Does that club have a record of problems?

Mr FACE: I understand that it has, and Albury in general has had a problem. The actions of the club's manager, Mr Roger Christie, is an example of arrogance personified. He argues that the club will agree begrudgingly to cease happy hours on Friday and Saturday but retain happy hours from Sunday to Thursday. Have honourable members ever heard of anything so stupid! One can get drunk and misbehave, and the club can do as it likes on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. That is absurd. The club has been seeking an out, right from the start. When Mr Christie was cornered by the Albury Council and by the 27 other liquor licensees he shifted the blame. He said that he has instructions from the club's board of directors not to budge on the issue. I think he is a bit of a Pontius Pilate.

Mr Christie says that he and the SS and A club will not be told what to do and I suspect that that view is to some extent gender driven because the Mayor of Albury is a female. I highlight that this was a genuine attempt by industry to get its act together. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga has attempted to encourage licensees in his electorate to take a similar approach and I know that he has one maverick hotelier who insists on doing his own thing. Let it be on the heads of the SS and A club management if something goes wrong in Albury. In stark contrast, the town of Leeton in the Riverina has acted responsibly and, by agreement, has cut back trading hours, as has been done in other country towns and cities.

Mr Schipp: They have brought the closing hour back to 12 midnight.

Mr FACE: Yes. Leeton is a good test case; Albury could have done the same thing. The Mayor of Albury, Amanda Duncan-Strelec, her council and 27 other responsible licensees, together with members of the Albury community, are to be congratulated on the way they have tried to remedy the problems caused by drunken behaviour and violence on the streets, prompted no doubt by the recent murder of Kim Meredith. While it is well known that the association between alcohol and violence is complex, it appears that one common denominator is late trading and the behaviour of people leaving premises in the early hours of the morning which can cause havoc in local streets. This behaviour includes vandalism to private property, the breaking of shop windows, excessive noise and other sorts of unsavoury behaviour that people living near such premises should not have to put up with.

Page 1470

Some remedial measures are provided in the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act to counter the problems caused by late trading premises, but all too often those measures mean that local residents, councils, police and others have too much of the responsibility to take steps to fix the problems. Therefore, I put it on record that I intend to review late trading legislation in an attempt to rectify the problems that have been raised with me. I have also put the industry on notice that such a review is to occur. I have today instructed the Department of Gaming and Racing to undertake the review, which will consider legislative and other measures to address the problems I have referred to.

Mr Schipp: A review of all liquor outlets?

Mr FACE: This will be a review of all liquor outlets. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga has raised a very valid point. Legislation relating to the cabaret-type licence is presently before Cabinet. It will be introduced during the present session of Parliament. Many problems have stemmed from the cabaret endorsement on restaurant licenses. That is something that I was very vocal about when in opposition and I have a commitment to do something about it. The Government is nearly there and I am sure that the Opposition will be pleased with what the Government intends to do in that regard. It will be a review of all licenses. I do not suggest that all clubs, all hotels, all restaurants or all cabarets are a problem. In fact, the cabaret-type endorsements are, in the main, the worst offenders. I will write to all members of parliament who have approached me privately and those who have raised this issue in the House, seeking input as to how their electorates are affected. I have indicated on several occasions in this House and to industry that this stage would be reached if a minority of licensees continued to act irresponsibly and failed to rectify the problem. A problem has emerged and I am left with no alternative but to hold a review and seek the views of honourable members in an endeavour to find a long-term answer to the problem.

The honourable member for Manly indicated his intention to propose a number of amendments to the bill. I thank him for supplying me with a copy of those amendments. They relate to three matters. The first seeks to amend the bill to significantly expand and strengthen the new regulation-making powers. The second is an amendment to require the Licensing Court to consider the applications of local consent authorities in dealing with applications for extended trading hours, and require the court to give reasons where it decides to depart from the view of the consent authority. The final matter relates to the complaints provisions and the reference to the term "frequently", and seeks that the word "frequently" be defined to mean more than two occasions in any six-month period.

I indicate to the House that the Government will not support the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Manly. I will state the Government's position on each of the proposed amendments. Though the bill has been available since October, the amendments were provided at a late stage. In making that comment I do not criticise the honourable member for Manly, but I would like it known that in the short time available we have done our best to research his proposals. Last October there was correspondence with all sections of the Parliament, and debate on the bill has not commenced until now to endeavour to ensure that all concerns were met. The bill provides powers for the making of regulations concerning responsible service of liquor. The powers expressed in the bill are wide ranging. For the information of honourable members, those new powers are contained in item [42] of schedule 1 to the bill.

The honourable member for Manly proposes that the bill be amended to require a code of conduct for the responsible service of alcohol; that breaches of the code be punishable by penalties that include revocation of the licence; that there be public exhibition of the draft code for not less than 30 days; that there be advertisement of the draft code in newspapers circulating across the State; and that there be a requirement to consider public submissions. He proposes also that where the bill currently states that the regulations "may" make provision for a range of responsible serving matters, it should state that the regulations "shall" make provision for those matters. As well, he proposes that the regulations should allow for other issues to be addressed.

As I have indicated, the Government does not support the amendments to the bill foreshadowed by the honourable member for Manly. The regulation-making powers in the bill are quite wide ranging and are considered to be reasonable and achievable. They recognise that there is still some way to go in developing adequate codes of practice for the serving of liquor. A watertight black-and-white code for the responsible service of alcohol does not exist for the whole industry at present, and the bill's regulation-making powers allow for codes of practice to be developed for different parts of the industry. That is the rationale of the bill and the provisions to make it work.

The amendments referred to by the honourable member for Manly represent an unreasonable impost on New South Wales business. There are 10,000 licensed premises and clubs across the State. The Government cannot support a proposal that would impose such extreme penalties as revocation of a licence or club registration when there is a breach of the code. I could not support the insertion of a regulation-making power that could result in revocation of a licence. It is not appropriate that such an extreme penalty be provided for in regulations. I have given to the liquor industry an undertaking that I will consult widely in the development of the regulations. I am committed to that.

Page 1471

I intend that the development of the regulations will be done in a considered and staged way. We are not about causing undue hardship to business. We are not about punishing those businesses - which I might say are in the majority - that operate their premises responsibly, and will continue to do so under various measures that will come before this Parliament. I have referred to the cabaret licence and the other enforcement provisions. Those are wide in their application and stem in the main from the interim findings of the police royal commission. The provisions of the bill have been framed in recognition that the majority of businesses in the liquor and club industries are already operating responsibly and that the industry itself is improving its standards. Certainly in the past 10 or so years the industry has come a long way in trying to be more responsible in the serving of alcohol. Last night the honourable member for Cronulla referred to measures such as the introduction of the proof of age card. Those major advances could not have been contemplated 10 or more years ago.

It is also relevant that a number of codes will be needed to provide for the different types of licensed premises. For example, a retail liquor store may require some standards that are different from those of hotels, that are different from those of licensed restaurants, and so on. This is a diverse and complex industry, and therefore the regulations need to be flexible enough to accommodate that fact and allow the industry to function effectively. I am happy to give the honourable member for Manly an undertaking that the regulations, when they are drafted at a future time, will be provided to him so that he can be assured about their content. In the interim, I cannot support his amendments concerning the code of conduct.

The amendment that seeks to give greater council involvement in variation of trading hours would require the Licensing Court to consider the views of the local consent authority in an application to vary trading hours, and to provide reasons for a departure from those views. I advise honourable members that it is already the policy of the Licensing Court to require evidence that the local council has no objection to applications to extend trading hours. The Government supports this position as it provides sufficient flexibility to deal with different circumstances, as there are instances when council approval is required for extended hours, and others when it is not. I have just indicated that there will be a review of hours as well. Local councils also have specific objection rights under the liquor laws, and therefore are able to object to applications to extend trading hours. There are also provisions in the law which allow local councils to apply for the reduction of extended trading hours.

Although provisions already exist, the review that I have initiated will address many of those issues. As can be seen, local councils are already involved in trading hours applications. However, the Government recognises that councils must be aware of the powers allocated to them for the liquor laws to operate effectively. That is one of the major problems concerning councils. I have canvassed the issue with many councils, particularly those in country areas. To that end, I recently instructed my department to prepare an information kit which will assist local councils involved with the Liquor and Registered Clubs Act. I view this as an important part of ensuring that local councils do have a say in the liquor laws. The need for this information kit has become quite evident to me, particularly through a recent case which showed that the council had an abysmal knowledge of actions it could take and the powers it had under the liquor licensing laws. Some councils cry that they have no powers.

Mr Schipp: They pass the buck.

Mr FACE: Yes, they pass the buck. If that council had had the information kit it would have known it was in a strong position to deal with what it considered was a problem for the council. The Government considers that the present legislation, combined with the practices of the Licensing Court, will ensure that the views of local councils are adequately considered in an application to vary trading hours. Therefore, the amendment is not supported. It is interesting that the honourable member for Manly raised the issue of the definition of the word "frequently" in this debate. I say that because this same issue was considered during the drafting of the amendment bill.

However, at that time the Chairman of the Licensing Court of New South Wales indicated that the court has extensive experience in interpreting this term as it appears in other provisions of the liquor laws. It is appropriate that the discretion to interpret this term remain with the court so that the laws provide sufficient flexibility to deal with all situations. For example, there may be circumstances in which disciplinary action should be taken because of acts of violence which have frequently occurred in licensed premises over a short period of time. The amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Manly may not allow that to occur. In other words, I am concerned that the definition he seeks would inhibit the court in taking disciplinary action.

The disciplinary provisions of the liquor laws must be flexible to ensure that public interest is protected. Limiting the interpretation of key words can act to limit the effectiveness of those disciplinary provisions. Therefore, the Government does not support the proposed amendments. I understand the intent of the honourable member for Manly. He has my assurance that he will be consulted thoroughly and I thank him for his excellent work and input. I think he and I are as one on the issue. We have made advances and it is hoped that along with the other two measures to be introduced this legislation will receive Opposition support. That will go some way towards
Page 1472
overcoming what will always be a problem. I thank honourable members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.53], by leave: I move, in globo, amendments 1, 2 and 3 circulated in my name:

Page 5, Schedule 1[10]. Insert after line 12:

(1B) An application may not be granted under this section for a variation of trading hours unless the court is satisfied that the local consent authority has had a reasonable opportunity to consider and make recommendations about the proposed variation. When granting or otherwise dealing with the application, the court must give reasons for any departures from those recommendations.

Page 5, Schedule 1[11]. Insert after line 20:

(2B) An application may not be granted under this section for a variation of trading hours unless the court is satisfied that the local consent authority has had a reasonable opportunity to consider and make recommendations about the proposed variation. When granting or otherwise dealing with the application, the court must give reasons for any departures from those recommendations.

Page 5, Schedule 1[12]. Insert after line 29:

(1B) An application may not be granted under this section for a variation of trading hours unless the court is satisfied that the local consent authority has had a reasonable opportunity to consider and make recommendations about the proposed variation. When granting or otherwise dealing with the application, the court must give reasons for any departures from those recommendations.

I make no apology for taking a strong stand on community safety and make no apology to the Minister for pushing him to the limit. I accept that the Minister has a genuine argument that he must go somewhat gingerly with the hotel industry, liquor associations, and so on. That powerful and influential lobby group has had its own way for too long, and I shall push these community safety issues as hard as I can. The Minister said in reply that nothing in the amendments would disadvantage a well-run hotel or a well-run liquor outlet. Responsible, well-run licensed premises have nothing to fear from the legislation. The renegade and poorly run establishments certainly do.

Amendments Nos 1 to 3 relate to the role of local councils and the response of the court where concern has been raised by councils about the extension of trading hours. This measure puts councils not in the driver's seat of a car, not even in the passenger's seat, but in the back seat, where they can tap on the driver's shoulder. The provision of 24-hour licensing caused havoc in my electorate, and I have referred to that earlier. Manly has suffered the consequences of that deregulation but it now has one of the most active community safety committees operating in the State. The committee has spoken out effectively and loudly about the need to restrict licensing hours. All licensees in Manly have taken the cooperative approach to restrict trading to 3 a.m., but they still have effective 24-hour licences; the court and the local council are wrestling with that relationship.

The effect of my amendments falls short of what I would like to happen, but it is a modest measure in that it does not seek a consent role by local government, though I would ultimately like that role to pass to local government. Some gains have been achieved but historically local government has been shut out of the decision-making process in licensing matters. Certainly the Licensing Court has adopted a policy of ensuring greater council involvement. My amendments codify the practice and ensure that the court considers the councils' position but, most important, they provide for reasons to be given for any variation.

All communities - including Manly, Wagga Wagga and Broken Hill - have individual concerns, problems and reasons for wanting to make comment to the court when an application for extended hours is being considered. Reasons must be given if those matters are not taken on board or the court overrides them. I argue that communities, through their councils, should be in a stronger position. I have had correspondence with Alex Wodak, Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital. I inquired whether those concerns could be weaved into the bill when it was introduced. In a letter dated June he referred to the role of the community in opposing licensing hours. He said:

Particular care will need to be exercised to ensure that individuals who are opposed to applications from the alcohol beverage industry to maintain or increase alcohol availability at a particular outlet are given some support.

I emphasise the following point:

At present, the industry has immense resources which it can call upon while individuals, [and also councils] often acting for the first time in this area, are without any access to support or advice. On democratic grounds, this situation should not be tolerated. It is not that the industry should be disadvantaged, rather, that individual members of the community should be allowed a more equal situation.

I provide that as a principle by which the community and local councils should be empowered. These amendments do nothing more than codify a sensible practice. The Government and the industry have nothing to fear from the amendments. They merely build on past decisions, particularly by the former Government, which put councils in a stronger position to seek alterations to licensing hours and to put forward arguments about disorderly conduct in the neighbourhood and so on. The amendments merely provide for the court to provide the reasons for departing from recommendations that may be made by local councils. I commend these amendments to the House.

Page 1473

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga) [12.01]: The Minister gave a cogent response to the matters raised by the honourable member for Manly. The Minister indicated that there must be an education process for local councils so they realise that they can become involved, that they have a valid role and, therefore, they may play a greater role in the licensing process than they have done in the past. During the course of the Minister's response, I interjected and claimed that the Government passed the buck. I have had personal experience of that. It is difficult for people to be told by their local member to get the local council involved and to then be told that it is a government responsibility. That is the oldest game in the trade: playing ping-pong.

I would ask the Minister to explain the process. If councils participate, is it in open court? Are the reasons given? Why overregulate if the issues are handled in that way now? The real problem in this House is that attempts are made to codify everything; we become locked into a stultified position. As the honourable member for Manly has said, under the normal processes the courts can make known the reasons for the recommendations or the reasons the recommendations have not been accepted. I imagine they do that now as a matter of course. I do not reject the opening remarks of the honourable member for Manly, who expressed concern for community safety. That is not in issue. Every member of this Parliament would have a responsibility in that regard and would have the same attitude as that of the honourable member for Manly.

We should not be pointing fingers at what the honourable member for Manly described as a powerful lobby that cannot be resisted. We also have community attitudes to contend with. Those attitudes have been built up over a long period of time, and if we suddenly try to change the balances, things can go terribly wrong. The legislation is a brave attempt by the Minister to bring some sense into this whole process. I believe that, by and large, the providers of liquor, et cetera, will cooperate. In accordance with what has been proposed in these three amendments, we need to make sure that councils are brought into the process and educated to the necessary extent. I believe the answers required under the regulation will then be given, and it will not be necessary to go down the path of encompassing them in amendments to the bill.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.05]: I feel compelled to respond to the remarks of the honourable member for Wagga Wagga, because I do not think he has got it right. That is not what the amendments provide for; they will not give councils any more power. The amendments merely provide that the recommendations that the councils make to the court must be considered and reasons given for any departure from those recommendations. The amendments codify the current practice. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga said he was pleased that the Minister will tell councils what powers they have and that they will be educated. It is all very well to do that. But councils will walk away and say that they are able to make recommendations to the court, but the court does not take them into account and it has no reason to publish the recommendations or give reasons for not following them. Councils have a role, and that is to make recommendations about variations to licences, and the court in practice may take those into account. The relevant provision in the bill simply provides that when granting or otherwise dealing with the application the court must give reasons for any departure from the recommendations.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [12.07]: I thank both the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga for their contributions. I would like to deal first with the matters raised by the honourable member for Manly. He concedes that his amendments will codify existing practices. However, he stressed that the courts should also have to give reasons for their decisions. It is the usual practice for the courts to give reasons for decisions. That already happens. In my view the amendments proposed by the honourable member for Manly would fetter the discretion of the courts in an unprecedented way. The Licensing Court already requires evidence that the local council has no objection to applications for extended trading hours. The honourable member for Manly is obviously not aware of that policy.

The Government also supports the provision of sufficient flexibility to deal with different circumstances. As I have already said, the provisions applying to the trading hours of a bottle shop when compared to the problem that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga had with a renegade hotel are entirely different things. In certain situations council approval is required for extended hours, and in others it is not. Local councils can, of course, go to the courts. Local councils also have a specific objection right under the liquor laws, and are able to object to applications for extended trading hours. The law also provides that local councils may apply to have the extended trading hours reduced. That has obviously been forgotten. In a country town I recently visited the council did not realise that it had the power to reduce trading hours during periods of heavy snow in winter.

Local councils are already involved in applications for extended trading hours, and the Government realises that councils must be aware of their powers. This is the reason why I now require the department to issue kits explaining what councils can and cannot do. We have come a long way. With the of cooperation of members from both sides of the House I have tried to come to grips with the problem. It was realised that, in the main, councils were unaware of their powers. In the future there
Page 1474
will be no excuses. Local councils will in future be able to go to court, as they probably should have in some cases in the past. In the future there will be no misunderstanding. The amendments will fetter the discretion of the court in an unprecedented way. At the end of the day, when councils' powers are spelled out, a great deal more responsibility may be taken by some councils who have done the wrong thing in the past. The Government rejects the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.

Dr Macdonald
Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.12]: I move amendment 4 circulated in my name:

Page 8, Schedule 1. Insert after line 13:

[24] Section 68(3)

Insert after section 68(2):

(3) In this section:

frequently means on more than two occasions in any period of six months.

This amendment deals with the frequency of intoxication or violent acts occurring in or around licensed premises. It is an attempt to tighten up a loose element of the bill. It is surely good to argue that it should be an offence if intoxicated people are frequently seen to leave licensed premises or violence to persons or violence to property are frequently committed near licensed premises. It is my argument that the word "frequently" needs to be defined, and it is my suggestion that it should be defined as meaning on more than two occasions in any six months. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [12.13]: The Government does not accept the amendment. The same issue was considered during the drafting of the legislation. At that time the chairman of the Licensing Court pointed out that the court had extensive experience in interpreting the provisions of liquor legislation. It is appropriate that the discretion to interpret the term remain with the court, so that the law provides sufficient flexibility for the court to deal with all matters. It may be that a relatively minor incident occurs, which should not attract the same penalty as a more serious offence. The proposal made by the honourable member for Manly would mean that three minor incidents could result in complaint proceedings. The disciplinary provisions of laws must be flexible to ensure that the public interest is protected. Limiting the interpretation of key words could limit the effectiveness of disciplinary provisions. To define the word "frequently" as meaning three or more instances in a six-month period would be unfair.

Amendment negatived.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.15], by leave: I move, in globo, amendments 5, 6 and 7 circulated in my name:

Page 11, Schedule 1[42], lines 24-27. Omit all words on these lines. Insert instead:

(1) The Board is required to cause a Code of Practice for Responsible Service to be prepared, requiring or encouraging the adoption of responsible practices in the sale, supply, service and promotion of liquor.

Page 12, Schedule 1[42], line 1. Omit "regulations may". Insert instead "Code must".

Page 12, Schedule 1[42], line 16. Omit "regulations". Insert instead "Code".

These amendments relate to the mandating of the code of conduct. The provisions contained in the amendments have been covered in my contribution to the second reading debate and in comments made by the Minister in response. There should not be any discretion in the adoption of the code of conduct; that should be mandatory. The code of conduct is about responsible serving practices. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the requirement for responsible serving practices. I know that the industry will resist this legislation because, like the tobacco industry, it will always resist being pulled into the public arena and being held accountable for the product it produces and the way in which that product is served and delivered. The industry has nothing to fear in the mandating of the code of conduct. For those who are responsible, the mandating of the code of conduct would mean nothing other than evidence that they are able to abide by codes and that they are responsible in dealing with their premises. In support of the amendments I shall refer to two quotations. Ross Homel and Steve Tomsen produced the "Pubs and Violence" paper, to which I referred in my contribution to the second reading debate. An extract from the paper states:

However, the prevention of violence primarily requires legislative changes which will make the continuous operation of a violent venue an offence that will lead to the cancellation of a licence. In addition, there is a need for legislative changes mandating training for security and bar staff and outlawing drinks promotions which encourage gross intoxication;

We need to mandate the code of conduct, as argued by experts in the fields of community safety and public health. A submission regarding the behaviour of bouncers in my electorate was given to me recently by a young woman. I do not want to name the hotels referred to, because that would not be fair. The submission reads as follows:

In the early hours on Sunday morning in February 1996, at the time of [a particular hotel] closing (3:30 am, I believe), I was with a group of young people assembling

Page 1475
in the Corso between [two hotels] waiting for one of our group to join us. There were several hundred people assembled there and there were police and paddy wagons in attendance. However, the police and paddy wagons left after a short time and before the crowd had drifted off.

Shortly after the police left a number of skirmishes broke out - 2 in front of [the hotel] and 1 in front of [hotel B]. The one in front of [hotel B] involved a young man shaping up and throwing a punch at someone. Three bouncers from [hotel B] emerged and dragged the young man off into the hotel and up the stairs. We could hear the sound of his cries and the thuds and crashes as he was beaten up. We left shortly after - no sign of the police and everyone felt too intimidated to take any action on behalf of the young man.

I get stories such as that quite frequently. The young woman's submission demonstrates the importance of training bouncers and training staff about responsible serving practices. All such matters need to be mandated in a code of conduct, and I ask the Minister to do that. Those in the industry who are responsible have nothing to fear. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga) [12.19]: The honourable member for Manly is jumping ahead of the game. The bill clearly states that a code of practice is to be developed. If the code of practice is not available now, how can we mandate something in relation to it? Parliament will make a judgment later if something needs to be enshrined in legislation. The honourable member is proposing that a code of practice be made mandatory now, without knowing whether the code will be practical or workable. Some pretty hairy proposals have been put forward about what should be within the control of people involved in the liquor industry. I have approached by part-time workers and casuals in clubs who are fearful of the responsibility that might be imposed on them by a code of practice. We should stay our hand and wait to see what is in the code of practice and then see whether it is voluntarily adopted before we again go down an overregulatory path.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [12.20]: What the honourable member for Wagga Wagga has said is correct: the regulation-making powers in the bill are very wide ranging. They are considered to be reasonable and, most importantly, they are achievable. We have some way to go in developing a code of practice for serving of liquor. A watertight black and white code for responsible serving of alcohol does not exist for the whole industry at present. The bill's regulation-making powers will allow a code of practice to be developed for different parts of the industry. There is a lot of variation in the premises we are dealing with. In relation to bouncers, I have indicated today that the enforcement package and the actions that have been taken as a result of the police royal commission will address the situation concerning bouncers to some extent. It is not specified as an item but the conduct of bouncers will be part and parcel of the major piece of legislation that will be presented to the Parliament soon. The Government does not support the amendments.

Question - That the amendments be agreed to - put.

Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.

Dr Macdonald
Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.22]: I move amendment 8 circulated in my name:

Page 12, Schedule 1[42], lines 21-22. Omit all words on these lines. Insert instead:

(4) The Board must do the following:

(a) make copies of a draft version of the Code available for public comment for at least 30 days,

(b) advertise in a daily newspaper circulating throughout the State when, where and how those copies may be viewed or obtained, and comments made, by the public,

(c) analyse those comments and take them into account,

(d) cause the completed Code to be delivered to the Minister,

(e) publish the completed Code once it has been delivered to the Minister,

(f) comply with any other requirements of the regulations in relation to public consultation.

(5) The Code has effect only to the extent that it is adopted by the regulations. The Minister is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Code is so adopted.

(6) The Code may be amended or replaced from time to time, and this section applies to the amendment or replacement of the Code in the same way as it applies to the original Code.

(7) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may:

(a) impose conditions on licences relating to matters dealt with in the Code, and in particular conditions that require licensees to comply with directions of officers appointed to ensure that the Code is complied with in the event of a breach of the Code, and

(b) create offences punishable by a penalty not exceeding 50 penalty units.

(8) Subsection (7) does not limit any other provision of this Act relating to the imposition of conditions on a licence.

I do not seek to build on my previous comments. The amendment is not overprescriptive but it allows for an open process, something that we do not have at the moment. Currently the preparation of the code is industry driven.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Rogan): Order! I call the honourable member for Keira to order.

Page 1476

Dr MACDONALD: The amendment provides for the process by which the code will be developed with input from the community. That is not provided for in the regulations. The Minister said, generously, that he would let me have a look at the discretionary code when it is produced. I do not think that is good enough: it is not up to Peter Macdonald whether the code is good enough; it should go through a proper public process such as occurs in many other areas so that there is maximum community input. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 2

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.25], by leave: I move, in globo, amendments 9 to 13 circulated in my name:

Page 18, Schedule 2. Insert after line 8:

[14] Section 17(8)

Insert after section 17(7):

(8) In this section:

frequently means on more than two occasions in any period of six months.

Page 20, Schedule 2[23], lines 8-11. Omit all words on these lines. Insert instead:

(1) The Board is required to cause a Code of Practice for Responsible Service to be prepared, requiring or encouraging the adoption of responsible practices in the sale, supply, service and promotion of liquor.

Page 20, Schedule 2[23], line 12. Omit "regulations may". Insert instead "Code must".

Page 20, Schedule 2[23], line 28. Omit "regulations". Insert instead "Code".

Page 20, Schedule 2[23], lines 33-34. Omit all words on these lines. Insert instead:

(4) The Board must do the following:

(a) make copies of a draft version of the Code available for public comment for at least 30 days,

(b) advertise in a daily newspaper circulating throughout the State when, where and how those copies may be viewed or obtained, and comments made, by the public,

(c) analyse those comments and take them into account,

(d) cause the completed Code to be delivered to the Minister,

(e) publish the completed Code once it has been delivered to the Minister,

(f) comply with any other requirements of the regulations in relation to public consultation.

(5) The Code has effect only to the extent that it is adopted by the regulations. The Minister is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Code is so adopted.

(6) The Code may be amended or replaced from time to time, and this section applies to the amendment or replacement of the Code in the same way as it applies to the original Code.

(7) Regulations made for the purposes of this section may:

(a) impose conditions on certificates of registration relating to matters dealt with in the Code, and in particular conditions that require secretaries of clubs or members of the governing bodies of clubs (or both), to comply with directions of officers appointed to ensure that the Code is complied with in the event of a breach of the Code, and

(b) create offences punishable by a penalty not exceeding 50 penalty units.

(8) Subsection (7) does not limit any other provision of this Act relating to the imposition of conditions on a certificate of registration.

Since the amendments to schedule 2 are consequential on the matters that have already been discussed, I merely place them before the Committee. I seek support for the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [12.28]: I move:

That this House condemns the Federal Government's decision to allow the introduction of cooked chicken products into Australia.

The outrage which greeted Federal resources Minister Warwick Parer's announcement that the Federal Government will permit the importation of cooked chicken meat into Australia from the United States, Thailand and Denmark is understandable. Despite objections and advice from the New South Wales Government, industry lobby groups and members of the public advising the Federal Government to proceed with caution, it has chosen to jeopardise not only the Australian poultry industry but also Australia's native bird species. The problem is that there cannot be a 100 per cent guarantee that Newcastle disease will not slip into the country in cooked chicken products. The concept of free trade is a very nice one but if free trade means decimating the State's bird population and destroying the poultry industry then the Government does not want a bar of it.

There is legitimate concern across the country that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Anderson, has moved far too quickly for an
Page 1477
informed decision to be made. The move can only threaten the viability of an important rural industry and Australia's 750 unique native bird species and it, in consequence, defies logic. The poultry industry is a $2 billion national industry and it directly employed 15,000 people. The decision ignores the legitimate concerns of the poultry industry, conservationists, veterinary groups, the New South Wales Government and the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council that an exotic disease called Newcastle disease will be established in Australia as a result of the importation of cooked chicken meat.

The Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council meeting held in November 1995 requested that, before a final decision was made regarding the importation of cooked chicken meat, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service - AQIS - ensure that a rigorous risk assessment process is carried out taking into account both the immediate disease risk and the wider environmental implications of the proposal. The Federal Minister responsible for this decision, the Hon. John Anderson, has shown scant regard for that resolution on this important issue. How his National Party colleagues could sit idly by and let potentially diseased imports flow into Australia is beyond belief. The Australian Veterinary Association - AVA - and the New South Wales Chicken Growers Association have continually expressed concern regarding the possibility of establishing certain exotic diseases in the native bird populations and poultry if cooked chicken meat is introduced. An AVA submission to the AQIS stated:

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

The literature review submitted to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service indicates that native bird species, such as black cormorants, eastern rosellas, ospreys, honeyeaters and finches, have been shown to be highly susceptible to Newcastle disease. Furthermore, as the mallee fowl and the brush turkey are closely related to chicken, pheasant and turkey, it is likely that they would be susceptible to the disease. There is a real risk that Newcastle disease will establish in Australia as a result of imported cooked chicken product. It is impossible to guarantee that all imports will have undergone completely effective processes to kill the disease prior to their arrival in this country. Newcastle disease, which is caused by a virus, does not occur in Australia at present. More importantly, no pathogenic forms of the disease have ever been recorded in this country. The reason it does not occur is that strict quarantine regulations are in operation. In fact the AQIS has issued a brochure entitled "Newcastle Disease - A Threat to all Australian Birdlife". The first line of that brochure casts this dire warning:

Newcastle Disease, the most feared avian disease in the world.

The article continued:

When the disease first enters a country, it can cause havoc in the bird industry - commercial flocks, fancy breeds, pet birds and native wild birds are all susceptible. Thousands of birds may die. Those that appear to recover can pass the disease on to healthy birds, and may themselves remain chronically ill the rest of their lives. There is no known cure for Newcastle Disease.

That is what the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service said. Despite this the analysis undertaken in relation to the importation proposal paid no real regard to the possible impact of the disease on wild bird populations even though some potentially affected species could already be threatened with extinction from other causes. The images of the devastating effect that mad cow disease had on the English beef industry are still clear in our minds. Members of the National Party must be trembling with the knowledge that even the slightest chance of an exotic disease establishing in the poultry industry would have grave consequences in their electorates. New South Wales has the largest bird meat and broiler industries in Australia - 45 per cent of the bird meat industry and 39 per cent of the broiler industry. It has the largest egg production industry in Australia, with 34 per cent of that industry. The Steggles factory in the electorate of Waratah in the Hunter Valley employs 1,200 people working two daily shifts. That factory contributes over $50 million to the Hunter Valley regional economy.

Over 2,000 people are directly employed by the industry in the Hunter Valley along with 200 chicken growers providing chickens to factories owned by Steggles and Inghams. The poultry industry is already a high-risk industry and the Government is committed to maintaining it as a viable industry within the State. Mr Geoff McGeachie, deputy manager of Steggles in the Hunter Valley, was recently quoted in the press as saying that these 1,200 jobs are now at risk as the result of the Federal Government's decision. Imagine Steggles and Inghams closing down as a result of Newcastle disease establishing in poultry farms in New South Wales. It is with some delight that I moved this motion today because it exposes the hypocrisy of the member for Gosford on this issue. Last year he placed on notice a motion condemning the Federal Government for its plan to allow the importation of cooked chicken meat. Following the election of the Federal coalition the member for Gosford watered down his notice of motion to simply give the Federal Government a slap on the wrist and to call for an education campaign on the matter.

This Government has been consistent on this issue from the start. The Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Pam Allan, has pushed this issue at ANZECC and was due to raise it again at the next ANZECC meeting in Perth in June. The member for Gosford might like to join them, given his keen interest in the issue. But what does he propose to do? He proposes an education program; perhaps he needs to educate his Federal colleagues. What point is an education program if the disease is
Page 1478
already established after being imported in diseased foreign chicken meat? Who is he proposing to educate? Meat should not be imported in the first place. This morning on radio station 2UE Alan Jones said:

I can't believe the Government in Canberra . . . is even thinking about dropping the quarantine ban on cooked chicken meat imports. Now why don't we just let everything into the country. Our import bill is growing beyond what we can afford, utterly beyond what we can afford.

Even commentators know that this is a wrong decision destined to be a major blow to local industry. The Federal Government stands condemned for its ridiculous decision, for in its haste it has jeopardised not only the poultry industry but the survival of over 700 native bird species. The Federal Government should be revisiting, and then reversing, this deplorable decision.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.38]: On behalf of the Opposition I express grave concern at any proposal which would allow the introduction of cooked chicken products into Australia. It is clear that the chicken meat industry is one of the great industries in New South Wales, and in Australia. It employs thousands of people both directly and indirectly on a multiplier effect. In my electorate there are 90 chicken farmers; with a multiplier estimated at seven times that number, they employ almost 500 people. To allow the introduction of cooked chicken products would immediately affect 20 per cent of the chicken market in this State and throughout Australia. In other words, we could expect considerable unemployment, loss of income and loss of viability of business not only to farmers in my electorate but also to thousands of farmers, producers and distributors across Australia. It is of grave concern that the Federal Government would allow such a great industry to be placed under threat by a single decision.

I support the Opposition's position on the environment. The studies undertaken through the Australian Veterinary Association and by various academics show that the Australian native bird population has never been exposed to Newcastle disease. The possibility of exposure to the disease must be one of the most undesirable consequences of the introduction of cooked chicken products. A study on the eastern rosella showed a 100 per cent mortality rate on a trial basis when that species was exposed to Newcastle disease on a controlled program. Flocking birds would be simply wiped out. The chain by which Newcastle disease could enter the bird population through the introduction of cooked chicken meat is very simple. The scenario may be: a cooked product, sealed in a tin, is brought into Australia; it is not cooked properly in accordance with the protocols; it is purchased by a consumer in a retail outlet; the consumer does not eat the entire product and throws the residue into the garbage; that garbage ends up on a rubbish tip, is eaten by a seagull and then, if the disease is present and the pathogen can survive the cooking process, the disease is spread throughout the seagull population and then throughout all the flocking bird population, bit by bit, across Australia.

Honourable members know how quickly the rabbit virus has spread. We could anticipate that Newcastle disease would spread even more quickly because birds are more mobile than rabbits. The proposal, first mooted some time ago, is one of the most serious threats to the environment and to the chicken industry ever to have emanated from Canberra. The Opposition views it with the greatest concern. In 1994, when I was Minister for the Environment, I raised this issue at the Australian and New Zealand Council of Environment Ministers. I instructed the National Parks and Wildlife Service to investigate the proposal and, as a result of that investigation, the NPWS made a submission to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service objecting to the importation proposal. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has maintained that objection ever since, an objection clearly established on environmental grounds.

The chicken industry has made representations on economic grounds. The Opposition has made its position absolutely crystal clear. On behalf of the Opposition, I raised this matter in this House and this notice of motion appeared on the Business Paper some nine months ago, No. 12. The Opposition has been consistent in its stand against this proposal and will maintain that consistency. It is the attitude of the State Labor Government that has changed. The State Government underwent a sea change around about 2 March. Prior to that date the Government did not want to debate this matter. On two occasions I attempted to have the matter debated, by having earlier notices of motions postponed, but on each occasion there was no time for debate. Suddenly, on 2 March, something happened. The powers that be in Canberra changed and suddenly the State Government was very interested in the motion. Its hypocrisy has been revealed. Prior to 2 March it was prepared to allow environment devastation of our bird life and of our native fauna, and to do nothing about it.

Prior to 2 March the Government was prepared to allow the highly successful chicken industry to go to the wall, and do nothing about it. But, consistent with its attitude that it will protect its mates at all times, the Government did not want to debate this motion. The Minister for Agriculture, in his many answers to Dorothy Dix questions, did not raise the issue. The Minister for the Environment did not raise the issue. The issue was ignored. On 2 March the people of Australia passed judgment on the former Federal Labor Government and, suddenly, the State Government was looking for ways to attack Canberra. All the advice that came from Canberra came from Labor Ministers. On 10 April 1995 Senator Bob Collins wrote to me as the Minister for the Environment - he had forgotten that there had been a change of Government earlier that year. His letter stated:

Page 1479

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter (ref. MM389/94/04458) dated 25 January 1995 . . . concerning AQISs assessment of the proposed importation of cooked, uncanned chicken meat . . .

AQIS has considered the potential disease impact upon native bird populations as a consequence of importation of cooked chicken meat.

Senator Collins went on to say that this would present a negligible quarantine risk in relation to commercial and native bird species. It was the Labor Federal Minister who wrote to me and said there was a negligible risk involved. The Labor Party was in office in Canberra for 13 years and the Labor Party that has allowed this situation to develop. I move an amendment to the motion moved by the Minister to add the following words:

(2)that this House requests the State Government to mount a vigorous public relations campaign to educate the New South Wales community about the dangers of the proposal and to liaise with the industry and the environment movement to resist it.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The member will provide a signed copy of the amendment to the Clerk.

Mr HARTCHER: The proposal will put to the test the bona fides of this State Government. Is the Government prepared to mount a public relations campaign to educate the people of New South Wales on the dangers of this proposal? Is it only interested in beating up on Canberra, or is it really interested in trying to stop this proposal taking hold? This is a classic bureaucratic proposal which has been stimulated and supported by the Australian Labor Party when in office in Canberra and which has, unfortunately, got through the net under the new Federal Government. It is a proposal that must be resisted because, as I said earlier, the threat to native bird life is enormous, the threat to the chicken industry is enormous and the threat to the employment of tens of thousands of Australians is enormous.

If ever there was an issue that the State Government should take up to protect the people of New South Wales and their environment, it is this issue. The Opposition can stand proudly before this House as being the only political party to raise the issue prior to the Federal election; it is the only political party that has been consistent in its opposition, both when in office and in opposition; the only political party determined to protect the environment, the chicken industry and jobs in New South Wales. The Opposition is proud of its record, a record acknowledged by the environment movement and the chicken industry generally. The State Government, as always, is engaging in political posturing. The Minister for Agriculture has done zero and the Minister for the Environment is interested only in scoring political points. [Time expired.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! Members who wish to move amendments should provide a copy to the Clerk in order that the Chair may be aware of any proposed amendments.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [12.48]: Let me comment on the contribution made by the honourable member for Gosford who used the word "hypocrisy". The honourable member made the point that the Government changed its position after 2 March. Let me put on record the original notice of motion of the honourable member for Gosford, dated 20 September 1995. It stated:

That this House condemns:

(1) Federal Government proposals to allow the introduction of cooked chicken products into Australia . . .

The original notice of motion included the other paragraphs mentioned by the honourable member. That notice included a condemnation of the Federal Government. However, there was a change of Government on 2 March and the coalition was elected to office Federally. The notice of motion before this House was amended to delete the words "Federal Government", so that the effect of the motion would be to condemn the proposal, but not to condemn the Federal Government. The Opposition changed the wording of the notice and watered it down. The 90 farmers in the honourable member's electorate have been used to further his political ends and the political ends of the coalition.

Last year, the State coalition Opposition had on notice a motion condemning the Federal Labor Government. With the change of government in Canberra in March, the coalition in this State changed its position. That is on the public record. I commend the acting Minister for the Environment for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have been concerned about this issue since it was first brought to my attention, when I became Minister for Agriculture. But, unlike the honourable member for Gosford, party politics did not enter my thinking. In August 1995, when there was a Labor Government in Canberra, I wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries, Senator Bob Collins, expressing this Government's opposition to and concern about this matter.

The main concern I have is the risk of disease associated with the introduction of cooked chicken products. As the acting Minister for the Environment said, Australia is free of these diseases. Included among those risks is the impact on the poultry meat industry, which is most concerning. New South Wales Agriculture has given me a response to the terms compiled by AQIS. The department says that the importation of cooked chicken meat was recommended by AQIS on the basis of a technical assessment that found that cooking chicken meat at the temperature and time regimes indicated in the risk assessment discussion paper would be sufficient to kill all pathogens of concern. New South Wales Agriculture accepts the temperature-time technical concept but has argued that the killing of pathogens of concern during cooking does not eliminate the quarantine risks associated with the entire importation process.

Page 1480

Those risks include product recontamination following cooking; errors occurring in the processing procedure; inadequate standards of quality control - for we do not know what quality control measures are in place in some of these countries wanting to sell their product in Australia; products originating from non-approved processing plants; and lack of or inadequate product monitoring on arrival in Australia. So the position of New South Wales Agriculture and the New South Wales Labor Government has been consistent on this matter. We did not introduce party politics into the issue, as the honourable member for Gosford did when changing his position time and again. It has become apparent that Newcastle disease is usually introduced into a country by imported cage birds. The disease may not be apparent, but these birds may act as carriers and readily pass the disease to more susceptible birds.

Newcastle disease cannot be cured. Drugs do not help at all, and birds continue to die even after treatment is given. Rigid controls on the importation of birds and bird products are still the best ways of preventing the spread of the disease. Australia is one of the highest per capita consumers of poultry in the developed world. We have in this State a $730 million industry that needs to be protected. I understand that the Government will accept the amendment moved by the Opposition because it includes the original condemnation of the Federal Government that it proposed last year, a provision that the honourable member tried to whip out when there was a change of government in Canberra. [Time expired.]

Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [12.53]: I thank the Minister for his indication that the Government will accept the amendment. In November 1994 I raised this matter in this House as a private member's statement, acting on the concerns of the industry in my electorate. My statement received the support of then Minister for the Environment, the honourable member for Gosford. Of course, it is a matter that concerns all honourable members of this House. The fact that the Government will accept the amendment indicates that New South Wales Agriculture shares the concerns I expressed. We should conduct an awareness campaign for the benefit of the New South Wales consumers. What guarantee do we have in New South Wales in particular and Australia generally that packaging on products displays where the product is made, the ingredients used, the use-by date, and the date of manufacture? What about conducting a campaign on the handling and refrigeration of chicken meat product?

As the Minister said, reflecting the concern of the department, bacterial activity is at its highest when the product is warm or when the chicken product is hot and left open in bain-maries. We should make school canteen operators aware of the risk, because students often purchase chicken salads and sliced chicken meat. As all honourable members would know, supermarkets sell sliced chicken meat but the packaging on it does not enable the consumer to determine the source of manufacture of the product, when it was packaged or whether it is fresh, or what ingredients are used in the making of the product. The product is so thinly sliced that the packaging surrounding it is difficult to read. We should be conducting media advertising about chicken products. The campaign could include informing the public of their right to know the origin of products. What about support for local product? At the moment we are encouraging consumers to buy Australian.

Now that the Government has indicated support for the Opposition amendment it should show its support for local industries by undertaking a buy Australian campaign. We represent local industries in this House. What about a campaign about the disposal of waste products? We all know that many people feed scraps to their pets, but that may prove to be a real risk when we are dealing with Newcastle disease. What about giving advice to people who keep Australian birds? Many people keep lorikeets, parakeets, eastern rosellas and cockatiels on residential properties. Are they aware of the threat of exposure of their animals and themselves to Newcastle disease? In Federal Parliament today the honourable member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, spoke in his maiden speech about his opposition to the importation of cooked chicken meat to this country. This House should be united in its approach to addressing this problem.

In November 1994 I stood in this House and urged honourable members to support me in my request that the Federal Government take measures to deal with this threat. This matter was brought to the attention of this Parliament in 1994, but only this week did the Government want to raise concern about it. The Government's actions this week have been seen as a political move. I am led to believe that the former Minister, Senator Collins, signed off on this deal to allow the importation of cooked chicken meat into this country. We should mount an awareness campaign for the benefit of the New South Wales community. We have a responsibility to advise consumers of our concerns about this problem. We have a responsibility also to make our voices heard in Canberra about the real threat to the people of New South Wales resulting from the importation of cooked chicken meat into Australia, and particularly into New South Wales.

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [12.58]: I support the motion on cooked chicken products moved by the acting Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Bob Debus. The matter of imported cooked chicken meat is one of prime importance to many chicken growers and their families who live in the Peats electorate. Not only are chicken growers worried, but those who are diligent in their efforts to conserve Australia's unique and beautiful bird life are also worried. Australia is very fortunate to have 750 unique native bird species, all of which are at risk if Newcastle disease is brought into this country through the importing of cooked chicken
Page 1481
meat. The dreaded Newcastle disease is a disease that has never before invaded Australia's shores, and this is a matter about which we should all be concerned.

New South Wales Agriculture argues that even if the chicken meat has been cooked at a given temperature over a certain time, that does not eliminate the quarantine risks associated with the importation process. Those risks include: product recontamination following cooking; errors occurring in the processing procedure; inadequate standards of quality control; products originating from non-approved processing plants; and lack of or inadequate product monitoring on arrival in Australia. The chicken growers of Mangrove Mountain are so concerned about this threat to their industry that under the auspices of the New South Wales Chicken Growers Association Limited a deputation, consisting of Tim Luckhurst, executive director of the association, George Sidiropoulos, a board member and president of the central coast branch of the association, and I met with the Minister for Agriculture shortly after the March 1995 election.

Later in 1995 I led a delegation of chicken growers to the New South Wales Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Pam Allan. Both Ministers heard the chicken growers voice their concerns about the threat to Australia's chicken industry - a clean, green industry up to this stage - and the threat to Australia's native bird life. The Ministers gave the chicken growers a fair hearing and undertook to do all they could to have their Federal counterparts take on board the grave reservations about the importation of chicken meat because of the serious risks involved. Honourable members heard the Minister for Agriculture state that was done. Only two months after the election of the Federal Liberal Party-National Party Government, the green light has been given to the importation of cooked chicken meat from the United States, Thailand and Denmark.

Where now are the voices of the parliamentarians in Canberra who are supposed to represent country people? The only Government in Australia today that can be seen to support the chicken growers, their families and industries that revolve around Australia's chicken industry is the New South Wales Labor Government. This Government is also concerned - and rightly so - about protecting and preserving Australia's unique bird life for future generations. I congratulate the acting Minister for the Environment, supported by the Minister for Agriculture, on bringing this matter to the attention of New South Wales citizens. It is hoped not only that the motion will be carried unanimously but that it will succeed in bringing the Federal coalition Government to its senses and encourage that Government to reconsider its decision to allow imported chicken meat into Australia.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [1.02]: I briefly indicate my full support of the Government's original motion and also the Opposition's amendment. It is more important for genuine unity to be achieved than for the Government to embark on an education program. Unity will send the most important signal to the Federal Government that it should not be embarking upon this program or allowing cooked chicken meat into Australia. That should not happen for the obvious economic and environmental reasons described by other honourable members. Also, the poultry and chicken meat industries are important to the Tamworth electorate and the implications of this decision extend much wider, that is, into the grain industry, which supplies grain to the chicken meat and poultry industries. The Federal Government should not embark on this program because the risks are far too grave. Honourable members have put forward many valid arguments against the proposal.

A united effort should be made to depoliticise the games played in this place over the past 30 to 40 minutes. That would be far more educative than embarking on a massive mail-out, supposedly to educate the people of New South Wales. I endorse the Minister's original motion. It is important that New South Wales stand united against the implementation of the program to have cooked chicken meat imported into Australia. The impact right across the agricultural sector would be enormous. New South Wales and Australia cannot afford to take those risks, despite assurances given by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. In the past the service's assurances have not always proved to be correct. Though the risk of an outbreak of Newcastle disease and other problems may be minimal, the agricultural sector would be appreciative of any government that refused the direct importation of cooked chicken meats.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [1.05], in reply: I thank honourable members who have taken part in the debate and, in particular, I appreciate the support of my colleague the Minister for Agriculture. I am concerned that the Federal Minister, Mr Anderson, has made this decision with complete disregard to a resolution passed in November 1995 by the Australian and New Zealand Environment Ministers Council. The Minister for the Environment, for whom I am acting, the Hon. Pam Allan, wrote to the Federal Minister advising that a decision on this matter should not be made hastily. Indeed, in October last year she wrote to the then shadow minister, Jim Longley, again reinforcing the New South Wales Government's concern over the prospect of the decision being made by the Federal Government.

However, of real concern is that the New South Wales Government learned of this matter by reading the decision in the Australian Financial Review last Friday. The Government feels that the protocol on cooked chicken meat may be put in
Page 1482
place as early as next week. The question should not be whether an education campaign should be undertaken but what can be done to reverse, right now, the decision of the Federal Government. It is in that context that I am inclined to endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Tamworth and ask whether the honourable member for Gosford and others will be prepared to join with the New South Wales Government in resisting this extraordinary and damaging decision of the Federal Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.


Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [1.07]: I wish to speak on the latest report of the Staysafe committee inquiry into pedestrian safety dealing with the question of bicycle courier activities. The review was undertaken by the Staysafe committee following receipt of a ministerial reference from the Minister for Transport. A truism of the transport industry - especially related to couriers - is that if time is money, speed is profit. This is surely true when one has regard to the activities of bicycle couriers in the Sydney central business district, where the speed of cycle movements in pedestrian areas and on roadways, and the disregard of cyclists for traffic laws have been highlighted as major issues of concern. Complaints about illegal and irresponsible behaviour by riders are commonplace: pedestrians have been struck down and there has been widespread abuse of traffic laws relating to traffic signals and signage. Only today I received a letter from a Mr Philip Hope, relating to his 19-year-old daughter, Jackie, who unfortunately on 28 September was walking across a street near Wynyard railway station when she was hit by a bicycle courier. That courier was riding on the wrong side of the road and mounted the footpath. Mr Hope stated:

She was flung into the air and knocked unconscious when her head hit the roadway and was taken to hospital by ambulance for observation. She suffered facial cuts that required sutures, swelling and bruising to both eyes, forehead, upper lip, lower lip, lacerations and bruising to her arms and legs and also suffered a vertical crack in a front tooth which will have to be extracted and replaced with a false tooth.

Even months after the accident she still has constant back pain. In conclusion Mr Hope stated:

On behalf of Jackie I support any move by the New South Wales Staysafe Community to regulate this industry. I drive for a living and visit the city (CBD) on a regular basis and confirm newspaper reports that the bike couriers are out of control.

Letters such as that - and the Staysafe committee has received hundreds of letters like it - are the reason that the committee, upon instruction by the Minister, conducted an immediate inquiry into this industry. It is an industry that grew quickly in the early 1980s. Staysafe accepts the need for such an industry. People want to get mail in small packages from one side of Sydney to the other very quickly, and the bicycle courier industry performs this service very well. Unfortunately in many cases it does not do so legally. After hearing evidence from many people the committee decided that the best way to solve the problems of the industry was by regulation; the industry had grown without regulation, and that was what was needed to get it back on track. Voluntary schemes that were commenced by the Sydney City Council and also by the Department of Transport over the past few years had failed because they were voluntary schemes that virtually had no legislative power to clamp down on the cowboys who had all but ruined the bicycle courier industry.

The effective control of bicycle couriers requires a new statutory system - a bicycle courier regulation. Staysafe proposes that the necessary elements for the regulation of bicycle courier activities include a compulsory scheme of accreditation for bicycle couriers, the compulsory carriage of identification documents by bicycle couriers, the wearing by riders of registration numbers that are clearly visible to the public, and the lodgment of a bond against unpaid fines - the committee suggests $500 would be suitable. The bond is extremely important because a lot of the bicycle couriers are people who are in Sydney on holidays, earning $600 or $700 per week as couriers, and in many cases in the course of their activities they pick up many fines and return to their places of residence without paying those fines. Fewer than 30 per cent of such fines are paid. Those who should not be in the industry would not lodge the $500 bond, but legitimate couriers would do so. Thus the industry would be regulated and better serve the people who want to work as couriers in this city.

A further recommendation for the control of bicycle courier activities is that there be an increase in penalties, from $39 to $103, for traffic offences. At present the maximum penalty imposed for any bicycle offence is just $39 - and Staysafe sees this as hardly being a deterrent. Staysafe has suggested an increase in the penalty to a maximum of $103, depending on the nature of the offence. Staysafe has proposed that police have powers to seize and impound bicycles of courier riders who commit traffic offences, the ones who really flout the law. Bicycle riders who are chased by the police and fail to stop should have their bicycles impounded. Staysafe has also examined future strategies that could be adopted to facilitate bicycle courier movements without compromising pedestrian safety or the safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles in downtown Sydney.

These strategies include designated cyclepaths, shared pedestrian zones, the rerouting of existing roadways and the development of new road links. On a wider scale, Staysafe endorses improved
Page 1483
consultative approaches through the development of planning and advisory bodies that can address the wider issues of the needs of bicycle riders in the downtown Sydney area and the need to ensure a safe and accessible city. I note here the formation of the city safety task force by the current Lord Mayor, Councillor Frank Sartor, and the recent formation of the Pedestrian Council of Australia to provide advocacy of pedestrian safety and amenities. All of these facilities go a long way in ensuring the safety of bicycle riders. Staysafe wishes it to be clearly understood that the focus of this report and its recommendations is on bicycle courier activities, that is, where a person is performing work by conducting a commercial activity involving the transport of goods for profit.

Staysafe recognises that it is possible to advance an argument that children riding a bicycle to deliver newspapers on a paper run, or engaged in similar activities, can be considered to be performing work of the same nature as that of a bicycle courier. However, Staysafe believes that regulatory action regarding the bicycle courier industry should ensure that children's paper runs and similar activities are totally excluded. As I have said, it is an industry that has grown without regulation. The Staysafe committee members believe that it is time the industry was regulated, for the safety of pedestrians and drivers in the city. Each time one of these couriers breaks the law an accident could result. The Staysafe committee believes that all people who use the roads in New South Wales should obey the same rules, and that is exactly what this report is about.

I make special reference to the work of the Staysafe committee secretariat, and in particular the work of the director of the committee, Mr Ian Faulks. I also note the work of all those in the Parliament who assist, including Hansard, and especially Pat Makin and Paul Guilfoyle from Parliamentary Printing Services. I give special thanks to my colleagues the members of the Staysafe committee. This is a hard-working committee; its members are asked to do a lot of work. Many inquiries are taking place at the moment. The committee has virtually a 100 per cent attendance at its meetings, which take place every two or three weeks and last for a full day. I thank all of these members for their hard work and cooperation. I submit the report to the House.

Mr SMITH (Bega) [1.17]: I shall speak briefly about the Staysafe 30 report, which is part of the pedestrian safety report. Staysafe 30 is a report on a reference from the Minister for Transport to the committee to investigate bicycle couriers and their activities in the central business district. The report was difficult to formulate because, though its recommendations are simple, they are aimed at regulating an industry that was previously unregulated. Those engaged in the industry are mainly younger people - students in particular - who come to Sydney on working holidays. These people use the bicycle courier system to make a few extra dollars in order to enhance their holiday and make it a little more enjoyable. However, in the 1980s the bicycle courier industry developed, and it developed very quickly. As one can imagine, it is far easier to move documents around the CBD area on a bicycle than it is to get a vehicle out of a garage for that purpose. Therefore, the use of bicycle couriers became a more efficient and cost-effective way to transport documents from, for example, one profession to another within the CBD area.

However, laws were broken, resulting in the imposition of fines, many of which remained unpaid. In addition, fears were held for the safety of pedestrians with whom the couriers shared the footpaths. Consequently, the Minister asked the Staysafe committee to conduct an inquiry into the bicycle courier industry. Though bicycle couriers travel very fast on the footpaths and know exactly where they are going, many pedestrians using the footpaths become frightened by them. From time to time pedestrians have been hit by couriers. The report recommends that there be continued support for the uniformed and plain-clothes police who, to some extent, control the courier business. The recommendation emanates from an initiative taken by the police at The Rocks. Bicycle couriers and their bikes are pretty much unidentifiable, and bicycle patrols of the police at The Rocks by both uniformed and plain-clothes officers have pulled into line many rebel couriers.

It has also been recommended that penalties be increased. At present the maximum penalty for a bike-riding offence is $39. The Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety has recommended that the penalty be increased to one penalty unit, being $103, which is a more realistic penalty in today's economic climate. It has been recommended that there be a mandatory registration scheme for bicycle couriers, which will assist in the identification and location of bicycle couriers. Bicycle couriers will be required to pass the Roads and Traffic Authority computerised knowledge test. People will not be able to just hop on their bikes and start working as couriers; they will be required to pass the computerised knowledge test. Those who do not already hold a New South Wales licence will thus be required to prove their competence and their knowledge of this State's road laws.

The committee has recommended that the impounding of bicycles be allowed. This is an attempt to prevent people from jumping on their bicycles and racing off to avoid apprehension. Another recommendation requires the lodgment of a monetary bond. At present very few fines imposed on bicycle couriers are paid. As the chairman of the committee has already said, only about a third of fines imposed are paid by the courier industry. It has been recommended that bike-riding offences attract demerit points against a driver's licence. [Time expired.]

Page 1484

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [1.22]: I congratulate the Staysafe Committee on the initiatives taken in this report. I do so not only in my role as Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Police but also as one who was for many years involved in the Staysafe Committee and the initiation of Staysafe 12, the embryo of bicycle safety measures. I congratulate the chairman and members of the committee on the initiatives taken in this report and on the recommendations made. This report is particularly important. As the honourable member for Bega has explained, the committee has made a series of recommendations, which will be taken on board by the Minister to whom I am responsible, the Minister for Police.

In my capacity as a former member of the Staysafe Committee and as a parliamentary secretary who is still actively involved in Staysafe matters, I make the point that many of the recommendations contained in the report will be welcomed by the police and that I will be happy to assist wherever possible in providing whatever information I can to ensure that bicycle safety is given an even higher priority. This is important to ensure the safety not only of bicycle riders themselves but also of some of those with whom they come in contact. Only 48 hours ago, when I was on my way to Parliament House on Tuesday, I was waiting to turn right into Hospital Road when a bicycle rider attempted a U-turn in front of me and collided with a taxi which was travelling behind him. I was astounded that the first reaction of the bicycle rider was to abuse the taxidriver, although it had been obvious to me that the taxidriver was not in any way at fault. Such occurrences are not uncommon.

A couple of weeks ago the television program A Current Affair showed videotapes of bicycle couriers in their travels throughout the city. It was obvious from that evidence that bicycle couriers are breaking laws over and over again, and that has to stop. The committee's second recommendation is that the New South Wales Police Service continue to support the use of uniformed and plain-clothes bicycle patrols in the Sydney police district, with specific tasking for enforcement of illegal bicycle courier activities as well as tasking in other areas of crime control, as needed. As the honourable member for Bega has already pointed out, a bicycle squad is now being trialled at The Rocks. The squad's specific job is to enforce the traffic regulations on couriers in the central business district.

Undoubtedly, there is already a move to ensure that the recommendations of critical concern to the Staysafe Committee are addressed. As I have already said, as a former member of the committee and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police, I would be only too happy to give whatever advice possible in connection with the recommendations. The central business district is not the only place in which the police are conducting patrols by bicycle. There are bicycle patrols at Engadine in my own electorate, and in Corrimal, Menai, Sutherland, Hurstville, Surry Hills and Redfern. Bicycle patrols are used according to degree of need in the community and they are designed to ensure the safety of the community. Again I congratulate the chairman and members of the Staysafe Committee on their efforts in producing this report, which I look forward to supporting.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [1.26]: I wish to speak in the debate on the Staysafe Committee Report 30, "Pedestrian Safety. III. Bicycle Courier Activities in the Sydney Central Business District" because I am concerned that the bicycle courier industry has become the favourite whipping boy of media programs that have a ratings problem, lord mayors facing election and, in this case, governments that also have ratings problems. I do not seek to detract from the work done by the Staysafe Committee and I recognise the effort that has been made by members of the committee and its staff. I have to say, however, that the bicycle courier industry is becoming a favourite whipping boy.

If one accepts that we live in a city of millions of people, if one accepts that we have the largest central business district in Australia; and if one accepts that our road network ensures that the CBD is very poorly serviced by vehicle couriers and other vehicles traversing the city, then one has to accept that we do need bicycle couriers, and foot couriers if that is possible. My concern with some of the report's recommendations is that the industry will be made much less profitable and much less workable. I am also concerned whether in the regulation of the bicycle courier industry for the first time, as noted by the honourable member for Bega, sufficient thought has been given to the impact of the regulations on the industry.

It is my belief that if regulation is to be introduced in a new area there are several requirements. Any new regulatory system must be workable. In this regard, I have grave concerns about recommendations 1-11. I fully support recommendations 12-15, which are the educative and encouragement type recommendations that are appropriate. Before regulating it is also important to demonstrate clear public benefit. All I have heard in today's debate and all I have seen from a quick examination of the report is anecdotal evidence. One thing I am sure about is that if we legislate or regulate on anecdotal evidence then we will miss four other scenarios that might pop up next week.

It is necessary to demonstrate that regulations about to be put into effect can be enforced. As regards bicycles in suburbs, I point out that the police cannot enforce the helmet rule. Every weekend I see kids riding around my electorate who are not wearing bicycle helmets. That is an offence and has been an offence for a number of years. The police cannot enforce that rule. I question
Page 1485
whether the police will be able to enforce the kind of regulations envisaged in the report. I was disappointed that the previous speaker did not address that point. I note that the city has another category of road users - pedestrians. Many pedestrians break the rules as they cross roads, and the rules they are breaking are not properly enforced either. I receive complaints from kids who ride their bikes on footpaths. I acknowledge that the chairman of the committee said that such circumstances would not be affected. However, in my opinion in suburban areas it is reasonably safe to ride bicycles on footpaths, particularly when the Pacific Highway and Pennant Hills Road run through one's electorate. My fear is that if we start regulating to the extent this report recommends that will be the next step taken, and if that is so how will it be enforced.

I am particularly concerned that some discrimination will apply to bicycle couriers that does not apply to other forms of couriers such as the users of vans, who are not required to lodge bonds. It might be said bicycle couriers cannot be easily identified. With modern marketing all bike couriers wear luminescent colours with names plastered all over them; it is free advertising. One could obtain a name from the backs of their jackets just as easily as one could from the side of a van. I am also concerned about the proposed registration scheme and the impounding of bicycles. I do not seek to defend the illegal activities that are occurring daily in the city and elsewhere, but I regard this measure as a particularly heavy hammer to crack a nut which is not that big. As the Minister for Mineral Resources said a moment ago, there have been migrants coming to this country since 1788 trying to make a quid. I think these people are providing a service to the city and the city would be much worse without them. I hope in making this report and in putting these regulations together before they are finally implemented that questions - [Time expired.]

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [1.31]: I can assure the honourable member for Northcott that the recommendations of the committee were not just plucked out of thin air and that the committee's deliberations, rather than being shallow, gave full attention to the situation relating to bicycle couriers. Indeed, all aspects of this issue were fully investigated during the committee's deliberations. The parties that were involved in the inquiry and in the various hearings that were held included the Sydney County Council, police, the Courier and Taxi Truck Association, the National Roads and Motorists Association, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Department of Transport. The briefing notes that the New South Wales Police Service provided to the committee late last year outlined the concerns of operational police. They reported - and I think quite correctly, because this was reinforced by various other witnesses - that there is a perception that bicycle couriers behave in a dangerous manner and have a total disregard for traffic laws. Statistics of complaints and actual collisions, however, were not conclusive. Whilst the police received many informal complaints, there were generally few in writing. On the other hand, the police also said that it was likely that not all collisions involving bicycle couriers were reported to police.

There was general agreement among all the witnesses who attended hearings - the ordinary citizen in the street - that the manner of riding adopted by bicycle couriers on the streets of the central business district was frightening. They generally ride fast, and often on footpaths. Bicycles are a very quiet mode of transport which means that few people know that a bicycle courier is anywhere near them until they are upon them. The police experience is that bicycle couriers flagrantly break traffic regulations and endorse a culture in which they believe they have a right to disregard traffic laws. There is continual danger of conflict between bicycle couriers and pedestrians, not just on the footpath but also at pedestrian crossings. No doubt one reason for the dangerous conduct and actions of couriers is the fact that the industry is very strongly commission driven. Couriers are paid according to the speed at which they operate. It is a very competitive industry. In this industry, perhaps as much if not more than in any other, time is money. So all sorts of corners are cut by them to get the job done as quickly as they can.

Staysafe has provided a description of the bicycle courier industry. It has gone into all facets of it; it has been substantially researched. The committee identified the need for the effective regulation of bicycle courier activities. That was the overriding issue of concern of the inquiry. Staysafe concluded that a compulsory scheme of accreditation is required, and it made a number of recommendations calling for a review and restructuring of the penalties applicable to bicycles, in particular applicable to bicycle couriers who commit traffic offences. Staysafe also made recommendations regarding changes required for the effective enforcement of safe bicycle courier activities, including the need for the compulsory carriage of identification documents and police powers to seize and impound bicycles under certain circumstances. I commend the report on pedestrian safety as part of the overall report of Staysafe 30 and congratulate the members of the committee on the excellent work they have done.

Report noted.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.35 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Petitions praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be
Page 1486
determined by a referendum, received from Mr Armstrong, Mr Blackmore, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr Merton, Mr O'Farrell, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Mrs Skinner, Mr Slack-Smith, Mr Smith, Mr Tink and Mr Turner.

Petition praying that brothels not be legalised, and that the Disorderly Houses Act is fully enforced to close all brothels, received from Mr Beck.

Petition praying that there be no reduction in beds or allied services at Wee Waa Hospital, received from Mr Slack-Smith.

Petition praying that cuts not be made to the budget of the Department of Agriculture, which would result in the loss of expertise, services, research and development, received from Mr Beck.

Petition praying that the Carr Government be censured for breaking its promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 Motorways; that those responsible for breaking the promise resign; and that all such future proposals be independently audited before they are announced, received from Mr Souris.

Petition praying that gay and lesbian de facto relationships be recognised in legislation and accorded the same status, rights and benefits as heterosexual relationships, received from Ms Moore.

Petition praying that the Government cooperate with other Australian governments in the implementation of uniform gun laws that require proof of reason for all gun licences, registration of the sale, transfer and ownership of every gun, and other than lifetime licences, received from Ms Moore.

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

Petition praying that approval be given for a playground and family beer garden to be constructed at the Cedars Hotel, Mount Druitt, received from Mr Gibson.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following papers for the year ended 30 June, 1995 be printed:

Report of the Youth Advisory Council.
Report of the Broken Hill Water Board.
Report of the Wild Dog Destruction Board.

Mr SPEAKER: It is with regret that I have to inform the House of the death of Robert Charles Dewley, a former member of the Legislative Assembly, who represented the electorate of Drummoyne from 3 May 1947 to 14 January 1953. On behalf of the House I have extended to his family the deep sympathy of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained.


Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women. Did the Building Services Corporation agree to pay Ms Vanessa Lovett up to $100,000 compensation on a building claim one month before a Supreme Court settlement ordered that each party pay an equal amount of just $25,000? Was the $100,000 compensation agreed to after political intervention from Ms Lovett's boss, the Minister for Local Government?

Mrs LO PO': No.


Mr RUMBLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. What action does the Government propose to improve the standard of service delivery by taxis in New South Wales?

Mr LANGTON: I am pleased to advise the House of a major reform package designed to lift the quality of service offered by this State's taxi industry to world-best standards. These sweeping reforms are all-inclusive and historic in their scope; and they have the full backing of the taxi industry. This package follows Australia's largest ever study of taxidriver safety, extensive consultation with the taxi and tourism industries, and an in-depth analysis of the most common complaints against taxis. Between May 1995 and April 1996 more than 4,300 complaints were lodged against taxi services. Almost 40 per cent related to discourtesy, incivility or impropriety. Another 22 per cent related to driver incompetence or driving in a dangerous manner. Almost 5 per cent related to taxis which
Page 1487
were dirty or not fit to be used as public vehicles. That is an unacceptable situation in Australia's premier city, the city which will in four years become the focus of world attention.

It is unacceptable that international visitors to this State at any time should be forced to travel in substandard taxis. It is unacceptable that thousands of New South Wales residents should have to continue to put up with taxi services that are not up to scratch. It is also unacceptable that taxidrivers should be forced to place their own safety at risk while going about their work. Almost everyone who has ever caught a taxi has heard of cases of abuse, rudeness, and substandard performance, none of which has any place in a professional service industry. Efforts by former governments have not succeeded in solving the problems that allow wide variance in service standards, thus making taxis an easy target for valid criticism. The Government and the industry will no longer tolerate this state of affairs.

Under this package taxidrivers will undergo strict locality and driving skills tests before being licensed to operate. No longer will taxi cabs be allowed to operate as dirty, smoky, steamy vehicles without airconditioning. From tomorrow a new 10-member taxi task force will be on the road inspecting vehicles for cleanliness and safety. Those taxis that fail to meet the required standard will be put off the road immediately. Before August this year all New South Wales taxis must be smoke free. By June 1998 every taxi will be required to have fully functioning airconditioning. Drivers will be required to demonstrate better communication skills and to wear network uniforms: collared shirts and tailored trousers, shorts or skirts. Scruffy drivers and substandard taxis will be targeted by the taxi task force in an initial three-month blitz beginning tomorrow.

The task force will then audit taxi operators and networks while continuing to ensure that taxis are clean and mechanically sound, and that drivers are neat, polite and helpful. The networks will provide better service under this reform package. They will be held responsible for the quality of the drivers and the vehicles they offer to the public. Taxi networks will sign service agreements with the Department of Transport, including times and areas of operation, as well as taxi availability at shift changeover time. Any breach of agreed service standards will not be tolerated. Networks will also be required to institute meaningful discipline against operators and drivers who do not deliver quality service, with sanctions ranging from time off the road to exclusion from the fleet. Networks will be required to provide better complaints handling systems, information services, lost property provisions and more child restraints. As well, customer choice and market competitiveness will be improved by making all networks display distinctive uniform badging within the next 12 months and have all their vehicles painted in distinctive network livery within the next three years.

There will be a comprehensive audit of all taxi inspection stations, and taxi operator accreditation will be inextricably linked to tighter maintenance standards. I have already announced that the Government will implement a range of recommendations designed to protect taxidrivers from attack. The recently released wide-ranging taxidriver safety survey reported the murder of one taxidriver in Sydney every year since 1993. The survey also estimated that there were as many as 2,200 assaults and 1,600 robberies each year, perhaps 90 per cent of which went unreported. As a result, the taxidriver safety committee recommended a series of measures that have been included in this package. Global positioning systems are to be installed in all Sydney taxis by the end of June 1997. The committee will immediately begin the development of specifications for driver protection screens, which will be fitted to all Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong taxis. Safety training for drivers is to be improved, and the practicality of surveillance cameras in taxis will be investigated.

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

Mr LANGTON: The free trauma counselling service for taxidriver assault victims will be expanded to include a 24-hour hotline. This reform package goes well beyond the improvements the Victorian taxi industry has boasted about. Driver safety measures and training and testing procedures in this State were already ahead of the Victorian system, and these reforms widen the gap. The quality of service provided by our drivers will also surpass that offered south of the border. Most importantly, the improvements to our taxi service will be brought about for far less cost than the Victorian improvements. In Victoria taxidrivers were granted a nine per cent fare increase before reform could come about. The New South Wales reforms will be funded by a $1 increase in the taxi flag fall from 1 July. This $1 increase in the flag fall is the fairest and most equitable way to provide a safer, better taxi service. The increase does not penalise those who need to travel furthest, as a percentage fare increase would, and it does not place the entire cost burden of major safety and service improvements on taxidrivers.

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

Mr LANGTON: A dollar is a small price to pay for the protection of a life; it is a small price to pay for a professional taxi service.

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

Mr LANGTON: It is a small price to pay for the massive improvement in service, cleanliness, politeness and professionalism that will result from these reforms. I congratulate those from the taxi industry, from the tourism industry, and from the Department of Transport who worked so hard to
Page 1488
bring about this reform package. I look forward with confidence to the day in the very near future when New South Wales taxidrivers will be no longer criticised as the cowboys of the road but will be rightfully praised for leading Australia in the provision of outstanding professional service.


Ms MACHIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Does an internal memorandum from the Minister's department in regard to Ms Vanessa Lovett's compensation claim state that as a result of ministerial representations and political influence being brought to bear this matter is well and truly in the political arena? Will the Minister now join with the builder in referring the Minister for Local Government to the Ombudsman for this clear political interference?

Mrs LO PO': I have not seen any such memorandum.


Mr NAGLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads. What is the Government doing to meet its Olympic construction timetable?

Mr KNIGHT: No honourable member in this House takes a greater interest in the preparations for the Olympics than the honourable member for Auburn.

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

Mr KNIGHT: I remember the days when honourable members opposite took an interest in the Olympics. In those days John Fahey, Bruce Baird and even Nick Greiner had an interest in the Olympics.

Mr Fraser: There was some credibility in those days.

Mr KNIGHT: I accept absolutely the honourable member for Coffs Harbour's judgment on the current Liberal Party. It is anti-Olympics and antisport. Only last Sunday when I was at the Entertainment Centre with the Premier having a game of basketball, shooting a few baskets, he said, "I never see Peter Collins or Ian Armstrong doing anything like this." The New South Wales Government has the responsibility of providing the venues and facilities needed to stage the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Since taking office, the Government has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the resources and timetable to provide these facilities. The results of this review are contained in a document I released earlier today, entitled, "State of Play", which is a report on Sydney 2000 Olympics planning and construction. "State of Play" reveals a realistic assessment of where we are with Olympic planning, and where we go from here. Four years after the original bid and four years before the Games are to be held is an appropriate time to take stock. "State of Play" outlines the tasks and obligations the Government faces and how it will deal with them. It provides the Government's program of Olympic planning.

Mr Phillips: A $370 million blow-out.

Mr KNIGHT: For the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition "State of Play" has highlighted a difference between the original bid budget as prepared in June 1992 and the situation today of $374.8 million in 1996-97 dollars.

Mr Phillips: Explain why.

Mr KNIGHT: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will listen, I will. The difference is understandable. Despite the diligence of the bid effort, it is unrealistic to expect that every plan and every costing in the bid campaign would translate exactly into the reality of putting on the Games. In undertaking the Government's review of the Olympic budget, the Olympic Co-ordination Authority engaged independent consultants who reached the conclusion in their report as follows:

The original budget was based on concepts and assumptions at that time, which over the 3 and a half years have proved to have underestimated the physical and functional constraints of developing the Homebush Bay site, as well as the scope of work of a number of the Olympic facilities.

The report concluded:

The current Olympic Coordination Authority budget review has demonstrated that it is no longer feasible to maintain a construction budget within the benchmark set by the original budgets without compromising Olympic and long term objectives.

Let me make it clear that there is no budget blow-out. "State of Play" gives a realistic assessment of Olympic costs, taking into account necessary items that were not factored into the original bid, and allows for extra costs that will ensure that better facilities are built for the long-term benefit of the State.

Mr Phillips: You are expanding facilities and you don't need them.

Mr KNIGHT: For example, the multiuse indoor arena, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition apparently opposes the State building, will now be a 15,000-seat entertainment and sporting complex in Sydney's west instead of a cheaper Olympic gymnastic hall that would have had limited long-term use. Who other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - the antisport, anti-Olympics member, the failed former Minister for Health - would quibble at the extra money being spent?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to ask a question at a later stage.

Page 1489

Mr KNIGHT: Who but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would quibble about extra money being spent to place the powerlines at the Homebush site underground? Who but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would quibble about putting in proper public transport and a proper rail link direct on to the Homebush site? Who but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would quibble about spending some extra money to provide for proper water recycling on the site to meet the environmental commitments made in the bid? Who else would quibble about properly funding the tennis centre, which was wrongly costed by the previous Government at only $12 million instead of a more realistic $21 million? Other shortfalls include the provision of car parking for a mere 20 vehicles at the equestrian centre.

"State of Play" sets a realistic timetable for the construction of Olympic venues. As the document illustrates, of the 27 sports to be staged in Sydney, 14 already have completed venues. Of the remaining 13, only one, shooting, is behind the bid schedule, and that venue is the subject of problems with the Federal Government about the Holsworthy site. "State of Play" will give the construction, investment, business, sporting, tourism and entertainment communities the information they need so they can plan for the long term. At the end of the day it must be remembered that although the Olympic facilities will cost $1.9 billion, they will be used by the people of this State for generations to come. None of the construction expenditure is being used merely for the 17 days of the Olympic Games or the 11 days of the Paralympics. After contributions from the Federal Government and the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games the net cost to the State of the Government's Olympic construction program and rehabilitation of Homebush Bay is $1.4 billion. That represents less than 1.5 per cent of the State budget over the next five years. "State of Play" is a realistic document, but what it reveals above all is that under this Government the Olympics are in fantastic shape.


Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Will a proposal to allow hotels to have up to 30 poker machines result in extra revenue to each of the hotels in which the Minister has an interest to the tune of $500,000? Will the Minister guarantee to abstain from voting in Cabinet or Cabinet subcommittees on the poker machine proposal, in accordance with the code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw to the attention of the House previous decisions of the Chair ruling out of order questions relating to the personal affairs of Ministers. In this case I will leave it to the Minister to decide whether to answer the question, having on a previous occasion undertaken a similar answer.

Mr WHELAN: I always do, and will.

Mr SULLIVAN: I address a question without notice to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. What steps does the Government propose to improve the physical fitness of children?

Mr AQUILINA: The issue raised by the honourable member for Wollongong is close to the hearts of all honourable members, for we are all interested in the physical fitness of our children. The 1992 Senate inquiry into physical education and sport found the activity patterns of young people to be particularly distressing. It found that increasingly young people demonstrate lower levels of fitness, physical skill and coordination, are more likely to be obese and spend less time taking part in physical activity. The Government is very concerned at these findings. Consequently I, along with the Minister for Sport and Recreation, am announcing a number of measures designed to improve the fitness of young people at our schools. First, we have produced a physical education discussion paper; second, we have undertaken a fitness survey - in which no doubt the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai might like to participate; and, third, we have produced a fitness module.

The "Physical Activity in the School" curriculum paper outlines ways of implementing the Government's election commitment to help improve student fitness. The paper contains a number of options which include: making a minimum amount of time for physical activity compulsory in primary schools, with options ranging from 120 minutes per week or 200 minutes per week; and increasing the amount of physical education within the physical education, health and personal development curriculum in years 7 to 10, with the options in that respect including increasing the existing 100 out of 300 hours spread over four years, to 150 or 200 hours out of 300 hours within a four-year period. The discussion paper will be distributed to schools, key educational organisations, and health and fitness professionals.

Written submissions are invited to be sent to the Board of Studies by 19 July. The board will collate all responses and report to me by 30 August this year. I say from the outset that, as with the Yeltus report and the McGaw report, on this occasion the Government has no preferred option. We want to hear whether teachers, students, and other experts think time should be set aside for physical activity in primary schools. This fulfils an election commitment to see what could be done to ensure students have the opportunity to experience more physical activity at school, including learning at least three different exercise programs. I am also announcing that a survey of about 7,000 students aged between 7 and 15 years will be held during the first term of next year. It will be conducted in at least 100 schools randomly selected across the State and across education sectors. This will help to develop a picture of their fitness levels and activity patterns.

Page 1490

To help teachers, the survey team will also run locally based fitness workshops as they move around the State. Finally, the Board of Studies is developing a fitness module for use in primary schools. This will ensure that personal development, health and physical education programs give the promotion of physical activity a suitably high focus. Teachers will be given direction on how to engage students in a wide range of activities that are enjoyable, challenging and equitable for girls and boys. The module will be released in term four this year, for implementation in 1997. As we approach the year 2,000, physical activity, exercise and fitness will receive high levels of attention throughout the community. I want to make sure that the young people in our schools are not lost in the focus that I have described. This is a tremendous opportunity to put in place programs and structures that will continue to enhance the health and wellbeing of students for many years to come.


Mr SOURIS: I ask a question without notice of the Premier. Was Brad Fitzmaurice, who was appointed to the Public Employment Office straight after the 1995 State election, a former member of his ministerial staff and a key trusted political ally of the Premier in the State electorate of Maroubra? Will the Premier admit that Mr Fitzmaurice, now a key witness in Independent Commission Against Corruption proceedings, is a close and longstanding political ally?

Mr CARR: One, he was not a ministerial staffer.

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

Mr CARR: He was a public servant. He was employed in what is known as the public service. Before the coalition politicised it, it had a reputation for independence, and that is where he came from.


Mr McBRIDE: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development. What plans does the Government have for the development of the port of Yamba?

Mr SCULLY: I am amazed that some honourable members have the temerity to question the State Government's commitment to the port of Yamba. The Government's support for the port is unequivocally a matter of public record. The Government's actions speak louder than any words. The Government has put its money where its mouth is. A total of $1 million in State funding is sitting in the bank, specifically earmarked to be spent on improvements to the port. The then Federal member for Page, Mr Harry Woods, won a commitment from the former Federal Labor Government to provide matching Commonwealth funding for that purpose.

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

Mr SCULLY: In addition to this Government's commitment of that $1 million in funding for the port of Yamba, tomorrow the Government will be taking another step that reflects its ongoing commitment to the port of Yamba. An advertisement will be placed in the local press seeking expressions of interest by people wishing to obtain permanent appointment to the port of Yamba advisory committee. I am sure that honourable members would like to be enlightened on the role of the advisory committee. It is to advise me on a range of matters relating to the port, including trade maximisation, port infrastructure development and regional business matters. The closing date for expressions of interest of persons wishing to be appointed to the advisory committee is 5 July this year. I need to lay to rest another furphy about the State's ports, including the port of Yamba. As a certain event on Saturday draws closer, there have been claims that the port of Yamba may be privatised.

I say for the benefit of those opposite, as I have said on many occasions before: the State's ports are not available for privatisation. The port of Yamba is not available for privatisation. I do not know how many times I will have to say that to get it to register in the thick heads of those opposite: our ports are not for sale. Who, apart from the north coast members of the National Party, is calling for the privatisation of our ports? It is the Federal Minister. He is calling for the privatisation of New South Wales ports. So the Federal National Party in Canberra along with the State National Party is calling for the privatisation of our ports. That has got to end. This Government stands firmly behind the people of the north coast. It wishes to protect their port facilities. It remains committed to spending that $1 million on their port facility. I expect to be in a position to expend that money in a few months time. So I welcome the question from the honourable member for The Entrance because it enabled me to highlight the stark difference in the policies of this State Labor Government and the Federal coalition Government.


Mr PHOTIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Does he support the proposal of the Chairman of the Staysafe committee for tougher drink-driving penalties, such as immediate driving bans for all offenders and denial of the right to a court appearance? Does he, as Minister for Police, agree this is the appropriate way to crack down on drink-driving?


Page 1491
Mr WHELAN: I am sure the report of the Staysafe committee is valuable in addressing the serious problem of drink-driving in our State. All honourable members would understand this is a very serious matter; I certainly do. I will ask the Chairman of the Staysafe committee to give me a personal brief about the merits and demerits of it.

Mr Photios: What is your view?

Mr WHELAN: Maybe you should direct that question to Kathryn Greiner or Susan Renouf.


Mr NEILLY: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister inform the House of the implications for research and recruitment following the budget announcements for New South Wales Agriculture?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Cessnock for his interest in agriculture, something which is very light on from the Opposition. I do not intend to provide any information about the very detailed balance sheets of the budget papers. As we all know, they are hard to understand, but the question does not suggest that I give details of the budget papers. As with many honourable members, I find some of them very difficult to understand, and I am sure the honourable member for Cessnock would agree with that. The lack of questions to the Premier from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on Treasury matters certainly will not help us to understand them any further. The Government is waiting for some questions from the Opposition on Treasury issues.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Vaucluse to order. The Minister will ignore the interjections and will direct his remarks through the Chair.

Mr AMERY: One does not even get much help on the budget papers from the library. When I asked for some embellishment on the all ordinaries index, they sent me an alphabetical listing of the shadow cabinet. How are honourable members able to learn about Treasury papers? I assure the honourable member for Cessnock that in relation to the impact of the agricultural budget on research, the Government is not closing the Temora Agricultural Research Station, as predicted by the Opposition, nor is it closing the Cowra and Condobolin research stations, as predicted by the Leader of the National Party, Ian Armstrong. It is not closing the Wollongbar Veterinary Laboratory and the Orange Veterinary Laboratory, as predicted by the Leader of the National Party and the shadow minister for agriculture, the Hon. Richard Bull.

The honourable member for Cessnock can be assured that the Government is not closing down the Orange head office of the Department of Agriculture and transferring it back to Sydney, as predicted by the Leader of the National Party. It is not closing the West Wyalong office of the Department of Agriculture, as predicted by the Leader of the National Party. I assure Grafton constituents that the Government is not closing down the Grafton Agricultural Research Station, as predicted by the Leader of the National Party.

The Opposition makes continual predictions in its constituencies about dismantling agricultural facilities in an endeavour to undermine the confidence of employees, but never asks questions about this issue in question time. I am sure the honourable member for Cessnock will be relieved to hear that those statements being peddled by the Opposition are not true. The 1996-97 budget for New South Wales Agriculture is good news for farmers and for rural New South Wales. The budget was so good that it was relegated to page 20 of the Land, so the Government must be doing something right. The agricultural budget this year has increased in real terms by 7 per cent.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ku-ring-gai will resume his seat. If he wishes to take a point of order he should state it and not engage in conversation across the Chamber. I call the Minister for Local Government to order.

Mr AMERY: Included in this amount is an increased contribution from industry and other sources, which will provide $23 million, an increase of more than 8 per cent on last year. The Opposition has criticised the Government for decentralising research, suggesting that industry would withdraw its funding. However, the increase of 8 per cent in industry funding endorses the Government's actions in decentralising agricultural research. It reflects industry confidence in the direction taken by New South Wales Agriculture on research. The establishment of the centres of excellence in agriculture research has been the key focus of the Government's commitment to advancing agriculture in this State. The decentralisation of Rydalmere Research Laboratory to a number of centres in New South Wales will not only enhance and modernise research capabilities but will provide a significant boost to regional centres with increased investment.

In answer to the question by the honourable member for Cessnock, I shall refer to some major spending initiatives. These include $850,000 for additional teaching facilities at the Tocal and Murrumbidgee agricultural colleges. I hope the honourable member for Murrumbidgee, who recently attended a presentation day there with me, supports that initiative. This investment includes a $315,000 allocation to the Trangie Research Centre. I understand an Opposition member predicted that would actually close. The Government has allocated $1.45 million for the winter cropping and viticulture centre at Wagga Wagga. I hope the honourable member for Wagga Wagga appreciates this extra investment in his area, which will more
Page 1492
than compensate for the jobs position. Also, $617,000 will be allocated to the Tamworth Research Centre and the honourable member for Tamworth is appreciative of this Government's decentralisation policies.

The Government will be allocating $4.6 million for the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute at Camden. As well, the Government will allocate $2 million for the Orange Research Centre, and that will go down well with the constituents of Orange when they assess the performance of the Government this Saturday. The Government will make an allocation of $730,000 for beef cattle research at Armidale. Opposition members are pretty good at interjecting and commenting on agricultural matters, but they are not too strong when it comes to putting in a bit of effort in the House. They give the impression in rural New South Wales that they are raising these issues in the Parliament. People from rural areas are unaware that Opposition members are a bunch of duds and do not ask questions relating to agricultural matters.

The Opposition has been saying a lot about the voluntary redundancy package, but I did not know that the shadow Cabinet took it! Where is the shadow Cabinet? An amount of $500,000 will be spent on the Wollongbar research station near Lismore and $25,000 was spent on the Grafton research station. I am pleased that the Minister for Fisheries is joining my department in a fisheries research facility at Grafton and no doubt there will be an inspection of that facility. There are substantial investments in rural New South Wales, which have been widely welcomed, with the exception of one small comment by the Minister for Agriculture who quibbled about the amount of money to be spent on the decentralisation of the Rydalmere facility. Not one comment has been made by the Leader of the National Party about this budget. The Premier may be able to find a comment by the Leader of the Opposition, with the aid of a magnifying glass, but I have an APB - all points bulletin - out for any comment made by the Leader of the National Party. Nothing has been said. What a ringing endorsement for the State budget! Our research effort will be boosted further -

Mr Souris: What about bushfires?

Mr AMERY: Bushfire funding in agriculture? You really are up to speed! The Deputy Leader of the National Party believes that bushfire funding comes from the Department of Agriculture - and he was a Minister. Our research effort will be boosted further by the recently announced recruitment drive by New South Wales Agriculture of more than 100 university graduates. This is the biggest recruitment undertaken by the department in 25 years. The Government will not sack one staff member. Our recruitment drive -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr AMERY: The Opposition continues to attribute the recruitment drive to some sort of replacement program for people who took voluntary redundancies. It fails to understand that for 20 years there has been no recruitment of young graduates into the Department of Agriculture. As a result the average age of the department's employees is 47. The Minister for Police can talk about new graduates coming into the Police Service year in and year out, replenishing the resources and investing in the future of these people. The Minister for Education and Training can talk about the continuing recruitment of young people into the teaching profession. The Minister for Health can talk about young people coming into the nursing profession. But the Opposition cannot accept the fact that we need to bring in new recruits for the Department of Agriculture.

The department needed a redundancy package to ensure resources were available to recruit young people, so that the experienced people in New South Wales Agriculture will be the departmental heads in the next 10 to 15 years. If we do what the Opposition did in the past, in 10 years half the number of employees of the department will retire. Many of our experienced scientists and extension officers will be due for retirement over the next 10 to 15 years. It is vital that the department recruits and trains a new generation of agricultural specialists now so that we can ensure a secure future for farmers of this State. This Government is investing in the future, and if it allowed the present situation to continue, retirements would clean the department out of experienced staff. The Government's commitment to research and to the recruitment of new staff is in stark contrast to that of the Federal Government.

The coalition Government has flagged a 12 per cent cut in funding to universities. Only today on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program, Country Hour reporter Zoe Daniel highlighted the concern in our universities over the proposed 12 per cent cut. Professor Snow Barlow of the University of Western Sydney said he was gravely concerned about the effect that the cuts would have on the future output of agricultural graduates. What do Opposition members have to say about that? They have run out of interjections! Professor Barlow said agricultural courses, because they tend to be more expensive to run than many others, would be the hardest hit. He said class sizes would increase and the quality of graduates would decline as a result. Professor Barlow said he was concerned that lecturers would be forced to spend more time teaching and less time doing research. New South Wales Agriculture is currently linked in research projects with a number of universities, including Sydney University, the University of Western Sydney, the University of New England, Charles Sturt University and Southern Cross University. I share the concern of Professor Barlow that these research projects could suffer as a result of Federal Government cuts to university spending. National prosperity -

Page 1493

Mr Collins: After what you have done? You have got rid of hundreds of people. Admit it!

Mr AMERY: I will say it very, very slowly: we have not sacked or got rid of anybody, but the voluntary redundancy package has been well received. As I say, half the shadow cabinet took it. Many departmental employees - people in the tick control program and so on - brought forward their retirements. Would the Opposition deny them that opportunity? Many of them took up consultancies and most of them are still providing a service to the agricultural community as consultants and working in agribusiness. Let us face it: the farmers are getting the best of both worlds. They are getting departmental trained staff working in private industry, and they are getting the recruits who are working with existing experienced staff.

National prosperity has been recognised as being directly linked to the quality of our university graduates and the research programs on which they work. On top of the cuts to our universities the Australian Financial Review today highlighted Federal Government proposals to slash research and development tax breaks for industry. The article stated that businesses faced losing up to $500 million in tax breaks. This must be of serious concern to anyone who has an interest in agricultural research - and the Opposition has no interest in this. I have already pointed out that industry and other sources contributed a record $23 million towards agricultural research, which is an 8 per cent increase on last year's amount. Proposals to slash the tax breaks must surely threaten future investment in agricultural research. I would be interested to hear the Opposition's comments about research as far as Federal Government funding is concerned.

Mr Collins: After what you have done to agriculture? You are a disgrace!

Mr AMERY: Ask me a question about agriculture. It is a great period for agriculture. I hope the Federal Government will rethink its funding cuts to universities and will provide tax breaks to industry. The future productivity of our farmers hinges on a commitment to quality research - research on which this Government will this year spend a record amount. I am pleased to be part of this resurgence in agriculture, after seven years in the wilderness under a coalition Government.


Mrs LO PO': In response to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Port Macquarie, whose seat is vacant, these documents -

Mr Carr: Where is she?

Mrs LO PO': I do not know - campaigning, I think. These documents have been circulated by the Opposition in the press gallery. That has been going on for some days. It is true that no self-respecting journalist will touch them. If one looks at the documents distributed by the Liberal Party, one will find that the phone call in question occurred on 8 January, three days after the department had finalised the claim on 5 January.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. I ask you to direct the Minister to table the documents at the conclusion of her remarks.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member knows that standing orders allow the Minister to table the documents if she wishes, but that the Chair cannot direct her to do so.

Mrs LO PO': In case honourable members have missed what I just said, I shall repeat that.

Mr O'Doherty: No, we heard it the first time.

Mrs LO PO': I am sure that Opposition members did. The documents distributed by the Liberal Party show that the telephone call in question occurred on 8 January, three days after the department had finalised the claim on 5 January.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on three calls to order.

Mrs LO PO': The Opposition's own documents refute the claims of interference in the process.

Mr Souris: Rubbish!

Mrs LO PO': Absolutely! The Liberal Party has been touting these documents around the press gallery, but no-one will touch them with a stick.

Questions without notice concluded.


Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [3.11]: My motion, that this House condemns the Minister for Education and Training for his failure to provide adequate educational facilities and staffing at Grafton on the north coast, is urgent because of the by-election in the Clarence electorate this weekend. It is urgent because the Labor Party candidate for the seat of Clarence, Mr Harry Woods, claims in the electorate that he has influence with the Carr Government.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. Reluctant as I am to raise a point of order, as I realise that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has only 4½ minutes left to him, I must point out that he has to establish why his motion for urgent consideration should take priority over one other. He cannot substantially debate the details of the matter. He has to convince the Chamber that his is the more
Page 1494
important motion for urgent consideration. I ask you to bring the honourable member back to what he is trying to establish and the reason that his motion should be debated today, not the subject matter of the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's point of order is premature.

Mr FRASER: This motion is urgent because Harry Woods is claiming influence with Bob Carr. We know he has none. It is urgent because Harry Woods in election advertising is saying that his election would not result in a change of government but would give the electorate a real say. My motion is urgent because the cuts in funding for educational facilities demonstrate that Harry Woods has no influence with the Government. It is urgent because the Minister for Education and Training has cut $40,000 in funding to the Grafton public school for a project that was to cost -

Mr McManus: On a point of order. The honourable member is flouting your ruling. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is debating the issue rather than giving members an opportunity to determine whether his motion should take priority over one other - not the fact that a Labor Party candidate -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the honourable member for Bulli on the point of order. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is attempting to explain why his notice should receive priority.

Mr FRASER: My motion is urgent because last year's capital works budget was underspent by $10 million. It is urgent because this Government has cut the budget, including the budget for the north coast, by $22 million.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. There are two components to my point of order. First, the honourable member has to prove the question of urgency. Second, the honourable member has talked about last year's budget. Something that happened 12 months ago certainly would not indicate urgency. The fact of the matter is that there is only one -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Northcott will refrain from interjecting.

Mr Whelan: There is only one matter of urgency to which the honourable member for Coffs Harbour can point, and that is that there will be a by-election on Saturday and the National Party is scared witless.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the Minister on the point of order. There is no point of order.

Mr FRASER: My motion is urgent also because the head welfare teacher at Bonalbo central school has suffered a funding cut in the budget. There is no funding for the welfare teacher at Bonalbo school. The motion is urgent because that cut demonstrates to the people of Clarence that Harry Woods has no influence. Harry Woods does not want to know Bob Carr, and Bob Carr does not want to know Harry Woods.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. Standing orders in this regard are quite clear. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour has to establish why his case is more important than one other. He cannot use his five minutes to debate the subject matter. It does not matter whether Harry Woods is relying on Bob Carr or vice versa. That has nothing to do with the motion for urgent consideration being put before the House today.

Mr Whelan: On the point of order, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. What the honourable member for Londonderry said is perfectly true. The notice relates to a condemnation of the Minister for Education and Training for his failure to provide adequate educational facilities and staffing at Grafton on the north coast. The comments by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour bear no resemblance to the subject matter of the notice of motion. The honourable member's time for speaking has expired.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [3.16]: The motion standing in my name should be given priority because the eradication of feral animals and weeds from the Australian environment is one of the most important tasks to be undertaken in order to protect our unique natural heritage. I am especially concerned that Federal Government funding for 10 key conservation programs will run dry next month. There is no sign that the Federal Government intends to continue funding for those programs. That is clearly a breach of the promises made to the Australian electorate before the recent Federal election. The motion should be heard and debated.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. I have the same point of order as that taken several times by the honourable member for Londonderry, to whom the Chair accorded great leniency. The purpose of the Minister's debate is to establish why his motion for urgent consideration should take precedence over the matter that has already been discussed by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour clearly established a case based on matters -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is debating the issue. What is the point of order?

Page 1495

Mr O'Doherty: The point is that the Minister in referring to the most recent Federal election, which was some months ago, and is not establishing why his motion is a matter for urgent debate in the House today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister referred to the current proposal to slash funding.

Mr DEBUS: As I said, the Federal Government is giving no sign that it intends to restore funding for 10 key conservation programs that will run out of funding next month. The motion should be debated and accepted so that we can send a clear message to farmers in this State that they should not tolerate Canberra's cutbacks in the control of feral animals. The motion warrants the highest priority so that we can also dispel the campaign of misinformation that is being waged by the Opposition in the media, alleging the Government's lack of commitment to weed and feral animal eradication. The purpose of my motion is to send a clear signal to Canberra that land-holders will not tolerate an attack on their livelihoods of the kind that would inevitably follow if feral animals and weeds were not controlled. My motion should be given priority because across the State in just one year more than 1,400 goats have been eradicated by the use of various means -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has just entered the Chamber. He should not start interjecting as soon as he enters the Chamber.

Mr DEBUS: Feral animal control programs contribute to many rural economies. Some species could form the basis of an export commodity. Mustered goats could be used -

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, you were specific in rulings on the matter put before the House previously that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour was not to debate the substance of the matter but why it should be accorded priority. The history of feral animal and weed control is very interesting, but it is not the subject of the question before the House at the moment.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order is upheld.

Mr DEBUS: My motion deserves priority because this Government has the vision and the commitment to rid New South Wales of animal and plant pests in order to preserve our natural environment. It is absolutely necessary that we be able to send appropriate messages of our intention to Canberra and to the people of New South Wales.

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

The House divided.

Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mr Collins Mr Phillips
Mr Cruickshank Mr Photios
Mr Debnam Mr Richardson
Mr Ellis Mr Rozzoli
Ms Ficarra Mr Schipp
Mr Fraser Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Ms Machin Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

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

Mr Armstrong Ms Allan
Mr Downy Ms Nori

Question so resolved in the negative.


Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [3.28]: I move:

(1) That this House condemns moves by the Federal Government to slash funding for feral animal and weed control programs when these pests are threatening agricultural livestock and native animals and plants.

Page 1496

(2) That this House congratulates the New South Wales Government on its record support for feral animals and weed eradication programs.

It is of great concern that funding for 10 key conservation programs by the Federal Government will run dry next month and there is absolutely no sign of the Federal Government restoring funding for them. One of the key areas which is on the chopping block is the Federal Government's feral animal and weed control program to fight the invasion of introduced pests such as rabbits, cats, foxes and pigs. Funding for all of these areas will expire on 3 January unless there is new funding. Funding for this critical program has been put in doubt following statements by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, to the Australian last Monday that the program must be regarded as a new initiative and will not be renewed automatically as part of the budget process. That means that $1.75 million will be lost to feral control projects, which will see a collapse of the programs at the Federal level. This comes on top of the Howard Government's plan to dismantle the Commonwealth environment protection agency, throwing national coordination of environmental issues out the window.

The cuts come at a time when feral animals are posing a very serious threat to agricultural animals and to native wildlife. Some would say that feral animals are one of the most serious environmental threats facing this country. Let us compare this dismal effort to the actions that the State Government is taking to combat the problem. Today I am in a position to announce an all-out assault on feral animals and weeds by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Since coming to office the Carr Government has increased funding for pest species management from $1.5 million in 1994-95 - the coalition's last year in power - to almost $5 million. This represents a massive 330 per cent increase to fund the attack on feral animals and weeds since the Government took office. The Opposition was happy enough to allow feral animals to run riot in our parks and reserves, but this Government is stepping up the attack to eradicate these blights from our parks. Over the last year the Government has embarked on more than 300 separate feral pest control programs. Many programs are collaborative efforts involving -

Mr Jeffery: You have tied it all up in wilderness and cut off the access trails.

Mr DEBUS: What is the difference between wilderness and national parks? The program will continue. Many of these programs are collaborative efforts involving community groups, New South Wales Agriculture, rural lands protection boards and local councils. Across the State more than 14,000 goats have been killed by biological, chemical and mechanical means, and almost 7,000 more have been mustered and removed from national parklands. Across 27 National Parks and Wildlife Service districts many other successful control programs have been effective in removing almost 5,000 feral pigs, about 4,000 foxes, wild dogs and cats. The Government will continue to support this drive to significantly reduce pest numbers across the State and limit the often devastating impact they can have on the environment. These moves to attack feral animals can also represent a great new opportunity of an economic nature for local communities.

Mr Peacocke: Don't deal with them; shoot them with shanghais.

Mr DEBUS: I know all about agricultural livestock. Though these feral animals are an obvious threat to native animals and agricultural livestock they could possibly form the basis for an export commodity. For instance, mustered goats could be used for their meat potential or for their hair, skins or hide for leather products. I have heard of a program, less relevant for New South Wales, for the export to China of cane toad skins for making wallets. I have asked the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife to liaise with New South Wales Agriculture to assess the positive opportunities that exist in relation to this untapped resource. This could represent both a win for the environment and the development of new job opportunities, particularly in rural communities throughout the State. Some excellent pest control programs have already been concluded by the service; for instance a collaborative program between the NPWS and the Topar Koonenberry Rangecare groups to control goats and foxes in the Mootwingee National Park, near Broken Hill, and on neighbouring properties. Goat and fox control is essential to protect the two remaining colonies of yellow-footed rock-wallaby in western New South Wales.

Mr Hazzard: Have you been to Mootwingee?

Mr DEBUS: Yes, I have.

Mr Hazzard: Was it good?

Mr DEBUS: Fantastic. The National Parks and Wildlife Service from Nowra district has a joint project with local land-holders to control foxes and wild dogs which threaten the important colonies of the brush-tailed rock wallaby in the Kangaroo Valley. Bait stations are used there to minimise the impact on non-target species. The National Parks and Wildlife Service staff from the Cobar and Griffith districts have worked closely with neighbouring land-holders and the Cobar and Hillston rural lands protection boards to control foxes in central-western New South Wales. The program is an integral part of the mallee fowl conservation plan in the Yathong Nature Reserve. The service is actively involved in cooperative pig and dog control programs in my electorate of Blue Mountains. These programs are coordinated by the Oberon wild dog and pig committee which includes land-holders and representatives from the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.

Page 1497

The National Parks and Wildlife Service is involved in a cooperative program involving land-holders, local community groups, the Department of Agriculture, local government councils and the University of Wollongong to ensure an integrated approach to controlling bitou bush on NPWS lands. This involves releasing biological control agents, treating infestations with herbicides - NPWS staff, as well as contractors and volunteers have been involved in this effort - and removing plants by hand wherever possible. An ongoing NPWS program to control groundsel bush in the Yuraygir and Bundjalung national parks is achieving excellent results, with more than 1,100 hectares treated. Many areas in those parks are now free of this invasive weed. The service has continued to participate in the cooperative program for biological control of Scotch broom.

This is a multiagency effort involving the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, State Forests of New South Wales, the Hunter Pastoral Company, the Barrington Tops Broom Council and the New South Wales Government Environmental Trusts. Following the bushfires in 1994 the National Parks and Wildlife Service worked closely with volunteers to help regenerate the bushland in Lane Cove River National Park and Garigal and Ku-ring-gai Chase national parks. Approximately 300 volunteers have worked with the service there on a regular basis helping to remove many exotic weeds, including lantana, privet, balloon vine, and wandering jew. The service is actively involved in the development of the New South Wales weeds strategy and the national weeds strategy.

Recent changes to gun ownership laws have caused misinformation to be spread regarding the service's capacity to use appropriate firearms for the important task of eradicating feral animals. Today I am pleased to announce that under the proposed reforms contracted professional shooters, including expert trained shooters working for the NPWS, will continue their effective role in eradicating feral animals. The community understands that firearms are an essential tool in any effective feral animal eradication program, particularly for aerial shooting programs. NPWS officers have received expert training in the safe use of firearms. The service has adopted a policy to ensure that in no circumstances will access to firearms be allowed for any person who has not completed the accredited firearms training program.

To sum up, the Government will not tolerate the threatened Federal cutbacks to feral animal control programs. It is a very scary portent of what is to come generally from the Howard Government's deficit reduction programs, particularly as they affect the environment, that something as crucial as this should be so quickly threatened in the budget process. As I said, the Government provided a record budget increase of 330 per cent over the budget provided in the coalition's last year in government, in pursuit of effective programs to control feral animals and exotic weeds. The Government will not weaken its resolve at State level. The Government is determined to step up the fight against feral animals and weeds where the coalition parties failed at the State level and, sadly, appear about to fail at the Federal level.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.38]: The Minister regrettably has brought before the House a motion that is designed more for the purpose of playing political games than addressing the substantive issues involved in feral animal reduction and weed control programs. What the Minister has done is not really in the normal course of things one expects of this Minister. One can only think that the Government is in deep trouble after its budget and is looking for various ways to distract attention. The bottom line is that the Government has said - and during the next few weeks the Opposition will challenge the truth of the statement - that it has increased the environmental budget to $1,015 million. The reality is that the budget contains a lot of fudged figures, figures that should not be there and figures that have been repeated, and the Opposition will make clear to the people of New South Wales the rhetoric contained in the budget.

One thing that instantly comes to mind in the context of this motion is that the acting Minister does not seem to know what will be spent on feral species reduction. On Tuesday an article in the Daily Telegraph quoted the Minister as having said that feral animals had run riot over the State and had caused millions of dollars worth of damage. The article went on to say that in the past year more than 14,000 goats, 4,640 pigs and 4,050 foxes have been killed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

The Minister is aware that there is a problem and he used fairly colourful language in saying that feral animals had run riot, but it was accurate language. The Opposition is disappointed that the Minister has failed to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that a fair proportion of the budget is allocated to address the most urgent need to reduce feral species. Even if one accepted the acting Minister's figure of $1,015 billion and all the money was spent, we are talking about $3.3 million for pest species management.

Two days after the article appeared in the Daily Telegraph the Minister increased the figure to $5 million. If you start with rubber, it does not matter how high the ball bounces; you can make up whatever figure you like as you go along. The amount of money to be spent on feral species reduction is so unfocused, so scattered among the regional offices that the acting Minister will have no idea, even at the end of the period, how much money has been spent. If the Government were totally committed to the huge problem that the
Page 1498
reduction of feral species poses for New South Wales and Australia, it would have set aside a substantial sum of money separately in the budget in order to address the problem of goats, camels, pigs, dogs and cats in national parks, but it has failed to do that.

I do not accept the Minister's figures, but if one were to accept them, the Government is prepared to allocate 0.3 of 1 per cent of the entire environmental budget to address the problem. There is no dispute about the fact that the problem is huge. The acting Minister seems to have forgotten that it was the New South Wales coalition Government in 1991 that started the program of feral species reduction and addressed the issue of noxious weeds. If the Minister wants to keep his reputation for honesty, he should not move motions that are a clear distortion of the truth. Blaming the Federal Government for allegedly slashing funding for feral animals is so much rot.

The current program, which the Minister has said will finish in a few months, was established under the previous Labor Government with an allocation of just over $2 million a year - a drop in the ocean; $2 million lousy dollars. There is doubt now about the budget processes because the former so-called environmentalist Prime Minister, Paul Keating, specified that the program would finish on 30 June. Perhaps the Minister has not referred - and I suppose that is because he does not want to do so - to the Federal Government's policy. I refer the Minister to a document issued in February-March, "Saving our Natural Heritage", from which he would probably learn a lot. The document indicates that the coalition more than doubled its intended allocation. If the Labor Opposition in Canberra stops playing games over the sale of Telstra there will be $16 million over four years - not $2.1 million a year, but $4 million each year - just for feral animals.

In addition to the $4 million, $19 million has been allocated for the eradication of noxious weeds, but the Minister probably has not heard about that because he has not been briefed properly on the issue. That strategy is being developed by the Federal Government but it is subject to the Minister's Federal colleagues getting themselves into gear and supporting the coalition Government's environmental initiatives. This Government is so asleep that it did not apply for a number of programs that it could have applied for in the past 12 months. There is a gold guide, Minister. Departmental officers should wake up and start applying for some of the funds that are available. The Minister should not tell the House whether there will be cuts when the department has not even applied for moneys that were available.

Mr Debus: They are not there now.

Mr HAZZARD: That is the problem. Departments have failed to meet their obligations by applying for funds. They submitted applications for three lousy programs in May 1995, but because Paul Keating had said the program would conclude on 30 June the Federal equivalent of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, had to tell the New South Wales Government in the past 12 months that this Government's Federal Labor colleagues were not prepared to make available reasonable funds and they would not receive the money. Does the Minister want more details? Is he having problems?

Mr Amery: I think you are having problems selling Telstra.

Mr HAZZARD: Not yet. I will give the Minister more details because I think he needs educating. The Australian Nature Conservation Agency is currently developing the national threatened species abatement program. Government departments can rely on the gold guide that is laid out in black and white. In the past the Department of Agriculture has been astute - perhaps less so now under the present Minister for Agriculture - and applied for a number of grants. It is a pity that Paul Keating did not make money available for the program that was to look into the abundance of brush-tailed rock wallabies in relation to wild canine management and incidence of endangered mammal remains and weed seed in wild canine faeces. It sounds like something one might find on the Government benches. The application was refused because Paul Keating and his cohorts in the former Labor Government failed to agree that the program would continue beyond 30 June. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "condemns" where first occurring with a view to inserting instead:

the previous Federal Government for its failure to extend the Feral Funding Program for a period beyond three years and for its undermining of the Feral Species Reduction Program by creating uncertainty of continued funding such that the Australian Nature Conservation Agency has to refuse funding for essential feral reduction programs.

(2) That this House condemns the New South Wales Government for its failure to adequately fund programs for feral species reduction and noxious weed eradication.

If the Government is serious about doing the right thing by the environment the Minister should first of all go to see what the environment is all about instead of reeling off statistics. Once he has done that he should tell his Federal colleagues to get the funds from Telstra to pay for the $1 billion environment package. The Minister will then learn what can really be done for the environment. The money is there because the Federal coalition, together with the New South Wales Opposition, is committed to the environment, unlike the Carr Labor Government. [Time expired.]

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [3.48]: I am pleased to support the motion of the acting Minister for the Environment. I am pleased also to follow the spirited performance of the honourable member for Wakehurst, who
Page 1499
attacked the Minister on his lack of briefing and lack of knowledge of the portfolio. The honourable member for Wakehurst made some comment in his contribution about feral camels in national parks. I have not seen many camels in the national parks I have been through. The honourable member might provide some information to the Minister about the problem with camels. He shows me an article that seems to suggest he was talking about camels in South Australia. However, I might be able to get some information on that.

All rural lands protection boards that I have visited since I was appointed Minister for Agriculture - including Goulburn, Milparinka and Moss Vale - talk about controlling feral animals such as rabbits and foxes. They are the base of the Government's efforts across portfolios. I am pleased that the motion was moved by the acting Minister for the Environment. Under the former coalition Government there was too much division among the agriculture and environment portfolios on how feral animals and noxious weeds should be controlled. There always seemed to be considerable politicking and whipping up of farmers' concerns about lack of control of feral animals in national parks.

The motion moved by the acting Minister for the Environment, which I support, will result in far more coordination and cooperation in the efforts of New South Wales Agriculture, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Environment Protection Authority to work in conjunction with the farming community and those managing our national parks to resolve problems. We should not engage in the duckshoving that was so common in rural parts of the State under the former coalition Government - whipped up, I might add, by many National Party members who represent safe country seats. [Quorum formed.]

I acknowledge that the honourable member for Burrinjuck entered the Chamber to support me in response to the call for a quorum. The species to which I have referred are routinely controlled by private landholders and government agencies. Conventional control techniques such as poisoning, trapping and shooting historically have been used. The only exception was myxomatosis, a biological method used to control rabbits in the 1950s. The motion before the House calls on the Federal Government to make a statement about ensuring that funding will be maintained for this important issue. It should not hide behind a claim that the budget has not been brought down and thus refrain from making comments. There was some uncertainty about the budget of the Department of Agriculture and its associated policies. The Premier had outlined a month and a half before delivery of the budget where this Government was heading in respect of New South Wales Agriculture and its budget. That was done well before the budget was delivered this week.

The Federal Government and the Federal Minister should respond to this motion and make a clear statement on funding for the control of feral animals and noxious weeds. In the short time that I now have available to me I wish to compliment rural lands protection boards generally, but particularly the boards at Goulburn and Moss Vale. When I visited the Goulburn board I saw details of an advanced control program using students trained by the Department of Employment, Education and Training. They were learning how to construct traps to be used in national parks, for use and sale by other rural lands protection boards. They were being trained in feral animal control. The same situation applied at Moss Vale. There I accompanied officers to observe the work that the Moss Vale rural lands protection board was doing on a rabbit baiting program. The State Government, through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the environment portfolio and the Department of Agriculture will maintain a strong effort to ensure that the feral animal and weeds program is continued. [Time expired.]

Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [3.53]: It is interesting that this debate on feral pests is brought on now in this House, because I have been speaking about the issue for the past eight years, trying to convince the former Government that there was a problem with feral animals and noxious weeds. My efforts related more particularly to the Kosciusko National Park, which lies within the boundaries of the Burrinjuck electorate. Only two weeks ago the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife, Robyn Kruk, came to Tumut on a public relations exercise to try to placate locals on the disgraceful way in which the Government placed more wilderness areas under the Kosciusko National Park. As an individual representing the electorate of Burrinjuck, I have been fighting the wilderness issue. When an area is declared wilderness, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has a tendency to lock up the area and forget about it. That allows feral animals to breed out of control and run riot and it allows the unchecked spread of noxious weeds.

People who use national parks are concerned when governments take such actions. It was only when Mr Tim Moore, the former Minister for Environment, was approached by the honourable member for Monaro in about 1989 or 1990 about the wild dog problem in the Kosciusko National Park that the former Minister recognised the problem and allocated $400,000 for the eradication of the wild dog. I brought to the attention of the present Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife my concern that the National Parks and Wildlife Service had ignored this important issue and locked people out of public land. I was interested to hear the Minister speak about the failure of the Federal Government to do anything about the control of feral animals and weeds. People from the Australian Nature Conservation Agency criticised the former Keating Government for not allocating any funding to the control of weeds not only in agricultural areas but in
Page 1500
conservation areas in general.

The Howard Government has committed $16 million over four years for the control of weeds in agriculture and in conservation areas. In addition, it has committed $19 million over five years to the national weeds strategy. I do not know what more it could do about the problem. I return to the issue in New South Wales and the acting Minister's handling of the portfolio that covers the National Parks and Wildlife Service. He has allocated in this year's budget - noted at page 49 under the item "pest species management" at various locations - a lousy $532,000 to manage pest species across New South Wales. They include wild pigs, wild dogs, foxes, rabbits and noxious weeds. That level of funding would not even cover the cost of control of feral animals and weeds in the Goobarragandra section of the Kosciusko National Park.

An allocation of approximately $5 million to $6 million is needed to make an immediate impact because foxes are out of control in the park. Unlike the Minister, I walk in the park, check it out and take photographs. If the Minister is fair dinkum in his concerns about feral animals and noxious weeds in this State, it is time he got off his butt and allocated decent funding to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to eradicate them. I made that point recently to the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife when I said that I understood the constraints put on it by this Government and previous governments through lack of resources and funds to employ the necessary people to control noxious weeds and feral animals in national parks. The Minister is a disgrace; he should tell the truth. [Time expired.]

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [3.58]: I support the Minister for Corrective Services and congratulate him on his actions during his term as acting Minister. I am disturbed that the honourable member for Wakehurst sought to suggest that the motion has been moved for political gain. A National Party member, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, played political games and should be castigated for claiming that his motion for urgent consideration was more important than the motion of the Minister because it involved a candidate in a distant electorate. This issue is so important to the people of New South Wales that it must be given priority.

The Royal National Park and the Illawarra escarpment are located in my electorate and I believe wholeheartedly that we must protect our native species from eradication by feral animals or noxious weeds. A couple of years ago when the coalition was in government I raised the serious health problems that privet growing in the national park and in towns bordering the national park was causing asthmatics in my electorate, yet the former coalition Government did nothing. At the time a young ranger, Patrick Holland, who now works for the Minister, showed me around the national park and gave me a clear indication of the damage that feral animals cause. However, for the seven years the Opposition was in office, it did nothing to solve that problem.

The Federal Government is into a deficit reduction program. It intends to reduce funding for the protection of natural resources in national parks and farming regions. I am a member of the Government's agricultural committee and I am aware of the problems that face the National Parks and Wildlife Service, New South Wales Agriculture and farmers in trying to eradicate feral animals and noxious weeds. Ridding the State of these pests can take place only when an adequate allocation of human and financial resources is provided to protect our natural resources.

Members of the rural community must have been concerned when they heard last Monday that the Federal Government intended to cut back significantly funds allocated for feral animal eradication and management programs. The Government is supposed to work hand in hand with the community, including the agricultural community, but it is prepared to cut back funds for the protection of its so-called voters. How many Opposition members are prepared to defend themselves against the moves in recent days of the Howard Government? Not too many. It is disgraceful that only one Liberal member and one National Party member have contributed to this debate.

Honourable members opposite should compare Federal Government cuts with this Government's allocation of $5 million, which demonstrates its commitment. However, that is not the end of it. The Government will continue to fight tooth and nail to ensure environmental protection of our national parks and rural communities. The Government, the Minister for Corrective Services and the Minister for Agriculture have stood up for the people in the bush and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I take pride in being part of a government that continues to ensure that these programs remain in place. The Government has made a commitment to provide adequate funding and resources to ensure fair and equitable environmental rights for farmers and environmentalists in the event that the Federal Government continues to slash funds.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [4.03], in reply: I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate and, in particular, the Minister for Agriculture and the honourable member for Bulli for their constructive contributions. However, contributions from honourable members opposite could not be so described. The Government has made history by establishing for the first time a budget of more than $100 million for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The budget and the levels of staffing in the National Parks and Wildlife Service are the highest they have ever been. Until the Federal
Page 1501
Government sells Telstra, it has no money for the environment.

Mr Hazzard: There is still not enough money. The question isn't more money; it is enough money.

Mr DEBUS: The Federal Government has no money for the environment. Last Thursday Senator Robert Hill gave clear signals that the Federal Government will not continue to fund feral animal and weed control programs. The honourable member for Wakehurst said that no money is provided for the extra national parks that the New South Wales Government has established.

Mr Hazzard: I did not say that. I said "not enough".

Mr DEBUS: The resource supplementation package for the 26 new national parks will amount to $36 million in recurrent funding and $34 million in capital funding. Also, a further 250 staff positions will be created over the next five years.

Mr Hazzard: It is not enough.

Mr DEBUS: It is a hell of lot more than the former coalition Government promised. It dropped the ball on the question of controlling feral animals during its term in office. It scarcely declared any plans of management for national parks. No-one knew what to do because no serious plans had been made. In the seven years that the coalition was in office it gazetted 12 plans of management for national parks, covering 17 service areas. This year the Government has adopted 10 and has put 16 more on exhibition. In other words, the Government is about to pass the total the coalition managed in its seven years in office. Those plans are crucial to the management of feral animals and exotic weeds. They are the legal instruments used to manage our parks.

The honourable member for Wakehurst has claimed that I was changing my explanations of the budget for feral animal control daily. The honourable member read in the newspaper a figure that I had given of $3.3 million, which is the budget for the financial year that is about to finish. The figure of $5 million that I have quoted is for the financial year that is about to begin. Those figures illustrate the fact that the Government has increased the former Government's funding for feral animal control by 330 per cent. I draw the attention of the House to the claim made by the honourable member for Burrinjuck that only $500,000 was spent by the Government on species control.

Mr Hazzard: He can read the budget papers.

Mr DEBUS: The honourable member for Burrinjuck cannot read very much at all. He read about a single program for species control in wilderness areas. He forgot about the other $4.5 million allocated in the budget for those purposes. I have sympathy for the honourable member for Wakehurst because he had to share the debate with the honourable member for Burrinjuck, whose attitude to wilderness has become legendary. At the time of the last round of wilderness announcements made by the present Government, the honourable member for Wakehurst said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio that it was a clayton's wilderness announcement; that there was not enough of it. He said that the wilderness areas are not outside national parks. The honourable member said that he would take the Government to the High Court - [Time expired.]

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mr Collins Mr Phillips
Mr Cruickshank Mr Photios
Mr Debnam Mr Richardson
Mr Ellis Mr Rozzoli
Ms Ficarra Mr Schipp
Mr Fraser Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Armstrong
Ms Nori Mr Downy

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Page 1502

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.20]: I move:

That this House censures Mr Speaker for his handling of the House on Wednesday, 22 May 1996.

The events of yesterday are only too painfully fresh in our collective memory. This House was in an uproar for more than an hour on the one hundred and fortieth anniversary of its creation. Three members were ejected and one was suspended. Not in all of the seven years of the previous Speaker's term of office did such an event happen. From 1992 to 1995 not a single member was removed from this Chamber other than the Minister for Police, who was then referred to as the honourable member for Ashfield, and that was for only a short time. The House was simply out of the Speaker's control as a result of his actions. What was the reason for the unseemly disturbance on the one hundred and fortieth anniversary of the Parliament? It was that the basic principle of fairness was involved, and when fairness is denied people will complain.

The basic Australian principle is a fair go, with one rule for all. In the House the standing orders provide a basis and a bible for fair debate. To use a sporting analogy, the Speaker is the umpire, and he blows his whistle on both sides. Any match in which the umpire is lenient to one side but penalises the other will quickly become a farce. The Independent members in their charter of reform recognised the important role of the Speaker in ensuring free and fair debate. Their charter of reform had to be acknowledged not only in the letter but in the spirit. That spirit was well upheld by the former Speaker, the honourable member for Hawkesbury, who was able to maintain order, dignity and decorum in this House without ejecting members from it.

Yesterday we had the Premier in his classic switch to vaudeville; the Premier determined to play to the gallery and the television cameras and not to bring reasoned debate to the House. The Premier started off by waving around a newspaper, the Western Advocate. That action was permitted by you, Mr Speaker, even though it was contrary to your previous rulings. The honourable member for Ermington then waved a newspaper. The honourable member for Ermington was not called to order, the honourable member for Ermington was not warned. The honourable member for Ermington was shown no mercy and was ejected forthwith by the Speaker. At that very time the Premier was continuing to flout your past rulings and, more important, you were not calling him to order. You were exercising partiality in the discharge of your office, in favour of the Premier because the Premier is a member of your political party.

Both honourable members were defying your rulings, but there was one rule for the honourable member for Ermington and another rule for the Premier. But that continued, while the Premier threw the switch to vaudeville for the television cameras. I took an objection, an objection which you declined to uphold. The honourable member for Vaucluse uttered a single remark when you declined to uphold my objection. He said, "It is a disgrace!". For that single remark on the failure to uphold the point of order, when the Premier was flouting the rules of discipline of the House, you saw fit to eject the honourable member for Vaucluse summarily and forthwith. At the very time that the honourable member for Vaucluse and the honourable member for Ermington were ejected, the Premier was continuing his farce; he was continuing to wave the Western Advocate at the television camera, while your past rulings were ignored. And you uttered not a single remark. After two members had gone and the Premier continued to defy your rulings the honourable member for Eastwood stood and uttered these words, and I quote from Hansard:

Mr Tink: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, this is exactly what the last member was put out for. You must deal with this, Mr Speaker.

For that extraordinary defiance of the Chair, for that extraordinary arrogance, the honourable member for Eastwood was summarily ejected from the Chamber. I read again the terrible words of the honourable member for Eastwood which were held to be sufficient to force his ejection from the Chamber:

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, this is exactly what the last member was put out for. You must deal with this, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much interjection. If there are any problems, members should look at the television presentation. Meanwhile, they will remain silent.

Mr HARTCHER: The honourable member for Eastwood was summarily removed from the Chamber. While all this was going on - while the honourable member for Ermington walked, while the honourable member for Vaucluse walked and while the honourable member for Eastwood walked - the Premier continued to hold in his hand the Western Advocate and continued to wave the newspaper at the television camera. That is democracy 1996. There is one rule for one person and a different rule for three others in rapid succession. One of those three members had the temerity to raise a point of order; one of them had the temerity to utter the remark, "It is a disgrace!"; and one of them had the temerity to actually do what the Premier was doing and hold up a newspaper. That is justice? That is fairness? That is impartiality in the discharge of a solemn office on the 140th anniversary of the creation of this Parliament? That is democracy 1996? The story
Page 1503
continues. Three minutes after the Premier had begun his farce you then saw fit, for the first time, to call him to order. Hansard reads as follows -

Mr Photios: I didn't get three warnings. Did the Premier?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask honourable members to refrain from interjecting, especially the honourable member for Ermington, who has had -

Mr O'Farrell: Exhibit A!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Northcott interjects again while the Chair is speaking he will be removed from the service of the House. The member for Ermington has attracted the attention of the Speaker during question time to a greater extent than any other member today. I hope he remains silent during this debate.

Mr HARTCHER: Three minutes after the Premier had begun his switch to vaudeville you are quoted in Hansard as saying:

Order! The Premier is permitted to quote from a newspaper article. However, the standing orders and rulings of previous speakers provide that he may not wave around the newspaper article or other documents.

That ruling came after the Premier had been waving a newspaper around for a full three minutes, after another member had been ejected for the same alleged offence. The Premier, however, did nothing to abide by your ruling. Was he then called to order? No. A further minute passed, a further minute of the Premier's antics and actions. The honourable member for Wakehurst was called to order for interjecting and you then told the Premier:

I have already indicated to the Premier that the course he is now embarking on is in contravention of the standing orders.

For four minutes the Premier had been defying the standing orders of this House and still had not been called to order. The most he had received was simply a reminder that the standing orders did not allow him to carry on in the way he was carrying on. Mr Speaker, you then made your one and only threat to the Premier, "If he continues in the same manner I will ask him to resume his seat." At that stage the Premier had put down the newspaper article and picked up a magnifying glass and a sheet of paper which he was pretending to read with the magnifying glass. This was the very same stunt he had pulled in 1995 in the budget debate. He was ruled out of order by you at the time. When that stunt was repeated yesterday you took no action, despite the fact that the ruling was not of one minute before but of a year ago. He knew he was defying your ruling. No action was taken against him.

If ever there was an exercise of partiality in the discharge of an office, it was that moment. Mr Speaker, you have failed in your obligations to this House. The situation continued to deteriorate: the member for Gordon, unable to take any more of a House that was being run in accordance with the dictates of a political party and not in accordance with the dictates of the standing orders, went to leave the Chamber. He walked from the second row of seats down alongside the table and as he walked passed he said, "I am going out voluntarily." He did not say that with a sigh; he did not say it in a loud voice; he did not perform any antics or wave any newspapers. After the honourable member for Gordon had left the Chamber, not having been called to order previously, for that offence you ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms to bring him back.

The accusation now made against you is not that you failed to uphold the standing orders but, even more serious, that you acted outside your authority, because the standing orders gave you no authority to send the Serjeant-at-Arms out to bring back a member who had left the Chamber. Standing Order 288 gives the Speaker authority, if a member's conduct is such that it is necessary for the Speaker to call the member to order, to direct the removal of the member from the Chamber. The honourable member for Gordon had already left the Chamber. So you had no power under Standing Order 288. Standing Order 289 gives you the right to name a member but it gives you no right to direct his removal until the motion moved by the Minister at the table on that naming is carried. You had no power under Standing Order 288 because he had already left the Chamber, or under Standing Order 289, because the naming process had not occurred. Yet you saw fit to have the Serjeant-at-Arms physically bring the honourable member for Gordon back into the Chamber not once but twice.

Your action at that time was not designed to preserve order in this House, because the member had already left the House; your action was designed to humiliate him and to assert your authority over him - assert your authority in the most embarrassing way possible by having him physically brought back by the Serjeant-at-Arms acting at your direction, not once but twice. The honourable member had to sit in the Chamber while the motion was carried along party lines. Mr Speaker, you did not seek to preserve the decorum of the House or the order of the House; you simply sought to exert your personal authority. You had no legal protection in doing what you did. You may have exposed yourself to civil action for what you did. But most significantly, you brought the House into disrepute because for the first time in the memory of members of this House a Speaker acted out of personal feeling rather than to uphold the principles of the House. If there is one principle that Speaker after Speaker has always adhered to it is that the Chair has no feelings in any matter but seeks only to be the servant of the House, not to exert a personal caprice. Yet the member for Gordon was physically brought back into the Chamber to sit and feel the full weight of your authority.


Page 1504
The Opposition takes no joy in moving this censure of you. The motion is moved not in a personal way but in an attempt to uphold the dignity of the House. Its dignity has been violated - above all by the Premier, who regards question time as an opportunity for a theatrical performance designed not for the benefit of the House but to assure his waning authority with his backbench and in a desperate attempt to catch a grab on the television cameras for the news. You are well aware of that, as are all honourable members. Yet no attempt was made to bring him back under your authority. But your authority is exercised capriciously, arbitrarily and dictatorily on Opposition members who have the temerity to question you or who have the temerity simply to act in the same way as the Premier has acted or who have the temerity simply to walk out of the Chamber - not while you are on your feet, but simply to walk out of the Chamber. Mr Speaker, you deserve the censure of this House. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.35]: This is a very important matter. It is so important that when the former Government drafted the standing orders it did not provide for a censure motion against the Speaker. The debate is being conducted under an amended form of the standing orders. What a silly and baseless debate it is. Yesterday the coalition attempted to pull a stunt to deflect attention from the very positive State budget which has been applauded nationwide. It was a premeditated orchestrated campaign. Even the dogs were barking that an Opposition member would be thrown out. Even members of the parliamentary staff had heard of it. It was an out and out stunt. The behaviour was an absolute disgrace - one of the most disgraceful exhibitions that the Parliament has ever seen. The public expects decent standards from members of the Parliament. Opposition members must uphold the standards expected by the public. It is an insult to the Parliament that we are dealing with the motion. There has been a claim about bias and inconsistency. It is simply untrue. Mr Speaker, your impartiality is evident on any objective analysis of yesterday's events. We can look at the Hansard.

Mr Debnam: Ask the Premier.

Mr WHELAN: You are a larrikin.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. The Minister will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr WHELAN: Certainly, Mr Speaker. I do not know how the honourable member for Vaucluse will be able to hold his head high when he mixes with the eastern suburbs jet set and eats his cucumber sandwiches with the people there knowing that they have a larrikin and a lout as their member. The behaviour yesterday was disgraceful. Let us look at the facts. The Opposition has asked about the Premier. Do Opposition members deny that the Speaker ordered the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to resume his seat yesterday? They can go to the library.

Mr Phillips: Why were your staff there looking at the video of the Speaker?

Mr Hazzard: Why were your staff there?

Mr WHELAN: I do not know; I will ask them for you. If members go to the Parliamentary Library they can see the video. My staff did.

Mr Phillips: Does that show an independent Speaker?

Mr WHELAN: Anyone can get the video. I will pay for a copy myself for you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr WHELAN: Is it true that yesterday the Speaker asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to resume his seat? Yes. What better example is there of an independent Speaker? I know Opposition members are delicate. They were offended when the Premier quoted the Western Advocate. Standing Order 78 is very clear - read it! I ask you to refer to Hansard where the Premier quoted only two small paragraphs. I quote from page 58 of Decisions from the Chair by the famous Speaker Rozzoli, who in 1989, at page 5199 stated:

It is not proper for a member to quote as fact statements contained in newspapers, unless the member can verify the accuracy of the report.

In other words, unless the member can verify the statements made in the article, not the fact that those statements were made in the newspaper, the member is not able to use the article. On this occasion the Premier vouched for the accuracy of the report; that is, Mick Clough had put plenty of pressure on the Premier during the budget allocations for Bathurst. The second issue was the use of props in waving of newspapers. The decision on that is also very clear. Speaker Rozzoli, and I am grateful to him, is noted in the following terms:

Members advised that the displaying of documents such as extracts from newspaper articles constitutes disorderly behaviour.

The Speaker endorsed and confirmed that decision yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Northcott is on three calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: I want to talk about the member for Ermington.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for St Marys is on three calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: He knows a lot about the justice system. He has had more warnings than any member of Parliament in a decade. Yesterday, while the Premier was here, standing at the bench, the member jumped to his feet, not making a point of order, shaking a newspaper article, standing and acting like the larrikin he is, standing and drawing attention to himself. The Speaker had no choice.
Page 1505
You regularly abuse the standing orders. You have been thrown out for this before. You have a history of it. You have been thrown out on three occasions for disorderly conduct, all on instructions of your boss: on 15 May 1995, 12 October 1995 and 15 November 1995. On three occasions the honourable member for Ermington has been thrown out for the same offence and yet he refuses to learn. Now how else is it going to be inculcated into your thick head that you cannot continue to do what you do.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ermington is on three calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: You stood up in this Chamber yesterday -

Mr Photios: On a point of order.

Mr WHELAN: You can't take it.

Mr Photios: I am delighted to hear you. Mr Speaker, it would be appropriate, I think, for you to direct the Leader of the House to direct his remarks through the Chair. Waving his finger around at me provokes me.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows it is the normal custom in this place for members to reply to interruptions. It is for that reason I asked the member for Ermington to refrain from interjecting.

Mr WHELAN: You did not take a point of order. If you wanted to take a point of order, you should have. You did not. I come now to the member for Vaucluse, whose larrikin behaviour I witnessed myself because he sits opposite me. You were removed for insulting the authority and independence of the Chair - plain and simple. You yelled across the table, and you do not deny it, "It's a disgrace". These comments were a criticism of the Speaker's action in removing the member for Ermington. They are clearly a reflection on the Chair and completely out of order. When the member for Sutherland committed the same breach two weeks ago, for saying, "You're a disgrace", he was also put out. How else do you expect a consistent ruling? You said, "You are a disgrace" in a loud manner -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Vaucluse is on three calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: - and a threatening manner - loutish behaviour. Your constituents would be absolutely shocked with you because of your behaviour yesterday. You are always talking, because I can hear you. You are always interrupting. You are always talking during Parliament and the Speaker chooses, for reasons known only to the Speaker, to ignore you. Let us take the member for Eastwood. He has been guilty of three breaches in this Parliament. Upon taking a point of order he walked to the lectern, rather than waiting to be called. He did not sit down when the Speaker stood and directed him. He failed to abide by the direction to resume his seat and showed gross disrespect for the Chair and for the traditions and customs of this House. Members have been reminded on countless occasions that when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet they should be seated and remain silent.

Did the member for Eastwood do any of those things? No, of course he did not. He attempted to speak over the top of the Speaker while the Speaker was on his feet. He said, "You must deal with this", gross disrespect for the Chair - screaming at the Speaker - and he said, as he screamed his way from there, "You are biased. You are biased. You are biased." He kept approaching the Chair. He moved from where the honourable member for Bligh is sitting now and went all the way and ended up where the member for Gosford is now sitting. He went all the way screaming and shouting, all the time. It is a shame he is not here. That is not the behaviour that one would expect members of Parliament to abide by. I hope that that is not the behaviour that the member for Eastwood abides by when he is in the court system. If he gets a decision from a judge or magistrate that goes against him, is he going to remonstrate to the magistrate, charge past the bar table, and run up and yell and scream at the judge or magistrate?

The honourable member for Ermington thinks that the Speaker is something different. The Speaker is here to impartially adhere to the standing orders and he clearly has done that. Yesterday we had a display of totally intemperate behaviour not only from those who had been evicted - and rightfully so - from the Chamber, but also from those of you who aided and abetted the misbehaviour of the members opposite. Let us talk about the member for Gordon. The member for Gordon left with the member for Coffs Harbour. The Speaker did not hear this, but I heard it. When the member for Coffs Harbour was there he said, "You're an absolute disgrace." The member for Gordon went past the bar of the Chamber, then came back and in the cheekiest tone possible said, "I am leaving voluntarily." He challenged your authority, Mr Speaker, that is what he did.

That is exactly what it was. Go and have a look at the video! You are challenging the authority of the Speaker all the time. Of course he should have been thrown out. And, of course he should have been brought back in. If he was not brought back in, how would we know that when he stood and made his explanation, or another member made an explanation, he might not have said to you, Mr Speaker, "When I came back I wanted to say that I wanted to disassociate myself from the words of the member for Coffs Harbour." He wanted to disassociate himself from it, so he had to come back in. I am glad that former Speaker Rozzoli is here. Does he remember when he threw me out of Parliament for eight days because I came back in?

Mr Rozzoli: Six days.

Mr WHELAN: Six days. I did a bit of work on the precincts of this place. The Serjeant-at-
Page 1506
Arms, Mr Sheather, followed me out of the Chamber after I went without any fuss. I left because I adhered to and abided by the Speaker's ruling. I went to my room and the Serjeant-at-Arms said, "Mr Whelan, you've got 20 minutes. They are the rules. You have to leave the House." He reminded me that I was not able to use the precincts of the Parliament. He said, "You can't go into the car park. You can't go into the Library. You can't go anywhere in Parliament. You can't go to your room. You have to be out of the precincts of Parliament." After I came in, drove my car in downstairs, went to a caucus meeting and went back to my car I got an extra four days because I came to the precincts of the Parliament.

Mr Speaker, you have a duty, if a member is suspended from this House, to ensure that that member is not within the precincts of the Parliament. You called that coward back to face his peers sitting in judgment. He had the opportunity, which you would have been wrong not to give him, to make an explanation that he was an innocent member, that he had been a victim, and that the comments made were not attributable to him. But he did not. He ran out of this Chamber like the coward that he is.

Mr Speaker, I think that you were more than tolerant yesterday. The honourable member for Bulli was called to order. I do not know about other members who were called to order but the honourable member for Bulli was sitting near me. You called him to order on several occasions and he kept quiet; he abided by your decision. Mr Speaker, you were more than tolerant in your control of proceedings yesterday. You could have thrown honourable members out earlier but you waited until after the most extraordinary provocation. Let me remind you of former Speaker Rozzoli's ruling on disorder:

Members informed that disorderly interruptions will not be tolerated and the Chair will remove a member of his choosing irrespective of whether that member had been called to order previously.

That is taken from the parliamentary record of 1988-90, page 11397. I will read it again:

Members informed that disorderly interruptions will not be tolerated and the Chair will remove a member of his choosing irrespective of whether that member had been called to order previously.

In other words, if the Speaker cannot determine who is being disorderly, he can remove a member of his choosing. The members evicted yesterday were removed because they were disorderly and guilty of gross contempt of this House. You had no choice. As I said, the track record of the honourable member for Ermington is appalling. You got no warning? Frankly, you do not deserve any warning at all. [Time expired.]

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [4.51]: I wish to speak to this matter because I believe it is a very important issue and that it needs resolution. When dissent was moved against you on 22 November 1995, I said the following:

Mr Speaker, you have been put in an unenviable and intolerable position by the Premier's antics, which devalue question time. Question time is a vitally important part of the parliamentary process during which the Premier and Ministers answer questions about their portfolios and are made accountable to the Parliament and therefore to the community.

I went on to talk about the importance that the Independents placed on question time in the Fiftieth Parliament; that it was a significant part of our charter of reform which provided for 10 questions to be asked or a 45-minute period to elapse, and for supplementary questions. On that occasion I went on to say:

Premier Carr is the crux of the problem before the House today, the crux of your problem, Mr Speaker, and of all the problems at question time. He is out of control. He has trivialised question time, made your job impossible and has devalued and misused the process.

I went on to say:

It must frustrate you, Mr Speaker, that he misuses question time in this way and does not respond to questions asked. I am surprised that you have been able to hold your cool and act with such restraint on the few sitting days . . .

that we had last year. I finally called upon the Premier to stop the antics, the trivialising, the name calling and the misrepresentation and to treat question time as an opportunity to show accountability to the Parliament and to the community. I called upon you to ensure, whether through your party room or through the Parliament, that this will occur and that the House will return to the proper business of question time. After yesterday it is obvious that none of that has happened. I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" with a view to inserting the following:

censures the Premier for:

(a) showing a wilful disregard for the traditional proprieties of parliamentary behaviour;

(b) failing to set, by example, appropriate standards of parliamentary behaviour; and

(c) by his conduct, placing Mr Speaker in an untenable position in relation to his responsibilities for ensuring order in the House.

(2) That this House calls upon Mr Speaker to enforce the same standards of parliamentary behaviour on Government members as are being enforced on Opposition members.

We have to resolve this issue today. We have to send a very strong message to the Premier that this is a time for accountability to the Parliament and to the New South Wales community, that he has to treat you, Mr Speaker, with respect and that he has to treat this House with respect. He has to stop coming in here with his little antics that we observe. I find it time wasting. I think that he is thumbing his nose at you, at the Parliament, at the members and at the people of New South Wales by not respecting question time, going through the proper processes, and acting with the dignity that previous
Page 1507
leaders have shown.

As I said on 22 November, former Premier Greiner, although he did not give a very comprehensive answer except in the case of a financial matter, always acted with dignity. Premier Fahey, on the other hand, whilst his answers were sometimes quite exhaustive, always acted with dignity in relation to his position. I believe that unless the Premier gets that very strong message today, we will continue to have these sorts of motions of dissent against you, Mr Speaker, which I do not support. As I said on that occasion, I think you were put in a most intolerable position. I believe that yesterday the Premier's actions led to the circumstances that occurred. I can understand the anger and the distress and the frustration of the Opposition. However, I do not support the original motion. I would like to see it amended and I would like that very strong message to be sent to the Premier.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [4.55]: I listened with some interest to the debate about behaviour in the Chamber. When I was elected to Parliament some four years ago I was quite amazed at the behaviour of members on both sides of the House during question time. I had heard the New South Wales Legislative Assembly referred to as the "bear pit" but I learned that in this Chamber debate is robust and vigorous and interjections are part of the business of parliamentary debate. I recall that on a number of occasions when I was very new to the procedures of Parliament members were constantly taking spurious points of order against me, particularly during private members' statements, just to interrupt me, just to use up the time.

Mr Hartcher: What, you did not do that?

Mr McBRIDE: No.

Mr Hartcher: Oh, you would never do that.

Mr McBRIDE: Not during private members' statements. You might listen. On one occasion after another the honourable member for Ermington delighted in doing that. He enjoyed the opportunity to spoil whatever comment I might try to make during private members' statements. It was with some interest yesterday that I watched the behaviour of the honourable member for Ermington in this Chamber. Yesterday was just another example of the typical behaviour he has exhibited in this Chamber. He has a reputation for testing the Chair constantly. He does it in question time, he does it in debate, he does it at any time.

It is interesting that the former Speaker should be sitting alongside him now. The former Speaker had cause to speak to the honourable member for Ermington almost every day during question time. I recall an occasion when, after repeatedly warning the honourable member, Mr Speaker finally threw him out. I have to give him credit for that, but honourable members will appreciate how sorely tested he must have been to throw a member of the Government out of the House. I think he could have thrown the honourable member out time and again. That is the sort of behaviour that the honourable member for Ermington displayed when he was on this side of the House, that he displayed when he was a Minister and that he has displayed as a shadow minister in this House. Unfortunately, we have a new crop of members and they are trying to imitate the honourable member.

Mr Photios: Who? Name them.

Mr McBRIDE: Children like yourself are trying to imitate your sort of behaviour.

Mr Debnam: Larrikins like you.

Mr McBRIDE: Now, the honourable member for Vaucluse tries to behave like some sort of English soccer larrikin. That is the sort of behaviour he tries to bring to this Chamber, and he is fired up by this bloke, the honourable member for Ermington, who takes spurious points of order time and again. He is setting a standard in this Chamber that his mates are trying to live up to. Fortunately, his standard of behaviour is so bad that they have not been able to match him. But he is constantly trying to reach to new heights, and that is what we saw yesterday. The former Speaker knows exactly what I am saying. I used to see him sitting up there, watching, and he would think, not again; not the member for Ermington again. What am I going to do about the member for Ermington?

We have seen time and again the honourable member for Ermington, the cheer leader, the dancing girl of the Opposition, jumping up and leading the chorus, with the honourable member for Vaucluse trying to imitate him. Then we come to the honourable member for Gordon. Those who watched what was happening immediately before he withdrew from the Chamber would have seen the activities of a number of Opposition members. The honourable member for Bligh would know what I refer to because she was sitting on the bench immediately behind them. Member after member from what they call the feather duster club got up and walked from the Chamber, returned, walked out again, returned, and so on. None of those members in that process fired a jibe at the Speaker as they left the Chamber. That is why the honourable member for Gordon was taken to task by Mr Speaker, as he should have been.

The honourable member for Gordon is supposed to be a barrister and therefore a legally trained person. I understand the honourable member for Gosford also is a legally trained person. But the honourable member for Gordon knows better than to do what he did. He knows about decorum within the court system. This barrister who has practised in the courts must know the sort of behaviour that is expected of honourable members in this Chamber. [Time expired.]

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [5.00]: First we heard from the master of hypocrisy in this Chamber, and second we heard from a member who
Page 1508
did not know what he was talking about. I agree with the honourable member for Bligh: this motion should more appropriately be a motion of censure against the Premier because, on any analytical examination of the facts, it was the Premier's conduct that triggered the spontaneous events yesterday - despite the assertions of the honourable member for Ashfield that what happened was an organised tactic.

The problem with moving a motion to censure the Premier over this matter - he certainly could be censured for that - is that ultimately the responsibility for the conduct of members of this Chamber rests with the Speaker. Having sat in the chair for seven years, I appreciate the great difficulty that that imposes on the Speaker from time to time. What the honourable member for The Entrance did not acknowledge when he was making his contribution is that as well as extending extraordinary patience and tolerance at times to members of the Government I also extended extraordinary patience and tolerance to members of the Opposition. Some members of the Opposition are grateful for the tolerance and patience that I extended to them from time to time.

Today we are debating an episode which was unfortunate and reflected no credit on anyone in the Chamber, for we are collectively caught up in the opprobrium that such behaviour attracts to the Parliament. I think it is demonstrably clear from yesterday's proceedings that bias was demonstrated, that there was a different attitude for the Premier. I, probably more than any other member of this Chamber apart from Mr Speaker, could appreciate the difficulties that Premiers from time to time pose for the Chair as they seek to impose a political program on the Chamber when that program is in conflict with the procedures of the Chamber.

Unfortunately, it is the Speaker's job to overcome that problem. There were many occasions on which I had to direct a Premier to resume his seat, return to the leave of the question, or whatever. One issue of concern that arose yesterday and has been occurring more frequently of late is the question of the relevance of answers. The standing orders of this House and tradition and practice of the House empower the Speaker to direct a Minister to confine a response to matters relevant to the question asked. Though it is true that rulings of the Chair provide that a Minister cannot be told how to answer a question, the Chair certainly has power to direct a Minister to return to addressing matters relevant to the question asked.

The actions which we saw yesterday destroyed much of the respect which honourable members have for the proceedings of this Chamber. The actions of the Premier initiated that destruction of respect for the proceedings of this Chamber. And your failure, Mr Speaker, to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House, its standing orders, practices and procedures, compounded the destruction of that respect of members for the procedures and proceedings of the Chamber. If that destruction continues unchecked, and the protest against it is not recorded, the situation can only deteriorate.

In the brief time left to me I should like to deal with the issue of the power of the Speaker to direct members to return to the Chamber. I believe there is no power vested in the Speaker to direct a member to return to the Chamber, as the honourable member for Gordon was directed to do yesterday. The circumstances referred to by the honourable member for Ashfield were quite different. There is power in the House to take action against a member while a Minister is not in the Chamber, or to take action in respect of incidents which have not even occurred within the Chamber but which may in some way reflect on the authority of the Speaker or of the Parliament itself.

Despite all the technicalities that lie behind this question, the real reason for the motion of censure lies in your failure, Mr Speaker, to constrain the Premier within the established practices and procedures of the House, and your overreaction in the initial stages to what members of the Opposition did. It is very much the role of the Speaker to try to maintain an appropriate balance between the actions and reactions within the House; and if a correct balance is not kept and the House descends to disorder, responsibility for that must be borne by only one person. Unfortunately - and I feel sympathy for you in the situation - that person is the Speaker.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.05]: I speak against the motion. It concerns me greatly that this sort of attack has been directed at you personally, Mr Speaker. The motion derives from the most trying of circumstances during question time yesterday. Considering the conduct of members of the Opposition throughout question time, I am amazed that you are able to maintain your own dignity and decorum to the extent that you do. I believe you have been extremely tolerant, not just with Government members but particularly with Opposition members and those on the crossbenches.

It is important to note that on many occasions your tolerance has been used unfairly against you. Yesterday's personal attack on you by the honourable member for Gosford was made in a way that could have brought his suspension from the House for quite some time. Mr Speaker, the tolerance that you displayed in the face of that exhibition of pique was in my opinion exemplary and was a great point to your credit. One would have expected the leader of business for the Opposition to conduct himself far better in this Chamber and to set an example to his colleagues on the other side of the House.

A number of members have been challenged and ultimately ejected from this House, not the least of whom was the honourable member for Ermington. He seems to have a penchant for disruption; he must like the air outside this Chamber late in the afternoon because he does not spend much time in here. It is of real concern that these frontbench alternatives to the Government conduct
Page 1509
themselves in the way they do. The fact that you, Mr Speaker, maintain any order at all amazes not only me but many other members of the House. You must deal with spurious points of order, ridiculous comments and other disruptive activities of some Opposition members designed not only to gain the attention of the Chair but to undermine decorum in question time.

It worries me that even the rulings of Speaker Rozzoli are challenged by honourable members from his side of the House and that rulings that you make are openly challenged in this Chamber. Mr Speaker, you have the absolute confidence of the Government. I see no point in the case that the Opposition has thus far mounted. Any threat to your position or person as Speaker is outrageous and absolutely uncalled for. In regard to the Premier and his actions yesterday, Mr Speaker, your conduct was perfectly correct. Your warnings to him were appropriate. I believe that they were ultimately heeded. You exercised absolute discretion and impartiality in dealing with him, as you do with all other members of this Chamber. I am sorry that this motion is before the House. I congratulate you on your work and the spirit in which you approach it. I look forward to a successful resolution of the debate.

Mr Debnam: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Earlier in this debate the Leader of the House alluded to the fact that standing orders refer only to censure of a member and do not refer specifically to censure of the Speaker or a Minister. Standing orders allow for a 10-minute response by the member the subject of the motion. In this instance I will interpret the standing orders to permit the Leader of the House to reply as he undertook the original 10 minutes allotted to the member named.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.10]: Mr Speaker, clearly no case has been made out against you on this issue by any honourable member. It is fundamentally clear that this is an academic argument about whether the honourable member for Gordon should be brought back into the Chamber. Mr Speaker, you were right in your determination that he should come into the Chamber and that it was in his interest to do so. There was a possibility that he might have been the one who was alleged to have said, "You are a disgrace." He did not say those words; he said, "I am leaving voluntarily." If he is to state his case to the House plainly and clearly, in unambiguous terms, he must be here to do that.

Mr Hartcher: He is not obliged to do that. It is his choice.

Mr WHELAN: I know it is his choice. If he wants to cop the rap, he goes. The second issue is the responsibility of the Speaker. That is a silly argument. The President and the Speaker are responsible for the precincts of the Parliament; if a member has been suspended by the House from the precincts of the Chamber, the Speaker would have to know, via the Serjeant-at-Arms, where that member is. The member cannot go and hide in a cupboard; he has to be removed from the Chamber. He cannot stay in the precincts. They are the rules formulated by the former Government. I remember that Merv Sheather came up to me and said I had 20 minutes to get out. I had 20 minutes to pack my bags and go - and for a much more venial offence than was committed yesterday.

The major criticism in the amendment is that the Opposition says that you did not bring the Premier to order. You did, and it is recorded in Hansard. You called the Premier to order on three occasions. You cannot call the Premier to order because he is making a selective quotation from the Western Advocate, because that is permitted. The Premier admitted to the accuracy and veracity of it. He was therefore in order and was able to quote from it. I am pleased that the honourable member for The Hills is in the Chamber because when he read the ruling of former Speaker Rozzoli the other night, he did not go all the way. The House should know the truth because this is the ruling of former Speaker Rozzoli:

Order! I have the gist of the point the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make. This matter was the subject of points of order taken in the House last night. It is not proper for a member of Parliament to quote as fact statements contained in newspapers unless that member can verify the accuracy of the report. Unless the Leader of the Opposition can verify that the statements made in that report are correct - not the fact that those statements were made in the newspaper report - he is not able to use such a report. On that basis, therefore, I repeat that he must withdraw the imputation of improper conduct on the part of the Minister for Education.

That is exactly what the Deputy-Speaker ruled the other day. I could say that the quotation of the ruling was done deceptively, but it was probably just the member's inexperience in understanding the Hansard. As to the issue in hand, there is no case against you, Mr Speaker. If there is any case, it is so weak that even the Independent member for Bligh said that the Speaker is not the villain. She said that this is a dissent by the Opposition from your ruling. The villain might be me, the Premier or anybody else but, Mr Speaker, you are not the villain; that is what the honourable member for Bligh said. The dissent resolution is about you. The honourable member for Bligh does not say that you are guilty of the allegations and should be defending a case of censure against you. It is completely different.

Mr Speaker, you behaved completely impartially in a very difficult circumstance. I cannot understand the Opposition but I want you to think about this, Mr Speaker. This is the same Opposition which refused to allow the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council to have joint estimates committees; the same body that has taken away from members of this House the right to attend estimates committees and to partake in those committees. They have politically prostituted
Page 1510
themselves for the purposes of advancing members of the upper House. The Opposition has done more to devalue the worth of this Chamber than anyone else. The behaviour of Opposition members in the past couple of days has been a premeditated, pre-organised stunt, but it has backfired. I ask all honourable members to agree that you have the total support of this House. You have exercised your role as Speaker in a very fair, forceful but firm manner, in accordance with the traditions, rules and standing orders of this Parliament.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.16], in reply: If a policeman is on duty and observes a person committing murder, on the one hand, and also observes three people crossing a road against the red light, and the policeman goes after the three people crossing against the red light and ignores the murderer, the policeman is guilty of partiality in the discharge of his office and of dereliction in the discharge of his duty. The Premier came into this Chamber to throw the switch to vaudeville, and he did it with malice aforethought. He had the stunt ready: he had the magnifying glass, the newspaper, the pre-arranged question and away he went for four minutes - which is an eternity in question time - while the Opposition was crying out for him to be brought to order. In that period of time, while his antics continued, Mr Speaker - the policeman of the Legislative Assembly - sat and watched as individuals crossed the road against the red light. They received summary justice.

That is what happened yesterday. All the rhetoric and prevarication of the Minister for Police failed to address the crucial question of the Premier's actions, and the Speaker's actions in failing to call him to order. That is what this is all about. The honourable member for Bligh is right when she says that the Premier is in contempt of the Parliament. The Premier is beneath contempt because he treats Parliament as a joke. The Premier, with his wafer-thin majority, acts as though he is the Neville Wran of 1978 and 1981, but he is not.

Notwithstanding the Premier's contemptuous treatment of the Parliament and the fact that he is guilty - and repeatedly guilty - of abuse of the parliamentary process, it still remains the responsibility of the Speaker to call him to order and to maintain the privileges and dignity of parliamentary debate. That is what we are talking about this afternoon - the failure of the Speaker. The failure of the Premier is a separate issue. Most people in New South Wales regard the Premier as a failure. He has the lowest popularity rating of any Premier since public opinion polls began. His popularity is lower than what the Minister for Agriculture described as the northern grasshopper -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. This is a serious debate about the censure of Mr Speaker; it is not about censure of the Premier. If the honourable member for Gosford wants to move another motion at another time about censure of the Premier, or any other Minister, he is capable of doing so. This is a serious issue. The Government has permitted this debate to come on and to be considered as though a member was being censured. Mr Speaker, you have to confine the honourable member to those issues.

Mr HARTCHER: On the point of order. I am exercising a right of reply. The Premier's conduct was raised by members in their speeches. The honourable member for Bligh has moved a motion about the Premier's conduct -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is an amendment which specifically asks this House to censure the Premier for three actions. The member for Gosford is in order.

Mr HARTCHER: The lowest-rating Premier in the history of this State needs all the support he can get. And he gets it because he is not called to order; he is not made accountable to the Parliament. It is the Parliament to which he is responsible; it is the Parliament that has the right to call him into account. But he cannot be called to account because he defies question time; he regards it as simply a theatrical stunt, and the Speaker fails to call him to order. That is what we are debating: we are debating the Speaker's conduct. The Opposition accepts the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bligh, because her point is well taken. At the end of the day it is the Premier who is responsible. But it is the Speaker who should be acting in an impartial way in the discharge of his office and in ensuring that members' rights are protected and that the Premier, or any other member who defies the standing orders of the House, is called to account.

The honourable member for Hawkesbury raised a valid point when he said that what happened yesterday was not premeditated, as alleged by the Minister for Police, but arose spontaneously as a result of the conduct of the Premier and the natural response and reaction of members on this side of the House. It was the Premier's conduct, deliberately designed to provoke, to taunt, and, if possible, to wound that led to yesterday's actions. The Premier's conduct was compounded by the failure of the Chair to call the Premier to account. Just as significantly, in failing to call the Premier to account, the Chair, as honourable members have alluded to, failed to exercise fair judgment in his dealings with the honourable member for Ermington, the honourable member for Vaucluse, the honourable member for Eastwood and the honourable member for Gordon.

Those four members - especially the honourable member for Gordon - were treated arbitrarily and summarily and were denied justice and the protection of the standing orders, simply because the Speaker was prepared to concentrate on the Opposition and was not prepared to call into
Page 1511
account the real criminal in this Parliament, the Premier of New South Wales. It gives me no pleasure at all to call the Premier of this State a criminal. The Premier has in the last 14 months brought only dishonour to a once great office. He is the person who in March 1995 had an approval rating of 64 per cent. His approval rating has now fallen to something like 28 per cent. Only 31 per cent of the population is prepared to vote for his political party.

The people of this State have passed judgment upon him and have found him wanting. But, more significantly, in only one forum is he allowed to perform unchecked. The members of the press have his number. The members of the press regard him as somewhat of a joke - the community regards him as somewhat of a joke. But in this House, in this Parliament, the Premier is still allowed to act as though he is the king, because the Speaker is not prepared to enforce the standing orders against him. In a period of four months the Premier has reduced the popularity rating of his party from 50 per cent to 31 per cent, which is the lowest popularity rating since 1906.

The Opposition supports the amendment of the honourable member for Bligh that the Premier be censured for his wilful disregard for the traditional proprieties of parliamentary behaviour and for his failure to set appropriate standards of parliamentary behaviour, which place the Speaker in an untenable position. The Opposition also believes that the Speaker has failed to properly discharge his office and has failed to show impartiality in the discharge of his duties by continuing to fail to call the Premier to account and by continuing to have one rule for the Opposition and another rule for the Government. The Opposition will observe the standing orders and will show respect for the Chair. All that Opposition members ask is that the Government show that same observance and respect and that the Speaker, in the exercise of his office, show fairness and impartiality. The Opposition will not tolerate partial discharge of office and it will not tolerate unfairness.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mr Collins Mr Phillips
Mr Cruickshank Mr Photios
Mr Debnam Mr Richardson
Mr Ellis Mr Rozzoli
Ms Ficarra Mr Schipp
Mr Glachan Mr Schultz
Mr Hartcher Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Smith
Mr Humpherson Mr Souris
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Dr Macdonald Mr Turner
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face 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
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Allan
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Carr
Mr Downy Ms Nori

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There having been no intervening debate following the previous division, with the leave of the House I propose to order the doors to be locked and the vote taken without the bells being rung. Is there any objection? There being no objection, lock the doors.

Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mr Collins Mr Photios
Mr Cruickshank Mr Richardson
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Ellis Mr Schipp
Ms Ficarra Mr Schultz
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink

Page 1512
Dr Kernohan Mr Turner
Ms Machin
Mr Merton Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

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

Mr Armstrong Ms Allan
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Carr
Mr Downy Ms Nori

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


Debate resumed from 22 May.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [5.38]: I shall continue from the point at which I was interrupted yesterday. I draw the attention of anyone who may care to read these comments at a later date that they attach to the comments I was making yesterday. I now come to the function of the precept which is outlined in past rulings and which refers to the possibility of a voice being given to newspaper editors and journalists. Debate in Parliament should be the debate of parliamentarians. For the same reason that the reading of speeches is discouraged in that the speech may have been written by someone outside the Parliament, that is, an unelected person, so the extensive use of newspaper quotations gives voice to unelected persons. It was never the intention, however, that there should be no reference to statements made by people outside the Parliament. However, it must be abundantly clear that the words used are not the words of the member but those of another party and, when reliance is placed on the words to support the substance of the argument being developed by the member, the accuracy of the substance must be verified, otherwise the Parliament may be debating material that is quite spurious.

The honourable member for Ashfield advised the House in the quoted instance in which he was involved that he did not wish to verify the accuracy of the material because of its potentially defamatory nature. Presumably, he was not absolutely certain that the information was accurate. On the other hand, the honourable member for The Hills was dealing with a distinctly different class of material, the pitfalls of which may not have been so great. Notwithstanding this element, it is still open to the member to verify the accuracy of the report. The honourable member for Ashfield could have verified the material and risked the consequences. If he had, the Speaker would have had to accept the verification and allow the honourable member to continue. In the present case, the member for The Hills was prepared both to verify the accuracy and to accept the consequences. He should have been allowed to continue. The Deputy-Speaker was wrong in his ruling.

The Premier's conduct yesterday has been mentioned. I believe this has little bearing on the matter we are considering now as the point of contention with the Premier's behaviour at that time was not so much the verification of the accuracy of the articles but his use of the newspaper articles as props. Those aspects have just been debated. A motion of dissent should not be moved lightly. Its purpose is to ensure that rulings of the Chair do not drift into disrepute. When a mistake is honestly made it is not a disgrace for the situation to be corrected, either by the Speaker later overruling the previous statement or by the House correcting the matter through a dissent motion. There is no disgrace in correcting the record; there is a great danger in leaving the record uncorrected. It is for these reasons that I ask all members to support the dissent motion.

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [5.42]: I enter the debate to air my concern about the way in which the Parliament is heading with motions such as this. Former Speaker Rozzoli has just spoken in the debate. He is the epitome of hypocrisy. On 23 February 1989 in this very Chamber, as recorded at page 5199 of Hansard, he said:

It is not proper for a member to quote as facts statements contained in newspapers, unless that member can verify the accuracy of the report.

He went on to say:

Unless the Leader of the Opposition can verify that the statements made in the report are correct - not the fact that those statements were made in the newspaper report - he is not able to use such a report.

Mr McBride: He has walked out.

Mr McMANUS: I have no doubt he would want to. Speaker Rozzoli required the then Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the imputation of
Page 1513
improper conduct on the part of the education Minister. The honourable member for The Hills was in the wrong and is wasting the time of the Chamber by moving the motion. Speaker Rozzoli made the ruling I have just repeated and Opposition members should realise that they are in the wrong.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [5.44], in reply: I was interested to hear what the Leader of the House said in the previous debate. Once again he was guilty of distortion and selective interpretation that would have done credit to Robespierre.

Mr McBride: Who is he?

Mr RICHARDSON: A former politician.

Mr McBride: I bet he lost his electorate.

Mr RICHARDSON: He lost more than his electorate. The Leader of the House took rulings of former Speaker Rozzoli totally out of context and quoted selectively from those rulings. I shall repeat the rulings as I gave them to the House yesterday from Hansard of 22 February 1989:

If the honourable member for Ashfield wishes to rely on the material in the newspaper report, he must verify the accuracy of the material. I will not canvass the matter any further. If the honourable member for Ashfield is willing to verify the accuracy of the material, the Chair must accept that, and there will be no further elaboration.

According to Hansard of 16 May, when I was asked to verify the accuracy of the newspaper headline I stated, "Yes, it is accurate."

Mr Whelan: You did not verify it.

Mr RICHARDSON: I verified that it was accurate. The point of order taken related to a standing order of this House. There is no standing order whatsoever relating to this matter, only Speakers' rulings. The quotation I made was in accordance with tradition in this House. On 22 February, during a discussion on daylight saving, allegations were made by the present Leader of the House.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. The honourable member is quoting from a document. I ask that he table the document or name the document that he is quoting from.

Mr RICHARDSON: I am quoting from Hansard, Mr Speaker, as I am sure you are well aware. It is a spurious point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is quoting from Hansard.

Mr Gibson: What page?

Mr RICHARDSON: I have already given that reference, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Ashfield stated:

On the point of order. This is not a secret. I did not think up this matter, nor was it leaked to me. I refer to an article written by Mark Coultan that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 February -

At that stage Speaker Rozzoli pulled him up and asked him to vouch for the accuracy of the article. And he vouched for the accuracy of the article, as indeed I did. The Chair was willing to accept that. Previously we heard the Leader of the House state that it was not enough for any member to vouch for the accuracy of the material. He claimed that the member had to be able to verify it from his own knowledge. That is not the ruling that Speaker Rozzoli gave. He stated:

If the honourable member for Ashfield is willing to verify the accuracy of the material, the Chair must accept that, and there will be no further elaboration.

We need to differentiate clearly between the different uses of quotations from newspapers. The rulings of Speaker Ellis and Speaker Kelly state that in broad generality members should not quote editorials from newspapers in Parliament because by so doing newspapers are given a voice in Parliament. That does not extend to the use of a headline in debate. The ruling of Speaker Rozzoli, that it is not proper for a member to quote as fact statements contained in newspaper unless the member can verify the accuracy of the report, does not relate -

Mr McManus: But you did not verify it.

Mr RICHARDSON: I verified its accuracy. Speaker Rozzoli's ruling does not relate to the quotation of headlines. Mr Deputy-Speaker instructed me to stop quoting from the article. I stopped quoting from the article when I delivered the headline. After that I went on to other matters. That was dealt with by former Speaker Rozzoli in his contribution to this debate. The central point at issue - all members, including Government members, should be aware of this - is that if it is ruled out of order to quote from a newspaper headline, as little as four words from a newspaper article, it will be impossible for members of this House to refer to newspaper articles in this House ever again. Indeed, there is a symbiotic relationship between members of Parliament and members of the press gallery, as those on this side of the Chamber are well aware. That relationship extends to the notion that one should use, as the Premier does on many occasions in question time and in debates, articles that have appeared in the media to amplify the debate.

I promise members of the Government that if this motion is not carried points of order will be taken in virtually every debate, because every member of this House refers to newspaper articles in his or her contributions. It is clear that the dissent motion I have moved against the ruling of Mr Deputy-Speaker should be carried. Clearly the ruling was not correct. Mr Deputy-Speaker did not understand the debate; he had not been listening to the debate; his attention had wandered at the time; and his slavish upholding of the point of order taken
Page 1514
by the Minister for Education and Training was clearly contrary to the best interests of this House.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Blackmore Mr O'Doherty
Mr Chappell Mr O'Farrell
Mr Collins Mr Phillips
Mr Cruickshank Mr Photios
Mr Debnam Mr Richardson
Mr Ellis Mr Rozzoli
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr Turner
Dr Kernohan Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Mr Markham
Mr Anderson Mr Martin
Ms Andrews Ms Meagher
Mr Aquilina Mr Mills
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Crittenden Mr Nagle
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face 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
Mr Knowles Mr Whelan
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Ms Allan
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Carr
Mr Downy Ms Nori

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion of dissent negatived.


Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [5.58]: I place on record the appreciation of public housing tenants in my electorate of a report the Government commissioned and has announced it will act upon. The report is entitled "Master Plan for the Riverwood Housing Estate". It has taken a lot of time to put together, and follows extensive consultation with the residents of the housing estate at Riverwood and the people at the Riverwood community centre. The report is the result of that hard work. The master plan is a five-year program that will involve the expenditure of $15 million to radically alter the housing estate at Riverwood. After five years the plan will have made the estate a lot more livable for its 3,500 residents. The report found a great many problems with the physical layout of the estate, problems which resulted from planning in the 1960s. The 1960s design concepts for public housing estates are no longer appropriate for the 1990s or for the future of the estate. I will briefly outline some of the physical problems relating to accessibility and the movement of residents throughout the estate. The report highlighted those problems and the program aims to tackle them.

The report found that the estate was dominated by roads and that the emphasis was on vehicle passage and car parking, resulting in little accessibility and pedestrian movement. As a result of the 1960s planning decisions the estate is dominated by the motor car. That is totally inappropriate to the residential amenity of the 3,500 tenants who live there. The report also found that the lack of road marking, signage and traffic calming measures provided a major constraint to safe movement in the area, particularly for the large population of children. It presented significant danger for them. For example, Roosevelt Avenue, which is curved, intersects with six other streets in the space of less than 800 metres. That is an example of the dominance of the motor vehicle on the estate. The fact that the estate has few pedestrian footpaths prevented residential amenity reaching an optimum.

In relation to landscaping and environment, the report found little order to the existing landscape and no clear distinction between planting treatments in public open spaces, communal areas and private areas. The large number of public open areas are underutilised, particularly corner sites and block edges. The report recommended a program to delineate areas of responsibility and dedicate zones of ownership to ensure that public open space areas are dealt with properly on a maintenance level, and to encourage tenants to take on a form of ownership of some communal areas to enable better upkeep of those areas. The report examined the physical design of a large number of apartments on the estate and found that they were no longer appropriate to the 1990s.

The $15 million program will start in
Page 1515
Minnesota Avenue and Kentucky Avenue, the two worst areas of the estate, with the provision of such basic amenities as internal laundries and decent parking facilities, the upgrading of security for many of the apartments, and the alteration of the facades of a number of buildings. The program will involve an extensive redevelopment of the estate. That would not have happened without the support of the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing and the support of the Government. In the lead-up to the election the Government made a commitment to improve the quality of life of tenants on the estate. The master plan represents a significant step in the right direction to redress existing problems and to overcome the design problems of large-scale 1960s public housing estates.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.03]: On behalf of the Minister for Housing and Planning I respond to the honourable member's contribution. The master plan is progressive and, as indicated, it is the result of an election promise that will be delivered over the five-year period. In the period when estates such as one at Riverwood were developed little consideration was given to their social amenity. I believe there was a general feeling that public housing tenants should be satisfied with what they were given, and that not too much emphasis was placed on making sure they were happy in their residential accommodation. Placing the emphasis on the social amenity of the tenants instead of on motor vehicles is a good idea. That change of emphasis will improve the safety of those who live on the estate and will associate people more closely with their environment. If the dignity of the tenants is given reasonable recognition they will respond positively. The implementation of the Riverwood master plan will not only improve conditions for those who live on the estate; it will lead to the residents becoming more actively involved in the maintenance and upkeep of the area in which they live.


Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [6.05]: I speak on behalf of Mrs Bullen of Turramurra. Honourable members will remember the storms that ripped through the north shore of Sydney and the north-western suburbs in 1991. Honourable members who were not in those suburbs on that day, as the honourable member for Northern Tablelands and I were, would be unable to understand the ferocity of the storms. The sky went pitch black and it was almost as though the world was ending. That is not an overzealous description of what happened on that day. It has been estimated that the debris from approximately 100 trees came down in the property of my constituent, Mrs Bullen, but the nightmare for her did not end on that day. According to estimates, the damage to Mrs Bullen's house was the worst damage in the Ku-ring-gai local government area. Although Mrs Bullen was aged 73 at that time, she was on the roof of her house inspecting the storm damage with State Emergency Services personnel and imploring them to put tarpaulins over the holes in the roof. During the next couple of years Mrs Bullen spent quite a deal of time on her roof as she argued with builders about repairs to her house.

Mr E. T. Page: Did she get any help from the BSC?

Mr O'DOHERTY: I will ignore the insulting comments of the Minister for Local Government, who does not care about my constituent.

Mr E. T. Page: I am on her side, but the Building Services Corporation probably was not.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! I ask the Minister for Local Government to refrain from interjecting.

Mr O'DOHERTY: In 1991 Mrs Bullen was strong of mind and firm of limb. That is her own description, but when she came to see me recently she presented as a woman who has almost been broken by her experience, not only as a result of the storm but by her dealings with builders and the Building Services Corporation since that time. Nevertheless Mrs Bullen, who is a gracious woman, a woman with great strength of character, and a woman with a very clear mind, told me the other day, "I have had fewer than five outings for enjoyment in the past two years." Her dealings with the Building Services Corporation have taken her to the point where she has regular anxiety attacks and finds it difficult to go out. She was taken by her daughter to Canberra to see an exhibition at the National Gallery.

Mr E. T. Page: The Turner exhibition?

Mr O'DOHERTY: The Turner exhibition. However, she had to come home because of her anxiety about being away from home. During the journey she was literally curled up, huddling next to the window of the train, when a young man said to her, "You can have my seat, you poor little thing." She thought at that time: yes, that is what I have become, a poor little thing. Her life has been a nightmare as a result of her experiences with the Building Services Corporation. But the nightmare does not end there. The inquiry into the Building Services Corporation found that she was entitled to be compensated for a range of ways in which the Building Services Corporation had not served her interests and had acted contrary to its duties under the legislation. Mrs Bullen thought her problems would be over.

Mrs Bullen was offered some form of compensation, which was to be negotiated in December of last year. The terms of the compensation were not acceptable to her. She was speaking in terms of $100,000 to compensate her partly for the work that has still not been done correctly on her house, and also for her health
Page 1516
problems and her loss of enjoyment of life. The inquiry has offered only $30,000. Mrs Bullen said that that sum will barely pay for the rectification and will go nowhere near compensating her for the loss of the amenities of that she is now suffering. I can attest to the fact that she is suffering in a real way. My reason for raising this matter is not to open up a political debate about the ins and outs of the matter. I am not interested in doing that.

I implore the Minister to extend the time that Mrs Bullen has to consider the offer. Her cheque arrived on 30 April and her answer must be received by 31 May. I believe it is nothing less than legal blackmail for the Government to say that if people cash the cheque they give up all rights to any further claim. Frankly, Mrs Bullen is scared. She is not going to undercut the entire budget strategy of the Carr Government. She is not going to threaten the AAA rating of the State of New South Wales. She is scared to sign away her rights for the sum of $30,000, and she does not know what to do. She is a woman who is on her own at 78 years of age. She is looking to the Government to provide some assistance to her, and she is not getting a great deal of assistance from the Government at present. I implore the Government to extend the time for her to lodge her appeal and to reconsider the amount of compensation. It is simply not enough for Mrs Bullen. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.10]: I was interested to hear about the case of Mrs Bullen. I suspect that honourable members in the Chamber and in their offices also would be very sympathetic for the woman. Her experiences during the storms at Turramurra would have been traumatic. I compliment the honourable member for raising the matter. It took some courage on his part because it is obvious that in 1991 Mrs Bullen either got no satisfaction from the member representing the electorate at the time, a former Premier, or was not comfortable about approaching him.

Mr O'Doherty: The Minister does not know that.

Mr E. T. PAGE: She either approached her local member and did not get satisfaction, or else did not have the confidence to approach him. Either way, she missed out on getting service from her member at the time. When the coalition was in government she got nothing from the Building Services Corporation - not a frankfurt. It was only when Labor was elected to office and the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women set up an inquiry into the Building Services Corporation that Mrs Bullen was offered $30,000. Under the coalition regime she had been offered absolutely nothing.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. The Minister is factually incorrect.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr E. T. PAGE: The actions of this Government have resulted in this woman being given $30,000. Certainly, I will take up the matter with the Minister and ask her to have another look at it. Even though the woman in question has now got a hopeless member, she should not suffer because he cannot adequately articulate her case.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [6.12]: I raise the matter of lead remediation in north Lake Macquarie and detail the problem to the House. On 25 May 1995, shortly after the election of the Carr Labor Government, I spoke in the House on the report of the Select Committee upon Lead Pollution handed down in December 1994. At that time I pointed out that it was important to note that the Fahey Government opposed the formation of that select committee. I further pointed out how the committee had been frustrated by that Government's refusal to provide documents to the committee. The committee had been set up by the Labor Opposition because of its concern in particular about lead pollution in the north Lake Macquarie, Illawarra and Broken Hill areas, but the problem existed right across the State, as the committee report reveal.

One of the recommendations of the Select Committee upon Lead Pollution was that the north Lake Macquarie lead plan of management should be implemented upon its completion and submission to the Government. That plan of management was submitted to the Government towards the end of 1994. However, the previous Government did not act on it. The Labor Party gave a commitment prior to the 1995 State election that if elected to government it would implement that plan of management. I point out that on 8 June I again raised the matter in the House and congratulated the Government on its decision to appoint a project manager to oversee the lead contamination clean-up of north Lake Macquarie.

The Carr Government has appointed a management committee - another recommendation of that lead plan of management report. The project manager, Mr Dennis Pryor, has been appointed. He brings with him considerable experience and expertise from his previous position in public works. Mr Pryor has worked very well with the community management committee; in about two to three weeks remediation works will start on the first property in north Lake Macquarie. In November last year the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health visited north Lake Macquarie to officially open the lead remediation centre. It has been established in Main Road, Boolaroo, adjacent to the ambulance station.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Pasminco Metals-Sulphide for its contribution of the home for the management centre and its
Page 1517
contribution of $100,000 towards the initial remediation process. The Government allocated an environmental trust grant last year of about $200,000 towards the remediation project, giving the local committee and its project manager some $300,000 to commence work. However, before that work was able to be commenced the project manager was to prepare an action plan. That plan has taken considerable time to put together, in consultation with the local community. However, remediation is due to start.

I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health: when will the funds be released from the environmental trust that have been assigned for lead remediation in north Lake Macquarie? I believe when the legislation was passed by this House last year it identified north Lake Macquarie lead remediation as receiving a figure of about $2 million for the remediation process. As I said, the local management committee has $300,000, and that will allow it to undertake remediation work until the end of 1996. But over the next six months we must see the lead remediation funding coming through from the State Government. I call on the Deputy Premier to advise the House and the constituents of north Lake Macquarie when those funds will be available.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.16]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lake Macquarie on his determination in respect of this matter. In his first term in this Parliament he hit the Chamber running; he raised issues of concern in his electorate and has pursued them with tremendous vigour. Lead contamination is one of those issues. Because of his drive and dedication, but against the wishes of the former Government, the Select Committee upon Lead Pollution was set up, and a lead remediation centre is now operating. The honourable member remains on the trail in pursuit of this matter and now asks when the appropriate funds will be released from the environmental trust. I will take up that matter with the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. I repeat my congratulation of the honourable member for Lake Macquarie for his dedication to representing the legitimate interests of his constituents.


Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [6.18]: I raise an issue that is causing considerable concern, particularly in country areas but also in metropolitan areas. I ask the Minister for Local Government to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for the Environment. I refer to the emission of visible smoke from the exhausts of diesel-engine vehicles. Since I gave this matter some publicity in northern New South Wales media I have had more than 20 telephone calls and letters from people expressing concern about the issue and saying they have done all they can to address it. In fact, they have presented evidence to that effect. However, the issue remains a problem for them. From time to time, and in particular circumstances, diesel-engine vehicles are observed to be emitting smoke.

It is now some months since I raised the issue, but another call was made to my office by a person whom I know to have been maintaining a fleet of work vehicles for many years. Those vehicles remain a problem despite the fact that he has done all he can to correct it. That man is Bruce Flint. I have to return his call today, but I know exactly what it is that he will tell me. The New South Wales Clean Air Act and regulations make it an offence for any motor vehicle to emit visible smoke, particulate matter and so on from its exhaust pipe for a continuous period in excess of 10 seconds. Section 5 of that Act defines "air impurity" to include smoke, fumes and solid particles of any kind. The Act, as it should, covers emissions from both diesel- and petrol-engine vehicles.

The Environment Protection Authority has examined this matter; I wrote to the authority and to the Minister about it, drawing attention to the fact that this remains a problem for some people even though they have done everything possible to deal with it - even going back to the manufacturers to check on fuel supply settings and other technical aspects of engines, in order to do whatever they can to correct the matter. They have been unsuccessful. Yet the manufacturers of the engines - not just the local service agents - state that the engines conform strictly to the standards, the vehicle has been properly maintained, the settings are correct and everything that can possibly be done to the diesel engine has been carried out.

Nonetheless, this issue continues. I have received numerous letters from people who have been fined on the road because their vehicles have emitted smoke for longer than 10 seconds; in one case it was 15 seconds, another 18 seconds, 23 seconds, and so on. People who genuinely maintain their work vehicles occasionally find - perhaps because of climatic circumstances on the day or because their vehicle is laden to within its specified limits but may be turning a corner or going up a steep hill - that their vehicles are emitting smoke for longer than the defined 10-second period. It is unreasonable to have a hard and fast rule that the carrying capacity of the vehicles must be reduced - and I am talking about vehicles from small work vehicles through to large trucks.

No-one would argue that air pollution standards need to be diminished or that the regulations be raised in respect of a vast range of vehicles. However, sympathetic consideration should be given to policing this issue where evidence can clearly be shown that every possible avenue has been explored to have the vehicle operating efficiently, without emitting excessive smoke. That should be done specifically with work vehicles. A number of circumstances have been
Page 1518
drawn to my attention where people have gone to enormous lengths and spent large sums of money in an effort to meet the standards, but still they have been unable to do so.

People either have to pay large sums of money for their work vehicle - and manufacturers insist that the vehicles meet the national design standards - or allow themselves to be fined for breaking the law. Honourable members would agree that some vehicles are not well maintained, they should be put off the road and the owners fined heavily. I support that measure and do not ask the Minister to water that down in any way. However, further consideration should be given to those people who can provide evidence to show that all steps have been taken to have the vehicles operating efficiently, with maintenance being kept up to date and the vehicles not being overloaded beyond the described limits. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.23]: I feel very sorry for Mr Bruce Flint and I imagine that when he rang the member's office, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands said, "I am terribly sorry. I did nothing about it for seven years when we were in Government. I was a Minister in the previous Government, which had no sympathy with you whatsoever. However, we have a receptive Government in power now, so at the first opportunity I will raise this during private members' statements and will probably get you a sympathetic response." I am certainly sympathetic, though I do not know the ins and outs of the matter. However, I will take up the matter with the Minister for the Environment to see if a solution can be reached to overcome the problem of Mr Bruce Flint.


Ms HALL (Swansea) [6.24]: Last week I raised a matter of great importance to the people of Marks Point, who, for a number of years, have suffered because they are unable to get their boats out of Swan Bay because Lake Macquarie City Council has failed to enforce the requirements outlined in the development consent. Lake Macquarie City Council supported the granting of a permissive occupancy to Belmont Sands Pty Limited as the council stood to benefit by receiving royalties from the company whilst having ventilation channels dredged in the bay and infrastructure installed at no cost to the council. The ventilation channels have not been dredged, the conditions of consent have not been adhered to and Lake Macquarie City Council has received royalties, as has the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

I have referred this matter to the Ombudsman and, depending on the results of that inquiry, I may refer the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Minister advised this House last week that he would do everything in his power to resolve this matter. Unfortunately, Lake Macquarie City Council did not respond in the same way. Instead, the General Manager of Lake Macquarie City Council, Mr Robert Gray, launched a vicious and somewhat misleading attack on me. He chose to shoot the messenger and ignore the problem - what a contrast! Mr Robert Gray stated:

Given that Ms Hall was a councillor from 1991 to 1995, a period covering much of the inaction she referred to, I am bemused by some of her comments.

What Mr Gray failed to say was that I successfully moved a number of resolutions authorising Lake Macquarie City Council to enforce the conditions of consent. Unfortunately, these resolutions were ignored and still the problem exists. Last week I made mention of the fact that a section 102 amendment, which allowed the original development consent to be modified, was invalid. This worried me so much that this week I made inquiries because I thought it was important to find out why the section 102 amendment was procedurally flawed. My inquiries revealed that Lake Macquarie City Council had failed to notify the adjoining owners and the original objector that it was seeking to amend the original consent conditions. I read in a newspaper article that the new owner is to lodge a new application to amend his consent by 24 May. It can only be hoped that Lake Macquarie City Council will get it right this time, for the sake of the residents and boat owners.

It is no wonder that I have had residents again asking me to draw this matter to the attention of the Parliament so that Lake Macquarie City Council will be forced to resolve the matter rather than cover it up. As I mentioned last week, the Department of Land and Water Conservation is seeking to enter into two leases with the new owner of Belmont Sands Pty Limited which will cover both the land and water-based activities. Unfortunately, once again this has been held up by Lake Macquarie City Council. In a letter to the Department of Land and Water Conservation dated 12 February the council requested that the execution of the lease be postponed pending council consideration of the matter. Further, at its meeting on 26 February, council passed a resolution. Part B of the resolution stated:

That LAWC be requested not to execute any lease until advice has been received from Council that Sec 102 amendments to the DA addressing non compliance with previous conditions of consent has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Council.

As I said earlier, we can only hope that Lake Macquarie City Council gets it right this time. Why does Lake Macquarie City Council refuse to act on this matter? Why was the General Manager, Robert Gray - after a resolution put to Lake Macquarie City Council by Councillor Orkopoulos seeking to arrange a meeting with myself and all relevant parties was defeated - overheard saying, "I'm glad that motion did not get up"? Why did the General Manager, Robert Gray, seek to attack me in the press rather than solve the problem? I would like these questions answered and I am sure that the residents, boat owners and the Ombudsman also
Page 1519
would like to hear the answers. All that I, the residents and boat owners of Marks Point want is to have the problem solved.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.28]: I take on board the matters raised by the honourable member for Swansea and I will refer them to the Department of Local Government. I was intrigued to read in a press report on this matter that the general manager initially indicated that it was purely a matter for the State Government and then castigated the honourable member for Swansea in her position as a councillor between 1991 and 1995, stating that he did not believe she was doing her job. Later on in the report he agreed that the council has development consents concerned with the dredging of Swan Bay. In the article Mr Gray stated:

The council has continually been conscious of the lack of progress at Swan Bay both in the dredging itself and non-compliance with development conditions.

It seems strange that the general manager of the council should publicly say he is concerned about the non-compliance with development conditions and indicate, by inference, that he will not do anything about them. Obviously something is wrong and that needs to be addressed. I urge the honourable member to take the matter up with the Ombudsman. Also, I will raise the matter with the department in an endeavour to ascertain whether the council is carrying out its legal requirements concerning this development. I hope that the matter can then reach some finality.


Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [6.30]: Honourable members would be aware of the significant project of the BHP-sponsored eastern gas pipeline presently being examined by a commission of inquiry. The project will bring natural gas from Victoria into New South Wales, terminating at Wilton on the outskirts of Wollongong. I have touched upon this subject in the House on a previous occasion, when I said that the benefits flowing from such a venture are well documented and widely accepted and I need not repeat those comments today. I described how the preferred course for the pipeline was along the Braidwood Road passing close to Nowra, bringing with it the potential to inject commercial opportunities into the Shoalhaven area. There is almost unanimous agreement that such a venture will be beneficial to the local economy - nobody is challenging that.

The only drawback is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is objecting to the pipeline going along the Braidwood Road and through sections of national park for approximately seven kilometres. What the National Parks and Wildlife Service is proposing as an alternative will take the pipeline through Marulan, effectively bypassing Nowra. If this were to happen, the Shoalhaven would never get the benefit of natural gas. BHP has stated that Trunk Road 92 is the only real option, a fact that it repeated in the Sydney hearing just a few weeks ago. The pipeline would follow the road easement, which is already cleared, except for a small deviation near the air base at HMAS Albatross. That seven kilometre section would require a 20 metre easement, of which a little over a kilometre would be underground and the ground could then be reclaimed. That is about 3½ hectares of a total land mass of 144,000 hectares under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service or, to put it another way, 0.009 per cent of that holding.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has also flagged at the inquiry its intention to place some of the Braidwood Road under a heritage order. This would effectively stop any meaningful upgrading or utility of the road easement and impact negatively on the future prospects of the Shoalhaven. At present, sections of Braidwood Road are literally out of alignment according to the records, and in fact are part of the gazetted national park. It is this anomaly that is being exploited by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It seems to me that the easiest way out is for the Minister to regazette the alignment of the road to its physical alignment in order to reflect its actual course. BHP has made it clear that before proceeding it wants assurances that its investment will not be jeopardised.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service informed the inquiry that it was opposed to the pipeline going along the Braidwood Road on the grounds that it would damage the environment. It instead wanted the pipeline to go via Marulan with a spur line coming back from Wollongong. Even with this proposal it slipped in conditions to say that the spur line would have to avoid sensitive areas along the Wollongong escarpment. In my experience, the National Parks and Wildlife Service considers bushland of any type to be sensitive. When the National Parks and Wildlife Service put its option to the inquiry, it knew full well it was not a viable option by any measure. It was fully aware of all the options beforehand and that its proposal had already been discounted as unrealistic and impractical. The reality is that there is less likelihood of a spur line from Wollongong than there would be with the Braidwood Road option.

I suggest that if the Braidwood Road option were frustrated, there would be no natural gas to Nowra at all. The National Parks and Wildlife Service will use the same argument to stop any spur line as it is now using to prevent its passage along the Braidwood Road. It is neither a balanced nor a responsible position. It has been estimated that the gas pipeline is worth at least $3 million a year to Nowra - a town with a high unemployment rate, low income and poor prospects because of the blight of being surrounded by national parks and wilderness areas. With this background I ask the Minister to investigate why the National Parks and Wildlife Service is so determined to subvert this project, given the benefits it must bring to the people of the
Page 1520
Shoalhaven. Why did the National Parks and Wildlife Service make the comments it made before the commission of inquiry when it knew beforehand that its option was not a viable one? Unless the National Parks and Wildlife Service ceases it campaign of obstruction, BHP will react accordingly and the Shoalhaven will pay the price of appeasement.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.34]: I cannot believe that the honourable member for South Coast is stupid enough to present this contribution. I suggest that someone else has written it for him, and I believe he should sack that person because the speech is silly. What the honourable member is saying in effect is that there is a proposal for a massive pipeline to come north from Victoria and that it has been subverted and held up by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This assertion is completely unfounded balderdash. A Federal inquiry is examining the conditions of this pipeline. The inquiry is calling for submissions of interest and is taking evidence from all sorts of bodies.

One of those bodies making submissions to the inquiry is the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which is putting forward proposals which it believes are designed to protect the bushland areas under its control. Its proposal will be considered along the same lines as the honourable member's proposal, if he bothers to make one - and I would say he has not even bothered to approach the inquiry; that is how interested he is. Many people will give evidence before the inquiry so that there is a broad range of evidence before it. I have no doubt that when the day is done the pipeline will be built. The honourable member for South Coast talked about aligning the roadway. In the seven years a coalition Government was in office it did nothing about that road - it did not align it; it did not seal it - and as far as he is concerned it has suddenly become a big deal. The honourable member is saying that the National Parks and Wildlife Service should be statute-barred from giving evidence before the inquiry. That is a crazy statement, and I certainly will not ask the Minister to do anything about it at all.


Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [6.36]: The future use of the former TAFE site in Shoalhaven Drive, Woy Woy, is a matter of wide community interest in the Woy Woy peninsula area. The site had been set aside for the past 20 years for educational purposes. In 1989, however, TAFE made a decision that the site was too small for a college, the site being only 20 per cent of the area required. A vigorous public campaign which ensued shortly afterwards succeeded in having the auction withdrawn. There have been some murmurs since then about the future use of the site, but more recently there has been a wholesale eruption. The position I have consistently adopted since my election last year as the member for Peats has been for the retention of the site for educational purposes - a view also held by a number of Woy Woy community organisations. More recently, TAFE decided to dispose of the site and it gave Gosford City Council first option.

However, council decided that it did not want the land. TAFE then tried to sell off the site by way of a public auction. Rather than see State Government-owned land fall into the hands of private developers, I wrote to the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Aquilina, requesting that the land be used for meeting the big demand in the area for public housing. I am aware that there are thousands of people currently on the waiting lists for public housing on the central coast because of the incompetent handling of that portfolio by the previous Liberal Party-National Party Government. Many people in the Peats electorate have been waiting eight or nine years, or in some cases even more, for an aged unit. The Minister responded by calling off the public auction.

As a result of the public debate which had occurred in the local community over this issue, I sought and was granted approval to lead a deputation to the Minister of six local community-minded residents, namely Heather McKenzie, Chris Etherington, John Lovell, Ron Clifton, Councillor Judith Penton of Gosford City Council and Bruce Penton, secretary of the Peats State Electorate Council of the Australian Labor Party. The result of that meeting with the Minister was very positive. The Minister confirmed that he had cancelled the public auction of the land but he was adamant that a TAFE college would not be constructed on the site. This was because the site was too small and did not comply with the TAFE commission's reasoning for some form of rationalisation of TAFE facilities on the central coast.

The Minister did, however, accept the proposal strongly put forward by the delegation that all funds gained by the Government from either the lease or sale of the said land be ploughed back into providing courses for students residing on the peninsula. He also accepted that the possibility of utilising facilities already available in the two local high schools, that is, Umina and Woy Woy, would be explored. The Minister indicated that a community committee would be set up and that committee would be charged with a number of tasks, including the future community use of the former TAFE site. I was able to inform the Minister that already I had been approached by a local church organisation which had expressed a keen interest in utilising the site for the building of an aged care project. There is a high demand for more palliative care, nursing beds, hostel and self-care accommodation for the aged on the central coast, and in particular on the Woy Woy peninsula where there is a large ageing population.


Page 1521
If the way could be made clear to allow such a project to go ahead, it would indeed be of great benefit not only to the electorate of Peats but to the entire central coast. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Education and Training for cancelling the public auction of the land in Shoalhaven Drive and for ordering a review into the future community use of the land. Further, I congratulate the Minister for his and the Government's commitment to vastly improve TAFE education on the central coast with an injection of $18 million into the Gosford, Ourimbah and Wyong campuses.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.40]: I extend my congratulations to the honourable member for Peats on the way in which she has pursued her representations in this matter. From the very beginning this was not an easy issue in that the block of land that had previously been purchased for the Woy Woy college of technical and further education was much too small, as the honourable member for Peats has indicated, and clearly did not come up to the standards required today for a TAFE college. The land had been put forward for public auction but following a number of representations made by the honourable member for Peats and in response to community concerns expressed about the land being sold off, I called off the public auction and agreed to meet a deputation led by the honourable member for Peats to explain community wishes on the matter.

Several representatives of community organisations, including Gosford City Council, attended the meeting. They put forward a very strong argument that the land be retained in such a way as to provide a public facility for the people of Gosford and the surrounding district and that if the land was not to be retained in public ownership it should be marketed to an organisation that would provide a service to the local community. One idea we considered to achieve this aim was the provision of public housing. Rather than that, though, we are now examining the use of the land for some kind of nursing-home arrangement with the local church. Whilst we are still in very early days, I have a great deal of confidence that the issue can be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. I particularly congratulate the honourable member for Peats on the way in which she is handling this matter and continues to follow it through.


Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [6.41]: Many of my constituents are concerned about the behaviour of Waverley Council on a long-running rates issue. In September 1995 I was contacted by a Mr and Mrs Maxwell regarding a dispute with Waverley Council in relation to reimbursement of overpaid rates for their property dating back to 1979. In a letter sent to me Mr and Mrs Maxwell pointed out that they had paid business rates on their home for a period of about 22 years, instead of paying the appropriate residential rates. The amount involved is a considerable sum of money. Mr and Mrs Maxwell stated that the mistake came to their attention only in 1994 when the Department of Local Government instructed councils to reassess rate notices and the notice issued spelt out in red letters "Business", whereas previously rate demands had referred to "Nonresidential", which the Maxwells unfortunately overlooked.

Mr and Mrs Maxwell say that it now seems that they are at a standstill with Waverley Council, which still maintains that the onus is on the ratepayer to dispute any rate notice within 60 days. The Maxwells, however, are of the opinion, as is most of the community, that it was an honest mistake on their part and that the council, if not legally bound to return the money should surely do so on moral grounds. I made representations to the Minister for Local Government and to Waverley Council. In a letter dated 25 October Waverley Council replied that its advice was that the council could not re-rate the property after so many years.

The Minister for Local Government advised in a letter dated 24 November that it appeared that the council had acted lawfully but he noted, "The issue has been brought to the Premier's attention and I am advised that he has written to the Mayor of Waverley requesting that it consider a discretionary payment to the Maxwells." I thank the Minister for Local Government for his support. Waverley Council responded again on 13 March 1996 refusing to repay the money. On 1 April I suggested that the Maxwells seek advice from South Sydney Council, as that council had satisfactorily resolved a related issue. The South Sydney Council responded to the Maxwells on 14 May.

South Sydney Council referred to a review by council officers and stated that officers when reviewing the matter took the following two matters into consideration. First, the time limit of 60 days as stipulated by the 1919 Act was a limitation placed on the property owner and not on the council. That is to say that if the council was willing to recognise that a property had been incorrectly classified it could do so when presented with proof at any time, irrespective of the fact that the owner had lost his or her legal right under the Act. Second, the council pointed out that section 2.2 of the New South Wales Ombudsman good conduct and administrative practices legislation states in part that the obligation to comply with legal requirements does not relieve a council or its staff of a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of rigid adherence to the letter of the law where that results in or would result in manifestly inequitable treatment of an individual or organisation.

South Sydney Council then recommended on the basis of the foregoing and other relevant information that a refund be made without prejudice. The Maxwells have tried to talk to Waverley Council again this week. The only
Page 1522
response they received was to be told that the legal department would consider the matter and provide a response in due course. I recognise that the Minister for Local Government has no authority in this matter, and, as I have said, I thank him for his efforts to date. However, I ask him again as a past mayor of Waverley and a colleague of the Labor councillors who control Waverley Council to use his best endeavours to persuade Waverley Council to do the right thing.

All I ask in this matter is that the Maxwells be treated fairly, and to date Waverley Council has done the opposite and has used every opportunity to frustrate the Maxwells' request for redress. The record of Waverley Council on this issue is a disgrace. The Maxwells made an honest mistake in the past, which was of significant benefit to Waverley Council. The council's role has turned the matter from an honest mistake to an injustice. I ask the council to have a good think about the damage it is doing to its reputation. With the assistance of South Sydney Council, for which the Maxwells and I are certainly grateful, we presented Waverley Council with another opportunity to correct the mistake and remove the injustice. I seek the Minister's support. To Waverley Council I say, please have the decency to grasp this opportunity and give the money back.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.46]: I assure the honourable member for Vaucluse that as a former mayor of Waverley, I have no legal status whatsoever, having been off the council for nine years. A suggestion that I could take a legal stand on this issue is below me. Under the previous legislation the onus was on a ratepayer. If there was some disagreement about the classification of land, the owner had a period of 60 days after the rate notice was received to do something about it. Even though it was clearly stated on the rate bill that the land was zoned nonresidential, nothing was ever done by the ratepayer.

After 1993 when it was clearly stated that the land was not for residential purposes but was zoned commercial the Maxwells took up the matter with Waverley Council. I understood that both parties agreed that senior counsel, Mr W. R. Davison, would be briefed for the purposes of obtaining an opinion to settle the dispute and that both parties agreed to be bound by his finding. I have been advised that it was agreed that the fee for the advice would be paid by the council and would be deducted from the refund if the finding did not support the council's view. The legal opinion provided by Mr Davison confirmed previous in-house legal advice provided to the council that there was no basis for recovery of the moneys paid in accordance with the rate notices.

It would appear that the Maxwells, having agreed to abide by the finding initially, do not accept that finding and are still pursuing the matter. I congratulate South Sydney Council on being big enough to say that some other council was doing the wrong thing. I would have thought more of Waverley Council, however, had it posted a cheque. I also point out that the amount of money involved is $4,490.04, not $20,000 as has been put abroad from some avenues. As the honourable member for Vaucluse pointed out, this is a matter for Waverley Council. It would appear that the council is still considering the matter and that a decision will be made by that august body.


Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [6.48]: I wish to draw to the attention of the House, the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning a matter of considerable concern to my constituents. It relates to the state of Hoxton Park Road. Hoxton Park Road is a significant arterial road of approximately 6.5 kilometres. It is bounded on the east by the Hume Highway and on the west by Cowpastures Road. The road carries in excess of 28,000 vehicles per day. Both of the roads at its extremities are State roads. Hoxton Park Road not only services the established suburb of Liverpool but also largely services the newer release areas of Green Valley, Hinchinbrook and Hoxton Park. Those newer release areas have been subject to dramatic and significant increases in population that have led already to significant traffic difficulties.

The new release areas are planned to expand even further and dramatically in the next few years. The most moderate assessment suggests that the city of Liverpool will have another 60,000 inhabitants by the year 2010. Some estimates suggest the figure will be even higher. A very significant proportion of the new residents will go into the Green Valley-Hinchinbrook-Hoxton Park release areas and thus be serviced by Hoxton Park Road. For the most part, Hoxton Park Road is a two-lane undivided road. It is clear that the road must be upgraded to at least four lanes. Failure to upgrade it would lead to horrific and unacceptable traffic delays and congestion. Most immediately there is a need for the upgrading of the bridge near Hill Road and widening of the road between Hill Road and Wilson Road.

Liverpool Council has requested the support of the State Government in funding the roadworks. The argument from the council is on two bases: first, that the work is well outside the ambit of section 94 funds, and therefore from the council's point of view unfunded. In new release areas there is extraordinary pressure on councils to provide funds for a range of things. Therefore, finding money for projects not covered under section 94 funds is a real difficulty. The second basis upon which the request is put is that the need for the work is very clear and failure to upgrade the road will lead to considerable difficulties for residents in the new release areas.

There has been significant discussion of these issues among the Liverpool Transport Access Committee, a committee established pursuant to
Page 1523
section 22 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act representing all the major stakeholders. Councillor Alex Sanchez, the Deputy Mayor of Liverpool, is the council representative on the committee. He took over from me when I ceased to be a member of the council. Following the section 22 committee discussion, Liverpool Council was advised that the matter ought to be deferred until the committee reported to the planning Minister. The relevant reports have now been completed. In a letter to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning dated 11 April 1996 the council requested, inter alia, a rezoning to special uses-arterial road 5(c) for the Hoxton Park Road corridor.

The rezoning is clearly part of the upgrading of the road. It should be dealt with in the near future because of the consolidating local environment plan that the council is pursuing. In that letter the council also requested support for a funding commitment to the upgrading of the road. The department's regional manager for Sydney region west has replied to council representations noting that they still await advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority on acquisition costs in relation to the rezoning. I urge that favourable consideration be given to funding of the works, both the upgrading and the rezoning. The Mayor of Liverpool, the Hon. George Paciullo, who is no stranger to this place, has expressed the traffic problems of Hoxton Park Road in the following terms:

Hoxton Park Road, as you will be aware, is a significant arterial road linking two State roads. It runs for 6.5 kilometres from the Hume Highway in the east, to Cowpasture Road in the west, carrying in excess of 28,000 vehicles per day on what is mostly a t-lane undivided road.

Levels of service of a road are designated (using the NAASRA definitions) from A to F, with F being the worst category. A 1992 traffic study - by Eugene Smith & Beca, TEC Consulting, and Geoplan for the Liverpool Stage 2 release areas - identified existing sections of Hoxton Park Road as having levels of service of E (unstable flow, congested with intolerable delays) and F (forced flow, jammed).

The predicted growth in traffic on this road for the year 2011 has been modelled. This model shows that, at the very least, the road must be up-graded to four lanes for its entire length if appalling traffic delays and constant congestion are to be prevented.

The recent budget has provided funding for the Liverpool interchange, which is a very important project and one that is certainly welcomed by the people of Liverpool. However, that interchange cannot reach its full potential unless the widening of Hoxton Park Road occurs. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.54]: I thank the honourable member for Liverpool for bringing this important issue to the notice of the House. I have been informed that the Liverpool Transport Access Committee commissioned a public transport study in 1995 which canvassed the upgrading of Hoxton Park Road to a four-lane road with provision for public transport. The findings of the study, including the need to determine road-widening requirements for Hoxton Park Road, were endorsed in principle by the committee. Unfortunately, the upgrading cannot be funded from section 94 contributions.

The Roads and Traffic Authority has responded to some of the proposals developed during the public transport study. However, it has not responded in respect of Hoxton Park Road. To implement the proposal it would be necessary for the widening of Hoxton Park Road to be included in a planning instrument and this would necessitate the nomination of an acquisition authority. The department needs advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority and endorsement by the capital works committee of Cabinet before this can be agreed to. The honourable member for Liverpool can be assured that I will request the department to obtain the relevant advice so that a decision on this matter can be reached expeditiously.


Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [6.55]: I raise a matter affecting my electorate and concerning law and order generally. Last night at Eaton Avenue, Normanhurst, at approximately 12.15 a.m. a number of youths entered a home, assaulted a youth, threatened his mother, sister and two younger brothers and escaped with half a carton of beer. Thankfully, through the quick action of the Hornsby police patrol, the offenders were caught, hiding in bushes down the road. They had with them two balaclavas and a baseball bat, and there were empty beer bottles discarded nearby. I congratulate the police on their quick response. I offer my sympathies to the family involved and extend best wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured youth. One of the worst crimes would have to be having one's home invaded and one's family threatened. It must be a truly terrifying situation. There are two patrols in the Northcott electorate, Hornsby and Pennant Hills.

As I said, last night's incident was handled expeditiously by Hornsby patrol, which is the larger of the two patrols. Pennant Hills contains the growth areas - including Cherrybrook, which I am told it is estimated will have the highest proportion of teenagers of any Australian suburb in the year 2000 - and more established areas such as Beecroft, Cheltenham and Pennant Hills.

In the view of the community, in my view and I suspect in the view of officers stationed in those patrols, the patrols are undermanned. In anticipation of the Minister's response I simply say that the record of the previous Government in the area is particularly good. Pennant Hills station was turned into a 24-hour police station and its manning was upgraded. Beat patrols were introduced into both areas and strengthened during the term of the coalition Government. My specific concern is that it was revealed today that police numbers statewide
Page 1524
have declined, specifically the numbers of beat police - those who patrol our suburbs; road safety officers - those who pursue vehicle speed and attend to alcohol incidents or problems; and in the safety in custody program.

Beat police are down from 2,805 under the coalition Government to 2,397 in this year's budget - a cut of 400, or 14 per cent. This is at a time when there has been a 13 per cent rise in assaults, a 10 per cent increase in stealing and significant rises in offensive conduct and language crimes. When street crime is rising beat police numbers are reduced. Road safety officers, those who police our roads, are down from 3,575 to 3,018 - a cut of almost 600, or 16.5 per cent. This is despite a 23 per cent rise in prescribed content of alcohol drink-driving offences. So when drink-driving offences are up dramatically, Labor slashes the appropriate police program.

In Northcott there have been similar increases in the offences mentioned - not due in any way to the hard-working efforts of local police patrols. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby police and Hornsby business people have had to establish a scheme, called BusinessWatch, because of fairly dramatic increases in crimes against retailers in and around the Hornsby Mall. Since the scheme was established, retailers in other parts of the electorate have noted increases in activity against their premises and assets. Pennant Hills and Thornleigh business owners have raised these concerns with me. In support of the revelations today that police numbers have fallen, I was alarmed to be informed that beat police from Hornsby patrol are to be transferred to Gladesville patrol.

The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai has been informed that beat police in his area are to be transferred to the central coast. I do not begrudge an increase in beat patrols at Gladesville or elsewhere in the State; however, I strongly object to movements which have more to do with political statistics than crime statistics. Hornsby beat patrol needs strengthening as crimes against businesses increase. Pennant Hills patrol is in even greater need. I understand that its beat patrol comprises two officers and a single car. If the car is out of order or if illness strikes an officer, the patrol basically ceases. This is despite the problems evident in growth areas of the electorate, despite increasing burglary rates in Beecroft and Pennant Hills and despite other street crimes in the electorate.

My electorate wants some answers. Is it true that despite election promises to be tough on crime - promises I accept were received with enthusiasm by the electorate across New South Wales - police numbers in beat policing and road safety programs are down? Is it true that in order to camouflage this fact and to meet political exigencies in Labor marginal seats much needed beat police are being transferred from Hornsby
patrol to Gladesville patrol and central coast patrols? What does the Government say to the neighbours of those involved in last night's incident and people in other local areas about the continued capacity of Pennant Hills and Hornsby patrols to respond effectively? What comfort can it give to many people, especially the aged, who live in fear of increased street crime, burglary and, regrettably, home invasion? These are important matters. I hope the answers are not long in coming.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.59]: Since the honourable member for Northcott entered Parliament I have had a sneaking respect for him. But a lot of that respect has now dissipated. The honourable member raised a very valid issue: home invasions. I agree that it would be traumatic to be involved in a home invasion. The honourable member also said that following a quick response from the police the perpetrators of last night's crime were quickly apprehended. He then went off on a tangent and talked about beat police. During the day 1,000 beat police may have patrolled the northern suburbs but that would have had absolutely no effect on last night's crime. It was not beat police who picked up the miscreants but patrol police. The honourable member said that it was terrific that the police solved the crime so quickly; it is a great Government that allowed this to happen.

The honourable member for Northcott then went on to a side issue that has nothing to do with the matter he first raised. He led us to believe that that successful end to the incident somehow leads to a lack of success in some other area. Of course there is no logic in what he said. No wonder I have lost some respect for him. Undoubtedly this Government is more aware of the needs of police than was the previous Government. However, under the previous Government there was a tremendous spate of home invasions, which were reaching epidemic proportions in some areas. Now something has been done about them. I am glad that the honourable member had the decency to pat this Government on the back because of a successful apprehension.

Private members' statements noted.