Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 20 June 1996 (includes Friday, 21 June and Saturday, 22 June), 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 13 June.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [9.00]: The Opposition supports the bill in general but proposes to move some amendments. The object of the bill is to reform the law relating to children’s evidence in criminal and other proceedings to make it possible for all children who give evidence as witnesses in certain proceedings to be accompanied by a parent, relative, friend or other supportive person. In addition, children giving evidence in criminal or civil proceedings arising from a personal assault offence, or in proceedings involving the making of an apprehended violence order, will be entitled to give that evidence by means of closed-circuit television facilities or similar technology. A child who gives evidence in his or her own defence in proceedings in the Children’s Court will have a limited right to give that evidence by means of closed-circuit television facilities, in cases where the court thinks it appropriate. It is to that provision that the Opposition proposes to move an amendment.

The giving of evidence by children in any circumstances is an extremely traumatic experience, particularly when allegations are made of assault or some other form of physical abuse. The Opposition strongly supports the comments made by the Minister in his second reading speech, which appears at page 125 of the Hansard proof for 12 June. However, the Opposition is concerned about the consistency of the application of the principles in the bill to children who are accused persons as it understands that there is a rebuttable presumption against the use of closed-circuit television facilities. The Opposition has concerns about the extension of that privilege to children who are accused persons, because, regrettably, today more and more children are accused, and indeed convicted, of the most serious crimes on the statute books, including horrific murder and other horrific crimes. The Opposition believes it is important for people who are charged with such serious crimes to face the court in person to answer the charges. The Opposition also strongly believes that by and large the public expect that level of attendance by children, particularly children who are accused of extremely serious crimes. The distressing incidence of serious crimes of child abuse in which the victim and/or a witness is a child who can be easily intimidated makes the presumption in the bill relating to child witnesses entirely appropriate.

The amendments I have foreshadowed are designed to bring uniformity to the regime proposed for provisions relating to child defendants. It is not entirely clear to the Opposition from its reading of the bill whether the proposals for the rebuttable presumption will apply across-the-board to all accused children in all cases. The view is held that there are some gaps, particularly in the higher courts, although the position is reasonably clear where a court is sitting as a Children’s Court. The Opposition understands that the bill as currently drafted will not extend to accused persons in other circumstances. The Opposition believes it is extremely important to apply a uniform test across-the-board to the right of all accused children to give evidence by means of closed-circuit television facilities.

The Opposition is not against the Government’s intentions; it merely believes that some gaps need to be filled and that a uniform approach is important. I am advised by Parliamentary Counsel that the amendments are put forward with a view to achieving a uniform test across-the-board for accused children in respect of whom it is appropriate to consider the issue of whether they can give evidence or, in effect, attend court by means of closed-circuit television. The Opposition will await with interest the Government’s response to the foreshadowed amendments, and supports the bill on the basis that the Government is seeking to achieve greater uniformity and to extend the principles of the bill across the spectrum.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [9.07]: I echo a number of the comments made by the shadow minister for police, and for the record will state two reasons for concern about parts of the legislation and the manner in which it is designed to achieve its purpose. Firstly, some years ago Mr Michael Price, a learned magistrate in the Downing Centre Local Court and one of the more senior magistrates dealing with the criminal law in New South Wales, cast a strong warning on the dangers of allowing accused persons to provide evidence via closed-circuit television. His reasons were that any victim of an accused person to test his case is entitled to have the accused appear in court so that the accused may be seen. Similarly, an accused person also ought to be able to see the triers of fact and law, in other words his accusers. My second concern is that there is always a danger with rebuttable presumptions in law generally. Not only does a rebuttable presumption shift the onus, which of itself causes concerns, but it leaves open to much doubt the areas in which the presumption may or may not apply. The arguments that I have just articulated, in conjunction with the lack of uniformity raised by the shadow minister for police,
Page 3341
provide justification in the Opposition’s view for the bill being amended. Subject to those comments, the Opposition supports the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Amery.


Debate resumed from 12 June.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [9.10]: I lead for the Opposition on this illustrious occasion - the first time. I am pleased to say that there is a good intention behind the bill, but there is a real problem with the procedure that yesterday led to the setting of a precedent in New South Wales in relation to convictions arising from references from the royal commission to the Attorney General. Under that procedure the Attorney General petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeal, which overturned three convictions. Is it appropriate that such matters should be referred to the Attorney General? On 23 November last year this Parliament hosted a seminar for Justice Action. Though there may be a perception that Justice Action is comprised of what we, speaking stereotypically, describe as left-wingers, the fact is that Justice Action has consistently stood for truth. Thus convictions of police obtained through either unlawful means or direct perjury must be overturned. I would have thought the reason for that is fairly clear to the people of New South Wales.

Liberty of the citizen is extremely important. Deprivation of the liberty of a person by a conviction that is subsequently proved to have been attained by fraud or perjury, especially where the person is detained for many years in a gaol, is an act that no-one would wish - indeed it is a grave injustice. In New South Wales there are many such cases. There has been no inquiry into the Victorian police force, but it is frightening that New South Wales has a materially higher rate of conviction than Victoria. I do not want to go into great detail about the Victorian police force. I merely say I have grave concerns that any corruption found to exist in New South Wales must permeate the police forces of other States. Portrayals of fairly serious police behaviour have appeared on ABC programs such as Janus which I believe was filmed in Victoria.

In New South Wales the rate of imprisonment per 100,000 population is 105; in Victoria it is 54. The figures of the Australian Institute of Criminology invite careful examination. It is remarkable that the Minister for Police made only one reference to this issue, which I believe is big-ticket stuff. Unlawful conviction is so important that I would have thought it would demand much more attention. The Minister said it would be relevant to anticipate convictions arising from the police royal commission but he made only one reference.

Mr O’Farrell: That is an understatement.

Mr KINROSS: As the honourable member for Northcott interjects, it certainly is an understatement, because what has been investigated involves about 100 people. The sad fact is that the Wood royal commission is uncovering probably only the tip of the iceberg. Think of all the unlawful convictions that may not have resulted in imprisonment. I instance traffic fines, with sergeants deciding, in respect of matters before police courts, to get a conviction completed and proven. Think of all the people who have against their names records that are unjustified because the convictions were obtained by false means. What methodology will the Government use to detect that level of fraud? One cannot rely on informers coming before the royal commission and making claims under the protection of indemnity. There should be a formal commission along the lines that evolved in the United Kingdom, whether as a product of the Guildford four or the Birmingham six, akin to the Government’s proposal for the Police Integrity Commission that can examine these issues specifically.

Such a formal mechanism is necessary because the question is one of resources as much as anything else. The relevance of resources can be explained as follows. As I have said consistently since I became a member of this House, but perhaps more loudly and a little more eloquently in recent times, people are sick and tired of rhetoric; they want more positive action. If we put laws on our statute books resources must be allocated to make the laws effective - to give them teeth and not just to have laws for the sake of saying that we have laws. The relevance of resources could not be starker than it is in relation to convictions obtained by fraudulent or unlawful police evidence. If sufficient resources are not provided, prosecutors will not be in a position, even with the benefit of this legislation as framed - indeed, I submit the difficulty is more acute because of the way the legislation is framed - to mount a case to overturn a conviction previously fraudulently obtained. If such a level of resources is not provided, it will be something of a clayton’s victory, if there is any victory at all.

The court system has frequently come to the rescue of people who have experienced difficulties. As honourable members of this House would know, I, as a barrister for many years, have always held the court system in high regard. We in New South Wales, and to a lesser extent in Australia generally, can be proud of the integrity of the judiciary. That system is divorced from the political shenanigans in parliaments across Australia. It was only last Saturday that the New South Wales Chief Justice was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as attacking the State Government over its funding, saying that the courts cannot compete with political priorities such as the police royal commission.

Mr O’Farrell: Who said that?

Page 3342

Mr KINROSS: The New South Wales Chief Justice, Justice Murray Gleeson, expressed serious concerns about the ability of the courts to compete with bodies such as the police royal commission. The relevance of that is this: yesterday, in an unprecedented case, the Attorney General referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by the Chief Justice, a case known as the Selewski, Gudgeon and McBride case. I will give a little more detail about that case later. Accepting that a minimum of 100 cases exists, the decisions in those cases are likely to be overturned based simply on what Justice Action has examined over a number of years and on yesterday’s judgment of the Chief Justice. This legislation cannot proceed unless an equal commitment is given to provide resources to support expressed concerns and doubts raised about police evidence in criminal cases. The royal commission will deliver its final report in March 1997. The evidence that has transpired and the comments of Justice Wood in his interim report in February 1996 are matters of concern. Of course, Justice Wood has been careful to name only one or two officers in his interim report because of clear concerns about their evidence.

The lack of attention the Government has given to the issues raised in the bill is frightening; indeed, the Minister for Police dealt with them in one line of his second reading speech. The references that will flow to the Court of Criminal Appeal or other courts as provided by refinements to sections 474A to 474P inclusive are of concern. The budget of the Supreme Court of New South Wales is only a fraction of the money the police royal commission has received. If the Government is serious about justice and protecting the integrity of the system and those who have been adversely affected by it, it must provide adequate resources not only to prepare cases, but also to cope with compensation payments for those like Kenneth Charles McBride who are falsely imprisoned on tainted police evidence? Yesterday the Chief Justice said:

Under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 convictions may be reviewed in certain circumstances, even though an unsuccessful appeal has previously been brought . . . In the present case the Attorney General referred the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal under section 474C(1)(b) and section 474L provides that . . . the matter is to be treated as an appeal against conviction under the Criminal Appeal Act.

The basis of the petition to review the convictions of Messrs Gudgeon and McBride . . . is fresh evidence.

The Chief Justice then embarked upon the nature of that fresh evidence. The issue that arises from yesterday’s unprecedented case and the comments of the Chief Justice is that much of the evidence from the royal commission was not available, of course, at the time of the trial of the accused persons. As the Chief Justice said in relation to perjured evidence, which does not need to be traversed for the purposes of the bill:

It should be clearly understood, however, that perjury is no less a crime where it is committed for purposes of securing a conviction of someone suspected, or even believed, by the police to be guilty.

What is the necessary test to apply in this case? In the Selewski, Gudgeon and McBride case it was not necessary to articulate the test with precision, but eventually it will need to be spelt out. For that reason it is important that the Government consider seriously the establishment of a separate body to review unlawful convictions. It should not rely upon a reference from the Attorney General to an already drained legal system that is starved of resources. The Government has to address injustice caused by the unlawful conviction of people. The Chief Justice said:

It is conceded . . . by the Crown . . . that . . . the corrupt evidence was not the only evidence on which the . . . case against Messrs Gudgeon and McBride rested, nevertheless it was of such far-reaching importance in that case -

and this is the important part -

that any conviction of the appellants on a re-trial would necessarily be regarded as unsafe.

No doubt one reason for that concession is that once it appears that an investigative and prosecuting process has been corrupted, it is extremely difficult to determine how far the corruption might extend. In the minds of 12 good men and true it is clear that that would constitute a reasonable doubt, which is why I presume the Chief Justice has framed that test. When more cases come forward a formulated test will have to be available. Alternatively, the Government could frame an appropriate test in specific legislation via a special body to review these convictions. A number of convictions will be overturned because basically the question comes back to lying, which is often a criticism of politicians. If a person lies once, especially if he gets away with it, why would he not continue to lie? We cannot believe anything that person might say subsequently. That has been made clear in the police royal commission.

Mr O’Farrell: And Carmen Lawrence.

Mr KINROSS: Of course, in Carmen Lawrence’s case, the test was designed to escape any issue by saying, "I can’t recall." Last year Justice Action held a worthwhile seminar at which I represented the Leader of the Opposition. Terry O’Gorman from the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties spoke about the appropriateness of establishing and enshrining in legislation a formal body to review convictions. As I have said, in New South Wales there have been over 100 complaints that fabricated evidence has led to wrongful convictions. Already 60 of those complaints have been referred to the Attorney General. Will the cover-up continue? Will the 60 complaints of fabricated police evidence received by the Attorney General delay early court hearings to overturn the convictions? How will that number of complaints affect the right to an early release from prison and the right to receive compensation?

The Minister for Agriculture, who is at the table, does not have the carriage of the bill, but through him I ask the Government and the Minister for Police to discuss these complaints with the
Page 3343
Attorney General and provide to this House and, indeed, to those whose complaints have already been forwarded to the Attorney General for review,a guarantee that resources will be available to adequately assess the convictions and to prepare proper submissions. Serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a commission to review criminal cases, similar to what is provided in chapter 11 of the United Kingdom royal commission report. The Criminal Appeal Act of the United Kingdom established a criminal cases review commission. That commission would be charged with the task of reviewing serious matters, including the matters I have raised in the House today, in the same way as the new Police Integrity Commission.

Nothing is more important than a denial of liberty - justice delayed is justice denied. An early hearing of a complaint may be delayed and a lack of resources may prevent an applicant from preparing a case - especially while in gaol. However, even if an applicant’s conviction is overturned and compensation is paid, will the public accept that all of the mud will be wiped from the applicant’s character? They are matters that must be addressed. The bill is well intentioned but it should go much further. The Government has given a commitment to the Wood royal commission, and it must also give a commitment to those men and women who have been unlawfully detained by police whose evidence has been and will continue to be referred to the Attorney General.

Another issue arises from the provisions of the bill. Last year the Government announced an amnesty to corrupt police who had seen the light and had come forward to give evidence to the royal commission. Indeed, page 135 of the interim report of the royal commission deals with issues arising from that amnesty. At the seminar held in this Parliament last year I asked whether the Government was not, by granting an indemnity, potentially aiding and abetting the commission of crimes. I would have thought that a more important task to be undertaken, and undertaken quickly, was the immediate overturning of the convictions of those who have been convicted as a result of fabricated police evidence. The bill must address that matter.

In 1993 the former Government initiated the reform of the procedure to review convictions generally by substituting a new part 13A in the Crimes Act in lieu of the former section 475. That reform resulted from the obtaining of confessions in the case known as the Hilton Hotel bombing. Honourable members will be aware that Evan Pederick has now come forward and requested that his case be re-examined. In the light of the role of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in the detection after nearly three weeks in Australia of the illegal immigrant Mr Mohamed Hassanien, the part played by that organisation in any inquiry into the Hilton Hotel bombing must also be examined. I understand that Tim Anderson has only been pardoned; he has not had his conviction overturned. It is somewhat ironic that Justice Wood conducted the section 475 inquiry into the conviction of Tim Anderson and the other sect members. It is now necessary to review the convictions of those who have been convicted and imprisoned because of fabricated police evidence.

I want to refer finally to the issue of reasonable doubt. Many people across New South Wales have a reasonable, if not certain, doubt about this Government. There can be no doubt that the fabrication of police evidence is a cause for great concern. If retrials are ordered after the reviews of the 60 convictions to which I have referred, the cost to the State will be enormous. Those resources would be saved if we established a criminal cases review commission that could itself examine those matters. The cases already put before the Attorney General must be addressed immediately by the Government, which claims to have such high regard for civil liberties.

The bill goes some way towards addressing justice. The Opposition gives some credit to the Government for that. However, the bill does not go far enough. It merely provides that the Attorney General may refer matters to the legal system for review. It contains no measure to provide resources for those reviews. The Government’s budget also fails to provide additional resources to the legal system for reviewing criminal cases. However, if a review commission were established the legislation would perhaps be more effective. That commission would be a specialised body solely focused on this important issue. The burden on precious court time would thereby be alleviated. I look forward to the Minister addressing the Opposition’s concerns.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [9.41], in reply: As the honourable member for Gordon said, I do not have the carriage of the bill. However, on behalf of the Minister for Police I thank the Opposition for its support for the bill, despite the qualifications placed on that support by the honourable member for Gordon. Much of his speech was devoted to the provision of resources. I assure the House that the Government is committed to ensuring that adequate resources will be provided to allow all petitions and references under the amended provisions of the Act to be properly dealt with. The honourable member criticised the fact that the budget papers do not contain a line item dealing with this issue. That is a shallow argument. As those opposite would be aware, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a former Minister, the budget papers do not make reference to possible costs generated by future legislation. The Minister for Police has assured me that the necessary resources will be provided.

The honourable member for Gordon gave the bill qualified support. He referred to big-ticket stuff and suggested that the Minister for Police should give greater attention to matters arising from the royal commission. I welcome the Opposition’s
Page 3344
belated support for the royal commission. The comments of the honourable member for Gordon about the evidence given to the royal commission would never have been possible if the royal commission had been left to the former Government. The Hansard record shows that all honourable members opposite voted against the formation of the royal commission.

Mr Phillips: It was only the form of the commission, and you know it.

Mr AMERY: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should check Hansard.

Mr Phillips: That is right, but read the whole of Hansard.

Mr AMERY: The coalition’s opposition to the royal commission will be a matter of public record forever and a day. The speech of the former Premier, John Fahey, will be on the record 100 years down the track. The honourable member for Gordon padded his speech by seriously asking the House to set up a separate body he referred to as the criminal case review commission to conduct ongoing reviews of convictions based on fabricated police evidence. He suggested that sufficient convictions are recorded in the courts every day to warrant the establishment of a new bureaucracy, a new department, to continually review those matters.

The necessary processes, such as the royal commission and other measures, are already available through the Attorney General’s Department to deal with what are relatively isolated cases. The suggestion that many people have been gaoled because of fabricated evidence should be rejected. If the role of the commission were extended to reviewing acquittals based on false statements made in courts by barristers and solicitors, the ongoing investigation of these matters may be justified. The suggestion that there are sufficient cases to warrant the allocation of resources of that magnitude would be rejected by the public.

Mr Kinross: What price liberty?

Mr AMERY: What price liberty? I have said to the honourable member that there are nowhere near enough cases to justify the resources he suggested. It is a bit rich for the honourable member to suggest that a new department or bureaucracy should examine these isolated cases. That will probably appear in the Government’s costing of Opposition promises at the next elections. The explanatory note says that the object of the bill is to enable reviews to be carried out under part 13A of the Crimes Act in relation to sentences and convictions. Further objects are set out which are self-explanatory. The honourable member for Gordon claimed that the Government has done little. I reiterate that the Government supported the motion to establish the royal commission. This is a Government bill and has nothing to do with what the Opposition has bleated about. I thank all honourable members for their support of the Government’s bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 18 June.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.47]: I am pleased to speak to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to clarify procedures in the handling of local environmental plans and regional environmental plans by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. A number of amendments in the bill are more than housekeeping amendments. They have significant policy implications and need to be analysed. For that reason I place on the record my appreciation of the efforts of the Minister and his staff, who, in conjunction with my staff, worked through the issues of concern in an attempt to ensure that the changes have the desired effect of administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in a more effective and timely way.

The coalition supports the bill. It is pleased that the Government has agreed to withdraw schedule 3, which relates to section 94 contributions, pending further consideration. The Government has also agreed to alter the wording in schedule 1 relating to draft environmental instruments. With these amendments the legislation acts positively to streamline procedures relating to local environmental plans and regional environmental plans. Schedule 1 contains amendments to alter draft environmental planning instruments. The amendments allow the Minister or the director-general to make changes to local environmental plans and regional environmental plans in certain circumstances without the need for renotification or re-exhibition. The Opposition opposed the original amendments, which had the effect of tacking on the words "or otherwise" at the end of proposed new sections 51(1A) and 70(1A). In the Opposition’s view the inclusion of the words "or otherwise" gave the Minister and his department too much discretion. Their inclusion opened up the possibility of substantive changes being made to plans that were not based on submissions or recommendations resulting from public exhibition and consultation or from commissions of inquiry.

The current Minister may not do that but in passing legislation honourable members must always consider the future and people who come after us. The amendments as they stood would have jeopardised the credibility of the exhibition and
Page 3345
consultation process. The coalition was keen to ensure that the boundaries and scope that the words "or otherwise" allowed were limited. The Minister proposes to move an amendment to schedule 1 in relation to proposed new sections 51(1A) and 70(1A) - after the words "may arise from a finding or recommendation of a Commission of Inquiry or otherwise" add the words "from the Minister’s consideration of the matters in the draft plan".

That amendment is aimed to limit the scope of the Minister’s ability to make substantial changes to a planning instrument without re-exhibiting the plans. Schedule 1, in its amended form, equates the Minister’s discretionary power to that which already exists for local councils in relation to LEPs under section 68(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Under schedule 1, if there is a substantial change to a planning instrument arising from submissions or commissions of inquiry or from matters arising from the current plan, it is the Minister’s duty and discretion to resubmit the plan for exhibition. Should the Minister fail to appropriately execute this duty and discretion, the process undertaken may be open to challenge in the Land and Environment Court.

That protection is an ultimate protection but it is a costly protection that very much slows down the process. The coalition thought it appropriate to limit the words "or otherwise" to give greater comfort and to limit the need for expensive court cases in the future. I emphasise that the Opposition strongly supports the attempts by the Minister and his department to give him a little more discretion about whether things need to go back to exhibition. Under the system as it stands at the moment, minor changes could result in repetition of a time-wasting and expensive exhibition process or could result in vexatious challenges which add no value to the process. The basic principle the Minister was after is supported by the Opposition but we feel that some boundaries are needed around the words "or otherwise".

The amendments to schedule 2 relate to the concurrence, preparation and notice of environmental studies and draft regional environmental plans. The coalition supports the amendments. Rights of objection by residents and interested parties are not affected. The public will have a clearer understanding of the implications of an environmental study if they can see the draft plan at the same time. The coalition is pleased the Government has agreed to withdraw schedule 3, which would have amended section 94 in relation to contributions for infrastructure. The amendments as drafted gave the consent authority the right to impose section 94 requirements to recoup past costs involved in providing public amenities or services. The danger of the amendment was that it could have been exploited by certain councils as an incentive for inefficient councils to avoid responsible future planning for amenities, infrastructure and services needed to cope with economic growth and increased population densities. Section 94 has been controversial and there has been a fairly rocky settling-in stage. It is used well by some councils and not by others. In addition to the changes in schedule 3 not being made, section 94 should be reviewed to make sure that the outcomes desired are achieved and that the section is not abused.

Schedule 4 covers amendments relating to inconsistencies between different kinds of environmental planning instruments so that a State environmental plan will prevail over a regional or local environmental plan and, likewise, an REP over an LEP. This is presumed to be law but has never been expressly stated. The provision is supported as it will establish a logical hierarchy of planning instruments. Schedule 6 allows removal of the Minister’s consent before summary proceedings can be brought before the Land and Environment Court for an offence under the Act. The current arrangement under the Act requiring the Minister’s consent is unnecessarily bureaucratic and time wasting.

Schedule 7 covers amendments providing for a joint exhibition for a minimum of 28 days of a development application and draft amendment of an environmental planning instrument covering a prohibited development. This amendment aims to streamline the law by allowing both to go on public display at the same time. The coalition supports these amendments as the result will be that more information will be provided to the public and bureaucratic requirements will be reduced. Schedule 8 will allow non-discretionary development standards by an environmental planning instrument. If standards are complied with, the consent authority - in most cases local councils - is not entitled to impose more stringent, but possibly suitable, conditions than imposed by the standards. This amendment in some instances will allow for more clarity and certainty in the approval process.

Ironically, in 1994 the Minister, while in Opposition, opposed such a proposal. Schedule 8 should be carefully monitored by the Department of Planning to ensure that it results in standards of development acceptable to local councils and their communities. Continued consultation is needed in the drafting of the non-discretionary standards to achieve the support of and compliance by local government. I am pleased that the weight of government and the extra information and better explanations available have meant that the Minister has been open minded and changed his views since he moved from Opposition.

The schedule 9 amendments allow for commissions of inquiry with more limited terms of reference. The present law allows commissions to be established to inquire into environmental aspects of a development application. The Minister wishes to be able to confine the inquiry to specific aspects, that is, to have the discretion to have a limited or general inquiry. This provides an opportunity for a more focused use of the inquiry process in terms of
Page 3346
specific aspects of a proposal of high community or environmental concern. Schedules 10, 11 and 12 involve miscellaneous minor amendments which are not opposed by the Opposition. Finally, I again thank the Minister, his staff and the departmental staff for the way in which they worked with my office to overcome some of the concerns of the Opposition and of people who made representations on the matter. The Opposition supports the bill as it will be amended by the Minister.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [9.58], in reply: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his remarks and also note the high level of cooperation between the Government and Opposition in working through the amendments, which are more than housekeeping amendments; they are fundamental policy matters dealing with the administration of planning and land use controls. The amendments I will move in Committee have come about as a result of constructive negotiation and discussion between the Government and the Opposition and clearly reflect the views of those who have made submissions to the Government and the Opposition in the several months the bill has been on the table.

The bill is clearly more than housekeeping. All the amendments are designed to focus on outcomes, to improve the quality of the results of the planning process, and to streamline the processes within the assessment procedures without diminishing in any way the opportunities for participatory processes by third parties, by those interested in any matter being considered, without in any way diminishing the high standard of environmental assessment that has been the hallmark of the administration of planning in this State for many years. I thank the honourable member for his remarks.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [10.00], by leave: I move Government amendments 1 and 2 in globo:

Page 3, schedule 1, line 18. Insert "from the Minister’s consideration of the matters in the draft plan" after "otherwise".

Page 3, schedule 1, line 27. Insert "from the Minister’s consideration of the matters in the draft plan" after "otherwise".

Schedule 1, as noted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his second reading speech, concerns the powers of the Minister to alter draft regional and local environmental plans after exhibition. The bill provides that the Minister may make changes of substance arising from submissions from the public or, where relevant, from a finding or recommendation of a commission of inquiry or otherwise. The Government proposes to amend schedule 1[3] and [4] as a result of concern that the Minister’s power to make changes to a draft plan after exhibition would be unlimited. While in practice this would not be so, the amendment will more explicitly define and limit the circumstances in which changes may be made. This will be achieved by inserting in proposed subsections (1A) of sections 51 and 70 after the words "or otherwise" the words "from the Minister’s consideration of the matters in the draft plan". The amendments will allow for flexibility in policy development following the exhibition of a draft plan because the duty to consider re-exhibition remains.

I thank the Opposition for its constructive work in the consideration of this amendment. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in his second reading speech, the court precedent requires the re-exhibition of draft State and regional environmental plans in the event of minor changes during the exhibition period. That adds enormously to the time and expense involved without adding any value to the outcome of the consideration of the instrument. In that sense this request has been particularly driven by local government. It has the quite bizarre problem that having asked the community to consider draft local environmental plans and having received those views, taken them into consideration and accepted in good faith that changes need to be made, it then has to go through the procedure all over again. That procedure tends to make a mockery of the public exhibition and consultation process. The amendments will add clarity, and the additional words will satisfy those who may have been concerned that the power was too wide. The procedure will provide a greater degree of certainty for people wishing to make submissions on draft LEPs, without reducing the quality of the outcome or diminishing the opportunity for public participation in any way.

Dr MACDONALD [10.04]: I have some disquiet about this legislation, and I am concerned about section 94. I find this an amazingly hypocritical moment in the political life of the Minister in introducing legislation that shows him to be a leopard that has changed its spots in the past couple of years. I am disappointed that in introducing these streamlining amendments relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Act, he has shifted from his position as stated on 13 May 1994. This relates not only to the deeming-to-comply standards but also to spot rezoning. I would be pushing my luck to quote what the Minister said in Hansard on 13 May. The concerns that were raised about collapsing amendments to the LEP and development approval process into one and the objections that were raised then -

Mr Knowles: On a point of order. I understand the thrust of the comments of the honourable member for Manly in saying that I had a different view two years ago, but in my second reading speech I gave the reasons for my change of
Page 3347
view. However, the bill is now being considered in Committee; and we are considering very specific amendments. It is totally inappropriate in Committee for the member to attempt to get his speech on the second reading into Hansard because he missed the debate earlier.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Mr Rogan): Order! In Committee members may speak only to the amendments before the Committee and those parts of the bill to which the amendments relate. Committee debate does not provide an opportunity for members to canvass second reading speeches or, in effect, to make second reading speeches. The member will confine his remarks to the amendments as they relate to the bill.

Dr MACDONALD: I have been invited by way of interjection by the Minister to slap him around the head. I will refrain from pursuing that line of debate any further but I will say that there are a few home truths that have to be told about this bill. I welcome any opportunity that provides an additional consultation process, but I object to the components of the bill that curtail it, as will happen in the majority of cases.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: Order! The question now is that schedule 3 stand a schedule to the bill.

Schedule negatived.

Schedule 12

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [10.10]: I move Government amendment 3:

Page 23, schedule 12, clause 12, lines 25-31. Omit all words on those lines.

The Government previously indicated that it will not proceed with schedule 3 at this time. Schedule 3 provides for development contributions to public infrastructure -

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee dealt with schedule 3 and negatived it. The Committee is now dealing with Government amendment 3, which amends schedule 12. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.11]: My copy of the Government’s circulated amendments has an amendment marked with an asterisk between amendment 2 and amendment 3. Is the Committee dealing with the amendment marked with an asterisk, which is the third amendment on the list, or the amendment marked "No 3"?

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee is dealing with Government amendment 3, which amends schedule 12.

Amendment agreed to.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: Order! The question now is that the schedule as amended be agreed to.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.12]: The question was put as to whether the schedule as amended be agreed to, and I do not agree with its omission. I take this opportunity to talk about the omission of schedule 3, which relates to section 94 contributions. The schedule gave local councils increased flexibility in the application of moneys under section 94 and I thought it was a useful inclusion in the bill. I register my opposition to the removal of that schedule.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee has dealt with schedule 3. The question now is that schedule 12 as amended be agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

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


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 19 June.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.14]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Public Authorities) Bill removes the doubt as to whether the Director-General of Urban Affairs and Planning - and other chief executive officers of a government department - is a public authority within the relevant definition of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It is quite clear that the intent of the Act since 1980 has been that the director-general is a public authority. The bill clarifies that point, and the Opposition supports it.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [10.14], in reply: I thank the House for its support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.15], by leave: I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended to allow the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill, after its introduction and the Minister’s

Page 3348
second reading speech, to be set down as an order of the day and considered cognate with the Appropriation Bill.

The purpose of the motion is to allow the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill to be considered as a cognate bill with the Appropriation Bill. Otherwise, this bill would have to be considered separately. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill is an important part of the appropriation budgetary process. It will obviate the necessity for a mini-budget as a result of Howard and Costello having left the States severely short of funds. For those reasons this bill should be considered as part of the budgetary process, which is the forecast of Government expenditure for next year.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [10.20]: The Opposition opposes the motion. Obviously the Leader of the House is embarrassed about the Carr tax that the Government wants to introduce. It should not be termed the Howard-Costello tax; it should be called the Keating-Beazley tax because that is where the $8 billion legacy comes from.

Mr Sullivan: That is a furphy.

Mr JEFFERY: The honourable member for Wollongong knows it is not a furphy. It is a Carr tax. As was said in this Parliament yesterday, it is a health axe Carr tax and members opposite know it. The Prime Minister and the new conservative Government in Canberra was left a shocking legacy by the former Labor Government. This motion is a stunt by the Leader of the House to try to cover up the inadequacies of the State Government. There is no need to impose additional taxes. The shortfall to the States is only about 1.2 per cent. The Government should be looking at its own waste and mismanagement. I appreciate how prickly members opposite are about this issue. They are trying to waste the time of this House when there is important legislation to be dealt with. For the past 15 months the Leader of the House has proved consistently that he cannot run this House. If ever there was an indication of that it is this motion to ram this bill through the Parliament. I assure honourable members that by the time the bill is passed it will not be called the State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill. Its title will be changed in the upper House.

Mr Knight: The honourable member is optimistic.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister for Public Works and Services knows I am right and that no magician will save this Government.

Mr Knight: This is a leadership bid.

Mr JEFFERY: I know about leadership. I have already told the Minister for Police that the Premier will be deposed by Christmas. A leadership challenge is being mounted by the honourable member for Heffron, the Minister for Police and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. Do honourable members know who has the odds at the moment?

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Hurstville interjects. He knows all about vote rigging.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The honourable member for Hurstville will resume his seat. The Minister for the Olympics will resume his seat. The honourable member for Oxley will return to the leave of the motion.

Mr JEFFERY: The honourable member for Heffron has the numbers to roll the Premier by Christmas this year. That is why the Minister for Police is using this diversion. Members of the Labor Party have split. The Minister for Agriculture and the Hon. I. M. Macdonald have had a difference of opinion. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald is sticking to his words. Yesterday several members walked out the front of Parliament House and the television cameras were already set up in Macquarie Street. This motion is an attempt to regroup the troops. Some members are crying on each other’s shoulders, and others are shaping up to one another. That is what is happening in the Labor Party today.

The Opposition will oppose the motion because the Leader of the Government seeks to take away the rights of members of Parliament. Yesterday he moved a motion to bring on government business in the place of private members’ bills, except for the honourable member for Wyong, who has special rights in this House that no other member has. It is a disgrace. The people of New South Wales will be told that the Leader of the House could not run a chook raffle. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson 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 Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon

Page 3349
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O’Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Small
Mr Humpherson Mr Smith
Dr Kernohan Mr Souris
Mr Kinross Mr J. H. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Ms Moore Mr Kerr

Ms Allen Mr Downy
Mr Carr Mr Hazzard
Mrs Grusovin Mr Tink

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr KNIGHT (Campbelltown - Minister for the Olympics, and Minister for Roads) [10.32]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill deals with amendments to the Stamp Duties Act, Land Tax Act and Pay-roll Tax Act. As Members are aware, at the 1996 Premiers conference the Commonwealth Government imposed on the States and Territories the requirement to help fund the Commonwealth Budget for the next three years. The actions of Howard and Costello in imposing this requirement are inequitable, given that the Commonwealth Budget is the sole responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, and given the predominant financial powers of the Commonwealth relative to the States. Through the cuts and tax increases imposed on the States and Territories at the Premiers conference, the States have been required to assist in addressing a problem which is not of their making.

Specifically, the Commonwealth has imposed sales tax on motor vehicles included in remuneration packages for public servants. The cost of this to New South Wales is estimated at around $20 million. The cost will be passed on to the employees who use those vehicles. Secondly, the Commonwealth has foreshadowed cuts in specific purpose payments to the States of up to 3 per cent, costing New South Wales up to $100 million annually. As the responsibility rests directly with the Commonwealth, these cuts will be translated directly into the programs affected. Thirdly, the Commonwealth has required that the States make special revenue assistance payments to assist in addressing the Commonwealth budget deficit over the next three years. The payment in 1996-97 equals the increase in general purpose funding guaranteed under the agreement reached at the 1995 Premiers conference. The cost of the special assistance payments to New South Wales is in the order of $540 million over the three years and will be addressed through a number of tax measures, each with a sunset provision so that the additional tax burdens can be lifted when the Howard and Costello impost ceases.

The Government rejected the alternative of expenditure cuts. We are committed to improving the State’s education, health and police, and since the State has gained savings of $600 million annually in the last two budgets through cutting waste and mismanagement, there is no large mass of fat to trim. Also, the vast majority of State outlays are in high priority areas and on non-discretionary services, unlike the Commonwealth which has a far greater level of discretionary expenditure. Specifically, the cost is to be met by changes to land tax, payroll tax and stamp duty on motor vehicle registration. I will now deal with each of these tax changes.

The Stamp Duties Act will be amended to increase the rate of stamp duty for motor vehicle certificates of registration from 2.5 per cent of the value of the vehicle to 3.0 per cent, effective from 1 July 1996. This means that on the purchase of a $10,000 motor vehicle, an additional $50 in stamp duty is payable. Over the period of the Howard-Costello tax impost, the rate in New South Wales will still be in line with what those in Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory normally are.

Provisions will be included to reduce the rate of tax I have already described to the House back to 2.5 per cent on 1 January 1999 provided the following conditions have been met: the Commonwealth has ended the requirement for special revenue assistance payments by the States and Territories; the funding formula agreed at the Premiers conference for financial assistance grants is operative; and the arrangements agreed at the April 1995 Council of Australian Governments meeting covering national competition payments are operative. The Land Tax Act will be amended to increase the land tax rate from 1.5 per cent to 1.65 per cent to take effect from 1 July 1996. The current provision for property valued up to $160,000 not to be liable for land tax will remain in place. This means that a person with an investment
Page 3350
property with an unimproved land value of $200,000 will pay an extra $60. The change will not affect normal residential and farm properties as they are exempt from land tax.

This measure will raise around $46 million in 1996-97, $56 million in 1997-98 and $10 million in 1998-99, totalling $112 million. Again, this will be a temporary measure which is to last only over the time of the Howard and Costello impost. The Act will be amended to contain provisions so that, subject to the conditions I have already outlined, on 31 December 1998 the land tax rate will be reduced back to 1.5 per cent. The Pay-roll Tax Act will be amended in order to include employer superannuation contributions within the definition of wages for the purposes of the Act. At the same time the rate will be decreased from 7 per cent to 6.85 per cent. The changes are to take effect from 1 July 1996 with the net effect providing additional revenue of around $100 million in a full year. This initiative also addresses the anomaly and the resulting distortions caused by not including employer contributions to superannuation in the definition of wages for payroll tax purposes. South Australia already includes employer contributions to superannuation in its payroll tax base

In line with the Government’s plan to sunset the tax increases when the Howard and Costello imposts cease, the Pay-roll Tax Act will also include provisions to fully offset the inclusion of employer contributions to superannuation in the tax base by decreasing the rate to 6.7 per cent on 1 January 1999. The total additional revenue is estimated at $264 million. In the event that the conditions I outlined earlier are not met before the end of 1998, the legislation will enable the higher rate of payroll tax to apply to payrolls until 31 December 1999. The legislation allows the higher rate of tax to apply for only one more year rather than for the duration of the Howard-Costello imposts beyond 31 December 1998 because of the structure of the Pay-roll Tax Act and the need to provide information in advance to payroll taxpayers about the rates to apply in future years so that the compliance and administrative costs associated with payroll tax are minimised.

If the Government is forced by the actions of Howard and Costello to extend payroll tax and in that year it becomes clear to the Government that the Commonwealth is unlikely to meet the conditions for a reduction in the payroll tax rate by the end of 1999, the Pay-roll Tax Act can then be amended to provide for a further extension of the Howard-Costello surcharge. In total, these tax changes are estimated to provide revenue of around $202 million in 1996-97, $228 million in 1997-98 and $110 million in 1998-99, $540 million in all, matching the cost of the special revenue assistance to the Commonwealth. It is regrettable that the Government is forced into taking such measures due to the capricious actions of the Commonwealth. However, in formulating its response to the Howard and Costello impost, the Government had to maintain its responsible fiscal position, ensuring that fiscal targets are met and any increase in debt is avoided. In choosing these tax options the Government had particular regard to achieving the most equitable outcomes for the people of New South Wales and to minimising adverse economic impacts. The actions of John Howard and Peter Costello arbitrarily created a hole in this State’s otherwise strong financial position. The State Revenue Legislation Amendment (Howard and Costello) Bill fills that hole. It is not a situation this Government embraced willingly, but it is one forced upon the taxpayers of New South Wales by John Howard and Peter Costello. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Rixon.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [10.44]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I intend to deal briefly with the various aspects relating to this legislation in two parts. In the first part I will deal with the provisions contained in the bill and in the second part I will deal with the reasons why the bill is necessary. The bill essentially provides a safeguard for the people of the Wyong electorate. In the first instance it allows for the construction of a new runway at Warnervale in my electorate no longer than 1,200 metres in length, imposition of a curfew from 10.00 p.m. to 6.30 a.m., and limitation of the number of aircraft movements per day to 88. Part 4 of the bill allows the Wyong Shire Council to apply to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to increase the length of the runway to not more than 1,800 metres. Following such application, if Wyong Shire Council deems that approach to the Minister appropriate, the Minister will undertake a review of the environmental impact statement and the fauna impact statement, as well as any other environmental issues, and conduct a new noise study to ensure that the people of my electorate, particularly those in the Watanobbi estate due south of the proposed runway, are protected, that the value of their homes is protected, and that they will not suffer from the impact of undue noise.

Various other provisions of the bill relate to emergency landings, which will not become part of the number of aircraft movements per day. In essence, that is the thrust of the bill. I now turn to the reasons why the bill is necessary. Some people say that the legislation has become urgent as a matter of course, and it certainly has recently. As everyone would know, the budget session of the Parliament is about to come to a close. It is important that the bill pass through the lower House
Page 3351
and be presented to the upper House before this budget session concludes. In February 1995, in the midst of the State election campaign, we were told that Warnervale airport would be upgraded. In fact, it was not so much an upgrading as a redevelopment. We were told that the redevelopment would take place in two stages. Stage one comprises what is contained in the bill - a 1200-metre runway, 88 aircraft movements per day and a curfew.

However, we later found out that the Wyong Shire Council had decided to proceed forthwith to stage two, which involves an 1800-metre runway enabling the airport to take significantly bigger planes. At that time I foreshadowed that a community debate was necessary to discuss the airport redevelopment. However, that debate has not taken place. Contracts were executed in July last year with Traders Finance Pty Limited to develop the 1800-metre runway, even though a resident in my electorate Mr Jorg Breitkopf had initiated action in the Land and Environment Court and had advised the council and the developer accordingly. Despite the fact that the matter in the Land and Environment Court was scheduled to take only two sitting days, it extended into seven sitting days, concluding on 17 May this year. In deciding this matter Justice Bignold held that under section 104A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act Mr Breitkopf had lodged his objection to the redevelopment too late. Mr Breitkopf lives on a rural acreage where the local newspapers are not circulated. He assures me he never received a letter from Wyong Shire Council advising him of the redevelopment.

Justice Bignold has given what he believes to be a fair interpretation of the law as it presently stands. It is up to us as law-makers to ensure that we bring justice to this situation. This matter is all the more complex because the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows Wyong Shire Council to be both the applicant and the sole consent authority in respect of developments in its area. In effect, the council applies to itself for development of land which it owns and then the council approves the application on the basis it has great merit, and the development proceeds forthwith. I have received advice from both public and private sources that there will be no liability to either the State Government or Wyong Shire Council arising from this legislation. The reason is that with the passage of this legislation there would be a situation of force majeure, in which case the parties are put back in the situation they were in prior to entering into the contract. The contract, therefore, in legal terms is deemed to be frustrated.

From my understanding of this very confidential agreement of Wyong Shire Council, certain conditions were contained within the contract that work had to commence within six months of the execution of the contract. The contract was executed in July 1995 and, to my knowledge, no substantive work has been commenced to date. I also understand there was a provision in the contract that an emergency services plan had to be developed within three months of the execution of the contract. To my understanding, that emergency services plan has not been completed and may not have even been commenced. Therefore, the contract is voidable on that point alone.

Although the matter was not determined in the Land and Environment Court until 17 May this year, this issue has significantly impacted on my electorate for a number of months. My position has always been clear and concise. I attended a meeting on this subject at the Wyong High School auditorium in May 1995 where I said - as I have always said - that I was interested in protecting the investment people had in their homes and in ensuring that noise pollution does not detrimentally affect the lifestyle of the people in my electorate. This bill is necessary because we need to ensure some degree of certainty for those residents.

In today’s business paper, under general business, there is a notice of motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition which calls for this House to acknowledge the paramount importance of a proper planning process to ensure investment and development in New South Wales. In effect, we are dealing with that motion in this bill because it is about introducing certainty and proper planning processes to ensure that investment and development take place in a reasoned and considered way. Already in my electorate a notion of uncertainty has crept in. People feel that the value of their homes is diminishing and they are very concerned about where this will lead in the future. An example of how this uncertainty has arisen comes from my constituent Mrs Patricia Viapiana of 47 Fishburn Crescent, Watanobbi, who wrote:

5 years ago our "great Australian dream" came true, when we purchased our first home (through Homefund) at Watanobbi.

She says she and her husband thought Watanobbi a great place to bring up children: it is quiet and relaxed with wildlife literally at their backdoor. Her letter continued:

Rapidly our dream disintegrated, firstly with the demoralising effect of the Homefund Restructure had on our family, adding 9 years extra onto our Mortgage, then the threat of an Airport only 900 metres away at Warnervale.

Warnervale is due north of the Watanobbi subdivision. The letter further stated:

The more we tried to get information out of council, the more frustrating it became. The most recent contact I had with council was yesterday.

That was 12 June 1996. That contact followed an article by the mayor in the Wyong Shire Advocate. She continued in her letter:

I was again told by the "Strategic Planning Dept" of Wyong Council that I would not be affected. How can I not be affected by a larger airport, when the small planes that fly from the aerodrome already, fly over my home

Page 3352
and do affect me NOW!!

Mrs Viapiana’s comments underline the reality that there has not been community involvement in the process of redevelopment of Warnervale Airport. The people feel they have not been given correct information. There is considerable doubt about the environmental and fauna impact statements and people do not believe there has been a noise study of any consequence. Mrs Viapiana continued in her letter:

The latest frustration for me and my family came when we contacted six local Real Estate Agents to give us an estimate for listing our home for sale. It has become necessary for us to move back to Sydney . . .When we bought our home in July 1991 we paid $115,950. Because of the Homefund Restructure we still owe $118,000 approx. The Real Estate agents gave us prices ranging from $108,000 to $115,000.

The real estate agents told Mrs Viapiana that the low valuations in Watanobbi are because of the airport and because agents in other areas are using the airport issue to turn buyers away from the Watanobbi and Wyong areas so they will purchase houses in other parts of the Wyong shire. This is a grossly unfair situation for the good people of Watanobbi and Wyong. Mrs Viapiana concluded:

All in all, these issues have left us incensed with local Government and their lack of consideration for their ratepayers and in fact with the political bureaucracy which rules our every day life.

Today is a chance for every member of this House to stand up for the Mr and Mrs Viapianas of this world who have been treated so shabbily in this whole matter. There was a newspaper report recently that indicated the issue of Warnervale Airport had become important in the latter stages of the Federal election, and that is certainly the case. I wrote to my constituents in Watanobbi and several other suburbs adjoining the airport. I pointed out that the Federal Liberal candidate for Dobell, Councillor Eaton, had voted on two occasions for the Warnervale Airport redevelopment to go ahead. I said in that letter that the Minister for Planning in the former Liberal-National Party Government, the Hon. Robert Webster, allowed Watanobbi subdivision to go ahead, but he did not do anything to alleviate the noise problems that people may experience. I pointed out in that letter also that Michael Lee, the Federal member for Dobell, and I were vitally concerned to ensure that people’s major assets - their homes - and their lifestyles were not affected by noise from Warnervale Airport. Today I am honouring the commitment I made on 29 February and 1 March. I am attempting to clean up the mess created by the Liberal candidate for Dobell, Councillor Eaton.

If this issue had been dealt with more sensibly we could have avoided this sorry state of affairs. Councillor Eaton has threatened legal action against me. I am happy to see him in court. It is interesting to note that he did not refer to the fact that he voted twice on the motion that was moved to enable development at Warnervale Airport as the basis for legal action, but he said that I had accused him of getting himself into a mess and that I had to sort it out. It is a sad day when people in public life resort to such tactics. Certain elements of the central coast community who do not live in the Wyong shire area are happy for any sort of development to proceed, no matter what impact it will have on people in my electorate and people in the electorates of the honourable member for Swansea and the honourable member for The Entrance. These people are concerned only to ensure that development proceeds. They do not have regard to people’s principal assets - their homes. Edgar Adams, editor of the Central Coast Business Review is a case in point. Shortly before the Federal election Mr Adams had this to say in the February 1996 edition of the Central Coast Business Review:

This year we must work to see the Airport at Warnervale get the go ahead.

Here again, the Member for Wyong is leading the pack of protesters, but the CCBR will be doing what it can.

We do have some influence. By using it responsibly we can get the Coast moving and help you and your business colleagues.

I was pleased when I discovered that article written by Mr Adams. I attached it to a letter which I sent out to 2,000 constituents pointing out to them exactly what forces were against them, and against Michael Lee and me. I thought long and hard about whether to do that because Mr Adams had paid me a compliment by stating that he considered I was leading a pack of protesters. However, I do not lead the protesters. Warnervale Airport Action Group, a community group led ably by Mr Jorg Breitkopf, has vigorously pursued this matter over the past 14 or 15 months. I am sure that many honourable members of this Parliament and of the Federal Parliament wonder about the agendas of community groups which raise matters with them before council, State or Federal elections.

When Mr Breitkopf first came on the scene those are the thoughts that went through my mind. However, Mr Breitkopf is one of the most decent and honest Australians I have ever met. He believes passionately in this issue and has sought at all times to ensure that it does not become a party political issue. He sought to ensure that this dispute was resolved and that people got a fair hearing. In effect, all Mr Breitkopf has ever asked for is a fair go. I have already dealt in part with the public interest issue. I note that the Hon. M. J. Gallacher is in the gallery. Both he and I believe that this issue revolves around the public interest. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher wrote to Justice Bignold on the question of costs, which I understand is to be determined on 17 July. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher said:

In particular, I am alarmed at the suggestion that Mr Jorg Breitkopf, who was prepared to challenge some aspects of this proposed expansion on behalf of other residents, be ordered to personally meet the costs of recent court action in respect of this matter.

I made no representations to Wyong Council at any
Page 3353
time in regard to this matter. I believe that it should be properly handled by Justice Bignold: I fervently believe that this is a public interest issue. Mr Breitkopf said that he was the President of the Airport Action Group. He did not slink behind someone without assets and suggest to that person that he or she should be the plaintiff in this action. If the world had more people like Mr Jorg Breitkopf it would be much better off. I have heard conflicting stories about what this airport redevelopment will entail. Basically, my major concern is that people have not been given information on which to base their investment decisions. They cannot be sure whether council is acting in their best interests.

Many comments have been made by the parties involved in this issue. It must be hard for ordinary constituents who do not necessarily follow politics or development matters when they hear some of the conflicting stories about this issue. For example, on 24 May 1996 Mr Stephen Duncan, a director of Traders Finance Australia, stated on the SBS Insight program, "Warnervale will be an international airport in 10 to 15 years." That is a far cry from statements which have been made to the effect that Warnervale is to be a small, regional airport. Mr Les Graham, a director of Traders Finance Australia, a man who, in his own words, leads local and thinks global, is reported in the Central Coast Express of 2 February 1995 to have said:

We have hopes of being the freight capital of Australia . . . with an 1800m runway able to take 737-size aircraft

The Future Generations Alliance Foundation, in its worldwide briefing documents for the private university it hopes to develop adjacent to the Warnervale Airport redevelopment, stated:

. . . an upgraded airport that will be able to take aircraft up to the size of an Airbus and therefore service national airroutes.

The Australian Aviation magazine also reported on this issue in March 1996 in the following terms:

Council have grandiose plans for the aerodrome itself including developing it as a freight hub with Boeing 747 capability.

In the Newcastle Herald of 24 May 1996 Stephen Duncan, a director of Traders Finance Australia, is reported as commenting on the issue again. I do not mind a fair thing, but his comments would suggest that this is a far cry from a small, regional airport. I am concerned more about the fact that stage one of the development involves the 1,800-metre runway.

Having looked at the runway and taking into account the nature of its construction, I believe there is considerable scope for further redevelopment to extend the runway to perhaps 2,400 metres or even 2,600 metres. It is important that we do the right thing. People in this State and country do not ask much of their politicians or political parties. All they ask is that they get a fair go. This legislation seeks to do no more than that. I touch briefly on the noise issue because it is my main concern in this sorry saga. For years we were told that a draft environmental impact statement had been prepared and noise studies had been done. The Australian noise exposure forecast contour line conveniently skirted the subdivision. Recently it was discovered that an ANEF contour has not been developed, that there has been an Australian noise exposure concept. An ANEC is a theoretical model. For that model to become an ANEF, Airservices Australia needs to be provided with the underlying assumptions on which the model was based, together with information about what flights will occur at night and what type of aircraft will use this allegedly small regional airport.

It is amazing that Wyong council, although it entered into a contract in July 1995, has not applied to Airservices Australia for the ANEC to become an ANEF. One can only ponder why it was that the council did not take this small step to bring certainty to the lives of local people. That there was no ANEF was proved beyond doubt by a letter dated 6 May sent by Mr Colin Dahl of Airservices Australia to constituent Mr Laurie Eyes, indicating that there was no ANEF for this proposed Warnervale development. Council claimed that the ANEF, or the ANEC, or whatever it is being called these days, in effect was developed by the then Civil Aviation Authority. The Civil Aviation Authority has had a tortuous history. The draft environmental impact statement was prepared in 1993. One can assume that the draft environmental impact statement and whatever noise studies that were or were not done by the Civil Aviation Authority preceded the debacle surrounding the third runway at Sydney Airport.

It is important that some changes to the ANEF concept which arose from the third runway issue are incorporated in the Warnervale noise exposure forecasts to ensure that people are protected from noise pollution. Only the Labor Party could bring this legislation forward. Only the Labor Party has been concerned to ensure that it does the right thing. Only the Labor Party believes that ordinary Australians deserve a fair go. The honourable member for The Hills recently quoted a statement of Ben Chifley. Though I have Lang Labor traditions, at times I am happy to quote Ben Chifley, who once said:

. . . if I think a thing is worth fighting for, no matter what the penalty is, I will fight for the right, and truth and justice will always prevail.

No matter what forces oppose me, no matter what money is spent to fight me in the next election campaign because of this decision today, I will happily stand by this bill because it is the right thing to do to ensure we get the correct result. I wish to thank a number of people who have been involved in the development of this bill. In particular I thank Matthew Shaw, who works for the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. I thank also Mr Dennis Murphy, Parliamentary Counsel, and one of his officers, Ms
Page 3354
Danielle Thurstan, for their tremendous help in translating a few random thoughts into this coherent piece of legislation which will provide protection to the people of the Wyong electorate. This is a win-win proposal in that it will limit the size of the airport to that which was originally proposed by Wyong Council, that is, a 1,200-metre runway. If Wyong Council believes it has undertaken appropriate environmental studies, it can make application to the Minister to extend the runway to 1,800 metres. This will provide certainty for the people of the Wyong electorate.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [11.16]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Small
Mr Humpherson Mr Smith
Dr Kernohan Mr Souris
Mr Kinross Mr Tink
Mr MacCarthy Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr R. W. Turner
Ms Machin Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O’Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Mr Moss
Mr Aquilina Mr Nagle
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mr Gibson Mr Rumble
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
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride
Mr McManus Tellers,
Mr Markham Mr Beckroge
Mr Martin Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Ms Allan
Mr Downy Mr Carr
Mr Hartcher Mrs Grusovin

Resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment negatived.

Mr O’FARRELL (Northcott) [11.23]: This Chamber has just witnessed the longest constituent interview it has ever heard. The Warnervale Airport (Restrictions) Bill is nothing more than a stunt designed to save the preselection of the honourable member for Wyong. He should follow the precedent of the honourable member for Liverpool, rather than the precedents followed by the former member for Liverpool or the Minister for Police, in trying to secure his preselection. Stunts will not save the honourable member for Wyong when the mayor of Wyong takes him on at the next Labor preselection.

This bill purports to be a proposal to restrict the hours of operation and the number of landings at Warnervale Airport. All honourable members will be aware that those matters are governed by Federal civil aviation regulations. Years ago the High Court made it clear that for safety reasons aircraft movements are subject to Federal and not State laws. The bill is a sham; it is not in the right jurisdiction. I am well aware, from scrutineering in Dobell during the last election campaign, that the honourable member for Wyong was one of the most disappointed people when Mr Lee won that seat, because he had hoped to be the next Federal member for Dobell. If he had been, he could have pursued this issue in the proper jurisdiction - in the Federal Parliament, not the State Parliament - and tried to make changes to Federal regulations governing these matters instead of trying to invent State regulations.

This measure is a stunt. The honourable member’s interest in this issue only arose on 2 March when his Federal colleague Mr Lee came within an ace of losing that seat to a great member of Wyong Shire Council, Doug Eaton. If Doug Eaton can take Michael Lee to such a close result, what will he do to the honourable member for Wyong should he win Labor preselection for Wyong again, which is by no means certain? I would put my money behind the Labor mayor of Wyong. During the rambling second reading speech of the honourable member for Wyong I wished that the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office had assisted him with the preparation of his contribution as well as with the drafting of the bill; his speech might then have been more ordered, more direct and shorter.

I wish that the honourable member had made
Page 3355
some reference to the fact that the main proponent of this development was the mayor of Wyong, who is a member of the same political party as the honourable member for Wyong. In his second reading speech the honourable member said that only the Labor Party could pursue this issue. Of course only the Labor Party could do that, because it has supporters on both sides of the argument. The mayor of Wyong is pushing for this measure actively while the honourable member for Wyong is in the Chamber pushing the other way. If the Labor Party had a firm position on this matter it would be clear to the whole House.

This bill is an elaborate attempt to secure the preselection of the honourable member for Wyong. It is designed more to address the Central Coast Express than the statute books of this Parliament. The legislation is an indictment of the period of inaction on this issue by the honourable member for Wyong. He made a number of references in his speech to dates. He referred to the original development being aired in February 1995. He said that a public meeting occurred in May 1995 in which he made the controversial statement that there should be community debate on this issue. I know it is not typical of the New South Wales Right to seek community debate, but three months after the development was aired all the honourable member for Wyong said was that there should be debate.

The honourable member for Wyong referred to 17 May, when the court handed down its decision that Mr Breitkopf’s objection to the development was too late. That was almost six weeks ago. The honourable member has had six weeks to put legislation together - and, given the size of the bill, it would not have taken Parliamentary Counsel very long to do that - to bring it before the House and to follow the normal procedures for debate on legislation: introduction on one day and then time out for everyone to consider the bill so that proper and reasoned contributions could be made. Instead, on the second-last or third-last day of sitting he attempts to ram this bill through, not in the interests of his wider constituents or the people of the central coast, but because of nasty problems he is having within the Labor Party over his upcoming preselection. He is under great challenge from the mayor of Wyong who, as I speak, is stacking the branches of the Labor Party in the Wyong electorate or, as the honourable member for Wyong said, involving himself in party development in the electorate of Wyong.

The Labor Party is divided on this issue. The Labor mayor of Wyong is for it; the honourable member for Wyong, because of preselection reasons, is now opposed to it, and the honourable member for The Entrance is ducking and weaving. The honourable member for The Entrance is terrified of the mayor of Wyong; he is worried that if the mayor of Wyong does not take on the honourable member for Wyong for preselection, he will take on the honourable member for The Entrance. The Parliament is being used as a forum to discuss what is essentially an ALP factional fight. Rushing legislation through Parliament on a planning matter is another abuse of parliamentary procedure. Since the Government came to office a number of curious decisions have been made relating to how the Government perceives proper planning processes.

I was amazed to hear the honourable member for Wyong say in this debate that there should be proper planning processes. I may not agree with the honourable member for Manly but I am sure he has some views about proper planning processes relating to the Bengalla mine. I know the honourable member for Bligh has some views on proper planning processes relating to the Fox film studios. I know the entire Opposition has problems with proper planning processes relating to Lake Cowal. The honourable member for Wyong should not come into this Chamber and talk about proper planning processes. He should not try to pretend that the Government supports proper planning processes when it has rorted the system this time in office, in the same way that Bob Carr rorted it when he was Minister for Planning and Environment.

Virtually all planning is regulated by Acts of Parliament. That is clearly the case in relation to Bengalla, SEPP 45 and the like. In this case Wyong Shire Council had a local environmental plan duly made. It was challenged in the court and Wyong council won the court case. Here we have yet another attempt to overturn a court decision by introducing an Act of Parliament and thus throwing planning into chaos. That is not the rule of law. That is not a sensible planning process, and it is not democracy. There is supposed to be separation of powers as between Parliament and the courts. What is the Government’s answer to that? What does the member want? I understand that the New South Wales Right does not like to lose and, as Graham Richardson said, it will do whatever it takes to win, but this is clearly a rorting of proper planning processes.

The way this bill is being forced on this Parliament is a rort of the proper procedures and the usual deliberations that are applied to legislation. Why is there a big push for this legislation? Why do all stages of this debate have to be completed in one sitting on this second-last or third-last day of the session? This is the first time it has happened in this Parliament: it is an historic day for those people in the gallery. The bill is being pushed through, yet most of the 99 members who sit in this place have not seen it. I am convinced that 70 members would not have touched a copy of it, and that most have not read it. Will we be asked to vote on it today? What is it about? Is it about some pressing matter facing this State? Is it about the increase in taxation imposts that the Carr Government is trying to put on the people of New South Wales? Is it about big issues, such as Sydney’s second airport? No. It is about a minor planning dispute on the central coast.

The honourable member for Wyong, a Labor member, is exploiting this matter for factional
Page 3356
reasons, because his seat in Parliament is threatened by his colleague the Labor mayor of Wyong. There is no good reason to rush this legislation through today: that is an abuse of the parliamentary process. Clearly this process to date is designed for a deadline; it is not designed for a solution. It is an attempt to get an article on the front page of the Central Coast Express as opposed to getting an article on the front page of the Statute Law Review. The honourable member for Wyong is not sincere. He knows that once this private member’s bill has been rammed through here it will be added to the list of private members’ bills in the Legislative Council. There will be no opportunity for the matter to be debated in the other place before the upper House adjourns for the winter recess.

When the Premier sought to refer State gun laws to the Commonwealth he was exposed as a hypocrite for his now famous attempt to rush it through this Chamber on 3 May. It was said to be vital legislation, yet there was no provision for the Legislative Council to review it. That is precisely what will happen with this legislation, yet it is being rammed through this House in one sitting. What the honourable member for Wyong says about the necessity of this legislation being passed before the winter recess does not make sense. That assertion does not take into account the parliamentary process, the workload of the upper House, or the interaction between both Houses.

The honourable member for Wyong does not care about proper planning processes or proper parliamentary processes. I am not convinced that he cares about those questions that this legislation goes to the heart of - jobs, lifestyles and central coast development. This procedure is designed simply to get a headline in the Central Coast Express. It is aimed at the media, not at the statute books. This saga will not be fought out in this Chamber, or even in this Parliament. This saga will end at the next Labor Party preselection for Wyong when the honourable member will be under challenge from the mayor of Wyong.

I suspect the saga will not end there. As I understand it, if the mayor of Wyong is not successful in his attempt to win preselection for the seat of Wyong he will consider standing for preselection for the seat of The Entrance. I notice in passing that the honourable member for The Entrance is not participating in this debate. No doubt if the honourable member for Swansea sticks up her head the mayor may decide to go north and challenge her for preselection. This bill does not relate to matters that are within the purview of the State Government. However, despite that, should the bill be passed into law and should a matter have to be determined in court, the learned judge would have to read the second reading speech and the debates on that speech in order to work out the real intent of this legislation.

This morning members have witnessed what I described at the start of my contribution as the longest electorate interview that I have ever heard. The honourable member for Wyong mentioned just about everyone in his electorate - no doubt we would find they are all preselectors. The honourable member for Wyong did not provide one cogent reason that this legislation should proceed. He has not addressed the issues of proper planning processes or the role of a State government when dealing with local government on planning matters. How can a State government legislate in an area that the High Court has deemed previously belongs to the Federal Government? The honourable member has not dealt with the practical consideration of getting this bill through Parliament before the session concludes. If the honourable member for Wyong is so concerned about this matter, why did it take him more than six weeks to introduce the legislation, only to then require consideration of it to be curtailed?

I note the proposal that this airport have non-directional beacons, which means that planes will have to circle parts of the central coast before landing. As a member of the Standing Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly I know that one of the issues being considered is what pecuniary interests denote a conflict of interest. To what extent does the honourable member for Wyong have a conflict of interest, or a direct personal pecuniary interest, in making his passionate claim on behalf of his constituents’ investments, lifestyles and environment? I ask him to address this issue in his reply. He should examine his conscience in relation to his participation in the debate on this matter. If the honourable member for Gladesville, one of the great deceivers in the airport debate, wants to participate in this debate I will look forward to his contribution.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [11.37]: The contribution of the honourable member for Northcott was most interesting, but it demonstrated his lack of knowledge. The mayor of Wyong is around 70 years of age and, whilst he is a very able mayor and a member of the Labor Party, I am quite sure he would not consider contesting preselection for the seats of either the honourable member for Wyong or the honourable member for The Entrance. The honourable member for Northcott also stated that the honourable member for Wyong became interested in this matter only on 2 March. I can personally attest to the fact that he has been involved in this issue for a long time. As to the factional issues that were raised, I can advise that whilst I have a great respect for the honourable member for Wyong, I am not a member of the New South Wales Right. That shoots down in flames the assertions of the honourable member for Northcott.

Despite what the honourable member for Northcott may believe, the honourable member for Wyong and I have both been approached by a number of Liberal voters. We support their claims that their lifestyles have been gravely affected by proposals to extend the airport. I congratulate the honourable member for Wyong on this fine
Page 3357
compromise which seeks to preserve the quality of life of the people in the area whilst allowing for an upgrade of the airport. At present the runway is well under 1,200 metres. This measure will enable the runway to be upgraded to 1,200 metres. The 800-metre runway at Aeropelican Air Services airport is situated in a residential area of the electorate of Swansea. Aeropelican Air Services operates as a commuter airline between Newcastle and Sydney. It is an effective service and one that I utilise. A runway of 1,200 metres at the airport at Warnervale will be able to offer a similar or extended service. Warnervale has 88 air movements a day and in emergencies it will be able to cater for more.

It is essential that any request to increase the size of the runway is referred to the Minister. Only the Minister should be able to approve an increase of greater than 1,200 metres. The Minister should arrange for a noise study to be carried out by an independent person before any further upgrade is undertaken. Wyong council’s motives for the development of the airport are noble. The population on the central coast is increasing and the council sees the airport development as a measure to create job opportunities. But jobs should not be developed at the expense of the environment. In 1993 an environmental impact statement was conducted to address the issue of extending the runway to 1,200 metres. If the airport facilities are to be increased the Minister should order that a further environmental impact statement be undertaken. Porters Creek wetland, with its filtration potential and unique freshwater ecosystem, is situated at the end of the runway. Though it is not an SEPP 14 category wetland Wyong council has deemed it a wetland of significance.

Residents of Mannering Park in my electorate live directly underneath the flight path of Warnervale Airport. A number of constituents have expressed concern that their lifestyle, quality of life and amenity will be affected by the development of the airport. This legislation will ensure that this will not happen. It will allow a limited upgrade of the airport but any requests for major upgrading will be assessed after a detailed fauna impact statement has been carried out. The statement conducted at the time the EIS was completed was limited; it took one day only to complete. The central coast, with its increasing population, does need jobs, but as I said earlier they should not be at the expense of the environment. Wetlands should not be destroyed. The impact of any proposed development on the local environment, the residents and their way of life should be examined closely before any decision is made. The honourable member for Wyong is an able advocate for his constituents and I am pleased to support his legislation. It will allow for development and at the same time protect the amenity of the area.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [11.44], in reply: The honourable member for Northcott and the brilliant lawyers in the Liberal Party give gratuitous advice which in effect is not worth repeating. The Crown law advice that I received indicates that this legislation is perfectly in order. Under the Federal Constitution, legislation and regulations it is beyond challenge. The legislation seeks to deal with land use planning matters, and if the honourable member for Northcott had taken the time to read the legislation, which was available to him and his party yesterday at 6 p.m., he would have realised that. He had nothing to say except to ramble. Nevertheless I believe there is merit in dealing with some of his fatuous comments.

He said that the Labor Party does not have a position on this issue. The Labor Party votes as one in this Chamber. It does have a position: it supports the legislation. Our party has a long and proud history. We resolved the issues of unity and solidarity in the 1890s and every member of the Labor Party in this place will vote for this legislation this day. The honourable member for Northcott questioned why the bill was introduced today when there had been six weeks to consider it. The six-week period is based on the day the court decision was handed down. Like the vast majority of people in my electorate, I hoped for a different, non-technical judgment on this matter. I do not involve Parliamentary Counsel or myself in unnecessary work. After the decision of 17 May it was obvious that the law managers had had their go at it and it was now time for the law-makers to ensure that a proper resolution to this issue was arrived at. This legislation has been drafted with care and consideration.

The honourable member for Gosford was paired and did not participate when the Opposition pettily divided the House in an attempt to adjourn the second reading debate. The honourable member for Northcott made the classic statement that this legislation is not in the interests of the wider region of the central coast. There is a good reason for the member for Northcott to say that. The Liberal Party, which has vacillated on this whole issue, holds the seat of Gosford. The Gosford electorate is not affected by this proposition. Interestingly enough, the Opposition has carried on about the issues of probity and ethics. On more than one occasion in this place I have seen the honourable member for Gosford in the company of a director of Traders Finance Pty Limited, Mr Les Graham.

If this is a regional issue, it is amazing that the honourable member for Gosford is not in here standing up for the people of the central coast, in particular for the people of my electorate. This is one of those great debates of politics in the 1990s, with the Liberal Party caught in a massive bind between the developers and all their money and the people and all their votes. The Liberal Party realises it is between a rock and a hard place. Does the Liberal Party believe this matter has some merit? At no point did the honourable member for Northcott say during his contribution to the debate whether he supported or rejected the legislation.
Page 3358
Members of the Liberal Party have to stand up and be counted. But the Liberal Party cannot stand up for ordinary Australians because it is not made up of ordinary Australians, it does not believe in ordinary Australians and it does not get its money from ordinary Australians.

The honourable member for Northcott said there had been a rorting of the proper planning processes. I do not know whether he is a moron or whether he cannot cast his mind back to yesterday. I am not in the habit of repeating myself, unlike the honourable member for Northcott, but in the statement I made yesterday in support of this matter having precedence today I pointed out that no legal impediment could stop the bulldozers moving in and commencing construction on an 1,800-metre runway. There might be a moral impediment, but there is certainly no legal impediment. The Liberal Party wants to squib this debate and get itself off the hook. If this matter drifts on until September - by which time the damage could be done, the bulldozers could be in, the wetlands could be destroyed, and people’s lives would potentially be detrimentally affected - it could squib the debate and use the Pontius Pilate excuse that it is beyond its control, that proper processes were followed. Well, this bill is a proper process.

The people of the central coast demand a fair go, and I am here to ensure that they get a fair go. Obviously the honourable member for Gosford does not give a tinker’s cuss about them. He is interested only in developers and their money. I hope this matter goes to a vote. I would like the Liberal Party to speak with one voice on this matter, but I am not so sure that it can. I will deal with the matter of ethics that was raised by the honourable member for Northcott. As I said yesterday, one of my constituents is the Hon. M. J. Gallacher in another place. One of the reasons he is advancing to squib the debate in the upper House is that he lives adjacent to the runway. I do not mind him saying that. I do not even mind the honourable member for Northcott saying that because I live in Noraville I may be subjected to aircraft noise from aircraft flying in a holding pattern. It is unbelievable that he should use an argument based on ethics and personal interest when it has been pointed out that the vast majority of my constituents could be detrimentally affected by the upgrading of the airport. It is important that this matter be voted on. I hope the Liberal Party does the right thing for people of the central coast. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 13 June.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [11.54]: Although I do not lead for the Opposition on this bill, I would like to say a few words in relation to it on behalf of the Opposition, which does not oppose the bill. Employers in this State are concerned about additional costs to be borne by them by way of workers compensation insurance premiums, and that it a matter the Government should take into account. Workers compensation has had a lamentable history under New South Wales Labor governments. In the dying days of the Unsworth Government benefits to workers were reduced and the jurisdiction of the courts was greatly eroded because of fears held by that Government that business was moving from New South Wales to Queensland and to Victoria. The rights of workers, including their common law rights, were emasculated.

The 1988 election of the Greiner Government resulted in the restoration of the common law rights of workers. During the period of the Greiner Government workers compensation premiums were reduced and benefits increased. The report on WorkCover by Professor Walker’s Council on the Cost of Government shows that WorkCover premiums will rise. This legislation will once again throw the future of workers compensation into doubt. It is incumbent on the Government to outline what it will do about workers compensation, about safeguarding the rights of workers, and about ensuring that the costs of the system are contained. These matters need to be addressed by the Government on behalf of the people of New South Wales.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.57]: I wish to make some brief comments about the bill, although I do not lead for the Opposition on the legislation. The Government has introduced reforms to the WorkCover legislation, some of which are welcomed by the Opposition, especially the proposal to increase the amount of cover available to rescue workers. I am sure all honourable members would agree with me when I say that volunteer rescue workers and emergency service workers do a magnificent job for the people of New South Wales. Their work is appreciated, and the community of New South Wales could not survive without the assistance of those workers. Bush fire fighters, volunteer rescue association workers, State Emergency Service workers and volunteers with other rescue organisations have responded magnificently whenever this Stage has suffered a disaster. Those workers are certainly entitled to whatever support the community can given them.

The amendment to the Workers Compensation (Bush Fire, Emergency and Rescue Services) Act 1987 is supported, as it will give emergency workers the same rights to compensation for property, loss of personal effects and damage to motor vehicles as are presently held by bush fire fighters. The Opposition welcomes amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act whereby the right to appeal against a prohibition notice will be
Page 3359
allowed, such right to be exercised before an industrial magistrate in the Local Court. It is a sensible and fair amendment. The Opposition also welcomes the amendment to allow the moving of plant or equipment the day after a dangerous occurrence. The existing legislation states that one can only move plant or equipment that has been involved in an accident the first working day after such an accident, and that is considered to be too restrictive.

However, I am curious to find out to what extent the Government has consulted with industry about the amendment to the Workers Compensation Act simpliciter. My inquiries reveal there has been a very low level of consultation, if at all. I do not expect the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to be up to date on that because he represents the Minister for Industrial Relations in another place. It is an indictment of the Government if it has not consulted widely with all aspects of the industry, especially the great coalmining industry which, as both sides of this House would agree, is fundamental to the wellbeing of this State as it lies at the very basis of our economy. This State could be termed a coal State. Anything that affects the viability of the coalmining industry should be looked at very carefully and there should be a wide level of consultation.

Yet the New South Wales Minerals Council, the State’s governing body of mining companies, was unaware of this amendment. I do not know who drafted it, what process was gone through in the drafting or how it came to be presented to Parliament. I regard that as a very sorry indictment of the professionalism of the Government in the way it approaches such a piece of legislation. There may have been some degree of consultation but we have not heard anything about it from the Minister. I am sure the Minister in reply will say there was consultation, but let us hear with whom the consultation was carried out, let us have names. There is nothing wrong with saying who was consulted by the Government. This legislation extends to coalminers on a statutory basis a benefit they were essentially receiving on a voluntary basis from employers for a maximum period of 104 weeks. Everybody is sympathetic towards injured workers.

All of us wish to see injured workers properly compensated and rehabilitated so that they can get back into the work force as soon as possible. None of us wish to have a workers compensation system which sets up two classes of workers. Everybody would agree that persons injured in the workplace should all be treated the same way. This practice in the coal industry, which is now to be given greater statutory force by the Government, entitles a worker injured in the coal industry to more benefits than a worker injured in forestry, transport or some other industry. That goes against the fundamental principles of equity and fairness which should underlie legislation such as this. A second point is the viability of the coalmining industry, and that needs to be addressed. These benefits, worthy though they are in some respects, represent an additional cost.

Our coal, as Government members know because many of them represent coalmining seats, has a competitive margin comparable with coal from South Africa, the United States and Colombia. Any additional cost which flows to the industry reflects in the coal industry’s margins. Yet this legislation increases the costs. The costs may only be increased marginally but taken across the board and across pricing policy they have an impact. The Opposition is keen to know on what basis the Government brings legislation to amend this particular benefit. Who was consulted to ensure this benefit was given statutory force? In relation to the common law damages amendments, it is appropriate that a rate of interest be prescribed and, in the interests of equity and fairness, that it be the same for workers who make a common law claim for injuries arising from an industrial accident or from a motor vehicle accident. That is simply statutory recognition of a principle of equity and fairness.

The bill creates two separate classes of injured workers. I would like to see every injured worker properly looked after and given good compensation and proper rehabilitation to get back into the work force. I would not like to encourage a system where one class of worker is seen as different to another. The Opposition recognises there have been practices in the coal industry distinct from practices applying to the rest of industry. However, the issue of consultation remains a concern. If it is established that there has not been any reasonable consultation, the Opposition will seek to make this position clear in another place. The Opposition welcomes certain parts of the legislation, especially for the magnificent rescue workers of this State, and expresses its caution about other parts. It urges the Government to ensure that legislation which will affect the viability of an industry as important to this State as the coal industry has a proper process of consultation and of calculating the ongoing costs to that great industry.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.05], in reply: This bill of miscellaneous improvements removes anomalies and tidies up previous amendments. The proposed extension of the emergency and rescue volunteers compensation scheme to cover damage to vehicles and the like is commendable and timely. As already applies to volunteer bush fire fighters, the basis of the amendment is that the cost of vehicle damage is claimable if the volunteer does not have insurance or other cover. If the volunteer does have such cover, the legislation states that the insurance company is not permitted to charge the volunteer a higher premium due to a claim for vehicle damage connected with emergency or rescue activities.

Removal of the anomaly regarding weekly compensation benefits for coalminers will result in
Page 3360
more equitable coverage for workers in that industry. So I can allay the fears of the honourable member for Gosford in that regard. It will result in more equitable coverage for workers in that industry who are subject to a higher than average risk of injury. As I have mentioned, this proposal was arrived at through a process of consultation with union, employer and insurance representatives. For the benefit of the honourable member for Gosford, that consultation included the United Mine Workers division of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, the Minerals Council, which is an employers’ organisation, and the Joint Coal Board, which has costed the proposal as affordable.

The provision to ensure that intending litigants in the Compensation Court have complied with initial workers compensation claim procedures will support one of the cost-saving measures enacted in December 1995. Those initial procedures are reasonable requirements, namely, lodgment of the claim on the employer and an appropriate pause during which, if the claim is disputed, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including conciliation, may be pursued. The continuing cost problem with the WorkCover scheme, which was caused by the former Government’s mismanagement - and we must never forget that - is being addressed in the manner announced by the Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations on 6 June 1996 in the other place. I refer honourable members to Hansard to get a better idea of what is occurring.

As the Minister in the other place indicated, steps taken by the Government include the establishment of a tripartite working party to formulate, in consultation with all the major stakeholders, long-term strategies to improve the performance of the scheme. The changes to the WorkCover legislation enacted in December 1995 included major improvements in workplace health and safety provisions. Two of those amendments are finetuned by the current bill. Under proposed revisions, arrangements for notices prohibiting unsafe workplace activities and for non-disturbance of accident sites pending inspection will operate far more reasonably and effectively. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 19 June.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [12.11]: I lead for the National Party and the Liberal Party on this motion. I indicate at the outset that the Opposition does not have any real difficulties in a specific sense with the Bondo, Micalong, Yadboro and Yalwal State forest revocations. The Opposition sought advice in relation to the likely impact of these revocations on the availability of resources to the timber industry. We have been advised that those revocations will not cause any controversy. However, yesterday in debate on a similar matter Opposition members said that they had some real concerns in regard to the revocation of flora reserves in Bundella and Warung. They said that they did not agree with the decision of the Government to create the Coolah Tops National Park. In summary, without going over all the arguments that were put forward yesterday, the Opposition believes that the Government could have chosen a better option which would have satisfied the needs of conservationists and the timber industry and preserved jobs in the Coolah area. Unfortunately, the Government did not choose that balanced option. In addition, the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council recommendation was not unanimous.

The Forest Products Association, the unions and State Forests opposed that recommendation. However, they were overruled by other bureaucrats on the RACAC. The fact that that recommendation was not unanimous adds to the argument that these revocations should not occur. I and the Deputy Leader of the National Party raised in previous debate the general issue concerning jobs and the impact that these revocations will have on Morrison’s mill. Evidence is emerging that selective timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis is not necessarily detrimental to biodiversity. A recent report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on the Murwillumbah management area indicates that the number and types of animal species that exist in those forests have not been detrimentally affected by timber harvesting. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there are beneficial effects from having younger forests next to older forests. That kind of information tends to cast a shadow on the statement that forestry activity is detrimental to biodiversity.

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order. It is my understanding that, as this is a motion and we do not go into Committee, the honourable member for Ballina should move his amendment, which will be dealt with at the conclusion of debate.

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

Mr D. L. PAGE: I move:

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

"requests your Excellency to resubmit the revocation schedule, hereunder leaving out references to the Bundella and Warung State Forests".

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, a distinguished ecologist and a strong environmentalist, with a PhD in ecology, believes that the green movement has got it wrong in relation to the forestry debate. That kind of evidence, together with the evidence to which I referred earlier from the CSIRO, casts doubt on some of the activities with which this Government is preoccupied. It has to be said that it appears that
Page 3361
this Government is keen to lock up everything that is deemed to have some special conservation value when the evidence is that forestry activities may be quite helpful to the preservation of biodiversity.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on the development of comprehensive and adequate reserve systems in this country. In the past little attention has been given to what forms of management regimes should be put in place. We must direct our attention and focus not just to the creation of a system but to the management of that system. We must determine to what use it must be put to protect the environment and the public interest once it is in place. The other point I would like to raise that was not raised in debate yesterday concerns the Coolah Tops National Park matter which is currently before the Supreme Court. The Land and Environment Court decision is being appealed in the Supreme Court. Any decision to revoke Bundella and Warung State forests should await the outcome of that appeal in the Supreme Court. Principles of fairness and justice demand that that course be followed.

It appears to me that the Government is trying to pre-empt the Supreme Court decision by moving now rather than waiting until that decision has been made. That is another reason why the Opposition has real concerns about the revocation of the Bundella and Warung State forests. If the Government is worried about the environmental side of this issue there is no reason why it should not use its administrative powers to stop timber harvesting in those two State forests until the court case is resolved. There is no burning urgency for this revocation to protect the environmental values of those two State forests. That is one of the reasons I have moved an amendment to the motion.

I understand that the compensation package has not yet been finalised for the people who will be unemployed as a result of the closure of Morrison’s mill at Coolah. Given the things that I have said about the court case and other matters, it seems appropriate to me that the compensation package should be finalised before the revocation takes place. As I indicated at the outset, I believe that the Coolah decision was a litmus test for the Government, which has often stated that it desires to provide a balance. Unfortunately, that balance is not there and the Government has been found wanting. Finally, I refer to a report relating to the impact of the timber industry on the economy of New South Wales. Honourable members must remember that the timber industry contributes significantly to this State’s economy. It provides directly and indirectly about 43,000 jobs and contributes about $4.1 billion to this State’s economy.

We need to be careful when considering locking up resources, because that will have a significant impact on the contribution that the timber industry makes to the economy of this State, to the provision of jobs in rural areas, and so on. I should mention that not all jobs that flow from the timber industry are in rural districts; many of them are in Sydney areas. Unfortunately, many city people have a simplistic view of this debate. Many believe that their support for the warm and fuzzy notion of locking up resources and retaining a management structure will somehow mean that they are doing their bit to ensure the future, save the planet, and so on. The reality is that there will be a socioeconomic impact from the Government’s conservation policies - whatever option it takes, whether the 30 per cent, fifty per cent or 70 per cent option - not just in the country but also in the city. City dwellers need to educate themselves on the subtleties of the forestry debate. The Opposition moves its amendment because, although the Government had an opportunity on this occasion to get it right, for reasons best known to itself it has not chosen a balanced approach on the Coolah proposal.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [12.21]: I support the motion of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. It provides, firstly, that pursuant and subject to the provisions of the Forestry Act 1916 this House agrees to the revocation of the dedication of those whole or part areas of State forests indicated in the schedule accompanying the motion; and, secondly, that the foregoing be communicated by Address to His Excellency the Governor. Under this motion, in accordance with the Forestry Act 1916, areas of State forest in part or whole will be revoked to enable their reservation as national park under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and subsequently declared as additions to existing wilderness areas.

Other State forest areas that have been identified as wilderness by the National Parks and Wildlife Service are not proposed to be declared as wilderness at this time in accordance with the Government’s forestry policy, pending the conclusion of the interim assessment process. As honourable members are aware, in April this year the Government declared seven new wilderness areas: Barrington, Budawang, Kanangra Boyd, Macleay Gorges, Werrikimbe, Goobarragandra and Warrazambil. Additions were also made to the existing Bimberi and Ettrema wilderness areas. The Government continues to meet its pre-election commitment to expand the reserve system by declaring 24 new national parks and protecting additional wilderness areas by this motion.

In speaking to the bill yesterday I said that the Government has taken a tremendous step, firstly, to uphold its election promises and, secondly, to build on the great work of former Premier Neville Wran and former Minister for the Environment Bob Carr in the declaration of areas up and down the coast and the hinterland of New South Wales to preserve in perpetuity the high conservation areas of flora and fauna of this State. This revocation is an important step that is being taken by the Government.


Page 3362
Parts of two State forests will be revoked for inclusion in Kosciusko National Park. They are approximately 1,350 hectares of Bondo State forest and approximately 930 hectares of Micalong State forest. Those areas have some of the finest stands of alpine ash in the northern part of Kosciusko National Park. Those areas will be declared as part of the Goobarragandra Wilderness Area. Goobarragandra wilderness is an area of diverse vegetation types associated with a large variation in altitude. Those include eucalypt forests, subalpine woodlands and montane tussock grasslands. Some 298 animal species are recorded living in the area. Those include threatened animals such as the corroboree frog and the broad-toothed rat.

Those fauna types, flora types and seral progressions in areas like Kosciusko National Park, the Barrington and some coastal areas that are being set aside have really important scientific values. They also have important recreational values, as well as providing the opportunity for study and experience for the bulk of the population that now lives within city areas and for country residents who live either in areas contiguous to parks or in close proximity to them. This is an opportunity to reserve for the people some very important flora and fauna and ecological diversity.

A part of Yadboro State Forest will be revoked for inclusion in Morton National Park. This addition of about 1,700 hectares will be declared as part of the Budawang Wilderness Area. It lies just south and west of two of the most popular attractions of the area, the Castle and Pigeon House. Budawang wilderness includes lands of inspiring scenic beauty with spectacular cliffs, waterfalls and gorges. It is home to at least 30 threatened animal species, including the broad-headed snake, long-nosed potoroo and powerful owl. It is sad that Australia has such a list of endangered and threatened species. In fact it seems that Australia has world best practice in the elimination of species. This is another action being taken to ensure that that deplorable record is not continued in this State or across Australia.

This addition to the Budawang Wilderness Area has been identified as wilderness by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and State Forests of New South Wales has agreed that it be added to that wilderness area. About 1,550 hectares, being part of Yalwal State Forest, will be revoked for inclusion in Morton National Park. This area, which will contribute to the protection of the Yalwal Creek catchment, has been identified as wilderness by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and, accordingly, consideration was given to the inclusion of these State forest lands within the Ettrema Wilderness Area. However, the Government is committed to ensuring that the interests of local apiarists are met before this proceeds. Access for beekeepers to the flora of the area that is the source of the honey flow is most important for the maintenance of what is a most important industry in New South Wales. The Government recognises that and is seeking to ensure that the interests of beekeepers are protected.

The Government gave a pre-election commitment, in Labor’s nature conservation strategy, to the creation of Coolah Tops National Park as one of the 24 new national parks. The revocation of Bundella State Forest and part of Warung State Forest will present the core areas of State forest for inclusion in Coolah Tops National Park. Coolah Tops National park is at the western end of the Liverpool Range, about 25 kilometres east of Coolah. It will be about 10,800 hectares in area. Its reservation has been strongly supported for several years by conservation groups. Most of the Liverpool Plains have been cleared. The area contains a variety of forest communities growing on high nutrient basalt soils. The area falls within the Brigalow Belt biogeographic region, which has only two per cent of its area within the existing reserve system. Coolah Tops National Park will also protect a large number of Aboriginal artefacts and art sites.

Members will be aware of the huge clearance that occurred across the Brigalow belt right up into the Queensland area through the 1970s and 1980s; it possibly is still continuing. Only a small percentage of that area is left within the reserve system. Considerable consultation has taken place on this proposed revocation and, as the Minister said, there is strong support for the inclusion of it within the national park. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Hon. Kim Yeadon, has outlined steps the Government has taken to address the effects of the new park on the local timber industry. The assistance provided by the Government includes the opportunity to obtain employment with the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the establishment of the park.

An interim Resource and Conservation Assessment Council process has been continuing; the Government and all sectors of the industry have had extensive consultation. Prior to that, debilitating and destructive conflict existed between the conservation and development sectors over the forestry industry. The Government has committed itself to its pre-election promise of ensuring sustainable forestry and conservation of species, particularly the meeting of the 15 per cent target. The Government is moving this revocation to ensure that the commitment made during the election campaign is put into practice. I commend the Minister and his department for their work and I support the motion.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.32], in reply: I indicated at the outset that the Government opposes the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ballina. That amendment relates to areas of the Warung and Bundella State forests, which is the Coolah Tops area. The State forest dedications proposed to be revoked under this schedule comprise part of five State forests and one whole forest. Following revocation, these lands will be
Page 3363
reserved as national park and subsequently declared as additions to existing wilderness areas. There are no impediments to the inclusion in wilderness areas of non-productive State forest lands, including those which are inaccessible for logging. The inclusion of these regions will have no significant impact on other potential or real users of them, for example, recreational users such as four-wheel drivers.

The first four State forest areas listed in the schedule fall into this category, that is, they are generally non-productive, and State Forests of New South Wales has agreed to their addition to the national park estate as a first step towards their declaration as wilderness. The land within the last two State forest areas proposed for revocation, being Bundella State Forest and part of Warung State Forest, is to be reserved as the Coolah Tops National Park. Yesterday the House dealt with the Forest and Flora Reserves Revocation Bill, and this motion, with the schedule, is integral to that bill. Many of the issues raised surrounding Coolah Tops National Park were dealt with in yesterday’s debate.

The proposed park makes a significant contribution to the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system within the Brigalow belt south bioregion. In addition, it has very high conservation value, and that is acknowledged by every fair-minded person. Also, it fulfils a promise made by the Labor Party that 24 new national parks would be created in its first year in government. The Government has not achieved that deadline, but this measure will help, in part, to ensure that takes place. The Government did not keep to its 12-month deadline because of concerns expressed about proposed boundaries for the Coolah Tops National Park and the impact that would have on the Coolah sawmill.

As a result of those concerns and requests from other quarters, including members in the other place, the Government referred the matter to the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council - RACAC. It was agreed that the parties would accept the decision of the council. It is history that the matter was referred to the RACAC committee and though the Government readily acknowledges that there was not unanimity, the majority of members endorsed the proposed boundaries as put forward by the Government for the creation of the Coolah Tops National Park. The Government acknowledges that the establishment of the Coolah Tops National Park will cause the closure of the local timber mill. The Government gets no joy from that. However, it came to office with a policy to ensure that comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve systems would be created. Also, and equally as important, it promised to create or restructure the New South Wales hardwood sawlog timber industry to ensure that it is internationally competitive and that it will have a long-term secure future.

The issues relating to Coolah Tops are difficult. It is a small area of about 13,000 to 15,000 hectares. Its environmental values are unique. The Government has examined the matter closely, as have other interested parties, and has come to the conclusion that the area must be protected. However, the Government is prepared to compensate the mill owners and will ensure that unprecedented assistance is given to the workers at the Coolah sawmill. The forest industry structural adjustment package will provide a range of assistance, including business exit assistance for the mill owners; options for assistance to the six remaining workers, including relocation to a new job, training and special redundancy payments.

Alternative employment will be made available with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and potentially with other employers in the region. A forest liaison officer is negotiating on the workers’ behalf for future employment and training, and is advising them about other types of assistance available under the Government’s structural adjustment package. The honourable member for Ballina articulated the view that the Government should await the outcome of the court hearing. The Government does not know how long that process will take. It has examined this issue closely, laboriously and repeatedly, yet the same decision has been reached: that the Coolah Tops National Park must be created on the proposed boundaries that have been put forward. Therefore, there is no point dragging this issue out any longer. We need to get on with the job.

The honourable member for Ballina said that the forest should not be logged until the court case is concluded and the situation is re-assessed. For his edification, the Government has distanced itself from logging the areas that are the subject of the schedule and the bill introduced yesterday. The Government has accessed alternative resources on leasehold areas in that region and has endeavoured to supply resource to the mill at Coolah for as long as it possibly can. It is unfortunate that the resource is coming close to its conclusion. The Government has already taken up that option by no longer taking the resource from the proposed park and accessing an alternative resource; unfortunately that resource is now coming to an end and will soon not be available.

The honourable member said that the timber industry is a significant economic player in this State. The Government has never denied that. The Government fully recognises the importance of the hardwood sawlog timber industry in New South Wales. For the information and enlightenment of the honourable member for Ballina, that is why the Government involved all stakeholders in a comprehensive policy. Implementation of that policy involves the creation of a comprehensive reserve system to ensure the long-term viability and security of the New South Wales hardwood timber industry. It is readily acknowledged by the industry that a lot of work needs to be done.

Industry is working with the Government to
Page 3364
ensure that this policy is implemented and industry can be assured of having a secure resource for the future. Those involved in the industry can then make the necessary investment that will ensure that there is downstreaming and value adding. That will result in the creation of jobs and a better return to sawmill owners and the economy of New South Wales. This is a classic example where Australia - New South Wales in particular - has sold the raw resource to its competitors who have turned it into value added products and sold them back to us at an enormously inflated price, 10 or 20 times the price they paid for the raw resource. This Government will ensure that downstreaming and value adding occur so that New South Wales gets the jobs that are derived from the resource and also gets the economic return.

The only way to assist that to occur is to provide security so that the industry has a measure of comfort with risk management and is willing to invest in the expensive plant and equipment necessary for it to progress and produce economic benefit. Clearly that has been a problem with the industry for the last 20 or 30 years: there has been no investment, largely because of the continuing war that has occurred in the State forests of New South Wales. It is hypocritical of the honourable member for Ballina to bleat about his concern for the New South Wales timber industry, when for seven years the former Government did absolutely nothing for the New South Wales hardwood timber industry.

Mr D. L. Page: That is rhetoric.

Mr YEADON: It is not rhetoric. The honourable member should talk to people in the industry. Every day I am told by them that the former Government when in office promised and promised, but delivered nothing; it failed to put one single run on the board. This Government came to office with a comprehensive policy and unprecedented agreement across the board among all players in the debate, threw open the books and disclosed all the information it had in relation to conservation values, yield - the whole lot.

Mr D. L. Page: Where is the socioeconomic statement?

Mr YEADON: It is there.

Mr D. L. Page: It is not there; you put out a press release yesterday saying that it was not available.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has the call.

Mr YEADON: We made all of this information available, not only to the stakeholders but to the broad community. That consultation process is occurring at the very moment I speak, through the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council process. The Government has moved forward on the issue and the Opposition is carping, whingeing and whining about how the world is coming to an end. That was the approach the coalition adopted while in government. That is why the Government has had to fix up the mess that was left. By way of interjection the honourable member for Ballina asked where is the socioeconomic statement. The RACAC is charged with, and has the carriage of, the interim assessment process, including the consultation phase that is involved in that process. It has distributed a wide and comprehensive range of information. I acknowledge that the social and economic study is not yet completed, but the council is endeavouring to complete it as soon as possible.

Mr D. L. Page: You expect people to comment on it. How convenient for the Government.

Mr YEADON: If the honourable member for Ballina listens for a moment he will learn something, though that would be a first. I am advised by the RACAC that it will make that study available prior to the conclusion of the consultation process. Not simply some of the players or the majority of the RACAC have decided it would be inappropriate to release that study because it is not concluded; the decision was made by all of the players, including the industry and the Forest Products Association. Indeed, I had a conversation with Mr Col Dorber, the director of the Forest Products Association, yesterday at Parliament House. He told me that the study is not yet ready and that no-one agrees to its release, but he is endeavouring to complete it and it will be made available as quickly as possible.

The advice from the RACAC is that it will be available before the conclusion of the consultation process and will be available to Cabinet when it makes a decision on the interim assessment process in July. Another important point that should be understood by the honourable member for Ballina is that a socioeconomic study is an indicative study: it does not deal with specific sites and places but is an indicative study.

Mr D. L. Page: Will you extend the consultation process if it is not available?

Mr YEADON: The RACAC has advised me that it will be available before the conclusion of the consultation process. The final matter I mention is the issue raised by the Opposition regarding the management of national parks. Clearly that is entirely a matter for the Minister for the Environment, a dedicated Minister who is doing fantastic work to ensure that there is much greater environmental protection in this State, including ongoing management and maintenance of the national park estate as it exists at the present time and as it will exist in the future. This Government is doing far more in the management of national parks with regard to feral animals, weed control and other matters than the mob opposite ever did, or even contemplated, when it was in government.

This measure advances the Government’s conservation strategy, which is being implemented and is working outstandingly well 14 months into
Page 3365
our term in government. All of our critics said the Government would stumble on its first day; but it has not done so, and that is what really hurts the Opposition: the Government is doing a good job; it has everyone in the cart except the Opposition, which is out there shivering in the cold. The honourable member for Ballina does not like it. All I can say to him is: get used to it. I commend the bill to the House.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Doherty
Mr Beck Mr O’Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Ms Machin Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr

Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Clough Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson 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 Woods
Mr McBride Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald
Mr McManus Tellers,
Mr Markham Mr Beckroge
Mr Martin Mr Thompson

Mr Downy Ms Allan
Mr Photios Mr Carr
Mr Tink Mrs Grusovin

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

[Mr Speaker left the chair at 1.0 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]


Royal assent to the following bills reported:

Transgender (Anti-Discrimination and Other Acts Amendment) Bill
Non-Indigenous Animals Amendment Bill

Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [2.15]: Two weeks ago I announced to this House that the Government intended to pursue the debt owed to it by the New South Wales Master Builders Association. Today we reaffirm this decision. The details surrounding the incurring of this debt by the Master Builders Association appeared in Hansard of 6 June this year. Today the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development, Carl Scully, and I met with Mr Robert Cole, President of the New South Wales Master Builders Association, and Mr John Elder, Executive Director of the MBA. The Minister and I have made it clear to the Master Builders Association that the Government expects it to honour its commitments to the Government and New South Wales taxpayers, and pay its debt as well as honour its other undertakings. My portfolio is charged with defending the rights of the public against errant builders, shoddy car repairers, shonky business people, harsh landlords, tenants from hell and con artists peddling get-rich schemes.

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

Mrs LO PO’: What makes the MBA different from other organisations that have made a significant profit from deceiving its members and the general public? The answer to that question is, of course, there is no difference. The MBA has made a significant profit by deceiving its members, the New South Wales public and the New South Wales Government. The Government simply wants it to honour its promise and repay the debt it owes to the people of New South Wales. When the MBA pays back the money, it will be used to fund much-needed programs aimed at protecting the people of New South Wales from the reprehensible practices of a small, but significant, proportion of the business community. My department has been involved in constant negotiations.


Page 3366
The debt has been recast to forgive the earlier defaults on the debt and to attempt to accommodate the MBA. This Government has been nothing but reasonable in its dealings with the MBA over this debt. The MBA has responded to this generosity by defaulting on the instalment payment of $75,000 due on 1 April 1996, after the debt was recast in January 1996. The MBA has been attempting to stall the reclamation process for what is, for a major industry organisation, a mere $75,000, which the MBA promised to pay under the extended instalment program. The patience of the Carr Government with the MBA is almost at an end. The MBA must decide whether it wants to rebuild its reputation and remain a presence in the New South Wales building industry. It could start by honouring its promise to continue repaying the $1.425 million it owes to New South Wales taxpayers.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of His Grace Bishop Gibran of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.


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

Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Bill received and read a first time.


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 determined by a referendum, received from Mr Armstrong, Mr Beck, Mr Blackmore, Mr Brogden, Mr Chappell, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Cruickshank, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr MacCarthy, Mr Merton, Mr O’Doherty, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith, and Mr Tink.

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 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 various legislative measures be adopted to enhance the historical and recreational activity of horse riding on public land, received from Ms Allan.

Petition praying that the prohibition of cannabis be reviewed with a view to the implementation of a tolerant approach to cannabis and its legalisation, received from Mr Sullivan.

Petition praying that electro-immobilisers be banned, received from Mr Harrison.

Petition praying that Maitland City Council’s request to set rates above the rate-pegging limit not be agreed to, received from Mr Blackmore.

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.


Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Statistical Return for the by-election held in the Electoral District of Clarence on Saturday 25 May 1996.
Statistical Return for the by-election held in the Electoral District of Orange on Saturday 25 May 1996.
Statistical Return for the by-election held in the Electoral District of Pittwater on Saturday 25 May 1996.
Statistical Return for the by-election held in the Electoral District of Southern Highlands on Saturday 25 May 1996.
Statistical Return for the by-election held in the Electoral District of Strathfield on Saturday 25 May 1996.
Report of the Commercial Fishing Advisory Council for the year ended 30 June 1995.
Report of the University of Newcastle for 1995.

Mr Mills, as Chairman, tabled the report of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission entitled "Disclosure by the Health Care Complaints Commission of Information, subject to a suppression order", dated June 1996.

Ordered to be printed.

Page 3367


Mr CARR: I advise the House that during the absence of the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts will answer questions on the Minister’s behalf.


Mr COLLINS: Did the Premier promise before the election to establish a Public Employment Office which is independent of Government? Will the Premier admit that the special relationship identified by Ken Baxter before the Independent Commission Against Corruption between the Premier and Ken Cripps has compromised this independence? Will the Premier explain what action he plans to take on this breach of his election promise?

Mr CARR: The Public Employment Office is independent. It has been established in line with our Government’s election policy.


Mr MOSS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services. What information can the Minister give on the progress of initiatives to divert minor offenders from the prison system?

Mr DEBUS: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his continuing interest in correctional policy. A major plank of this Government’s election policy in that regard was the diversion of minor offenders from gaol. We recognised that the community wanted to see prison reserved for serious offenders who represent a threat to community safety and need to be removed from society. Many offenders, however, are not in this category and are far better dealt with through various community-based sentencing options. I would far rather spend money on tightening security for serious violent criminals than waste it on locking up shoplifters.

While to some extent substantial diversion will depend on the outcome of the Law Reform Commission’s review of sentencing, the Government has been working to improve the availability and effectiveness of existing options and is also developing new ones. In the case of community service orders, we have tackled a problem that the previous Government ignored in the vain hope that it would go away. I will soon be introducing legislation to remove the uncertainty faced by charities and community organisations when presented with claims for compensation due to injuries sustained by offenders performing community service orders - a problem the previous Government was well aware of yet ignored for at least two years. The Government is also funding an expansion of periodic detention places.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Hurstville that yesterday my attention was drawn to the fact that he was talking during question time. He is doing so again today and I call him to order for the first time.

Mr DEBUS: The recent passage of the periodic detention bill will ensure that public confidence in that excellent sentencing option is maintained. A home detention program is now ready, pending passage of the legislative framework that will soon be before the House. Honourable members may be aware that the previous Government -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. If members wish to discuss matters with their colleagues they should do so outside the Chamber. If they stay in the Chamber I expect them to be quiet.

Mr DEBUS: I mentioned earlier that the home detention trial, which began in 1992, has seen 150 offenders serving home detention. That project has received a favourable evaluation report. However, if home detention is not to languish for ever as a small, pilot project, it must be given a statutory basis. Without that statutory basis sentencing authorities have been understandably reluctant to utilise home detention as an alternative. As a result, numbers have gradually declined to the point where only about a dozen offenders are on home detention at present. That form of punishment, nevertheless, is widely used in the United States of America and in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. The Department of Corrective Services has drawn on the expertise developed during the trial program and on the accumulated experiences of others to ensure that the home detention program which I will introduce guarantees the highest level of community safety -

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. Questions which anticipate discussions of orders of the day or other matters on the business paper are not permitted. Today’s business paper has as notice of motion No. 2 the Home Detention Bill, which is to be introduced by the Minister. Whilst this matter is important, the Minister should not be making a ministerial statement. The Minister is making an announcement of policy about a matter that is listed on the notice paper. He is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Previous Speakers have ruled it is in order for matters to be discussed in question time relating to bills which are on the notice paper so that members can be better informed. In this case the member is seeking information which obviously he will be able to use to provide a greater impact for his speech on a later
Page 3368
day.

Mr DEBUS: Home detention places a great deal of responsibility upon offenders. It will not be easy, but it will set them up for a law-abiding life far more effectively than gaol can. However, detainees will be encouraged to keep or to obtain paid employment, to participate in education or vocational training and, where appropriate, to attend treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse. Monitoring of home detainees will be carried out through a combination of twenty-first century technology and personal surveillance by officers from the Department of Corrective Services. Under the trial program detainees wear electronic bracelets or anklets.

In response to random computer-generated telephone calls these devices must be inserted into electronic receptors attached to the telephone line. If they do not register or the telephone has been engaged an officer is alerted immediately by a paging device. Detainees will also be subject to testing for drug and alcohol consumption, just as prison inmates are. In addition, all detainees will be visited regularly by an officer both in the home and at work or study on weekdays and at weekends. The revocation of a home detention order will result in imprisonment. The aim of the program is to divert as many as 500 minor offenders from full-time custody by the end of the decade.

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

Mr DEBUS: The program will be expanded in stages, beginning with coverage of the Sydney metropolitan area. I have directed the Department of Corrective Services to design the home detention program with a particular focus upon diverting particular categories of offenders, such as women with dependent children, Aboriginal offenders and offenders with physical or intellectual disabilities. I am confident that that aim can be achieved. During the trial women were diverted at a greater rate than men. Home detention could well become the preferred sentence for women with dependent children, enabling them to continue caring for their children at home rather than placing them into care. In fact, 110 women in gaol at present would be eligible for consideration for the home detention program. Another section of the population which stands to benefit greatly is families in general.

Not infrequently, men who have jobs and are the family breadwinners face gaol terms for driving offences, for example. If they could serve their sentences by way of home detention, enormous damage to their innocent families could be avoided. Under the previous Government’s trial home detention program some 50 per cent of detainees had committed driving offences for which they would have otherwise been gaoled. The courts will continue to exercise their judgment about who is eligible for this program. It is widely recognised that one of the most damaging aspects of imprisonment is the severing of family contact. While prison visiting arrangements have been greatly improved in recent times, a weekly visit can never make up for the loss of constant family contact. At the same time, the maintenance of family and community links is recognised as a major factor in preventing people from reoffending. If we can keep more offenders and their families together through the home detention program we will be preventing crime and substantially improving community safety.

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

Mr SOURIS: I direct my question without notice to the Premier. Given that Ahmed Sahib, before joining the Public Employment Office, worked with Ken Cripps at Taronga Zoo and the Urban Parks Agency, and given that the Premier has failed to provide this House with details of Mr Sahib’s qualifications for an important position in the PEO, will the Premier undertake to provide that information before he goes to the Independent Commission Against Corruption tomorrow?

Mr CARR: I am delighted to be able to provide that information now. Mr Ahmed Sahib was a temporary employee of the Urban Parks Agency from 12 September 1994 until April last year. Mr Sahib was then temporarily employed as a clerk, grade 7/8, in the Premier’s Department on 10 April 1995. His employment was approved by the then Director-General of the Premier’s Department, Dr Col Gellatly. A position of project officer, clerk grade 7/8, Public Employment Office, was advertised in the public service notices of 11 October 1995 and the Sydney Morning Herald and the Telegraph Mirror of 14 October 1995. Mr Sahib was an applicant. I am advised that six candidates were interviewed for the position by a panel of three.

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

Mr CARR: The panel comprised a departmental representative and two others. Mr Sahib was recommended for the position and accepted. The approving officer, Mr Ken Cripps, did not sit on the interview panel.


Mr NAGLE: I direct my question without notice to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. What has been the recent success of Sydney Water in bidding for contracts in the lucrative Asian market?

Mr CARR: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the Premier answers the question I draw the attention of the Opposition to the fact that the Chair is not impressed with the laughter and the mass interjections that have taken place over the last minute. If that behaviour happens again, I will
Page 3369
name the members concerned.

Mr CARR: I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Sydney Water has been invited to design and operate the water systems for Asia’s newest city, Fort Bonifacio in the Philippines. This is great news not only for the State but for Australia’s position in the Asia-Pacific - selling our skills, creating jobs and exporting our technology into the fastest-growing markets in the world. Australian Water Technologies Pty Limited, the trading arm of Sydney Water, has won, against tough international competition, the right to sell its know-how, joining the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation as a joint venture partner.

The corporation is partly owned by the Philippines Government. The corporation has been established to create one of the most exciting urban developments in the world, covering more than 200 hectares in Manila, costing many hundreds of millions of dollars. It is expected that more than $100 million will be spent by the consortium to provide water and waste water infrastructure for the new city. Australian Water Technologies has won the key job to design the waste water and treatment plant systems. AWT will then operate the systems for the next 20 years, generating a $20 million return for New South Wales taxpayers. This means that Sydney Water’s advanced recycling technologies will be used to ensure Fort Bonifacio has a world class water system that delivers quality environmental outcomes to international standards.

The joint venture arrangements are expected to be finalised later this year, as AWT undertakes final feasibility and due diligence investigations. This is about selling our skills and our brainpower, getting a real return for taxpayers of this State and opening up opportunities to demonstrate our skills to the world. AWT’s engineering, environmental and scientific expertise places it at the forefront of companies vying for work in the lucrative Asian markets. Over the next 20 years more than $350 billion will be spent on water and sewerage infrastructure in South-East Asia.

The Fort Bonifacio win - against the world’s most aggressive and best water companies - places AWT in a strong position to capture its share of this lucrative market. This means we are creating jobs, investment and growth for the people of New South Wales, with minimum risk and maximum benefit. Compare this to Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria, Jeff Kennett has systematically dismembered Melbourne Water - privatising the service and destroying forever any chance it might have had to compete in overseas markets. South Australia has given up the game altogether. It has sold off the Adelaide water authority to the French, allowing taxpayers’ money to flow out of the country.

Mr Cruickshank: How much did the French pay to get in?

Mr CARR: I see! You would sell it off to the highest bidder. You would sell off Sydney Water -

Mr Cruickshank: Especially on Government performance.

Mr CARR: "Especially on Government performance." He would sell it off. There we have the Opposition commitment to privatise Sydney Water. Hansard will show that the Opposition says: sell it off to the highest bidder. That is its approach. It is on the record now. There is no doubt about it - sell it off to the highest bidder.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr CARR: The dismemberment of Melbourne Water, with the flogging off of Adelaide Water, means that only Sydney Water has the corporate structure, the scale and scope to compete in the international water industry.

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

Mr CARR: They are over there helping the Leader of the National Party rehearse for his next question. They are carefully leading him through it. He cannot be number two on the list; he has barely scraped in at number five. He has got to be coached and stitched up to get an entry down the list. The managing director of the Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation, Mr Bernard Durack, said, "AWT is Australia’s leading company in the field of total solutions in water, waste water, environmental and operational management." That is world class. This is the body that the Opposition is intent on privatising.

AWT was chosen in an international tendering process where it was competing against the best and most aggressive water companies in the world. It won. It beat the French. It beat the English. It beat the world for this top job. So, while Liberal governments around the country are privatising essential services, the Carr Labor Government is making this State’s water authorities better and more competitive, able to win against international competition. That is our approach.

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

Mr CARR: Contrast our approach with that of this team opposite.

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

Mr CARR: He has had to tell them over there to shut up. The whip cracker is going round and saying: don’t give the game away about our plans to privatise water. So once again the New South Wales Government is winning the fight for investment, jobs and growth.

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

Mr CARR: While other States will experience rising costs from their fractured and
Page 3370
dismembered water authorities, the people of Sydney and New South Wales can expect real savings and increased employment opportunities. That is our approach. The choice is very clear: privatisation under them, or enhancement of public ownership and competitive position under us.


Mrs SKINNER: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Given that an ambulance took 35 minutes to reach a schoolboy footballer with a broken neck at a recent football match in Mosman, what will be the effect of ambulance union work bans on 29 June which specifically preclude attendance at sporting events, including race meetings and football matches, because the Minister has failed to provide them with adequate staff?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am delighted to have a question from the honourable member for North Shore today. Every day of this year I have been waiting for a health question from the Opposition, but there has not been one all year. This is the first question on health this year. I must admit I was getting quite desperate. I have learned from my colleague the Minister for Agriculture; I have been sending round notes suggesting a few questions. It was nearing D-day. For the first time for many months my parents came from Canberra today to see what is happening in this Parliament. Thank God I’ve got a question! At last they have taken up my offer to please provide a question. Apart from a cheerio to Mum and Dad, thank you very much.

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. The question to the Minister was quite specific. The Minister’s parents are well known to me, and I welcome them to the House. I had to do this to an old school mate.

Dr REFSHAUGE: He went to the same school as I did, but I do not think he learned nearly as much.

Mr Hazzard: Tell the truth, Andrew. Your Mum is here.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I place the honourable member for Ermington on two calls to order.

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is no doubt that the provision of ambulance services is an important part of the health care system. It is important to note that the Ambulance Service is being regularly assessed on its response time performance compared with the performances of similar services throughout the world. The former Minister for Health started the process of regularly assessing the response times of the Ambulance Service. I am pleased to announce that the response times provided by the Ambulance Service are still up there with the best in the world. There is no doubt the Ambulance Service is doing a great job.

I should also like to make a number of comments about the former Minister for Health and his predecessor in regard to the Ambulance Service. When the coalition lost government in 1995 the numbers of ambulance officers were fewer than in 1988 when it came to office. Every year there was some fluctuation but the reality was a slippery slide down, with fewer ambulance officers. Honourable members opposite can check those figures from the Ambulance Service.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Two reports were commissioned under the previous Government in conjunction with the Ambulance Service and its union. Both those reports recommended that at least 100 new ambulance officers should be recruited to bring the service up to scratch. Yet the former Government did absolutely nothing.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government has listened to the Ambulance Service and the community. It is the Government’s commitment to increase the number of ambulance officers by an extra 100 over the first term of government. On coming to office the Government realised that there was a lack of ambulance officers.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government has started a comprehensive review in the Hunter. It has identified the problem and has solved it. This year the Government will provide an extra 100 ambulance officers on top of the extra provided last year. More than $5 million will be allocated this year to provide more ambulance officers. One member of the Opposition actually knows what is going on, and that is the honourable member for Maitland. I should like to quote what he said in this House on 18 June. He said:

I congratulate the Minister for Health on his announcement that 47 additional ambulance officers will be employed in the Hunter. I applaud his prompt action to give relief to the Hunter.

I thank him very much. He also said:

I have been critical of the lack of action by the Health Minister and also by the former Government in relation to ambulance station staffing.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for Maitland for his consistency in standing up for ambulance officers in the Hunter and for his honesty in congratulating the Government on its actions, as opposed to the Opposition, who tried to pretend that its failures will not be forgotten. They will be remembered for a long time.


Page 3371

Mr SULLIVAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. With regard to the teachers’ strike, what are the details of the New South Wales Teachers Federation 10-point plan and the Government’s response?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ku-ring-gai will refrain from speaking.

Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member for Wollongong is a former teacher, well known for his concern about matters educational, in particular, in the Wollongong area. It has been my pleasure to visit a number of schools in his electorate and to note the concern he has for the teachers, students and schools. The 10-point plan that has been referred to in the media over the past couple of days is essentially the same plan that was put to the Government several months ago. It was a sham then; it remains a sham now. The plan was supposedly put forward by the federation on a confidential basis. The leadership of the federation is now shouting from the rooftops claims that the Government has rejected the plan outright. This is untrue.

The plan contains nothing new. The Government itself put forward many of its proposals. In fact, five of the 10 points are contained in the department’s own document that was submitted to the Industrial Relations Commission. The Government agrees with six of the 10 points in the federation’s plan. The crucial point is this: the plan goes nowhere near delivering the dollars required to boost teacher salaries substantially above the Government’s current unconditional offer of 7.1 per cent. Far from being a major new breakthrough offer, as has been touted by the federation’s leadership, this tired old plan is a total furphy.

The whole package that is supposed to be able to solve the current dispute would realise savings of less than 0.1 per cent. That is less than $1 a week, before tax. It is about as much as one would need to buy a newspaper each week or two postage stamps. Is this the plan that is going to deliver the salary increases teachers want? The President of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, Denis Fitzgerald, has made several statements over the past week. In particular, last Friday at an executive meeting it was decided to go on strike today and tomorrow. The president held a press conference, in which he said:

It is a 10 point plan that will guarantee industrial harmony in our public and Catholic schools till the year 2000. The plan has been rejected entirely by the Government. After a fortnight’s negotiation, the Government has not moved one inch . . . They’ve made a mockery both of the Industrial Commission’s requirement to negotiate; they’ve mocked the Industrial Commission and they’ve continued to mock the teaching profession.

This is in stark contrast to the statements made by Justice Fisher, President of the Industrial Commission, when he said only a couple of days ago that he did not believe that the Teachers Federation was negotiating in good faith. Yesterday in relation to TAFE matters I pointed out the hypocrisy of the federation leadership in relation to TAFE negotiations. I said that the president of the Teachers Federation had spiked the negotiations, pulled the plug right at the very last minute when it looked like a deal would be concluded. This morning on the Jenny Brockie program Geoff Turnbull, President of the New South Wales TAFE Teachers Association, said:

We’ve certainly been having fairly intensive negotiations in the TAFE area and I think it’s fair to say that those discussions have been held in good faith on both the part of the union negotiators and indeed the TAFE Commission negotiators. And we have arrived at a position where I think potentially there is a package there which would be acceptable to the members and of course ultimately, I must say this, any agreement that’s arrived at between the union and the Government must ultimately be put to the members for their consideration.

He went on to state:

But I think there is the potential there for an agreement and the Government has indicated there’s upwards to 13% available.

The President of the TAFE Association makes a statement in direct contradiction to the views expressed publicly by the President of the Teachers Federation, Denis Fitzgerald. I wish to refer to several items in the 10-point plan. The first point was the implementation of a sabbatical leave scheme. I am sure that the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai would be able to tell everyone in this House that that was a crucial part of the Labor Party’s education policy platform leading up to the election last year. In opposition the Labor Party offered sabbatical leave; there is nothing new in it. This is being touted as being one of 10 points of the Teachers Federation that will solve the problems and yet this was plucked out of the Labor Party’s education policy platform. The scheme put forward by the Government will allow teachers to take one year’s paid sabbatical leave for professional development after having saved a portion of their previous four years salary for this purpose. It is a great idea but it does not save much money.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport will refrain from interjecting.

Mr AQUILINA: I am happy for whatever support the Minister for Transport wants to give me, or anyone else in the Chamber, for that matter. Obviously the truth hurts because Opposition members are sitting there like stunned mullets. At lunchtime today I addressed a group of high school students who were with the New South Wales School Students Constitutional Legal Convention. I was more impressed by the intelligent, perceptive questions and comments of those students than I have been by contributions of members opposite.

Mr Collins: On a point of order. This incredibly boring Minister is soliciting interjections. He has to beg for interjections to try to liven up his
Page 3372
incredibly dead performance.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Obviously the truth hurts. The Opposition knows it has lost the plot; it has gone hand in hand with the federation leadership and it knows it has been led up the garden path. The early voluntary retirement scheme provides for early retirement of teachers and their replacement by new junior teachers. The Government agrees that this scheme will help invigorate the profession with new blood, but it will cost in excess of $100 million upfront to pay for early retirement incentives. The scheme will provide no long-term savings since the new teachers will gradually rise in seniority and salary level until they are being paid the same money as that received by the teachers they replaced. Implementation of the Government’s computers in schools policy is viewed by the federation leadership as an initiative in their 10-point plan. The $177 million computers in schools initiative was a crucial part of the Labor Party’s policy platform at the last State election. The federation advanced this proposal as part of its peace package.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Other points relate to changes in teachers’ working conditions that cost money, for example, the use of advanced skills teacher allowances by teachers already at the top of the scale. In addition, the federation seeks a large incremental step at the top of the scale that will cost more than $50 million. It is now a year since the federation started its salary campaign. All the leadership has to show for its campaign is more than $700 in lost wages for each of their members and its so-called 10 point plan, five points of which are taken from the Government’s documentation to the Industrial Relations Commission. The 10-point plan will give teachers less than $1 a week and at this rate it will take teachers 14 years to recoup their salary losses. That alone shows up the sham of the federation leadership in their campaign negotiations. The federation has not had an ounce of honesty in the way it has made public its plans. The federation leadership has undertaken a deliberate campaign to mislead its members and the public. I demonstrated that yesterday with TAFE and it is also the case with schools.


Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Given that the Premier has failed to provide this House with details of Mr Gerard Carroll’s qualifications for an important position in the Public Employment Office, and given his sudden departure from office, will the Premier undertake to provide that information before he attends the Independent Commission Against Corruption tomorrow?

Mr CARR: I will provide it now. I am advised by the PEO that Mr Carroll was temporarily employed by them under section 38 of the Public Sector Management Act 1988. His employment commenced on 30 November 1995.

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

Mr CARR: He was a project officer working on a variety of tasks including research and report writing. He submitted his resignation on 8 May to take up other employment, with effect from 10 May.

Mr WOODS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. What information can the Minister give on the latest research into the bias against women in sport in rural New South Wales?

Ms HARRISON: I thank the honourable member for Clarence for his first question in this House and I congratulate him for taking an interest in sport in rural New South Wales. This Government has been pro-active in developing policies to help women participate in sport, and also to raise the profile of our top sportswomen. I am disappointed that not much time is left on the clock. This week the women in sport and recreation task force received a report by one of its members highlighting the problems faced by sportswomen in rural areas of this State. The report called "Goals for Women" was funded by the New South Wales Department for Women. I congratulate my colleague the Minister for Women, the honourable member for Penrith, on her support.

The picture painted by Dr Margaret Alston, who did the research in her role as associate director of the Centre for Rural Social Research at Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga, is not pretty. Dr Alston has compiled an exhaustive study and she is a key member of my task force in making sure that rural women have a voice. I am not going to get into media bashing, but her report shows that in 1996 the media are still light years behind in their treatment of women’s sport. Further to my comments in the House last week, Dr Alston’s report is quantitative evidence of the gender bias in media reporting that is endemic in our regional centres. Women are consumers of media: they buy newspapers, listen to the radio, and they turn on the television for the evening news. Yet the sporting achievements of their sex continue to be grossly underrepresented in the media. I am not saying that this is entirely the fault of the media. But a little more effort on the part of news editors would bring a dramatic improvement in the coverage of women’s sports in terms of quantity and quality.

Dr Alston’s report reveals some disturbing statistics on rural coverage of women’s sport. Participation rates of women in the research area show that while 40 per cent of all people who play
Page 3373
sport are women, newspapers in the winter months devoted nearly 50 per cent of their column centimetres to men’s sports. The second highest proportion of coverage was horse racing, at 27 per cent. The amount of space devoted solely to women was 5.8 per cent - much less than the horses but marginally ahead of dogs at 3.1 per cent.

On television at least women knock off the horses. While a whopping 75 per cent of TV air time was devoted to men, women came in second at nearly 14 per cent, while the horses only got about 10 per cent. On ABC regional radio, however, women were third past the post again, behind men’s sports and the races. Commercial radio in the area had the most equitable mix, with more than 50 per cent of its coverage devoted to stories featuring both sexes. I am as tired as anyone else of the media propagating stereotypes and cliches about women’s sport. Dr Alston found during her research that the old lines about women not playing football or cricket were still used by sports journalists to justify their coverage of women’s sport.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. In particular I mention the honourable member for Albury and the honourable member for Murray once again.

Ms HARRISON: The journalists tried to justify their coverage of women’s sport. I quote the report:

. . . if we had women playing tiddlywinks in bikinis on television every second night of the week people would become interested in it!

The reasons offered for the bias towards mens’ sports were as follows: they sell papers; they are popular; it is a matter of tradition and experience; and men’s sport is tougher, faster, more aggressive and therefore more entertaining. The list continued. That is just nonsense. I am not suggesting that news outlets should not cover cricket and football or any male sport, but where is the balance? Women themselves need to overcome their reluctance or their mistrust of the media. Dr Alston noted that this issue must be attended to by sports administrators in regional areas and at a State level. We need to give women’s sports the resources and the encouragement to lift their own game.

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

Ms HARRISON: While ever women’s sport administrators believe that no-one is interested in what they or their athletes do, there will not be any substantial change. We are pushing gender equity in our funding programs to help women’s sport get more resources. I would like to see more gender balance in scholarships offered by regional sport academies, and more opportunity for women to train as coaches and administrators. My department has put a number of key programs in place offering scholarships to women to train as administrators, developing the women in sport unit, the child-care program that I announced in this House last week and, of course, the task force. I will also be introducing gender equity criteria for the capital assistance program. A lot can be achieved through resources and community education. We need to help sportswomen achieve even greater results and give them the tools to help promote themselves; then the media will sit up and take notice. I expect the task force to make recommendations shortly on strategies to address this issue.


Ms MOORE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts, representing the Minister for the Environment. Given that grit blasting of ship hulls in graving docks is acknowledged worldwide as the most noxious and unacceptable source of pollution in urban areas, what action is the Environment Protection Authority taking about the commercial ship repair activity at Garden Island by Australian Defence Industries Pty Limited which is destroying the amenity of residents of Potts Point?

Mr DEBUS: I cannot spend much time answering that question for I have to give a bottle to the baby of the Minister for the Environment. In my experience the EPA takes these kinds of matters seriously. I am sure it is paying close attention to it and I will provide the honourable member with more details later.


Mr HARRISON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. What are the Government’s plans for the Armidale veterinary laboratory?

Mr AMERY: I thank the honourable member for Kiama for his timely question. Mr Speaker, I must say through you to the Premier: sir, you never told us question time would be this tough. The National Party is so dead that Gentleman Jim from Murray had to break out of his corral and Hyacinth Bucket from North Shore has asked her first question on health. What a day! I thank the honourable member for Kiama for his continued interest in animal issues and also for his involvement on the rural agricultural committee of caucus. Members will be aware that last October the Government announced that the provision of veterinary laboratory services in New South Wales would be rationalised; as part of that rationalisation the Armidale and Wagga Wagga veterinary laboratories would close; and the Government would concentrate its diagnostic services from three laboratories at Elisabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute at Camden, Wollongbar near Lismore, and Orange.

I am pleased to announce today what I believe is good news for Armidale, rural New South Wales and the northern region. The Government has reached an in principle agreement with the
Page 3374
University of New England and a private agribusiness company who intend to provide a private veterinary diagnostic service from the former government laboratory located at the University of New England campus at Armidale. Mr Bruce Chick, principal of Veterinary Health Research Pty Limited, and members of staff from the university have conducted a number of meetings with New South Wales Agriculture over the future of veterinary laboratories. Generally it has been agreed that the former veterinary laboratory building and the surrounding compound will be transferred to the University of New England after full valuations of the building and equipment have been conducted by the Valuer-General. A transfer price and period of payment will be determined once the final valuations have been completed. At the same time, New South Wales Agriculture will identify in the old animal science building appropriate laboratory and office space for staff, at an appropriate annual rental fee, to accommodate another one of the Government’s decentralisation policies, the transfer of the feeds evaluation and nutrition group from Camden, in the south-western suburbs of Sydney, to Armidale.

I hope that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands welcomes these government services to his area. When the operation of the regional veterinary laboratory site has been transferred to the UNE, a portion of the site will be leased to Veterinary Health Research Pty Limited, which will commence a private diagnostic service. This is good news for Armidale and for farmers in the region. There will be a net gain of staff at Armidale and the veterinary laboratory will remain open to be operated on a private basis. Despite all the outrageous claims and allegations from members opposite on the subject of veterinary laboratories, New South Wales has in the past, has now and will have in the future the best equipped and resourced laboratories of any State in Australia. Through the multimillion dollar facility at Camden and the veterinary laboratories at Wollongbar and Orange, New South Wales Agriculture offers a highly technical and appropriate diagnostic service to the farmers of the State.

I have instructed my department to forge closer links with rural lands protection boards officers across the State so as to increase their role in the highly efficient passive surveillance network. This strategy is consistent with both national and international trends. A review of veterinary laboratory services in Queensland carried out by the Queensland Department of Primary Industry recommended that Queensland adopt a similar strategy to that of New South Wales. The honourable member for Northern Tablelands will no doubt be pleased with today’s announcement. He has been critical of the rationalisation of veterinary laboratories. Now that his veterinary laboratory issue has been laid to rest, I am sure he will be able to devote more of his time to the speculation that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, under funding pressure from the Federal Government, may be looking at a number of centres around New South Wales.

Opposition members have been quick to attack the Government on its rationalisation. Let us see how strong they are when the Federal Government cuts funding to the CSIRO. If the CSIRO facility at Armidale goes, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands will not be talking about five, six or 10 jobs at risk; it could be 85 jobs. In contrast to the good news being offered to rural New South Wales by the Carr Government, the Federal Government continues its assault on regional New South Wales. Together with the closure of CES offices and tax offices, its sales tax rebate slug, and its cuts to universities, it is now tearing at Australia’s most significant research establishment, the CSIRO. I do not know whether it has been announced yet, but it will mean the loss of 85 jobs at the CSIRO establishment in the electorate of the honourable member for Northern Tablelands. I want to hear a lot more from him on that matter. The question must be asked: what next is coming out of Canberra?

Questions without notice concluded.


Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [3.20]: This matter is urgent because of the failure of the Carr Government to provide adequate numbers of ambulance officers, which is putting people’s lives at risk. This matter is urgent because the shortage of ambulance officers is leaving suburban areas of Sydney without emergency care. This matter is urgent because life-saving minutes are being wasted as ambulance stations are forced to answer calls from patients many kilometres away from their homes, or from where they are injured, because stations within the patients’ stations are closed or understaffed. This matter is urgent because the Carr Government has repeatedly ignored the pleas of the ambulance union for more officers, and as of today the union decided to take industrial action. This matter is urgent because work bans proposed by the ambulance union will leave football matches, thoroughbred races and other sporting events without services and result in all but urgent ambulance calls being unattended.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. I am reluctant to take a point of order, but the standing orders are quite clear. The member must establish why it is more important to debate her motion in this House than to debate another motion. It is not good enough for her to say that the motion is urgent because, and then go into the substance of the debate. She must establish why the House should listen to her motion today rather than listen to another motion that might be put before the Chair.

Ms Moore: On the point of order. That is not the basis of urgency. Urgency is about establishing that the matter a member wants to bring before the House is urgent - period! It has nothing to do with urgent motions of other members. I
Page 3375
dispute what was said by the honourable member for Londonderry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Londonderry was making the point that the honourable member for North Shore must establish why her notice of motion for urgent consideration should take precedence over the notice of the honourable member for Badgerys Creek. The member for North Shore may continue.

Mrs SKINNER: I have heard these points of order on previous occasions, therefore I have made a point of starting every sentence with the words "This matter is urgent because" -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter. The member will continue with her notice.

Mrs SKINNER: I will continue to state that this matter is urgent because so far we have heard that a woman has died because an ambulance was unable to attend. I am explaining to the House that the motion must be debated urgently so that the matters can be resolved before the House resumes and we have an opportunity to discuss at another sitting why the Government must address the provision of adequate staffing levels in the ambulance service. It is a matter of urgency because the union has resolved to take industrial action as the Government has failed to address issues it has been raising for 12 months. This matter is urgent because it is about life, death and health as opposed to the motion of which the Government member has given notice, which is not about the lives of individual patients in this State. I believe this motion should be given preference because it touches upon the lives of people within the State, for which the Government has responsibility but which it is totally ignoring. I ask that every member of this House vote to support this motion being given priority as a matter of urgency, as an indication that they care about the lives, the health and the treatment of people in this State.

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [3.24]: The motion for urgent consideration of which I have given notice condemns an attempt by an unsuccessful tenderer to thwart the action of the Government to repair hundreds of its worst-affected swimming pools built by UFI Pools and Spas. This is an urgent matter and should have priority because it is of serious concern to many of the residents of New South Wales. It is urgent because people have had their confidence in the Building Services Corporation undermined. It is urgent that this House spell out to those who are having a difficult time and who are distressed by what has happened to them -

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. When I was speaking a short while ago a point of order was taken on the basis that I was not establishing urgency.

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

Mrs Skinner: The honourable member is using exactly the same terminology as I was using, yet the point of order was supposed to be about establishing urgency. If that were the case then, it is certainly the case now. I ask that you rule that the honourable member must return to establishing the basis for urgency.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was addressing the need for urgency.

Mrs BEAMER: This matter is urgent because families in New South Wales are exceptionally distraught and are being victimised when they least need it. I seek urgency so that the matter can be clarified in this House for those who have been upset by a shoddy pool builder. It is urgent so that those in this vulnerable situation, who are now getting letters from another tenderer who lost out in the process, can have faith in the fact that the BSC is seeking to redress their problems. The House should be alerted to those activities. I seek urgency for the motion before the House for the sake of residents who are confused as to the state of play with the BSC, with other tenderers and the repair of their pools. I seek the indulgence of the House so that this matter can be given that priority.

Question - That the notice for urgent consideration of Mrs Skinner be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Ms Machin 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 Clough Mr Neilly

Page 3376
Mr Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson 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 Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson
Mr Downy Ms Allan
Mr Merton Mr Carr
Mr Small Mrs Grusovin

Question so resolved in the negative.


Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [3.36]: I move:

That this House condemn the attempted thwarting, by an unsuccessful tenderer, of the Government’s action to repair hundreds of osmosis-affected swimming pools built by UFI Pools and Spas.

I and many of my parliamentary colleagues have received representations in regard to action taken by the Government to repair hundreds of osmosis-affected UFI Pools and Spas swimming pools. I find it most disturbing that consumers who suffered at the hands of incompetent building work carried out by UFI Pools and Spas are now being exposed to additional needless concern and confusion due to propaganda generated by International Pools and Spas and other commercially related companies. These pool owners are vulnerable and upset. Their pools, which were supposed to be an asset, look disgraceful.

In mid-1994 officers of the Department of Fair Trading became aware of an emerging problem with pools built by UFI Pools and Spas. Pools manufactured by the company between March 1992 and December 1993 developed osmosis damage owing to the use of inferior materials and the adoption of improper work practices, the end result being blistering of the pools’ shell surface and the development of very unsightly black spots. As UFI Pools and Spas was a licensed pool builder at the time, owners of these pools were eligible to lodge claims for rectification work against the Building Services Corporation’s comprehensive insurance scheme. The company subsequently went into liquidation, in large measure owing to the burden of responsibility for some 600 or more defective pools.

I understand from the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women that since coming to office last year the Carr Government has embarked on a rigorous plan to ensure that all the owners of these defective pools receive help to get the pools back into order and in an as-new condition, with the unsightly marks caused by osmosis damage completely removed. Industry representatives with expertise and experience in the construction and repair of fibreglass pools provided input to specifications for repair of these pools. The Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women has assured me that a rigorous selective tendering process was developed in consultation with officers from the Independent Commission Against Corruption. An external legal firm was engaged to prepare tender and contract documents, an independent probity auditor was appointed, and a tender evaluation panel was established.

I am glad to be able to say that the tendering process for this work was completed earlier this year. Work by six different contractors began in mid-March to repair pools across New South Wales. On 12 March 1996 rectification work commenced on the pools. As at 14 June this year 54 pools have been repaired, with a further 24 classified as work in progress. Owners of pools which have been completed are satisfied with the results. Through this means this massive project is being shared by a variety of successful tenderers from different areas. They are sharing employment opportunities and other benefits equitably. In addition, the work is being completed at a faster rate than it would have been completed if it had been allotted to one company. This arrangement provides the Government with a measure of flexibility and control in overseeing the work. Should the Department of Fair Trading find some of the successful contractors performing markedly better than others it is open to it to reward that excellence and further advantage pool owners by reallocating remaining work to those contractors.

The large bulk of the families with defective UFI pools waited for several years for the former Government to pay attention to their problems. Those families will have as good as new pools by Christmas. Goodness knows how long they would have had to wait if the former Government was still in office. Despite the care taken to ensure that the rectification process was above board and fair to all players, an unsuccessful tenderer has been doing his utmost to destabilise the process in order to promote his own method of pool repairs. This unsuccessful tenderer, International Pools Australia Pty Limited, is a licensee to Britannia Eurospace and specialises in a repair process called Nu-Shell. This recently evolved technology involves bursting osmosis bubbles by striking them with a hammer. The International Pools factory makes pool-liner shells in original pool moulds which are then transported to the site, in most cases a residential home in a residential street. The pool is lifted over the house by a large crane and placed inside the original
Page 3377
empty pool.

International Pools is now using the Nu-Shell technology to repair its own pools which have developed osmosis. The maximum potential exposure for International Pools is 751 pools, of which only 251 currently require attention - according to International Pools. On 22 March 1996 this company stated that it had 150 pools in need of repair in New South Wales. At that time it had repaired only around 35 of its own pools in almost 15 months - all believed to be of one size and shape. Kevin Kahler of International Pools and other commercially related companies has been conducting a guerilla style campaign against the Government because he thinks International Pools should be given the job of repairing all pools in New South Wales affected by osmosis. Mr Kahler has been making wild allegations about the Government’s tendering process and he has been causing unnecessary distress to former UFI customers whose pools are on the repair list. He has not even finished repairing half the pools that he needs to repair, but he is prepared to take on the whole of the State’s repair program.

International Pools has its own share of problems with some 200 complaints having been recorded against its name in the period that Mr Kahler has been director. Those 200 complaints do not relate only to osmosis-affected pools. Not surprisingly, nowhere in Mr Kahler’s snowstorm of propaganda has he volunteered a date for the completion of the UFI repair project. The Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women informed me that she will be writing to those members of the House who have made representations to her regarding the process adopted by the department in the repair of these pools. It is important that pool owners follow the process adopted by the department in the repair of these pools. They should not be concerned or alarmed by the scare campaign instigated by International Pools and other commercially related companies.

This Government has a commitment to repair these pools once and for all. This rectification project amounts to the largest single payout under the former Building Services Corporation insurance scheme. The total bill to make good the hundreds of damaged pools is likely to exceed $8.2 million. It is a project to which this Government has given priority. People who are disturbed about their pools having this osmosis problem now have an assurance that the Government is acting on their behalf. The tendering process which has been gone through has led to a solution to this problem. People can get on with their lives without worrying about extremely unsightly pools in their backyards. They can be confident in a process which has made available to them the best people to fulfil the obligations of the Building Services Corporation. Their pools will be repaired.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [3.46]: I have a great interest in the matter raised by the honourable member for Badgerys Creek. I agree with a lot of what she said concerning the distress that this problem has caused hundreds of consumers throughout New South Wales and Queensland. I believe that the same companies that have been trading in New South Wales have been trading in Queensland. This problem has been experienced in both States. Two companies have had failures with pool surfaces for slightly different reasons, but both have ended up with similar problems. Both UFI pools and International Pools have experienced manufacturing problems. In 1994, at a time I was the Minister responsible for the Building Services Corporation, I became aware of these problems. I was greatly concerned about this widespread problem concerning UFI pools. At that time the viability of the company was very much in doubt.

The former Government was anxious to keep that company in business, and it approached the Building Services Corporation to broker some sort of deal to enable the company to stay in business and undertake repair work on the pools of those many consumers. I am also aware of the lobbying and representations made by International Pools and Mr Kevin Kahler. I first became aware of that earlier this year when I was contacted by a local pool manufacturer in Port Macquarie who asked me to witness how this Nu-Shell process was being used. Basically, a pool, which is shrunk to a size smaller than the original pool, is placed inside the affected pool after the blisters have been broken - a matter referred to by the honourable member for Badgerys Creek. The pool is then pop-riveted into place and tiles are laid around the top of it to conceal the rivets. It is a very efficient process. I was impressed with the way in which it was done and I was impressed with the cleanliness of the process. A pool can then be filled with water on the same day.

I am not interested in buying into a commercial dispute. Mr Kahler has been vigorous in trying to get the department to consider his process and the department has been vigorous in trying to stop him. I have many constituents in my electorate who have affected pools, as does my colleague the honourable member for Myall Lakes, who will speak later in debate on behalf of one of his constituents. We want the best possible outcome for consumers who have badly damaged pools. I have with me some photographs, which I obviously cannot table, which show the extensive and quite ugly black spotting right across the surface of these defective pools. The Building Services Corporation called for tenders and accepted a grinding back and respraying process. Some concern has been expressed about that process. In fairness to consumers, we must reassess that process. Mr Kahler made a few interesting points in his lobbying attempts. Some of the correspondence from the Building Services Corporation last year stated:

The corporation (must) ensure that all pools are rectified using the most appropriate and best available method (and)

Page 3378
that the rectification options proposed to pool owners are the best solutions currently available for the problem.

The corporation is committed to exploring all avenues to ensure that (all complaints) obtain the best possible long term solution to (the) pool problem with a minimum disruption.

The corporation (must) ensure that the (repair) process is carefully and properly evaluated as the need to use the most appropriate and best available method is of paramount importance.

The central issue is: what is the best available method? Mr Kahler is arguing that he has a superior method. The Building Services Corporation is arguing that he was an unsuccessful tenderer, he is now creating mischief and he should go away. The proceedings that have taken place in the court system are interesting. International Pools has attempted to contact a number of consumers who have UFI pools that have failed, in order to alert them to an alternative remedy and to make known to them some rights that were not made known to them by the Building Services Corporation. One matter of serious concern to me was raised during the estimates committee proceedings just two weeks ago. When the BSC contacted these consumers to tell them that their pools would be rectified, it did not mention that the consumers had the right to appeal to the Commercial Tribunal against the BSC decision. It is standard procedure that the BSC will let consumers know of that appeal right when the BSC makes a decision. Consequently, the affected consumers accepted that that was the only offer made and only avenue available to them. Later they were advised of their right to appeal to the Commercial Tribunal. About 49 of them have done so, and their cases are still before the tribunal.

The Building Services Corporation has sought to block those appeals before the Commercial Tribunal. On 10 May an ex parte injunction was granted in favour of the BSC, prohibiting International Pools from writing to osmosis-affected swimming pool owners. Four days later the judge discharged the injunction as he found that the BSC had failed to make full disclosure to the court of all relevant matters on 10 May. His honour adjourned the matter to 16 May to afford the opportunity to contest the BSC application for an injunction. I think that application was unsuccessful, but I am not sure. The point is that the BSC attempted to obtain an injunction to stop consumers being advised of their appeal rights or alternative processes. The BSC took legal action to prevent consumers getting that information.

Members of the Government have been very critical of the BSC and I would be surprised if they would stand in this place and defend that action of the corporation, which apparently had deliberately failed to advise consumers that they had a right of appeal against a decision on a matter as significant as a swimming pool, which involves a significant investment for most consumers. I would be surprised also if Government members defended the actions of the BSC in denying aggrieved consumers access to an alternative procedure. I have here a letter that deals with the relative merits of those two processes. The issue really is about the quality of the rectification work and the best possible outcome for consumers whose pools have been affected by osmosis. This letter, from Ms Lovelace of Lake Illawarra to a person at the Department of Fair Trading, refers to a pool that had been built and states:

Mrs Gibson’s pool looks like a pool which has been clearly repaired - it does not look like a new pool. The walls of the repaired pool have an "orange peel" effect finish which is noticeable to the eye and also to the touch. The floor of the pool appears to be more of a "rockmelon" finish, with some ripples clearly visible. The floor is also marked with "spider web" marks in the shallow end and the deep end of the pool appears to have different marks.

For members who are interested, I have photographs sent to me showing quite significant cracks and rough surfaces after the pools had been rectified. Though I have an impartial interest in this matter, it seems from the evidence of consumers and photographs that they have supplied that considerable doubt is cast over the process that was pushed so vigorously by the Building Services Corporation. Another matter of concern relates to the environmental impact of the repair process. There is concern about the need to cover the pool. The process being promoted by the BSC involves a fairly messy grinding back of the pool, and a lot of dust being created in the process.

A number of consumers, and some councils I understand, have expressed concern about containment of dust pollution resulting from the grinding back of pools. The process takes much longer than the system under which a replacement pool is positioned inside an affected pool. I have a letter from Campbelltown City Council, whose officers have inspected a number of Glenfield pools that were repaired by a company known as Armaglaze Pty Limited, presumably a company that tendered for work through the BSC. The letter says, amongst other things:

This inspection revealed that no air pollution controls were in place, despite Council advising the company in writing prior to the work that those controls recommended by the New South Wales EPA be installed. Consequently, styrene odours could be detected beyond the property boundary. The rear yard also contained evidence of fibreglass dust on plants, fences and other structures, suggesting minimum controls were used during the grinding process. Council has written to both Mr Davis of the Department of Fair Trading and Armaglaze, advising of Council’s concerns and requiring any future work to be conducted within New South Wales EPA guidelines.

That also is of concern. The final point I make in the last couple of minutes available to me relates to the longevity of the respray process. I am aware of one consumer whose pool was repaired by the grind back and respray process, but the spots have come through the repaired work again. In some earlier information I was advised that the BSC would not guarantee reinsurance if the problem recurred. I should like to know if that is so. I am now told that
Page 3379
five pools have been repaired using the process recommended by the Building Services Corporation and that in each instance the repair has failed.

This matter has not been handled particularly well. I am not concerned with whether there has been a commercial dispute. The issue is whether the process being pushed, apparently vigorously, by the BSC will last or whether more consumers will become aware that this spotting will reappear in their pools. If a better method is available, why is the BSC so vigorously opposed to that better method, given that its own expert, who looked at the problem that recurred after rectification, agreed that the Nu-Shell process is superior. That process is slightly more expensive - an extra expenditure of a couple of thousand of dollars on a pool. There are two problems. Consumers were not told of the alternative repair method or of their rights to appeal. [Time expired.]

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [3.56]: As the honourable member for Port Macquarie said at the beginning of her address, this is a matter that has caused a great deal of stress for pool owners. A swimming pool is a significant investment for many New South Wales residents. What has happened in the UFI case has caused a lot of heartache. This Government is committed to ensuring that defective UFI pools are rectified by the most effective and efficient method available - a method which least disrupts home and pool owners. The method used by the Department of Fair Trading to repair osmosis-affected pools was developed in consultation with a wide range of industry representatives, including the large pool suppliers. There was a review of previous methods that had been used for this type of work over many years. Input was provided also by an officer of the Environment Protection Authority, a matter to which the honourable member for Port Macquarie alluded.

The rectification method proposed by the industry representatives was reviewed by Professor George of the Queensland University of Technology. He was engaged by the Department of Fair Trading as an independent expert in fibreglass. Professor George supported the method of rectification which was developed under the industry consultative process. He refined the specifications and introduced certain quality control measures. Claims have been made that pools repaired using those specifications have already failed. The honourable member for Port Macquarie provided some material to support those claims.

Whilst on the one hand there have been comments about the rectification process and the level of dissatisfaction with that process, on the other hand a large number of people have come forward and told the Department of Fair Trading that they are quite satisfied with the process used. They have said that the process has been successful in treating osmosis and other problems that occurred with their swimming pools. They have informed the department that the system achieved good results. I take this opportunity to respond to some of the remarks of pool owners relayed to the House by the honourable member for Port Macquarie. I do so by reference to some of the favourable reports from home owners whose problems have already been repaired under the department’s specifications and the rectification process that was settled on. One consumer told the department in a letter of 29 April:

The appointed contractor completed the job in a workmanlike manner and created the minimum of mess and disruption to our property. We are pleased to say that we are delighted with the end result.

Another pool owner, in correspondence dated 29 April addressed to the department, said:

With the Department of Fair Trading calling every couple of days to view the contractor’s work and with a team of workers that took every aspect of their work with the highest standards, I can happily say I have absolutely no reservations of recommending this process to anyone.

A further letter from a consumer, dated 29 May, stated:

Although I am not too familiar with fibreglass construction techniques, I was very impressed with the workmanship and final product. I found Ken Greenwood and his staff to be informative, unobtrusive and courteous. Contrary to the correspondence I have received from International Pools, I consider I now have a far superior product than was originally supplied and what little mess resulted was contained and properly removed.

It is of great concern that attempts by International Pools to thwart the repair project of the Department of Fair Trading has resulted in distress to consumers, adversely affecting pool contractors and delaying rectification works. It is clear that International Pools is blatantly attempting to discredit the Government’s comprehensive rectification process in a bid to promote its own repair method. The Government’s concern is that consumers are caught in the middle of this nonsense and that International Pools is simply trying to unsettle those consumers to promote its own business. The Minister for Fair Trading will not waiver in her resolve to have this rectification process implemented and to see that justice is done for owners of defective pools. [Time expired.]

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [4.01]: Like my colleague the honourable member for Port Macquarie, I class this as a commercial matter and as such I do not wish to be seen to be favouring one contractor over another. This debate is about choice. The consumer advocate’s champion is Choice magazine and people who have had their UFI pools damaged by osmosis want to have a choice. It is curious that the Building Services Corporation has adopted an attitude of trying to thwart people from peddling their wares within the consumer’s marketplace. It is astounding that injunctive proceedings were taken against a person who sought the right to repair swimming pools. The injunction was sought to stop that company writing to people with damaged pools. This is a unique situation where a consumer organisation is
Page 3380
trying to injunct a builder or person in the marketplace from peddling his wares, and that is of concern.

The BSC was unsuccessful in that case. Costs in the amount of $40,000 were awarded against it and those costs would be borne by the public purse. A number of constituents have made representations to me seeking to have the right of choice. I would not know whether one process was better than another, though the process appears to be simply putting a skin inside the pool - and, provided the skin is satisfactory, it would solve the problem universally. People should be allowed to have that choice if they so wish. I received a letter from a constituent who lives in Krambach, who said:

We have received correspondence regarding a rectification process called Nu-Shell. The process appears to be superior to the one which the BSC proposes to use in the repair of our pool.

My constituents have made an objective decision that that is the way they would like to go. They have asked 10 questions about the way the BSC assessed one method to be superior. I have forwarded those questions to the Minister. One question relates to the fact that the BSC’s own expert, Professor Graham George, and Professor John Hakin, found the BSC’s method to be inferior to the Nu-Shell process. That raises significant questions about why this person has not been able to go into the marketplace and actively seek work on the repairs.

The Minister, in what I assume to be a form letter sent out to UFI owners who had osmosis- affected pools, stated that problems such as dust pollution, odour, et cetera, were insignificant because of the equipment and the procedures followed. In the Campbelltown area a pool has been repaired by another method and this has not been carried out in an environmentally sensitive way without odours and dust polluting the air. There is some conflict between what the Minister has said to my constituents and what is happening with the alternative method that the BSC has determined shall be used. I understand a contractor in Berry has been approved by the BSC to use a grinding back method which has failed. However, that contractor is still receiving further jobs from the BSC to carry out repair work by the grinding back method. I do not know which method is the best, but parties are entitled to be given a choice.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [4.06]: This matter is very disturbing, particularly given the demographics of my electorate. My constituents do not start out life with a pool; they scrimp and save until later in life they have saved enough to make that investment. Pools provide a great form of recreation for children and for family entertaining. It is of concern that those who have been sold a dud and who ended up with a poor surface in their pool have been further aggrieved by the actions of International Pools because of fairly aggressive lobbying campaigns against the process initiated by the Department of Fair Trading.

The department rang up people who had purchased UFI pools and offered to compensate them by resurfacing their pools. They had not lodged claims for a defective pool surface with the department and for that reason obviously they were not advised of their rights before the Commercial Tribunal. That explains the situation highlighted by the honourable member for Port Macquarie. The Government’s objective was to have all the UFI pools fixed in a proper, timely and professional manner, with the minimum amount of disturbance to the consumer.

The initial group of defective pools were located predominantly in the Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle and central coast regions. Further work groups have been allocated to additional affected areas such as Kempsey, Taree, south coast and Hunter regions. I have been advised that consumers in regions that had not been exposed to the emotive propaganda generated by International Pools and its commercially related colleagues have been totally satisfied with the approach taken by the Department of Fair Trading to have their pools repaired. I am advised that there are not five complaints before the department, as highlighted by the honourable member for Port Macquarie. In fact, the department has not received the kind of complaints she has highlighted.

A number of honourable members would be aware that some consumers are confused and concerned by the 10-year warranty period International Pools is providing to its consumers where osmosis-affected pools have been restored by the Nu-Shell process. This confusion stems from the fact that the insurance cover of the Department of Fair Trading is available for three years in regard to general defects and seven years for major structural defects. It must not be forgotten that UFI pools had formerly offered a 10-year warranty for the work that it carried out. However, this warranty was largely not worth the paper it was written on when the company went into liquidation.

Consumers would have been left in the lurch except for the existence of the department’s comprehensive insurance scheme and their efforts to contact the owners of UFI Pools. In usual circumstances consumers lodging insurance claims are obliged to provide three competitive quotations in support of their claim. However, the Government, in an endeavour to assist consumers as fully as possible, simplified this process for them. The action that was taken by the Department of Fair Trading was to develop a specification, develop tender and contract documents, and engage the contractors to undertake the rectification work. All of these steps were designed to remove the responsibility and the hassle of getting pools repaired from the consumer back to the department. Despite the efforts of International Pools to undermine the Department of Fair Trading’s rectification process, the department is clearly
Page 3381
succeeding in its objectives - proof of this being that within just three short months 54 consumers are already able to enjoy a professionally rebuilt pool which is osmosis free.

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [4.11], in reply: It is clear from all contributions by honourable members that there is a great deal of concern at the plight of consumers who have found themselves with defective pools. These consumers have invested in an activity for their outdoor living area and have been left with what they and the Building Services Corporation consider to be a disgrace. The project to repair these pools has been a very large one from the point of view of the Building Services Corporation. An amount of $8.2 million is expected to be spent because of the problems with UFI pools. This is a huge amount of money for the Government to provide. To facilitate a solution to this problem the BSC sought expert advice in construction repair. The BSC then developed a rigorous selective tendering process with consultants from the Independent Commission Against Corruption and with an external legal firm. Contract documents were prepared and six contractors were awarded contracts to repair pools.

The honourable member for Port Macquarie asked a pertinent question: "Will the repair work be guaranteed?" Work done by a licensed builder in this State is guaranteed for a further three years if the repairs are subject to building insurance. In this case the BSC employed licensed repairers, so that any work not carried out to specifications is subject to building insurance for a further three years. These consumers have been exposed to an horrendous experience, and a big investment has gone horribly wrong for them. They have been subject to confusion by one of the tenderers who missed out on being part of the BSC project to rectify the problems.

The licensed builder who lost the tender, instead of accepting that he did not win it, tried to stop the work by saying that he did not like the process of the corporation employing construction repair experts. Basically it is a case of sour grapes on his part. He was saying, "I should have done it, I think I am a lot better," and it is his right to think that. He scared vulnerable consumers. They are frustrated because what was to be a beautiful acquisition for their home has turned into an unsightly mess. He has undermined the confidence of consumers although experts have agreed that the proper and correct thing to do is to repair those pools. He has several hundreds of complaints against him for faulty pool building, and the BSC in its wisdom in evaluating the tenders might not have found his process favourable.

Up until this point the consumers had been very pleased at the Government’s action. A massive amount of $8.2 million is paid out in insurance so that consumers in New South Wales who feel they have been ripped off with an eyesore rather than a beautiful addition can have their repair work done in the most prompt, efficient, cost-effective manner with the least concern to them. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.


Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [4.16]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance a problem for small business owners in New South Wales. The matter was brought to my attention by the honourable member for Swansea on behalf of her constituent, Miss Lyn Valair, and I thank the honourable member for her interest for bringing this matter to my attention. Miss Valair owns a small hairdressing salon in Swansea where she sometimes commits the heinous crime of turning on the radio as a pleasant background for herself and her clients. Recently she received an extraordinary letter from Australasian Performing Right Association Limited - APRA - informing her that she is not entitled to pursue this wicked activity unless she pays a licence fee to them for the privilege. We are not talking about performances but about people who are being asked to pay a licence fee to turn on the radio as a background to their work.

Governments are often criticised for allowing bureaucratic regulations, requirements and Government-imposed levies and charges to proliferate and strangle small businesses. This measure is one of them. Indeed, it is a proud hallmark of the Carr Government that it has taken a sharp axe to any red tape that impedes the growth of small businesses in New South Wales. Small business is the engine room of employment growth and general prosperity. As the Premier has said on many occasions, this Government will make New South Wales the best business address in the nation and in the region. One of my actions as Minister has been to change the name of my department from consumer affairs to fair trading, though I notice that some Opposition members - I do not include the honourable member for Port Macquarie - still cling to the old buzz words. That is the best they can do. The name change was important.

As Minister for Fair Trading I have made a point of conveying as clearly and as often as possible the message that I am here to promote a commercial environment in New South Wales which is as fair as possible. We want all parties to transactions to deal with one another fairly. I will continue to champion the cause of consumers but I enthusiastically include small business in that description. Businesses are also consumers of the goods and services of other businesses. If they are dealt with unfairly they will find a friend in me and the Carr Government. The proof of this pudding is already in the eating for New South Wales small
Page 3382
businesses. Only yesterday the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing informed the House about the tremendous savings to be delivered by the Carr Government in water charges with 50 per cent reductions over the next few years.

We have seen massive savings in electricity charges to business as a result of the Government’s reforms. In my portfolio we have succeeded, despite the strenuous efforts of honourable members opposite, in lifting the yoke of the Law Society’s monopoly on conveyancing services from the backs of business people. Huge savings will result from real competition over the next few years that will arise from the downgrading in conveyancing fees for residential home transactions. It was an appalling anomaly that a conveyancer could do the conveyancing for a $7 million mansion but not for an $8,000 lawn mowing business at the end of the street.

Ms Machin: On a point of order. The Opposition is happy at any time to debate the other matters the Minister is raising, but she has raised the issue of possible licence fees or charges on small businesses playing radio music. She should return to that topic.

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

Mrs LO PO’: In my time as Minister for Fair Trading I have rarely seen anything as unfair and as downright absurd as the demand made upon Ms Valair by APRA. I believe she is only one of hundreds of business owners throughout the State who recently received similar letters of demand. No-one, especially me, disputes the right of musicians and performers to be paid royalties for the use of their works and recordings. A person running a business such as a dance club which uses recorded works of others clearly has an obligation to pay the fairly determined licence fee for that work. But that is not the issue. The Government is not saying that performers or musicians should be cheated of royalties, but when a song is played by a radio station, the station has already paid a licence fee and the royalties on that song. The idea that a hairdresser, a mechanic, a cafe owner, a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker should pay again for the privilege of listening to a free-to-air radio broadcast is absurd. It is bureaucratic nonsense at its worst - ironically from a non-government organisation.

I am aware that under the Commonwealth Copyright Act 1968 there is copyright in both original works such as compact disks, movies and videos, and in actual broadcasts from radio and television stations. I am also aware that it is an infringement of copyright to perform or broadcast material subject to copyright in a public place. This legislation requires to be reviewed as I am not at all sure that was the intention of the Act when it was introduced in 1968. The Act speaks of broadcasting and performing works in a public place. I contend that playing a radio is receiving a broadcast. To include this in the definition of copyright is ludicrous.

As I understand it, the Act makes no reference to receiving a broadcast. The Australasian Performing Right Association Limited claims to be looking after the rights of musicians and composers. These rights should be protected, but how would APRA know which station a small business proprietor, and presumably its customers, was listening to and which songs were being played? How would APRA know who was entitled to such royalties? On a Saturday afternoon, for example, shopkeepers may turn on the radio to listen to the races, the dogs, football or talk-back radio. Those programs do not include a single performance. Where is the fairness in that? It is a nonsense. As I said, even if shopkeepers were playing music, it would be difficult to know which customers were listening to which songs. Therefore, to which composers and authors would APRA send the money? APRA claims to be a non-profit copyright collecting society which collects and distributes fees to its members who are composers and music publishers. How do they distribute the fees? What equitable provisions are in place to ensure that the particular musician or performer receives his or her just reward? These questions need to be answered.

Today I am writing to the Federal Attorney- General, Mr Williams, to take up this matter urgently and if necessary amend the Federal Copyright Act. Small businesses surely have the right to turn on the radio in their places of business without the threat of another cost burden hanging over them. I call on the Federal Government to defend small business, on whom it expends so much empty rhetoric. I challenge the Howard Government to match the real gains and genuine support for small business that the Carr Government has delivered in just one year in office. There is nothing fair about this impost on hundreds of shops and workplaces throughout New South Wales. It is unfair trading at its worst.

Ms MACHIN (Port Macquarie) [4.24]: Like the Minister, I have been aware of this issue for the past couple of weeks. I first heard about it on radio and read about it in the media. In one newspaper article that I read I saw a salutary photographic illustration depicting shops in Oxford Street with the notation:

The sounds of shopping. Kara Lingerie plays rock radio station Triple J. Robby Ingham Men plays George Michael CD. Mischa plays Cruel Sea CD. Delta on Oxford plays rock radio station 2 Day FM. Paddington Pears plays talk radio station 2UE.

That is five shops in a row listening to three different radios stations and two different compact discs. As a result of APRA’s actions there was talk of trying to enforce licence fees on those shops of up to $54 - a $36 annual licence fee if the radio is playing or $54.25 if the shops are playing CDs or tapes. I raise the question: how much will it cost to
Page 3383
police this system? It would be an extraordinary cumbersome job. Honourable members can imagine music police finding out who is playing what and slamming some sort of penalty notice on them. My colleague the honourable member for Wakehurst told me that his wife, who works as a part-time doctor, received a notice from APRA in her surgery at work. Apparently it was quite intimidatory. I have not been able to get a copy of it but basically it appeared to be some sort of official government documentation requiring people to pay a fee and if they refused, some inspector would come barging through the door and possibly fine them a significant sum. That is threatening and also very unfair.

The licence fee apparently has always been applied, but it would seem to be more observed in the breach than observance. As I understand it, public performances have copyright attached and that includes music being played over radio stations in places such as hairdressing shops. One test case was that of a salesman playing the radio over stereo speakers in a showroom; that was successfully prosecuted by APRA. I was surprised at the large amount of money APRA collects on behalf of its members. The figure I have been provided with is $48 million a year, and presumably that is the national figure. The honourable member for Swansea nods her head. She obviously has the same information. That is an astonishing amount of money. I would have thought APRA would go backwards in trying to collect fees from hairdressers, local fruit shops and similar businesses. Surely the effort would not be worth the expense.

The broader issue of copyright has been touched on. As recently as last week Professor Fels from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission reported on the issue of the prices of CDs. I have been very disappointed that Australians pay far more for their CDs and music than they cost in other countries. The former Federal Government whimped a bit on this issue: it had close ties with the entertainment industry and was subject to pressure from that industry to maintain those prices. In looking at this whole issue of copyright and royalties, it was interested to find how little went to the song writer and the performer. On average a CD costs about $35 or $40. I cannot afford to buy too many. Of that, something like $8 went to the record or distribution company. The entertainer received about $2 and the writer received a dollar. It is shameful that only a small proportion of the funding goes to the performers.

I would like to think they might get a better cut out of the funding that APRA is collecting. The Minister raised some reasonable questions in terms of how and to whom the money is distributed. I often think that the best known performers and those most creative are the ones who get the least. That is similar to the lot of farmers, who produce the goods but get the lowest price. The people in the middle get extra. The Federal Government ought to examine this issue. Our copyright laws, as they relate to this aspect, are fairly cumbersome. It is important to protect creative property and intellectual property, but to start policing the local grocer shop is taking it to extremes. As the Minister said, the Australasian Performing Right Association is the collecting society. It represents most of the music recording artists on release in Australia and presumably Australasia.

The current law states that the right to broadcast in public is a right owned by the copyright holder and not the retailer who is unlicensed for copyright. In other words, copyright rests with the performer and not the local shop playing the music. However, that approach is flawed on a number of grounds, one of which is the ridiculous notion of policing small businesses. Another is the point made by the Minister that fees already have been paid to both the station and the artist. It is a double dip which looks like a revenue collecting exercise on behalf of APRA. I am disappointed with the way in which APRA has addressed this issue. If what my colleague the honourable member for Wakehurst tells me is correct, a slight deception is involved. He advised me about a letter sent to his wife at her place of work. It was presented in such a way that it caused concern to those who worked there. Their first reaction was: "This is some sort of official letter. We have to do this. We have no choice."

In strict terms, I suppose they do not have a choice. Hence the law appears illogical and therefore deserves to be reviewed. In the case of my colleague’s wife and her staff, they paid the money, believing they were under an obligation to do so. They were nervous about the notion of someone knocking down the door to collect money. The Opposition and the Government are in agreement on this issue. I hope that the Federal Government will take up this matter. I am sure nobody wants to short-change any of the performers, but APRA is collecting a fair amount. Performers have not received a great amount of funding from APRA because rights have not been pursued. In one of its newsletters, APRA stated:

Over the past 12 months APRA has embarked on a vigorous programme of infringement actions throughout Australia, including the two major actions in Queensland and New South Wales which resulted in appeals to the Full Court of the Federal Court in late 1990.

Obviously APRA has gone the whole way and has fought fairly hard. The newsletter continued:

Eight other matters have been settled at the door of the Court or part way through the hearings. In all cases, a favourable result was obtained for APRA.

I am not sure how many of those cases involved local grocers or hairdressers, but I suspect they would not have the funding or the desire to fight APRA in court. It was obviously an expensive exercise, and I am not sure who the beneficiary was. APRA is trying to make a point. I suspect there would be a fair amount of public sympathy for
Page 3384
APRA acting legitimately on behalf of performers it represents, but it would be farcical for APRA to try to police every little shop in every shopping centre in every town and suburb in New South Wales. Such effort would not be worthwhile, would not be in the interests of performers, and would be another burden on small businesses. This overly restrictive law needs to be reviewed. I trust the Federal Government will take this request in good faith.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [4.33]: I would like to thank Lyn Valaire of the Bridge Salon in Swansea for bringing this matter to my attention. Like the honourable member for Port Macquarie I was unaware of APRA and the role it played prior to Lyn Valaire coming to see me. I heard what she told me with great disbelief. I considered that it was a sham, or that bogus collectors were trying to take advantage of small businesses. So I referred the matter to the Minister and was surprised when I was informed that legally APRA was able to collect a $38.20 per annum licence fee from businesses such as Lyn Valaire’s salon where a radio or a television is played.

How many establishments play radios or televisions? As the honourable member for Port Macquarie pointed out, doctors’ surgeries invariably have televisions operating, and radios play in hairdressing salons and barber shops. Electrical businesses that sell televisions and radios have a number of radios playing as part of the operation of their business to sell such goods. As was previously pointed out, radio stations already pay a fee. It is double dipping for small businesses to have to also pay a fee. It is most unfair that a fee is paid twice for playing the same music. The Phonographic Performance Company of Australia issues licence fees at $56.20 per annum for the use of cassettes and compact discs.

If one does not possess a licence one is liable for prosecution. Nowadays businesses play recorded music, bells or radio stations on their telephone systems, which also attracts a licence fee of $38.20. How many businesses are aware of such a fee? How many people would be needed to police such a licensing system? I rang the Copyright Council and was advised that organisations that play a radio station on their telephone system are liable to pay the licence fee. Some $48 million a year is a lot of money to collect. It costs $5 million to administer this non-profit making organisation. This matter needs to be reviewed urgently.

Mrs Valaire is just one person within the Swansea electorate who has been affected by this licence fee. Her salon is not on the main street, but in an arcade in a side street. The inspector who attended her salon would have had to seek it out. I can envisage staff of APRA poring over telephone books, picking out the addresses of hairdressing salons and doctors surgeries, then calling on them with their intimidatory letter, together with the form to be filled in to obtain the licence. I congratulate the Minister on taking up this matter and thank her on Mrs Valaire’s behalf. The Federal Government should act to remove this impost on small business as a matter of urgency. This licensing system is operating in a way that was never intended. The Federal Government should rectify this matter immediately.

Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [4.38], in reply: This is one of the very rare occasions in this House of consensus from both sides. That consensus is indicative of the nature of the problem. Everything the honourable member for Port Macquarie said is correct. We all find abhorrent the fact that small business people are asked to pay for a licence for a service that is already paid for. The Federal Attorney-General should realise that people are receiving a performance. Nothing in the documentation of the Australian Performing Right Association acknowledges that people are receiving a performance, though it does refer to broadcasting. Why should mechanics in a mechanic’s shop - which certainly comes under the ambit of APRA - have to pay for a licence if while they are on their backs working under a semitrailer the radio is on and they are listening to a talkback program? Would anybody in his right mind suggest that a licence was needed for that?

APRA is aggressive. As the honourable member for Port Macquarie and the honourable member for Swansea said, the association takes the aggressive approach of sending letters stating "APRA may forthwith determine the licence by written notice sent to the applicant" and then requests payment within 30 days. I dispute the fact that APRA is entitled to a licence fee and I will pursue with the Attorney-General the question about receiving a broadcast. I doubt that APRA has thought about this; somebody has taken the view that this idea, which has been around since 1968, is a very good way to earn money.

If a barber turns on the radio to listen to the races, why should APRA be entitled to ask for a fee? There is no performance, other than the racing commentary? However the association believes that it has a right duty to take money from that small proprietor. Today I have written to the Attorney-General asking him to define "receiving a broadcast". I contend that receiving a broadcast for one’s own enjoyment and receiving a broadcast for the enjoyment of one’s clients is exactly the same thing. I do not know how APRA has the audacity to suggest receiving a broadcast should in any way incur a licence fee.

I thank the honourable member for Port Macquarie. Honourable members have picked up the same vibes from our communities. Small business people have contacted my office this morning, as have people who listened to the John Laws’ program today. Service station proprietors, who probably use the radio to listen to traffic patterns in the area and pass that information on to motorists, have contacted my office. They will be stung with paying for a licence. It is time the Federal Government got into gear and recognised
Page 3385
that this practice is doing more harm than good. It is time it recognised that people are receiving a broadcast, not broadcasting a broadcast. I will pursue the matter on behalf of the Government and also on behalf of the Opposition.

Discussion concluded.


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

AJC Principal Club Bill

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [4.44]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

A key commitment in Labor’s corrections policy for the 1995 election was the diversion, wherever possible, of minor offenders from gaol. Labor recognised that imprisonment is an expensive and highly punitive sentencing option. There is clear consensus in the community that full-time imprisonment should be reserved for those who represent a threat to public safety or who have committed crimes meriting the harshest of sanctions. The majority of offenders are not in this category and are far better dealt with through various community-based options. The Home Detention Bill is designed to establish home detention as one such sentencing option which is an alternative to full-time imprisonment.

Home detention accords with Labor’s corrections policy which promised to promote alternatives to full-time custody and thus achieve diversion of non-violent offenders from correctional centres. Home detention has been proven overseas and in Australian trials to be a humane and relatively low-cost custodial option. Particular categories of vulnerable offender can be given a last chance to avoid the rigours of full-time imprisonment without compromising community safety or the deterrent aims of the sentence. Home detention is not a soft option. It places severe constraints on the liberty of offenders by subjecting them to intensive supervision and electronic surveillance. It means offenders who pose little threat of violence can be held in the community at a cost well below that of imprisonment.

The increase in the inmate population since 1988 demands greater cost-effectiveness in the use of resources. Experience overseas and interstate has shown that home detention can help achieve greater cost effectiveness by diverting suitable offenders from full-time imprisonment. For substantially less than the cost of full-time imprisonment, home detention can provide an appropriate level of punishment while increasing the likelihood of rehabilitation. Home detention has been trialled in New South Wales since June 1992 under the title "Intensive Community Supervision" - ICS - using existing legislation, section 558 of the Crimes Act 1900. The scheme has been positively evaluated, but suffered from the failure of the previous Government to give it a solid legislative base.

The Government is satisfied that a home detention scheme can divert offenders from full-time imprisonment, exert sufficient control over offenders to minimise the risk of their re-offending while under supervision, and generate savings through reduced imprisonment costs. The bill provides a specific legislative base for home detention and enables the scheme to be progressively introduced throughout New South Wales. It provides that an offender must be sentenced to a term of full-time imprisonment before a court can request that the offender be assessed for suitability for home detention. I now wish to outline the main clauses in the bill.

Clause 5 establishes home detention as an alternative to full-time imprisonment for a sentence of up to 18 months for suitable offenders. Clause 6 specifies offences for which a home detention order cannot be made. Offences which are specifically excluded include: murder; manslaughter; armed robbery; any offence involving the use of a firearm; sexual assault of adults or children; and sexual offences involving children. Clause 7 provides that home detention is not available to offenders who have at any time been convicted of any of the following offences: murder; attempted murder; manslaughter; sexual assault of adults or children; a sexual offence involving a child; or offences specified in the regulations. Offenders who have within the previous five years been convicted of a domestic violence offence or against whom an apprehended violence order has been made for the protection of a person with whom the offender intends to reside are also excluded from consideration for home detention.

Other circumstances which preclude the making of a home detention order are set out in clause 8. These circumstances include the requirement that an offender and any persons with whom the offender will reside must consent in writing to the making of the order. The combined effect of clauses 6, 7, and 8 will be to exclude immediately any person who, because of the seriousness of their offence or the nature of their criminal history, may present a threat to the safety of the community. Clauses 9 and 10 introduce a further screen to exclude inappropriate offenders from home detention. Clause 9 requires the court to refer any offender who the court is considering for home detention for assessment as to his or her suitability for home detention. This clause also provides for a stay of execution of the sentence during the period of assessment.

Page 3386

The assessment for home detention will be undertaken by the Probation and Parole Service of the Department of Corrective Services. The assessment criteria are contained in clause 10. Essential factors for consideration will be: the likely effects of home detention on the offender and any person who will reside with the offender; whether the other residents understand and agree to conform to the requirements of the home detention order; and whether the offender can be adequately monitored at that address. Clause 11 provides for the court to consider the assessment report before making a home detention order. If the report states that the offender is suitable for home detention, and the court agrees with the report, the court will make a home detention order. If, following consideration of the contents of a favourable report, the court is itself not satisfied that the offender is suitable for home detention, the sentence of imprisonment will be carried out.

Likewise, if the assessment report states that the offender is not suitable for home detention the sentence of imprisonment will be carried out. Clause 12 requires an offender to sign an undertaking to meet the requirements of the home detention order and clause 13 describes the conditions of the order. Home detainees will be subject to a high level of initial supervision and monitoring by a supervisor who will be a probation and parole officer. Monitoring will occur via a combination of electronic means, telephone contact and personal visits. The checks on the offender will be random with the frequency determined by the type of offence and the offender’s circumstances, for example, whether the offender is working. An offender serving a sentence by way of home detention will be confined to his or her home. The offender will be able to leave the home for purposes approved by the supervisor.

Circumstances which would be approved for absence from home would include continuation of employment, seeking employment, attendance at a rehabilitation course, visits to a doctor and undertaking community work. The times for such absences from the home would be specified by the supervisor. As with inmate classification, home detention provides opportunities to achieve staged reduction in the stringency of security measures and commensurate increases in privileges as an incentive for a positive response to the program. Clauses 14 to 20 set out the steps to be taken should an offender breach the conditions of his or her home detention order. The Parole Board will have the authority to revoke a home detention order and direct that the offender serve the remainder of his or her sentence in full-time custody. The provisions parallel those followed in relation to a breach of a parole order. Clause 21 provides that offenders with a minimum and additional term will proceed to parole at the end of the minimum term under the same conditions as they would have had they been in full-time custody. An offender’s eligibility for parole is covered in clause 22.

Clause 23 provides that a court sentencing an offender for another offence may revoke an existing home detention order. In such a circumstance the remainder of the initial sentence would be served in full-time imprisonment. Clause 24 provides for the service of notices on the offender and clause 25 allows regulations to be made to assist in the execution of the Act. A requirement to review the policy objectives of the Act is contained in clause 27. That concludes what I wish to say about specific clauses in the bill. Before commending the bill to the House I want to emphasise the benefits which this bill delivers. The bill gives a legislative base to home detention. The bill provides a new sentencing option which will divert suitable offenders from full-time imprisonment. The bill contains screening mechanisms to protect the community. The bill provides a new and effective form of rehabilitation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Chikarovski.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.55]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced in the Legislative Council on 29 May 1996 and the second reading speech appears at pages 1 to 3 of the Hansard proof of that day. This bill is in the same form as the bill introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Chikarovski.


Suspension of standing orders, by leave, agreed to.

Debate resumed from 19 June.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [4.56]: I lead for the Opposition on the Water Amendment (Charges) Bill. The Opposition is extremely disappointed that the Government introduced this legislation only yesterday. The Government has abused the parliamentary process and ignored the traditional five-day rule which gives the Opposition an opportunity to examine this legislation in detail. I have not had as much time as I would have liked to examine the detail of this bill. However, this relatively simple piece of legislation, which has been a long time in coming, is necessary because of the incompetence of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I say that quite deliberately
Page 3387
because last year the Minister announced that he would be introducing a certain number of water charges. I had my suspicions at the time that charges that related to unregulated rivers were illegal - that there was no legal basis for them.

The Minister was questioned about this matter by Mr G. Donovan from the New South Wales Irrigators Council. The Minister was asked on what basis he was introducing a new water management charge for users diverting water from unregulated rivers. The Minister said in response that the charge would apply under section 17A(2) of part 2 of the Water Act, which allows for the conditions of licences to be modified. Anyone wanting to introduce a charge which involves the payment of funds must be able to do so within the confines of a section of the Water Act, namely, section 22C which, at this stage, applies only to regulated rivers. Clearly, section 17A(2) of part 2 of the Water Act does not provide that opportunity; it relates only to the conditions of licences to be modified.

It is the view of the Irrigators Council and the Opposition that these charges for unregulated rivers which were introduced by the Government in August last year were basically illegal and had no legislative basis. I have referred to that matter on a number of occasions and have included it in press releases that I have issued. The Minister has been forced to concede his incompetence. This legislation will enable him to introduce these water charges. As I have said, the Opposition is unhappy with the short notice that it has been given to develop its position on the legislation. This legislation is necessary because the Minister has not done his homework. The Government, on page 8 of a document entitled "Labor’s Water Protection Plan - March 1995", stated:

Rural water pricing will be made subject to the Government Pricing Tribunal.

Subsequently the Government referred the issue to what was then the Government Pricing Tribunal, now the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, for an assessment of all issues relating to rural water pricing. The terms of reference of that inquiry are interesting. I quote from the document advertising the final terms of reference of the review of bulk water services. The tribunal was required to investigate and report on:

1. general principles for cost allocation and pricing of water services provided by the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation, where water services include bulk surface and subterranean water supply, asset management and refurbishment, regulatory and resource management activities (including licensing and metering);

2. the cost of providing the services and the need for efficiency in the supply of the services;

3. a proposed sharing of costs between different users and other beneficiaries of services;

4. the evaluation of alternative pricing structures for water services, having regard to regional differences, impacts on user groups, and economic, environmental, social and regional development impacts;

My point in noting those issues is that all of them are critical to the way in which water charges and prices will be administered in future, not only in terms of quantum of price increases but, more importantly, in terms of equity, transparency and accountability. The Opposition therefore believes that it is appropriate that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal should be allowed to complete its report. I understand that completion of the report is not all that far off.

Mr Yeadon: That is right.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister indicates that the tribunal is about to complete its report. It has done a lot of work on this matter, and has been to the country and received many submissions. It would be appropriate for the whole issue of water pricing to be addressed after the tribunal brings down its findings. Therefore the Opposition regards this legislation as premature for it pre-empts the findings of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The coalition is concerned that the Government is going ahead at a time when it ought to wait for the recommendation of the tribunal on the terms of reference to which I have referred, affecting equity as well as the size, nature and cost burden to be charged among various water users in New South Wales. As far as the Opposition is concerned, bringing forward this legislation before the tribunal has handed down its findings is a cause for concern. It may well be that the Opposition would want to change the basis of water charges to users on unregulated rivers as a result of equity issues, cost issues, and resource allocation issues that will be raised by the tribunal.

These issues are inherently complex. I have a background in economics and realise that the allocation and pricing of water is, as with any common resource, quite a complex matter for governments to deal with. It was appropriate that the Government instituted an inquiry in relation to this complex issue - not only to try to come to a reasoned basis for charging for water in rural New South Wales but also to satisfy the concerns that the principal objective of equity between various water users is met, so that people can be happy that they are not being charged something for a service that someone further down a river or creek is receiving free of cost. The Opposition believes it would have been much more desirable for the Government to have waited for the tribunal to bring down its findings.

The Opposition is concerned, despite a promise made by the then Leader of the Opposition a couple of days before the election in March 1995 that the Government would not increase taxes and charges or introduce new taxes and charges, that this bill is the legislative backing for a new water charge for unregulated rivers. The Minister promised not to introduce new taxes and charges. However one looks at this, the fact of the matter is that millions of dollars will be raised from this particular tax. That money will be raised from the rural community, at a time when rural industry is
Page 3388
doing things tough. I make the point that this legislation represents yet another broken promise by the Government.

Mr Yeadon: No it does not. It is not a new tax; it is a cost recovery measure.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister said he would not introduce any new taxes or charges. This is a new charge. If it were not a new charge, the Minister would not be introducing legislation to legitimise a new charge. Let us get the facts right. For the reasons I have indicated, the Opposition is most concerned about this legislation. As I have already said, it is being brought in because the Minister wanted to introduce the charge but found that he did not have the necessary legislative backing under section 22C to do that. He said at the time that the justification for the charge would be under section 17(2) of part 2 of the Water Act. The Minister, having discovered that he does not have the legitimacy that he needs, resorts to this legislation to legitimise charges on unregulated water users. So the Opposition will be opposing the legislation. We will oppose it because we think the tribunal will have a lot to say about this complex issue.

Mr Yeadon: What if the tribunal endorses it?

Mr D. L. PAGE: If the tribunal endorses it, so be it. That will not be known until the tribunal brings down its findings. The only reason the Government wants to bring this measure forward is to enable it to start issuing accounts. I am grateful that the Minister reminds me of something I had almost forgotten. The Minister said that he was going to send out his bills last year. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation, a member of the Labor Party, well knows that his party is more than happy to play politics with rural New South Wales. Coincidentally, the Minister has had several attempts to issue these water charges in relation to unregulated rivers and every time he has been told that he cannot because he does not have the necessary legislative backing. The Minister eventually was convinced by the bureaucrats on that question. I agree there is legislative backing for the water management fee of $135.

Mr Yeadon: Not for unregulated rivers.

Mr D. L. PAGE: No, not for unregulated rivers. But the Water Act has provision to introduce ground water charges. In relation to unregulated rivers, clearly there is not legislative backing for a charge or fee, otherwise the Minister would not be introducing this legislation. When the Minister decided to send out his accounts he must have issued an interesting directive to his department. I have before me a memorandum signed by a senior departmental officer headed "Administration - Billing - Water Resource Management Directorate". The issue is identified as "Water Management Charges 1995-96 Billing". Under the subheading "Background" is this statement:

The Minister has approved that issue of invoices for the 1995/96 Water Management Charges commence in March 1996. The proposed dates for the forwarding of those invoices are: regulated flow users, by 5th March 1996 but not before 2nd March 1996.

I wonder why the Government would not want to increase the price of water before 2 March. The answer is obvious; there was a Federal election on 2 March.

Mr Yeadon: I didn’t even notice.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister says he did not notice. I doubt that anyone in New South Wales believes this Minister most of the time, but they certainly would not believe him about this crass political instruction. The Government was to increase water charges on 5 March; it would not do it before 2 March because of the Federal election and the trouble Paul Keating was in. Labor wanted to hold a few country seats in New South Wales and its chances would have been damaged if word got out that water charges were to rise. The Minister cannot get the legislative backing for his water charges on unregulated rivers and is prepared to play politics -

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order. The honourable member is referring to a document or a memo he purports to have in his possession. I ask that he table the document.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The member will identify the document from which he is quoting.

Mrs Chikarovski: On the point of order. The member is entitled to refer to it and identify it to the House. He is not entitled to table it.

Mr Yeadon: On the point of order. The honourable member has not identified the document adequately. He has just indicated that it is a memo, and other than that I have no further information on it. It could well be a fabrication.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. The member for Ballina will identify the document; he does not have to table it.

Mr D. L. PAGE: I am more than happy to identify the document. I will photocopy it and the Minister can have it. My only request is that he does not go and stab the person who signed it on the bottom because it did not come from him. It is entitled "Department of Land and Water Conservation" and is headed "Administration - Billing - Water Resource Management Directorate" and there is a reference at the top "HO".

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! That is sufficient identification.

Mr D. L. PAGE: I assure the Minister that it is signed and dated 9 February 1996. I will be more than happy to make a copy of the document available to the Minister. It clearly indicates that the Labor Party was prepared to play politics with the issuing of water charges right across-the-board, in particular in relation to regulated flow users. I am indebted to the Minister for making that
Page 3389
interjection because I had almost forgotten about that matter. The Minister announced that there would be water charges for regulated, unregulated and ground water users. He published documents about the charges for unregulated flows, which is what we are concentrating on here.

At present no charge is made for stock and domestic use, but those users will now pay $125 a year; a range of different charges will apply for irrigation and town and industry use; and a general category for intensive management areas is mentioned. None of these charges on unregulated rivers had any legal basis, yet the Minister seeks the support of the House to correct his incompetence. This matter should wait until the tribunal brings down its important findings, which will deal with issues of equity and how cost recovery ought to be implemented. For those reasons, and because this is yet another broken promise of the Labor Government that said it would not increase taxes and charges - this is a new charge - the Opposition will oppose the legislation.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [5.14]: I speak in support of the bill. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation referred to regulated and unregulated rivers. Although this terminology may not be familiar to honourable members, we are certainly aware of many of the rivers to which the terms apply. Most of the westerly flowing rivers in the State have their supply regulated by large dams. Burrinjuck and Blowering dams supply the Murrumbidgee River system, which in turn supplies the huge Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Hume Dam near Albury provides supplies to the Murray River. Burrendong and Copeton dams are also well known. There are a number of other dams of western rivers, which ensure storage of water so that cropping and agricultural pursuits can continue on a sustained basis.

The irrigators on those river systems pay annual charges, which help defray the costs of the Department of Land and Water Conservation in its various activities involved with running those rivers. Less publicised are the rivers that do not have State-owned storages or regulating weirs controlling their flows. However, all except three of the coastal rivers of the State are unregulated. The tributaries and headwater streams of the regulated rivers, some of which are quite large, are also unregulated. Finally, the Darling River from near the Queensland border down to Menindee Lakes is classified as unregulated.

The sharing of the water on those rivers is equally as important as the sharing of the water on regulated rivers. In fact, with the enormous expansion of cropping, in particular cotton and commercial crops along the Darling River and the Menindee Lakes areas, this is an important agricultural industry but it increasingly puts pressure on the water supply in those rivers. Anyone who has followed the news or has travelled to the Darling River area in the past few years would have to be blind not to have seen the impact of overuse of water in the upstream segments and the impact of that on downstream users and upon the environment.

This Government has taken action to recover the cost of supplying water on a user-pays basis, and that is not before time. The Minister is also interested in ensuring the long-term viability of our river systems and has outlined activities carried out by the department. He has emphasised the inequity that now exists where the holders of licences on regulated rivers are required to pay annual charges, but licence holders on other rivers are not. He mentioned also that the department has the capability to charge bore water users as well.

These factors present a strong case for extension of the department’s ability to levy annual charges to the holders of licences on unregulated rivers. However, it is also important to note that it is not intended that stock and domestic water users will be charged. Turning to the role of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal - IPART - members will be aware of its important role under its former name of the Government Pricing Tribunal. It has carried out reviews of pricing structures and the level of charges of large organisations, such as Sydney Water Corporation and the Hunter Water Corporation. It brings to bear a strong expertise in water industry pricing matters.

For some months, the tribunal has been carrying out a similar review of the water pricing structure of the Department of Land and Water Conservation and has held hearings in rural centres as part of its inquiry process. The tribunal has sought community views and has used that information to determine its approach and advice to the Minister. The tribunal’s terms of reference extend to unregulated rivers. This will enable it to look at the full range of the department’s water-related activities and to recommend to the Government what it considers to be appropriate charging areas and level of charges in that full context. I am sure honourable members will appreciate the significance and importance of the tribunal’s involvement. Honourable members will acknowledge also the importance of its advice on the equitable charging of water users on regulated rivers and along unregulated rivers. I support the bill.

Mr O’FARRELL (Northcott) [5.19]: I speak on the Water Amendment (Charges) Bill because, like many people across this State, I am vitally interested in the issue of water and the price paid for it. It is a well-known fact of physics that the larger you are, the less water you use, so I speak with that in mind. The object of this bill is to enable charges to be imposed for the taking and use of water in accordance with a water entitlement under the Water Act 1912 in the case of any river or lake where the State manages the sharing and use
Page 3390
of water. There can be no better example of the failure of this Government to follow proper process than the reason for this bill. The Minister announced publicly last August or September charges relating to cost recovery for water from unregulated sources, in other words, rivers where there are no dams.

There are three sources of water: regulated, where dams exist; unregulated, where there are no dams; and ground water. The Minister announced that the middle category was to be subject to this Government’s cost recovery policy and that charges would be imposed for the use of unregulated water. It took some time for the Minister to be made aware that no such ability existed under the appropriate legislation for that charge to be levied. There was yet another attempt to raise taxes and charges by this Government but on this occasion it was not sourced in a statute of the Parliament. That is an example of this Government’s roughshod approach to process. It is an example of its failure to do its homework. It is an example of its failure to consult with those people who represent those who use water regularly and who were aware themselves of this omission. It is an indictment of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

The Minister said in his second reading speech that the purpose of charges which are to apply to the second category is to enable the partial recovery of the costs incurred in managing the allocation and use of water in unregulated rivers. On 2 April the shadow minister for land and water conservation, the honourable member for Ballina, belled this cat in a media release, which I can identify and table, in which he said:

Questions arising as to the legality of the State Government’s new water charge, casts doubt on whether Minister Yeadon is up to his job . . .

The shadow minister has never spoken a truer word. He went on to say:

The new water management charge for users diverting from unregulated rivers is under a legal cloud . . .

The existing Water Act of 1912 allows a charge to be imposed for regulated water. However, it says nothing about the second category of water, that is, water drawn from rivers where no dams exist. The Minister postponed implementation of these new water charges for all water users on several occasions since announcing it last August. As the shadow minister said, this was because he either knew at the time or suspected in April that it was illegal. In a letter to the New South Wales Irrigators Council on 20 February the Minister said he was introducing a new water management charge for users diverting water from unregulated rivers under Section 17A(2) of part 2 of the Water Act, which allows for the condition of licences to be modified. The Opposition’s advice at that time was that it was a new water charge on unregulated rivers which could not apply under this section which deals with the modification of licensed conditions. It was clearly identified by the shadow minister as a rort. I am pleased that the shadow minister has forced the Minister to bring this issue to the Parliament by way of this legislation. I support the shadow Minister’s position on this legislation.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.25]: This legislation will place extra charges on licensed pumpers who take water from unregulated rivers. There are huge costs involved in the supply of water, but when people in the rural sector are hurting it is not the time to impose new charges on them. An additional charge was previously applied for water taken from regulated rivers, but this legislation refers to water from unregulated rivers. The best thing the Government could do would be to provide upriver storage in order to regulate river flows, thereby allowing growers to produce food and other commodities.

Another area of cost relates to the trust system that operates whereby a number of people pump from the one pump site, providing water for dams, for domestic use, and for firefighting. Those charges will rise from between $60 and $120 to $3,500 because each person who pumps from that site will have to pay the same costs. I know that people have opposed that levy in the Land and Environment Court, as is their right. This week I heard of a case of a farmer at Koraleigh, in the Western Lands Division, who is expected to pay something like $700 for two pump sites that cover a few square metres. Why should these people not be upset?

Without doubt the Government must be able to set charges for the administration of water facilities, and for the development of new water services. However, I believe that the boot is being put into the irrigators and the farmers all the time. I cannot support this bill. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation should consult with the water users and allow them to put forward their ideas. The Government should be examining all catchment areas east and west of all the unregulated rivers to see where storage can be developed. I am sure most irrigators would welcome a Government initiative to provide more water storages, knowing that they would have security of water supply through regulated streams. Under those circumstances they would be happy to pay for the water. But by this measure the Government is now charging $80 or $250, depending on the amount of water that a farmer is licensed to take.

There is much that the Government can do by way of water management. Water is an important commodity; it is not a luxury. It is wrong for a government to impose high charges for a naturally occurring commodity. However, if the Government was prepared to develop storages, thereby ensuring supply in time of drought and during the drier periods of the year, I am sure it would get great support from all water users. I cannot support this amendment to the Water Act. Consultation with water users should take place to produce a measure
Page 3391
for the long-term benefit of water users. I oppose the bill.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [5.30], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Opposition has said that it will oppose the amendment. This issue was first raised at a Council of Australian Governments forum. During the previous Government’s first term of office it agreed in a COAG forum that all governments within Australia would move towards a cost recovery of bulk rural water by the year 2001. The coalition parties agreed initially but they did not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with it. The Labor Government inherited a natural resources mess from the rabble opposite that it must clean up and that is what it is doing. The COAG agreement was signed by the previous Government when it was in office. Let us stop the rhetoric and nonsense about taxes and charges. This measure is about cost recovery.

It was claimed by the Opposition that there is no ability under the Act to levy charges for unregulated rivers. My advice from the Department of Land and Water Conservation is that those charges can be levied under the existing provisions of the Water Act 1912. Many irrigators and others believe that is not the case and they have made it clear that they will contest the issue in the courts. The Government does not want people spending money on litigation and therefore it has decided to introduce this amendment to put the matter beyond doubt. The intention of the Government to move towards cost recovery for bulk rural water, which incudes unregulated rivers, has been made clear to affected participants and interest groups.

It has been on the agenda since September last year when the Government announced its water reform policy. The Government indicated that it would put in place a range of interim charges on all areas of rural water pending an investigation and report by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The Opposition, and in particular the honourable member for Ballina, placed considerable emphasis on IPART’s role and the independent umpire. The Government agrees with that, and that is why the issue was referred to IPART. It was made clear in September last year that because New South Wales lags so far behind other States in cost recovery of bulk rural water it was vital while IPART investigated the matter to put in place interim charges and that is what the Government has done.

The honourable member for Ballina and the Opposition have placed enormous weight on IPART. If I understand him correctly, and I am sure I do, the honourable member for Ballina indicated that if IPART endorsed these interim increases the Government would have a sound basis upon which to move forward. Opposition members placed considerable weight on the fact that if IPART indicates that it is in agreement with these interim charges as a first step towards moving towards cost recovery and in particular in relation to unregulated rivers, the Opposition would endorse the Government’s actions. That is clearly what the honourable member for Ballina has put on the record today.

Mr D. L. Page: Do not verbal me. The Minister is putting the cart before the horse.

Mr YEADON: What the honourable member said will be in Hansard. He spent considerable time on that subject and said that if IPART endorses the interim charges and those charges on unregulated rivers the Opposition will agree to them. I look forward to the release of that report. If it endorses those interim charges on unregulated rivers, the Government will be looking to Opposition members to stay true to their word for once. One of the other issues raised by the Opposition was the delay in bills being forwarded to water users. I acknowledge that the Government has not forwarded those bills. The honourable member for Ballina was waving around a memorandum that referred to March 1996. He has provided me with a copy but all I can say is that no bills have been issued and it is beyond March, so that puts that issue to bed.

The reason the bills were not forwarded goes to the heart of what the honourable member for Murray said, that people are experiencing difficulties in rural New South Wales. That is acknowledged by the Government. The other issue raised by irrigators and other water users was that many, if not most of them, had budgeted for the year when the Government announced the interim charges in September last year. As a result of consultation with the water users it was agreed that the bills would not be forwarded until July to give people an opportunity to deal with their financial difficulties. I acknowledge also that it will be administratively cheaper for the Government to send out those bills in July.

The Government has listened to the community and taken note of what it said. The Government endorsed the community’s comments and will send out bills in July, by which time the report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will be available. If the report indicates that the action taken by the Government was appropriate, I will look forward to the support of the Opposition in relation to interim charges. The amendment will ensure that there is no doubt about charging for unregulated rivers. As I indicated at the outset, the department advised me it has the ability to charge under the Act, but some people dispute that and have made it clear that they want to take court action. I do not want people to spend good money on what will be an inevitable proposition. Therefore it is responsible of the Government to put that issue beyond doubt and amend the Act as proposed. In reply to honourable members opposite, no charge will be levied on stock and domestic licences. I commend the bill to the House.

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


Page 3392
The House divided.

Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson 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 Woods
Mr McBride Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Armstrong Mr D. L. Page
Mr Beck Mr Peacocke
Mr Blackmore Mr Phillips
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Collins Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Glachan Mr Small
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Ms Machin Tellers,
Mr O’Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O’Farrell Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Cruickshank
Mr Carr Mr Debnam
Mrs Grusovin Mr Merton

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.



Mr DEBUS: I wish to give further detail on a question asked of me earlier today by the honourable member for Bligh in relation to the operation of grit blasting of ship hulls at Australian Defence Industry premises at Garden Island. I note this is the third question the honourable member for Bligh has asked of an environment Minister since the Government came to power, which means she has now asked as many questions on environmental issues as the whole Opposition combined.

Mr Hazzard: Killer!

Mr DEBUS: I don’t think it’s a killer but it is interesting. ADI operates the dry docks at Garden Island servicing the navy and some commercial shipping. With the relocation of 50 per cent of the naval fleet to Western Australia, ADI is endeavouring to attract more commercial ships to its enterprise. Local residents have complained about noise and dust and the prospect of such pollution increasing. The dockyard is on Commonwealth land and while both the navy and ADI generally cooperate with the Environment Protection Authority, for defence-related activity there is no legal obligation for them to do so. Commercial work, however, may not be exempt and this is at present being clarified through the Environment Protection Authority and ADI legal services.

The Environment Protection Authority has persuaded the navy and ADI to make many environmental improvements at Garden Island and has recently requested the phasing out of grit blasting - which is noisy and dusty - in favour of hydroblasting and improved waste water treatment facilities. Those actions together should result in a major improvement and assuage future complaints. The matter raises the whole issue of the ability of the State Environment Protection Authority to regulate Commonwealth facilities which are currently immune from this State’s environmental laws. I understand the Minister for the Environment, who is presently in Perth attending a meeting of all State and Commonwealth environment Ministers, intends to argue for this State in the future to have greater power to regulate Commonwealth facilities.


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to postpone the taking

Page 3393
of private members’ statements to permit the consideration of the Legislative Council’s amendments in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and the resumption of the adjourned second reading debate on the Crimes Amendment (Children’s Evidence) Bill and the Children (Community Service Orders) Amendment (Maximum Hours) Bill.


Consideration of the Legislative Council’s amendment.

Page 34, Schedule 1, lines 12-14. Omit all words on those lines.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the Committee agree to the Legislative Council’s amendment.

Legislative Council’s amendment agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.54], in reply: I indicate in advance that the Government opposes the amendments proposed by the Opposition.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.57], by leave: I move Opposition amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in globo:

Page 5, Schedule 1[2], lines 32-35. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(7) This section does not apply to a child:

(a) who is the accused or defendant in any of the proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c), or

(b) who is or was accused of committing the offence that gave rise to proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(d).

Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 7. Omit "in the Children’s Court".

Page 6, Schedule 1[2], lines 8 and 9. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) This section applies to a child in any of the following proceedings:

(a) proceedings in which it is alleged that the child has committed a personal assault offence, and

(b) proceedings in relation to a complaint for an apprehended violence order against the child, and

(c) civil proceedings arising from the commission of a personal assault offence by the child, and

(d) proceedings before the Victim’s Compensation Tribunal arising from the commission of a personal assault offence by the child.

Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 10. Insert "or tribunal" after "court".

Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 14. Insert "or tribunal" after "court".

Page 6, Schedule 1[2], line 23. Insert "or tribunal" after "court".

Page 9, Schedule 1[5], lines 7-8. Omit "an accused child in the Children’s Court, the court". Insert instead "a child to whom section 405DA applies, the court or tribunal".

Page 11, Schedule 1[6]. Insert after line 4:

(2) In any criminal proceedings in which the evidence of a child is given by means of closed-circuit television facilities or any other similar technology (by virtue of section 405DA), the Judge must warn the jury not to draw any inference adverse to the accused person or give the evidence any greater or lesser weight because of the use of those facilities or that technology.

The Opposition believes that the proposed amendments would provide more consistency in the bill between children who are witnesses and children who are accused. We are concerned that without these amendments the children who are accused will get privileges which as accused they should not have. The sad fact of the matter is that children are charged and convicted of the most serious crimes on the statutes. The Opposition believes there should be a strong presumption that those matters are dealt with in a way where children are required to face their accusers, particularly when they are charged with serious crimes. For those reasons and for consistency, the Opposition has moved these amendments. I indicate the Opposition will not be dividing in this House on these amendments. The matter will be taken up in the other House.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.58]: The amendments proposed by the Opposition would have the effect of removing the presumption in favour of the use of closed-circuit television - CCTV - for all child defendants in courts other than the Children’s Court. The Opposition is proposing that CCTV only be available to child defendants in the Children’s Court and other courts where the court is satisfied that the child may suffer mental or emotional harm if required to give evidence in the ordinary way, or that the facts may be better ascertained if the child’s evidence is given in this way. In South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory, CCTV is used by child defendants as well as other child witnesses.

The Australian Law Reform Commission is of
Page 3394
the view that no distinction should be drawn between cases in which the child is merely a witness and those where the child is a defendant, as the benefits of reducing the stress on children involved in court proceedings are the same whatever the capacity in which the child is involved. The children’s evidence task force was of the view that like other child witnesses, child defendants in courts other than the Children’s Court may feel intimidated at the prospect of giving evidence in the formal atmosphere of a courtroom and that this could affect the quality of their evidence. The task force felt that there was no reason why an accused child should be denied the benefit of CCTV, as it was likely that these children would suffer the same difficulties as other child witnesses.

The Government is of the view that there should be a general presumption in favour of child defendants in higher courts having the benefit of CCTV. The Government is of the view, however, that because other procedures are in place in the Children’s Court to safeguard the interests of child defendants appearing in that court, child defendants in the Children’s Court should not have an automatic right to use CCTV. The Government opposes the amendments.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [6.00]: The Opposition is concerned about this issue because a number of children who fall into the 16-year-old to 18-year-old category are charged in senior courts. Those children should be required to face those courts in exactly the same way as adults do. They should be treated as adults in those courts. That is why the Opposition moved the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

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


Debate resumed from 19 June.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [6.02]: I support the Children (Community Service Orders) Amendment (Maximum Hours) Bill which has as its object to increase the maximum number of hours of community service work that a person who is of or above the age of 16 may be required to perform. That maximum number of hours is to be increased from 100 to 250. We must provide sufficient alternatives to custody for our juveniles. When I first became a member of Parliament I joined the backbench committee on correction and juvenile justice.

Mr Hazzard: And was that an experience!

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: It certainly was. Part of my role as a member of that backbench committee was to visit a number of juvenile justice centres. I commend the people who work in those centres for the work that they do. However, I realise that it is difficult at any time to deal with young people who are incarcerated. Clearly, young people who have committed serious offences need to be placed into centres like that. Young people should serve any sentence that is imposed upon them to the satisfaction of the community. However, the community recognises that it is not a good thing to place too many young people into juvenile justice centres as it is likely in the long term to lead to them graduating to senior correctional centres. That is something that the community is keen to avoid.

This bill has been introduced as a result of the work carried out by the Standing Committee on Social Issues and as a result of a green paper entitled "Future Directions for Juvenile Justice in New South Wales" issued by the previous Government, and a white paper entitled "New Directions for Juvenile Justice in New South Wales" issued in November 1994. As a result of the work of the committee, and because of the views expressed about both that green and white paper, this legislation has been introduced. Today we are considering a juvenile justice system underpinned by certain principles. The Standing Committee on Social Issues identified that prevention, diversion and reintegration should be the key principles on which we operate.

The Opposition is supporting the bill today for those reasons. A number of people involved in this area have said that if we keep our young people out of juvenile justice centres and provide them with alternatives we will divert them from a life of crime. People in this House and people in the community are keen to see that occur. However, juveniles must understand that they are being given a second chance. If they are given a community service order they must make restitution for the crime that they have committed and not be left to think that they have "gotten off". I hope this legislation will give them the incentive to stay out of gaol and away from a life of crime. Magistrates in the Children’s Court have expressed concern about the fact that the present limit of a maximum of 100 hours of community service is not sufficient to send the strongest possible message to these young juveniles.

The Opposition hopes that a maximum of 250 hours of community service will ensure that juveniles who have committed serious crimes recognise that they are required to serve that sentence. They must be made aware of the fact that a community service order is not a lighter sentence. Concern has been expressed about the fact that they are seen as lighter sentences. Properly supervised and administered community service orders provide a benefit to the community and to young offenders. These community service orders have been in operation over a long period. One of the concerns
Page 3395
which the Opposition has - a concern that was raised in the other place by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe - is that juveniles must be adequately supervised. Resources must be provided by the department to ensure that juveniles abide by community service orders.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe has already sought an undertaking from the Minister to ensure that community service orders are properly administered. The Minister has been asked to provide to the Parliament a report which establishes that people who have been given community service orders have complied with them. That is an appropriate question to ask of the Minister and it is appropriate to ask the Parliament to ensure that this system is working properly. Reference has also been made in the other House to the resources required to ensure the proper and adequate supervision of juveniles in the community. I ask the Minister for Local Government, who is in the Chamber, to assure all honourable members that resources will be made available for that purpose.

As I mentioned earlier, we must try to keep young people out of juvenile justice centres to avoid what has been seen for a long time as the almost inevitable progression from juvenile justice centres to correctional centres. One of the benefits of this community service system is that young people will obtain some training and education which will leave them with a sense of responsibility. Properly supervised and administered community service orders will act as a circuit breaker and ensure that young people no longer indulge in a life of crime.

I commenced by saying that I have visited a number of juvenile justice centres. Anyone who has been to one of those centres would be saddened to see how young some of the juveniles are and to learn how long they have been in those centres. That is an issue that our community must come to terms with. The increase in the number and types of crimes that young people commit has led to much discussion in the community about issues such as violence on film and television, and generally among young people when dealing with each other. We need to address those issues too. I think part of the solution lies in trying to prevent young people from becoming so caught up in a life of crime that that becomes their way of life as youths and as adults. We must ensure that these young people stay out of juvenile justice centres.

Juveniles who fail to discharge community service orders will be required to enter juvenile justice centres to complete the term that becomes part of their sentence in that event. I know that the community generally is seeking harsher penalties for young and adult offenders. We must be conscious of the need to balance penalties with rehabilitation. The community must be satisfied with the way in which young offenders as well as adult offenders are dealt with. This legislation will give magistrates flexibility in a system that is governed by the principles of prevention, diversion and re-integration. The bill as it stands at the moment provides that sort of flexibility, permitting young offenders above the age of 14 years to be given sentences of longer community service orders.

I hope that this measure means that fewer young people will enter juvenile justice centres and, more importantly, do not progress to the prison system generally. The Opposition is supportive of the bill and acknowledges the support that it has received from a number of groups that have been consulted about it, including the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council and Children’s Courts magistrates, past and present. As a person particularly conscious of the needs of the prison population at large, through my new role as shadow Minister, I must say that if this sort of measure can keep young people out of that general prison system then I personally will support it, as will the Opposition.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.12], in reply: On behalf of the Government, I thank the honourable member for Lane Cove and the Opposition for their support of this measure. I assure the honourable member that the Government will implement these measures in a proper and efficient manner to maximise the benefit of it to the young community who are the subject of this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [6.13]: I bring to the attention of the Chamber a matter which is of great importance to several small business operators who hire vehicles for use in private functions such as weddings. I have been approached personally by two such businesses in my electorate which have found it impossible to reregister perfectly roadworthy vehicles for use in their car hire businesses. The reason given for this refusal is a simple one - the vehicles in question are more than eight years old. The private hire standards annexure A, pursuant to clause 52(5) of the Passenger Transport Regulation 1990, stipulates that stretch limousines manufactured in Australia must be less than eight years old to be registered as hire vehicles.

One proprietor of a local car hire business, Ms Tanya Orlovic, spent some time in my electorate office detailing the extensive appeals she has made in her attempts to correct this anomaly. She has provided numerous photographs and mechanical reports to show that her two vehicles are not only perfectly safe and roadworthy but are also immaculately presented. Ms Orlovic has several praising references from past customers, who include customers from two recent weddings. One customer wrote:


Page 3396

The cars were well-presented and clean . . . My wife and I were very happy with the stretch limos, which were very impressive on the day of our wedding.

Another customer said in his letter:

My wife and I would like to thank you and your staff for your wonderful service and cooperation with planning our wedding day. My wife was extremely happy with your cars; they were well presented and clean, and we found your driver most valuable. My wife and I will not hesitate in recommending your cars and your service.

Those brief statements clearly indicate that the two cars in question, both locally manufactured Fords, have not passed their use-by dates in any way. Those statements also demonstrate the injustice which has befallen some legitimate, hard-working, enterprising businesses as a result of the absolute enforcement of those regulations. Ms Orlovic also indicated that she has had to refuse a large amount of business because of these regulations. The demand for her product is clearly there in the community. The cost of replacing the vehicles in question is prohibitive, and they are generally useless if not for this single purpose as wedding hire vehicles. This seems to be a clear example of bureaucracy hindering enterprise and service.

The government regulations judge the merit of vehicles simply on the basis of their age, rather than their roadworthiness and safety standards. One must assume that the origin of these regulations is based on a desire to provide clean, safe and modern vehicles for the purpose of transporting passengers. I would agree that, up until recently, many old and dilapidated taxis and other vehicles brought down industry standards, and there is some merit in the intent of these regulations. However, I firmly believe that it was not the intent of the regulations to deny justice to hard working business people and deny a legitimate and viable service to fee-paying customers. When the Department of Public Transport refused to renew a licence for the operation of private hire vehicles used by Ms Orlovic’s business, it did so solely on the basis of the age of the vehicles.

The vehicles in question are 1986 and 1987 Ford stretch sedans, but both vehicles have been maintained and preserved in showroom condition. One of the vehicles has travelled less than 30,000 kilometres and would normally be considered to have just been "run-in". My constituent has repeatedly offered to have the vehicles inspected by anyone, and she challenged the department to find any fault in the vehicles. I agree with my constituent that the age regulation seems unjust. These are Australian-built vehicles. They are manufactured in this country using Australian designs and labour. Their spare parts and maintenance are derived from Australian businesses that employ Australian workers. Yet foreign-produced vehicles, such as those made available through Mercedes and Rolls-Royce, are given preferential treatment. They are considered prestige vehicles simply because they were built overseas.

Departmental standards allow a Mercedes, Jaguar or Cadillac to be operated as a hire vehicle for up to 17 years. A Rolls-Royce or Bentley has an unlimited life span. The operators and manufacturers and mechanics servicing these luxury vehicles are obviously being discriminated against. This logic is baffling me and several of my constituents associated with the car hire business, not to mention the large number of customers who my constituents must turn back week after week. Ms Orlovic has received legal advice that these regulations are strict and cannot be overturned unless an exemption is issued by the director-general. Both vehicles conform to the business strict safety, roadworthy and presentation standards, ample evidence of which has already been supplied to the department. The vehicles comply with every government and departmental requirement, apart from their age. These regulations need to be modified, or exemptions need to be made, until it is clear that the public interest is not served by the strict enforcement of the regulations. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [6.19]: I compliment the honourable member on the presentation of her contribution. The Government is currently looking at reducing regulations, such as this, which impact on people running legitimate businesses. I will raise this matter with the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism to see whether action can be taken to correct this anomaly. From the presentation put forward by the honourable member, there seems no logical reason why these bureaucratic restrictions should continue.


Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [6.19]: I draw to the attention of the House that as a result of changes which have been brought about by this Government there is unfortunately a general malaise amongst the parents and the teachers of students attending schools in the Wakehurst electorate. Fortunately, that malaise has not infiltrated our young students. Half an hour ago I advised the office of the Minister for Education and Training that I was going to raise these issues. The Minister unfortunately is a little busy this afternoon and cannot respond. I hope that in due course he will, although I am sure the Minister for Local Government will have a few words to say.

Following the changes that have occurred the schools seem not to have the same sense of direction any more. One of the major problems is that since the regional office has been removed from the area schools have found it very difficult to get quick and sensible answers to issues they encounter daily. Problems related to maintenance arise regularly. In the past schools could contact the local regional office about any minor capital works issues. Now the schools in my electorate have a district supervisor and whilst she is very good, regrettably there is no automatic way to gain ready
Page 3397
access to someone who has all the answers. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this matter.

I know he has trialled the use of a 13 telephone number in some parts of the State and I would be interested to know whether that has been successful. My advice is that it is not working very well at all. Cyclic maintenance is proposed to be dispensed with, but some schools in my electorate are desperately in need of maintenance. Allegedly they now have to comply with a needs basis test; however, no-one has told them how the needs criteria are to be satisfied. Accordingly, schools are spending quite a bit of money out of their global budget on items that under the previous system used by the coalition Government would otherwise have properly been addressed by the cyclic maintenance program. The schools knew that though the problem may not have been fixed this year, at least it would be fixed in the next year, because every five years schools’ maintenance would occur. The maintenance work is now to be put out to private contractors. Heaven only knows how they are going to set in place the criteria for the needs basis! One suspects that it is an excuse for this Government to save money in some areas and push it into other areas.

I am a great supporter of teachers. I was a teacher and I believe that teachers do a wonderful job with our children. The capacity for excellent teachers to solve problems with children at an early stage should not be underestimated. I am told that as part of the pay solution the Government proposes to remove what are termed concessional periods allowances, which are currently used by schools, for example, to take a maths teacher out of class for three or four periods a week and allow that teacher to organise sporting events. I understand that the Government proposes to use this scheme to fund 70 extra deputy principals. I advise the Minister for Education and Training that that is an inappropriate way of going about things. Put quite simply, the goodwill of teachers will be killed stone-dead and that issue should be addressed very quickly.

I understand that the Government proposes to dispense with having girls supervisors as it is said their services are unnecessary. That suggestion is absolutely wrong: in my view schools also need boys supervisors. As is evidenced by the high number of youth suicides, young boys face major emotional issues and therefore additional funding should be made available for supervisors to assist in that regard. I call on the Minister to provide further assistance instead of killing off the existing funding. Schools in my electorate have a great spirit. Recently I attended a dance festival at Glen Street theatre and saw some wonderful things being done by our young students. I encourage the Minister to support Wakehurst electorate schools and teachers by making available better infrastructure and support systems than are currently being supplied, instead of removing the support systems and moneys as is happening in several ways at present. All schools should be treated fairly, particularly the schools in Wakehurst.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.24]: I regret that I did not hear all of the member’s contribution but I thank him for having given me prior warning that he would raise general matters about school administration and the organisation of the Department of School Education. The honourable member for Wakehurst made reference to the so-called re-centralisation of the department. This is a myth which has been spread around the State, particularly by his colleague the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, but it has no substance.

The Government is establishing the most decentralised administrative structure ever for New South Wales school education. Under the former coalition Government there were three tiers of administration in New South Wales: the head office; the regional office; and the cluster directors at the local level. Within the restructuring of the Department of School Education we have abolished one of those tiers and by doing so spread the staff far more equitably around the State. Now each of 40 school districts caters for approximately 50 to 60 schools, and those schools receive far more positive on-the-ground support. Each school district area has counsellors, maintenance personnel, persons to advise teachers on salary matters, home-school liaison officers are allocated to them and they have curriculum advisers. All of these are in far greater numbers than ever. [Time expired.]

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [6.26]: In 1970 the central coast campus of the University of Newcastle property was acquired and reserved for a college of advanced education. In 1986 initial discussions began and included universities and colleges of advanced education. In 1987 the University of Newcastle and the Hunter Institute of Higher Education began more detailed planning. Involvement with TAFE was foreshadowed at that time although TAFE classes did not start on campus until 1991 when classes were transferred from Gosford and Wyong campuses. In July 1989 classes commenced at the request of the Federal and State Governments. On 10 July 1989, 64 part-time students were enrolled in the courses for bachelor of business, graduate of the diploma of management and master of business administration.

Later in the year classes from the graduate programs in education, which had been held at various venues on the central coast, were transferred to the campus. During this time classes were held in buildings owned and located on campus by the central coast community college which was at that time aligned with the Workers Education Association. In 1990 the first bachelor of arts program was offered, as well as bachelor of social science, police studies. Classes were located in demountable buildings on the southern boundary of the campus, which is known as stage 0. The first permanent building was built in 1991. From
Page 3398
1989 a group which included University of Newcastle personnel together with senior staff from TAFE central services began a master planning activity which looked at the physical development of the campus as well as at the academic program.

Initially it was planned to have 30 per cent of the buildings in joint use, that is, the library and cafeteria, with all other buildings built separately for TAFE and university programs. The partners agreed that major cost savings could be realised if there was joint use of those buildings that were constructed. To that end building an academic program for the two educational groups was carefully considered to maximise integration of building programs and accreditation between academic programs. A master plan finalisation determined that 100 per cent of buildings were designed as joint use. Finances are being treated together and work on optimal cash flow lines. It is not possible to tell whether a building is TAFE- funded or university-funded, because finances have been treated together as a single unit to optimise cash flow opportunities.

This is a unique example of successful cooperation between different sectors of tertiary education. Current courses of study include business, commerce, finance, banking and accounting, management and information systems, information technology, community services, health and welfare, education, fine arts, liberal art and social science, environmental science and technology, hospitality and tourism. Levels range from certificate to advanced certificate, advanced diploma, bachelor, graduate diploma, master and PhD. In 1995 approximately 1,500 students were on campus; in 1996 there are 3,000 students of which 2,100 are university students and 900 are TAFE students. It is anticipated that by the year 2000 the campus will have 5,000 students. A special feature of the central coast campus is the care that has been taken to cater for the needs of the local community, business and industry in devising specific programs for food technology, tourism and hospitality and small business management.

The campus should become an autonomous institution as quickly as possible because the university represents a unique opportunity to lobby for the central coast as a region. Almost every region in the State is unified and dignified by the presence of a university. The central coast is now recognised at Federal, State and local government levels as a separate economic region. However, it takes some time for such a concept to be absorbed and become part of the mainstream of the local community. I urge both State and Federal governments to make a major contribution to the development of the central coast by establishing the Ourimbah campus as a separate university which will unify the identity of the central coast and promote it as a region as happened with the universities at Wollongong, the Hunter and other parts of the State.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.31]: I listened with great interest to the comments of the honourable member for The Entrance in praise of the Ourimbah campus located on the central coast. I am proud of the Ourimbah campus, and as Minister for Education I am delighted to be able to give it a boost. Ourimbah campus is an example of how well joint facility campuses operate. The Nirimba campus at Quakers Hill in my electorate will be modelled on the Ourimbah campus concept. It will comprise a campus of the University of Western Sydney and two senior colleges, one being run by the Department of School Education and the other by the Catholic Education Office of the Parramatta Diocese. This is a great concept.

I was delighted to hear the comments of the honourable member for The Entrance who has had a long interest in this matter. He raised the issue of the Ourimbah campus on many occasions when we were in opposition and was keen to ensure that upon this Government coming to office it would continue to allocate funds to the campus. The Government has done so. It allocated several million dollars to the TAFE sector. This year the TAFE facility at Newcastle University has been allocated funds also. Only good can come of TAFE and university campuses sharing the one site. It will enable cross-accreditation of courses and students will be able to transfer from one course to another, to gain associate diplomas in TAFE and degrees at the university.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [6.33]: I am concerned about law and order and street violence, particularly in the Wentworth shire. I am sure that honourable members and the community are alarmed at the instances of violence throughout the State and especially in areas throughout western New South Wales. I take no pleasure in being informed that out of 177 shires in New South Wales, Wentworth shire has been identified as having the ninth highest level of street violence - within the top 5 per cent. There is an enormous amount of concern within that area that much of the violence is being committed by Aboriginal and white youths, some under the age of 10. Last November Mr Vin Byrnes of Dareton asked if I would attend a meeting of Dareton and Coomealla residents to discuss their law and order problems. At that time the secretary to the Minister for Police was in Dareton to open its new police station and I asked him to attend the meeting. We had a round table discussion with Inspector Bill Heinz to try to see what we could do to deal with this problem. I also wrote letters to the Minister for Police and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs informing them of these concerns. Earlier this year 300 people attended a public meeting called by the Dareton Progress Association to discuss this ongoing problem.

Many new homes have been built at
Page 3399
Namatjira, an Aboriginal site. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has allocated $3.1 million for homes in that area. I received advice from Mrs Emrose Wise, an Aboriginal elder, that much of that money would be better spent on construction of a youth centre to provide for the recreation and development of young Aboriginal people in the Namatjira area. Recently Christine and Alf Kelly, also Aboriginal elders in that area, expressed concern about the number of Aborigines moving into the area requiring housing and about the pressure being put on the Namatjira court and the Wentworth shire as a whole. Both Aboriginal and white people believe that Aboriginal housing should not be concentrated in one residential area.

Mr Vin Byrnes has every right to be worried about street violence, particularly in residential areas. One home was broken into by children under the age of 10; they stole articles and destroyed much of the interior of the home. It appears that police are not able to deal constructively with these minors. The Wentworth shire has a major problem with street violence. Perhaps the Minister for Police and the Parliament could assist by appointing a committee or a police representative to visit the region, consult with my constituents and determine what action can be taken. ATSIC and State Government funding should be channelled into areas of most need. Law and order must be enforced to stop street violence and to ensure the safety of the community.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.38]: The House should acknowledge the continued advocacy of the honourable member for Murray on behalf of his constituents, particularly on matters such as this. Full credit to him. It is extraordinary to learn that of the 177 shires throughout the State, Wentworth shire has the ninth highest level of street violence and is in the top 5 per cent of crime statistics generally. That is a tragedy - an even greater tragedy when one realises that the bulk of the crime is as a result of incidences relating to young people, particularly children under 10 years old. Clearly there is a range of problems that need to be more thoroughly addressed. I know that the Minister for Police shares the concerns of the honourable member for Murray and I understand that he has expressed his support. The establishment of a committee to review the problems, particularly the large influx of people into one location at Namatjira Avenue, would address some of the very real concerns expressed by a number of constituents as outlined by the honourable member for Murray. I undertake to raise the matters directly with the Minister for Police to assist the honourable member for Murray and his constituents to deal with the very real and important problems experienced by the people of his electorate, particularly those in the township of Dareton.


Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [6.40]: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the recent seventy-fifth anniversary of the Gladesville RSL sub-branch, which was celebrated this month by club members and the wider community of Gladesville. On Sunday, 2 June, members of the sub-branch, representatives of other Returned Services League sub-branches in the area and the wider community gathered for a wreath-laying ceremony at the grove of peace in the grounds of Gladesville Public School. With the band of the Gladesville RSL youth club providing the music, a simple but moving memorial ceremony was held on that cold, but dry, Sunday morning. Of special note at the ceremony was the Principal of Gladesville Public School, Ms Jean Hartshorne, and representatives of the children, parents and wider school community. The ceremony played an important role in marking the 75 years of service the Gladesville RSL had given to the local community.

Gladesville has certainly changed a great deal since 35 World War I veterans gathered together to discuss the formation of the sub-branch in March 1921 in the basement of the old picture theatre at the corner of Wharf Road and Meriton Street, Gladesville. Early meetings of the sub-branch were held in rooms of the Gladesville Public School. Importantly, that link remains today through the grove of peace and the involvement of ex-pupils of Gladesville Public School in the Gladesville RSL sub-branch. Special note should be made of Ted Livingstone, a patron and great supporter of the school and long-term member of the sub-branch. The relationship between the school and the sub-branch brings great benefit to both organisations, in particular the children of the school.

In the 1920s the sub-branch held meetings at a range of venues until its first clubrooms were established in an old cable tramcar at Gladesville Reserve. By 25 July 1928 a more permanent home was achieved in the old fire station hall. In 1935 the hall was moved to the present club location in Linsley Street. Since that time the memorial hall has been rebuilt and extended several times. It has become the centre of 60 years of entertainment, good comradeship and the memory of friends and comrades past. It was rightly the venue for the seventy-fifth anniversary dinner on June 3 when the auditorium was filled to overflowing with members, friends and guests joyfully celebrating their heritage, their current vitality and their future in Gladesville. The main address was given by Mr Rusty Priest, State President of the RSL. It was a thoughtful and warm-hearted speech appreciated by all present.

At the centre of the dinner was recognition of 13 members of the sub-branch for their magnificent achievement of 50 years of service. Those members deserve mention in this House. They were Frank Aria, Ken Clarke, Jim Cornwell, Don Cameron, Jim Jenkins, Edward Coleman, Wallace
Page 3400
Maher, Harry Montgomery, Don Rutherford, Keith Houghton, Ken Coggins, Arthur O’Toole and Albert Glasgow. Other members who had achieved a similar level of service were unfortunately unable to attend. It was humbling and quite moving to be in the presence of such men. To think that they had been friends and comrades for 50 years and, in that time, had shared so much of their lives together was a wonderful thing. There is something special about all RSL clubs that I have entered in my electorate, particularly the Gladesville sub-branch. I have always been moved by the great warmth of the welcome I have received at that club and by the great fellowship I have seen exhibited between members and their families.

In particular, attention should be given to the leadership of the sub-branch, for what it has done and continues to do for its members and the wider community of Gladesville. For some years Mr Jim Jackson has been president of the sub-branch. He is a fine, humble, hardworking and intelligent leader. He is assisted by Mr John Barry and Mr Sid Earp as vice-presidents. Mr Jim Park is the secretary and Mr Tony Kirchner is the treasurer of the sub-branch. His wife, Mrs Joy Kirchner, is president of the ladies auxiliary. These members, amongst many others, were responsible for the fine anniversary celebration. More importantly, they are central to the sub-branch’s work for members and the community. They are all selfless and generous people, committed to the sub-branch and everything it stands for. The club has a proud history of caring for its members, especially those who have had health problems.

Over the years executive members of the club have taken a special interest in the pension entitlements of members. Their needs and the support of family members have always been central to the work of the sub-branch. In looking at the branch, attention must also be given to Mr Bob Thurston, president of the youth club, which now has over 1,000 young people as members. The focus is a vital commitment to the future of Gladesville. It is perhaps apt to finish on this consideration of youth. The seventy-fifth anniversary was a memorable event in the sub-branch and in the wider Gladesville community. It was a time to bear witness to the past, to remember with dignity past pain and bravery, to recall friends and family members no longer with us. It was an opportunity to enjoy the present, to celebrate the warmth of old friends and to look to the future with hope and undying confidence. I wish the members of the Gladesville RSL sub-branch all the best for their next 75 years.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.45]: I join with the honourable member for Gladesville in extending the congratulations of the Parliament to the Gladesville RSL sub-branch on its seventy-fifth anniversary. It is entirely appropriate that we remember the role and functions of RSL sub-branches across the State, particularly those in rapidly changing areas such as Gladesville. Whilst so much of our community these days is busily getting on with its future, all too frequently we do not take the time to remember the past. The honourable member for Gladesville has taken the time this evening to record for posterity the role and the operation of the Gladesville RSL sub-branch for 75 years of proud and committed service to the community, which is a tribute to both him and those who have served over those long years.

We pay particular tribute to those who have established 50 years of service in the sub-branch and recognise their efforts on behalf of their communities, both in times of war and in times of peace. The RSL movement has provided succour, service and support to thousands of families throughout the State in times of need. I know that in Gladesville and every other area throughout the State and nation RSLs provide part of the fabric that makes a community strong and provides opportunities for communities to prosper and grow. From the old picture theatre to a fine home these days, the service rendered by the Gladesville RSL should always be remembered. It is appropriate that the Parliament place on record its appreciation to all those who have given service through the Gladesville RSL. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Gladesville for taking the opportunity to raise this important matter in the Parliament this evening.

Mr ELLIS (South Coast) [6.47]: I wish to raise the concerns of people in the South Coast electorate of red tape stopping the construction of a link road. I recently read in the media that the Premier wants to fight red tape in small business. He was quoted as saying:

We have instructed Government agencies to justify the existence of every licence imposed on business.

This is a commendable and admirable philosophy to follow and contains two important elements. The first is the recognition that excessive control can be counterproductive and costly. The second is the recognition of the need for bureaucracies to justify their intervention in the daily lives of people. I believe there is far too much regulation for no apparent advantage, other than to raise revenue or to exercise control for the mere sake of it. I have no problem giving credit to anyone who supports less regulation and control, but I am surprised that this Government has taken such a step. The Premier would recall that in July last year I wrote to him and three of his Ministers advocating such a philosophy in relation to the issues surrounding the planning progress of Jervis Bay.

I had to hand the Premier a copy of my letter when he visited the Shoalhaven, because his
Page 3401
minders had not passed it on to him. To his credit, he did finally respond. In my letter I said that the planning process was being frustrated and delayed by various government agencies who were pursuing their own agendas, often unaware of, and probably not interested in, the objectives of other departments. I listed at least 17 agencies who seemed to be working independently of each other and asked for a coordinating body to be set up to monitor this activity. The response I got, with one exception, was less than enthusiastic. Most respondents occupied a page and a half to say thanks, but no thanks. However, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, in a single-paragraph letter, said that the suggestion would be appropriate. He thought it would be a good idea.

There is no doubt that the blind pursuit of statutory obligations costs the community and this cost is often unnecessarily compounded by various overlapping authorities, each wanting its piece of the action. It is little wonder that the average person is dismayed and puzzled at the incomprehensible delays and costs associated with such decision making. I recently organised a forum for the three tiers of government to discuss the problems of public administration confronting the Shoalhaven district. One Federal Minister, one State Minister, and four State shadow ministers attended. I thank those who showed the interest. Those who participated and were shown local examples of bureaucratic delays in various projects now appreciate the cost of excessive and overregulated government. I have recently heard the term "control freaks" being used.

One of the projects the participants were briefed on was the Bomaderry Link Road, a road project to link two urban areas to ease the growing traffic congestion problem. The whole sad affair has continued for five years with an invidious track record of delays. The community, through its council, has already shelled out approximately $400,000 to try to appease everyone and all it faces is yet another dubious demand by another government agency. Let me list the major government players who are involved in this road project and from whom the council needs consent to proceed: the Roads and Traffic Authority; Department of Land and Water Conservation; Environment Protection Authority; Department of Local Government; Department of Planning; National Parks and Wildlife Service; Illawarra Electricity; Department of Fisheries; Australian Heritage Commission; native title legislation and Heritage Council. There would be some that I have missed.

So far the position is that there has not been one sod of soil turned, the community is approximately $400,000 out of pocket, there is animosity towards council over the delays, and the traffic congestion is getting worse. If ever there was an example of red tape in the planning process this is it. Regrettably, this is not an isolated case and the issue of red tape has to be addressed. The community can ill afford such costs. I ask the Premier to investigate extending his red tape philosophy to the planning process in order to expedite delivery of much needed facilities and services and to reduce costs and delays. I also ask the Premier to intervene in the issue of the Bomaderry Link Road to resolve the matter immediately and finally.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.51]: I thank and commend the honourable member for South Coast for recognising the Government’s efforts to remove red tape and reduce the duplication and complications associated with convoluted planning and regulatory processes in this State. On a number of occasions I have made the point that a review of, particularly, land use planning and natural resource approval systems is long overdue. The examples cited by the honourable member for South Coast, requiring the involvement of 17 different government agencies, is a testament to a system driven more by process than by outcome.

I am sure the honourable member for South Coast will welcome and support the findings of the two green papers released just two weeks ago: one on the regulatory process - an attempt to remove the vast amount of red tape in the system of governments in this State; and secondly, and more importantly from my portfolio objectives, a total review of the land use planning and natural resource approvals processes in this State. It is long overdue and, I think, will receive the bipartisan support of this Parliament.

There is no need for duplication of the assessment process, particularly in land use planning. Better outcomes can be achieved with shorter time frames without losing the opportunity for public participation or high quality environmental assessment. The amount of time and effort that goes into the assessment process will be reduced. I thank the honourable member for South Coast for raising these matters. It is hoped that the consultation process undertaken in relation to the green papers will achieve positive legislative outcomes in the next parliamentary session.

[Debate interrupted.]


Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the sitting be extended beyond 7.00 p.m.

[Debate resumed.]


Page 3402

Ms HALL (Swansea) [6.54]: I have raised the issue of the Green Point foreshore park in Lake Macquarie on a number of occasions. I would like to give credit to a group of people who have helped to bring about the foreshore park, that is, the Green Point Action Group. Key members of the group are Bob Phillips, Peter Morris, Pauline Keating, Marge Secombe, Doug Lithgow and Jack Shields. They fought a very long, hard battle for the park to come to fruition. For many years an aggressive pro-development council in Lake Macquarie pushed hard for residential development and ignored the feelings of the people. It was only through the untiring effort of the Green Point Action Group that today we have the beginning of a wonderful foreshore park. Lake Macquarie City Council - with a different council membership at a different time, though still with some of the pro-development councillors - was far-sighted enough to buy the land. With the help of this Government, which has already allocated $1 million towards the rehabilitation and restoration of the park, Lake Macquarie will now have a wonderful foreshore park.

The foreshore park will protect the lake and the environment. The park will be there for many generations to come. The Green Point Action Group stood up to a very aggressive developer who was going to set up chook and flower farms and was willing to utilise every possible trick in the trade to get around the zoning of the land in order to abort the park. The Green Point Action Group has been involved in forest restoration, worked voluntarily for years clearing bitou bush, and given its most valuable time towards making this a viable park for the people of Lake Macquarie.

As well, over the years it has instigated petitions and informed members of this Government when in opposition about the proposal. The now Minister for the Environment, Pam Allan, was very supportive of its efforts and did everything she could to try to secure the park for the people of Lake Macquarie. In fact it was the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning who granted approval for the Green Point foreshore park. Unfortunately, the previous Government refused to allocate any money for the park. It had no commitment to the people of the Hunter. It refused to give money unless large-scale development was allowed. It did not care about the Hunter and still does not care about the Hunter.

To give an example of how little Opposition members care about the Hunter and how they treat the Hunter in contempt, I was absolutely astounded, as were other members with electorates in the Hunter, at the outrageous interjection today by the honourable member for North Shore, the Opposition spokesperson on health, who said, "Don’t worry, about the Hunter". That has been the story all along - do not worry about the people of the Hunter. That interjection occurred when the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health was outlining to the House that an extra 47 ambulance officers had been allocated to the Hunter to overcome staffing problems. What a disgrace to say not to worry about the Hunter.

That is exactly what the Opposition did when it was in Government - it did not worry about the Hunter. It did not worry about the people of Lake Macquarie who wanted a foreshore park on the eastern side of the lake. It did not worry about the health care needs of the people in the Swansea electorate, when, during seven years in government, it gave no money to Belmont Hospital. This is indicative of the contempt that the Opposition has for the people of the Hunter. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [6.59]: As Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning I am aware of the tenacious attempts by the Green Point Action Group to secure and preserve for future generations what it and most people regard as valuable open space that people will visit around Lake Macquarie. One person is more tenacious than the Green Point Action Group - the honourable member for Swansea. I place on record for future generations of this Parliament that the honourable member for Swansea has been persistent in her efforts to ensure that not only is the land at Green Point conserved, preserved and rehabilitated as open space for public access, but also that the Government provide suitable funding so that the work required on the foreshores at Green Point may proceed apace.

The honourable member for Swansea is correct when she says that only Labor governments have ever had regard for the Hunter and central coast regions of this State. Only Labor governments take the time to preserve and conserve important parts of urban areas around the Hunter region to ensure that the quality of life and amenity for those who live in those regions are at a standard to which we all aspire. As Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning I am pleased to play a small part, along with the tremendous efforts of local communities around Lake Macquarie, Green Point and Swansea, to achieve that long overdue result. I congratulate those who, for many years, have fought for a positive outcome to benefit future generations of Lake Macquarie residents.


Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [7.01]: I refer to earlier comments by the Minister for Agriculture about the extension of the regional veterinary laboratory in Armidale in a privatised arrangement between the University of New England and a local private veterinary firm. The Minister’s comments have eased part of the burden I have carried about the continuation of that service. Whether the new procedure will be as beneficial to the regional industries, particularly agricultural industries, as it has been in the past is yet to be determined. The Minister made reference to the potential closure of the Commonwealth Scientific
Page 3403
and Industrial Research Organisation research station at Chiswick just south of Armidale.

Chiswick has been a jewel in the crown of CSIRO agricultural research. However, at present its 80 staff - which is considerably less than it was in its heyday - are concerned for their future employment prospects and for the vital role CSIRO Chiswick has played in national and international agricultural research. For many years the CSIRO has maintained a strong research presence in Armidale. It has several rural properties on which extensive field trials are carried out. That important work in the division of animal health could not continue in either of the other two remaining CSIRO centres. There is some prospect that the Armidale laboratory may not close but either Floreat Park in Perth or Prospect in outer Sydney may. Consideration should be given to the relative differences of those places, which I brought to the attention of Dr McIntosh, Chief Executive Officer of Chiswick Research Station. There can be no doubt that the closure of Chiswick will have a serious negative impact on the activities of two cooperative research centres in relation to meat and wool quality. Both of those research centres are based in the area and collaborate with the University of New England and other industry bodies.

If CSIRO Chiswick closes it would not be possible to continue the same quality of extensive research and groundbreaking work in that important concept of cooperative research centres, or to receive the same resources and have the same cross-factional scientific research underpinning that work. Much of the division’s research is of an extensive nature that requires extensive rural properties. Some work can continue in any laboratory situation, as occurs at Chiswick laboratories. I am not so concerned about the future of laboratory-based research; I am more concerned about the extensive field trials and other research of that nature that underpins the laboratory work and eventually translates into direct support for industry and hands-on practical advice. It is extremely important to maintain Chiswick and its adjacent properties.

The Armidale operation is the most cost effective of the three laboratories. Staff numbers and site overhead costs are low, as are animal experimentation costs. Salaries and operating costs of running the Armidale field stations are almost totally recouped from the sale of animal produce. In a normal year that centre has run at a profit. On average, Armidale research centres attract far more financial support from industry than other centres. High technology work can be relocated to suitable laboratory facilities anywhere; extensive field trials cannot. For that reason CSIRO Chiswick and its associated properties should be maintained. Obviously I have taken up the matter with the local Federal member, the Hon. Ian Sinclair. It is important that the Minister, the Hon. Peter McGauran, should be invited to Armidale to appreciate for himself the critical importance of CSIRO Chiswick to agricultural research at the national level and its important role in collaboration with the University of New England for application at international level. The region simply cannot afford to lose that facility.


Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [7.06]: On 6 December 1995 I voiced my concern about the permanent entrance to Lake Illawarra and the potential for flooding of residential areas around the lake during prolonged heavy rain when the entrance is closed. Creation of a permanent entrance has been one of the highest priorities of the Lake Illawarra Management Authority since it was formed in 1988. Indeed, it is believed that a permanent opening is the single most important project in the authority’s current and future works program. This belief is borne out by nine studies carried out between 1992 and 1996. I shall not mention all of those studies, but those of particular relevance are the Lake Illawarra Authority Value Management Report, 1992; Lake Illawarra Entrance Improvement Concept Design Report, 1992; Lake Illawarra Entrance - A Management Assessment of the Existing Training Wall, 1992; Lake Illawarra Entrance Improvement Hydraulic Numerical Modelling, 1994; Lake Illawarra Entrance Improvement and Environmental Impact Statement, 1994; Clause 91 Report on Responses to Environmental Impact Statement, 1995; and Lake Illawarra Entrance Improvement Options Economic Appraisal, 1995.

Major community concerns centre around the need to reduce flood hazards and to improve lake water quality. The material that has accumulated over the years indicates that flood levels around the lake are significantly influenced by the condition of the entrance. At present there is a considerable amount of eutrophication as a result of nutrient build-up and the lake’s inability to effectively flush itself. The EIS for entrance improvement establishes firmly that the environmental benefit from a permanent entrance heavily outweighs any adverse impacts, would reduce lake flood levels and produce better water quality through increased tidal flows and flushing. The current estimated cost of the entrance project is $4.2 million. It is considered that the work is eligible for financial assistance under the Government’s estuary management program on a dollar-for-dollar basis with local government. I am advised that Wollongong and Shellharbour councils have made budgetary provision to meet their share of the cost and are ready to commit $2.1 million towards the cost of the project. State funding totalling $2.1 million is required to proceed with the project. After 10 years of discussions, consultations et cetera, the community and both councils expect funding will be forthcoming from the State Government.


Page 3404
What we are asking for is an immediate announcement concerning the allocation of financial assistance, which could be spread over a two-year or three-year period. In addition to the matters that I have raised tonight I refer to the important question of the renourishment of Warilla Beach. Standing at the top of the beach at times of high tides is like standing at the breakwater of Port Kembla harbour. The beach has disappeared completely. In the late 1960s council found it necessary to establish rock armouring to prevent homes from falling into the sea. From time to time that rock armouring has been topped up. Expert opinion suggests that, in a one-in-100-year storm, an eastern gale could cause that wall to breach, many homes would be lost and considerable damage would be caused to Warilla township. Only a thin frontal dune stands between the town of Warilla and the Pacific Ocean. If that breaches it will cost billions of dollars to repair the damage that will be caused. These questions - beach renourishment, the trapping of sand, which is moving from south to north because of littoral drift, and a tie-wall to link the mainland with Windang Island - are incredibly important. The Government must match the financial contribution that has been made over a period of years by Wollongong and Shellharbour councils. They are ready to commence this work. Any hesitancy on the part of the Government will cause concern to local residents and prolong the risk of the breaching of rock armouring at Warilla Beach. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [7.11]: Once again the honourable member for Kiama has demonstrated his commitment and his determination to obtain for his constituents some answers to the Warilla Beach problem. He has also identified the need for a permanent entrance to Lake Illawarra - a matter that has been debated ad nauseam. We must stop the analysis and get on with the work. The commitment by both Wollongong and Shellharbour councils demonstrates local community support for the commencement of this important work. I acknowledge that this matter comes within the portfolio of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. However, the establishment of a permanent entrance to Lake Illawarra goes beyond that portfolio; it will have an impact on the environment. The honourable member for Kiama referred to important issues such as the impact of floods and putrification on the environment. There are important advantages to be gained from proceeding with this work. I undertake on behalf of the honourable member for Kiama and the people he represents so ably to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I hope that these matters will be quickly resolved in the not too distant future.


Mr O’FARRELL (Northcott) [7.13]: Road and rail transport dominate the Northcott electorate. My electorate is served by 10 CityRail stations - more than the number in any other electorate. Services operate on two lines - the main north rail line and the north shore line. My electorate also contains many important and heavily used local, State and national roads. It is to these that I turn my attention. Within the Northcott electorate are a section of the Pacific Highway, national highway one, running from Turramurra to Hornsby; the start of the F3 Newcastle to Sydney Freeway; the rapidly forming M2 motorway in the south; Pennant Hills Road, part of the Cumberland Highway network; roads like Beecroft Road, Boundary Road, New Line Road, Fox Valley Road and The Comenarra Parkway, which form a part of major arterial road networks; local roads like Bellamy and Stevens streets, Pennant Hills; the network of roads that run from Yarrara Road, Pennant Hills, Malsbury Road, Normanhurst, College Crescent, Hornsby, and Sutherland and Copeland roads, Beecroft; and many more which form the short cuts used to link up with arterial and major routes.

Since the election of the Carr Government there has been increasing uncertainty and fear by Northcott residents who take a close interest in road development, who are concerned about their local environment, or who simply have to navigate the roads daily on their way to and from work - people like Ann-Maree Ashburn who, until her recent overseas trip, was a regular commuter. Northcott residents are confused because the Government has cut funding to roads in their electorate. In the last budget road funding was down by 30 per cent. I have not yet ascertained what the figure is in this year’s budget. The Government has indefinitely deferred works which it had already agreed would proceed - projects such as the realignment of the Boundary-Bellamy-Victoria Road intersection at Pennant Hills - and it has made changes to M2 arrangements relating to the installation of noise barriers and the purchase of affected properties which are detrimental to adjacent property owners.

Northcott residents are uncertain because the Government is failing to reveal to them its plans for road development in this area. The Government, as in other areas of public policy, is neither consulting nor informing taxpayers of its decisions or the reasons for them. I want to address a number of examples of this. Much anxiety and confusion has been brought about by the development of the M2. I do not claim that this all started on 25 March 1995. However, the Carr Government has done much to heighten residents’ uncertainty. I have already referred to the Government’s actions in relation to noise barriers and the purchase of noise-affected properties. The Carr Government, through its continuing failure to communicate, is doing more than any previous government to heighten concerns in areas affected by the M2. For example, when the M2 opens, Sutherland Road from Beecroft to North Epping will close. That decision, made by Hornsby Council, was demanded by the Roads and Traffic Authority as a necessary precondition to proceed with the M2.

Sutherland Road carries an estimated 12,000
Page 3405
cars daily. Beecroft Road, which runs parallel to Sutherland Road, carries another 30,000 cars each working day. Local residents, the Beecroft-Cheltenham Civic Trust and I, as the local member of Parliament, cannot obtain from this Government information on an estimate of the likely traffic load to be borne by Beecroft Road when the M2 opens or any indication of government plans to ensure that traffic from Pennant Hills and beyond is encouraged to alter its habits and use the Pennant Hills Road-M2 intersection rather than head south through Beecroft. Beecroft Road is crying out for planning to deal with its traffic load when the M2 opens. Some residents favour the installation of additional traffic lights to discourage through traffic; others would prefer it if a truck limit were imposed; and others do not agree with the closure of Sutherland Road, given the impact that it will have on Cheltenham Girls High School and Epping Boys High School.

So uncertainty, confusion and fear grow and the Carr Government does nothing to provide solutions to residents’ concerns about coordination of road development in and around Beecroft in the lead-up to the opening of the M2. The longer this continues the more difficult the transition will ultimately be. In the north of my electorate many hundreds of property owners live in the vicinity of the B2 and B3 road reservations. The former Government made it clear that the road would not be built during its term in office and it provided some certainty to property owners by reducing the number of possible routes to two. Residents, local groups, like the Kissing Point Progress Association and the Coalition Against Lane Cove Valley Freeways, and local members of Parliament, like the honourable member for Gordon and me, have been unsuccessful over a period of more than 15 months to secure any statement from the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism or the Roads and Traffic Authority on their intentions for this proposed link.

The Minister finally made a decision yesterday but there no accompanying announcements about flow-on consequences. New fears have been raised in The Hills and Ku-ring-gai electorates about the proposed orbital link. In Northcott the future of Pennant Hills Road comes starkly into question. Good news for Turramurra and Wahroonga residents is bad news for residents in these other areas. This could have been avoided if the Government had consulted, explained and coordinated its road transport planning. Running like a backbone through the Northcott electorate is the six-lane Pennant Hills Road which carries an estimated 65,000 cars daily, as measured at its intersection with Boundary Road. It is the bane of many people’s existence, including road users, nearby residents and those who live in suburbs which have been split in half by this major road.

Pennant Hills Road cannot continue to expand forever. The Government, in making the B2 and B3 decision, should have made an accompanying decision to stop further development on this road between Pearces and Thompsons corners. Unless such a commitment is given - I have written to the Premier seeking one - the B2 and B3 decision will increase expenditure for further, unacceptable expansion of Pennant Hills Road. For as long as it is not forthcoming, residents close to Pennant Hills Road are condemned to further noise and air pollution problems and continuing uncertainty about the future of their properties. That is a disgrace. It is indicative of a Government which is bankrupt of a coordinated transport policy. It is symptomatic of a Minister for Roads who is unable to make available senior officers to speak to impartial, genuine community groups like the Pennant Hills District Civic Trust on the subject of this road. Earlier this year Hornsby Councillor William Blunt sensibly suggested that an environmental impact statement be carried out on Pennant Hills Road. This is needed now more than ever. No sensible planning decisions can be made by Hornsby Council or the State Government without the benefit of the information that an environmental impact statement would produce. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [7.18]: I thank the honourable member for Northcott for his comments. It is true that Ann-Marie Ashburn left the area in frustration at the convoluted road system. In fairness, she left at a time when a decision had been made to overturn a commission of inquiry that rejected the M2 road proposal. Subsequently, that recommendation was overturned by the former Government. Long- serving members of this Parliament will recall vigorous debates in this House, with former Minister for Transport Bruce Baird assuring us ad nauseam that all the planning had been done, all solutions had been arrived at, and all problems had been teased out. As a consequence, the good people of the electorate of Northcott and surrounding electorates could rest assured that their transport needs had been well addressed.

I remember question time after question time when former Minister Baird waxed lyrical about what a good job he was doing in providing integrated transport planning and transport services for the people of the electorate of Northcott. I wonder whether the honourable member was correct when he said that all the problems did start when Labor took office, or whether some of these problems were seeded, germinated and flourished under the previous Government, leading to this Labor Government inheriting the problems which it now has. Nonetheless, the honourable member for Northcott tried to be constructive about the matter and raised a number of issues. I am required to bring them to the attention of the Minister for Roads, and I will do so. I am sure that the honourable member and I - and Ann-Marie Ashburn, should she return to Australia - would appreciate positive and constructive answers to the problems he has raised. I thank the honourable member for bringing them to the attention of the House.

Private members’ statements noted.


Page 3406

Bill received and read a first time.


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

Environmental Planning and Water Legislation Amendment Bill

Financial Institutions (New South Wales) Amendment Bill
State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill

The following bills were returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:

Superannuation Administration Bill
Superannuation (Axiom Funds Management Corporation) Bill

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Gaudry) left the chair at 7.23 p.m.]

[Continuation of Thursday’s sitting.]

[The House resumed at 9.00 a.m.]


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

Forests and Flora Reserves Revocation Bill
Public Health Amendment (Tobacco) Bill

Debate resumed from 19 June.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [9.01]: The coalition will support this historic legislation, which broadly embraces the agreement reached at the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council on 10 May 1996. We will look back on 10 May as a compelling moment in Australian history. It was on that day that we as a nation took the step towards uniform national gun laws - tighter gun controls covering the length and breadth of Australia. We must never forget the terrible images that precipitated this legislation, the awful and fortunately unique tragedy that is Port Arthur. We must never forget the images that confronted us after 28 April 1996 of a father clutching his slain daughter’s headbands, an exhausted doctor weeping in the arms of the Prime Minister and the stark photos staring out of newspapers of people who should be alive today and are not.

We must never forget the knot of emotions that followed Port Arthur - the shock that the world’s largest shooting massacre had occurred on our front doorstep, the collective grief of a nation, the outrage at the random taking of life and the determination that this must never happen again. We must never forget the visionary leadership shown by the Prime Minister, John Howard, who, confronted by these images, demanded change in every Australian jurisdiction. It is testimony to his leadership that we are in a position to debate and pass this legislation. Without the strength of John Howard’s leadership, the idea of uniform national gun laws could not have been countenanced - and was not countenanced by any Prime Minister before him.

Few political leaders have the opportunity or the courage to ensure that a moment of possibility is translated into reality. John Howard had the opportunity and he had the courage to grasp it. One of his most enduring legacies to Australian society will be the passage of this legislation. Why do we need tighter gun laws? At the heart of this legislation is the firm belief that a drastic reduction in the number of automatic and semiautomatic weapons in the Australian community will be in the collective national interest, that it will produce powerful benefits for individual Australians and their families. To qualify what I just said, it must be recognised that automatic weapons have never been available on the Australian market. That point has been lost in most of the debate to date.

I come to this debate with, I suspect, qualifications that may be rare in this Chamber. I have been extensively instructed, and indeed I have instructed others, in the use of automatic and semiautomatic weapons through a 32-year association with the Australian Defence Forces. As an infantry instructor 30 years ago I used a wide range of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, and I am aware of their lethal capability. Events in countries around the world directly connect the volume of high-powered and rapid-fire weapons and their public usage in an unpredictable, random and threatening way. International statistics provide a compelling argument for the support of tighter gun laws. For example, the United States of America is renowned for its high levels of gun ownership. Indeed it embraces in its Constitution - I think, most regrettably - the right to bear arms, which is a residue of the American War of Independence. Out of a population of 254 million, 38,000 people are shot dead each year in the United States. That roughly equates to the population of a large New South Wales country town. Country towns such as Tamworth, Dubbo, Orange, Tweed Heads and Ballina have populations of more than 30,000.

In the United States each year, the equivalent of the population of each of those towns is shot dead by firearms. Honourable members should think about that, because we must make the statement with this legislation that we are not the United States; we are not the fifty-first State of the United States. We are Australians and we choose to take a different course. At the other extreme is Japan, with a population of 125 million and the world’s strictest gun laws. Japan has only 300 gun
Page 3407
deaths a year. Australia, with a population of 18 million, has 620 gun deaths a year, 200 of them in New South Wales. In other words, a country with seven times the population of our country has just half the number of gun deaths. This legislation is a straightforward, direct response to the spread and availability of guns in our community. It follows a string of events in which semiautomatic weapons have produced the unacceptable and unreasonable in today’s Australia. Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield are only the most visible signs of the sickness that the widespread availability of semiautomatic weapons has produced. It is interesting to look at the history of weapons availability in this country. As a child I do not recall the widespread availability of military-style semiautomatic weapons.

Many people in this Chamber might recall the availability in their childhood of semiautomatic .22 rifles, but not of semiautomatic military-style hardware. My recollection is that those weapons became available in the period roughly equating to the Vietnam War and its aftermath and that there was an influx of semiautomatic weapons in this country from the 1970s onwards when sporting goods stores and department stores were able to advertise freely the sale to anyone of a semiautomatic rifle with a military capability at a very affordable price. Where did those weapons come from? They did not come from the only small-arms manufacturer that I am aware of in this country, the small arms factory at Lithgow, which has produced military weapons for the Australian Defence Forces since the turn of the century. It has produced .303 rifles, Bren guns, and Owen guns during the Second World War - they were semiautomatic weapons but prohibited weapons at all times, never available for sale - and more recently the 7.62 millimetre self-loading rifle and now the Steyr rifle for the Australian Army. That is the range of semiautomatic weapons produced in this country with a military-style capability.

Where did semiautomatic military-style weapons come from? They were imported into this country. Therefore, successive Federal governments allowed their import into our society from the late 1960s. Prior to that, to the best of my knowledge, their availability was extremely limited. This influx occurred because successive Federal governments - and I do not point a partisan finger at any particular government - allowed these weapons to be imported into Australia and to be made freely available in gun shops and sporting goods stores. I think that honourable members will hear more about that in this debate. Indeed, the Federal Parliament has to accept and shoulder its share of responsibility for the transformation of gun ownership in this country during the 1970s and onwards.

Added to the regular usage of semiautomatic weapons and the threat of guns in workplace settings is the increasing number of domestic violence situations involving guns, and the many other disputes that do not make the evening news, that go unreported but are real everyday events. The number of people killed by guns in Australia each year is marginally higher than the 504 Australians killed during the entire Vietnam war. Of those gun deaths 80 per cent are suicides. Indeed, guns are the most common method used in the rural youth suicide epidemic in this country. That is a matter of deep concern. At this stage I acknowledge the contribution made to the public debate by the Coalition for Gun Control and place its set of statistics on the public record. The document from the Coalition for Gun Control stated:

There are an estimated 4 million guns in private ownership in Australia. This means guns in private hands outnumber police weapons by over 10 to 1.

In an average year 600-700 Australians die by gunshot, ie 20 times the death toll at Port Arthur. By comparison, 504 Australians were killed in the entire Vietnam War.

80% of all gun deaths are suicides. Guns are the most common suicide method in the rural youth suicide epidemic.

The largest single category of homicides is domestic. Guns are even more commonly used in domestic killings that in homicides in general. Three-quarters of all female homicide victims are killed by family members or sexual partners.

Guns are frequently used by domestic violence offenders, either to threaten women and children directly or as a "warning", for example by shooting the family dog.

Last year more than 780 bank tellers were threatened, taken hostage or injured in armed attacks. This figure does not include the building society or credit union staff victimised in such attacks.

People assaulted with a gun are 12 times more likely to die than if they were assaulted by another means.

Acquiring a gun for self-defence is both dangerous and illegal. In households which have a gun, the most likely gunshot victim will be a member of the family. In fact, it is statistically more likely that all members of the family will shoot each other dead before an outside intruder is shot.

The vast majority of gun violence involves the most common and least regulated guns - ordinary rifles and shotguns. The type of guns which are most restricted, hand guns, cause the fewest deaths.

I commend the Coalition for Gun Control for its rational contribution to the public debate to date. As the Minister foreshadowed, there will need to be extensive public debate and consultation. I return to the issue of threat. The pervasiveness of the threat, the menace of weapons today, is felt by many ordinary Australians in average everyday settings. This is our chance to say, as a Parliament, as a society: we are not the United States of America. We do not want the pervasive gun culture, the idea that guns are either a necessity or a right, to take hold in this country. We do not want Sydney to become another New York, Los Angeles or Atlanta. That is why we must ensure that the legacy of Port Arthur produces far-reaching and effective legislation that becomes the model for sensible gun control. That objective is utterly beyond the reach of the average American citizen and is an opportunity lost for all time in the United States.


Page 3408
I am concerned that in some public debate so far American concepts, such as American gun language, has been used to try to hold up the gun controls which we are debating today. I put on the record that there is no constitutional right in this country to bear arms. Those who decide to ignore the laws that are being introduced by Australian parliaments, like these laws, must understand that there is no constitutional right in this country to bear arms. I trust that those who decide to avoid the law, when apprehended, do not try to plead the Fifth Amendment. It will not work. Australia has to make sure that it gets effective legislation on the books. That is why we have to seize this moment to make sure that the events at Port Arthur are not repeated through inactivity, indecision, or political cowardice. At some point in the future we must not regret that our laws were too lax, or too full of loopholes. That is what the people of Australia have demanded in the wake of Port Arthur. That is what we must deliver in the legislation we pass.

I should like now to refer to the uniform approach. The key concern of the coalition in assessing the legislation was to ensure that it reflected the historic agreement of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council held in Canberra on 10 May. The Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, QC, appears to have provided those assurances in his recent letter released by the Minister for Police this week indicating that the New South Wales legislation complies with the intent of the police Ministers conference. Given those assurances, the Opposition is pleased to support the legislation. However, it is the belief of the Opposition that the quickest and most efficient route to uniform national gun laws is through template legislation, which should have been drafted by the Commonwealth and circulated to all States. The Opposition is concerned that the Commonwealth, having put the stake in the ground and pointed out the direction we should take, has not drafted uniform legislation to provide precisely the same starting point for every Australian State and Territory parliament. It has been left to individual governments to interpret the recommendations of the police Ministers of 10 May; therefore, the legislation coming before Australian parliaments will vary widely.

I consider that approach questionable political management of an exceptionally complex social issue. As the Minister for Police well knows, I vehemently opposed the ceding of powers to the Commonwealth as proposed by the Carr Government, but I equally vehemently endorsed the idea of the Commonwealth preparing template legislation rather than requiring each State and Territory to produce its own version. Honourable members on this side of the Chamber, and I believe every member of this Parliament, can take some heart from the fact that the Federal Attorney-General has said that this legislation, as he reads it, roughly equates to what was agreed to at the police Ministers conference of 10 May. The Opposition is concerned that the Commonwealth did not follow through with template legislation. My fear, and I suspect I speak on behalf of all members of this Chamber, is that ultimately laws introduced by the different States and Territories will vary widely, which is a considerable straying from the historic agreement reached on 10 May.

Template legislation would have guaranteed truly national legislation, while at the same time embracing all politicians in the process and the ownership of the gun laws we are now debating. But instead we are left to make our own way with our own interpretation. It is to the singular disappointment of the Opposition that the States have been asked to draft and enact their own legislation as they see fit. Discrepancies are already emerging between the States. There is no guarantee that the New South Wales legislation will be precisely replicated in other States and Territories. It already differs from other State legislation in a series of themes, emphasis, length and scope. The Prime Minister has foreshadowed a referendum should any States fail to enact, through legislation, the 10 May agreement. The New South Wales coalition strongly supports such a move. If any State or Territory provides a weak link in the chain whereby the tough laws of other States, including these tough laws, are voided the Commonwealth Government should consider closing by referendum any such loopholes identified.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Australian people would overwhelmingly support and carry such a referendum, which would result in the introduction across Australia of even stronger gun laws than are contemplated today. I therefore believe that political management should receive airing in this debate, to which about 60 members will contribute. With the demonstrated electorate support behind tougher gun laws, I have no doubt that the referendum would be carried. Such a referendum would ensure that the will of the people is given the legislative support that all honourable members seek to guarantee. It is critical that each State, Territory and Australian jurisdiction embrace the call for tighter gun laws and own the legislation. I refer to the point I made in an earlier debate when the Minister for Police tried to cede powers to the Commonwealth, a power that the Commonwealth did not seek and that no other State offered. That impractical suggestion was unsuccessful. If these gun laws are unsuccessful, if the legislation of any Australian State or Territory has a loophole, the Commonwealth should consider a referendum. That is why the coalition opposed the call of the Premier to cede gun law powers to the Commonwealth.

In recent weeks all politicians have been under a great deal of pressure. The terrible images of Port Arthur have been overtaken by those of an open revolt at the laws we are embracing today. Many have stood in the Prime Minister’s way. The pundits and the onlookers have predicted defeat on a number of occasions for his valiant attempt to
Page 3409
introduce national gun laws. He has not been deterred, nor has he been deflected by the various suggestions, threats, abuse or diversions put in his path in the weeks since Port Arthur. I particularly mention the Deputy Prime Minister for his steadfast resolve in his support for this national initiative. Pressures have also been felt by members of this House representing country areas across the State, be they members of the National Party, the Liberal Party or, as we understand from recent publicity, the Labor Party. I would particularly like to commend all honourable members who stood up to those pressures to support the legislation. I recognise that it has not been easy. Pressure on individual members of Parliament has been quite intense.

I want particularly to praise and commend all my colleagues, and I mean that in the broadest sense, for their resolve in pursuing what the Australian nation demands. Together the parliaments and political parties of Australia are seeking to achieve a significant reduction in the likelihood of public outrage involving semiautomatics ever occurring again. We know that we cannot stop similar events from ever happening again, but we can decisively break the nexus between the increasing volume of guns and the increasing use of guns in violent settings; we can restrict the likelihood of an outrage; we can close down the possibilities; we can begin to isolate the would-be abusers who should never have guns and who are likely to strike at the innocent. The Carr Government legislation, introduced as a result of the national firearms agreement, and following on from the resolution of the police Ministers council has a series of significant themes: the prohibition of automatic and semiautomatic weapons, except in special detailed circumstances; the registration of all firearms; the licensing of firearms, as well as owners, for the first time; strict requirements on the licensing and acquisition of firearms; strict conditions on firearms storage; and the payment of compensation for firearms surrendered during an amnesty.

The key points of the legislation seek to expand themes of control, registration of weapons and compensation, but allow shooters with real needs to continue to use their weapons under stricter conditions. Genuine primary industry needs must be acknowledged to ensure that farmers and people whose occupations rely on shooting can retain their guns. The Howard initiative strikes the right balance between the needs of farmers and the desires of most Australians. It broadly protects the interests of individuals who have a legitimate need for gun ownership. That initiative sought not to punish farmers or primary producers for owning guns or for crimes they did not commit. These groups will continue to have access to guns as they always have. Likewise, sporting groups and Olympic athletes have sensible allowances made for them to continue competing.

There is no legitimate reason for ordinary Australians to be exposed to or be allowed unfettered access to semiautomatic weapons. They are weapons better left to the military. They are not weapons for the untrained or for those with no need to have them. All categories of shooter are folded into the register of guns that will now exist side by side with the licensing of guns. The gun lobby is right in saying that guns alone do not kill people. It is the combination of guns and people that kills, and both need to be licensed. This bill achieves that end. The five licence categories are widely drawn to ensure that legitimate shooters and gun owners who wish to pursue their sport are allowed to. The category of allowed guns ensures that sporting shooters will be able to continue their quiet enjoyment, as they have done for many years. Genuine reasons for gun ownership include recreational hunting, sport shooting, business or employment, pest control and collections. The key change in the legislation is to ensure that licensees must be fit and proper people who have completed firearms training and safety courses.

Every member of the Parliament knows that the threat of firearms, the menace and shadow of violence and the uncertainly of evil linked to guns in the wrong hands, is strongly felt by individual members of the community right around Australia. On its own this bill will not guarantee a totally secure environment. It does not promise the unachievable; it cannot end all violence. Instead, this legislation seeks to decisively shift the balance away from the violent, the threatening and the terrible, towards a safer and more secure Australia in line with the resolution carried in Canberra on 10 May. It would be remiss of me not to say that Opposition members query the process outlined by the Government. It will be remembered that in the Parliament last week the Opposition tried to introduce a short period of consultation prior to this debate. Even a short period of consultation would have enabled some opportunity for those who want to express their views formally to their local members of Parliament or to individual parties, so that concerns can be raised formally in debate. That opportunity has not occurred before this debate. The period of consultation will now occur after the legislation has passed through the Parliament.

I am aware that the Minister for Police has announced that there will be a period of public consultation after the passage of the legislation and that the period of consultation will occur in July. He has said that there will be some opportunity then for the consideration of further amendments. Without wishing to in any way take away from the important initiative being followed with this legislation, it is highly unusual - I would think almost unprecedented - for the period of consultation on legislation to follow rather than precede parliamentary debate. I make that point now, and I am sure that it will be referred to by other speakers in the debate.

Page 3410

Individual members of the Opposition have a wide range of concerns that remain unresolved. Indeed, I am sure that crossbenchers have some views on matters that are not yet fully resolved. They will express their points of view and the points of view that their constituents have put to them through the course of this lengthy debate, which will involve more than 60 members. Honourable members who wish to air issues have that right. It is important to have as full and extensive a debate as the Government will allow over the next couple of days. However, at the end of the debate the Opposition will support this legislation. After airing the many points raised by interested parties around this State and by individual members of Parliament who have spotted faults in the legislation, the Opposition will support this bill.

The Opposition supports the firm direction mandated by the Australian people. This bill, despite whatever faults it may embody because of the process that has been followed, still offers the people of Australia a path away from a culture of violence. We know that the legislation offers a fresh start in that sense. I think I speak on behalf of all honourable members - including, I suspect, the Minister for Police - in saying that it is recognised that not every loophole may have been discovered and not every defect may have been eliminated, but this legislation is a substantial first step for the Parliament to take in changing the gun culture of Australia and making this State and Australia a safer place to live. For that reason, I commend the legislation to the House.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [9.36]: I am proud to participate in this historic debate as a member of this House, as a member of this Government and as a member of the Australian community at a time when the Parliament is taking a magnificent decision on the importance of community safety and on the fact that community safety overrides the right of people to have weapons. I commend the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the courage and the strength of their convictions from the immediate aftermath of Port Arthur right through until the present. I commend the Premier and the Minister for Police for their prompt action in drafting the legislation and introducing it. I also commend the Leader of the Opposition.

I hope that by the end of this debate I will be able to commend every member in the Parliament for their support for the legislation. This is landmark, blueprint legislation. It is to be hoped that at the end of the process all States in Australia will bring into effect legislation that mirrors the legislation in New South Wales. Certainly that is my hope, because the Leader of the Opposition in one slight move away from unanimity of direction obviously proposes that we should move towards a national referendum. If that occurs, the people of Australia may seek much stronger controls than the controls proposed in this bill - perhaps moving towards a ban on weapons.

The bill represents the view of the majority of the community in New South Wales; the majority of people in all electorates of this State. It represents a dramatic change in direction - as stated by the Minister for Police and the Leader of the Opposition - away from the American pattern that is unfortunately developing and towards a pattern much in keeping with the Australian community: safe communities, safe families and a recognition of the rights of responsible shooters. There is no doubt that amongst the political representatives of Australia there has been a decade of timidity and vacillation about gun laws and gun control. It took the terrible events at Port Arthur to provide the spark that has brought this legislation forward.

This legislation came out of that terrible tragedy and I believe it is important that we remember those people who gave their lives at Port Arthur and who have, in effect, sacrificed their lives for this change in direction in Australia. With respect and sadness I read into Hansard the names of those people: Zoe Hall, Helene Salzmann, Janet Quin, Mary Nixon, Elizabeth Howard, Sarah Loughton, Ron Jary, Anthony Nightingale, Glen Pears, Jim Pollard, Nannette Mikac, David Martin, Walter Bennett, Mervyn Howard, Pauline Masters, Kate Scott, Tony Kistan, Andrew Mills, Alannah Mikac, Sally Martin, Kevin Sharp, Mary Howard, Elva Gaylard, Winifred Aplin, Robert Salzmann, Royce Thompson, Madeline Mikac, Jason Winter, Raymond Sharp, Dennis Lever, Peter Nash, Gwenda Neander, Ng Moh Yee William, Chung Soo Leng and Nicole Burgess.

We should remember those people for the sacrifice that they made and for the untimeliness of their deaths. This legislation - and, hopefully, the national legislation - will remind us always of that terrible event and the price that they paid. I entered this debate on the issue of community safety and the fact that for so many families across this State the gun is not only a weapon but also a means of fear and control within families. That issue has been dealt with in this legislation; gun ownership will be responsible gun ownership. It will be gun ownership that takes into account the right of gun owners to responsible use of weapons. There will be a licensing and registration system, and a system of oversight that means that irresponsible people will not have long-term access to weapons.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, the legislation will not prevent such tragedies. But it will, firstly, prevent the sort of tragedy that occurred at Port Arthur and, secondly, greatly strengthen the safety of people within the community. To emphasise just how much impact gun ownership has on the community and the way in which it touches people, I shall read into Hansard a letter from Dr Aidan Foy that was published in the Newcastle Herald on Wednesday, 19 June. The letter, under the heading "Tragedy of Gun Ownership", stated:

Some years ago an old friend who lived in a country town, was a respected community figure and a "perfect example of a responsible shooter", invited me to go

Page 3411
shooting for the day.

We went to another friend’s property and there, in complete safety, had a most enjoyable afternoon. The targets were clay pigeons, not live animals, and the whole thing was tremendous fun. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was quite good with a shotgun.

Six years later my friend killed his wife, child and himself with a weapon similar to that being fondled on the front page of The Herald (11/5/96) by Peter Blackmore.

That letter emphasises the fact that the gun that is a sporting implement can also, in the tragic circumstances that can occur within families, be a weapon of death and destruction. This legislation examines that issue and couches gun ownership in a structure of responsibility. Registration, licensing, purpose and rights of ownership are put within a framework that has regard more for the safety of the community and less for the wrongful view that there is a right to bear arms in this country. The Leader of the House, and Minister for Police in his second reading speech and the Leader of the Opposition in his contribution have comprehensively dealt with the clauses in the bill. Their views mirror the views expressed at the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council meeting on 10 May. In the period since that date widespread consultation has taken place. Members of the community and organisations have had an opportunity to voice their concerns and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to marshal themselves together, to bring forward submissions, to register their protest and to place pressure upon members of Parliament.

Honourable members entered this debate with a full knowledge of those concerns and, in my view, with a strong community feeling that the time has come to introduce this comprehensive legislation. Of those constituents who have contacted me, the majority have said that this is the right direction to take; that we must have a safe community. People have a right to responsible gun ownership, but it must be within that context. In my electorate - as has occurred in many other electorates - members of the Shooters Party and of the Sporting Shooters Association have expressed concern about the right to bear arms. It has been comprehensively proved that such a right does not exist under our Constitution. It is a privilege to have the ownership of a weapon; not a right. Concerns have also been expressed to me that people will lose their weapons, but that is not the case. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The Minister’s second reading speech indicated that some people will have genuine reasons for possessing or using a firearm. They are not unduly restrictive and include sport or target shooting, recreational hunting and vermin control and other uses. There has been extensive discussion about the right to possess weapons - by primary producers, for recreational use and for vermin and feral animal control; for business or employment; for occupational requirements; by members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or animal welfare officers; and for firearms collections. There is a broad range of genuine reasons for possessing firearms, which is comprehensively dealt with in the legislation.

There was concern about whether minors would have the right to participate in shooting. As the Minister for Police said in his speech, minors will retain the right to use long arms or target pistols under the personal supervision and instruction of an correctly registered and licensed shooter and, in the case of target pistols, to participate in approved sport-shooting events. That is as it should be. Australian rifle club members, who participate in shooting activities, were concerned that the Commonwealth was rapidly repealing club regulations. That matter was brought to my attention and, I am sure, to the attention of many other honourable members. The Minister has made it quite clear that he will take up that issue with the Commonwealth and will urge the Commonwealth to provide for a long lead time for the appropriate transfer, so that rifle club members can continue to participate in legitimate shooting activities. Provision is being made for adequate consultation. The Minister has said that when the legislation comes into effect there will be a consultation period until 31 July, when the Minister will again attend the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council.

This is an historic day for the Parliament. I am sure that all honourable members have given this legislation an enormous amount of thought and have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with their constituents. It is my hope that at the end of this debate we will be able to leave the Parliament proud of the fact that as New South Wales legislators we have listened to our community and have examined the overriding need in New South Wales and in Australia for the community to feel safe. People need to be able to feel that they are not going to be controlled or threatened by the fear of weapons; that they can participate in legitimate recreational shooting activity; that they can own a weapon as long as they comply with the licensing, safe storage and registration stipulations of the bill; and that they can continue to act responsibly both in their occupation or recreation as a shooter. And, even more important, they need to acknowledge the requirement to act responsibly and safely within the family and community. This is legislation that we all should be proud of and it is legislation that no lawful person, who respects the rights and laws of this country, need fear. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [9.54]: I lead on behalf of the National Party, the second partner in the coalition in the New South Wales Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Newcastle have articulated opening views and have made reference to the national tragedy at Port Arthur. The National Party and I support their sentiments and acknowledge there is no doubt that the Port Arthur tragedy was the catalyst that jerked governments, oppositions and the broad population
Page 3412
of Australia to the realisation that the time had come to review concepts on guns and their ownership and to improve the general management of violence that can result from their inappropriate use.

Following a number of shootings in recent times, there was an increasing community belief that the laws in most States were inadequate and had to be improved. I point out that often it takes a tragedy to act as a catalyst for action. How often do we hear that the dangers at a level crossing had been pointed out time and time again and there had perhaps been a number of accidents but it took someone’s death to instigate action? That is what has occurred in relation to gun law reform. Every cloud has a silver lining, and there is no doubt the debate of recent weeks has pulled Australians together as only Australians are capable of pulling together when there is a real need and a real issue. We are a great nation. We have demonstrated that we are able to debate many aspects of the ideals and focus of legislation such as this and still have reason prevail and achieve the objectives of the majority of the people.

I record my appreciation of the initiatives of John Howard and Tim Fischer and of their conviction of the need to ensure that gun management is improved. They have been outstanding in their focus and in the clarity of their aims. All governments have been extremely tardy, though, in articulating the intention of the gun legislation to the general public. That tardiness has enabled various individuals and minority groups to take advantage, for their own political purposes, of a set of circumstances that need not necessarily have given them that advantage if the concept, reasoning and detail of the template legislation had been better advertised and articulated to the broader public.

I make it clear it is not too late to give the public more information on the legislation. I believe that when debate in the Parliament on this bill is concluded - be that today, tomorrow or Sunday - the bill will receive the unanimous support of this House. Certainly it will have the support of the National Party. It is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that every New South Welshman has a reasonable opportunity to understand the legislation and have it presented clearly. The general public of New South Wales and Australia cannot be expected to accept and work within legislation unless they know what that legislation provides. It is all very well for members of Parliament to debate the bill for one, two or three days - and I suspect that there will be considerable detail at various times - but the legislation must be presented clearly to the public.

Reference has been made to the possibility of referenda. Such suggestion has come from some of the minority political parties, from individuals and, I believe, from the Prime Minister. Indeed, this morning the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a referendum, although I do not know in which context. We have had a referendum over the last few weeks, and there is no doubt about the result of it: the great, convincing majority of Australians - whether the figure be 75, 85 or 90 per cent; I know that it is much greater than 50 per cent plus one, which is a majority - want reforms in this area. That is one of the reasons that we, as elected members, are reflecting those views.

I congratulate the parliamentary draftsman for his use in the bill of common language. The bill is readable; it tells a story; and it is easy to understand. I welcome the presentation and the articulation of the bill. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, it is absolutely necessary that every State of Australia have true template legislation. A vacuum has undoubtedly been left in the process because of the lack of template legislation. When States, or indviduals for that matter, are left to make their own interpretation of any type of plan, total uniformity is never achieved because the plan is always subject to different opinions. The Government has been more than hasty in trying to have legislation passed in New South Wales without insisting on template legislation. Although the Opposition has said that the Government must introduce legislation so that the people of New South Wales know what they are debating, that legislation must be template. The Opposition expects a guarantee from the Government during the debate that the legislation will be template in that it will be totally complementary to legislation in every other State of Australia. Each State should not have its own variation of the legislation.

Some of the stunts embarked upon by the Government have not been in the best interests of the spirit of the legislation or, indeed, the acceptance by the public of it. The Government’s stunt of trying to flick responsibility to the Commonwealth was politics at its worst. The Government’s stunt of trying to claim that the bill is the first such legislation in Australia demeans the spirit of the legislation, because the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria are undoubtedly well in advance of New South Wales. It does not matter much which State is first, as long as the process gets under way. If the Government cuts out the stunts and sticks to the script it will have the support of the people. The people want to support reform, but inflicting stunts on them is a cheap trick.

I refer particularly to the stunt of some 24 hours ago. A walkout was staged in front of the television cameras; it was an attempt by the Government to cover its political backside in the bush. That staged walkout was a stunt, but it did not work. The parliamentary staff in the corridors and everyone else realised it was a stunt. Those in the parliamentary gallery laughed at it. Those connected with country newspapers laughed at it, because they knew it was a cheap stunt. The stunts should stop and the members of this House should get on with trying to implement the legislation. That is the reason the House is sitting on a Friday. I want to repeat the statement I made in this House
Page 3413
on 11 June about the National Party’s attitude. I repeat what I said at that time:

I wish to make it patently clear that the National Party - in line with its support for gun law reform - will not oppose template legislation in the area of registration. In the meantime, the National Party would be remiss not to pursue the party’s views on this matter. It is up to the Carr Labor Government to introduce national template legislation into New South Wales, and it will be on the Government’s shoulders to make it work. Australia has possibly a one-off opportunity to get it right on guns, and the National Party will not resile from that responsibility.

Again I repeat that the National Party will not be captured by the extremists in this debate who are spreading misinformation. At the completion of the debate the National Party will support the bill. The core of the bill is the same as legislation introduced by the Liberal and National parties in previous governments. The National Party welcomes the Government’s recognition that the core of the legislation is satisfactory and that it has been able to build on it. I welcome the recognition of the specific needs of farmers, sporting shooters and recreational shooters. Since day one the National Party has consistently acknowledged that the responsible needs of those people must be recognised. The Government has recognised those needs, and that recognition is appreciated. Other National Party speakers will articulate the detail of expert opinion in a number of areas.

I have two fundamental questions to put before the Minister. If they are answered in the early part of the debate, confusion will be avoided and time may well be saved down the track. The first question relates to recommendations on the storage of firearms and the definition of "hardwood". I ask the Minister to explain whether the word "hardwood" is used as a technical term describing timber, or whether it is used to refer to core and composite boards. The second question relates to licences. If a shooter who is licensed in category A or category B possesses category C firearms will that person need to have three licences, that is, a licence in each of those categories? Other speakers will no doubt highlight other provisions in the bill, but those are the two most common questions asked. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Members of the National Party and other members of this House have difficulty with the proposed system of gun registration as opposed to a national register of gun ownership. The National Party opposes the registration of firearms for the following reasons. The system will not work because the register will never contain details of all firearms in Australia. The system will not work because it is simply not practical. The system will not reduce the number of firearms in Australia, but will have the reverse effect of driving both legal and prohibited firearms underground. The system seeks to set up a costly and unwieldy bureaucracy that the National Party believes will ultimately founder. The National Party has always supported, and still supports, a national register of firearms owners, for the simple reason that it is more likely to work.

A national register of firearm owners will achieve all of the things that the proponents of a register of firearms claim that that register will achieve. The current system of licensing shooters should therefore be extended to incorporate information about whether registered shooters are also firearms owners, but should not include information as to the number or category of firearms. The licence application or renewal form should contain a simply question: "Are you a firearm owner?" For reasons of confidentiality the answer should be contained on a magnetic strip on the shooter’s licence. This information will not only be of great benefit to the Police Service and other law enforcement agencies, but it will also address the many concerns about a firearms register that I will deal with shortly. To encourage the maximum number of shooters to register, such registration should be at low cost, or at even no cost, to shooters.

Instead of viewing that registration system as an additional revenue source, or an attempt to recover some of the enormous costs inherent in the agreed scheme, the Government must do everything it can to encourage full registration of gun owners. To achieve that an ongoing education campaign should be launched, and at some later stage incentives could be offered to gun owners to complete the ownership register. Before the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council agreed on 10 May to the register of firearms, the Federal Attorney-General circulated a proposal that outlined the rationale for it. He said:

By linking licence and firearms databases in every jurisdiction in Australia, police will have access to much valuable information which will help to protect members of the public and police officers in many circumstances. Failure to provide this access leaves members of the public and police officers subject to needless risk.

An intelligent reading of that statement demonstrates that this is no more a rationale for a firearms register than it is a rationale for a firearm owners register. Of those two, the National Party supports the one that will work. Experience in other jurisdictions shows clearly that a national register of firearms does not work. Every member speaking on this bill ought to be familiar with evidence given to the Joint Select Committee upon Gun Law Reform, which was set up as a result of another shooting tragedy, this time only a half-hour drive from here, in Strathfield. Academic research was presented to that committee. Mr David Fine, in his 1988 paper "Gun Laws - Proposals for Reform" found:

There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that the cost of administering any type of registration scheme might achieve any commensurate reduction in the criminal misuse of firearms, or any increase whatsoever in the frequency with which criminals are apprehended by police . . . long gun registration, in those Australian jurisdictions in which it has been in recent years does not appear to be achieving a meaningful reduction in the number of firearms held (often without proper safe keeping facilities) by private persons who have no real use or strong attachment to these firearms. Registration does not appear to be a strategy particularly well calculated to reduce the availability of firearms to criminals, through a diminution

Page 3414
in the number of firearms likely to be lost through burglary.

In further evidence presented to the committee the experiences of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada were examined. It was found in each of those countries that the registration of firearms did not achieve its stated objectives. It is important that we appreciate that whatever we do has to work. If any proposal is to work it must have the confidence of gun owners across the State. We might make a law, but unless there is common participation of those at whom the law is targeted, the law simply will not work. I reinforce that the National Party will support the bill in its final form. So far the Government has totally failed to heed the comments about community violence made by John Howard subsequent to the meeting of police Ministers.

Although debate today will focus almost entirely on the gun legislation, which is as it should be, I would be remiss if I did not make reference in Hansard to the Prime Minister’s comments regarding violence depicted in videos and television and through computer technology. It is incumbent upon this Government and Parliament to ensure that not only are gun controls improved but that at the same time attempts are made to change community attitudes. This is a one-off opportunity to improve gun laws; let us take that opportunity to address community violence and community attitudes to violence. I have had enough of community violence in good suburbs and country towns right across New South Wales. Those communities are being destroyed because of a small element of violence that is fuelled every day and every night by access to extremes of violence on television and videos, and now computer technology. That is simply wrong.

The challenge to the Government is to deal with not only guns but with community attitudes to violence in our suburbs and country towns. Although this legislation mentions youth training - and the National Party totally supports that - I suggest that this provision needs careful consideration. There is nothing more foolish than parents teaching their own children to drive, because they learn all the parents’ bad habits. Although the bill refers to training our youth in safety, attitude must also be taken into the assessment. I remember clearly the first time I shot an animal. It was the pony on which my father learned to ride. That was a difficult thing to do because I had to look the animal in the eye. Every kid should look someone in the eye before they first fire a gun at something they intend to shoot, and they should think about what they are doing.

Attitude is so important in regard to licences to fly aeroplanes and drive motor cars, and it must be important in regard to being licensed to have a gun. In the minute I have left I wish to ask the Government one or two questions. The Minister for Police refuses to reveal police numbers. Who will administer this legislation? The New South Wales Police Service. It is incumbent upon the Government to tell the House where the police will come from to enforce these measures. What resources is the Government prepared to give police to enforce these new laws? What budget supplementation is to be made by the Government for that purpose? What support is the Government prepared to give police if police are to be charged with the responsibility of making this legislation work? The Government cannot from this weekend walk away - [Time expired.]

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [10.14]: Because this legislation is historic and controversial I have studied it carefully. I am concerned to try to understand just why this issue seems to have basically divided the people of this nation into two groups. It seems to me that members of the community are either for or against gun control. In the eyes of most people, there are no ifs or buts about the issue: they are either for control of firearms or against control of firearms. I have no doubt that attempts will be made to amend this bill despite the community’s black and white attitude to it. Those attempts to amend the bill will no doubt be made in the upper House in particular.

If I had my way, I too would try to amend the bill to introduce even tougher measures on the control of firearms. But I realise I would have no chance of achieving that aim at this stage, particularly as the bill derives from a meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council. The bill is an excellent measure. I am by no means opposed to it, because I consider it to be a big leap forward towards the control of firearms. It is necessary to emphasise that this legislation is more about the control of firearms than anything else. However, the opponents of the bill are of the view that this legislation is all about banning firearms. I do not believe that is so.

The legislation is directed primarily at controlling rather than banning firearms. I say that because, as I see it, there are only four individual groups of persons who stand to lose out by not being able to legally acquire firearms because of this measure. In the first group are the criminals who use guns to threaten for the purpose of robbery, or with the intention to kill if they do not get their own way. No-one should object to the denial of firearms to those persons. In another category are the psychopaths who own guns and are likely to use them to murder. The licensing and registration provisions of this bill will curb their opportunities to acquire guns in future.

In the third category of persons who would lose out from this measure are the tragic reactionaries who keep guns in their homes in case someone breaks in. In future those people will have to make their homes more secure or buy a dog. I call them tragic reactionaries because people who keep guns in their homes usually build homes like Fort Knox and also have an Alsatian and/or a Rottweiler in the backyard. But they are not happy with that; they somehow feel a need to have a gun under the bed for their protection. The tragedy is
Page 3415
that that sort of mentality results in the high incidence of shooting accidents and suicides occurring in homes around this country. The legislation is targeted at restricting that type of use. In the fourth group to lose out as a result of this bill are the shooters who are not aligned with any organised gun sport or who are not associated with any gun club. That type of person enjoys target shooting for recreational purposes or shooting animals, which is termed a sport.

Bearing in mind those four categories of persons, it is little wonder that the majority of Australians want much tougher gun laws. Why do those rallying against gun control make so much fuss about the issue? Although a majority of those opposing gun control may have to surrender some of their guns, they will still be able to keep some guns, but those guns will be under much stricter control in the future. Most people currently owning guns will be able to continue to do so. Although the catchcry of those who oppose tougher controls is "They are taking away our guns", the main opposition of the gun lobby is to the imposition of tougher controls. That is because members of the gun lobby believe that they are cautious and responsible gun owners and that guns are safe in their hands. I concede that probably correct as it relates to each individual. Most gun owners probably are responsible, but the collective statistics show a much different and a much darker picture. The statistics show that in Australia gun fatalities resulting from accidents, violence and suicide are extraordinarily high. That is why stricter gun controls are needed and why this legislation is necessary.

Probably the most important provision in the bill is that in future before a licence is obtained an applicant must state the reason he or she requires such a licence. Genuine reasons for owning or possessing a firearm must be presented. The bill also spells out the reasons that applicants must give. If an applicant cannot satisfy a particular reason specified within the bill, the licence will not be granted. In summary those reasons are restricted to sport and target shooting, and applicants must be members of sporting clubs; vermin control by owners or occupiers of rural land or other persons provided that permission to shoot on such land is produced; a professional contract shooter engaged in controlling pest animals or employed or authorised by government to control pest animals; and for business or employment purposes the applicant must demonstrate that the business or employment necessitates the possession of a gun.

Category C weapons are the most lethal and dangerous range of weapons readily available to the community. I refer to semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump-action shotguns. That is a prohibiting category and very few people will be able to acquire these types of guns. The only applications that will be entertained are those from primary producers who must show good reasons for requiring a category C licence. In the long term sporting shooters may receive some concessions within this category, but that has not yet been determined. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, primary producers who will be able to obtain a category C licence must live on the land and must be able to argue a special need for such guns. More importantly, they will only be able to have one rifle or one shotgun as specified within that category.

That is why the gun lobby claims that the Government is taking its guns away. But that claim infers that the gun lobby will lose all of its guns. I believe the statement that the Government is taking away the gun lobby’s guns is false. The correct interpretation is that the Government is taking away some guns to control the use of firearms. I want to refer briefly to other aspects of the legislation. The storage of firearms is important. The bill contains extremely strict measures about the storage of guns. One important aspect is that ammunition must be stored separately from the firearm. That makes a great deal of sense. Ammunition will be available only after the production of a licence, and the ammunition will only be available for those weapons for which licences are issued. [Extension of time agreed to.]

The bill also provides that a separate permit must be issued for each gun, and that there must be a permit for each type of gun. The issuing of the permit can be delayed for a period of 28 days for security reasons. During that time persons may be investigated before such permits are granted. All first-time users must undergo a safety course to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police. I am sure no-one would argue against that provision. The bill covers every reason for cancelling or refusing a licence. The bill also sets out every type of undesirable person that can be refused a licence. The bill is thorough in that regard. I am pleased that the bill includes a provision that licences will be issued for no more than five years. That is an excellent security check.

Some in the community argue that restricting the availability of guns will not stop deaths from guns because guns do not kill, people kill. That is another distorted argument. So far as I am concerned, accidental deaths involving guns are caused by guns, not by people. If fewer guns are available, fewer deaths will result, because so many fatalities result from accidents with guns. Some also argue that restricting the availability of guns does not have a drastic effect on fatalities caused by guns. That is not so. Japan, a nation of 125 million people, has the toughest gun laws in the world. Last year in Japan the total number of deaths caused by guns was 34. In Australia, which has only 14 per cent of the population of Japan, approximately 500 deaths occur each year as a result of the use of firearms. In Japan the gaol sentence for a person possessing an illegal weapon is 15 years; the gaol sentence for a person firing a gun in a public place is life.


Page 3416
Fewer deaths occur through the use of fi