Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 22 April 1997, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Mr SPEAKER: I draw to the attention of honourable members the presence in the gallery of Mr Robert Schwarten, MLA, Queensland shadow minister for primary industries; and former Acting-Speaker of this House, Merv Hunter. I welcome them both.

Royal assent to the following bill reported:

Local Government Amendment (Cudgegong Abattoir) Bill

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.16 p.m.]: Two tragedies in recent times have had a profound effect on not only Australia but the whole world - two communities on opposite sides of the world torn apart by two lone gunmen. Dunblane, Scotland, and Port Arthur, Tasmania, are united by these most terrible of circumstances. Now, a year later, we should all pause to remember what happened - remember so we never forget. Today in the public gallery are John Crozier, Les Morton and Gordon Bounds. Two of these men lost their children at Dunblane, and Mr Bounds' daughter was permanently disabled. These are men of great courage. They have come to this country in a show of solidarity with the people of Port Arthur and the people of Australia. They have come to share their experiences and to highlight the problems encountered by victims of crime, particularly the families of homicide victims.

Sometimes the most terrible tragedies unite communities. After the Port Arthur shootings not only this Parliament but parliaments around the country acted to strengthen firearms laws. Now, 12 months on, those laws have been passed - after unprecedented extended sittings of this Parliament. They have been gazetted after an extensive consultation period with those on both sides of the debate, and on 1 July firearms registration will commence in this State. In a possibly unprecedented show of bipartisanship, we have achieved what only a short time ago seemed unachievable. We have taken action to make our community safer - for all of us. Put simply, look at how far we have come.

I am hopeful that John, Les and Gordon will take back to Scotland fond memories of their time here. I am hopeful that they will tell their political leaders just what can be done when politicians work together. And I am hopeful that they will convey our message of sympathy, and our message of hope for the future, to the people of Dunblane. Mrs Martha Jabour, from the Homicide Victims Support Group, has advised me that next Monday we will all be asked to "Remember Port Arthur - Light a Candle". The Government supports this initiative as a positive statement of support for the Port Arthur victims and their families. Consequently, all government agencies will be asked to participate - to light a candle, to remember. All government departments will observe one minute of silence at 3 p.m. on Monday. The Government urges communities right across the State to participate in this mark of respect. At 2.55 p.m. on Monday in a ceremony at Martin Place His Excellency the Governor, Gordon Samuels, will light the first candle as part of the "Remember Port Arthur - Light a Candle" day. The minute of silence will then be observed.

I was surprised and disturbed to learn that currently in Scotland there are no counselling services for survivors and victims of crime. Last Friday I wrote to Prime Minister Major and Opposition Leader Blair urging the provision of government support to the victims of the Dunblane massacre. This Government has also offered its support to the British Government for any assistance in the development of legislation for the protection of victims' rights. Again on behalf of the New South Wales Parliament I extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of the Port Arthur and Dunblane shootings.

Page 7815

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.21 p.m.]: I will be proud to support the motion foreshadowed by the Premier and, of course, pledge the Opposition's total support of it. The people of Scotland and Australia have always been joined by many links. The family trees of many members of this House would reveal a Scottish link, and that is indeed so of the Australian population. But the link that was horrifically re-established between Scotland and Australia one year ago gives us an opportunity to pause and think about our future and the future of gun control in this country.

A year ago 17 innocent people were gunned down in a previously little known Scottish village called Dunblane. At that moment, that remote and quiet village was catapulted into world headlines and world consciousness. The incident made us all stop and think about gun control and the madness that had been let loose in the village of Dunblane. Only seven weeks later in one of the remotest parts of Tasmania, and at one of the most historic sites in Australia, an even greater crime - if one can imagine such a thing and if one can quantify such a crime - was committed when 35 innocent people lost their lives. So the people of Scotland and Australia were linked again, this time in tragedy and horror.

On behalf of the Opposition, the people of New South Wales and indeed all Australians, I welcome to this House the three relatives of the Dunblane victims. Their presence is a tangible reminder of the small step that we have taken together over the past year to change gun control laws in this country. Tragically it took an incident of the mammoth proportions of Port Arthur, an echo of Dunblane, to change gun laws in this State and around Australia, but that has been accomplished. People are now far more conscious about gun control and gun safety. So too are we conscious of the need to look after the victims of violent crime, such as the crimes committed at Port Arthur and Dunblane.

In addition to the initiatives that have been taken in this country since the Port Arthur incident this too is a good beginning. I endorse the Premier's remarks about the initiatives taken to assist the victims, the families left behind, after these horrific crimes cut such a swathe through our community. All will not have been lost if we remember Dunblane and Port Arthur and learn from those experiences. The Australian and Scottish people have done all that they can to show leadership to other countries that have yet to address the issue. I indicate to the Premier the Opposition's complete support for the motion, and I welcome the delegation from Dunblane.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Carr agreed to:

That this House:

(a) notes the presence in the Chamber today of Les Morton, John Crozier and Gordon Bounds, who are here representing the families of the victims of the Dunblane massacre;

(b) extends its sympathy and support to them and asks them to convey those sentiments to the people of Dunblane, Scotland;

(c) notes that next Monday, 28 April 1997, is the first anniversary of the Port Arthur shootings and extends its sympathy to the people of Port Arthur and the families of the victims Australiawide;

(d) supports the uniform national firearms laws which followed the Australasian Police Ministers' Council on 10 May 1996;

(e) supports the "Remember Port Arthur - Light a Candle" campaign on 28 April as a positive statement of support for the victims and their families;

(f) notes that this Parliament and all government departments, authorities and employees will be asked to observe one minute of silence at 3.00 p.m. on Monday, 28th April; and

(g) calls on the people of New South Wales to also observe this minute of silence.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places.


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, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Cruickshank, Mr Debnam, Mr Ellis, Ms Ficarra, Mr Fraser, 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 Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith, Mr Tink and Mr R. W. Turner.

Page 7816

Petition praying that Ryde Hospital and its services be retained, received from Mr Tink.

Petition praying in support of uniform national gun laws, national registration of firearms, and banning all automatic and semiautomatic weapons, received from Mr Aquilina.

Petition praying that the Pennant Hills patrol not be closed and that the police resources available to the Pennant Hills patrol be increased, received from Mr O’Farrell.

Petition praying that adequate police be provided for Taree, that forward planning be undertaken for a police station at Old Bar and that the Old Bar police patrol be increased, received from Mr J. H. Turner.

Petition praying, on behalf of the National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia, for better on-train announcements, received from Mr MacCarthy.

Petition praying that the Manly Cove foreshores be protected, and that the Manly Council policy that limits the height and scale of any Manly Wharf development be respected, received from Dr Macdonald.

Motion by Mr J. H. Turner agreed to:

That business with precedence notice of motion No. 2 be postponed until tomorrow.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Report of the Rail Access Corporation for the six-month period ended 31 December 1996.
Environmental Impact Statement Strategy Progress Report, dated 31 March 1997.
Report to Parliament by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation under the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Act 1995 on Forestry Industry Restructuring Expenditure for the six-month period ended 31 December 1996.

[Notices of Motions for Urgent Consideration]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is the duty of the honourable member for Ermington to read the motion to the House, not to comment on it or to discuss it. On a previous occasion I took the Deputy Leader of the National Party to task for the same thing. The honourable member for Ermington will have an opportunity to comment on the motion later.

Mr CARR: During the absence of the Hon. Michael Knight, MP, Minister for the Olympics, I will answer questions on the Minister's behalf.

Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Why has he continually told the public that the new train timetable is three weeks away when the revised timetable has been sitting on his desk since 26 March? Why has he sat on the new timetable for almost a month at the expense of the hundreds of thousands of commuters left stranded daily on his train platforms? He ought to read his documents.

Mr LANGTON: I am delighted to advise honourable members that last night 93.3 per cent of on-time running was achieved.

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

Mr LANGTON: I will repeat that, it was 93.3 per cent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order. There is far too much interjection from both sides of the House.

Mr LANGTON: The Premier and I have acknowledged, and we repeated it on the weekend, that the people of Sydney have the right to get to work and to get home from work on time.

Page 7817

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Georges River on two calls to order.

Mr LANGTON: We acknowledged that the timetable introduced on 3 November last year, first, to take account of the Cumberland link and, second, to accommodate the extra 6.8 million passenger journeys that we have attracted to railways in one year -

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

Mr LANGTON: To make public transport attractive once more to the people that the coalition lost through seven years of cutbacks and mismanagement -

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

Mr LANGTON: The achievement of this Government in getting 6.8 million people back to using CityRail trains in one year is nothing short of -

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

Mr LANGTON: The Government embarked on a 12-month consultation program to ensure that it could produce a new timetable. As I said, the timetable had to be introduced on 3 November to take account of the opening of the Y link.

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

Mr LANGTON: We sought to accommodate the needs of the commuters of Sydney as they were identified through the extensive process of community consultation.

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

Mr LANGTON: The Government acknowledged publicly that the timetable was overambitious.

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

Mr LANGTON: Substantial operational changes to the timetable to allow for crossovers were made, and they were explained in great detail.

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

Mr LANGTON: When an on-time running figure in excess of 93 per cent can be achieved, as it was in the peak last evening -

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

Mr LANGTON: - that shows very clearly that we are on the right track.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will wait until the House comes to order before he continues the answer.

Mr LANGTON: It shows clearly that to be able to achieve on-time running figures in excess of 93 per cent, which was achieved last evening for example, we are heading in the right direction.

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

Mr LANGTON: As the Premier and I said at the weekend, the new Chief Executive of State Rail has one clear task, that is, to review the problems with the existing timetable and to come up with solutions as quickly as possible.

Mr GIBSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. What was the outcome of the trial at Easter of doubling driver licence demerit points for speeding offences in New South Wales?

Mr SCULLY: I thank the honourable member for Londonderry for his question and I acknowledge his strong work on road safety as Chairman of the Staysafe committee.

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

Mr SCULLY: On 25 March I announced that licence demerit points would be doubled for speeding offences over the Easter school holiday period. That initiative applied from midnight on Wednesday, 26 March, to midnight on Monday, 7 April. It was part of a $1.8 million package, which was the biggest package of road safety measures ever introduced in this State over Easter - traditionally a notorious time on our roads. The package, which also included measures to target the key areas of drink-driving and fatigue, was
Page 7818
developed in response to the disturbingly high fatality level on the State's roads in early January this year.

As honourable members would be aware, the results over Easter were very encouraging. The number of road deaths for the full holiday period was 11, compared with 24, 20 and 29 for the same period over the previous three years. This represents reductions of 54 per cent, 45 per cent and 62 per cent respectively for 1996, 1995 and 1994. The number of fatalities for the five core days of Easter, from the Thursday before Easter to Easter Monday inclusive, was three. This was the lowest total on record, down by nine, or 75 per cent, on the figure for 1996. To put this in perspective, in 1949, when road statistics began, there were seven deaths over Easter with 400,000 registered vehicles in the State. In 1997 there were three deaths with 3½ million registered vehicles in the State.

The real test of the success or failure of road safety measures is the number of fatalities or serious injuries from road accidents. On this measure the Easter package was clearly a major success. But there is other evidence that supports the conclusion that the demerits initiative played a role in improving driver behaviour. For the five days of Easter the number of speeding offences detected by radar and mobile patrol was 9,560 compared with 14,299 in 1996. This represents a reduction of approximately one-third. Falls were also recorded for stationary random breath test charges, traffic infringements and seat belt offences.

Given that additional Roads and Traffic Authority funding ensured that police enforcement levels were significantly increased over the previous year, the real reduction level in road breaches was greater than those figures indicate. Data for the full Easter school holiday period will be available in time for the road safety summit to be conducted next month. Nevertheless, I believe sufficient evidence already exists to justify extending the double demerit point initiative. I am pleased to advise the House that I have decided that demerit points for speeding will be doubled over the next Christmas-New Year holiday period.

Some observers have advocated a wider application of this measure by extending it to other school holidays and long weekends. I am concerned that such a move may be counterproductive. I believe frequent application of double demerits may desensitise drivers to the threat of receiving increased demerit points, thus robbing the initiative of much of its impact. However, I have not made a final decision on the matter and it will be addressed at the road safety summit. On a wider level, demerit points are being considered in the Government's current review of penalties for all road offences.

The RTA receives strong public criticism from time to time. I believe it does not receive the credit it deserves for its work in road safety. I take this opportunity to congratulate those in the RTA who worked on the double demerits initiative and the rest of the Easter road safety package. The double demerits initiative sparked enormous interest and endorsement across Australia. For the benefit of our friends opposite I shall quote two examples. At the conclusion of the Easter holiday period no less than the acting Prime Minister, Mr Tim Fischer, congratulated New South Wales on its road safety performance, and no less than the Federal Minister for Transport -

Mr Photios: Good man.

Mr SCULLY: Occasionally a good bloke. He wrote offering his congratulations on what he called a highly successful road safety campaign. Two towering National Party figures, the acting Prime Minister and the Federal Minister for Transport, stand in stark contrast to the honourable member for Eastwood.

Mr Collins: On a point of order. The Minister has apparently suffered amnesia because last week I supported the Government -

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

Mr SCULLY: It was so forgettable, I cannot remember it!

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

Mr SCULLY: In a desperate attempt to score political points the honourable member for Eastwood responded to my announcement of double demerit points by saying that road safety over Easter would be at risk because of this initiative. Everyone on this side remembers that he said road safety would be at risk because of that announcement.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Eastwood will have an opportunity to make a personal explanation at the end of question time, if he so wishes.

Mr SCULLY: I was extremely disappointed at his response. I would like him to have the grace and
Page 7819
courage to admit in this House that he was wrong, to apologise to this House and to say, "I'm sorry."

Mr PHOTIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Do the Minister's CityRail briefing notes attached to his 12 May train timetable reveal 883 services to be cut from CityRail stations each day? Has the Minister not released his revised timetable because it would provide a worse service than even the current timetable provides?

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

Mr LANGTON: I repeat: at the weekend the Premier and I announced -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington will leave the Chamber if he continues to interject.

Mr LANGTON: I repeat: at the weekend the Premier and I announced the appointment of David Hill as Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority. At that time we said that he had one specific, clear, immediate task: to get trains running on time.

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

Mr LANGTON: I assure this House that as of Sunday afternoon Mr Hill has been working on that task. He is examining existing and proposed timetables and will make an announcement about changes as soon as possible.

Mr RUMBLE: What information can the Premier give concerning reaction to the appointment of David Hill as Chief Executive of the State Rail Authority?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask Opposition members to provide a better example to children in the gallery. False laughter in the House is not acceptable behaviour. I remind the House that a number of members are on three calls to order. The Chair will not accept such behaviour in future and if the honourable member for Northcott and the honourable member for Lane Cove continue to act in that manner they will leave the Chamber.

Mr CARR: On Sunday night the honourable member for Ermington said on Channel 9, "To bring back David Hill is the only solution." The sun then set, darkness enclosed our friendly continent, and some hours passed before the rosy fingers of dawn spread light on the eastern horizon. Then the honourable member for Ermington said on morning radio, "David Hill is not the answer."

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Whips may move about the Chamber, but other members should remain seated and listen to the answer in silence.

Mr CARR: There is some incredulity raised, given the contrast between those two quotations, so bear with me while we press the replay button. What did the honourable member for Ermington say on Sunday night? He said, "To bring back David Hill is the only solution." But what did he say on Monday morning radio? He said, "David Hill is not the answer."

Mr Photios: Put it in context.

Mr CARR: "Put it in context," he pleads. I did put it in context. The honourable member for Ermington delivered one of those quotes on Sunday night, the other on Monday morning - that is the context. Lest it be thought that somehow I have been unfair and this is an isolated occasion, let me read a quote to the House. On Sunday the honourable member for Ermington said - and honourable members would understand that I cannot get his cadences - "To lose the boss of State Rail" -

Mr MacCarthy: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, you have indicated that false laughter is out of order.

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

Mr CARR: On Sunday night the honourable member for Ermington said, "To lose the boss of State Rail is no loss." Darkness then encloses the known world and some hours before the sun rises the honourable member for Ermington is on morning radio -

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The question that was asked of the Premier by the honourable member related to community reaction to the appointment of David Hill. It did not relate to the utterances of one single member of this House. Pursuant to Standing Order 138 the Premier is required to give a relevant answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair will not tolerate interruptions from Government members
Page 7820
whilst a point of order is being taken. I place the honourable member for Bulli on two calls to order.

Mr Hartcher: The Premier is not giving a relevant answer when he simply quotes media announcements as to what one member of this House may have said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a copy of the question in front of me. The Premier's answer is in order.

Mr Hartcher: On a further point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member taking a fresh point of order?

Mr Hartcher: Yes, Mr Speaker. I take a new point of order relating to the quotation of media reports in this House, on which there have been many rulings. The Premier must be prepared to verify the source of those media reports.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Premier wishes to continue to quote media reports, he should verify their source.

Mr CARR: I quote - and I verify the source - that on Sunday night the honourable member for Ermington said, "To lose the boss of State Rail is no loss." On Monday morning radio he said, "The head of State Rail shouldn't face the sack." Hold on; press the replay button. On Sunday night he said, "To lose the boss of State Rail is no loss." On Monday morning he said, "The head of State Rail shouldn't face the sack." The one consistent thing about the honourable member for Ermington is his inconsistency. This bloke gives opportunism a bad name. But it goes on: the record is very rich. There is a very rich record indeed of contradictory, tricky, inaccurate and deceitful statements - but, above all, contradictory statements - by the honourable member for Ermington.

I did not want to have to do it, but this morning I ordered that all those statements on the views of the honourable member for Ermington, from diverse media sources, after having been researched and their accuracy verified, be brought together in one overarching publication for the edification of the people of our great State. Today I have great pleasure in launching the Photios file. Get your copy while it is hot!

Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Can the Minister explain why John Della Bosca wrote to a businessman asking for money and addressed him by a title only ever used in correspondence by the Department of Mineral Resources? Does the Minister still deny that either he or his office handed over departmental mailing list details to the New South Wales Labor Party for fundraising purposes?

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. If the matter is the subject of a police investigation it should be sub judice, but I am not aware of that. In any event the question is misleading and argumentative and should be ruled out of order.

Mr Hartcher: On the point of order. You have the question before you, which simply asks for information from the Minister in the course of the discharge of his portfolio duties. Accordingly, the question is not argumentative: it simply seeks information, and is therefore in order.

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

Mr MARTIN: In answering that question last week I said that the inference was a scurrilous lie, and I say it again now.

Mr WINDSOR: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. Given the Government's election commitment to trial a fixed-wing aeromedical patient retrieval service in Tamworth with a view to expanding such services to Wagga Wagga and Dubbo, can the Minister inform the House of the commencement date of that trial?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I commend the honourable member for Tamworth for his continued interest in health matters, particularly for his region but generally for country areas. The question relates to the second part of the review of aeromedical services, the first part being the reorganisation of the helicopter retrieval services.

[Interruption]

Yes, the helicopter retrieval services included the move of one of the bases from metropolitan Sydney to the Australian Capital Territory, which was a joint venture between the Australian Capital Territory Government and the New South Wales Government. That change has almost been completed. It certainly was -

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

Page 7821

Dr REFSHAUGE: I remember that when the Government announced the changes about the aeromedical retrieval services, particularly the chopper services, the honourable member for North Shore was, with bated breath, about to leap forward and condemn those changes. One of the honourable member's colleagues who has experience in this regard spoke to me privately outside the Chamber and said, "Look, you have to remember that when you touch the helicopters all logic goes out the window." I do not think he was necessarily referring to the honourable member for North Shore. Major difficulties arise when significant changes are made to services such as the helicopter retrieval service. I am delighted to announce to the House that the honourable member for North Shore was pulled into line by her Canberra colleagues, who said, "Don't touch this. It is good news not only for the Australian Capital Territory and the Liberal Government there, but also for the people who live in southern New South Wales."

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: It would be difficult to get the helicopter retrieval services in a better configuration. A helicopter must be left in Lismore - it was suggested that it be moved. National Party members promised to write press releases congratulating me when I announced the service, but I am still waiting for them to do so. The honourable member for Lismore put out a press release congratulating me - in fact, he was one of the first to thank me. I appreciate his work in this regard. We are in the final phase of working out the cost of the helicopter retrieval service to the New South Wales Government and to the Australian Capital Territory Government. The service is based in the Australian Capital Territory. The negotiations are progressing and we expect to have the matter finalised by the end of this month or early next month. The honourable member for Monaro is not keen on the proposal. In fact, he has sent me a number of letters criticising the move.

Mrs Skinner: He was criticising your slowness.

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, he was criticising the move. The coastline of New South Wales will be almost completely covered by the service - something that the coalition did not achieve when it was in government. The honourable member for Monaro complains about the service, but the people who live in the Snowy Mountains region will be delighted with it. The coalition had seven years in which to do something, but it never delivered. If the honourable member for Monaro is skiing or horse riding in that area a helicopter retrieval service will be available to pull him out of any mess that he gets into.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I anticipate the point of order. The Minister will return to the answer relating to the fixed-wing aeromedical retrieval service.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The fixed-wing aeromedical retrieval service is in its second phase. A number of representations have been made about the need to change the fixed-wing service and whether we should proceed with any of the pilot projects. Some time ago the honourable member for Tamworth said to me, "Don’t set up a pilot that is in name only. If you are going to go ahead, make sure that you set one up that works."

Mr Windsor: That was an election commitment.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I correct the honourable member for Tamworth: it was not an election commitment.

Mr Windsor: Yes, it was.

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, it was not. A decision was made after the election. I am happy to take further advice from the honourable member for Tamworth in relation to his views on that. The Government will be looking at a number of options to improve medical retrieval for the whole of New South Wales. The coalition did nothing in this regard for seven years.

Mr Collins: We maintained helicopter services.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Well you closed Lloyds out of the Illawarra. But this Government has provided helicopter retrieval services for the whole of the coastline and for approximately 200 kilometres inland. That is something that the coalition wishes it had done, and this Government has done it.

Mr CLOUGH: What information can the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women give to assist consumers who are seriously disadvantaged by recent changes to bank charges and practices?

Page 7822

Mrs LO PO': The honourable member for Bathurst always asks questions that have his electorate at heart. At the outset, I wish to apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. Although he invited me to his luncheon, I could not attend. The Leader of the Opposition talks about incompetent Ministers, but I wonder which quiz-kid sent this letter to me?

Mr Kerr: On a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order.

Mr Kerr: The Minister was not asked a question about the Leader of the Opposition. The alleged answer bears no relationship to the question she was asked.

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

Mrs LO PO': I give a word of advice to the Leader of the Opposition: if he is going to sign letters, he should read them. I am extremely concerned at the current direction of changes in the banking system, which will hit rural communities and disadvantaged consumer groups the hardest. Only yesterday the chief executive of a major bank made public statements to the effect that it was not his job to prop up yesterday's jobs. He was talking about his intention to axe thousands of today's jobs - real jobs in his bank held by real people in real towns all over the State. I was surprised at the almost brutal detachment of these comments. It indicated an attitude to bank employees - their welfare and the welfare of their families - that, sadly, seems to be a direct parallel of the major banks' attitudes to their customers.

Banking is an essential service - as necessary to modern life as water, power and ambulances. Pensions, pay packets and almost everything else are now paid directly into bank accounts, whether we like it or not. Banks have our money and they help themselves to it. Some of the recommendations in the recent Wallis report - such as those relating to mergers and fees - will accelerate the decline of banking services to disadvantaged and rural consumers. I advise the honourable member for South Coast that although financial regulation is controlled by the Commonwealth, I will do everything I can to defend the interests of New South Wales consumers and small businesses.

As a first step, this week I intend to write to the State general managers of all major banks operating in New South Wales requesting an urgent meeting. I want to know their plans for future services to regional and rural New South Wales. Small rural towns rightly feel betrayed when they get one month's notice that their local bank is closing down. I want the banks to tell me how they will meet the banking needs of rural communities and seniors.

Secondly, I will convene a forum on rural banking issues that will look at creative solutions for rural banking needs. For example, can banking needs be met through the local post office or the local registered club? How can banking services best be provided to older people, who prefer a passbook and a friendly teller to the loathed and distrusted plastic card and automatic teller machine? What services can be provided through phone banking at no extra charge? I would like all key stakeholders to attend the forum, including representatives of farmers and rural communities, representatives of financial institutions, and representatives of agencies that may provide alternative banking services.

Credit unions have a crucial role to play in rescuing consumers from the rapacious tendencies displayed by the major banks. Last year in Trangie the Premier granted $205,000 to Credit Care to employ two field officers to work with towns that have lost banking services. Trangie was one of the towns that lost its bank. The Government has removed 96 laws that prevented credit unions and building societies from competing on an equal footing with banks.

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

Mrs LO PO': When the coalition was in government it had the opportunity to do something about it, but it did nothing. Let me say it one more time for the unlearned: when the Opposition was in government it had the opportunity to do it and it did not. The honourable member for Pittwater would not know about it because he was still at school.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for Pittwater that he is on three calls to order.

Mrs LO PO': As non-profit organisations, their sole aim is to meet local needs, their members' needs. I will be looking to help credit unions in any way I can to fill gaps where banks close branches and remove services. Third, my office has already been in touch with the New South Wales Council of Social Service about its proposal to set up a telephone hotline to receive comments and complaints about banking services, particularly in the bush. The Government wants to know how these
Page 7823
changes are affecting people in the community, and then it will confront those who run the major banks with that information. I shall also pass on that information to the Federal Treasurer - not that it will do much good, as he is as deaf as a post when it comes to such matters - to guide the Federal Government's response to the Wallis inquiry. The banks seem to have taken the Wallis report as a green light to increase fees. It is scandalous that banks are slugging low-income earners and pensioners.

Mr Phillips: You are boring.

Mrs LO PO': You, my friend, are uninformed.

Mr Hartcher: You are a hypocrite.

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

Mrs LO PO': If the honourable member for Gosford thinks that pensioners get a square deal from the banks, he must live under a rock up on the central coast.

Mr Hartcher: Are you insulting the central coast?

Mrs LO PO': I do not have to. They have you as their member. It is scandalous that banks are slugging low-income earners and pensioners with skyrocketing fees while announcing record profits. The Wallis inquiry report suggests that banks should be allowed to charge whatever fees they like without being monitored. I vehemently oppose what the banks are going to do, as should all honourable members. Once again for my friend from the south coast, I shall make strong representation on this and other important matters.

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

Mrs LO PO': I will give every assistance I can to set up credit unions to outsmart the banks.

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

Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. What steps is the Government taking to boost the level of sports coaching in New South Wales?

Ms HARRISON: The question of accredited coaches in New South Wales is of concern to all sporting groups within the community. Officers of my department have recently completed an extensive analysis of level one and level two coaches in this State from the national coaching accreditation database. They have also held discussions with a number of State sporting organisations about coach education. This analysis was designed to assess how the department could implement programs aimed at significantly increasing the number of level two coaches in the State. During the study it became apparent that to achieve this goal the more immediate need was to address the issue of coaches obtaining their level one accreditation, which is a prerequisite for level two.

Another issue that was identified is the lack of women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders participating in sport as qualified coaches. It became apparent that any proposed coaching program had to focus on these two groups. Based on this analysis, a number of sports that would benefit from financial assistance from my department were identified. Sports were targeted because of their broad participation base, their potential for greater involvement by women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, and their high performance profile through the New South Wales Institute of Sport. I am pleased to say that I have now approved expenditure of $100,000 for the implementation throughout the State of a number of coach education strategies.

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

Ms HARRISON: Some $30,000 has been provided for a pilot program involving gymnastics, netball, softball and track and field - four sports that submitted excellent coaching development programs. In conjunction with my department, these sports will conduct a series of level one and level two courses in rural New South Wales and western Sydney, with a focus on women and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, to assist participants to gain accreditation under the national coach accreditation scheme. After the pilot programs have been evaluated, a further $30,000 will be allocated to a number of other targeted sports to conduct similar courses. Those sports will be touch football, basketball, hockey, rowing, soccer, volleyball, water polo, Australian football, rugby league and rugby union. I have also approved the allocation of $18,000 to country
Page 7824
regions and $6,000 to metropolitan regions to conduct level one and two coaching principles courses. These courses will be run by local presenters, where possible.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will wait until the House comes to order. Far too many members are discussing matters amongst themselves. Some members had the courtesy to leave the Chamber to discuss matters. Members remaining in the Chamber should abide by the standing orders.

Ms HARRISON: A further $16,000 has also been allocated to conduct course-presenter training, train-the-trainer courses, and courses for coaches associated with athletes with disabilities. If appropriate, residential courses will also be run in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. I am extremely confident that these measures will go a long way towards improving the number and quality of coaches in New South Wales. We can look forward to our athletes greatly benefiting and improving their performances as a result of these initiatives. I also take this opportunity to point out that our coach accreditation courses, and the promotion of those courses, were listed in the fairytale book of broken promises put out by the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year. The only way I have broken this promise is by doubling the funding.

Mr J. H. TURNER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fisheries. Given the Minister's resolute opposition to the introduction of share-managed fisheries, why has he prepared a regulation that terminates restricted fisheries and allows for share-managed fisheries? Has this alternative strategy been prepared because the Minister knows he is fighting a losing battle?

Mr MARTIN: It is rather fitting that this question from the ill-informed member opposite is asked on the day that the matter is to be debated at length in the upper House. The Government has always been very clear that it wants to implement the 1994 legislation in an orderly fashion; and that if that legislation is not proceeded with, it will be the end of orderly fishing in this State and commercial fishing will be finished. It will be like the North Sea if the Government does not rein in commercial fishing and have an orderly fishing system. Honourable members opposite are hellbent on wrecking the system for a minor point. They are out to take whatever they can gain, to the last fish.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation. I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the third time. Members will cease interjecting and talking amongst themselves. The Minister has the call.

Mr MARTIN: The Government is negotiating with members of the upper House on a timetable for the implementation of the 1994 legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for the Environment to order for the second time. If she interjects again, she will leave the Chamber.

Mr MARTIN: Members in the upper House want to have a timetable prepared for the implementation of the legislation. That is precisely the purpose of the extra regulation: to provide a timetable for the implementation of the legislation that was put before the Parliament in 1994.

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

Mr MARTIN: If they want to wreck it, let it be on their heads. However, this side of the Parliament will manage our fisheries responsibly, in an orderly fashion and with consultation. The Electoral Office will conduct the election of management advisory committees, and they also will be established in an orderly fashion. This Government is about responsible management.

Mr WOODS: My question is directed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Can the Minister give details of the timber industry in the Grafton area?

Mr YEADON: I do not have to tell members of this House what a keen interest the honourable member for Clarence takes in this issue. When we came to government we promised to transform the timber industry. We promised to make it the most environmentally responsible, the most innovative and the most sustainable timber industry in the world.

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

Mr YEADON: We said that although we would move out of high conservation value old-growth forest and preserve our ancient forests, we would also create new, safer, better paid and more secure jobs. We are well on track to achieving that goal. Today I can announce that the forestry industry
Page 7825
structural adjustment committee has approved a $1.1 million grant and interest subsidy to J. Notaras and Sons in Grafton. It is interesting to note that National Party members boo such an initiative.

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

Mr YEADON: That indicates their measure of support for the industry. The good thing is that the industry fully understands the support it gets from the National Party. This grant will kick-start a $4 million investment in the Notaras operation and create 24 new jobs.

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

Mr YEADON: It will enable the company to install technology that will make better use of smaller regrowth logs. It will also increase its kiln-drying capacity, which will increase the quality and therefore the value of its timber by drying it in a controlled environment. This is the latest and largest of the industry development grants made under the joint Federal-State $120 million industry restructuring package. It brings the total amount approved in industry development grants to $2.5 million, and the number of jobs created by those grants to approximately 90. Only $2.5 million has been spent so far and I can foreshadow to the House -

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

Mr YEADON: - that as a result of our term agreements and the work by the timber industry, for the rest of the year there will be a steady and consistent flow of investment into the industry right up and down the New South Wales coast. I know that hurts the honourable member for Monaro.

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

Mr YEADON: Like the rest of his colleagues, he sat there for years doing absolutely nothing for his rural community, and in particular his local timber industry.

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

Mr YEADON: This Government will -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Serjeant will remove the honourable member for Monaro.

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

Mr YEADON: Compare our record with the dismal record of those opposite. During their administration the industry stagnated. Bitter protests divided communities and workers stood idle.

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

Mr YEADON: Under the coalition Government 1,000 workers lost their jobs and no assistance was provided. The coalition did nothing to help industry keep pace with the rest of the world. Under the Carr Labor Government we have had a peaceful summer in the forests. The industry is becoming more sustainable. Workers are being retrained and redeployed. With Government assistance, new technology is being brought in. The contrast is stark. Honourable members opposite should visit forestry areas to see what has happened. During the parliamentary break I spent considerable time travelling up and down the New South Wales coast and talking to people in the timber industry. Their positive attitude and enthusiasm for the industry are outstanding. I take the opportunity to put on the record my appreciation -

Mr Schultz: Why won't you talk to Tumut and Gundagai shires?

Mr YEADON: You know very well that we are working on major initiatives within your electorate and we look forward to your endorsement -

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

Mr YEADON: We are showing the way forward for forestry.

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

Mr YEADON: Opposition members have nothing. They are a blank page. Clearly our restructure is working. I look forward to making future announcements in this House on the developing progress of the timber industry.

Page 7826

Dr REFSHAUGE: Earlier the honourable member for Tamworth asked me a question about fixed-wing aeromedical retrieval services in the Tamworth area. As part of my answer I said that the commitment to trial that service was not made before the election. Since then the honourable member for Tamworth has given me a press release by the Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Tamworth. I now accept that it was a commitment by the Government before the election.

Questions without notice concluded.

Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.27 p.m.]: I move:

That on Tuesday, 6 May 1997, standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow:

(1) The Premier to adjourn the debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills immediately after moving, "That these bills be now read a second time.";

(2) The Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council to be immediately admitted to the House for the purpose of giving a speech of unlimited duration in relation to the New South Wales Budget 1997-98; and

(3) The Premier to give the second reading speech at a later time upon the order of the day being read for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills.

I was tempted to table the speech I made in this Chamber last year on the same motion. Suffice it to say that there is no legal impediment to the Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, attending this House as he did last year for the specific purpose only of reading a prepared speech. Undoubtedly the same objections will be raised as were raised last year by the Opposition. Those objections are still invalid. The Hon. M. R. Egan is the State's Treasurer. This House is responsible for money bills, and the budget should be delivered here. The State's Treasurer is the person who delivers the State's budget. No other Minister, including the Premier, is authorised by the Executive Council do that.

Last year an amendment was proposed to require the Treasurer to attend for two hours to answer questions. That would cause difficulties. Answers to questions can be provided by Ministers appearing before estimates committees. If members want to put a long series of questions to the Treasurer, due regard will be given to them. If my motion is agreed to, I ask that the House send a message to the upper House advising that this House requires the presence of the Treasurer. Under section 38A of the Constitution a specific resolution is required to allow a Minister from the upper House to appear in this Chamber.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.29 p.m.]: It was good of the Minister for Police to make his speech in reply and pre-empt the various points to be raised by the Opposition. They are serious points. The first is that if the Treasurer is to be the person responsible in this House for money bills, he should be accountable to this House for the budget he presents to it. That is a serious point. He should not just walk in here, look at the television camera, deliver a speech and then walk out. He will address this House because it is responsible for money bills and no such bill can be passed by the Parliament unless it is presented to this House. This House alone has authority over the budget; the upper House has only a one month delaying power. The Treasurer presents the budget of the New South Wales Government, yet historically, as shown again today, the Government is not prepared to allow the Treasurer to be accountable to the Parliament for his budget. Accordingly I move:

That the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraph:

(4) On the next sitting day following the Premier's second reading speech the Hon. M. R. Egan, MLC, Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, be admitted to the House immediately after the conclusion of question time to attend for two hours to answer questions to be put by members in conformity with the standing orders in relation to questions seeking information.

The Opposition has no objection to the Minister giving the speech if he stays to answer questions that are properly put to him in accordance with the standing orders to extract information about the State budget. But the Treasurer is not prepared to do that. Every year the Treasurer comes to this House, delivers his speech and runs. He is not prepared to stand up for his budget, and the Government is not prepared to make him do that. All that the Government is prepared to do is to allow questions to be asked in the estimates committees. But we do not have joint estimates committees, and members of the Legislative Assembly do not have the opportunity to ask the Treasurer questions.

Page 7827

This House is supposed to control the money supply to the Government, yet we have no say in it whatsoever. That is the deliberate ploy of this Government year after year. The Government views our opposition to this motion as purely routine and ritualistic. But our opposition is extremely serious because the control of money supply is the foundation of democracy in this State - and that very control is being denied to this House. This House does not even get a look-in. It is a matter of accountability, not just of who reads the speech. That is what the Opposition fights for every year. If it were just a matter of who reads the speech, the Minister for Transport could read it. He has nothing else to do; every other job has been taken from him. The Minister for the Olympics could read the speech. When this very motion was debated last year a member asked whether the Opposition wanted a person of integrity to read the speech. The Opposition said yes, but that it could not find one on the Government benches. Maybe that is why the Treasurer is brought here from another place.

Mr Knowles: What a terrible thing to say.

Mr HARTCHER: I exempt the Minister from that statement. Each year a motion is moved to allow the Treasurer to come to this House to present the budget. But members of this House cannot ask questions of the Treasurer here or in the estimates committees. When we ask questions of Ministers prior to the Treasurer coming here, we are told to wait for the budget. No questions about the budget will be answered prior to 6 May, and after 6 May we will be told that such questions should be asked in the estimates committees. So again the members of the Legislative Assembly will be denied a look-in with regard to the financial operation of government in this State. All we will have is a formalised, ritualistic debate on the appropriation bill, a bill whose second reading is never opposed, because the essential services of the State must be continued, and which the upper House has power to delay for only one month.

Accordingly, in the people's House, the Legislative Assembly, taxpayers are denied proper scrutiny of the entire budgetary process. The Government may consider that a clever trick. After all, anyone can read the speech. But who will be accountable for it? That is the fundamental issue before us. The Opposition accepts that this Government has the numbers to impose its will on the parliamentary process.

Mr Beckroge: How kind.

Mr HARTCHER: But the Opposition does not accept that the rights of members of Parliament should be denied, and it will continue to stand up for those rights. The honourable member for Broken Hill says we are kind to accept the inevitabilities of the parliamentary process. In voting for this motion the honourable member for Broken Hill and his colleagues will deny themselves the very right that their election gave them: to ensure that the appropriation of supply for the annual services of government in this State are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That, more than any other aspect of his parliamentary duties, is the member’s responsibility. Yet he is prepared to throw it away simply so that the Government can bring the Treasurer here for a television opportunity, deliver his speech and then run. It was not acceptable last year, it was not acceptable the year before and it is not acceptable now.

I do not intend to canvass all the arguments that have been put in the past. The matter speaks for itself. The only way this motion can be accepted is if the Treasurer is prepared to return to this House the next day and answer questions. If he is not prepared to do that, the motion is unacceptable and another Minister should read his speech. Surely there is a Minister who can read.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.36 p.m.], in reply: The same arguments were put last year. Any member of this Chamber has the same opportunity as the Treasurer, should they want to make the most of a television opportunity. A member may use this Chamber, the upper House, the Waratah Room, Parliament House, the press galleries, anywhere, to preside over a press conference. As to the request that the Treasurer be available here for two hours of questions, I remind honourable members that a motion was moved in this Chamber to admit strangers who have been wrongly accused and give them the opportunity to respond - very much the same as happens in the Senate. The Opposition voted against that motion.

The proposition is that the Treasurer attend this Chamber and answer questions. If question time is any guide, Opposition members would spend all their time taking points of order and interjecting. The Treasurer would not be able to reply except to answer questions that are given him. There is no provision for supplementary answers. There is no protection provided to him by the Speaker. The standing orders are silent on those matters. It is clear that my motion provides only that the Treasurer comes here to deliver his speech. He walks in, delivers his speech and walks out. For those reasons, I commend the motion.

Page 7828

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Collins Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher 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
Mr Merton Mr Windsor
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott Tellers,
Mr O'Doherty Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Farrell Mr Kerr

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Iemma
Mr Cruickshank Mr Knight
Mr Glachan Mr McBride

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

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

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [3.46 p.m.]: I wish to make a ministerial statement about the anthrax disease and the ban by Indonesian authorities imposed on New South Wales products. I advise the House that the current import ban imposed recently by the Indonesian Government on New South Wales animals and animal products because of concerns over anthrax has now been lifted. I believe all honourable members of this House would agree that is good news for primary producers in New South Wales.

I am advised by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service that we are now in a position to resume issuing certification for products of New South Wales origin. The temporary ban imposed by Indonesia was an unfortunate incident, and followed recent outbreaks of the disease in Victoria, which highlighted the potential of anthrax to seriously affect exports of beef and dairy products. The major quarantine and vaccination program undertaken by Victorian authorities has effectively brought the problem under control and, as a result, our trading partners have now lifted the ban imposed on products from Victoria as well as those from New South Wales.

From time to time New South Wales experiences the odd case of anthrax, but nowhere near the scale of the recent Victorian outbreak, which resulted in the death of some 200 cattle over a six-week period. As part of the control measure, a further 80,000 animals on almost 600 properties in Victoria were vaccinated. The incidence of anthrax in New South Wales amounts to approximately six cases per year and occurs in the anthrax belt in central New South Wales from the Queensland
Page 7829
border to the Victorian border. During the 1996-97 season seven cases of anthrax were reported. These minor cases have not posed a problem for exports in the past, and it is unfortunate that some media reports exaggerated the situation in New South Wales. Two weeks ago I initiated a visit to New South Wales by Indonesian agricultural department officials. As a result of that visit, the Indonesian authorities returned home happy with the meat inspection procedures in place in this State.

I should point out that there never has been a case of anthrax entering the food chain in Australia. Our meat inspection procedures are first-class, as we would all believe. The lifting of the ban is good news for primary producers. I am sure all honourable members welcome the news that exports are now able to be resumed. I congratulate and thank everyone involved, not only those who worked hard in bringing the Victorian situation under control, but also New South Wales Agriculture staff, the rural lands protection boards and the veterinarians, who always work diligently to ensure that anthrax remains a minor situation in New South Wales, where only a number of small incidents, which are quickly acted upon and resolved, are reported each year.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [3.50 p.m.]: I have pleasure in responding on behalf of the Opposition to the Minister's report on the highly contagious bacterial soil-borne disease commonly called anthrax. Anthrax was first noted in New South Wales in 1847, when it was known as Cumberland disease. Anthrax has occurred across a huge area that extends from Bourke and Deniliquin, on its western extremity, to its eastern extremity between Moree and Albury. Anthrax has been of concern to farmers in that area since 1847. Anthrax affects trade and is a disease that we do not want. Vaccines have led the way in eradicating it from many farms. Once anthrax is detected, vaccines and quarantine are the order of the day. I congratulate all farmers and government agencies on their cooperation in bringing this outbreak under control and getting Australian meat back on Indonesian shopping lists.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [3.52 p.m.]: This motion is urgent essentially for three reasons. The first reason is that the following list of people have advised the Prime Minister and all State Premiers that they believe there is a need for specific attention to what the Commonwealth Government proposes for national housing policy and funding. They include the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Moderator of the Uniting Church Synod, the President of the Baptist Union of New South Wales, the New South Wales Ecumenical Council and a large number of faith organisations including the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, representatives of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Salvation Army, the Senior Rabbi of the Union for Progressive Judaism, the Lutheran Church, the Church of Christ, the Islamic Council and all peak national, social and welfare bodies. They all agree it is urgent that governments throughout Australia place on record their abhorrence at what John Howard seeks to do to national housing policy and funding.

The second reason this motion should take precedence over the motion of the honourable member for Ermington is that unless this House combines with the leaders of all churches around Australia and all other parliaments - except the Commonwealth Parliament - to send a message to John Howard less than three weeks before the national budget is delivered, he is likely to think he can get away with ripping apart an agreement that has been implemented over the last 50 years. The third important reason this motion is urgent is that it gives the New South Wales Opposition - the Liberal-National Party coalition - yet another opportunity to place on the public record where it stands on this issue. Over the last 12 months in debates in this Chamber all the plans were laid out and everyone knew all about the issue; we are yet to hear from the leadership team of the New South Wales Opposition its position on this issue.

That is an abrogation of responsibility. Once again, in a simple, straightforward motion of condemnation, the Opposition could say, joining all other Australian organisations, "Count us in as well." All coalition governments in Australia - counterparts of the New South Wales Opposition - have signed up to condemn what John Howard seeks to do. The only missing link in the equation to tell John Howard to wake up to himself and to reinstate sensible national housing policy is the lot on the opposite side of this House. I will be interested to
Page 7830
see what Opposition members have to say about this matter. The honourable member for Burrinjuck is in the Chamber. He and I attended a ceremony opening some delightful units in his electorate. The fact is that those units will not exist if John Howard gets his way. Many local members, like the honourable member for Burrinjuck, will not see capital funding provided, as they expect, to accommodate people in their electorates.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. This point of order is taken regularly by the honourable member for Londonderry. In making his point the Minister is entitled to give reasons that the motion deserves priority, but he is not entitled to go into the substance of the motion. He is now talking about housing units that he opened with the honourable member for Burrinjuck and whether they will still be there in time to come. That is surely not related to the priority of the motion, though it certainly relates to its substance. I ask that he be called to order.

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

Mr KNOWLES: That shows the substance of the honourable member for Gosford. He does not understand the issues, he takes the cheap point of order and meanwhile many people in the community will suffer at the hands of John Howard's plans. The Government will be delighted to vote on this motion to see the Opposition’s priorities and where it stands in relation to an important policy issue. [Time expired.]

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [3.57 p.m.]: This is a motion of absolute urgency not just to the Parliament but also to the public of New South Wales, the commuters of this State.

Mr Clough: On a point of order. I welcome the honourable member for Ermington being given the opportunity to read his urgency motion so that we can properly assess it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for the member to read the motion. He has handed a copy up and it is available for all members to read.

Mr PHOTIOS: The motion states that the Minister for Transport has become a Minister in name only. He is a clayton's Minister. All he is today is a shopfront Minister with a kiosk selling bus tickets.

Mr Crittenden: On a point of order. I understand the reluctance of the honourable member for Ermington to read his motion, of which I have obtained a copy. Paragraph 1(d) is factually incorrect. The Minister for Transport has never been Minister for Roads.

Mr PHOTIOS: He is debating my motion.

Mr Crittenden: No. The point is that he is presenting to the House something that is factually wrong and he knows it.

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

Mr Crittenden: I ask that you direct the honourable member for Ermington to ensure that the motion he is now speaking to is factually correct.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member might explain the point of order.

Mr Crittenden: Paragraph 1(d) states:

The fact the Minister has, in the course of two years, had portfolio responsibilities removed from his control, including roads, Olympic transport, Freight Rail Corporation and Rail Access Corporation.

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

Mr Crittenden: I can prove that the Minister for Transport has never been the Minister for Roads. Government Gazette No. 38, at page 1829, on 4 April 1995, clearly set out -

Mr PHOTIOS: On the point of order. Can a debating point be taken?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has taken a point of order that the urgency motion is out of order because it includes incorrect information. I will not rule it out of order, but I suggest that the member who moved the motion should ask that it be deleted.

Amendment by Mr Photios agreed to:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word "roads".

Mr PHOTIOS: The motion is urgent because the public transport system is in crisis. Yet the man responsible for that crisis is being protected. The motion is urgent because up to 500,000 people a day are being affected by late trains. It is urgent because, in the interests of the public, this Minister must go.

Page 7831

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. The honourable member for Ermington asked for absolute urgency. He spoke on this motion last week. If he wanted to seek absolute urgency, he should have brought it before this Chamber last week. I ask you to rule that the motion is out of order.

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

Mr PHOTIOS: The motion is urgent because the Premier, in refusing to sack this Minister, is acting in his own self-interest.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The matters canvassed in the motion were canvassed by the honourable member who is moving the motion during a series of questions in this Parliament last week. The matter, therefore, is not urgent. The Minister responsible provided comprehensive replies to all those questions that were asked last week - of which there were at least half a dozen - and two or three questions asked today. The motion is not a matter of urgency.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will determine whether the motion is urgent.

Mr PHOTIOS: It is a fact that in unprecedented moves the financial agreement - which is a performance agreement, a reporting process, like a schoolboy reporting to the headmaster every two months - is now the subject of budget deliberations. This House has a right to know why the State is losing $250 million a year, why losses are in free fall, why the Premier has not asked for more explanations, and why the Minister has not got the sack.

Mr Clough: On a point of order. I require some clarification as to the authenticity of the figures being quoted by the honourable member for Ermington.

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

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. There is a very important point of order that every member in this House knows about, and that is that a member moving a motion for urgency has to provide reasons why the House should consider his or her matter to be urgent. A member cannot continue to go into the substance of the debate. This point has been made on a number of occasions. The honourable member for Ermington is making the same mistake that other honourable members have made in the past.

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

Mr PHOTIOS: The matter is clearly urgent given that the Government has sacked the wrong man and it has to get the right man to restore public confidence in public transport. The Minister for Police is the Minister for anti-public transport. He has to go. The House has a right to bring him to account, to bring him to heel before the bar of the Chamber.

Mr Moss: On a point of order. The motion itself is actually the debate, because it just reads on and on. Clearly, the member opposite is dealing with the substance of the motion when he starts to personally attack the Minister.

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

Question - That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Moorebank be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

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

Page 7832

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

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Iemma Mr Cruickshank
Mr Knight Mr Glachan
Mr McBride Ms Seaton

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [4.13 p.m.]: I move:

That this House join with the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Edward Clancy; the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, The Most Reverend Harry Goodhew; Rev Doctor Don Evans, Moderator, Uniting Church Synod of New South Wales; Dr Clifford Hughes, President, Baptist Union of New South Wales; the New South Wales Ecumenical Council; Australian Council of Social Services; New South Wales Council of Social Services, and SHELTER Australia in condemning, as indefensible, the Prime Minister's proposed funding cuts to public housing and changes to national housing policy.

The word "indefensible" is not mine: it is the word used by the people and organisations listed in the motion. These people and organisations make the point that the proposed changes, mooted at the national level, are indefensible both in policy and funding terms given the present circumstances of people in need of Government assistance. A number of other people describe the proposals as indefensible, and their names should be recorded in Hansard. They include the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, the Assistant Bishop to His Eminence of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, the Territorial Commander of the Australian Southern Territory of the Salvation Army, the Senior Rabbi of the Victorian Union for Progressive Judaism, the Islamic Council of Australia, the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria, the Lutheran Church of Australia and the Churches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania.

In an earlier debate the honourable member for Gosford said that he regarded me as a person of integrity. I am joined by other people of integrity in condemning what is clearly the most damaging change to national housing policy the country has seen in 50 years. There can be absolutely no doubt about these individuals' concerns. On 20 March they wrote to the Prime Minister in relation to the reforms of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. They reminded the Prime Minister that they are concerned about suggestions that the Commonwealth is considering a further cut in funds. They believe that such a cut would be indefensible.

These people made the point that funding for public housing has declined by $114 million in real terms over the past seven years. They made the point that unemployment has climbed from 500,000 people to one million people and that the number of people who have been without work for more than 12 months has grown to almost 250,000. They made the point that despite economic growth, unemployment is forecast to remain at high levels. The Prime Minister has abrogated his responsibility in relation to employment policy, leaving it to the whim of the marketplace.

These people made the point that if John Howard proceeds with what he intends to do, it will be a clear breach of his pre-election commitments. The Liberal Party promised "to maintain commitment to the Commonwealth housing agreement". They made the observation that those who are in desperate need of affordable housing have little prospect of finding it in the private rental market, which is certainly the case in the high-rent urban areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, where vacancy rates are of the order of 1 per cent. Therefore, the non-availability of low-cost rental accommodation will militate against the Commonwealth's proposal to cut capital funding to the States in an attempt to increase the level of private rent assistance through the Department of Social Security in the vain hope that there will be a
Page 7833
response to that increased demand by the private sector.

Honourable members opposite appear to be trivialising this serious issue. What is required is for all parliaments to join together and condemn what is happening nationally. In an editorial in the Age of 4 April, Keith Rayner, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne; George Pell, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne; and Warren Bartlett, the Moderator of the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria, talked about the need for urgent reform.

Mr Hartcher: What about the Reverend Herbert? He always makes an idiot statement. Just ring up the Reverend Herbert.

Mr KNOWLES: We might just record that for posterity. The honourable member for Gosford interjected, "What about the Reverend Herbert, Harry Herbert?"

Mr Hartcher: If you want an idiot statement, ring up the Reverend Herbert.

Mr KNOWLES: For the record, the honourable member for Gosford has indicated that if one wants an idiot statement, one should phone the Reverend Harry Herbert. That is an extraordinary proposition coming from the person who will speak in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. The views of all church leaders around Australia can be summarised in the Age article, which stated:

Why do the churches express such interest in this particular dimension of government policy [that is, housing policy]. The answer is straightforward. No other basic human need has such an impact on fundamental human dignity and the quality of family life than does the need for adequate and affordable housing.

We have requested an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister and the Premier to discuss the churches' proposals.

What makes a joke of the Commonwealth position is that all State Premiers are meeting with the church leaders. John Howard has refused to meet them. John Howard will not meet the leaders of all the faith organisations around Australia to discuss the biggest single change to national housing policy in the past 50 years - since Ben Chifley established the Housing Commission. There needs to be a national housing policy. There needs to be fundamental reform of the practices currently imposed by the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. But what John Howard is proposing is a binge at the extreme end of the spectrum that will inevitably lead, in the opinions of all the people I have quoted, to increased rents and increased levels of homelessness. It will have an effect in particular - and I bring this home to the honourable member for Burrinjuck - on construction projects in rural and regional New South Wales. Those projects will stop if capital funding currently flowing from the Commonwealth to the States ceases.

It is appropriate for the Commonwealth to have a national housing policy. After all, it determines the levels of immigration, economic growth, employment, interest rates, inflation and taxation - all the settings that govern demand for accommodation. It is a gross dereliction of duty and an abrogation of responsibility for John Howard to state that it is the responsibility of the States and the private sector. Everyone is now blowing the whistle on him. I implore the New South Wales Opposition to join with all other State governments, the New South Wales Government, all church leaders and social welfare organisations around Australia in asserting that the Federal Government's action is fundamentally wrong. This country needs a national housing policy. By all means the Federal Government should enter into the process of reform, which the States would welcome, but not in this way because it will destroy an opportunity for people throughout Australia to have affordable housing. [Time expired.]

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.24 p.m.]: What a cover-up! This motion is a cover-up by the Minister on a number of grounds. The first cover-up relates to the actual wording of the motion. The Minister cannot even be honest about that. The church leaders whom he quotes express concern about the thrust of public housing throughout Australia; they do not condemn. Yet he has chosen to misrepresent what they said for his own political purposes. That is the honesty that comes from the Australian Labor Party. It not only seeks to use religious leaders as a shield for its own base attacks upon the Federal Government but misrepresents them in using them as a shield.

Mr Knowles: On a point of order. The honourable member for Gosford indicates that I misrepresented the views of leaders of the faiths around Australia. I believe that their position in describing it as indefensible is a condemnation of what John Howard seeks to do.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr HARTCHER: If only the Minister understood the standing orders, but that is too much to expect from a member of the Australian Labor Party. Members are elected on factional lines, not
Page 7834
for their knowledge. The Minister is also covering up his own total inadequacy in the management of this portfolio. When he took office 80,000 people were on the waiting list. That waiting list has now blown out to over 100,000. Let the Minister deny it. Let him stand here and admit what the true waiting list figure is.

Mr Knowles: On a point of order. My point of order relates to relevance. Before the honourable member for Gosford gets too far down the track of analysing the State's performance, I ask you, Mr Speaker, to draw his attention to the motion, which is very specific on the statement by a number of faith leaders around the country that John Howard's proposed funding cuts to public housing and changes to national housing policy are indefensible. Those are the terms and breadth of the motion. I ask you to keep him to it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister, in moving the motion, confined his remarks to the motion and I ask all honourable members to do the same.

Mr HARTCHER: For that reason I now move an amendment as follows:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" with a view to inserting instead, "condemns the Minister for Housing for:

(a) presiding over an ongoing spiralling 12% increase in the waiting list for public housing to over 100,000 people;

(b) his failure to collect millions of dollars in rental arrears;

(c) his overrun in the 1997 Budget; and

(d) his dishonest misrepresentation of the views of religious leaders on funding of public housing."

I move the amendment and speak to the amendment and to the motion. The Minister has dishonestly misrepresented religious leaders' views and will not own up to his own failure at the spiralling housing waiting list. The Minister did not try to correct me on the figure, nor did he try to suggest that I was factually wrong. All he wanted was to suddenly narrow the terms of the debate. He did not want a debate about housing waiting list blow-outs. He sought to stick to the words of the motion, to the faith leaders, as he calls them.

How often does the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing support the views of religious leaders when speaking on social or religious views? We never hear a peep out of him. But suddenly, if it is convenient, he will hide behind them and use them not just as a shield for his own inadequacy but as a sword to attack the Federal Government. The inadequacy is demonstrated in the waiting list blow-out, a tragic commentary on the Labor Party that thousands of people will now wait years for affordable housing. The blow-out has increased by more than 12 per cent a year under this Minister. Now 100,000 people are waiting for decent accommodation in New South Wales because of the Minister's mismanagement of his portfolio.

Honourable members can confidently anticipate that the housing budget to be announced on 6 May will be overrun by millions of dollars, yet thousands of people remain on housing waiting lists - all because the Minister has been unable to effectively manage his own portfolio. In December 1995 the Minister issued a green paper called "Reforming Housing Assistance". He called for the New South Wales Government to support the need for fundamental reform of the way housing assistance is provided by both the Commonwealth and State governments. He was asking for a change to the system. The Premier of this State, Bob Carr, attended a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments and at that meeting endorsed the changes to housing policy. The agreement was signed. Though the Minister continually denies that, he has never produced any evidence to rebut the simple fact that the New South Wales Labor Government - his Premier - signed off on COAG. They essentially agreed to adoption of the recommendations and the thrust of the green paper, that a change was needed - as the Minister put it, fundamental reform.

The Minister is hung by his own words. In his own green paper he said that the Prime Minister, in a statement on housing, urban and regional issues released on December 11, had announced the Commonwealth Government's intention to accept its income support responsibilities and to introduce a more equitable payment system across different housing types. In that document he endorsed what the Commonwealth Government had announced it was doing. Because he has suddenly discovered that it did not turn out to be the way he wanted it to run and because he wants to hide his waiting list blow-out, his budget blow-out, his failure to collect millions of dollars in rental arrears, he tried to develop a smokescreen by attacking the Federal Government. What is he doing about the millions of dollars of rental arrears? Thousands of tenants in his homes are not paying their rent. What is he doing about collecting it? Nothing at all. The amount is piling up, and everybody knows it. There are questions on notice about it. An Auditor-General's report will soon be released on the mismanagement
Page 7835
by the Department of Housing of its thousands of homes. People go into public accommodation and do not pay rent because, for political reasons, the Minister is not prepared to collect the rent of people who live in safe Labor seats.

Mr Knowles: Hartcher calls public housing tenants rent dodgers.

Mr HARTCHER: I did not. I said that thousands of tenants are not paying their rent, which the Minister well knows. He is not doing anything about collecting outstanding rent. He cannot misrepresent me in the way that he just misrepresented the faith leaders, as he termed them, of this State. The Minister has a heavy responsibility: to try to house the homeless. Yet the housing waiting list has exploded under him. He cannot deny it. The numbers increase every year. Yet where is he spending his funds? Is he spending them on more housing? No. He is spending the money on voluntary redundancy packages for staff in the Department of Housing. It is not spent on housing of the homeless. The Daily Advertiser of Friday, 18 April - a week ago - stated that Department of Housing staff were offered redundancy packages. The Minister nods his head in acknowledgment. He held a teleconference between senior department officers on Friday, 11 April, to pay out -

Mr Knowles: No, I did not.

Mr HARTCHER: It was done by your senior department officers.

Mr Knowles: Well, don't say that I did it.

Mr HARTCHER: You held it. That does not mean that you were there. You are the Minister in charge. Are you the Minister in charge of the department or not?

Mr Knowles: I held a teleconference?

Mr HARTCHER: He is not even running the department. Conferences are held in his department and he is not even aware of them. He denies all responsibility. What a cop-out. He even denies responsibility for what is happening in his own department. He hangs himself with his own words. There are 131 people currently employed with the Department of Housing who are looking for voluntary redundancy. That is where the money is going while thousands of people wait for housing. The Minister has tried to attack Canberra but the exercise has exploded in his face. It has rebounded on him because we have drawn attention to the increasing waiting list, spiralling rental arrears that the Minister is not correcting, and the Minister's inability to run his budget. The department's budget has been overrun by millions of dollars. The Minister can only try to hide behind the religious leaders, whom he has tragically misrepresented this afternoon by saying that they have "condemned" when all they have done is express their concern about the whole thrust of housing policies, not just those from Canberra. [Time expired.]

Mrs GRUSOVIN (Heffron) [4.34 p.m.]: I have been in this Parliament for a considerable time but I have just witnessed one of the most appalling performances of a shadow spokesperson that I have ever heard in this House. What appals me most is the absolute failure of the honourable member for Gosford to understand the crisis facing society today caused by a Federal Government that does not have a clue about social justice and the damage done to society by introducing divisiveness. It does not recognise that some in the community need a helping hand. It does not understand the difficulties of poverty. The performance of the honourable member for Gosford is another example of why so many politicians are on the nose today. Let us face it: as a profession we are really on the nose. We just witnessed a junior high school debating performance by a man given the responsibility of representing for the Opposition a portfolio as important as housing, yet in his 10-minute speech he did not even talk about the problems that we are facing.

In other States where the coalition parties have assumed the responsibility of government they seem to have a better understanding of the situation. Yet the Opposition in this State, which will be in opposition for a long time, does not understand what the question is all about. There are people in poverty and people queuing for public housing. Since the change of government in New South Wales there have been improvements in public housing. Daily I see the social problems of people in poor economic circumstances. They literally do not have a roof over their head. One elderly woman did not turn her heater on all last winter. She could not afford to pay her bills because she was living in private rental accommodation. She did not even have enough to eat. Yet when the Federal Government is not prepared to meet with the church leadership on this matter -

Ms Ficarra: That is a lie.

Mrs GRUSOVIN: There has not been a meeting. It would not be the first time that the coalition has failed to have an understanding of social issues or to understand its responsibilities as a
Page 7836
government. The church leadership believes that the proposed cuts would be indefensible. Any thinking person would have to agree. The proposals also show an appalling lack of social conscience. I would have thought that Opposition members, particularly someone charged with the responsibility of being a spokesperson on the issue, would encourage their Federal Liberal colleagues to understand what was happening, particularly in Sydney and the rest of New South Wales. What the Federal Government is proposing will condemn the poorly paid and those living on social welfare benefits to life in a paddock somewhere out on the perimeter of Sydney. They will not be able to live in subsidised housing within a cooee of the centre of Sydney.

Ms Ficarra: Rubbish!

Mrs GRUSOVIN: The responses of the honourable member for Georges River show that she has no comprehension of the matter and no social conscience. It is worrying that someone should be so ignorant or so lacking in the basics of Christianity in relation to looking after fellow human beings. I hope to hear a contribution from the honourable member for Pittwater, who has just entered the Chamber, so that I may learn whether he has more of a social conscience than the honourable member for Georges River. There are not too many members with a social conscience on the other side of the Chamber. [Time expired.]

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [4.39 p.m.]: What a farce! The Government takes part in such low debate on a personal level. I will match my social conscience with that of the honourable member for Heffron any day. It is atrocious that the Minister for Housing uses the word "condemns" in his motion for urgent consideration The religious leaders did not use that word. That is a manipulation by the Minister. The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and the Moderator of the Uniting Church Synod of New South Wales did not use the word "condemns". The Minister has manipulated each one of those religious leaders. The coalition will forward them a copy of the motion containing this manipulation. It is a disgrace.

This is the Minister who conducted that political sham in the seat of Lindsay. Using the Department of Housing database he wrote to vulnerable tenants trying to scare the living hell out of them. But he did not achieve anything because Jackie Kelly won with an outstanding margin. People do not believe the Minister. He is opportunistic and misquotes the truth. We do not know what the capital funding cuts will be because the Treasurer has not brought down his budget. That will occur on 13 May.

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 April said that Mr Howard acknowledged the church leaders' concerns. He said he had received their letters and shared their worries about public housing and had referred the matter to Senator Jocelyn Newman. Mr Howard added that the rumours about public housing cuts were wildly exaggerated for political reasons. In an attempt to get to the truth we might ask why the State Government is worried. Perhaps it is worried about the $200 million blow-out in health funding, the $130 million shortfall in State Rail and the $100 million lost from the budget because of rules about cross-border taxes.

Mr Knowles: On a point of order. I realise that the honourable member for Georges River has run out of things to say. But it is way outside the terms of the motion to talk about transport and health funding. The motion is about housing policy.

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

Ms FICARRA: I am speaking to the amendment relating to the outrageous waiting list that has resulted from this Minister's mismanagement. In the St George area the waiting list is seven years and the poor devils at the bottom of the list will wait an additional three years to get to the top. One of my constituents, Mr Rae, has been on the waiting list for five years. Because his wife has now had a third child he has been told that he is on the bottom of the list and will have to wait another seven years. The Minister condemns the Federal Government, but he stands condemned for the mismanagement of his portfolio. Because of the blow-outs in the forthcoming State budget, the Minister knows that he will not be able to provide enough public housing and that the waiting lists will skyrocket.

During the housing Minister's conference in September, this Minister committed himself to continue the Commonwealth's housing reform agenda. All participants in the conference recognised the complexity of the issue and the need for a bipartisan, united approach. The reforms, which were the most significant since World War II, were to provide adequate assistance to almost one million people receiving rental subsidies in the private
Page 7837
market. Larger payments were going to be provided directly to new public housing tenants and private renters, replacing the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Instead of bleating inaccuracies and misrepresenting very respectable religious leaders, the Minister should sit down with the Federal Minister for Social Security, as other housing Ministers in Liberal States are doing -

Mr Knowles: I can tell you that they are not.

Ms FICARRA: Yes, they are. The Minister misrepresents them as well. Perhaps she is not meeting with the Minister because he did not request a meeting.

Mr Knowles: She is, actually.

Ms FICARRA: So the Federal Minister is meeting with this Minister, but he thinks she is not conducting meetings with Liberal housing Ministers? Again the Minister is misleading the House. He is a real professional at that, but no-one believes him. The Senator and Mr Howard are having meetings with the religious leaders. The Minister tells lies. [Time expired.]

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.44 p.m.]: The religious leaders and the community organisations referred to in the motion should be supported by this House. We should condemn the Federal Government and its policy on housing because of the extraordinary damage it will do to the social fabric of our community. I would have thought that was a reasonably serious proposition and that this was a serious debate. More horrifying than the Federal Government's policy is the absence of policy on that side of the House. This is the second debate on this topic in about three weeks and I have yet to hear one sensible, rational contribution from the Opposition detailing either its view of the Federal Government policy or its own view on housing policy.

This is not an academic debate to allow members on the other side such as the honourable member for Gosford or the honourable member for Georges River to indulge in histrionics. This is a real debate about people's lives, how they will live and in some cases die because of a lack of adequate housing. And all we get from the Opposition is junior high school tactics. It is horrifying that these Opposition members claim to represent a significant proportion of the State. It is horrifying that they even purport to make a contribution to these debates.

The Federal policy is horrific because it is based upon an ideological obsession about the market. The Federal Government says that the most efficient place to distribute resources and make decisions is in the market. That would result in there being no State-owned housing; the public housing construction program would be replaced by the subsidy model. There is a fundamental problem with that. The Federal Government assumes that if low-cost housing is not built by the State instrumentalities it will be built by the market. That might be to conform to mid-nineteenth century economics or economic textbook theory, but the empirical reality is there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the private investment market is prepared to build low-cost housing. Indeed, the vast bulk of the evidence suggests that the private investment market would run from it at a million miles an hour.

Mr Knowles: New Zealand, England.

Mr LYNCH: As the Minister says, examples in New Zealand and England clearly show that. Housing economists in Australia make it very clear. As I have said in previous debates, perhaps the Opposition should undertake research and actually try to develop a policy. It will find that reputable economists describe the likelihood of the private market building low-cost housing as idiosyncratic and extremely limited. The fact is if public housing construction is taken away, no low-cost housing will be built. Further, the limited amount of accommodation will be forced further out, with a concentration of low-cost housing in the metropolitan fringes and the horrific consequences that would flow from that.

Ms Ficarra: Have a look at your Riverwood estate. It is disgusting. It has mould on the ground floor.

Mr LYNCH: Whilst I am giving gratuitous advice to the Opposition, perhaps it should read some of the material that Bob Gregory dealt with, which provides a far more sophisticated view of the real problem. If the honourable member for Georges River is concerned about Riverwood, Villawood, Airds or Claymore, she should read some of Professor Gregory's work. Then she might start to understand the issues and develop a concept of the policy. It is absolutely terrifying. The blank looks on the other side of the House indicate that they have no idea who Professor Gregory is. They have the hide to contribute to this debate without having even read the basic elements of research in this field. They are intellectually and academically incompetent.

Page 7838

Opposition members have no understanding of these issues. The best they can do in interjecting is to descend to the level of vulgar abuse. They have no understanding of these policy issues. Not only will there be a large concentration of low-cost housing, with all the associated problems referred to in Professor Gregory's research; there will be further development in the outer reaches of Sydney. The continuing sprawl and mistakes in urban development that have occurred over the past 50 years in Sydney will be reinforced, increased, and made worse by the sorts of policies the Federal Government is talking about. In addition - and this is something that should appeal to the right-wing ideologues on the other side of the Chamber - construction activity will be significantly cut. A large number of small businessmen will go to the wall. The failure of the Federal Government to guarantee funding beyond December 1997 has resulted in only 800 units rather than 3,500 units being constructed, and 3,000 direct jobs and approximately 2,500 indirect jobs being lost. They are ordinary workers but the people who employ them, your mates, the larger builders, are now losing their work.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [4.49 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Heffron and the honourable member for Liverpool for their contributions, and place on record that once again the Opposition has failed to record a position on national housing reform. To address some of the points raised, the agreement signed by the Government, as the honourable member for Gosford said, was an interim agreement to allow the reform process to proceed over two years. John Howard, having convinced all the States to sign the agreement, cancelled the reform process. He stopped the technical working parties and the officers meetings. Therefore all reform negotiations have effectively stopped. The September conference of housing Ministers has been superseded by four ministerial conferences, the most recent of which took place a week ago in Tasmania.

In Brisbane in February the conference unanimously resolved to condemn any proposed cuts to public housing funding by the Federal Government. It was a lengthy motion, which I am happy to table, and that is the current state of play. With regard to the green paper reforms, it has always been the view of the Government that it is a farce to pretend it can accommodate a waiting list of about 90,000 people whilst constructing at best about 3,300 housing units a year - though that is better than the Liberal-National Party Government achieved during its seven years. The process has to be reformed. The Government proposed reform in the green paper and was the first State to do so. When dealing with reform it is fundamental to understand that the elderly, the young, people with disabilities or mental illnesses and people who cannot survive in the market will always rely on the State and the Government for support. It is a flight of fancy to pretend that one can cut capital funding to the States, flick over to a rental assistance model and expect those people to trot off to the real estate agent and survive in the market when there is nothing to rent, particularly in Sydney, where the vacancy rate is just about zero per cent.

The Government made the point in its green paper that a balance has to be achieved between what has been done historically and the need to involve other providers of housing, including the private sector, but not precluding organisations such as a growing community housing sector, church groups, local government and other potential providers. For the reasons I stated earlier, such a balance takes time, energy and national coordination. The need for a nationally coordinated policy becomes obvious when one considers that the Commonwealth Government manages tax and employment policy, immigration levels and the location of immigrants. The States will carry out their functions under that umbrella, but by abrogating its responsibilities and turning them over to the private sector the Commonwealth Government is fundamentally at odds with everything that is happening internationally and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what will really happen.

Let us understand that in the context of the blow-out in public housing applicants - about 90,000 people - the State Government builds about 3,300 units a year. One can only imagine what would happen if it did not have the funds to build even 3,300 units a year. What would happen to those 90,000 people? They would go to the social security office, get a cheque, and go into the private rental market. Is it more equitable for such people to be out on the streets, increasing the level of homelessness, or is it better for them to work within a cooperative system which has some degree of support and some sort of safety net for those who cannot cope on their own? Certainly this Government, all the other State governments around Australia, all the church leaders and all the social and welfare organisations around Australia signified their agreement to a balanced approach.

Page 7839

The States and the relevant organisations involved asked John Howard to recommence the reform process in the context of a continuity of funding supply; to maintain a supply of housing while the reform process is taking place. That process will take years, but it must take place. Yet all we get from the mob opposite is little more than quacking and squawking. I should like to refer to comments by the honourable member for Georges River, who keeps on cackling about Riverwood. I grew up pretty close to Riverwood. I am spending a lot of money on the Riverwood public housing estate because it was neglected for a lot of years, particularly during the seven years of the previous Government. That estate has substantial problems, and this is the first Government to begin to upgrade it and other such housing estates throughout New South Wales. This is the only Government which has ever attempted to do that. It is insulting that some jumped-up Tory from Georges River has the temerity to suggest that the Government should do something about Riverwood when the coalition did damn all for years. She should be ashamed of herself! [Time expired.]

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Iemma Mr Collins
Mr Knight Mr Cruickshank
Mr McBride Mr Glachan

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [5.05 p.m.]: I ask the House to note as a matter of public importance the supply of new firearms to the Police Service. The Daily Telegraph reported on 21 March 1997 that an $11 million contract to replace Police Service revolvers with semiautomatic Glock pistols has been put on hold by the Minister for Police, even though a tenderer has been successful. This deferral is pending last-minute probity checks on a selection of new weapons from 17 firearms manufacturers who bid for the contract. The honourable member for Bathurst has also expressed concern that the contract has not been awarded to ADI in Lithgow because, according to press reports in the Lithgow Mercury, the ADI product apparently will not fire under water
Page 7840
or mud - facts that were referred to in the original tender documents.

The replacement of Police Service revolvers has been considered for some time and the Opposition is concerned that at such a late stage the process appears to have stalled. It is important to consider the position in which police are placed when responding to domestic violence calls, and I instance the tragic circumstances surrounding the death this week of Mrs Davis. On the back of that problem and in conjunction with the lead-up to the Stop Violence Against Women Day on Saturday, 26 April, Deputy Commissioner Bev Lawson issued a press release on 21 April headed "Murder Most Common in the Home". I was struck by a paragraph in that release that said that 51 per cent of victims of domestic violence are killed with a gun, and, more importantly, that New South Wales police have removed more than 1,500 firearms from homes while responding to domestic violence incidents.

That accords with feedback I have received from police about the inherent danger they face when responding to domestic violence calls. I know anecdotally that by and large the call that police least like responding to is the domestic violence call - because they know how incredibly dangerous and unpredictable it can be. I remind the House that the impetus for the proposal to replace Smith and Wesson guns with pistols was the dreadful tragedy at Crescent Head a couple of years ago. Today I re-read the conclusions of the Coroner in that matter and was intrigued and alarmed to be reminded that that tragedy followed a response to a domestic violence call. Speaking of how the situation developed, the Coroner said:

I cannot say that those deaths would not have occurred but at least they would have been better prepared to deal with McGowan and his gun. Debra Minett's failure to tell about the gun or even the possibility that he may have a gun was probably brought about by the fact that she wanted to protect him. Even though McGowan had physically and verbally assaulted her in the past and she was scared of him, Debra Minett still wanted to protect him because as she stated he was "her best friend". There is no doubt that Debra Minett should have told the Constables about the gun and let them take action accordingly. Not only is that the source point of the current move to obtain a new police firearm, but it clearly and graphically shows the extreme peril that police face whenever they respond to a domestic violence call.

A terrible tug-of-war arises with domestic violence: some people want to tell about it, some do not, and others hold back information because they are concerned that their partner might be accused of or charged with an offence. That tug-of-war occurs in the classic domestic violence confrontation or scrape, and that is why attending them is so dangerous for police. At Crescent Head the police were outgunned. The Coroner used those very words in relation to Constable Peter Addison, who lost his life. Referring to Constable Peter Addison the Coroner said:

Despite being outgunned he still returned in an endeavour to help his partner.

The Coroner had no doubt that outgunning is the key issue. He spoke about both constables being in a high-risk situation, and made the following recommendations to the Minister for Police:

A. The question of the suitability of the present Police Service weapon being currently looked at by the working party set by the Assistant Commissioner of Police be given urgent attention, particularly as to supply and issue of a self loading weapon with magazine.

B. Appropriate training be provided to officers in the use of such weapon.

There has been talk in the Chamber about the progress of that matter. It was over a year ago that the Glock pistol was first referred to in this Parliament. That occurred in the estimates committees of 31 October 1995 when the Minister, in response to a question from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, specifically mentioned the benefits of the Glock pistol over the Smith and Wesson pistol. In April 1996, in answer to a question without notice from the honourable member for St Marys, the Minister for Police replied that the Government responded promptly and that an amount of $11.2 million was to be allocated for the purchase of a replacement service revolver. A year and a few days later we are still waiting for such action.

Another matter that raises the question of revolvers requires an immediate response. A tragic shooting happened after a person drove off to avoid, it seems, a breath test. However, the alleged circumstances were much more serious than that. It is noteworthy that the gun allegedly used by the deceased person in the subsequent shooting was a much more powerful weapon than the police weapon. The use of powerful weapons continues to place police in an invidious position in relation to their own safety. The power of police weapons in comparison to that of weapons being used by criminals means that police have to make decisions on the spur of the moment, whereas if they had confidence in knowing that their weapons were more powerful they might have fractionally more time in which to make such decisions.

Given the increasing demands that are now being placed on police - and, I believe, rightly
Page 7841
so - to meet the circumstances of domestic violence problems, and the push this week by the deputy commissioner to encourage more people to come forward and report domestic violence - which I believe is totally appropriate - it is incumbent upon the Government and upon us to try to push the Government to ensure that resources are provided for police to handle such situations. Today I have spoken about domestic violence liaison officers and training for those officers. I regret to have to speak about firearms in the context of domestic violence, but that is the reality, as happened at Crescent Head. The deputy commissioner stated in a press release that firearms, regrettably, are the key and major weapons used in these events, and that they have led to police deaths. It is absolutely imperative that there be urgent progress on the firearms tender. If there are problems with the tender it is important that the nature of those problems is made known to the public, that police and the public are reassured that something is happening, and that they are informed of the time frame in resolving the problems. Police can be armed appropriately with weapons in the public interest and for public safety. I think all honourable members agree that the Smith and Wesson pistol is not the firearm for the job. The police deserve better, the public deserves better, and it is up to us to give it to them. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [5.15 p.m.]: The Government clearly recognised the need and provided $11 million over a series of budgets to enable the purchase of a new weapon. On 25 March I referred the evaluation process to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for investigation. In line with a request of the ICAC conventions, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss this issue while the matter is under investigation. When the ICAC commissioner has made his finding, I will make further comment.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Mr DEBUS (Blue Mountains - Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) [5.16 p.m.]: I wish to pay homage to Kit Denton, the prominent writer and well-known resident of the Blue Mountains who passed away last week. The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature gives a brief account of Kit Denton's life as follows:

. . . born in England, grew up in the East End of London. After serving with the British Army and as a broadcaster with the British Forces Network in Germany, he migrated to Australia, where he tried gold-mining at Kalgoorlie and numerous other occupations. He was an announcer with the ABC 1951-65, and has worked extensively as a freelance writer and producer/director of commercial films and documentaries for television and radio.

Kit Denton published a collection of short stories called Burning Spear in 1990, and four novels, including The Breaker in 1973, which was the basis for that excellent film by Bruce Beresford, Breaker Morant. The Oxford Companion to Australian Literature states that Denton's other publications include a collection of sketches and reminiscences, A Walk Around My Cluttered Mind, an illustrated account of the Gallipoli campaign, Gallipoli Illustrated, and a book concerning the First World War, called Gallipoli: One Long Grave. His writings included numerous television and radio scripts and contributions to a great many newspapers and magazines throughout the country. He was active in the Australian Writers Guild from its early days.

For 30 years Kit Denton was prominent in the prompters club, a group of scriptwriters, copywriters and others who met, I gather, for companionship, mutual professional encouragement and lots of dinners. Kit was Mr Prompter in that organisation because he was so extremely witty and he knew so much about everything. He was an extraordinarily funny man. During my last meeting with him in a coffee shop in Wentworth Falls he quite daringly gave an account - not just to me but, incidentally, to the rest of the people in the coffee shop - in rather slapstick style about his then poor health. I would not dare to reproduce what he dared to say at the time, but I must say that it is no accident that Andrew Denton, his son, is so funny. Andrew Denton learned all about being funny at his father's knee. In the 1970s an anonymous television critic, known as Janus, wrote for the Australian. He was feared, but he was also regarded as the best and most constructive television critic of the day. It was a long time before people found out that Janus was Kit Denton.

Recently, I spoke to Mr David Mulford, the principal of the Blue Mountains Grammar School. He confirmed that Kit and his wife, Le, helped the school in the early 1970s. In 1972 there was a threat to close the school. Kit and Le Denton are largely
Page 7842
credited with securing the survival of the school. You may remember that, Mr Acting-Speaker, as you represented the area at that time. The Dentons were made life members of the auxiliary of the school. Last December the school, appropriately, established the Kit Denton prize for English. The Blue Mountains prides itself on its association with the arts. It has lost a man of diverse and voracious interests, a sceptic with vigorous intelligence, a man whom I knew to be funny and brave. Kit Denton is a loss to Australian arts and letters, not only to the arts and letters of the Blue Mountains. I offer my condolences to the family of Kit Denton, and I am sure that all honourable members will join me in this regard.

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [5.21 p.m.]: I congratulate the Forestville RSL Club on the role that it is playing in relation to Anzac Day. At a time when many people are questioning the involvement of young people in Anzac Day marches, the Forestville RSL is passing on the message to future generations through young people. The club holds community Anzac Day services on the Sunday before Anzac Day. In this regard, I pay tribute to Cyril Jack, the sub-branch president; Mal Wharrie and Gordon Farrell, the vice-presidents; Jim Moggoch, the secretary; David Hurt, the treasurer; and Herbie Herbert, the club president. The RSL has sought to involve young people in its Anzac Day commemorations so that they understand what it is all about. In addition, people from the RSL visit all the schools in the area at least three times a year.

The Forestville RSL appreciates, as do many people, that when the last Gallipoli veteran ceases to be with us we will need to focus on how the message of Anzac is passed on from one generation to the next. Current generations must encourage future generations to understand, to acknowledge and to learn the lessons of war and the sacrifices that have been made - and the Forestville RSL is doing just that. Its service commences with a march through the local streets and goes on to the laying of tributes. On Sunday the service involved an amazing gathering of 47 community organisations and groups, including the RSL, most of whom were represented by young people; members of Parliament and councillors; 13 local schools; sporting and youth clubs; the chamber of commerce; Legacy; the police; senior citizens groups; the bushfire brigade; Probus and Rotary clubs; guides, brownies, cubs and scouts; the air league and the air training corp. It was a wonderful example of how young people can be involved in an Anzac service, and understand and pass on the lessons.

The keynote address was made by Bianca Keys, the captain of Davidson high school. She spoke about what Anzac Day means. She read a poem that she won an award for six years ago, when she was in Year 6. The service was followed by the presentation of the Australia My Country awards. The competition attracted more than 250 entries from students in Years 3 to 10 in the local schools and awards were presented for essays, poetry and a non-written category.

The Forestville RSL is a model for others to follow. It actively involves young people, who participate willingly and enjoy doing so. The RSL is committed to passing on the Anzac message to the younger generations in that region. Every Australian has a stake in Anzac Day, in the Anzac spirit and in what it all means. Anzac Day has a special meaning to the people who participated in war, who sacrificed and who lost relatives and friends. Anzac Day also has a special meaning to the people who benefited from the sacrifices. We appreciate the freedoms that we have been given. We have learnt the lessons and we must pass them on to future generations. The RSL is the custodian of the Anzac tradition and it has the responsibility to conserve its meaning. Anzac Day is something that should not be commercialised, should not be used for commercial benefit, and should not be used for competitive advantage. Anzac Day is something that we all own; it must be sacrosanct.

A number of my constituents will be pleased to know that the RSL has had a change of heart in relation to children participating in Anzac Day marches, which it announced over the weekend. Children will be able to honour their parents and their grandparents who made sacrifices and participated in war. That is a wonderful way to pass on the message of Anzac Day to young people. I congratulate the Forestville RSL on the role that it has played in ensuring that the Anzac spirit endures in this and future generations. I encourage all other organisations to follow its example.

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.26 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Fairfield, it is my sad duty to express, on my behalf and that of the Fairfield electorate, the shock and grief that we feel as a result of what happened to Constable David Andrew Carty. The untimely death of the young Fairfield police officer has left the community shocked and the entire Police Service struggling to come to terms with the tragedy and the loss. In the early hours of Friday, 18 April, 25-year-old Constable Carty paid the ultimate price and was stabbed to death outside the Cambridge Hotel in Fairfield after finishing a late shift.

Page 7843

Constable Carty joined the New South Wales Police Service on 20 February 1994. He was attested as a probationary constable on 19 August 1994 and Liverpool was his first posting. He was transferred to Fairfield on 20 November 1994 and he was confirmed to the rank of constable on 19 August 1995. Before joining the New South Wales Police Service, David Carty worked on the family farm and showed as much dedication and independence there as he did as a constable. His relatively short experience in the service showed him to be a fine example of a police officer. In the words of Superintendent McMahon of the Fairfield Patrol, "Constable Carty was a credit to the uniform he wore and the community he served so capably."

Constable Carty was dedicated to and enthusiastic towards his duties, which earned him the respect and friendship not only of his colleagues but also of the wider community that he endeavoured to protect. Many people have said that Constable Carty exhibited the typical decency and friendliness of a boy from the bush. The respect and high regard in which Constable Carty was held was clearly illustrated by the turnout of more than 600 people at a memorial service that was held for him yesterday. What was meant to be a small gathering for those who could not attend the funeral tomorrow in Parkes mobilised into a mass expression of remorse by many essential services workers and members of the public. Fire trucks, paddy wagons, highway patrol cars and ambulances lined Liverpool streets as mourners packed the Catholic church to pay homage to their colleague. It was a demonstration of heartfelt sympathy that can be generated only when the person involved is genuine, sincere and virtuous.

Yesterday was a day for grieving, not a search for answers. Father Philip Linder said during the service, "I cannot stand here today and explain all the whys of what happened to David or the whys of what happens in life." A funeral service for Constable Carty will be held in his home town of Parkes tomorrow. He will be buried in a small cemetery near his home. His parents have said, "I am sure that David would have liked to have been as close to us as possible." A likeable, enthusiastic, family-oriented, brave young man has been cut down in his prime. That tragedy is not restricted to the Fairfield community; it affects every community and family that has heard about his violent murder.

On behalf of the Fairfield community, I wish to convey a collective expression of sympathy. The Fairfield community once again has lost one of its public figures to violence. As was the case with the murder of John Newman, the former member for Cabramatta, it strikes at the heart of the community. Decent citizens somehow feel a sense of guilt, even though they should not share that emotion. We live in a sometimes violent community and it is the role of young police officers to attempt to civilise others and to eradicate violence. In this case, David Carty was the victim of that violence. I am sure that he was a victim of that violence because he was extremely effective in fighting it. I have no doubt that he was a threat to violence in Fairfield as much as he was its victim.

The demoralising impact that this has had on the Fairfield patrol and its neighbouring patrols of Cabramatta, Wetherill Park and Merrylands is understandable. The incredible demonstrations of camaraderie, love, care and respect that the public has had the privilege to witness through electronic and photographic media indicate the enormous regard that this man was able to earn in his short period as a police officer.

I do not pretend to understand the anger his colleagues feel but I praise them for the restraint they have demonstrated. Their respect for the laws of this land and their abiding by the processes of justice indicate what true warriors these men and women are for law enforcement and for their civil and moral duties. I recognise that publicly and hope that the whole community of New South Wales does also. I wish to give specific recognition to patrol commander Bob McMahon. He has been the backbone that has held the Fairfield patrol together during this difficult time. For as long as I have had the pleasure of knowing him, he has always been a decent man, characterised by commonsense and calm, despite the myriad of hurdles put before him as the Fairfield patrol commander. I know that over the past few days he has been more than a boss to his police officers. He has been a friend, confidant and father to his officers, and I salute him for that.

Finally, I refer specifically to Mr Carty's parents and his fiancée. They have lost a son and fiancé that they were no doubt proud of. He was a model citizen and the demonstrations of remorse for his loss are not just a testimony to him but also a testimony to them. We, the people of Fairfield, thank them for the privilege of having had him in our service. Naturally the people of Fairfield cannot share the depth of grief that his parents and Fleur are currently experiencing, but we all know that we have lost something special. [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.31 p.m.]: I compliment the honourable member for Fairfield on his sensitive
Page 7844
and sensible expressions of sympathy on the untimely death of David Carty. His loss is a loss for all of us. I speak on behalf of all honourable members in this House in saying that David Carty was a young man full of ideals, cut down in his prime. In him rested the hopes and aspirations of everything that is great in this country. He was a young man in whom we all had absolute confidence.

The attack on this young police officer is an attack on the entire Police Service, on decency and on everything that we hold as righteous and noble in this country. I share the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Fairfield and send out a message on behalf of the Premier, the Government and my ministerial colleagues that we regard David Carty's death as a grave tragedy and an attack on everything that the people of New South Wales regard as decent. We will do everything to ensure that his death is avenged in a fitting way.

The respect shown by David's friends is particularly noted at a time when the Police Service has received adverse comment. It was wonderful to witness the mateship within the Police Service in response to his death. The sentiments expressed by his colleagues were emotional. Again, on behalf of the Government and all members of this Parliament, I extend to his family, friends and mates our sympathy. David, farewell! Thank you for a job well done and for upholding all that is wonderful in this State.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.33 p.m.]: I raise a matter of great importance to my electorate and the people of the Bellinger total catchment management area. Last Friday the Minister for Land and Water Conservation announced a new total catchment management committee for the Bellinger catchment area. Three years ago Bellingen Shire Council and other greens within the Coffs Harbour and Bellingen areas were aware that the Minister intended to appoint a total catchment management committee comprising greens who were biased towards a minority. At the time I took action to ensure that the intention of the Catchment Management Act was met, in particular, section 14(2)(a), which states:

(2) The responsible Minister is to appoint:

(a) persons who are land holders or land users within the catchment area, who are to constitute the majority of the members.

The Minister has now turfed out members of the committee who were farmers doing an excellent job, who were genuine land users and land owners. Previously the council, the greens and the farmers all admitted that the total catchment management committee was resolving conflict within the valley and managing all the interests of the catchment. The committee chairman, Judee Knell, unashamedly said that it was great that they had a totally green committee. I inform Ms Knell that Cliff Last and William Browning are not totally green, though the rest of the members are.

Members on this committee will create conflict within the catchment because they are extreme greens and members of the Bellinger Environment Centre. On environmental issues they have been nothing but thorns in the sides of all governments, including the current Government. They will not accept anything unless it is totally green. They ignore the cost and the fact that anything they wish to implement - such as removing all stock from the catchment and river - may not work. The Minister has appointed a committee that will be biased and will cause grave conflict within the area. One committee member, Warren Tindall, has a local and statewide reputation for being a person who attends forest blockades and will do anything to stop management of forests, even under the current forestry system. He does not believe in any timber felling within that catchment area. The Minister in his press release stated:

Ms Knell has an excellent understanding of the Bellinger catchment area and has extensive knowledge of natural resource issues within the catchment.

She may have, but her interest is one of stopping any development and any farming in one of the most productive valleys on the north coast and, indeed, in New South Wales and Australia. These people are out to prevent farmers from earning an estimated income of $120 million. These same people object to dairying and potato growing, which are two of the major industries in the catchment area, along the banks of the river. They wish to ensure that management of the catchment is one-sided. The Minister states also that management issues will involve water quality, septic systems, river bank erosion and river sedimentation, management of the riverine corridor and forest management. This is already being done well.

The work done by the former total catchment management committee in that area drew the farmers and the greens together. The new committee will have the opposite effect. In fact, two of the people nominated, Rodney Holmes and Louise Clement, to my knowledge have only just moved into the catchment area within the past 12 to 18 months. It is beyond me how they could have
Page 7845
extensive knowledge of the area. They do not. Farmers who were born and bred there and who live there have that knowledge but their voice will not be heard by this committee.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.38 p.m.]: It is of grave concern when a member such as the honourable member for Coffs Harbour speaks in this Chamber in the absence of the responsible Minister and makes a full-scale attack on members of his own community. Members use this forum, particularly private members' statements, usually to raise matters of concern to their electorates. Private individuals, who do not have the opportunities and privileges of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour in this Chamber, are usually the subject of praise when named in this Chamber. Other forums which put members of Parliament on an equal footing with people outside are available to members to voice criticism of people in their community.

I put it to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that members of his home community, the same people he has criticised here today, do not have the privilege of being able to speak in this Chamber to cast aspersions and criticisms. If he has concerns in relation to a matter he should debate it in a public forum within his electorate. He should not hide behind the walls of this Chamber by raising matters in this way. At the very least, he could have had the courtesy to advise the Minister for Land and Water Conservation that he intended to raise the matter so that the Minister could have attended the Chamber to respond appropriately and to defend people who are known to the Minister but who are not known to any other member of this Chamber except the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who has chosen to denigrate their reputations here.

Mr RUMBLE (Illawarra) [5.40 p.m.]: The matter I raise this evening concerns the way in which paedophiles are dealt with by the courts. I seek information from the Attorney General on the matter. The latest statistics on sentencing of paedophiles go back to 1995. In the Supreme Court, which hears only the most serious charges, 170 people were convicted of sexual offences against children: 65 per cent received imprisonment; 11 per cent received periodic detention; 7 per cent received a community service order; 11 per cent received a recognisance with supervision; 5 per cent received a recognisance without supervision; and 1 per cent - two people - had no conviction recorded after the offence was found proved. Of the people who received a prison sentence, 24 per cent received a sentence of under one year; 28 per cent between one and two years; 21 per cent between two years and three years; 12 per cent between three years and four years; 10 per cent between four years and five years; 2 per cent between five and six years; and 3 per cent between six and seven years, which was the maximum sentence imposed. In the Local Court, the court in which less serious charges than those heard in the Supreme Court are heard, there were 58 such convictions: 21 per cent received imprisonment; 12 per cent received periodic detention; 26 per cent received a community service order; 17 per cent received a recognisance with supervision; 14 per cent received a recognisance without supervision; and the other 9 per cent received a recognisance without conviction, a fine or a nominal sentence, or had no conviction recorded after the offence was found proved.

The sentences of fixed-term imprisonment for those receiving a term of imprisonment from the Local Court were as follows: one received a sentence of two to three months; two received four to five months; two received six to seven months and one received nine to 10 months. The duration of the minimum term of imprisonment was as follows: two received three to six months; two received nine to 12 months; and two received 12 to 15 months. The Crimes Act states that any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is under the age of 10 shall be liable to penal servitude for 20 years. It also states that any person who attempts to have sexual intercourse with another person who is under the age of 10 or assaults any such person with intent to have sexual intercourse shall be liable to penal servitude for 20 years.

In relation to children between 10 and 16 years of age it is stated that any person who has sexual intercourse with another person who is above the age of 10 and under 16 years shall receive penal servitude of up to eight years. If the victim is above the age of 10 years and under 16 years and generally under the authority of the offender at the time of the sexual intercourse the penalty shall be penal servitude for up to 10 years. I cannot ascertain from the statistics whether the crimes I have referred to were committed against children under the age of 10 years or children between 10 and 16 years. However, in many instances the sentences imposed were non-custodial. I am not saying that we should just put people in gaol and let them think about their next crime. Obviously, a message must be sent out to paedophiles in relation to imprisonment. As paedophilia is a mental disorder, the offenders should receive some type of counselling in prison. I would like the Attorney General to inform me of the
Page 7846
extent to which paedophiles receive counselling or treatment in gaol. I ask the Minister whether any cases dealt with by the Supreme Court involved children under the age of 10. [Time expired.]

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [5.45 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak today to celebrate the golden jubilee of Loquat Valley Anglican Preparatory School, Bayview. In 1947 Gordon Taylor, later Sir Gordon, founded Ballanger Grange, which was renamed Loquat Valley two years later. It is worthwhile noting the extraordinary life of Gordon Taylor, the founder of Loquat Valley. A pioneer Australian aviator, Sir Gordon Taylor was born in 1896 and educated at The Armidale School. After two years service with the Australian Imperial Force he was granted leave in 1916 to join the Royal Flying Corps in England. He was awarded the Military Cross in 1917.

After the war Sir Gordon Taylor worked for a time with the de Havilland aviation company, returning to Australia in the mid-1920s. He was hired by Charles Ulm as a pilot on the first Australian National Airways routes to Brisbane and Melbourne. In 1933 and 1934 he flew with Charles Kingsford Smith. In 1939 Taylor made the first Australia-West Africa flight across the Indian Ocean on behalf of the British and Australian governments to survey possible flying boat bases for wartime use. During World War II he served with the Royal Air Force and was a member of the RAF transport command. In 1951 Taylor surveyed a proposed Pacific commercial aviation route between Chile and Australia. He was knighted for services to aviation in 1954 and died in 1966.

During this distinguished career Sir Gordon Taylor also found time to start a school and pursue his vision for broad, limitless education for young Australians. Using his own land just metres from the foreshore of beautiful Pittwater, Sir Gordon built a school whose aims today are to provide an educational environment which allows each child to develop social skills, spiritual growth, academic and artistic competence, emotional stability, and positive physical attitudes. The children are guided in the development of sound self-esteem, a sense of responsibility, self-discipline and respect for others based on Christian principles. Today the school is hidden away amongst loquat trees in Bayview. Its modest buildings and oval are part of the landscape and the school is an important - and now essential - part of the Pittwater community.

Under the stewardship of chairman Ric Stevens and principal Ruth Ross 275 children, their teachers, instructors and families make up Loquat Valley school. In addition to its achievement in the pursuit of academic skills, Loquat Valley is credited with many successes in music. The infants choir has won its division in the Ryde eisteddfod for the last two years and the school's intensive music program has 60 students learning violin and 90 learning recorder, from kindergarten to year 6. I only hope that they do not all practise at the same time!

The school's golden jubilee celebrations this year include: on 20 April a golden jubilee regatta and picnic; on 9 to 11 May a back-to-Loquat Valley weekend at the school; on Friday, 1 August, a golden jubilee school concert; on Saturday, 25 October, a golden jubilee ball in the valley; and, lastly, on Tuesday, 9 December, a presentation night at St Luke's Grammar school hall, Dee Why. As the local member, I look forward to participating in as many of those activities as possible and adding to the school's celebration.

Loquat Valley Anglican Preparatory School does not have a high profile outside Pittwater, nor does it seek one. It provides its students with all the benefits and opportunities of a small school, love and friendship. Its only success is the provision of a broad and balanced education based on Christian principles to its students. To that end it is an outstanding success. Its students stand as a testimony to the values of quality education. I congratulate the school on its first 50 years and offer my best wishes for its future.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.50 p.m.]: As the Minister for Education and Training I share with the honourable member for Pittwater his joy and delight in extending congratulations to the Loquat Valley Anglican Preparatory School on the celebration of its golden jubilee. It is always a great pleasure as Minister to hear of the wonderful achievements of schools around this State, be they government or non-government schools. I regard myself as the Minister for all schools and I take great delight in noting the efforts that are being made through the selfless dedication of teachers and the partnership between school communities, parents and students.

Occasionally one hears of a gem. Clearly, from what the honourable member for Pittwater has said, Loquat Valley school is one such gem. I join with the honourable member in extending sincere congratulations. I applaud the school on its goals and ideals. I applaud it particularly for its ample
Page 7847
achievements and success in music, highlighting an excellence in violin and recorder, and also for instilling in the young people who are fortunate enough to be students at the school the ideals that all of us hold in high esteem. Once again, congratulations to the honourable member for Pittwater on bringing this matter to the attention of the House and my sincere congratulations as Minister for Education and Training to the Loquat Valley Anglican Preparatory School on its golden jubilee.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Would the honourable member for Pittwater confirm that Sir Gordon Taylor was the aviator who hand-pumped fuel from one tank to another in the Southern Cross midway across the Tasman Sea?

Mr Brogden: I am not aware, Mr Acting-Speaker, but I will ask his widow.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [5.53 p.m.]: I am sure that honourable members with a keen interest in history, such as yourself, Mr Acting Speaker, would be aware that this is Newcastle's bicentenary year, that is, the bicentenary of the European discovery of Newcastle when Lieutenant Shortland arrived and noticed coal at Nobby’s which led to the European settlement of Newcastle. Last weekend, as part of National Heritage Week, Mrs Hazel Hawke, the Chair of the National Heritage Council, visited Newcastle and launched two significant events in the city, part of a year of celebrations in Newcastle.

Mrs Hawke performed the significant task of turning the first sod at the convict lumberyard site in Newcastle east, thereby launching a restoration program. Once complete, the excavations will reveal an interpretation of the layers of history, that is, an array of pre-European history - the Aboriginal occupation of the site; a period of convict industry when the site was used as a stockade for the convicts who worked in coal extraction, timber preparation, oyster shell collection and burning for lime; and a convict forge for the making of metal products. So it is a very important early historic site in the settlement of New South Wales. It was not the first forge in this nation but it is certainly the best preserved site.

Over time knowledge of that site had been lost and it was covered by sandhills. In 1987 the State Rail Authority sought to dispose of the land for the potential construction of a hotel. The citizens of Newcastle, who recognised that it was an important historic precinct, actively fought for its preservation. A local historian, Dr John Turner, on a walk with his dog discovered convict bricks on the site. Having a clear knowledge of the history of the area, he thought it may be the site of the convict stockade. The State Rail Authority involved Dr Dameris Baerstowe in three digs which unearthed a mass of historical data. With the assistance of the community, the site has been preserved and will provide an interpretation of the pre-European period, the convict industry period when it was used as a stockade and works depot, and the maritime and railway age.

Mr Acting Speaker, as one with a keen interest in railways you would be aware that the great northern line started at Newcastle. The workshops and the paymaster’s and stationmaster’s cottages are situated there. It is a very historic precinct. Through the former Federal Government's grants to the Heritage Council, the historic Customs House and the paymaster’s and stationmaster’s cottages have been restored to heritage standard and form a magnificent focus in that area. The gem will be the convict stockade site because it will provide an interpretive look at the history of the area from the first settlement by our Aboriginal members prior to European settlement.

Also launched by Mrs Hawke at the weekend was the Newcastle city heritage study, an important study of the city highlighting more than 300 potential new heritage conservation holdings in the area. Those holdings are buildings, archeological structures and cultural landscapes, including mining sites, hotels, churches, educational buildings, factories, parks, memorials, railways and meeting halls. All the heritage items are part of the very important social fabric of the Newcastle area, its mining heritage and the heritage of its inhabitants since the first settlement of the area. It is certainly something of which we should all be proud.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.57 p.m.]: The honourable member for Newcastle quite rightly has brought to the attention of honourable members the wonderful events in Newcastle at the moment as it celebrates its bicentenary of European discovery. Of course, Newcastle is a unique place not only in New South Wales but in the whole of Australia. As the sixth largest city on the continent, Newcastle has played a vital role in our nation's development. It is therefore appropriate at this stage in our history that its origins should be remembered and its heritage should be preserved.

I particularly compliment the honourable member for Newcastle on drawing to our attention the specific heritage of the convict forge. Of course,
Page 7848
the origins of the iron and steel industry are vital to the industrial development of this nation. It is therefore proper that we preserve that history and record its importance to our national development. It is also important that attention be drawn to the city's heritage with its unique buildings and its unique place in the industrial history of our country, not only in iron and steel but also in many areas of endeavour. Newcastle has provided a workplace to many migrants who have come to our shores from Europe and has given them opportunities to find gainful employment and to offer to the new nation of Australia the ample skills they acquired over many decades and generations in their home countries. Once again, congratulations to the honourable member for Newcastle for raising this matter in this Chamber and sincere congratulations to all of Newcastle and its inhabitants on the bicentenary of European discovery.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [5.59 p.m.]: I wish to raise my concerns and those of many other people in the northern part of the Ballina electorate about the future of Mullumbimby hospital. In recent years a problem has been identified with asbestos in the roof of the hospital. For occupational, health and safety reasons it has been necessary to temporarily close the hospital to allow work to be done to contain this asbestos problem. The period of closure has commenced, and it will last for approximately six months. The hospital is due to reopen in early September this year, and alternative medical services are being provided from other sites, including Byron Bay hospital and the revamped Country Women's Association rooms in Mullumbimby. The Northern Rivers Health Service currently has budgetary problems, and the community I represent is concerned that because of financial problems across the whole health area it will be tempting not to reopen the Mullumbimby hospital.

I have sought an assurance from the Minister for Health that the Mullumbimby hospital will reopen in early September with the full range of services, and such an assurance from the Minister has been forthcoming. Whilst I draw comfort from this reassurance, I am concerned about the longer-term plans for the Mullumbimby hospital. The asbestos containment work, once completed, will last for approximately four years only. In other words, in a little over four years from now we will almost certainly be facing the prospect of a further closure of the hospital to enable more work to be done on the asbestos problem in the roof if nothing pro-active is done in the meantime. Given the time it takes to plan, fund and construct new health facilities - approximately three to four years from beginning to end - it seems to me to be critical that planning for the redevelopment of the hospital be commenced immediately to ensure proper health services are in place on an ongoing basis in the rapidly expanding areas of Mullumbimby, Brunswick Heads and Ocean Shores.

Failure to plan today for redevelopment of the hospital to meet the future health needs of the surrounding communities served by Mullumbimby hospital is likely to lead to a crisis in four years. I therefore believe it is essential that this project be placed on the capital works program immediately to avoid a major problem for the hospital around the year 2001. I note that the Northern Rivers Health Service is undertaking a formal planning process in relation to all of its health services. This process will conclude by the end of June. I urge both the Northern Rivers Health Service and the State Government to give Mullumbimby hospital the highest priority for future capital works. The communities served by this hospital are not only growing rapidly, but they have a higher percentage of people over 65 years than the State average. As honourable members know, people over 65 years of age use approximately four times more health services than the general population.

On the basis of projected population growth and the age profile of the community there can be no doubt about the strong need for a hospital in Mullumbimby for the foreseeable future and the need to have in place other services, particularly for the aged, to meet expanding demand. The fact that average incomes in the Mullumbimby catchment area are very low by national standards means that the great need for publicly funded health services will continue. In addition, the rates of infection with hepatitis C, vaccine-preventable disease and Ross River fever are considerably higher in this area than they are in New South Wales as a whole. The Mullumbimby, Brunswick Heads, Ocean Shores and surrounding communities are currently inconvenienced by not having the local hospital open.

Whilst these communities understand the need for the temporary closure because of the asbestos problem in the roof of the hospital, they will not tolerate any downgrading of the hospital when it reopens; nor will they be happy to accept that the Government can wait around for four more years, then close down the hospital. I will never accept that, nor will our community. I insist that planning for the redevelopment of the hospital commence straightaway both to solve the asbestos problem in
Page 7849
the long term and to make proper provision for appropriate medical services for the future. The redevelopment of Mullumbimby hospital must become part of the capital works program immediately to guarantee good medical services, including services for aged care, into the next century. Failure to do this would be a betrayal by this Government of the people in the northern part of my electorate.

Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [6.04 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the curious and intriguing case of Mr Jeff Osland, a resident of Green Valley and a constituent of mine. He had been trying to sell his family car for some time. He advertised it in the Trading Post Weekly and at Flemington car market, but all to no avail. Accordingly, on Saturday, 17 December 1996, he took his car and left it next to Elizabeth Drive, Bonnyrigg, with a for sale sign in the window. He then returned home in another car. He received a phone call as soon as he returned home - the car had been in Elizabeth Drive for 15 minutes or so - from a person who identified himself as a council ranger from Fairfield City Council.

As Mr Osland put it to me, he was amazed when the ranger told him that what he had done was illegal. He promptly returned to Elizabeth Drive and removed his car. He explained to the council ranger that he had no idea that what he had done was wrong. The ranger told him that the Fairfield papers had conducted an extensive campaign to alert people that they were not supposed to carry out such activities. Mr Osland then reasonably pointed out that he did not receive the Fairfield papers because he lived in Green Valley and not in Fairfield. That is quite correct: when one considers the distribution of the newspapers one would not receive the Fairfield papers if one lived in Green Valley.

Subsequently, on 10 December infringement notice P9296248 in the sum of $300 was posted to Mr Osland. He then wrote to me and I made subsequent representations in a letter dated 8 January. If that were the end of the matter there would be no point in raising the issue in this place. Making representations on behalf of constituents is something that is done frequently, and normally they do not call for any comment. However, the matter did not end there. In response to my representations I subsequently received a letter from the Director of the New South Wales Police Service Infringement Processing Bureau dated 3 February. The letter stated:

Dear Mr Lynch,

I refer to your recent communication on behalf of Jeffrey Osland concerning the issue of infringement P9296248.

The Issuing Authority has carefully considered the points raised in your letter in conjunction with the relevant report and have decided to take no further action. Naturally, payment of the prescribed penalty is no longer required.

Yours faithfully,

Once again, if the matter had stopped there everyone would have been content. The local member would have felt pleased that he was able to help his constituent and the constituent would have been happy that the matter had been resolved. Unfortunately, things are not quite so happy. Having been told that no further action would be taken and that the infringement notice would be withdrawn, my constituent received a further letter from Fairfield City Council dated 18 February 1997, which stated:

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to the Infringement Notice issued to you for parking a vehicle for sale in the Fairfield City Council area. If you have already paid the fine for this offence, you are requested to return this Infringement Notice with details of your payment to the Infringement Processing Bureau.

You will note that there has been a technical change to the Infringement Notice and the Offence Code and wording has been changed. The penalty has remained the same and the changes are of a technical/legal nature. A fresh Infringement Notice has been issued under the new Offence Code and the wording amended. You are only required to pay the penalty once and have been granted additional time to finalise this matter. Full details on how to finalise this matter are given on the Infringement Notice.

Yours faithfully,

The letter was signed by the supervisor of the environmental investigations branch and enclosed infringement notice P9280031 in the sum of $300. About two months ago I submitted further representations to Fairfield City Council, and I am still awaiting a response. It is unusual to raise these sorts of matters in this place, but events in this case have been a little beyond the pale. I am not someone who particularly enjoys attacking local government: I was a councillor for far too long, and I know too many of the councillors and officers at Fairfield City Council and I have a high regard for them. But this case is a good example of how not to behave and of bad customer service skills. I hope when the appropriate people at Fairfield City Council see a report of what I have said that some sensible action might be taken and the matter satisfactorily resolved.

Page 7850

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [6.08 p.m.]: Tonight I bring to the attention of the House the plans of the Roads and Traffic Authority to raise the speed limit through Sutton Forest village in the southern highlands to 80 kilometres an hour past the Sutton Forest primary school and heritage tourism facilities. I am disappointed that the Minister for Roads did not accept my invitation to be here this evening, but I am very glad to see that the Minister for Education and Training is in the Chamber, because this issue relates to the safety of children at schools. I would also like to note that the school and the Sutton Forest Business Association oppose the increase to the background speed in principle, but they feel that the RTA considers this as a fait accompli and that it is determined to proceed. Under new RTA school speed zone guidelines, a background speed of 80 kilometres an hour indicates a school speed zone of 60 kilometres an hour, rather than the more usual 40 kilometres an hour, and parents are very concerned.

The Sutton Forest school parents and citizens association, ably led by Lyn Folkard, Vicky and John Tiernan and other parents, sought my help a year ago. With the support of council and advice from the Bowral police patrol commander, we were able to stall the apparently inevitable change in the speed limit until work was carried out by the RTA that was to the satisfaction of the school community. Although some work has been carried out and parking is prohibited across the road from the school, parents and the school principal are concerned that the existing vehicle bay beside the Illawarra Highway and in front of the school gate does not provide sufficient safety for primary school children being dropped off and collected.

I acknowledge the cooperation that Mr Wal Smart of the Wollongong RTA office has given to date, but I seek the Minister's support for funding a missing link in the existing RTA safety upgrade plan. A package of works costed by the RTA at $94,000 includes an agreed project to improve the safety of children's movements in and out of the school. At council chambers on 24 March the RTA told a meeting of council officers, RTA representatives, parents and citizens representatives and me that only $50 million is available now and it is hoped that the balance will be available in the May budget. I ask the Minister for an assurance on that point. However, at the same meeting an assurance was sought and given that the speed zone will not be increased until a complete package of safety works is built to the satisfaction of the parents and citizens and the council.

It is an important matter because the present RTA plan includes no safety measures from the southern end of the school, where an Armco barrier will be built, past the Sutton Forest hotel to the Sutton Forest hall. Schoolchildren would have to walk on a narrow and unprotected path on the side of the highway facing traffic travelling at 80 kilometres an hour, and that is unacceptable and unsafe. This missing link is the responsibility of the RTA because it seeks to increase the speed zone. The RTA should find the additional funds to do this work. Neither the school nor the Sutton Forest Business Association is happy about the speed zone increase. However, if the RTA insists on enforcing this change and increasing the speed limit, it should not do so until all satisfactory safety works are completed - and of course it should fund those works. I seek the Minister's assistance on this matter to ensure the safety of the children of Sutton Forest school and all residents and visitors to the Sutton Forest area.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.12 p.m.]: I listened carefully to the honourable member for Southern Highlands express her concerns about this matter. I assure her that I will take the matter up with the Minister for Roads to determine whether a more timely and satisfactory arrangement can be reached. As Minister for Education and Training I presume I have received some correspondence on this matter, though I am not aware of the details at this stage. As the matter directly relates to the portfolio of the Minister for Roads, I did not anticipate the matter being raised this evening, but I undertake to find the correspondence, consider the details, and discuss them with the Minister for Roads in an effort to arrive at a solution that is more acceptable to the needs of Sutton Forest, but more specifically acceptable to the needs of the students attending the school.

Private members' statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 6.13 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [7.30 p.m.]: I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly on this matter. Given the presence in the gallery today of
Page 7851
the fathers from Dunblane, it is timely that I do so. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 May noted that the New South Wales Government had changed tack on its upgrading of police firearms by announcing that those firearms would no longer be traded in or sold second-hand. Honourable members may remember that at that time a reluctant police Minister announced a change in policy whereby hand guns that were replaced would not be on-sold.

At that time, in April-May last year, we were asking the Minister to guarantee that the police guns that were replaced - 13,000 hand guns - would be melted down before leaving the State. We do not yet have that guarantee from the police Minister, and I welcome the fact that this debate provides the Minister with one more chance to guarantee that he will not allow 13,000 guns to leak out onto the second hand gun market. There is no need whatsoever for those 13,000 guns to be given to any dealer as part of the arrangement for buying the new guns.

It is of concern that the Minister has refused to guarantee that the old weapons will be melted down, but that is not surprising when one considers what this Minister has done over the past year with the guns policy and the purchase of prohibited weapons. If one considers the public relations in relation to this matter during the past 12 months, and the weapons that have been purchased under the buy-back scheme, one finds that the New South Wales Government has -

Mr Langton: On a point of order. This matter relates clearly and simply to the supply of new Police Service firearms. It has nothing to do with the buy-back scheme. I ask that you direct the honourable member for Vaucluse - the hooligan that he is - to confine himself to the terms of the motion.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Clough): Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse, in referring to the disposal of the current Smith and Wesson pistols, makes a valid point. Therefore I rule there is no point of order.

Mr DEBNAM: For the benefit of the Minister for Transport, my point is that the whole issue of guns - whether they be hand guns, rifles or military weapons - is of great concern to the community. New South Wales is lagging behind the other States in buying back prohibited weapons. We have voiced our concern about how the police Minister has handled the purchase of new weapons for the Police Service; but we are also concerned about hand guns generally. Over the past few days there has been a ridiculous debate in public following the Premier’s statement that he had full confidence in the hand gun laws.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse is getting away from the subject. He should come back to the discussion of the supply of Police Service firearms.

Mr DEBNAM: Last year the police had to deal with 1,100 offences involving pistols. We have no details on what sort of pistols they were, but I am sure many of them were far more powerful than police revolvers. In answer to question upon notice No. 919 the police Minister said there were no incidents involving replica pistols, whereas his answer to question No. 937 gives details of an incident involving a replica pistol. The whole question of pistols in this State - whether they be police hand guns or unlicensed weapons - is out of hand.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse is again straying from the motion. He should address the question of the supply of new Police Service firearms.

Mr DEBNAM: It really is up to the police Minister to do his job in relation to the supply of new weapons for the Police Service. The police are asking for these weapons to be delivered. [Time expired.]

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [7.35 p.m.], in reply: The response by the Minister for Police to this matter of public importance was very disappointing. Two years ago two policemen were killed because, as the Coroner found, they were completely outgunned in an altercation that arose from a domestic violence dispute. On a number of occasions since then the Minister has given assurances that everything was in train for the purchase of an appropriate replacement firearm for the Police Service and the disposal of the Smith and Wesson pistols. In the estimates committee the Minister very solemnly said that there was money in hand for this purchase, and on numerous occasions we were told that the Glock was the weapon of choice. The tender process has been completed; we have got right to the death knock, as it were. For some weeks the Minister has had a firm recommendation for a new police firearm, but we now find that there is apparently some problem and the tender process has gone to the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

What sort of a show is the Government running? There is a desperate need for a new firearm, police are daily putting their safety on the
Page 7852
line with a firearm that is not up to the job, but the tender process has been mucked up and the tender has gone to the ICAC. It is not as though this matter has arisen overnight; it has been around for a number of years. Repeatedly we have been assured that everything is fine, that everything is okay. So what has gone wrong? We are not being told. Every time there is mention in this Chamber of a member of Parliament being referred to the ICAC, we hear it all chapter and verse, we hear every last little detail. But in relation to a significant tender that affects the safety of the public and police officers we hear nothing, we are given no explanation.

We do not know whether the current short-listed gun has now been excluded in favour of a weapon produced by ADI at Lithgow, or if something else has happened. We do not know whether some exception is being proposed to give ADI the tender. We simply do not know. But it is important that there be some public explanation of the delay. I know that a significant number of police are extremely concerned about the delay; they want to know what the problem is, when it is likely to be fixed and when they are likely to get firearms that will be safe for them to use and safe for the public.

The public really is at risk. When police are outgunned in shoot-outs, as we saw recently, they are constrained in their response. If they had better weapons they would have fractionally more time, and the public would be less at risk. Above all, it must be remembered that the most dangerous work that police are called upon to do is to respond to domestic violence and apprehended violence calls, because they are so unpredictable. This week the deputy commissioner said that the greatest incidence of firearm use involves murders arising out of domestic violence; that police have to go in and take weapons out of the hands of people involved in these situations.

I know from speaking to many, many police that the one thing they absolutely hate, loathe and fear doing - but, of course, do to the best of their ability - is to respond to domestic violence calls. Why? Because they are so violent and so unpredictable. We know from the figures provided by Bev Lawson that firearms are involved in so many of these situations. Police are still using weapons that were around at the time of the shoot-out at the OK Corral. The Government has had two years to replace these weapons, and just when the papers are to be signed by the Minister, he says, "Oh, there is a probity problem. It has all gone to ICAC." Why? We do not know. The Minister will not tell us. We need to know. We certainly believe the police should know.

It is in the public interest that there should be an explanation about what can only be described as a stuff-up. Why did the tender process not work? Why did it not proceed properly? If there was a problem with it, whose fault was it, what went wrong, when, what is the problem, and who is responsible? They are the sorts of questions we want answered. After two years of mucking about and endless promises about funding and everything else for firearms, nothing is happening. Why? Tell us. [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.

Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [7.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this House dissent from the decisions of Mr Speaker given on Thursday, 17 April 1997, when he upheld three points of order taken against the member for Miranda while speaking to the matter of priority for consideration of an urgent motion pursuant to Standing Order 120.

I support Standing Order 120(4)(a), which provides that members have five minutes in which to establish the priority of their motion. Mr Speaker, you have made a number of rulings that members must argue why their motion should have priority, and must not debate the substantive motion, and I accept those rulings. However, on Thursday, 17 April, your rulings on the standing order were in error: they did not conform with your previous rulings, or Standing Order 120(4)(a). My motion states that I dissent from your rulings on three points of orders. During the course of the debate I had to argue why my motion was urgent. My first point was that the Government had not commented publicly on the Victorian report and that it should explain whether the content of the report was accurate. I said:

The people of New South Wales deserve to hear from the Government; they deserve an explanation as to what the Premier intends to do about the Victorian report.

The honourable member for Londonderry, Mr Gibson, rose on a point of order and said:

On a point of order. It is the same point of order that I take at about the same time each day that this House considers an urgent motion.

I understand that honourable members sometimes use standing orders as a spoiling tactic to stifle
Page 7853
debate. However, they have a responsibility to put forward genuine points of order so that they are not accused of infringing the democratic right of other members to express their views. Mr Speaker, your responsibility is to uphold our rights and not permit members to blatantly misuse the standing orders as a spoiling tactic to stifle debate. Mr Gibson’s point of order continued:

He is not at liberty to ask why the Government has not commented on a particular report.

Mr Speaker, you upheld that point of order. Therefore, you said to every member of the House that we have no right to ask the Government or the Premier of the day to explain to the Parliament why they have not responded to a report. It does not matter whether Mr Gibson agrees or disagrees with whether I have made a valid case in relation to urgency; the issue is whether I have a right to put forward my case - and, quite clearly, I have that right.

At no point in my remarks did I debate the content of the substantive motion. I argued that the Government had a responsibility to respond to the Victorian report and that the community deserved an explanation from the Premier as to what he was going to do about the report. I said nothing about the substantive motion. Mr Speaker, you upheld Mr Gibson’s point of order. Therefore you said that we cannot ask the Government to be accountable to the Parliament for anything. My second argument in support of why my motion was urgent was that the Government should explain what it intended to do about certain issues raised in the report. I said:

. . . explain to the House what they intend to do about the lagging economic conditions in this State . . . why Victoria now outperforms New South Wales . . . what it proposes to do about the lagging economy and about the fact that investment is not coming to New South Wales.

I concluded by saying:

. . . it is urgent . . . because only this morning a report was published by Drake International -

The honourable member for Londonderry rose to his feet and said:

. . . the honourable member is not entitled to refer to the substance of the motion . . .

When honourable members are arguing that their motion should have priority they cannot debate the substance or the detail of the motion, they cannot debate the issues - but they should be allowed to refer to elements of the motion. They should be allowed to make passing reference to the matter that they would like the House to consider. Yet, Mr Speaker, you upheld that point of order. The final ruling on which I say you were in error and from which I have moved dissent relates to the third argument I put forward: that my motion was urgent because the Drake International report became available only that morning. That is all I said; that is all I put forward. I asked the Government to respond to this very important report from Drake International that indicated an anticipation that there would be twice as many extra jobs in Victoria as in New South Wales. I said:

It is an extremely urgent matter for the House to consider today and the Government does not like it one bit.

At that point the honourable member for Londonderry took another point of order. I was seeking to comply with the standing order; I knew I had to put reasons to the House as to why my motion was urgent. My arguments in the debate were clear and I at no stage addressed the substance of the debate. However, Mr Gibson once again took a point of order.

Mr Langton: On a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is consistently referring to the honourable member for Londonderry in terms other than his official title. I ask that you request the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to use the correct title of the honourable member.

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

Mr PHILLIPS: The honourable member for Londonderry said:

On a point of order. If members of the Opposition do not like the standing orders of this House they should try to change them. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is totally out of order.

I stress once again that the reason the Opposition is dissenting from your rulings, three consecutive rulings, is that the honourable member for Londonderry raised three spurious points of order, putting forward the case that I was debating the substance of the motion. At no time was I debating the substance of the motion, yet you upheld those three points of order. If this motion of dissent is not successful, or if the approach to this standing order is not changed, then you are not fulfilling the intent of the standing order that is before the Parliament, which is your responsibility. [Time expired.]

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [7.50 p.m.]: The motion is a waste of time. It is clear that your rulings in relation to this issue
Page 7854
followed decisions of former Speakers and Chairmen of Committees. The Opposition is so poor that it uses policy as a last resort. The only thing Opposition members can find to do - and they did this during the previous session as well - is to attack the Speaker. Why do they not attack one of the 20 Ministers on an issue of policy? Ministers would probably give this lacklustre Opposition an opportunity for debate and some advice as well. The Opposition uses the last resort of attacking the Speaker. This is a minor motion. I remind those Opposition members who are members of the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee of an arrangement that members of that committee would see what they could do to overcome the problem of points of order being taken on the abbreviated speeches to decide the priority of motions for urgent consideration. It was the Opposition that first broke that arrangement. This motion is minor and it is an insult to you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate and will have a right of reply.

Mr WHELAN: The other point I should like to make is that the standing order in question was applied by the coalition when in government. These were the coalition's standing orders, and in opposition the Labor Party accepted them - it had to accept them. But now that the coalition is in opposition and the Labor Party is in government and is using those standing orders, Opposition members find this particular standing order unacceptable because so many members, Opposition members in particular on the day in question, breach it.

Mr Phillips: Not the standing orders.

Mr WHELAN: It happens all the time. Opposition members have to accept that. One reaches the conclusion that they have lost their way when it comes to policy. In this session of Parliament there must have been a record number of points of order taken. Certainly in my years I have not known so many points of order to be taken on any issue. Opposition members are breaching the standing orders because they are not prepared to talk about basic policy issues. In respect of my portfolio, why can Opposition members not attack policing issues? The Opposition does not attack the Government on education or on health. The Opposition does not even ask the Premier questions. All that Opposition members want to do is try to discredit the Speaker by raising this issue, which is of absolutely no consequence to anybody else in the whole State.

Opposition members are not interested in policy; all they want to do is involve themselves in some academic argument as to whether the Speaker has correctly interpreted the coalition's standing orders. The fact of the matter is that the Speaker has done that. If I had a criticism of the Speaker, it would be that he is too lenient in controlling the conduct of members in the House. No more than five or 10 minutes ago the honourable member for Vaucluse wanted to talk about domestic violence on an issue dealing with police pistols. If I were the Speaker I would have pulled the honourable member for Vaucluse up in relation to that, but the Speaker let him go. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition has been and is now abusing the standing orders. The Opposition should admit its mistake, withdraw the motion of dissent and stop wasting time.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [7.56 p.m.]: The Minister for Police, the Leader of the House, surely deserves some sort of prize at the Mo awards for being one of the most outstanding, if misguided, comedians of our age. He has an extremely fragile memory when it comes to the historical background of this standing order and to its function. I remind honourable members of the history of the standing order. It comes from a previous standing order that allowed the raising of matters pertaining to urgency during question time. That process was thwarted continually by points of order that related to the substantive motion that might follow the urgency motion. Operation of the standing order became so difficult that both sides of the House agreed that the standing order be abandoned in favour of the new procedure.

One of the very important points about the new procedure related to the reduction of the amount of time available from 10 minutes under the previous standing order to five minutes. It was understood that the allocation would be five minutes of uninterrupted contribution from the honourable member who was endeavouring to persuade the House that his or her motion should take priority as a matter for urgent consideration. There is some misunderstanding on the part of many honourable members as to what sort of priority is being established. That is because of confusion in the original form of the standing order that was subsequently removed.

Basically, it is the question of a particular matter taking priority over other business of the day - in other words, why that matter should be accorded the 40 or 45 minutes taken up by a motion for urgent consideration as a priority over other matters before the House. It is not that the matter
Page 7855
has any particular urgency attaching to it in the sense of the time frame, as was the case under urgency motions previously, or that it was more urgent than any other matter to be debated on that day, but that it is of sufficient import that it deserves priority over other business in the sense of obtaining a limited amount of time in which it can be discussed.

Far from this being a standing order of the previous Government, it was a standing order of the previous Opposition, which, in the time of the minority Government, with the assistance of the honourable member for South Coast, created a number of standing orders that subsequently proved to be highly unworkable or highly unsatisfactory. It was a strategy of the previous Opposition, which suggested that it was absolutely necessary that the House have an urgency provision that enabled the Opposition of the day to ambush the Government. Those were the words used at the time.

The previous Opposition wanted a procedure that allowed the smallest amount of lead time as to the substance of the motion, so that the Government could be caught as much unprepared as possible. Under the previous procedure, in which notice of urgency motions was raised during question time, the Government in fact had no prior warning of the matter. The House would debate 10 minutes each way as to whether the matter was urgent. If it was agreed that the matter was urgent, the House went on to debate the urgency motion and the rest of question time went to the winds.

This combined procedure was designed to preserve question time for questions and led to the establishment of the 10 questions to be answered in question time. It was done in this form to establish the element of general ambush, that is, to bring on a motion at fairly short notice. The member who has given notice of the motion is given five minutes to establish why the subject matter of the motion should take priority over the other business of the day, not why it should take priority over the other motion with which it may be in competition. Even if there is only one motion, the House should have the right to reject it as not being worthy of taking up 45 minutes of the time of the House.

The points of order taken by the honourable member for Londonderry are so spurious that it is just not funny because they bear no relation to the reason the procedure was introduced. The honourable member for Londonderry said recently that when I was the Speaker I upheld similar points of order hundreds of times, as had Speaker Kelly, despite the fact that Speaker Kelly was not even in the Parliament at the time of this standing order. He said that Speaker Young, who was in the Parliament in 1887, also upheld similar points of order. That is the level of nonsense to which the Government resorts in the delaying tactics it uses.

Having established the basis on which the standing order operates, I should like to point out that all precedents relating to how these points of order are taken have been developed by the current Speaker. There are no precedents from previous Speakers. There is no precedent from me when I was Speaker. Chairmen of Committees were never in the chair at this particular time of the day, so there are no precedents. There is nothing in Decisions from the Chair which gives an indication of any precedents. The only matter that is raised is completely irrelevant to the matter being debated tonight.

Mr Speaker, you have developed all the precedents relating to this standing order. They are all bad, biased, illogical and inconsistent precedents. You have ruled in opposite ways; you have ruled both for and against the Government and the Opposition. One minute you uphold a point of order and the next minute you do not. But worst of all you allow members such as the honourable member for Londonderry to ramble on and on when you know as well as we do exactly what he will to say. If you were doing your job properly you would merely say to the honourable member for Londonderry, "I know exactly the point of order you are going to take and I do not uphold it; the member who has the call should continue with his contribution." If you did that a few times the original intent of the standing order would soon be fulfilled, that is, to give whoever has the call five minutes in which to put his or her case.

There are no grounds for the point of order that a member should speak to urgency. Urgency does not come into it; it is a question of priority. How can the House determine the priority of one matter over another or, indeed, other matters that will be debated that day unless members are given the opportunity of being told what the motion is all about? Therefore, the member presenting his or her case must allude to some of the material involved in the substantive motion. In fact, members of the government have done that from time to time. In the old days when the coalition did not take so many points of order, those on the government side would continually refer to the substantive matters to follow,
Page 7856
and rightly so, to enable the members of the House to make a proper decision.

Today my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Bathurst took a point of order in which he said that he would like to hear a little more about the detail of the motion so that he could make up his mind - and he was right. The House should hear something about the substantive nature of the motion so that all members can make up their minds about which is the better motion. I refer to what took place today because it has a bearing on what took place the other day. The Minister for Police, with his frail and fragile memory, started to blurt on about factors that would establish urgency that related to standing orders that disappeared from this House 10 or so years ago. He went back to the original form of urgency motions when I was first became a member of the House.

The Minister for Police is no authority on the standing orders of this House because although he quotes me many times in glowing terms - and I thank him for that - he always misinterprets the ruling. One can almost take it for granted that if the Minister for Police says one thing about a ruling, the opposite will be the correct interpretation. Mr Speaker, the Opposition asks you for fairness, freedom from bias and the opportunity for members to be able to speak unfettered for five minutes. If I can give you a little advice I ask you to knock out all these points of order from now on, and to give both sides a fair go for five minutes. You will then be acting fairly and in the interests of the Speaker upholding the rights of members.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.06 p.m.], in reply: I will be as brief as possible as I am sensitive to the time and to the fact that the honourable member for Port Macquarie will shortly be making his maiden speech. For obvious reasons I have been careful in the debate, both last Thursday and today, to try to clarify for this House your interpretation of Standing Order 120. Your rulings have been constantly inconsistent, depending on the position of the Government member taking the point of order. In my contribution I clearly laid down my arguments and if you, Mr Speaker, read my speech on establishing urgency, I contend that you will find that I did not debate the substantive part of the motion.

The honourable member for Hawkesbury has argued strongly, having regard to the history of this standing order, that members should have an unfettered right to speak for five minutes. Your interpretation is different. But, even worse, you are not giving a consistent interpretation as to what we can or cannot do. If you read my contribution and the points of order raised by the honourable member for Londonderry, you will realise that you were in error in upholding those points of order. Those decisions totally contradict your decisions on previous points of order. If your decisions are not consistent that important part of debate in this Parliament will turn into chaos. The Opposition cannot let this matter rest because this House deserves consistency and clarity in interpretation of the standing orders. The Opposition cannot tolerate honourable members opposite consistently and regularly taking long, spurious points of order with your tacit support. It is unacceptable.

The non-arguments of the Minister in no way addressed the issues I raised. That clearly shows that the Government is embarrassed about management of this standing order. He referred to the brawl across the Chamber that occurs in relation to this standing order. Mr Speaker, you have a responsibility to prevent that brawl and to give a clear, consistent ruling that can be correctly interpreted and properly responded to. The Opposition seeks the support of the House for its motion of dissent from the three rulings you delivered.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

Page 7857

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Carr
Mr Collins Mr Iemma
Mr Cruickshank Mr Knight
Mr Glachan Mr McBride

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion of dissent negatived.

Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Debate resumed from 16 April.

Mr SPEAKER: As this is the inaugural speech of the honourable member for Port Macquarie I ask honourable members to extend him the usual courtesy.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [8.20 p.m.]: Mr Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on the Mental Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997, which is an extremely important issue in the Port Macquarie electorate. I also rise to give my first speech to this Chamber, and thank you for the opportunity to address the Chamber for the first time. It is a great honour and a rare privilege.

Mr Speaker, I come to this Chamber representing the people of the Port Macquarie electorate and the National Party. I also come to this Chamber as the youngest member of the Fifty-first Parliament. The significance of these three mantles - the Port Macquarie electorate, the National Party and youth - is not lost on me and I will represent all with passion.

Firstly, the people of the Port Macquarie electorate: in an electorate on the mid-north coast that stretches from Wingham in the south to Port Macquarie in the north there are many features of this unique area that make me so conscious of my responsibilities in representing it. The Port Macquarie electorate is renowned for having the most temperate climate in New South Wales.

We also have an extraordinary mix of rural hinterland only minutes drive from some of the cleanest and most uncrowded beaches of all New South Wales. One example of this is the town of Port Macquarie, which has an abundance of seabird life, such as the osprey, the pelican and the endangered little tern. Yet the area is known for its koala habitat, with a koala corridor through the centre of town. As well, despite this thriving coastal lifestyle, over 35 per cent of the electorate is covered by over a dozen State and national forests.

The Port Macquarie electorate is dripping with sights of historical significance. The electorate has the third oldest continuous settlement in Australia. The electorate has the Innes ruins, which is one of only four nationally recognised historic ruins - and, significantly, the only one of those four which was a private residence. The electorate has Mount Seaview, the point where John Oxley crossed the Great Dividing Range in 1818 to begin the discovery of the Hastings Valley. The electorate has the isolated history and unique World Heritage beauty of Lord Howe Island. The electorate has Tacking Point, where Matthew Flinders in the Investigator passed in 1802, and in so doing repeated the efforts of Captain Cook in 1770, as they both passed in the dark of night and missed the full splendour that the electorate has to offer.

Mr Speaker, my late grandmother spent her early days in the pioneer town of Cundletown at the turn of the century. Her records paint an early picture of the Manning River that leaves us amazed at how far we have come in just 100 years. I do not make mention of my late grandmother lightly. Before she died she often said that throughout her
Page 7858
extensive network of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren she did not have anyone in politics, nor in gaol. I, along with many others, wish she were here today so that we could all reassure her that I am certainly not going for the double.

Mr Speaker, I ask of all here tonight: how could anyone live anywhere else other than the mid-north coast? To emphasise my point to my city colleagues I must highlight the easy lifestyle in the Port Macquarie electorate and inform them that my electorate has just one set of traffic lights. And to emphasise my point to my country colleagues I need only remind them of my Port Macquarie rugby club, which without question is the strongest rugby club in non-metropolitan New South Wales.

Because we have so much going for our area we are faced with many problems associated with a population growth of 2.7 per cent per annum, and the difficulties of servicing this population growth. The management of health issues in the Port Macquarie electorate is of prime concern. I am aware of the heated and at times vicious debate that raged in relation to Port Macquarie Base Hospital.

Mr Speaker, I hope that from today sense can prevail. I am not a gatekeeper for public nor private health models; I see my role solely as a gatekeeper for delivery of service to my local community. It concerns me greatly that political impediments are being placed in front of quality delivery of service, and I hope to work with the current Government, and with successive governments, to secure maximum delivery of health services to the people of the Hastings and the Manning.

Health today, Mr Speaker, is unfortunately this Chamber's most politically sensitive issue. I would like to think that it is not unrealistic to seek over the coming years to be part of a health reform process that elevates the basic human right of delivery of health service to a position that is above politics. As a local starting point to this health reform process, Mr Speaker, I urge the current Minister for Health to drop the ideological zealotry that is frustrating the basic delivery of service to our local community of Port Macquarie.

The reality is that the Port Macquarie hospital exists, as do the contractual arrangements between Health Care of Australia and the Department of Health. So the role of government today and tomorrow is surely to provide goodwill to the existing contracts and to look at possible areas of improvement in the contracts for the betterment of all in the Port Macquarie region.

Mr Speaker, the mid-north coast has some of the highest growth rates in New South Wales. We are therefore faced with the competing interests of maintaining the natural beauty of our rivers, beaches and surrounding hinterland, and the infrastructure demands that population growth brings. The delivery of basic infrastructure to match population growth is an important issue for the future of the mid-north coast. Health, education, housing, sewerage, electricity and water are all issues of major debate, and it will require a sensible and long-term strategic approach from government to resolve them.

One very positive example of where governments of all levels are delivering in a coordinated and cooperative fashion is the current much needed upgrading of the Pacific Highway. This upgrade will save lives as well as generate more efficient business on the mid-north coast. I hope that the government commitment to have a dual carriageway from Hexham to the Queensland border within 10 years is one that will be fulfilled, and I will be making it a priority to ensure that this commitment is maintained by successive governments.

The Pacific Highway is currently a positive infrastructure story, Mr Speaker. It shows just what can be achieved for the people of the region. Yet there are so many areas where so much more can be done. In our region we still have unsealed roads to significant tourist destinations, such as from Kendall to Comboyne, the Harrington back road and the main Diamond Head road. I hope that over the coming decade the Government can recognise the significance of these roads and can address what currently is an unsatisfactory situation for locals and tourists.

Mr Speaker, in our region we have excessive demands on inadequate sewerage facilities. The Camden Haven River is an example of growth pressures beating delivery of infrastructure, resulting in substandard water quality to the detriment of all. The Camden Haven has also felt the impact of growth competing against natural resources in the area of education. There is enormous concern and cynicism in the region about the successive delays to the development of Camden Haven High School.

Mr Speaker, Kendall Central School, the current main service school to the Camden Haven, is today operating with a massive 690 children. Since 1983 the school has had a 100 per cent increase in enrolment. Currently it has 23 demountables in use. The Department of School Education and the current State Government should be extremely embarrassed
Page 7859
that they have allowed the school to reach the crisis point that it has, following delay after delay to the planning and building of the new high school in the Camden Haven region.

Quality and equality in education, the cornerstone of any education policy, are sorely lacking in the Camden Haven region. I urge the Minister for Education and Training, as a starting point to correcting this, to ensure that the Camden Haven High School project experiences no more delay and that the school has its first intake of students before the next millennium.

Mr Speaker, in the Port Macquarie electorate we have more than 170 dairy farmers facing a turbulent future. Dairying is a paradigm of orderly marketing and the push by all governments to introduce competition policy is a threat to this. As the Hilmer review of dairying starts this year and the gradual phasing out of the all-milk levy takes place in the coming years, I hope to assist in protecting the interests of local dairy farmers on the mid-north coast in what will be an important time for both dairy farmers and the National Party.

Mr Speaker, an issue that I have already been particularly vocal on is petrol pricing on the mid-north coast, which I believe to be inequitable and unjustifiable. Consumer protections within the petroleum industry are clearly non-existent, and I fear government, including this Chamber, has washed its hands of the issue. If other commodities in New South Wales such as beer, bread and milk do not suffer the same iniquitous differential between metropolitan and non-metropolitan prices yet still manage to remain competitive within their industry, then I say that the State Government can do more than offer a directionless and spineless Parry report.

The Government claims to have high ideals in relation to modern and efficient public transport, yet on the mid-north coast our public transport network remains archaic. People's lives therefore revolve so much more around the use of the motor vehicle, as alternative options such as rail and bus are restricted. It is therefore sickening that we are faced with the double whammy of a 5¢ to 15¢ a litre price differential in petrol between Sydney and the mid-north coast and a lack of commitment to provide state-of-the-art bus and rail public transport. I hope that by the end of my political term not only is equity introduced into regional petrol pricing but also a focused and enthusiastic commitment is made to developing efficient public transport networks in local regional communities.

The issue of regional development and decentralisation has been discussed and debated by government for over 10 years. I believe that government has failed to deliver genuine regional development and has failed regional New South Wales in the process. Whilst the Federal Government recently took a major step in the right direction by establishing a Department of Social Security telecentre in the Port Macquarie electorate, I believe that we are yet to see any consistently successful and worthwhile incentive for business to go against the trend of centralisation towards our major metropolis.

Today we have a regional development culture of hollow platitudes. Tomorrow we must see a culture of tax relief, incentive and assistance and a culture of engaging one's own treasury on behalf of the regions. I, along with my National Party colleagues, bring to this place a small business community that is surviving on a day-to-day basis despite government policy, not because of it. I hope during my term of public life that I can be involved in the transition for regional small business from a sector that is working for government to a sector government is working for. It is surely the least we, in this Chamber, can do for those putting in the hours and the talent and for those carrying the risk on behalf of New South Wales.

I am a passionate member of the National Party. I believe the party is the main party recognising and representing the interests of non-metropolitan New South Wales. I am very aware of the proud history and tradition the National Party brings to this Chamber. A commitment to rural and regional issues as well as a strong commitment to the family as the key pillar of our welfare state continues today. [Extension of time agreed to.]

While the National Party will always represent traditional rural issues and family values, I am enthused and encouraged to be part of a climate of change within my political party. Regional New South Wales is changing and the National Party is to be congratulated for changing with it. Towns and cities along the north coast are becoming more regional than they are rural, and the main constituency for the National Party is quickly becoming regional small business. I am pleased to be part of a National Party future vision that is focused on embracing this wider constituency that is now screaming for our support in regional and rural New South Wales.

While the relationship between the National and Liberal parties is, and always will be, strong, as in all good families, I wish to work towards a
Page 7860
strengthening of this relationship during my parliamentary career. Looking to the future, as technology, telecommunications and transport bring regional and rural New South Wales closer to Sydney and its surrounds, the differences between the rural representatives of the Liberal Party and the regional representatives of the National Party will become less and less. I thank my Liberal colleagues who assisted during the Port Macquarie campaign. I hope the Port Macquarie door of friendship can remain open to them all over the coming years.

As part of the ever strengthening of conservative politics, I believe it is vital to the future success of conservative politics that issues such as three-cornered contests and any question of amalgamation are successfully managed to the strategic benefit of both the National Party and its Liberal colleagues. Politics is about people and I believe more can be done to take politics to the people. I see an understandable cynicism and apathy throughout our community about this institution, which is one of the central institutions of our society. This concerns me.

Over the years I hope to be able to support the current Prime Minister's words, that the vast majority of members of Parliament are hardworking and honest. Once convinced of this, I also hope to actively encourage quality individuals from throughout society to pursue the noble career option of contributing to public life through politics. I hope over my time this important pillar that is Parliament improves its public image and reputation for the sake of a better society.

As the youngest member of this Chamber I bring the views and aspirations of young people in New South Wales with me. These are certainly times of rapid change for young people today as we are seeing reform and review in just about every area of our society as we head towards 2000. As long as young people are given an adequate input into this reform process, as long as we are given an avenue to express our views and be heard, I will be a champion for this era of reform within New South Wales and Australia.

I spoke earlier of health reform. I have spoken of regional development reform. I have spoken of reform of political standards and reform of political parties. We also have several other areas of reform before us today. We have an important opportunity before us to look at tax reform, which is desperately needed for a more user-friendly and savings-orientated tax system. Most importantly, we have an opportunity before us to review our Constitution.

I emphasise how very important it is that the current constitutional reform process is handled with the utmost care. I am very comfortable with the Australian identity and with our current Constitution. However, if reform is coming an area that does interest and excite me is the associated Commonwealth-State relations. If we can streamline government over the next 10 to 20 years so that duplication of administration and services is minimised then the public accounts of all governments will benefit.

It has been five months since I was elected and the full-time team I have in place is working very well. I am determined our commitment to help out everyone in the electorate, regardless of background, regardless of voting preference and regardless of problem, will continue for the length of my public life, and I thank my staff for the dedicated approach they have already developed. My standing here today is only the tip of the iceberg in what has been many months of hard work for many people.

I would like to thank all the booth workers who assisted on election day. This is a job that we all, in this place, know is so important and one that often goes unrewarded, but it is at the coalface of our success or failure. Thank you to those who assisted. Thank you to those who helped in the many varied ways throughout the campaign, from those who were willing to help in the advertising to those who assisted with simply spreading the word throughout town. It was all very much appreciated and I have no hesitation in saying that it was your effort that was the difference between winning and losing.

Thank you to my campaign director, Jim Pearson, and his lovely wife, Marette, for keeping the campaign team together and for demonstrating astute business skills, the most delightful people skills and a fiery work ethic that set a standard for the campaign that I found even myself trying to emulate. I was never more humbled than when I saw Jim and Marette happily cleaning the campaign office on a Sunday afternoon, the same campaign office Jim had been integral in securing a rental fee on, the same campaign Jim had been integral in keeping on track. I thank Jim and Marette for thanklessly giving their time.

Thank you to Ross and Val Geary for demonstrating the most professional organisational skills. I thank them for the guidance and the lessons learnt. Thank you to the mighty National Party branch structure right throughout the Port Macquarie electorate, successfully led by Binks Mack. Binks is
Page 7861
a living legend of the Nationals, and along with others such as Alf Irvine, Claude Unicombe, Garrick Gabriel, Phil Higgins, Fred Handebo and Bill Archinald, the structure continues to provide a voice of local political reason and experience that my youthful exuberance has found to be priceless. I make particular mention of another Nationals legend, John Joiner, who has actively followed my career since day one in Gunnedah. Thank you to you, John.

Thank you to the very loyal, enthusiastic and energetic band of younger people who helped on the campaign: Scott Grieve for his level head and loyal support at all times; Shane Ryan, Bronwyn Little, Steve Bryant, Todd Williams, Brad Miles and Andrew Stoner for all playing important roles through the campaign and showing that young people are more than capable. Thank you to Peter Besseling who took a chance and worked with me full-time for the 10 weeks of the campaign. He went where I went, and I hope he takes with him the highs and lows, the humour, the hard work and above all else the enormous sense of achievement that I will remember for the rest of my life.

Thank you to Peter Bennett for assisting the organisation of arguably the most successful local campaign dinner the Nationals have ever seen. As well, thanks to Terry Curley for acting as a very passionate MC at the dinner, and to radio personality Alan Jones for giving his time and delivering a speech that people on the mid-north coast will talk of for many years to come. Thank you to the infamous "White Mouse", Nancy Wake, for giving her time and supporting my campaign and for being a lady I am in total awe of. To Noel Atkins, thank you for being a good accountant and keeping the local team on track with their spending.

To Greg Kaye: thanks for giving so much of your time and for keeping an ear to the ground like I have never seen before. It is rare that anecdotal evidence can beat the pollsters but with Greg's contacts I will back him any day. I thank Keith Murray for believing in me many years before the rest, and for being a man of political action and passion to back up his conviction - something that has inspired me enormously. Thanks to Aileen Mills for putting me up early in the campaign and for assisting in the office and to Dawn Bruce for also successfully helping in the office. My thanks to Tommy Jeffs and staff for being such loyal supporters and for being such good friends.

I thank Bob, Evelyn and Belinda Lynch for taking me into their home and allowing me to feel so at home throughout what was obviously a very unsettled personal time in my life. I would like to make special mention of Dorothy Hellowell, the queen of the Camden Haven, who I will always remember as the person who showed faith in me and suggested the young bloke take on the branch chairman's position.

I would also like to thank the former member Wendy Machin. Wendy had a tremendously loyal support base right throughout her home electorate, and she kindly directed their support my way. As well, Wendy gave me a great deal of freedom in following in her footsteps which is usually the great criticism of retiring members - they just could not let go. Thank you, Wendy, for allowing me to develop my own style.

To my best friend, Sara-Jane Morris, just thanks for everything. I would like to finish by mentioning my family. I am blessed to have an extremely strong family background and the continued support of every member of my family. I do feel lucky to be able to call members of my family my most trusted friends, and I hope my experience of public life is a worthwhile shared experience, and not a painful nightmare brought on by "your little brother".

I would especially like to thank my father for giving me life experiences that I know were not available to him when he was young. I have never met a man more dedicated to what he is doing. I never met a man who works harder. I never met a more honest man. These are lessons that I take with me for life. Through his deeds he has, I am sure without even knowing it, taught us all in the Oakeshott family what society is all about and what being a contributor to society is all about. I thank him for sticking by me over the years.

I am very excited to be involved in government at this momentous time in the history of New South Wales, Australia and the world as we enter a new century and a new millennium. I have very realistic goals for the people of the Port Macquarie electorate and the mid-north coast for the coming years, as well as having somewhat idealistic visions for New South Wales and Australia. As we enter the new millennium, I believe all the above issues can be achieved. Indeed, I believe it is the least I can do for the people of Port Macquarie, and I believe it is the least we can all do for the people of New South Wales.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [8.40 p.m.], in reply: I congratulate the honourable member for Port Macquarie on his inaugural speech. It is a reminder
Page 7862
that a preselection is coming up very soon. I again thank all members who contributed to debate on this Act, which introduces a major reform in mental health services. I also highlight the importance of the bipartisan approach adopted by the Opposition and the Government. Appropriate progress has been made in a very difficult area by not highlighting differences in a political sense but treating them as constructive criticism. I welcome the ideas and suggestions that have been made.

A number of issues that were raised need to be countered. It was stated that a cutback in mental health spending had occurred and that mental health services were underfunded. The second statement was made by the honourable member for North Shore when she referred to a newspaper headline that asserted that mental health services are underfunded. In general, the Government inherited an underfunded mental health service. Despite significant increases in mental health funding, the Government has some way to go before it can provide the same rate of funding per capita as obtains generally throughout Australia.

Another issue raised was that mental health services were underfunded in the northern Sydney area. That area is one of the best funded areas for mental health services. There have been no cuts at all to the mental health budget in that area. I have ensured that any savings that are made through administrative rearrangements will be delivered back into service provision. So there will be an increase in service provision, even if in some cases the actual dollars expended are not increased.

I take issue with any member who claims that there have been cutbacks in mental health funding. There are no cutbacks in mental health funding. Also, the former Minister for Health said that the mental health budget should be ring-barked, that it should not be touched. Despite the former Minister's commitment - and I have no doubt about his sincerity - mental health funding was diverted to health services, and away from mental health services. I have become even tougher and insisted that every allegation about those changes be looked at and rectified immediately, if necessary. There will be no cuts, no subversion of mental health funding. I seek the Opposition’s support for the Government’s representations to the Federal Government, which is cutting mental health funding.

The member for Manly asked whether official visitors should visit boarding houses. He raised a very important point that many people who live in boarding houses suffer from a mental illness. Not all residents of boarding houses suffer from a mental illness. Of course, the statutory responsibility for the licensing of boarding houses resides with my colleague, the Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Ron Dyer, MLC. I also understand the importance of this issue and I have instigated discussions between the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services to devise a proposal to establish a community visitors program for residents of boarding houses.

The principal official visitor and her advisory committee examined the proposal to expand the official visitors program to boarding houses, as suggested by the honourable member for Manly. However, it was considered that this was a matter outside health jurisdiction. The committee recommended that the official visitor model could be adapted for other areas. The two departments are working on that at the moment. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt those discussions but the interests of the honourable member for Manly are well accepted. I believe that this process will lead to an improvement for residents of boarding houses, whether they are suffering from a mental illness or are the responsibility of the Department of Community Services.

The honourable member for Georges River raised the matter of Garrawarra, which is interesting because it is not a mental health issue. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Georges River decided to use it as a political issue to be debated in the middle of a very important mental health amendment bill. Having been raised, the issue needs to be addressed. Garrawarra is a nursing home specialising in people with dementia and is based in the southern part of the South Eastern Area Health Service, which the Federal Government counted as part of the Illawarra. Under an agreement between the former Liberal State Government and the former Labor Federal Government, the responsibility of nursing home funding was transferred to the Federal Government.

The agreement between the two former Governments also covered the number of nursing home beds that would be funded and provided that Garrawarra would be counted as part of the Illawarra. It was an agreement that I was locked into unless I abrogated receipt of Federal funding. Loss of that Federal funding would have created enormous resource implications for this State, and to have taken such a course would have been irresponsible. The Government was locked into following the former State Liberal Government agreement, which was to reduce the number of federally funded nursing home beds, including in Garrawarra, and also to work on better provision on
Page 7863
a regional basis of nursing home beds already available.

As a result Garrawarra is changing and 100 nursing home beds that are at the moment sited in Garrawarra will be sited in other parts of the Illawarra so that people who require nursing home care will be able to obtain it closer to home. I am disappointed that the honourable member for Georges River has seen fit to raise the issue of Garrawarra in this debate about mental health legislation, but, since she has done so, I think it would be worthwhile if she spoke to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or to the Leader of the Opposition - I cannot remember which one signed the agreement - to inform herself about what was signed and about the implications. I understand that when reporters from the local newspaper approached the honourable member for Georges River she was unwilling to make a comment. It may be that she has decided that the political activity she has been trying to create around Garrawarra was just that, and that she forgot the reality that her own party, when in office, made the decision that this Government is now implementing.

I thank the honourable member for Albury for his supportive speech, which highlighted the consultation that has occurred in regard to the proposed changes. From my dealings with him in respect of the health portfolio, I know that he works very well for his local electorate. The honourable member for Peats raised a number of important issues about the way in which the mental health legislation is causing difficulties for her and for her constituents. I hope, as she herself hopes, that the changes being introduced by the Government will make things better in her electorate. I thank the honourable member for Gladesville, who spoke with considerable insight into the problems being faced by people with mental illness, and by their families and friends.

Mrs Skinner: You wrote his speech.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for North Shore interjected to say that I wrote his speech. I find that offensive and I ask her to withdraw it.

Mrs Skinner: I certainly will not, absolutely not.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The Minister has requested the withdrawal of a comment made by the honourable member for North Shore. It would assist debate if she were to withdraw the comment.

Mrs SKINNER: Since the Minister is such a sensitive little thing, I withdraw it.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Gladesville demonstrated an insight into and sensitivity about this issue that is betrayed by those who criticise his knowledge, and he also showed his ability to speak his own mind and from his own heart. One of the things about the debate that has delighted me is that honourable members have spoken from their hearts. The importance of enacting this legislation should not be undermined. If we forget the passion that we have about the legislation and the reasons for it, and if we forget our feelings when confronted with people with mental illness, we will fail to make important changes that should be made. The honourable member for Manly brought his own perspective as a medical practitioner to the debate. He highlighted the United Nations principles that he said have been picked up in the bill - and I agree with him.

The honourable member for Manly said that the discussion paper was excellent. In politics it is usual for the Minister to claim all the credit, but I had nothing to do with the preparation of that paper. I agree with the honourable member that those who were involved in the preparation of the discussion paper should be given that feedback. The discussion paper was a very well prepared and all of those involved in it should be congratulated. I will ensure that the words of the honourable member for Manly are passed on to them.

The honourable member for Eastwood's major contribution by way of constructive criticism concerned the need to notify the police about the release of forensic patients. That has not made any difference in the past, but I am not prepared to quibble about it. I do not think it is of major concern one way or the other. Because of the issues that have been raised in relation to mental illness and the fact that some people have used those issues for political purposes, and in order to ensure that the legislation is not abused in the political sense, I consider that we should accept the amendment that the honourable member has suggested. Therefore, there can be no suggestion that one side of politics would have prevented this legislation and that the other side would not have done so.

I am not targeting either the honourable member for Eastwood or the shadow spokesperson on health, but it worries me that people are prepared to use, for political reasons and no other, a criticism that I believe would be detrimental to those with mental illness, detrimental to the bipartisanship that has been developed over the past seven or eight
Page 7864
years. In that sense, although it may not be of any value at all, it has been raised and unfortunately it has to be accepted. Mr Acting Speaker, you and the honourable member for Newcastle both raised a number of issues of significance. You reiterated the honourable member for Manly's support for the discussion paper and your understanding of your own constituents who suffer mental illness. You referred to the support groups that exist for them - the Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill, ARAFMI, the non-government organisation, and the mental health crisis team, the government body.

I believe the community is proud that members of Parliament are prepared to strongly support the interests of those who suffer from mental illness. The community is proud that members are not afraid to extend that support and are not attempting to undermine attempts to handle people with mental illness in a sensitive and constructive way, recognising their civil liberties but also recognising the community's interest in coming to terms with mental illness. The honourable member for Newcastle said that a pendulum swings towards or away from civil liberties and that, in some ways, the pendulum has swung too far. We need to bring that pendulum back to a position which recognises society as it exists today. I believe the mental health legislation will constantly require amendment, basically because as time passes people with mental illness will be treated differently by the community. One hopes they will be treated more sympathetically, that they will be accommodated and treated with more respect as human beings. As that occurs, we will need to make sure that the legislation fits in with what the community is able to provide, and with what the community expects.

This is not only good legislation but it matches the community's expectations in general. I would not be unhappy if it becomes necessary to amend this legislation in the future. Community attitudes will change and community attitudes will be taken into account. The honourable member for Oxley spoke about the mental health budget, about the importance of conducting an education program about changes to mental health, and about mental illness. I totally support the honourable member but would ask him to talk to his Federal colleagues about planned cuts to the mental health budget. The program most likely to be cut would seem to be the mental illness education program.

Executive discretion in relation to the release of forensic patients has certainly caused genuine concern to members of the Opposition; it is not an issue with which people are playing politics. The bill may have been misread. The recommendations of the Mental Health Review Tribunal are not to be implemented simply because they were made. A number of executive discretions are available. Certainly for forensic patients who have spent time in gaol the Attorney General will continue to be consulted at the time about the appropriateness of their release. If a charge is impending against a forensic patient, the Director of Public Prosecutions would also be consulted. A concern was raised about whether the Attorney General has a role to play in determining whether forensic patients who have been considered not fit to spend time in gaol, but who have been looked after in a mental health institution, have spent enough time in the mental health institution. It is an interesting point.

The Opposition’s real concern is whether the time a person has spent in gaol or in an institution should count, rather than his or her mental condition, when a court decides that such a person should not spend time in gaol but that their mental illness is such that they are not fit to plead or that they are not guilty because of mental illness. The recommendation in the amendment bill is that the Attorney General not be consulted, and that the recommendations of the Mental Health Review Tribunal be put to me as the Minister for Health. I do not have to accept the recommendations. I am not required to accept them. In fact, I can ask the Mental Health Review Tribunal to review the case again. If I want to do so, I can also recommend that the Governor not accept the recommendation of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. That is an example of my executive discretion, as the Minister for Health.

I am sure members opposite who have had the opportunity of being members of the Executive Council would know that Governors from time to time have queried the recommendations of Ministers, rejected proposals or sent them back for further discussion, and asked for further information. Neither the present Governor nor the former Governor could in any sense be seen as rubber stamps. Executive discretion still resides with the Governor: it has not been taken out of his hands. The Executive Council, which includes Ministers of the Crown, must make a recommendation to the Governor. And I, as Minister for Health, must make a recommendation about whether the recommendation of the tribunal should be accepted. I can always ask for the tribunal to review the case. I have done that on a number of occasions, and I am sure my predecessors did the same. In that sense executive discretion absolutely remains.

For the Attorney General now, all of a sudden, to become involved with people who are not found guilty because of mental illness, or with people who
Page 7865
are not in gaol, when the only decision the court made was that their mental illness required treatment in a mental institution and that they should not spend time in gaol, goes against the present expectations of the community. I understand that these proposals were put forward in the discussion paper and that none of them were criticised. There was no indication from the community that the proposals were wrong. However, given the Opposition’s raising of these issues and my concern that anything that goes wrong in mental health for a forensic patient could be blamed on these proposals and therefore mental health could be undone, I feel bound to restrict the rights of people with mental illness, when no-one else but the Opposition suggested that I should.

It disappoints me. I have given myself some time, as I told the honourable member for North Shore I would, to make sure that the advice I had was fitting for what I had said. That time gave the Opposition the opportunity to consider the issues as well. We need to make sure that we can work together. As I said earlier, I appreciate the bipartisan attitude taken by the Opposition. I appreciate that there have probably been many occasions on which the Opposition could have made some cheap, political points about mental illness, but it has not. I appreciate that there is a greater awareness by members of Parliament on both sides of this House of the issues surrounding mental illness and a genuine commitment that we should be doing better. Changes will be made with the best of intentions and they will make a difference to people who suffer from mental illness. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

CHAIRMAN: As there is a clash of amendments, I propose to call upon the Minister to move his amendment first as the member in charge of the bill. However, I also invite the honourable member for North Shore to move a modified version of her circulated amendment, that lines 13 to 18 on page 8 be omitted.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [9.07 p.m.]: I move Government amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Pages 6-8, schedule 1.2[2] and [3], line 15 on page 6 to line 12 on page 8. Omit all the words on those lines.

I would be delighted to withdraw this amendment if the Opposition is happy to withdraw its amendment. If the Opposition is keen to pursue its amendment, the only change I would seek to make would be in relation to strict custody, which I know the Opposition is not objecting to. I am proposing amendments that accept the Opposition's amendment but maintain the change the Government seeks in regard to strict custody. One idea would be to accept the Opposition's amendments, but to maintain strict custody. I would be delighted not to move the amendment, or to withdraw it, but I am not prepared to allow the Opposition, if it pushes the issue, to undermine the mental health legislation and the bipartisan support it has received. However, I strongly oppose the way in which this matter has been raised. Although the intention that executive discretion be maintained is right and proper, I believe that such discretion is maintained and that the Opposition’s amendment is a furphy.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [9.10 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for providing me with Parliamentary Counsel's advice on this matter. I have considered the advice and accept entirely that the Executive Council provisions have not changed in regard to the release of forensic patients. I accept the Minister's assurance that it is not his intention, nor the intention of Cabinet, to make changes. The coalition will therefore support the bill come what may, but has major concerns about the amendment which omits a requirement to notify the Minister for Police of the intended release of a forensic patient, and removes the requirement to notify the Attorney General of a recommendation by the tribunal for the release of certain patients.

The Minister said that this matter has not been raised unnecessarily by any of the groups that have been consulted. The ordinary people - the Joe Citizens - are concerned about this matter. By moving the amendment the coalition is addressing that genuine concern. I am happy to withdraw my amendment No. 1 and accept the Minister's amendment. The coalition does not have problems with the strict custody changes, but I would prefer the Minister to retain his amendment. The coalition feels very strongly about this issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [9.11 p.m.]: I move:

No. 2 Page 8, lines 19-29, schedule 1.3[1]. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 7866

This amendment involves gazettal of the appointment and revocation of certain positions. It is not a matter of fundamental importance, but I do not believe the Minister's explanation about the benefits that will accrue from his amendments.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [9.12 p.m.]: I oppose the amendment. This is an amendment that the former Government attempted, but did not get right.

Mrs Skinner: You probably opposed it, did you?

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, we supported it. The former Government recommended that gazettal of every staff change in mental care agencies, which in many cases are really community health centres, would interrupt community treatment orders. If an employee were on sick leave, his or her replacement could not approve a community treatment order because it would take three days for the change of name to be gazetted. The former Government tried to remedy that anomaly and introduced a statute law amendment - one of the many minor amendments included in an omnibus bill - to which everyone agreed. The former Labor Opposition, believing it was a sensible recommendation, agreed to it. Unfortunately, the Government of the day did not get it right, and this Government has to tidy it up. It is strange that the Opposition is now critical of what it tried to do when in office. This is not a do-or-die matter; it is hardly likely to cause community concern. The Opposition believes in public scrutiny. That may be an admirable view, but it would be stupid to delay community treatment orders because of the illness of an employee. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.14 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 4 standing in my name in globo:

No. 1 Page 12, schedule 1.5[1], line 19. Insert "and for each licensed boarding house" after "service".

No. 2 Page 12, schedule 1.5[1]. Insert after line 19:

(2) On the appointment of official visitors for a licensed boarding house:

(a) the official visitors have the same functions, in relation to the boarding house, as official visitors appointed for an area health service have in relation to hospitals, and

(b) the licensee of the boarding house has the same duties:

(i) in relation to the official visitors - as the medical superintendent of a hospital has under section 231, and

(ii) in relation to residents of the boarding house - as the medical superintendent has under section 234 in relation to a patient.

No. 3 Page 13, schedule 1.5[1]. Insert after line 4:

licensed boarding house means a boarding house or similar establishment licensed by or under a scheme administered by the Ageing and Disability Department.

No. 4 Page 13, schedule 1.5. Insert after line 26:

[6] Schedule 5, clause 3

Insert after clause 3(1)(h):

(h1) being the Principal official visitor or an official visitor appointed for a licensed boarding house (within the meaning of section 228), has a pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in such a licensed boarding house, or

These amendments broaden the provisions relating to the concept of official visitors. The Minister in his reply mentioned that I had spoken to him and his staff about these amendments. I shall endeavour to justify to the Committee my belief that this is an opportunity to amend this part of the legislation. The legislation picks up the spirit and the intent of the official visitors scheme. Official visitors are appointed in mental health areas to visit hospitals in which patients have been detained involuntarily and to establish that their management is in accordance with certain principles. The legislation also provides for official visitors to visit community mental health centres.

My amendments extend the role of official visitors to licensed boarding houses. That is justified on the basis that the whole concept of official visitors is to scrutinise those who are the most vulnerable and powerless in our society, those who are mentally ill and are detained in hospitals, and often are retained in licensed boarding houses. On 7 April I visited seven licensed boarding houses. I did so incognito, and in association with someone who will remain anonymous but who is associated with one of the leading non-government organisations. We gained access to licensed boarding houses which not many people have had an opportunity to enter. I would be one of few members of Parliament to have had access to those licensed boarding houses. As a result of this incredibly shattering experience I wrote to the Premier on 9 April and stated:

Page 7867

You would be aware that, for a number of years, I have had a particular interest in the management of people with mental illness, particularly those now out of institutions and living in the community . . .

I recently have been in contact with the Director of Health Services in the Central Sydney Area Health Service regarding residential boarding houses and I met with the Boarding House Team at Rozelle Hospital in early March.

I am impressed by the dedication and professionalism of the Boarding House Team and their work in investigating and improving conditions in boarding houses. They have an enormously difficult task due to the lack of commitment on the part of successive governments in the provision of community based supported accommodation.

Following that meeting, I made contact with [a particular individual] . . . I visited seven of the licensed boarding houses in the inner west of Sydney on 20th March, 1997. I was appalled at what I saw and can only say that we should hang our heads in shame at the quality of life that these people are forced to endure.

In the Health Minister's own electorate of Marrickville, I visited one particular boarding house . . . which houses over forty pathetic clients who were unkempt, poorly dressed and living in atrocious conditions with broken-down furniture and bare floor boards. A number of people were in the basement of the building which had the appearance of a medieval prison.

This was only one of seven that I visited and there are about 150 plus of these boarding houses in New South Wales, most of which are in the inner west area of Sydney.

Premier, I am not prepared to stand by and tolerate this and I ask that you take immediate action to provide the necessary funds to acquire community based supported accommodation. Whether this is through group homes, run by the Department of Health or through accommodation operated by NGOs, I don't particularly mind. The solution, I believe, lies in a combination of both. However, this situation, where the mentally ill are treated as second class citizens and have been dumped into these unregulated licensed boarding houses following deinstitutionalisation is an absolute disgrace. It would be argued that the deinstitutionalisation never took place but merely a form of "reinstitutionalisation".

I ask that this matter is treated with great urgency by your Government . . .

It so happened that the Mental Health Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced and included the concept of official visitors. Since my visit to those licensed boarding houses I have drawn attention to the fact that no official visitors are currently appointed to licensed boarding houses. The response was that any opportunity to increase the scrutiny of conditions within boarding houses should be supported. This bill provides the opportunity for that.

I apologise to the Minister for, in a sense, grafting this amendment to the bill. I understand the lower House may not agree to it. However, before the bill goes to the upper House I ask the Minister to consider whether he can meet my request to extend the appointment of official visitors to licensed boarding houses. My amendments are consistent with the existing procedure involving official visitors. Under the legislation official visitors are required to visit hospitals once a month and community mental health centres once every six months. My amendments, which I have not dealt with in detail, provide that official visitors be appointed to visit each licensed boarding house once a month. The in globo package also includes a number of minor consequential amendments.

It is totally appropriate to have external scrutiny of licensed boarding houses through the official visitor program. It is the correct thing to do. I know official visitors are not licensed by the Department of Health but by the Ageing and Disability Department, which is part of the Department of Community Services. However, half the problem with people suffering mental illness is that often they fall between the crack of responsibility between the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the answer, "I'm sorry, but this is a DOCS issue. They are licensed by DOCS and, therefore, they should appoint the official visitors." This is the opportunity to show goodwill and support these amendments.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [9.22 p.m.]: I agree with most of the sentiments of the honourable member for Manly. Licensed boarding houses should have visitors, whether they are called official visitors as they are at present or community visitors. As I said earlier, the Department of Health and the Department of Community Services are working together to develop the appropriate model to achieve that result. There is not much point having official visitors, who respond to government organisations under the mental health legislation, trying to respond by reporting to me about boarding houses for which I have almost no responsibility. In that sense it would be a waste of their time.

The issue is not a waste of time; it is important, but there is a better way to do it. Certainly I appreciate that this is the opportunity for the honourable member for Manly to present his proposals, and he has seized that opportunity. It would be incumbent on me to make sure that his proposals eventuate with my support, but in a different form. If that does not happen, I expect he would berate me in this House. It is inappropriate to graft his proposal to this legislation. I presume that the boarding house he visited in my electorate about
Page 7868
which he spoke is the one that was recently closed because conditions were totally unsatisfactory for the people who were living there. Alternative, but certainly not excellent, accommodation and support has been found for those people.

It is important also to comment on deinstitutionalisation and whether boarding houses existed before it. They did. A lot of blame has been put on deinstitutionalisation. If we are to get to the truth of issues, it is important not to blame a new program for something, whether good or bad, that existed before the problem was discovered. Before deinstitutionalisation people in the community with mental illness received no service; there were people living in boarding houses who were not receiving services. Deinstitutionalisation should not be blamed for all of the problems; they may have occurred beforehand. I counsel those who are trying to come to grips with the best way to handle mental health issues not to run with the furphies others have brought forward unless a check has been made to ensure that what is said is correct. The example that has been given was not correct.

There may have been problems with deinstitutionalisation, with what was planned and delivered, but existing conditions should not be blamed on things that happened after those conditions had been in place for many years. It undermines the ability to make real changes and goes back on mythology, which certainly does not help people with mental illness. Many issues are involved with boarding houses, not just those relating to visitors. Certainly I support the contention of the honourable member for Manly that boarding houses also need outside people to visit regularly to ensure that standards and services are up to scratch. Without that, we are not doing our job. As the honourable member for Manly and many others can attest, plenty of areas need improving. However, the Government does not support this amendment.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [9.26 p.m.]: The coalition supports the sentiments and views expressed by the honourable member for Manly and also the Minister when he indicated non-acceptance of the conditions under which people live in some boarding houses. My electorate has a couple of very good boarding houses. Undoubtedly it is true that some boarding houses are substandard and people with mental illness in those establishments are particularly vulnerable. It is imperative that all possible measures be taken to ensure that people receive better treatment, which is monitored. In principle, whilst I generally support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Manly - I have only just received them and have not had a chance to consult other coalition members or people in the broader community - I am not prepared to give a definitive reply.

However, I also take on board the Minister's comments that through negotiations in another place it may be more appropriate to do something about this issue. It could be a joint proposal between the Department of Community Services and the Department of Health, particularly since the Minister for Community Services has the authority to determine what will happen in boarding houses in the final analysis. I will join with the honourable member for Manly in reminding the Minister regularly of his concern about this issue. The community would benefit from a bipartisan approach. I agree with the honourable member for Manly that these people are the most disadvantaged. It is shocking that they should be victims of abuse. We are beholden to make sure that their conditions are monitored and improved wherever possible.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.28 p.m.]: I merely want to instil a sense of urgency into this matter. I appreciate the comments of the Minister, but more than 2,000 patients live in 157 licensed boarding houses in New South Wales, half of them in the inner west and the other half in the Newcastle and lower Hunter area. I have not yet visited that area, but I intend to do so. I understand some pretty awful boarding houses are located in that region. The boarding house team associated with the Central Sydney Area Health Service has visited only about 25 per cent of boarding houses, but it is doing a good job. It is an example of health and ADD working well together. In a sense it is a model that could also work using the official visitor scheme. However, this should not be an insurmountable bureaucratic problem.

At the end of the day governments of different political persuasions in all the States of Australia will have to realise that resources for community mental health and accommodation, particularly supported accommodation, must be increased. Basically, people with mental illness live in unsupported accommodation. The boarding house team and experts in the mental health field are saying that the accommodation must be supported. Putting 20, 40 or 50 people in an old converted Victorian house run by one person, without diversional therapy, counselling or additional activities, is a disgrace. Essentially, it is a matter of resources. While I appreciate the Minister's comments, I will be looking, particularly in the budget process, to ensure that additional funding is allocated to mental health.

Amendments negatived.

Page 7869

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [9.31 p.m.]: I move:

No. 2 Page 23, schedule 1.7[2], lines 10-16. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment completes the Government's response to the Opposition. It will ensure that amendments to the provisions relating to strict custody will still be made, together with amendments suggested by the Opposition. It is necessary for me to raise an issue slightly outside this amendment, that is, this legislation is not only for those people in boarding houses or institutions but people in the community, particularly those whom we are trying to help.

The legislation is not only for those with a mental illness who live in boarding houses or who live productive lives at home but also those with a mental illness who have no accommodation, that is, those who live in bus shelters. Not all those who choose to live in bus shelters necessarily have a mental illness, but this legislation should be able to help those who do, in the sense that most people would assess that their living conditions and lifestyle are causing them serious harm, and if they have a treatable condition it should be treated. This issue has been raised by a number of honourable members, including the honourable member for Vaucluse. I hope that the living conditions of those with a mental illness will improve under this legislation. Hopefully, they will choose better accommodation, and such accommodation will be available. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [9.33 p.m.]: Given that this amendment replaces the amendment I moved earlier and completes the previous amendment, I thank the Minister for moving it and for ensuring that the bill can go through unopposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and report adopted.

Mr SPEAKER: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Council:

Mr SPEAKER -

The Legislative Council having had under consideration the Legislative Assembly's message, dated 15 April 1997 requesting concurrence of the Legislative Council in its proposed amendments Nos. 1 to 3 in the Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill, informs the Legislative Assembly as follows:

Amendment No. 1 - The Legislative Council agrees to the amendment with the following proposed further amendment:

Insert after proposed subsection (2):

(3) If a complaint under subsection (2) is found to have been substantiated after an inquiry under Part 9, the Tribunal may make any order that it is empowered to make under section 113(1)(b). However, if the respondent student was over the age of 16, but under the age of 18, when the unlawful conduct occurred, the Tribunal may not make an order requiring the student to pay damages under section 113(1)(b)(I).

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 - The Legislative Council agrees to the proposed amendments.

The Legislative Council requests the concurrence of the Legislative Assembly in the proposed further amendment to the Legislative Assembly's amendment No. 1 in the Bill.

Legislative Council Max Willis
22 April 1997 President

Bill received and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.37 ]: I move:

That on Wednesday, 23 April 1997, standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow for the following routine of business from 2.15 p.m.:

1. Notice of motion to be given tomorrow by the member for Bulli commemorating Anzac Day and the Anzac tradition

2. Ministerial statements (not before 3.30 p.m.)

3. Notices of motions

4. Petitions

5. Placing or disposal of business

6. Formal business

7. Committee reports - tabling

8. Questions

Page 7870

9. Ministerial statements

10. Private members' statements.

As honourable members will know, the Premier and I are going to Parkes tomorrow for the important funeral of a recently deceased police officer. I believe some Opposition members are also attending the funeral. It will not be possible for honourable
members to be back in the House to enable question time to commence at 2.15 p.m. As I said, question time will not commence before 3.30 p.m. As soon as the Premier, other honourable members and I return, question time will commence.

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:16:38   :   Update this page