Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 15 May 1997, Corrected Copy)

The Clerk announced the absence of Mr Speaker.

The Acting Chairman of Committees (Mr Clough) took the chair as Acting Deputy-Speaker at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker offered the Prayer.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to amend the Crimes Act to extend the provisions of section 58 to emergency workers, to extend the operation of section 58 of the Act to assaults on officers mentioned in that section in circumstances other than while they are acting in the execution of their duty as officers, and to increase the maximum penalty for an offence under that section from five years imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment. The bill repeals and re-enacts section 58 in order to express its terms in a more modern language style. This is a different bill from the bill I introduced last year which was defeated by the Government. That bill would have doubled penalties for attacking police in the execution of their duty. This bill extends the proposed doubling of penalties under section 58 to police officers assaulted while off duty. In that respect it is a very significant advance on the original bill. I refer in particular to paragraph (e) of proposed section 58(1):

assaults a person who is an officer mentioned in paragraph (c) (whether or not the person was, at the time of the assault, on duty as such an officer), where:

(i) the assailant, at the time of the assault, knew the person to be such an officer, and

(ii) the assault was committed from motives of vengeance in connection with the execution by the person of the duties of such an officer or from other causes associated with the person's being such an officer

A couple of appalling recent attacks on police have prompted this extension of the provisions. There was the tragedy leading to the death of Constable David Carty, whose very moving funeral a number of us attended in Parkes a few weeks ago. The circumstances of the attack were truly appalling. According to some reports the attack arose out of work which Constable Carty had been doing in the execution of his duty as a police officer in the western suburbs of Sydney. It is alleged that he was targeted because of that work. I understand that at the time of the attack, whilst the constable was off duty, he was in partial police uniform and therefore readily identified as a police officer.

I make no bones about the bill being designed to provide protection for people such as Constable Carty in such circumstances. Those who allegedly attacked Constable Carty are now facing trial for murder, and of course a murder conviction carries a penalty way in excess of penalties under this legislation. However, the bill proposes to double penalties so that anyone contemplating an attack on a police officer will think twice about it for the specific reason that he can expect to go to gaol for such an attack. At present too many police officers are being attacked, particularly in vehicles. They may not be physically hurt in any way but during affrays missiles may be thrown at cars. I understand that the rule of thumb in the courts is that unless a police officer is physically injured from an assault, a gaol penalty for the offender is most unlikely.

From my perspective, whether or not a police officer is injured in such circumstances, a gaol penalty should be the norm rather than the exception. I am perturbed at the Premier's approach to this legislation. He seems to be all over the place. On 20 April, immediately following the publicity given to the David Carty matter, a report in the Sun-Herald stated:

Penalties for attacking police officers may double under an urgent plan to be considered by the NSW Government . . .

The report went on to refer to the Premier taking that plan to Cabinet on the following Monday. As I understand it, the story was given to the Sun-Herald
Page 8700
on Saturday, 19 April, and published the next day. I have an AAP printout produced later the very same day that stated:

. . . New South Wales Premier Bob Carr said calls by the opposition for the government to double penalties for people who attacked police were unnecessary.

So on the same day that the first report hit the streets the Premier contradicted the story which he had given to Daniel Dasey and Martin Chulov the day before. That is an appalling, inconsistent and borderline dishonest way to deal with government policy in such a critical area. Either the Premier was fair dinkum about taking a proposal to Cabinet to double penalties for attacking police, which is what the article said he was doing, or he was not. On the same day the article hit the street the Premier said that the Opposition's proposal, which was identical to the one he said he would put to Cabinet, was unnecessary. It is that type of approach to policy making on the critical matter of police safety that leads to enormous cynicism. My view is that we have to get on with increasing the penalties for attacks on police.

Just the other day I had a discussion with the President of the Police Association, Phil Tunchon, and Peter Renfrey, Greg Chilvers and another Police Association representative on a number of issues relating to the association. They made it crystal clear to me that the Police Association gives top priority to changing the law to deter the increasing level of assaults on police. In those circumstances the Premier might now come to the party, go back to where he was before he started bagging the Opposition view and support this initiative, as he said he would a day before.

The Police Association is justifiably concerned that the latest statistics available from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that the number of attacks described as assaulting officers in the execution of their duty rose from 1,776 in 1994 to 2,034 in 1995. Mr Tunchon tells me that the statistics for 1996 will be available soon. If the circumstances of the past 12 months are any guide, another dramatic increase in the number of reported attacks on police will be revealed. Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker, as you would well know, a week or so ago there was a very nasty incident in Orange. Police from Bathurst were called out to support the police in Orange. The affray in Orange led to at least one police officer being hospitalised. An article in the Western Advocate of 28 April 1997 gave some idea of what police are facing. It stated:

Due to the hostility of the crowd extra police were called in, including three off-duty officers and a car patrol from Bathurst. Twelve officers attended the scene in five cars . . .

More police turned up . . . the crowd became hostile and violent towards police and a person started throwing a barrage of rocks and concrete at police. One of the police officers got struck in the face by a large piece of concrete.

That officer was taken to Orange Base Hospital by ambulance . . .

The problem with the current law is that historically the courts have not gaoled people convicted of, for example, throwing rocks or concrete at police in cars unless a police officer has been injured. Such assaults are disgusting and disgraceful. They are particularly dangerous because, as happened in Orange, officers can be injured and require hospitalisation. Every time a person throws concrete, bricks, bottles, bars or whatever else it might be at a police car the likely result is that an officer or officers will be injured, and that is why it is important to crack down very hard on these incidents. I was particularly bothered by an attack on a policewoman on or about 20 April 1997. In an article headed "Leg broken as policewoman attacked" the Daily Telegraph of 21 April 1997 stated:

An off-duty police woman's leg was broken when a man kicked her as she tried to stop him attacking passengers on a Sydney bus.

The 26-year-old constable from Gordon police station was kicked repeatedly in front of terrified passengers with what police believe were a pair of steel-capped boots.

Police, who last night praised the action of the officer whose name was not released, said she was a recruit at the Goulburn Police Academy in 1994, the same training group as Constable David Carty, who was killed last Friday.

Police said the female constable was assaulted at 2am yesterday while travelling to her northern suburbs home from the city.

The officer had boarded the bus with a group of friends after a night out.

As the bus travelled along the Pacific Hwy at Chatswood a drunken male passenger started to abuse other passengers and then started to assault a number of them.

The woman officer then intervened, but when she revealed she was a police officer the man began to assault her.

That attack, which occurred within 48 hours of the attack on Constable Carty, was one of the most disgraceful and cowardly I have heard of in a long time. My point is that police officers, whether on duty or off duty, need protection. Constable Carty was relaxing but was nevertheless allegedly attacked by people who had their noses put out of joint by
Page 8701
the constable's targeting of them in the course of his duty. The policewoman I referred to was off duty and was not wearing a uniform. It might be thought that because she was not in uniform she was not obliged to respond to the incident, but she nevertheless responded in a very courageous manner - as I believe at law she is required to respond. She identified herself as a police officer and as a result her leg was broken. That is the kind of incident this bill tries to stop and that is why it is urgent.

On the central coast during the Christmas holiday period, members of bush fire brigades were attacked while trying to put out fires. Earlier this year I was in Moree and spoke to a volunteer fire-fighting official there who told me that there was a similar problem in that area. The protection provided by this bill should be extended to people engaged in any uniformed activity who put their safety at risk while protecting the public. I recognise that the fire brigade union has a different view, but it is important for me, as shadow minister for police, to say that if members of fire brigades are attacked or are under threat of attack, the police are required to provide them with protection as they do their work.

Such protection was necessary at Villawood, where a fire was deliberately lit. When the fire brigade turned up its members were attacked, the police had to attend the scene to protect the fire brigade, and in turn the police were attacked. Because of such circumstances it seems to me that the extra deterrent must extend to protect fire brigade members. Whilst it is obviously important for a police presence to protect fire brigade members in such incidents, they really should not have to provide such protection in that attacks on fire brigades should not occur in the first place. To the extent that the law is not tough enough to deter people from attacking fire brigades, those attacks will take place and police officers will be pulled off other duties to carry out protection work that should not be necessary. The police, in turn, are liable to physical attack themselves. For that reason the legislation is important, urgent and necessary.

Having said all that, I do not believe that off-duty police officers who are acting in a private capacity should have any special privileges under the law that other citizens do not have. For example, if a police officer is in dispute with a neighbour about a dividing fence and a physical altercation takes place, the police officer, in that completely off-duty capacity, should not be in a special position vis-a-vis his neighbour who is not a police officer. Such a proposition would not be supportable. It is, however, difficult to make that distinction, although I would clearly like to make the distinction in this speech because such incidents should not be covered by any special provisions relating to police officers. On the other hand, when off-duty police officers who are out of uniform - as was the case with the 26-year-old policewoman who intervened to prevent a brawl in the public interest, as I believe she was required at law to do - are put at special risk, having identified themselves as police officers, they must be entitled to special protection.

One of the most pressing reasons of all for legislation of this type is that police are encouraged whilst off duty to wear their uniforms when travelling to and from work on public transport. Indeed, it is my understanding that it has been government policy for many years now that uniformed police going to and from work on public transport travel for free. The obvious public interest in uniformed police officers travelling on public transport does not have to be stated to be clear. Because of the level of violence and the number of attacks directed against off-duty police officers, many officers will think long and hard about wearing their uniforms in public while off duty. It is important to have a law that adequately deters attacks on police officers, whether on duty or off duty. It is in the public interest for police officers to wear their uniforms whenever possible and it is of critical importance that police officers get the protection they need.

Whenever people in New South Wales are required through their duty to put their physical safety, or in some cases their lives, at risk to protect the public, the public has an obligation to protect such people from attack as they carry out their duty. The public, through the Parliament, owes that protection to people who put their safety at risk. We as parliamentarians have a duty to make sure that we provide the protection that the public would want provided. The public response is overwhelming whenever there is an attack on police and whenever legislation such as this is suggested. I am careful to monitor that response through talk-back radio and I know that this is an issue about which the public is concerned.

The public response could be summed up thus: for heaven's sake, do something to protect these people who are putting their safety at risk for us! It is interesting that although assaults on police officers attract a maximum gaol penalty of only five years, another section of the Crimes Act, which goes way back to the nineteenth century in the days of windjammers sailing around Cape Horn, imposes a maximum gaol term of seven years if a person attacks somebody who is preserving a shipwreck on a beach. The penalty for assaults on police officers should be increased from five years to 10 years.
Page 8702
Magistrates and courts have to get the message from the Parliament that anybody who attacks a police car with bricks, bottles, bits of concrete, iron bars or anything else will go to gaol. That is a promise, and that is the message. In recent affrays, for example, police officers who have gone into the middle of Redfern in a squad car to deal with a problem have had to reverse out of the area at about 80 kilometres an hour under a hail of bricks and bottles.

Unless one of the police officers has been unfortunate enough to have been injured, the chances of anybody going to gaol for such an attack are, in practical terms, zero. That is a disgrace. As we know from the affray in Orange, the difference between somebody getting a piece of concrete in the face or not can be pure luck, so deterrents are needed. An attack could be premeditated, but in the confusion of an affray it could be regarded as not premeditated and those who should be brought to justice get away with it. For all those reasons I have introduced this bill. I believe this legislation warrants the very careful attention and full support of the Parliament. It is a material extension of, though materially different from, the previous bill I introduced.

This bill is specifically designed to deal with problems faced by the Gordon police woman, Constable Carty and other police who each day travel on public transport in uniform at some risk to themselves. It is also designed to deal with problems faced by police officers all over the State who, increasingly, are attending more and more violent affrays at which their safety is at risk. Statistics from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research show that assaults on police officers are increasing. The Police Association is adamant that when the latest figures are released a further increase will be seen. Assaults are increasing not only because we are not doing enough but because we are not doing anything to change the law to make it clear that people who attack police will go to gaol. On that basis I commend the bill. I sincerely hope that the Premier will reverse his approach and do what he said in the Sun-Herald he would do, and that is support these measures for double penalties.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr E. T. Page.

Debate resumed from 6 June 1996.

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [10.24 a.m.]: The Government does not support this bill, which proposes to amend section 578B of the Crimes Act 1900 to prohibit possession of publications, films and computer games that have been, or would be, refused classification under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Section 578B of the Crimes Act 1900 was inserted by the Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography) Act 1995, which was introduced by this Government and came into effect on 1 January 1996. The current section 578B bans the possession of material that is refused classification under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act on the basis that it constitutes child pornography. The proposed amendment would ban the possession of all material that is classified under the Commonwealth Act as refused classification - RC.

At the censorship meeting in Melbourne on 14 March, Ministers reaffirmed that the imposition of criminal sanctions for possession of RC material should remain limited to child pornography. The offence provision proposed in the bill would seriously undermine the goal of uniformity in this area. The Government quite rightly took action to make possession of child pornography an offence because the production of child pornography is likely to involve and is often associated with child sexual abuse offences. Such a provision assists in protecting children from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse by attacking the market for child pornography. However, the refused classification category covers a wider range of material.

In particular, computer games are refused classification when they contain a much lower level of sex or violence than would be permitted in a film or video tape. For example, a computer game will be refused classification if it contains realistic violence or nudity, including genitalia or sexually explicit language. These kinds of things are not refused classification if they appear in a film. The Government does not believe that it is appropriate for the possession of, for example, a computer game containing nudity to attract a penalty of imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of $10,000, or both. The existing censorship regime provides an effective and widely accepted method of controlling the dissemination and public exhibition of films, computer games, videos and publications in our community.

The New South Wales Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 provides that it is an offence to exhibit, sell or possess for the purpose of exhibition or sale material that has been, or would
Page 8703
be, classified RC. New South Wales law currently provides for a fine of up to $10,000 or 12 months imprisonment for an individual in contravention of these provisions, and a corporation may be fined up to $25,000 for such a contravention. New South Wales is a strong proponent of uniformity in the national censorship scheme. The maintenance of maximum uniformity of the censorship regime is highly desirable. As recently as 14 March, Ministers responsible for censorship gave a clear indication that they do not endorse the creation of a criminal offence for possession of RC material that does not constitute child pornography. The Government considers that the control of this material through the classification scheme is an adequate mechanism for dealing with the dissemination of refused classification material and that the imposition of material sanctions for possession of RC material should be restricted to child pornography.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [10.29 a.m.]: I am disappointed by the Government's attitude to this issue. The honourable member for Eastwood has introduced a straightforward bill about a most important issue. There is no question that there is a general revulsion in the community at certain types of material that are widely available and, indeed, at the kinds of crimes that seem to result from the distribution of such material. The aim of the bill is to restrict the ownership of publications, films and computer games that have been refused classification. The schedule to the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 defines films that have been refused classification as follows:

Films that:

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and proprietary generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or

(b) depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a minor who is, or who appears to be under 16 (whether or not engaged in sexual activity); or

(c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.

I am sure all members of the House would support the notion that this kind of material is undesirable for distribution throughout the community. The Chief Censor, John Dickie, is taking a much harder line against film violence. Last year he indicated that the movie Straw Dogs would now probably be refused classification. The movie was made about 25 years ago and I understand that it is so violent that one of its stars, Susan George, has said that she now regrets having made the movie.

In 1994 the Attorney General, now the Leader of the Opposition in the upper House, the Hon. John Hannaford, introduced legislation similar to the bill before the House. The Labor Party supported that bill. The only reason it was not debated and passed by the Parliament was that it lapsed with the prorogation of Parliament at the end of 1994. The bill introduced by the Government last year dealt only with child pornography. Therefore it did not include violent videos, computer games and the like. The bill before the House seeks to make possession as well as production of these videos a crime. Its aim, of course, is to reduce the market for this type of material. The maximum penalty for possession of this material is 12 months imprisonment or a $10,000 fine. That is equivalent to the current penalties for selling or publicly exhibiting material that has been refused classification or X-rated material under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act.

Mr E. T. Page: On a point of order. I am interested in the honourable member's comments, but I cannot hear what is being said because of the background noise coming from the Opposition benches. I ask that Opposition members hold their conference outside so that all members can hear the contribution of the honourable member for The Hills.

Mr Cochran: On the point of order. No member of this Chamber is louder or more raucous in his interjections and utterances across the Chamber than the Minister for Local Government. During my contribution to a debate earlier this week I raised a similar issue and I was informed that members can expect banter across the Chamber and that I could expect to receive the same sort of interjections as the Minister might make. Therefore, I suggest the Minister is out of order. The conversation that needs to take place on the benches in the Chamber from time to time is in order and has been accepted for generations. The point of order is irrelevant.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I was about to draw to the attention of Opposition members on the front bench that their discussions were of a loud nature. If they wish to converse, they should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr RICHARDSON: The bill has been given a degree of urgency by revelations in the police royal commission and also by the disclosure that
Page 8704
Martin Bryant had a large number of violent pornographic videos at his house. Violent pornography was also associated with the murders of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding, who were the victims of horrific crimes that were condemned only in the past week by the Minister for Police.

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

Mr RICHARDSON: An article in the Sun-Herald of 12 May 1996 revealed that how-to-kill videos are available across the counter or by mail order. Mail order, which is widely available in this country, is another reason to make possession of such material an offence. Debate is raging about the degree to which this material can corrupt sick minds. I do not want to get into a debate about censorship - and, indeed, the honourable member for Eastwood did not want to either - but the jury has already returned its verdict on violent pornography. The final report of the United States Attorney General's Commission on Pornography 1986 stated that most pornography is violent pornography, which includes rape. At page 36 the report stated:

But another theme of some of this material is not sadomasochistic, but involves instead the recurrent theme of a man making some sort of sexual advance to a woman, being rebuffed, and then raping the woman or in some other way violently forcing himself on the woman. In almost all of this material, whether in magazine or motion picture form, the woman eventually becomes aroused and ecstatic about the initially forced sexual activity, and usually is portrayed as begging for more. There is also a large body of material, more "mainstream" in its availability, that portrays sexual activity or sexually suggestive nudity coupled with extreme violence, such as disfigurement or murder. The so-called "slasher" films fit this description, as does some material, both in films and in magazines, that is less or more sexually explicit than the prototypical "slasher" film.

Other studies have shown that exposure to this kind of material desensitises those watching it to violence towards women in particular. That means that they may have fewer negative emotional reactions to these films and consider them less degrading to women. They also judge the injuries suffered by rape victims to be significantly less than they really are. Violent pornography certainly creates problems in our society; it creates a predisposition in certain people to violence towards women. This material is so violent and so extreme that the Chief Censor has refused to classify it. However, the Government indicated that it is not prepared to support the bill, which will provide significant penalties for the possession of material that is likely to deprave or corrupt.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.40 a.m.], in reply: Put simply, the bill is designed to deal with the sort of material found in Martin Bryant's house: videos that have been refused classification and material which is so off the wall that the censor refuses to even give it an X-rating. The videos found in Martin Bryant's house included films depicting ways in which to use head shots to kill people, and all that sort of thing. I take the view that the possession of such off-the-wall material should be made illegal. That is the basis of the bill, and I commend the bill to the House accordingly.

Motion negatived.

Debate resumed from 14 November 1996.

Mr TINK (Eastwood) [10.41 a.m.]: The bill was foreshadowed by the honourable member for Tamworth in debate on the Firearms Bill 1996. I have taken advice from the office of the Federal Attorney-General in November last year, when notice of the bill was first given, and as recently as 7 May, only last week. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council has met in the interim, and it has debated the subject matter of the bill. No doubt the honourable member for Tamworth will say something about that. The outcome of that process has been clear. As indicated to me in a letter from the office of the Attorney-General on 7 May, the bill, which relates to category D firearms which are to be used only for official purposes, clearly remains outside the 18 May agreement of the APMC. The letter states that category D firearms are the most strongly controlled of all the categories, principally because of their power and speed of firing. The precise objects and substance of the bill have twice been put to the office of the Federal Attorney-General and rejected on both occasions, the most recent being last week, as still being outside the APMC resolutions. For that reason I am not in a position to support the bill.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [10.43 a.m.]: Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker -

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [10.43 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

Page 8705

Mr COCHRAN: On a point of order -

Mr ACTING DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Monaro need not pursue his point of order. He had the call.

Mr COCHRAN: Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker, I thank you for that ruling, which was not only correct but very fair.

Mr E. T. Page: He is a fair man.

Mr COCHRAN: As the Minister has correctly pointed out, the Acting Deputy-Speaker is a very fair man. The bill before the House results from debate that took place on 20 June on the Firearms Bill. During that debate the honourable member for Tamworth foreshadowed that he proposed to move certain amendments to the bill. In doing so he reflected the view of representatives of other country electorates. Members representing rural electorates often bring issues into this Chamber that are not supported by members who live in urban areas. The National Party represents country electorates democratically. It does so by allowing members to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. The National Party has debated this bill and generally supports it, with some conditions. Paragraph (5) of the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Tamworth on 20 June 1996 reads:

(5) The Commissioner must not approve a rifle range for the purposes of this section unless the Commissioner is satisfied that appropriate arrangements are in place for the safe and secure storage of self-loading firearms when they are not actually being used.

I foreshadow that the National Party will move a similar amendment to the bill before the House. The question on that amendment was not put to the House on 20 June, as a preceding amendment was defeated and the honourable member for Tamworth accurately predicted that his amendment would also be defeated. The Firearms Bill was debated at a time of great emotion, and rightly so. The Port Arthur events had become a tragic part of the history of Australia; we certainly want to avoid a repetition of those events at all costs. However, over a period of 150 years a certain section of the community, particularly ex-military personnel, has used semi-automatic firearms in sporting events that are recognised by shooting organisations across the world. In the past those people have demonstrated their responsibility with firearms and their ability to secure them safely.

Ex-servicemen and servicemen in many of these clubs represent a part of our heritage which we cannot avoid, that is, the various wars. They have served in theatres of war and used semi-automatic firearms, the likes of which were carried in Vietnam and were known as self-loading automatic rifles, or F1-A1s. There is provision in the Act for the storage of firearms such as pistols and self-loading rifles. However, no provision is enshrined in the bill to secure firearms in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner of Police. Some members of the National Party may not be able to support this bill if the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Tamworth is not included. The National Party acknowledges the responsible attitude of sporting shooters in various New South Wales clubs. On 20 June 1996 the honourable member for Cessnock, the honourable member for Bathurst, the honourable member for Broken Hill, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Police acknowledged that there are responsible people in society who have used semi-automatic weapons in the past and who present no risk to society.

Members of the National Party believe that this bill will provide for the preservation of the sporting interests of those responsible shooters. Provided the amendment is successful the National Party will totally support the bill. At the end of the day it will be a matter for individual members as to whether they support the bill without the amendment. I referred earlier to the fact that the responsibilities of members representing country electorates are different to those representing city electorates. I realise also that those members representing city electorates have a responsibility to voice the grave concerns of those who consider firearms to be a risk to society.

I remind those in city electorates that the interests of recognised shooting clubs in Newcastle, Wollongong, Bathurst and Cessnock are served by the bill. I have the greatest respect for the honourable member for Cessnock, who has put himself at odds with his party by speaking his mind in this House. It would not surprise me in the least if he were tempted to join members of the National Party and support the bill. I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on his support for the sporting shooters fraternity, who, under the emotional conditions of the debate since the tragic events at Port Arthur, have been maligned, misrepresented, vilified and ridiculed through the media. Those people are often responsible fathers, grandfathers, and ex-service people who present no risk or threat to society. The interests of those
Page 8706
people have caused the honourable member for Cessnock and others to speak on their behalf.

This issue should not be treated lightly. Many older members of sporting shooters clubs, particularly those with military rifles, some of which are rather ancient, derive great joy from using their firearms, and they store and secure them with great pride. Those who own firearms protect their valuable possessions by storing and securing them in the most meticulous way. I have been advised that 328 members of metropolitan clubs and 258 members of country clubs will be directly affected by this bill. For example, the metropolitan branch of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has 80 members, and its two country branches have 50 members. Although thousands of people are not concerned about this issue, the few who protect the heritage of military firearms owners and users across Australia deserve to have their interests protected.

I have expressed the concerns of members of the National Party and of those club members whose future is threatened by the current Act. The failure of the bill will surely result in the demise of those clubs. I have referred to shooters across Australia who are concerned that their interests have been greatly maligned in debate. In the clear light of day 12 months after the tragedy at Port Arthur, we should take a moment to consider those who for generations have demonstrated that they are responsible firearms owners. I call on members from both sides of the House to show some tolerance to them. I seek support for the amendment to enshrine in the legislation provisions for security of firearms. This issue is not an easy one for any of us. The obvious division in the coalition on this issue is a true indication of the right of its members to represent country and city electorates. As I have said, those on this side of the House would understand the feelings of the honourable member for Cessnock and the honourable member for Bathurst if they joined the members of the National Party and the honourable member for Tamworth in supporting the rights of shooters who are affected by the legislation.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [11.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Langton Mr Humpherson
Mr Price Mr Merton

Page 8707

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for adjournment agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [11.11 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow consideration forthwith of general business orders of the day (general orders) and general business notices of motions (general notices) as set down on the business paper for today.

Question put.

Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.

Dr Macdonald
Ms Moore

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [11.16 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) Acknowledges and applauds the work done by both the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee.

(2) Recognises:

(a) the value of the regional conferences held throughout major regional centres during February and March 1997 which were well attended by non-indigenous and indigenous people keen to work towards reconciliation;

(b) 27 May 1997 as the commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum when 92 per cent of Australians voted to allow indigenous people the right of citizenship in their own land; and

(3) Supports the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in their hosting of the national convention in Melbourne from 26 to 28 May 1997 inclusive as an important part of the reconciliation process in Australia, as Australia heads towards the year 2001, the birth of Federation.

Mr Patrick Dodson, Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, wrote recently:

Reconciliation is about changes and the attitudes, the systems and the structures and the nature of the relationship that we want to create for the future.

That is a strong statement, and one that I support totally. A number of regional Aboriginal reconciliation workshops were held in March in the lead-up to the National Reconciliation Convention, to be held in Melbourne between 26 and 28 May. Regional conferences were held in Batemans Bay, Wagga Wagga, Port Macquarie, Lismore, Dubbo, Tamworth and Parramatta. The workshops were well attended and the following topics were discussed: the reconciliation process, the role of council, and processes and outcomes to achieving real reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. I assure honourable members that the debate was vigorous on many occasions. I am a member of the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee. I attended the Batemans Bay and Tamworth workshops. Although the two areas are diverse, they hold similar concerns and offered similar solutions in relation to the problems.

The workshops emphasised the need for community commitment - reconciliation will have to come from the grassroots; it will have to be a people's movement. Governments can do only so much; the remaining solutions will have to come from the grassroots. People must realise what reconciliation is about; the movement has to be driven. As far as I am concerned, the process should not finish in 2001: that will be the starting point and it should go on for decades. Issues such as the need for dissemination on native title, compulsory Aboriginal studies, positive media coverage, land rights and cross-cultural awareness must be addressed to redress the current imbalances. People were consulted in relation to reconciliation issues in their local areas, and the workshops also looked at specific initiatives and examples that are working. Regional New South Wales has been able to put forward a strong view on this process.

The National Reconciliation Convention will recognise the thirtieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum. The campaign slogan for that referendum was "Right the wrongs". The referendum was carried overwhelmingly by the Australian people. The 1967 referendum came about during a time of global unrest. New South Wales was leading the civil rights movement in Australia. Pushing for the recognition of Aboriginal people and their rights to own land were Chicka Dixon, Faith Bandler, Kenny Brindall, the Aboriginal Waterside Workers Union and many others. It was a long road to reach the 1967 referendum.

Page 8708

The campaign began during the civil rights movements in the 1930s and 1940s, led by William Cooper and the Labor member of Parliament Kim Beazley senior respectively. The campaign gained momentum after World War II - Aboriginal people were gathering strength as Aboriginal advancement groups were forming. The main objective of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders was the amendment of the Constitution. There were two parts to the referendum. First, section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution effectively denied the existence of Aboriginal people. It stated:

The Federal Government will count all races of people other than Aboriginals.

Section 127 of the Constitution stated:

In reckoning the number of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted.

By removing section 51(xxvi) and section 127, the Federal Government had the power to transfer responsibility from the States and Territories to the Commonwealth. The yes vote was given legislative effect on 10 August 1967, which was a major victory for the FCAATSI and supporters of the Aboriginal advancement movement. However, nothing really happened until the Whitlam Government came to power in 1972. It established the first Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Canberra.

The National Reconciliation Convention will be held at the World Congress Centre in Melbourne from 26 to 28 May. It will be hosted by the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The theme of the convention is "Renewal of the nation" through building relationships between indigenous people and the wider community. The stated aim of the convention is a united Australia that respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equity for all. The convention is part of a strategy to involve all Australians in the reconciliation process as the centenary of Federation approaches.

The convention will commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum, when almost 92 per cent of Australians voted yes to giving indigenous people citizenship rights and allowing Commonwealth powers to override the archaic laws concerning indigenous people in the States and Territories. A special ceremony commemorating the thirtieth anniversary will be held on Tuesday, 27 May during the convention. The convention will have a number of themes, such as reconciliation in the community - how do we make it a reality? Other themes will include: indigenous self-determination; the 1967 referendum thirtieth anniversary; human rights and indigenous Australians; the documents of reconciliation and constitutional issues; the renewal of the nation - citizenship in Australia; and the way forward.

Speakers at the convention will include political leaders Senator Cheryl Kernot, the Leader of the Australian Democrats; Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition; and John Howard, the Prime Minister. Other speakers will include Bishop Desmond Tutu, Mandawuy Yunupingu, Frank Brennan, Noel Pearson, Jennie George, Marcia Langton and Hugh Mackay, to name but a few. I assure honourable members that many other people will contribute to the conference. This is a great opportunity for our nation to show the rest of the world that we are serious about reconciling differences with the indigenous people of this country. That is something that has not been done. As I said earlier, it is absolutely imperative that the program continue for many decades.

I refer to the inaugural Lingiari Lecture that was delivered by Sir William Deane, the Governor-General of Australia, at the Northern Territory University, Darwin, in August 1996. It is important that members of Parliament take this matter on board. The document is called "Signpost", by Daguragu. Every member of every Parliament, indeed, every member of the Australian community, should read this lecture because it tells the story of the birth of the land rights movement in Australia. It helps to give an understanding of the true story of the walk-off from Wave Hill Station, the strike that happened some 30 years ago. I shall refer to that shortly. I shall read what the Governor-General had to say:

Signpost (i): Acknowledgment of the Past

It should, I think, be apparent to all well-meaning people that true reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. That is not to say that individual Australians who had no part in what was done in the past should feel or acknowledge personal guilt. It is simply to assert our identity as a nation and the basic fact that national shame, as well as national pride, can and should exist in relation to past acts and omissions, at least when done or made in the name of the community or with the authority of government. Where there is no room for national pride or national shame in the past, there can be no national soul.

That is an important statement in the process of reconciliation. I return to my remarks about where land rights in this country were first born, that is,
Page 8709
the Wave Hill walk-off, the strike, by Aboriginal stockmen and their families. Many people believe this walk-off was about unequal pay. However, that was only part of the campaign. What really initiated the walk-off was the complaint by Vincent Lingiari to the management of the Wave Hill station that European stockmen were sexually abusing the Aboriginal women at the station. That and the wage issue caused the walk-off.

That strike was also the very start of the campaign for land rights in this country. And here we are today, some 31 years on, confronting another national issue on land rights in this country. That has been brought about by the decision of the High Court in the Wik case, in which the High Court said that pastoral leases can coexist with native title. That is something this country must come to terms with because if we go down the wrong path we will be condemned internationally. The Wik decision cannot be isolated from reconciliation. How can anyone offer the hand of friendship and understanding if they are not prepared to look at what land and land rights are all about? Aboriginal people have owned land for tens of thousands of years and all they want to be able to do is to use that land for hunting, gathering and ceremonial purposes.

People in this country must start to realise the difference between how non-indigenous Australians view land and how indigenous Australians view land. Non-indigenous Australians regard land as just another economic asset, something to make money, to exploit, to sell off and so on. Aboriginal people consider land as the very soul of their culture and their existence. I assure the House that Aboriginal people will not walk away from their land easily. If the correct decisions are made regarding Wik - and I believe in coexistence - that will be one of the best and most poignant signs of reconciliation that could possibly be presented to the Aboriginal people.

I have been told by a number of leading Aboriginal negotiators that they are extremely concerned about what is happening in the Wik debate. They are worried about not only their land but the land of all Australians and about who owns that land. Who are the big pastoral leaseholders? Are they Australians, the battling farmers we hear about, or are they multinationals, big financiers, rich and powerful people? What happens to the land if it becomes freehold land and those powerful people get their grubby hands on it? That is what I want to know and what the people of this State and country should know.

Today is about recognising the thirtieth anniversary, recognising reconciliation and applauding people like Linda Burnie, who chairs the New South Wales Reconciliation Committee, and Joanne Selfe from the Department of Corrective Services who is the deputy chair of that committee. It is about acknowledging people such as Jeff Scott, the Director-General of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, my colleague the honourable member for Georges River, who is also a member of that committee, and the many others who have attended meetings and given of their own time to ensure that the people of New South Wales understand reconciliation. The honourable member for Georges River and I went to Tamworth and she can testify to what I am saying. [Time expired.]

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.26 a.m.]: On behalf of the New South Wales Liberal and National parties it gives me great pleasure to join with the honourable member for Keira in supporting the motion before the House, applauding the work done by the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee. I also recognise the value of the various conferences that have been held through February and March and the significance of the conference that will take place on 26, 27 and 28 May organised by the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation at its national convention in Melbourne. Sir William Deane, in a lecture at the Northern Territory University in August 1996, said:

One hundred years from now, when we are approaching the second century of our nation, the dreamings of the Aboriginal peoples will record whether we Australians had the determination, tolerance and goodwill to convert short-term possibility into a reality that is timeless.

One of the greatest challenges facing our nation as we move towards the centenary of Federation and the year 2001 is to bring all the peoples of Australia together, and to bring them together with a heart that wants to see one nation heading into the new century. Therefore, the theme of the Australian Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Convention should be a landmark for all Australians; it should be the basis for the way forward. The honourable member for Keira has referred to the council's vision as enunciated in its various documents supporting the conference. I shall quote that again. The council's vision:

. . . is a united Australia which respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equity for all.

It can be no less a noble pursuit when it is broken down into its individual components. Equity and justice for all requires that there be a focus on each of the issues which face indigenous Australians
Page 8710
today and which prevent them from achieving their full potential both individually and in the overall context of moving forward as Australians. As we approach the centenary of Federation it is an indictment of Australia that Aboriginal people still suffer great adversity and from lack of educational opportunities. So many indigenous Australians do not complete a primary school education, let alone a secondary school education. So many indigenous Australians suffer from enormous health problems. I refer to a document released last year which dealt with a number of health issues.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the life expectancy of a female Aboriginal-Torres Strait Islander is 63 years compared with 81 for non-indigenous Australians. The life expectancy of indigenous males is 57 but 75 for non-indigenous Australians. That should send the message out loud and clear that indigenous Australians are not getting a fair go. There is no justice and equity in terms of health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Aboriginal mothers account for almost 30 per cent of all maternal deaths but less than 3 per cent of confinements. Hospital discharge rates are well over the national average - 70 per cent higher for indigenous males and five per cent for indigenous females. And so it goes on. In some communities those percentages are far higher.

Not so long ago I visited Bathurst Island in the Northern Territory where I spoke with indigenous Australians who talked of the health issues which challenged them in their more isolated community. A whole range of difficult health problems is encountered from community to community. Contrary to what some may argue, as a nation we need to recognise that there has to be a preparedness and a commitment to provide additional resources to ensure that indigenous Australians rise to the level of equity. In current debate, arguments have been that every Australian, whether indigenous or non-indigenous, must receive the same amount of money and resources. Without giving too much emphasis to that debate, I say that most of those arguments are simplistic, silly and prejudiced and will do nothing for the greater vision of the position of Australia in the year 2001 as expressed by our Governor-General.

Of course, the concern is not just with health issues. As I said, education is of concern, as is the problem of indigenous Australians being incarcerated at a rate far greater than the rate for non-indigenous Australians. In some areas they are gaoled at 12 to 16 times the rate of non-indigenous Australians. Those are serious issues which all Australians need to address as we move towards our centenary of Federation. This motion is particularly important. It reflects upon the fact that only 30 years ago Aboriginal people were still struggling for the right to have a say in the future of the nation of combined Australian peoples. To many of us it seems like something from another century until we realise it is not that long ago that children were being stolen from their families on the basis of all sorts of strange and wonderful bureaucratic guidelines. I refer to The Stolen Generations, a publication of the New South Wales Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. The introduction on page 2, referring to a letter from the Aboriginal Welfare Board to a police sergeant in a mid-western town of New South Wales in 1958, states:

In view of the inadequate provision as regards housing, food and care of the children of . . . on the Aboriginal Reserve at . . . would you kindly charge the children as neglected and commit them to the care of this Board.

That was in 1958. That is an absolute outrage to any reasonably-minded person. Nowhere was there a focus on the loving family relationships that give people a sense of worth and self-esteem. Nowhere was there an understanding that those children had a right to be with their families. There was simply a focus on what was apparently a philosophy designed to destroy our indigenous Australians. I make it very clear as a member of the New South Wales Liberal Party that I consider that philosophy an outrage. It also puts in perspective the fact that today we are struggling to come to grips with that terrible history - a history which is not way back in our past but in our living memories and which very much affects many indigenous Australians who are trying to come to grips with the future of Australia.

On behalf of the Opposition I will be attending the conference in Melbourne. I look forward to the conference with its spirit of bipartisanship and I look forward also to attending the conference with the honourable member for Keira. I understand that the Deputy Premier, in his capacity as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, will also be in attendance. I am certain that with the goodwill that has already been shown at the many regional meetings, together with the great efforts of many individuals and groups of both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, we will achieve an outcome of a better Australia in the year 2001. Hopefully that better Australia in the future will have been nurtured by an understanding of our indigenous people and by a willingness to work with them. The Opposition is very pleased to support this motion moved by the honourable member for Keira.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [11.36 a.m.]: The National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
Page 8711
was established by a unanimous vote of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1991 to promote and oversee a process of reconciliation between the wider community and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. On 14 November last year this Parliament unanimously resolved to reaffirm its commitment to the goals and processes of Aboriginal reconciliation and the importance of reconciliation to the future of the nation and the State. As we are virtually on the eve of the Australian Reconciliation Convention to be held in Melbourne from 26 to 28 May, it is fitting that the motion as proposed by the honourable member for Keira is discussed today. The timing of the convention is not accidental. May 27 is the thirtieth anniversary of the historic referendum when Australian people voted to change the Australian Constitution to remove clauses that discriminated against Aborigines.

With the changes to the Constitution, Aboriginal people were finally recognised as Australian citizens with equal rights to vote. One of the most eloquent proponents of the reconciliation process is Sir William Deane, the Governor-General. In a landmark speech, which was referred to by the honourable member for Keira, delivered as the inaugural Lingiari lecture on 22 August last year, Sir William said that genuine reconciliation between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and our nation as a whole should be in the forefront of our national aspirations between now and 2001, the centenary of Federation. In order to move towards true reconciliation it is necessary to recognise the facts of our history, to face the hard realities of how Aboriginal people have been treated since their dispossession commenced in 1788. In his Lingiari speech Sir William Deane said:

It should, I think, be apparent to all well-meaning people that true reconciliation between the Australian nation and its indigenous peoples is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past disposition, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. That is not to say that individual Australians who had no part in what was done in the past should feel or acknowledge personal guilt. It is simply to assert our identity as a nation and the basic fact that national shame, as well as national pride, can and should exist in relation to past acts and omissions, at least when done or made in the name of the community or with the authority of government. Where there is no room for national pride or national shame about the past, there can be no national soul.

This is not the black armband view of history that some have suggested. It is surely a prerequisite to any move towards reconciliation to commence from a point of truth, not self-deception or smugness. Patrick Dodson, who was appointed chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991, said:

Reconciliation is about changes and the attitudes, the systems and the structures and the nature of the relationship that we want to create for the future.

Paul Keating, when he was Prime Minister, said:

The process of reconciliation must start with an act of recognition. Recognition that it was we non-Aboriginal Australians who did the dispossessing; and yet we had always failed to ask ourselves how we would feel if it had been done to us.

It is not to inflict guilt on this and future generations of Australians that we should face the realities of Aboriginal dispossession, it is to acknowledge our responsibility and their right to know.

I feel more than a tinge of despair about the way things are going at present, and I know that many people have the same feeling. On the one hand we advocate reconciliation, truthfully acknowledging our wretched history of the treatment of Aborigines and pledging to take steps to redress it; on the other hand we have the signs of a regrowth of racism and social division in Australia. They are growing because of a lack of conviction, and certainly a lack of leadership from the Australian Government. The pathetic reluctance to say or do anything to counter the Hanson disease has been nothing short of gross irresponsibility - talk about fiddling while Rome burns! The fact that our Prime Minister has finally started to speak out only highlights the terrible mistake he made in maintaining his silence for so long. At a time when national leadership is so necessary we have vacillation and weakness. The opinion polls are more important than principle.

The disgraceful goings on about the Wik case, with possibly the biggest land grab anywhere in history being pressed by certain interests, have brought dismay and despair to many Australians, black and white. We say we support reconciliation yet we are presently witnesses to a most shameful chapter in our history. The forces unleashed during the 1996 Federal electorate campaign and by the more recent Wik decision present a great challenge to our nation. This challenge can be met, at least in major part, by recommitting ourselves to reconciliation. We must reject any return to the past. I firmly believe that Australians generally want to see reconciliation succeed. We should therefore reaffirm our commitment and consolidate the progress already made. [Time expired.]

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [11.41 a.m.]: After more than 200 years Australia is yet to reconcile with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Page 8712
peoples. The National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was established by the Australian Parliament in 1991. It is responsible for promoting the process of reconciliation, encouraging understanding and better relationships based on respect for one another. I recognise the fine chairmanship of Patrick Dodson, a Yawaru man from the Kimberley region in Western Australia. His dedication to indigenous welfare and human rights is unquestioned. Bipartisan support for the council reflects a national commitment to achieve reconciliation by the year 2001, the centenary of Australian Federation - a time to renew ourselves as a nation.

This commitment was reaffirmed on 30 October 1996 in a parliamentary declaration moved by the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, and supported unanimously by all political parties - a commitment by all Australians to enjoy equal rights and be treated with equal respect regardless of race, colour, creed or origin; to maintain Australia as a culturally diverse, tolerant and open society united by an overriding commitment to our nation and its democratic institutions and values. The Federal Parliament denounced racial intolerance in any form as incompatible with the kind of society we are and want to be, and confirmed a national commitment to reconciliation. Reconciliation is about forming a new relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and the wider community, one that heals the pain of the past and ensures that we all share fairly and equally in our national citizenship.

A formal national reconciliation agreement should be underpinned by understanding, acceptance and the cooperation of people, organisations, and institutions at local, regional and national levels. Acknowledging indigenous people's cultural identity has restored their self-esteem about their identity. Sharing with them their cultures, pride and their spirituality involves a national healing for all Australians. Expressions of reconciliation grow out of communities, shaped and inspired by people coming together in our neighbourhoods, workplaces, schools, clubs, churches and daily lives. The Australian Reconciliation Convention will be a landmark event in the life of the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. It will be held at the World Congress Centre in Melbourne from 26 to 28 May 1997. The theme of the convention is renewal of the nation through building better relationships between indigenous peoples and the wider community to fulfil the council's vision of "a united Australia which respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, and provides justice and equity for all".

To reflect the aspirations and views of all citizens, participants to the convention will be drawn from a variety of communities and many sectors of Australian society such as sport, youth, faith groups, rural, mining, environmental, union, business and governments at all levels. The convention also commemorates the thirtieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum in which nearly 92 per cent of Australians voted to give the Commonwealth power to make laws specific to indigenous people and to allow them to be counted in the census as Australian citizens. Tuesday, 3 June is the anniversary of the 1992 High Court of Australia Mabo decision which recognised the existence of native title. It is a great honour for me to represent the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins, on the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee, working alongside my parliamentary colleagues the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho from the other place and the honourable member for Keira, Col Markham. Regional meetings have taken place throughout Australia to enable individual communities to participate in the convention.

Meetings were held in Batemans Bay, Wagga Wagga, Port Macquarie, Lismore, Dubbo, Coffs Harbour, Parramatta and Tamworth. I was pleased to participate in the Tamworth meeting with the honourable member for Keira. Together we will explore, understand and accept the history of our shared experience, acknowledging that past injustice continues to give rise to present injustices for indigenous Australians. We will discover a common heritage together, respecting indigenous cultures and identity and removing disadvantages. We will participate in acts of reconciliation to renew our national identity and citizenship. I hope that we will face our shared destiny with enthusiasm and with a genuine hope for a brighter future for all Australians, including our indigenous population who have been neglected for years.

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [11.46 a.m.]: This motion comes on for debate at a critical and sensitive time for Aboriginal reconciliation. I am proud as a member of the Australian Labor Party and a member of this Parliament to support the motion acknowledging the work of the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee, especially with the imminent commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the 1967 referendum which recognised the citizenship and equality of Australia's indigenous people. Aboriginal people in New South Wales and Australia in the years since Mabo have seen their aspirations and rights pushed to the forefront of the national debate. That debate has often been less than dignified or tolerant or sensible.

Page 8713

However, overwhelmingly the respect, tolerance and good sense necessary for working out of problems and achieving advances have come from the Aboriginal side. Unfortunately, Aborigines seem to understand the real meaning of reconciliation and tolerance far better than the white governments, institutions and the electorate. The truth of the reality of Aboriginal disadvantage is overwhelming. The evidence is there in the community, but most seem deaf to it. I will not detail it here; I will detail the Federal Government's recent perverse attacks on Aboriginal services in this country. When the present Federal Government was elected there was the initial obscenity of its attack on the auditing standards of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It quickly became clear that the attack was baseless. Then in last year's budget spending on ATSIC was slashed by $470 million over four years. That has and will have a disastrous impact on ATSIC and especially on Aboriginal employment.

It is inevitable that indigenous unemployment, already at disastrous levels, will jump to almost 50 per cent next century. Just the day before yesterday there was an equally harsh attack on Abstudy with a reduction of $25 million, even though retention rates amongst Aboriginal children are so low and education is essential to their future. In the face of this attack the Aboriginal people are expected to retain their tolerance, their control, and support for a system that has caused their disadvantage, then blamed them for it and, finally, perversely targeted them for dissatisfaction in the wider community over a plethora of economic and community problems. Amazingly, Aboriginal people have, despite this, remained true to the spirit of reconciliation, and continue to work towards a truly just resolution of the problems.

The strength and dignity of the Aboriginal people throughout the Mabo and Wik debates in recent years have been clear. Depressingly those national debates have been too often characterised by ignorance and intolerance by many people who should know better, especially elected members of Parliament throughout Australia. Tolerance and commitment to reconciliation of Aboriginal people have never been clearer than in the recent weeks when, in the Wik debate and negotiations, they have been virtually left out of the process. In what has been hijacked as a debate between pastoralists and conservative politicians, many of whom are intent on completing the dispossession of 200 years ago, the views of the Aboriginal people have been virtually ignored. Their views and their thoughtful position are put last, if at all, and their needs or wishes are characterised as unreasonable, lunatic or unfair. They are treated as robbers, undignified and greedy land grabbers, despite the fact that the Wik judgment made clear that their limited rights over land had a clear legal base, and despite the fact that many of those calling for extinguishment under Wik know that if that is achieved they will be the beneficiaries of the greatest change of land title in the history of this nation.

The Prime Minister has a heavy responsibility to help bring about a conclusion of the Wik issue that builds on the reconciliation process and is central to the resolution of Aboriginal injustice in Australia. If he fails the test the result will be disastrous for the nation. This debate also comes at a time when the vile and ignorant message of Hanson is reaching across Australia. Noel Pearson, an untiring advocate for reconciliation, clearly put the Hanson phenomena in context in a recent address to the University of Wollongong. His words deserve detailed attention but, unfortunately, time will prevent me from quoting his words in their entirety. I appeal to everyone to read his comments of 5 May when he said:

I am not inclined to support the notion that Pauline Hanson is evil. The ideas she espouses and the feelings she is cultivating and the controversy she is revelling in is certainly ugly and repugnant, but my feelings for her are more of sorrow than anger.

[Time expired.]

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [11.51 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Keira. It is important to acknowledge the work done by the National Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and the New South Wales State Reconciliation Committee. I would also like to thank the many people, both indigenous and non-indigenous, who contributed to the recent regional conferences held throughout regional areas to advance the cause of Aboriginal reconciliation. I can remember the referendum in 1967 when 92 per cent of Australians voted to allow indigenous people the right to equal citizenship with other Australians. I remember thinking at the time how incredible it was that these equal rights had not been granted generations earlier. As a country member, I am on the public record as a strong supporter of Aboriginal reconciliation. From a very early age I spent a lot of time with Aboriginal people who mostly came from the Baryulgil area.

My desire to see genuine reconciliation has been heightened by my experience as a local member of Parliament, which has caused me to have frequent dealings with Aboriginal communities at Ballina, Byron Bay, Ocean Shores and Cabbage
Page 8714
Tree Island. My contact with David Capeen, in particular, from Cabbage Tree Island and more recently from Ballina, has been a very enlightening and rewarding experience. He has done an enormous amount of work to improve the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in my electorate. We need to recognise that Aborigines have made a significant contribution to our country in wartime defence, through art, music, literature and culture, sport, their contribution to our pastoral industries, and in a host of other fields of human endeavour. It is important to pause for a moment to think about what we really mean by reconciliation. I would like to quote from the publication entitled The path to reconciliation: renewal of the nation published by the Australian Reconciliation Convention. In response to the question "What is reconciliation" the publication says:

Reconciliation is about building a new relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and the wider community, one that heals the pain of the past and ensures we all share fairly and equally in our national citizenship.

There are essentially five steps to reconciliation. They are:

•understanding and accepting the history of our shared experience between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider community,

•respecting indigenous cultures and identity,

•recognising that past injustice continues to give rise to present injustices for indigenous Australians,

•identifying what more needs to be done and making changes within Australian society,

•revaluing our citizenship to live together in unity and harmony.

Reconciliation is not dependent on doing everything at once. We will do things better as a nation if we are all involved in what has to be done at the local, regional and national levels. If we are to achieve reconciliation, we have to recognise certain facts: a point made regularly by the honourable member for Keira, and I agree with him. We have to recognise that in establishing a western civilisation in this country, non-indigenous Australians are disrupted and, in some cases, destroyed, wreaking havoc among Aboriginal communities, forcibly separating families and introducing substances like alcohol and western diseases which have significantly disadvantaged these communities. Before we achieve reconciliation, we must first have recognition. Once we have recognised the mistakes of the past, we can then look to the future with hope and optimism. I do not support the idea that today's non-indigenous Australians should carry a permanent guilt complex, but we do need to recognise the realities of the past and, having done that, commit ourselves to making a better future. I should like to conclude my remarks by quoting from the message of Pat Dodson, Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, when talking about the importance of the conference to be held in Melbourne on 26, 27, and 28 May. He states in a message at the beginning of the publication, Australian Reconciliation Convention:

The three-day convention at the World Congress Centre in Melbourne will bring together people from key sectors of the Australian community to map the way forward for reconciliation - to identify a path along which indigenous Australians and the wider community can walk together into the future.

Reconciliation can play a significant part in shaping a more mature and harmonious Australia. To effect deep and lasting change in this country, reconciliation has to be a people's movement.

I am sure that all honourable members agree with those sentiments. I commend the honourable member for Keira and other members who spoke in support of what I believe is important: bipartisan support of this motion. [Time expired.]

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [11.56 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members representing the electorates of Wakehurst, Rockdale, Georges River, Gladesville and Ballina for their contributions to this very important debate. I would like to comment on some of the statements made, although most speakers touched on similar issues, including the importance of reconciliation, the importance of the convention in Melbourne, the importance of recognising that it is 30 years since the referendum, as well as other issues dealing with health, the stolen generations, and land rights. A couple of speakers used two words that I refuse to use, but I use a scientific term - pH - to describe the acid tongue and destructive nature of that symbol. I can assure honourable members that racism will not be tolerated by people who are committed to human rights for all. Anyone who tolerates racism is totally off line and off cue. A pH level is a measure of acidity, and that is what such people are: mouths full of acid. I would also like to take up the point made by the honourable member for Wakehurst about the stolen generations. That is an ongoing issue.

On 30 April I had the honour of being invited by an organisation called Link-Up, which tries to bring together children stolen from Aboriginal families over the decades, to be a guest speaker at the launch of a book entitled In the Best Interests of the Child? - Stolen Children: Aboriginal Pain - White Shame at Eora Centre, Chippendale. The book, which was presented by Link-Up to the inquiry by the Human Rights Commission on the
Page 8715
stolen children, refers to the stolen generations and contains individual and personal accounts of children taken from their families. In many cases they did not know until later life that they had been taken from their families, and in some cases they were astounded, shocked and destroyed. Of the 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody which ones were investigated by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody? Approximately 48 of those 99 prisoners were from the stolen generation. I acknowledge the support given to my motion by the honourable member for Rockdale, the honourable member for Gladesville and Opposition members.

One of the questions that was asked at the regional conferences to which I referred earlier was why there was no Aboriginal person in an Australian Parliament. Those conferences called for a specific Act of Parliament to ensure seats for Aboriginal people in Federal, State and Territory parliaments. In the last few days honourable members would have received a paper from the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues which calls for specific seats for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Federal and State parliaments. I have no doubt that one of the recommendations that will be made by the conference to be held in Melbourne from 26 to 28 May this year will be that the Federal Government should enact legislation to enable true and proper representation by indigenous Australians. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 17 April.

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [12.01 p.m.]: I oppose the motion moved by the honourable member for Wakehurst. It is wrong and misleading, and it should not be supported. Funding for mental health services in New South Wales is at an all-time high. Only last week the Government brought down a budget which outlined a third, historic increase in funding for mental health services in this State. The assertion that funding for mental health services has been cut on the northern beaches or anywhere else in New South Wales while Labor has been in power is a gross lie and is part of a scurrilous campaign to undermine public confidence in the health care system, a health care system which is finally recognising the needs of the mentally ill in our community.

Only yesterday the Opposition ran the line that intensive care units at Mona Vale and Ryde hospitals would close. At the same time as the Northern Sydney Area Health Service was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade the intensive care units at those two hospitals. If the honourable member for Wakehurst was really concerned about the plight of people living with mental illness he would have done more when the former Government was in office. When Labor came into office New South Wales had the lowest proportion of spending on mental health services in Australia. That shameful situation was made worse by the fact that the former Government, in its seven years in office, deinstitutionalised, closed hospitals and put thousands of mentally ill people into the community. That was where they belonged, but they needed proper care and the expenditure of funds to support them. That care and expenditure is not cheap; it costs big dollars. The previous Government never put those dollars into community care of the mentally ill.

The Carr Government has undertaken a number of initiatives to reverse that disastrous situation. In its first two budgets, the Government increased spending on mental health services by a massive $20 million. Last Tuesday that amount was further increased by another $7 million. That extra funding is bringing real and genuine improvements for people with mental illness. I hold a seat in the area for which Northern Sydney Area Health Service is responsible. The honourable member for Wakehurst also holds a seat in that region. I am aware of the expenditure and level of care provided for the mentally ill in that area. I know what improvements have been made. Labor is doing more than just increasing funding. It has already launched a $5.5 million package for child and adolescent mental health, an issue unfortunately neglected by the previous Government. Tragically, it is an issue that has been neglected also by the present Federal Government.

In my electorate an organisation called Mental Illness Education Australia is doing fine work in schools educating children about mental illness. That organisation has had its funding cut by the Federal Government. Funding for that program is essential to address the tragedy of youth suicide but, unfortunately, that funding is gone. Mental health legislation amendments which are currently before the Parliament will dramatically improve health outcomes for people with mental illness and their families. I am sure all honourable members welcomed those legislative amendments as they will bring real improvements for people suffering mental illnesses who are not receiving the care that they require.

In addition to these statewide initiatives, a number of service enhancements have been made to
Page 8716
northern beaches mental health services. There has been a $800,000 enhancement for an additional 10 mental health beds and a supplementation of $80,000 for an extension of the 24-hour crisis team, the teams so necessary for the proper care of people in the community. In the electorate of the honourable member for Manly, Labor has provided funding for an innovative program called Manly Club House. No-one in this Parliament could say that Labor does not care for people with mental illnesses. The Government has done more in its first two years in office than the previous Government did in its seven years in office. We are at the forefront of work in this nation for those with mental illnesses. The present Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Refshauge, is a magnificent advocate for the needs of people with mental illness. [Time expired.]

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.06 p.m.], in reply: There is no dispute that members on both sides of this House support the provision of mental health services. The issue is clear: my motion seeks to focus on the downgrading of mental health services on the northern beaches. The bottom line is that the Government is wholly responsible for the closure of the Dee Why mental health facility. The honourable member for Gladesville and the Minister spoke about the big picture, but in reality on the northern beaches fewer services are now available because of the Labor Government. I want to point to some facts that the honourable member for Gladesville and the Minister obviously do not want to hear. They can attack me and accuse me of not telling the truth, but everything I have said is true.

The honourable member for Manly has made it clear in this debate that he has the same concerns as I do and he supports the motion. Everyone on the northern beaches, regardless of their political allegiances, would be concerned about the closure of an essential service such as the Dee Why health centre. What is happening under the current Government? When the Dee Why health centre was closed by the Government it was receiving 40 new referrals a month. What was the Minister's justification for closing the centre? In his address to the House on 10 April the Minister said that the closure of the centre would save $35,000 in rent. That is a lame, lousy, mean-minded excuse. Many people on the northern beaches need ready access to mental health services, and they need those services to be in reasonable proximity to them.

The Minister simply took $35,000 out of the budget and sent the patients down to the Queenscliff health centre. It does not matter how ill or how much in need they are, they can sit in the public corridors with everybody else. They might have to catch an extra couple of buses to get to Queenscliff but that does not matter. That was the unreasonable attitude of the Minister. He will be judged by the people of the northern beaches on what he did to the Dee Why health centre. The Opposition knows that is only the tip of the iceberg. The House will hear about that in another motion that will be debated today. Health services on the northern beaches are basically being destroyed. Almost in the opening words of his contribution the Minister claimed that community mental health services have not been downgraded. To close a mental health service and send the patients to a service a number of kilometres away that is already overused is almost as big a downgrade as one could picture.

The Minister has not provided any extra funding to the northern beaches. I do not doubt that funds have been allocated to health services in other areas, but not one scintilla has come to the northern beaches. The honourable member for Gladesville talked about his electorate. Why would he complain? For every $2 that is spent on mental health services in his electorate on the upper north shore, about $1.50 is spent on the northern beaches. Indeed, if the funding for Macquarie Hospital is removed from that equation, only about $1 is spent on mental health services on the northern beaches. The people of the northern beaches are receiving less than half the funding for community health services that the honourable member for Gladesville and the upper north shore are getting. That is about as big an injustice as one could possibly imagine.

Of the $45 million budget allocated for the Northern Sydney Area Health Service only $5 million goes to the Manly-Warringah and Pittwater areas. That is simply not enough. This Government has to realise that the area needs more money and services. People on the northern beaches will not accept what the Minister has put before this House. They will not accept that what I have said is a lie. They want the Minister to act; they want him to provide the necessary funding and facilities. I call on the Minister and the Government to stop telling fibs, and to give the people of the northern beaches the services they need. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Page 8717

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

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

Mr Humpherson Mr Price

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.22 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes with concern the Government's failure to satisfy concerns expressed by residents of the northern beaches area of Sydney regarding the downgrading of health services offered through Manly District Hospital, Mona Vale Hospital and community health centres;

(2) condemns the Government's failure to act to establish an adequate consultation process with the communities of the northern beaches area of Sydney prior to the recent cuts in the level of health services offered in the electorates of Wakehurst, Manly and Pittwater; and

(3) condemns the Government for its failure to provide adequate funding to Manly District Hospital such that the hospital has been forced to close a 10-bed ward, south wing 4, on weekends leaving an inadequate number of beds available for patients and forcing a 96-year-old woman to remain on a hospital trolley for 24 hours in casualty on the weekend of 11 May 1996.

The Carr Government deserves to be condemned by the entire population of the northern beaches area for its failure to provide adequate and reasonable health services. Shortly after the Government came to power in March 1995, rumours started circulating that the Government intended to cut funding from and destroy northern beaches health services. Local community groups made a number of attempts to establish exactly what was going on. Many letters were written to the Minister for Health from members of the community, from community groups and from the parliamentary representatives of the northern beaches area: the honourable member for Pittwater, the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Davidson and me. Getting a straight answer from the Minister was extremely difficult. In fact, to this day he has not provided a straight answer about what is being done to northern beaches health services. The rumours about the downgrading of those services were denied completely. The mayor of Manly, the honourable member for Manly and I attended a meeting held at the Minister's office in late 1995. The Minister just patted us on the head. We got only platitudes, nothing of substance.

Dr Refshauge: You did not get any platitudes at all.

Page 8718

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister has said that we did not even get platitudes - and that is probably right! We did not get much at all that afternoon, and the people of the northern beaches now have even less. On 28 November 1995 the truth about the Government's secret strategy for the health services of the northern beaches started to leak out. The medical staff council for Manly District Hospital and Community Health Service met on 28 November 1995. The Minister claimed that health services funding for the northern beaches would not be cut. What emerged from that meeting? A memo. I shall read the assumption made by the good members of the medical staff council:

Since the last meeting of the Medical Staff Council there have been two meetings to discuss the future of the health services on the peninsula.

The first was in early October when Stuart Spring held discussions with the Executive Directors and Chairmen of both hospitals' MSC and Management Committees. The second was last night and involved a seven hour session with a total of 34 people, including 12 clinicians.

Given assumptions -

the Minister probably still does not know about this -

are that there will be $5-$10 million less money, (on a combined acute service budget of about $70 million now) and 50-65 less acute beds available to the peninsula in five years time. Cutting -

I shall repeat that word, in case the Minister missed it -

Cutting clinical services will only result in more severe budget cuts because a sort of case-mix funding will be introduced in 1997-98.

That was the first real warning to the people of the northern beaches that the Minister's claims were not true. Regrettably, it was obvious that the Minister had no handle on the issues facing the northern beaches or that he had conspired with the Northern Sydney Area Health Service to reduce funding to the northern beaches. In February 1996 another meeting took place in the electorate of the honourable member for Manly. I remind the Minister that there is a great bipartisanship on this issue: all members representing electorates in the area are concerned about hospitals on the northern beaches.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Gladesville should not interject. Mental health services in his electorate are already getting more funding, compliments of the Minister. He should keep quiet and disappear.

[Interruption]

The Minister knows that the Ryde Hospital intensive care unit is to receive an extra $100,000, but can he tell the House about one extra cent that has been allocated to the northern beaches? In February 1996 about 1,000 people attended a meeting at Manly. The feeling at that meeting was one of extreme concern. Promises were made at that meeting, and almost instantly they were broken. It was indicated that the 1,000 birth maternity unit at Manly District Hospital, which has a long and proud tradition of caring for the people of the northern beaches, would probably close. The Minister and his advisers denied that. Yet the debacle continued over the following months. Can you guess which day I am going to talk about now?

Dr Refshauge: Was the maternity ward closed?

Mr HAZZARD: You cannot guess. He has now asked whether the maternity ward has closed. It has not closed - no thanks to the Minister! It has remained open thanks to the coalition members and to the honourable member for Manly who put heat on the Minister. He knew that if he closed the ward he would be in deep trouble. The Minister has not only presided over the debacle at Manly District Hospital. He has presided over the debacles at St George Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital and other hospitals. You have forgotten the day to which I am referring, so I will tell you. It was 26 June, a date that is firmly ingrained in the minds of all people who live on the northern beaches. That is the day they heard about what you intended to do to destroy the Manly District Hospital maternity unit and other services provided through the Manly and Mona Vale hospitals. You went into denial mode, and you have continued to deny the funding cuts.

Mr Hunter: On a point of order. I ask you to direct the honourable member for Wakehurst to address his remarks through the Chair. He has continually referred to the Minister as "you" and he is speaking across the table.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! I am sure the honourable for Wakehurst has taken the point. I uphold the point of order. The member for Wakehurst has the call.

Mr HAZZARD: Another headline reads, "Closure a trick". These are no tricks. The Minister is seeking to close the services. An essential problem for the northern beaches is that the Minister removed the individual advocate for both hospitals and approved the appointment of a joint chief
Page 8719
executive for both Mona Vale and Manly hospitals. I do not reflect on the person who occupies that position, Lesley McAdam, who is doing the job the best she can, but if the Minister is serious about the redirection he took after the St Vincent's Hospital debacle, the first sign that he is listening to people on the northern beaches would be for him to direct the Northern Sydney Area Health Service to ensure the individual appointment of a chief executive officer to Manly District Hospital and one to Mona Vale Hospital.

Lesley McAdam came from Mona Vale Hospital, so it would be logical for her to preserve the right to remain there. However, Manly District Hospital deserves to have someone who is a protector, who can devote their whole time and focus towards preservation, and caring and proper management of that hospital. The hospital requires someone who can deal with the reviews, asset strategic plans and so on that go on behind the scenes. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to doing what is only fair, that is, ensuring that the Northern Sydney Area Health Service makes an individual appointment to each hospital. Only one other hospital in New South Wales has a joint chief executive - [Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [12.32 p.m.]: I oppose the motion moved by the honourable member for Wakehurst. He has obviously got it wrong again. There is no threat to Manly and Mona Vale hospitals. They are not being cut back; they are not slated for closure. The attack of the honourable member for Wakehurst on his Federal Minister for Health, Michael Wooldridge, is outrageous. Although I have had concerns about what Michael Wooldridge has been able to do, and the fact that he seeks to bring in evidence-based medicine and work towards casemix benchmarking in our health care system, being attacked by the honourable member for Wakehurst -

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order. I was not attacking the Federal Minister. I was attacking this Minister for the hospital turmoil, as evidenced by the headline of 26 June 1996.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Which standing order does the member claim has been breached?

Mr Hazzard: Standing Order 85 on relevance.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: The attack by the honourable member for Wakehurst on his Federal colleagues for bringing in some form of casemix benchmarking to the health care system demonstrates that he is abhorrently opposed to that prospect and illustrates yet again a major split in the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party in Canberra is unable to really get health on the agenda. It has cut back on health services and every public hospital in New South Wales and Australia. Over the past year or so those cuts have totalled more than $100 million. On top of that, the Federal Government has made no progress in arresting the decrease in membership of private health insurance funds, which is costing this State each year $240 million.

It is outrageous for the honourable member for Wakehurst to attack the only part of the Federal policy that could achieve a sensible, efficient health care system. This issue was raised by the honourable member for Wakehurst in defence of the hospitals in his electorate. He asked that these measures not be taken, that we not do what his Federal colleagues want to do, that we not introduce inefficiency into the system. He went further and suggested reducing nursing positions and putting in an administrator, someone who will not look after patients but who will take money out of patient care services. That is his proposal to improve northern beaches health services. I will not do that. I believe that patients need care - not a cut in services, but an enhancement of services.

The honourable member for Wakehurst also criticised his colleagues the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said that there would be a reduction in the number of beds. That is exactly what his colleagues did when they were health Ministers. So the honourable member for Wakehurst should attack his own colleagues, who reduced the number of beds at Manly District Hospital. There is no doubt that the honourable member for Wakehurst is on his own. He is not supported in his criticism of his Federal colleagues, in particular, the Federal Minister for Health, Michael Wooldridge, though I have certainly criticised the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their massive assault on hospitals and the closure of beds. However, the honourable member for Wakehurst joins with the Government in attacking his own side for what it did in its seven years of government.

Since coming to office the Government has increased, not reduced, funding for the Northern Sydney Area Health Service. If the honourable member for Wakehurst and his cronies decide that
Page 8720
what has happened in the Northern Sydney Area Health Service is not any good, the honourable member for Wakehurst can ask me to reduce funding to that service. I believe the funding improves services but if the honourable member for Wakehurst says it is not being used, that it is of no use - in fact he has said funding has been cut - he can put forward the argument that he does not need that money. Certainly throughout this great State there are area health services that can spend money wisely if the honourable member for Wakehurst is of the view that the increased funding for the northern beaches area provided by the Government is not required.

Significant improvements have been achieved in the provision of services to the northern beaches. Over the past 12 months the Government has opened a new customised building for a 10-bed drug and alcohol unit based at Manly District Hospital. The honourable member for Wakehurst says that is not an improvement. I believe the provision of services at Manly for people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol is an improvement. The Government has also expanded Manly District Hospital's mental health service by establishing a 10-bed aged care mental health facility, which was completed earlier this year. Again, the honourable member for Wakehurst has said that nothing has improved and that there have only been cuts. I think that facility is an improvement and certainly those with mental health problems, particularly the aged and carers, are pleased with that improvement in services. However, if the honourable member for Wakehurst does not believe it is an improvement, he can put an argument to me that the facility should be closed. I am committed to that improvement and I do not believe it should be closed. I am positive about that improvement; but if the honourable member believes it is no good, he can put that on the record.

The mental health crisis team has received extra funding to ensure that people on the northern beaches have access to 24-hour crisis care. That is an improvement. If the honourable member for Wakehurst does not regard that as an improvement or considers that it is not worthwhile, he can state in writing to me that he does not believe 24-hour crisis care should be available. Planning is already under way for the building of a new hydrotherapy pool at Manly District Hospital, which will be an improvement. If the honourable member for Wakehurst does not believe that, again he can put in writing that he does not want that to happen. A procurement feasibility study has been approved for a new 30-bed aged care unit. Only this week the intensive care unit service at Mona Vale Hospital received hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equipment.

Mr Brogden: But you are about to close that. Why did you put new equipment in there if you are about to close it?

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is to be no closing.

Mr Brogden: What about the downgrading?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is a lie that is being generated. Why would we put extra funding -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The member for Wakehurst and the member for Pittwater will cease interjecting.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government is putting extra money into better equipment for the intensive care units at both Mona Vale Hospital and, I understand, Ryde Hospital. That is an improvement, not a reduction. Health services in the northern beaches region are getting extra funding from a Labor Government. It is a Labor Government that is providing improvements. It is not the honourable member for Manly or the honourable member for Wakehurst who is making provision for those improvements; it is Labor that is providing improvements.

Mr Hazzard: Because of pressure.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The honourable member for Wakehurst made it very clear when he and his cronies came to visit me at my North Sydney office that they were received courteously - and they were. But, after all their bleatings, they got nothing and will not get anything. Their constituents will get something, because I will deliver, and am delivering, services to them. I will not play his political games. When the honourable member for Wakehurst stupidly says that increased funding is a cutback, then anything he says will be taken with a grain of salt. I am happy to look at any proposal that he thinks is worthwhile. But when he says that increased funding is a cut, then his credibility is zero.

I am prepared to make sure that the Government's allocation of funding throughout the areas is fair. But it was not this Government that created the unfairness. The honourable member for Wakehurst criticised the internal provision of dollars per capita for the Northern Sydney Area Health Service. But it was not Labor that set that in place: it was the Government of his own persuasion. In the seven years that the Opposition was in government
Page 8721
the honourable member for Wakehurst never came into this House and said that distribution was not fair. That clearly shows his hypocrisy. I am also pleased to say that the Government has announced funding for a new $11.6 million paediatric unit at Royal North Shore Hospital. To make sure that there is no misunderstanding, this is not all Government money. A significant amount has been raised by donations. Nevertheless, the Government is pleased to work with those fundraising organisations. The importance and need for that unit is not underestimated by all families who live on the north shore and will be very pleased to use it if they have a need to. The Opposition motion is ridiculous.

Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater) [12.42 p.m.]: I am delighted that my mother is not in the gallery today to hear that speech from her local member. She would have been devastated to hear the words of the Minister for Health. I am glad that she, as a resident of Sydenham, was not present to hear that pathetic response to the important demands of the people of the northern beaches of Sydney for better health services. The plan of the Carr Government, dictated from day one, is clear - one hospital on two campuses for the northern beaches of Sydney. The Government's attempt to fulfil its plan last year failed, and it now seeks to implement the plan by stealth. That plan, which the Government is now seeking to slowly slip in as staff leave and funding and resources change -

Mr Hazzard: Are reduced.

Mr BROGDEN: Funding and resources are being reduced, as the honourable member for Wakehurst said, at both Mona Vale and Manly hospitals. The Government's plan will lead, for instance, to there being one maternity unit and one intensive care unit between the two hospitals. The only similarity to the present situation will be that each hospital will have an emergency ward. This attempt to downgrade both hospitals and maintain one hospital on two campuses has been denied again and again. The plans came forth in the so-called strategic asset management plan last year, which was resoundingly rejected by the communities of the northern beaches, in particular by the staff, patients, former patients and community activists in Manly.

Dr Macdonald: Grassroots independents.

Mr BROGDEN: Yes. Supporting them was the community of Pittwater, which was extremely concerned about the attacks on the health services at Mona Vale Hospital. As the honourable member for Wakehurst mentioned - and I am sure the honourable member for Manly will elucidate on - the rally at Manly rugby oval last year was attended by thousands of people who expressed their concern about this Government's plan. At the same time a rally was held in the Mona Vale community hall, where hundreds of residents gathered to protest the changes. For the Minister's information, I will give a brief history of Mona Vale Hospital, which is within the Pittwater electorate. Mona Vale Hospital was built just over 30 years ago as a result of community demands for a hospital by the people of Pittwater. At that stage, 30 years ago, there was recognition that the people of the northern peninsula could not rely on the provision of health services at Manly District Hospital. However, 30 years later the Government is trying to force that situation upon the people of the northern beaches.

In particular, there has been a great deal of discussion today about the intensive care unit. The Minister seems to want to deny the assertions made in the document to which the honourable member for Wakehurst referred. Clearly his department has not passed on to him the report of this month from the Northern Sydney Area Health Service area-wide intensive care planning working party, in particular regarding short-term strategies. I am glad that the honourable member for Gladesville is in the Chamber, because this report affects his community as well. The preferred option stated in this paper is to downgrade the intensive care units in both Mona Vale and Ryde hospitals and for those hospitals to rely on a combination of services out of Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai, Royal North Shore and Manly hospitals. I note that today, in response to significant media speculation about concerns affecting this plan -

Dr Refshauge: On the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning.

Mr BROGDEN: The Manly Daily has an 80 per cent readership on the northern beaches -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will cease interjecting.

Mr BROGDEN: - and the Sydney Morning Herald comes a very sad second. Today's Manly Daily at page three highlights the concern of the community about the Minister's plans to downgrade the Mona Vale intensive care unit. I noted the Minister's comments this morning on radio 2UE, which clearly were made not long after waking up because his first utterances made no sense. The Minister finished the interview by saying that intensive care units will not close. The Opposition has never suggested they will close. We have
Page 8722
suggested they will be downgraded. The Minister can check Hansard and all the press statements and read the report that I have here. I am happy to make a copy available to him. Clearly he has not been given a copy by his department or the Northern Sydney Area Health Service. This document clearly shows the intention of the Minister and the Government to downgrade the intensive care units. The Minister says that they will not close. The Government should give the hospitals enough funds to make sure that they keep operating under the current system. Do not force the people of Pittwater to rely on Manly District Hospital for their intensive care needs. [Time expired.]

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [12.47 p.m.]: As the only Government member with a seat in the Northern Sydney Area Health Service region I have had to deal with these half-truths and misstatements many times. They are driven by self-interested groups and the political interests of honourable members who want to get a headline in the Manly Daily. Unfortunately, they have been accepted by the people in the community, who are now in a state where they are willing to believe the worst about many community issues. For various reasons, people are frightened about a range of State and Federal government initiatives.

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order. I ask you to bring the honourable member for Gladesville back to the leave of the motion. At the moment he is making a rambling diatribe and appears to know nothing about northern beaches health matters or the Northern Sydney Area Health Service.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst is now debating the matter. The comments of the honourable member for Gladesville were relevant. There is no point of order.

Mr WATKINS: I will continue my incisive introduction. The Opposition is to be condemned for shamelessly causing concern about health care in the northern beaches area. It should be condemned because it is causing concerns in homes in the electorates that its members represent. It is causing unnecessary concern to the aged, young mothers and families. But these concerns are important in the lives of people who worry about health care issues. When politicians shamelessly and inaccurately cause that level of concern one cannot but feel for the people targeted. The suggestion that Mona Vale Hospital is slated for closure is plainly wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no threat to Mona Vale Hospital and there is no suggestion that it will be shut. The suggestion is part of the Opposition's scaremongering campaign. The problem is that people can always get a headline with such a story.

The Opposition must learn to be more responsible in its behaviour. It has undermined public confidence in our hospital system, which is amongst the best in the world. But if they keep talking it down, when the coalition returns to this side of the Chamber, perhaps at the end of the next decade, it will reap the whirlwind of the lack of confidence in the hospital system. Only yesterday Opposition members were claiming that intensive care unit services at Mona Vale and Ryde hospitals were being closed. That is clearly wrong, a misstatement of fact. The retirement of intensive care specialists does not mean the closure of an ICU. People in our health service retire all the time, and they are replaced.

The ICU positions at the hospitals will be advertised and filled. In June of this year the ICU specialist at Mona Vale will resign, and there may be difficulties in finding a replacement. That is not due to any policy of this Government or any budgetary restraint; it is due to problems in the medical profession - problems largely the responsibility of the Federal Government. It is because of the relative shortage of specialists in this area. The Northern Sydney Area Health Service will maintain the ICU services at Mona Vale to ensure that people of the area have the services they need. But this situation is not being helped by the rumour mongering which is undermining confidence in the hospitals. The Northern Sydney Area Health Service is doing everything in its power to ensure that services are delivered to the people of the northern beaches. The Opposition says that we are closing the ICU, but only yesterday the area health service provided an extra $283,000 for new monitors for the ICU and emergency departments.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House. We have claimed with detailed documents that the ICU has been downgraded.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is debating the issue.

Mr WATKINS: We are working to improve health care services for everyone in New South Wales and Opposition members are working to undermine health care. [Time expired.]

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.52 p.m.]: I am disappointed that the honourable member for Gladesville has become an apologist for the
Page 8723
redistribution disasters of last year. I make no apology for the fact that I stand up for my electorate. I do not think that the actions of honourable members on the peninsula in the last 18 months should be cheapened by labelling them as merely taking a political position. The actions reflect significant concern not only in this area but also in other established areas where the Government attempted to take money out of the system.

I want to tackle the problem from a slightly different angle. I do not want simply to stand up and froth at the mouth. This debate is nine months old; it is a bit out of date, to put it mildly. However, it allows us to reflect on the process and where things went wrong. Last year the Minister for Health got his fingers badly burned. The attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul, to take money out of established areas where there were services that in a sense were only just adequate and put them into new growth areas, was flawed. This seems to be reflected in the current budget, which will increase health spending by 10 per cent - an enormous increase, which I certainly welcome. Only a small amount will come to the Northern Sydney Area Health Service, I acknowledge, but as long as the money is not being ripped from it at least we can hold our own.

From the debacle starting in November 1995 we learned that secrecy always brings problems. Decisions made behind closed doors are always regretted. We need an open and accountable process. The asset strategic plan, which was the basis on which there was to be reorganisation in the northern beaches area, was discussed in secret. The first we knew about it was when it came out in a newsletter of the Northern Sydney Area Health Service in November 1995. It heralded significant changes to the landscape of health care on the peninsula. Yet the local politicians and the community were locked out of the process.

Another lesson to come from it is in relation to the role of the area health boards. I have been publicly critical of the Northern Sydney Area Health Service. I have contemplated introducing legislation to amend the health board Act to bring more accountability to and to ensure proper representation on the boards. The Northern Sydney Area Health Service board had not one person standing up for Manly hospital. The board would argue that that is not its job; its job is to take a more holistic view of the distribution of funding, but I do not think that is proper. People on the board should take in the view of the community about the value of the services in the area.

It was because of a community-based group that we got off the starting blocks pretty quickly on this issue in January and February of 1996. The Manly Hospital Action Committee was established in 1992. It is a community-based committee which does not consist of party politicians who sit around dreaming up deals in back rooms. This grassroots organisation recognised that real problems were occurring. The committee held public meetings and took deputations to the Minister. Basically, it aroused the community and the media to the best possible effect. Similar action was taken in other areas. Eventually the Minister effectively had to back down.

Since then we have moved on. We have learned from the process. The Manly Hospital Action Committee has had a meeting with the new chief executive officer of the Northern Sydney Area Health Service. We said that we want no white-anting of services in the area. We want proper discussions including all particular groups; we want proper consultation. I conclude by putting on record what the community wants in the future. It wants a hospital at both ends of the peninsula providing an adequate district hospital service - a range of services consistent with what we have at the moment. We have described it as a critical mass.

Once the ICU, the accident and emergency section and the maternity section of a hospital are removed it drops below the critical mass. We want a hospital that has that range of services. We do not want an amalgamation. At the southern end of the peninsula the population is ageing. There is a very high visitation rate warranting an adequate hospital. Manly hospital is broadly supported by the community and by sponsorship. The Minister for Health well knows that some of its equipment and facilities have been provided as a result of sponsorship. [Time expired.]

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [12.58 p.m.]: The Carr Government is not about downgrading hospitals, closing hospitals or cutting funding for hospitals. That was the prerogative of the former coalition Government. This Government is about improving hospitals, opening hospitals and enhancing care. The Opposition is about scaremongering within the community. Manly and Mona Vale hospitals are no exceptions: the Government is about improving services at those hospitals. The Opposition is about causing fear.

As the honourable member for Manly said - he can read budget documents - this year funds for those hospitals have increased. There has been no downgrading of health services at Manly District Hospital or Mona Vale Hospital. Indeed, health services in the Northern Sydney Area Health Service
Page 8724
region have been strengthened in the budget. They have been enhanced by this Government to meet the special needs of the northern beaches community. New technologies, which are constantly changing, have a dramatic impact on the delivery of health care to the community. New methods of prevention and disease are being developed all the time. Sometimes the change is perceived as negative. Many people do not understand what new technologies can deliver, and they cannot be judged by traditional measurements. The Opposition is about causing fear in the community and preying on fears. As the honourable member for Manly said, this is one avenue where we are improving services to the people of the northern beaches. These concerns are born largely out of misunderstandings about the pace of technological change and developments in clinical practice. They have been fed by the Opposition. Over the past 12 months the management of Manly and Mona Vale hospitals has, in conjunction with the Northern Sydney Area Health Service, undertaken community consultation and discussion to alleviate these very concerns. These mechanisms and consultations are constantly reviewed with a view to strengthening community participation and easing these unfounded fears. No cuts have been made to the level of health services to the communities of Wakehurst, Manly and Pittwater.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [1.00 p.m.]: This report represents an important step in the development of the Standing Committee on Public Works. It is the first occasion on which the committee has reported on a single proposed infrastructure project at the conceptual stage. The result is that the committee has almost halved the cost of the Wyong station interchange project, finding up to $1 million in potential savings - an outstanding result. There could be no more apt moment for the report to be tabled and debated than during the budget session of Parliament. This week the Government delivered a budget with a State capital program valued at more than $5.5 billion. The Standing Committee on Public Works is the mechanism for reviewing any part of this program that is of concern to the Parliament. I urge members and Ministers to look very closely at this report and consider the committee's achievements.

The Minister for Transport provided the committee with this reference because he was concerned about the snowballing cost of the Wyong station interchange project. The Minister had doubts about the cost-effectiveness of the project management system put in place by the Department of Transport prior to his appointment. He withheld renewing the system while the committee conducted its inquiry. The recommendations of the committee's report speak for themselves. They prove that the instincts of the Minister for Transport about inefficiencies in the cost estimate for the project were correct. He is now in a position to take action on this specific project and to review the entire project management system used by the Department of Transport since 1992. I congratulate the Minister for Transport on referring this matter to the committee. I urge other Ministers to consider this course of action whenever they have doubts about the scale and cost of infrastructure proposals presented to them by their departments.

A committee is able to provide independent review and a platform for closer public consultation on important and sometimes controversial infrastructure proposals. I believe the report on the Wyong station interchange will be the launching pad for this committee to fulfil its role of investigating the cost and the necessity of certain public works projects. When the committee was reactivated by the Government in 1995 its goal was to attack the overengineering of public works. Aspects of this report deserve special mention. The committee recommended that the whole Wyong station interchange project should be put out to open public tender as a lump sum contract, and advertised in major metropolitan and local newspapers. The successful tenderer should take responsibility for the entire project, subject to departmental inspection. Competitive public tender is the only method for guaranteeing the lowest possible price for public infrastructure. It will also act as an independent review of the cost estimates produced for the Department of Transport.

The report shows that the system of project management used by the Department of Transport for the past five years is flawed. Exposing its projects to the scrutiny of the marketplace will ensure that the taxpayer gets full value for money. Another crucial aspect of the report is the way it achieves both cost savings and environmental gains. The committee practically halved the cost of the project by retaining existing facilities, which reduces costs and lowers landfill volumes, rather than allowing the reconstruction of the entire site. This will bring the project into line with the Government's strategy to reduce landfill volumes by
Page 8725
up to 60 per cent. It is an economically responsible and environmentally sustainable approach.

The major areas of saving identified by the committee in its $1.364 million costing included using existing drainage facilities, saving about $120,000; retaining existing car park and road surfaces, saving more than $350,000; reducing the amount of demolition and excavation, saving more than $80,000; and reducing project management fees as a result of these economies by almost $90,000. The committee also queried the high margin for error built into the project. A budget allocation of more than $300,000 was made for contingent liabilities, which is usually an allowance for unseen events, not a backup fund. In this case it represented 15 per cent of the entire cost of the project, which is evidence of very casual planning. The committee also made important recommendations about improving opportunities for companies in regional New South Wales. My colleague the honourable member for Lismore will speak more about that in his contribution.

Of the 10 committee members seven come from outside Sydney and are familiar with the problems of local companies and subcontractors in competing with big capital city players. Local subcontractors are the lifeblood of regional economies. They provide direct employment as well as boosting small business. They need more support. The Department of Transport admitted to the committee during the course of the inquiry that on a comparable project - the Woy Woy car park and interchange - only 13 of 41 tender invitations were sent to local subcontractors and that only one local subcontractor was successful in obtaining work. That is a shocking record. Local companies must be able to tender for public works projects on a level-playing field.

Clearly, people on the central coast have ample expertise to design and construct a project of the scope of the Wyong station interchange. By lowering the cost of the project and putting it out to public tender, they will be given that opportunity. The committee is also considering a special inquiry into improving opportunities for regional companies, which would involve a review of strategies implemented by government agencies, and their success. It would also involve consultation with regional business groups and subcontractors. I would particularly like to thank the committee's consultant on the inquiry, Mr Richard Olzomer, who produced a cost estimate for the project based on local knowledge, commonsense and a commitment to minimising costs. The committee was able to use Mr Olzomer's report and evidence as the basis for an incisive examination of the cost estimate produced for the Department of Transport.

The Wyong station interchange project is the ideal opportunity for the Department of Transport to test its current approach to the construction of facilities against that recommended by the committee. It is against this backdrop that it was very disappointing to learn that last night in the Legislative Council the Hon. M. J. Gallacher attacked me for holding up the Wyong station interchange project, which is a totally incorrect assertion. It is regrettable that Mr Gallacher, who has had the report for 10 days, has obviously chosen not to read it. The 1995 proposal to upgrade Wyong station interchange at a cost of $508,000 was universally condemned by the community, including the Wyong Shire Council and the local transport industry, as inadequate to meet the future needs of commuters in the Wyong district. As a result, the project was stopped and reviewed, and a new proposal was developed.

A cost estimate of $2.3 million was produced by the Department of Transport for the new proposal. That is a lot more than the 20 per cent increase incorrectly advanced by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher last night in the other place. It is an extra $1.8 million in dollar terms. I will gladly assist the member in understanding basic percentages, if he so desires. The Minister for Transport was so concerned about the size of this cost estimate that he referred the project to the Standing Committee on Public Works. He was also worried about the entire project management system used by the Department of Transport. The committee recently tabled its report. I again state that the Hon. M. J. Gallacher has had this report for 10 days. We have saved $1 million. The honourable member for Davidson, a member of the committee and a colleague of the Hon. M. J. Gallacher in the other place, said that there is scope for $200 million in savings from the approach adopted by this committee. Obviously, there is a major problem between the Hon. M. J. Gallacher and his colleague in this House. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher should consult with the honourable member for Davidson.

The Wyong station interchange project will result in something that is desired by many people in the transport industry, the council and the chamber of commerce - at a cost saving of $1 million. It is regrettable that the Hon. M. J. Gallacher has seen fit to play some petty game which could result in business in Wyong township being crucified. Under the original $2.3 million proposal all bitumen on the western side of Wyong railway station was to be torn up and left in that
Page 8726
state for nine months. People would have had to contend with mud and clay when going into Wyong central business district area. It would have caused remarkable damage to businesses in Wyong township. It is regrettable that the Hon. M. J. Gallacher does not think before he speaks. [Time expired.]

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [1.10 p.m.]: The report on Wyong station interchange is a classic committee inquiry which has ramifications far beyond the project under consideration. What began life as a specific inquiry into a single infrastructure project widened in scope to produce recommendations which may have an impact on the way in which public works are developed and processed throughout New South Wales. For the first time the Standing Committee on Public Works believed that it was necessary to step outside the specific inquiry at hand and produce general recommendations. These recommendations, which state important principles and which meet the general agreement of the committee, will act as touchstones in future inquiries.

Two areas were pinpointed by the committee: the lack of opportunities for regional companies and evidence of a philosophy of overengineering public works in New South Wales. I will deal with enhancing opportunities for regional business. Currently the committee has seven regional members representing the far north coast of New South Wales, Tamworth and the Hunter, central coast and Illawarra regions. There is a wealth of expertise on regional issues. Problems are being faced by local companies on a day-to-day basis. This inquiry focused the committee's attention on the problem of providing regional companies with an opportunity to compete with large city-based firms on a level playing field. The chairman has already noted that, on the Woy Woy interchange project, only 13 out of 41 invitations went to local subcontractors and only one local subcontractor was successful in obtaining work.

This dreadful outcome for regional business is not confined to the Department of Transport. We are all aware of occasions when big city players from Brisbane or Sydney have rolled into town to build public infrastructure. They have brought their own work forces, invested minimum amounts in local small businesses and kept all the profits in the city. Local companies are the lifeblood of regional economies, providing direct employment and patronising small business. There are numerous spin-offs for the community from local control of regional infrastructure projects. They include: stimulating regional economies, skilling local work forces and reducing the population drift to major urban centres. Indeed, there are ramifications for the entire population of New South Wales in improving regional competitiveness.

Right throughout the State there is a recognition that people in the bush are still doing it very tough. The rural recession has never fully receded. Many areas are now facing renewed drought. It is essential that the social fabric of regional communities is held together. The State Government can play a crucial role in protecting these communities. Regional communities must reap the full financial reward from government outlay on regional infrastructure. The committee believes that all government agencies should develop strategies to increase opportunities for local subcontractors to compete for projects. For far too long large firms based in capital cities have monopolised infrastructure provisions throughout New South Wales. The best way of achieving this goal is to provide a level playing field for local companies to bid for individual works. An open public tender for a lump sum contract on the Wyong station interchange project will provide local companies with such an opportunity.

Reducing the scope and cost of the project will also bring it into the bidding range of more local companies. There is a great deal of difference between bidding for a $2.3 million project and bidding for a $1.3 million project. The committee has provided constructive suggestions for increasing the opportunities for local companies to work on aspects of the Wyong station interchange project. The construction of site-specific bus shelters which will fit the heritage theme being promoted by the Wyong Chamber of Commerce is a feasible option which should be implemented if its cost is comparable to that of the standard 3M bus shelter design. This kind of innovative approach should become commonplace amongst government agencies.

We must show more sensitivity to the needs of local communities. In future the committee will consider a review of policies being pursued by government agencies, if any, to enhance opportunities for regional companies. This report has provided the impetus for that idea as well as identifying cost savings of up to $1 million on the Wyong station interchange project. It is the intention of the committee to identify cost savings right across this State. I commend the report to the House.

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [1.15 p.m.]: The report on Wyong station interchange epitomises the strengths of the committee process and the value
Page 8727
of the Standing Committee on Public Works to the taxpayers of New South Wales. The committee received this reference from the Minister for Transport because of his concerns about the apparently high cost estimate of this project presented to him by the Department of Transport. Providing this reference to the committee enabled a fresh, independent approach to this specific project and to the entire construction system used by the Department of Transport. The resulting report represents an important tool in the Minister's ongoing battle to improve inefficiencies in the New South Wales rail system.

The Wyong station interchange proposal was originally costed at $2.31 million by Civil and Civic, project managers for the Department of Transport. A review by MDA Australia reduced this cost to $1.8 million before further consultation with Civil and Civic reinstated the original cost estimate. Concerns about this process resulted in the Minister for Transport referring the project to the committee. The committee studied documents produced by the Department of Transport and engaged a consultant, Mr Richard Olzomer, to review the cost estimate. Mr Olzomer's report became the basis for the committee's wide-ranging and incisive inquiry.

The committee identified almost $1 million in savings on this project, principally by retaining existing facilities. It also identified additional works which apparently were not included in the departmental cost estimate. These included the repair and replacement of collapsing log retaining walls in the Wyong station car park. The committee considered this oversight to have been symptomatic of a sloppy approach to planning and costing the project. One example of the rubbery nature of the cost estimate was the costing of $183,000 for preliminary works, which was calculated using a percentage of total costs rather than an identification of necessary works. What was particularly disturbing was the likelihood that the Department of Transport would seek and receive a budget allocation of $2.31 million based on this inflated price tag.

The committee is well aware that, once a budget allocation has been approved, projects tend to be designed to spend every cent of their funding allocation. The much lower and more thorough cost estimate prepared by the committee raised serious doubts about the project management system used by the Department of Transport. Currently, the Department of Transport conducts a public tender every two years from which two large, private companies are selected as project managers, with two-year contracts. Their management fees are 13 per cent of total costs. The cost estimates which they subsequently produce for the Department of Transport are not regularly exposed to the rigours of the marketplace, where a true cost estimate would be guaranteed by competition. The absurdity of this system was demonstrated in evidence for this inquiry by the revelation that the other project manager, Gutteridge Haskins Davey, had been dropped, leaving only Civil and Civic.

In summary, an open public tender was used to select the project managers but their cost estimates were subsequently shielded from competition for a period of two years. This means that these organisations are effectively being granted a monopoly with a sunset clause. There is no incentive for project managers to deliver cost-effective solutions to infrastructure needs because their proportional fees rise with the scope and cost of projects. This system will always be prone to the suspicion that projects are being artificially inflated to increase management fees unless it is periodically exposed to the rigours of the marketplace. Competitive public tender is the only method for guaranteeing the lowest possible price for major pieces of public infrastructure.

The committee was unimpressed by the argument that using large companies as project managers minimised risk to the Department of Transport. The current closed system would certainly favour a company with what Mr Bryan called a "big balance sheet". However, smaller companies are quite capable of indemnifying themselves against risk for individual projects. It appeared to the committee that the Department of Transport was attempting to avoid risk and responsibility at a very high price to the taxpayer. This departmental strategy significantly reduced the opportunities for regional companies to successfully tender for projects. Shutting out local companies has a dramatic flow-on impact on regional economies and communities. In an area of entrenched rural recession, drought and Commonwealth Government cutbacks to services in the bush, it is essential that the New South Wales Government does everything in its power to ensure that regional economies get the full benefit of spending on infrastructure projects. [Time expired.]

Report noted.

Mr SHEDDEN (Bankstown) [1.20 p.m.]: This report has been published in accordance with the committee's function to report from time to time on
Page 8728
the staged repeal of regulations. The committee examined a number of initiatives which may lead to improvements in the quality of regulation, particularly by tailoring the legislation to suit the needs of the community and its practical application in industry. These are the initiatives contained in the green paper on regulatory innovation issued by the New South Wales Government and the Legislative Instruments Bill of the Commonwealth Government. The New South Wales Government's green paper identifies a range of ways in which the objectives of regulations can be met so as to give business a chance to develop innovative ways to satisfy requirements. These strategies include performance-based regulation, negotiated rule making, class exemptions for small business, regulatory flexibility and third-party certification.

The Regulation Review Committee supports the concept of increasing the effectiveness of regulations by promoting flexibility provided safety is not compromised. The committee believes that the current five-year sunset provisions for regulations under the Subordinate Legislation Act will provide a means of gradually reviewing all major regulations that might benefit from incorporation of performance-based standards. The committee sees no objection to the use of negotiated rule making in any case in which adequate representation of interests can be achieved within a reasonable compass and provided that the parties have sufficient funds to support the procedure. The United States experience shows that negotiated rule making is unlikely to be successful where the number of distinct interests represented on the committee goes beyond 25. Efforts have to be made to ascertain whether interests can be grouped to enable one person or organisation to represent a number of interests.

The Regulation Review Committee considers that the best approach for selecting class exemptions for small business would be on a case-by-case basis. Regulation-making powers in New South Wales Acts are generally so wide that they would appear to permit exemptions without the need for significant legislative changes. The committee considers that each regulatory flexibility agreement should be developed in association with adequate public consultation. In this connection an effort should be made to make the Government Gazette more user-friendly having regard to the practice adopted by the United States in relation to the Federal register. This issue was also examined by the committee in its twenty-third report.

In respect of third-party certification the committee considers that it may be necessary to have some scheme of accreditation for those bodies authorised to certify compliance. Under United States legislation accreditation of nationally recognised testing laboratories is issued for a five-year period. In the United Kingdom there is some scope for self-certification. Organisations are permitted to self-certify that they meet safety regulations. If it is found, for example, that particular equipment does not comply, the directors of the company will be personally liable.

I turn now to the Commonwealth Legislative Instruments Bill 1996. On 26 June 1996 the Federal Attorney-General introduced the bill into the House of Representatives. The bill sets out drafting standards and procedures for the making, publication and scrutiny of delegated legislation. The former Federal Government introduced a bill in 1994 with similar aims. The chief purpose of the bill is to implement the Government's response to the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council's report No. 35 on rule making by Commonwealth agencies. Even though the bill deals only with Commonwealth regulations, these can have great importance for the States as they are often adopted as the basis for uniform legislation which applies Australiawide. It is therefore important for State parliamentary committees to be aware of the required standards for assessment and scrutiny of Commonwealth regulations.

The New South Wales Regulation Review Committee and the Victorian Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee both made submissions on the 1994 bill. The main thrust of these submissions was that the bill was defective because of the absence of a staged repeal program for regulations. The reforms contained in the 1996 bill include the introduction of sunset provisions and a more structured consultation regime. In line with the 1994 bill, the present bill establishes a Federal register of legislative instruments on which instruments would have to be recorded in order to be enforceable. This is not as much of a problem in New South Wales where the whole text of each regulation is published in the New South Wales Government Gazette. However, as I have previously indicated, the committee's twenty-third report of November 1993 recommended that the user-friendly approach adopted in the Federal register of the United States be adopted in the Government Gazette of New South Wales.

The impact of regulations on the whole community will not be assessed under the bill as it concentrates its focus on assessment and consultation with respect to regulations that affect business. The committee wrote to the Federal Attorney-General indicating that a further difference
Page 8729
from the New South Wales position is that the legislative instrument proposal is only reviewed by the regulation review body of the Government and is not subject, as it is in New South Wales and other States, to independent parliamentary scrutiny. The committee recommended that the Minister consider including a provision requiring the legislative instrument proposal to be referred to the parliamentary committee within 14 days of the publication of the relevant statutory rule. Our committee considers it essential to review these instruments as, among other things, they assist it in determining whether the regulation trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties.

Finally, the committee said that the Minister should consider the introduction of equivalent review procedures for Acts and bills. Many Acts remain on the books for decades without being tested as to their relevance to the community or their current impact on business. Even when they are amended there is no wholesale review, but instead a tacking-on of provisions which may achieve a limited purpose but without general improvement. For these reasons and to complete the legislative picture it is essential to introduce sunset provisions for Acts coupled with legislative instrument proposals for new bills and for bills arising from the repealed Acts. Only in this way will the total regulatory framework be subject to national assessment. I commend the report.

Report noted.

[Mr Acting Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.30 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Fred Finch, the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Public Employment, and Minister for Racing and Gaming.

Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday I indicated to the House that I would give a considered ruling today on the general trend for notices of motions and notices of motions for urgent consideration to contain argumentative and emotive terms, unnecessary statements of fact, points for debate and verbosity. By way of background, Standing Order 146 empowers the Speaker to amend notices or to order certain notices not to be printed on the business paper. There are ample precedents over the years in the way various speakers have used their power under Standing Order 146. However, an examination of the current business paper reveals many examples of general business general notices of motions taking up to half a page containing argument not necessary for a parliamentary motion. My feelings and the interpretation of Standing Order 146 are best encapsulated in a statement given by Speaker Snedden to the House of Representatives of Australia on 4 May, 1977 as follows:

On 30 March . . . I drew the attention of the House to the need to have the recitals of notices examined in order to ensure they were necessary to make the motion meaningful and that they did not amount to a speech or argument in support of the motion. Since that time I have noticed that honourable members are continuing to give notices which are inordinately and unnecessarily long. Honourable members are tending to use this form of the House to narrate a long argument - in effect, a speech anticipating a debate - when they should be putting a concise proposition for determination by the House. I have a discretionary power under the Standing Orders and practices of the House to direct that a notice be not received in an inappropriate form or that its terms be corrected before it is placed on the notice paper. If honourable members continue to misuse that form of the House, I shall have to intervene to have the honourable member concerned reform his notice or alternatively to have the Clerks eliminate the argument and unnecessary statements of fact.

That ruling is contained in House of Representatives Practice, third edition, page 304. I therefore wish to inform the House that from today the Chair will rule out of order notices that do not put a concise proposition upon which the House may vote. I remind honourable members that they should avail themselves of the advice of the Clerk in drafting motions. Further, I intend to place this matter before the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee to consider at its next meeting.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.20 p.m.]: The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service has been the most far-reaching royal commission in the State's history. Its revelations have shocked the people of the State and its work has been groundbreaking in terms of reform of the New South Wales Police Service. The commission's hearings began in November 1994 and concluded in March of this year. In its 451 days of hearings, 640 witnesses appeared before it and the evidence given occupied more than 37,000 pages. The commission brought to light police misconduct, criminal conduct and maladministration. The commission's success is a tribute to the strength and
Page 8730
determination of the royal commissioner, Justice Wood, and his team. I thank Justice Wood; Assistant Commissioner, Judge Urquhart; senior counsel assisting, Gary Crooke, QC; and the team of lawyers, investigators and support staff that worked for the commission. They should be congratulated on their hard work under stressful, and no doubt at times dangerous, circumstances.

It should not be forgotten that it was the Labor Party, with John Hatton and the other non-aligned members of this House, that voted for the establishment of the royal commission in May 1994. Hansard will reveal what was said about John Hatton by those sitting opposite. John Hatton has been vindicated and we on the Labor Party side of the House have been vindicated. The final report of the royal commission, which I table today, does not name names or deal with the prosecution of individuals. The royal commission has been passing evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that prosecutions against some of those named in royal commission hearings can commence. The Government has provided the DPP with almost $1.5 million in extra funding to handle the expected influx of royal commission cases, and that extra funding will continue for the next few years. Matters and individuals needing further investigation will be examined by the Police Integrity Commission. Arrangements have been made to ensure continuation of investigations by the PIC now that the royal commission has concluded its investigation of the Police Service.

The final report is focused on the management and systemic changes that need to be made to ensure that the corruption revealed by the commission does not recur. The report endorses the Government's direction on police reform. Indeed, many of the commission's recommendations for changes are already being implemented. In his report Justice Wood recognises that. The Government will give full and detailed consideration to the report. Next week the Cabinet committee on police reform - which comprises the Attorney General, the Minister for Police and me - will meet to consider the report's recommendations and determine a detailed program for responding to them. But I repeat that much of the work has already been done.

The central recommendation of earlier reports was the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission, which has a budget of more than $10 million. The PIC has assumed the role of a permanent royal commission. The community can feel confident that it will rigorously exercise its wide powers to detect and investigate police corruption. As recommended in the royal commission's November interim report, the Government has abolished the Police Board and given the Commissioner of Police the power to fire police officers who have lost his confidence, either because of misconduct or incompetence. Drug and alcohol testing of police officers has been introduced, together with integrity testing. This morning I was interested when the royal commissioner told me that recent integrity testing of serving officers had proved most effective in detecting corruption. In other words, if a police officer finds money in a car or in a house where he is conducting an investigation and he decides to keep it, he takes the risk of being videotaped when he commits that act. The Government has been assured that integrity testing is in place now.

Measures have been put in place to protect internal police whistleblowers and to allow external recruitment. Perhaps most importantly, the Government has appointed a new Commissioner of Police. He has the Government's full support to reform the New South Wales Police Service. That is one of the most important changes flowing from the process that has been under way since May 1994. Commissioner Ryan has already embarked on a complete overhaul of the Police Service designed to reduce bureaucracy and put more police on the street. One of the lasting benefits of police reform is that a clean Police Service will provide more protection for the ordinary people of this State. It means more police on the beat.

Mr O'Farrell: Except in northern Sydney.

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member for Northcott, the strategic genius of the Liberal Party, interjects.

Mr O'Farrell: Address the facts.

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

Mr CARR: He interjects a second time. If he had been a member of this House back in 1994 and not running the Liberal Party's brilliant campaign in March 1995, he would have voted with all his colleagues against the establishment of the royal commission.

Mr Phillips: Wrong!

Mr CARR: The Opposition did.

Page 8731

[Interruption]

It was a mistake, was it? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says it was a mistake. I am glad he has finally conceded the mistake. It is about time; at last he has conceded it. A whole layer of police senior management has been removed with 11 regions replacing the disbanded region and district commands. Jobs not requiring police authority or professional police knowledge will now generally be done by civilians. Almost 130 officers have already been relieved of clerical and court security duties; they are back on the beat. An additional 33 are expected to be released by July, bringing the total to 162 police being removed from clerical duties and being put out on the streets where they can protect people.

For the first time since 1988 probationary constables will train in non-urban areas to expose them to a wider range of policing situations. Local commanders will be given greater autonomy and flexibility in how they deploy officers so that police are rostered where and when they are needed most. Every police station will have a senior officer who will be responsible for knowing where officers are at all times. These management reforms are unprecedented. They will not only provide the people of New South Wales with a Police Service they can trust but will significantly improve the performance of our police. The Government is committed to continuing with the reform process, guided by the royal commission's final report.

A new Police Service Act should be ready for introduction in the next session of Parliament. In addition, work has already commenced on improvements to the police disciplinary system and provision for appeal rights. In the light of the final report, work will now begin on legislation to be introduced, as promised, this session. The royal commission has also made recommendations about the employment conditions of police officers. These include increasing the minimum entry age from 18 to 21 years, allowing for more flexible use of staff and limiting the secondary employment of police in areas such as private investigating, nightclub security and gaming and racing. There is merit in having more mature police recruits, and that is already happening.

This morning the Commissioner of Police told me that the average age of police recruits is now 25 and that the service is attracting more recruits aged 30 to 40 years. The promotion system is also to be made much fairer, and will be based on the skills and competence of applicants rather than on seniority and rank. The royal commission has recommended that police recruits have some level of tertiary education before joining the service. The Government and the Commissioner of Police will deal with those matters in the overhaul of the Police Service Act. The royal commission has also asked for telephone intercept powers to be given to the Police Integrity Commission. That is a matter for the Federal Government. Last year the Government approached the Commonwealth Government on this matter and is still awaiting a response.

The royal commission has recommended that the Director of Public Prosecutions take over summary prosecutions from the Police Service. That has been recommended, of course, by a number of other reports in the past 15 years. The Government has done a great deal of work on that issue and last year arranged for the DPP to conduct summary prosecutions at Dubbo and Campbelltown for a six-month trial. The Government is currently evaluating the results of the trial and will consider the commission's recommendation in the light of the results of that evaluation. The final report makes a number of recommendations on the link between drugs, crime and corruption, reflecting the concerns of the Government and the community concerns about those issues. I will be seeking the establishment of a parliamentary committee to examine on a bipartisan basis recommendations that the royal commission has asked be considered - specifically, consideration of the establishment of safe, sanitary injecting rooms; strategies to increase public awareness of the problems of drug abuse; the establishment of public detoxification and rehabilitation units; greater availability of methadone; and street counselling and assistance for young users.

The proposed parliamentary committee would deal only with these matters. It is my assessment that another wide-ranging parliamentary committee into drug law reform in general would only traverse ground covered in previous parliamentary inquiries. I also make it very clear that the decriminalisation or legalisation of heroin is not on the Government's agenda. The royal commission has recommended support for the Australian Capital Territory heroin trial. After the recent Cabinet meeting at Tamworth I stated that New South Wales will do nothing that blocks that trial. I understand that the ministerial council on drug strategy is investigating the matter and will report in July. The commissioner has approached the Government seeking a two-month extension until 30 August to write his report to the commission's paedophile reference. The Government will recommend to the Governor next week that the extension be granted.

Page 8732

In relation to the commission's work on paedophiles, I report to the House that this morning Justice Wood said the Government's new Child Protection Enforcement Agency was "doing a magnificent job". The Police Integrity Commission will expand its operations to full capacity as soon as the royal commission ceases operations. The work of the Police Integrity Commission is the strongest possible guarantee that the corruption of the past will not be repeated in the future.

[Interruption]

Why the groans from those opposite, who opposed the establishment of a royal commission in the first place? What an extraordinary performance! Having opposed the establishment of the royal commission in May 1994, they now groan when I talk about the work of the Police Integrity Commission.

Mr E. T. Page: They were part of a criminal conspiracy.

Mr CARR: The Minister for Local Government is guilty of understatement. I trust that this Parliament will unite behind the royal commission's recommendations and support the Government in implementing them, as the Parliament has done in relation to the two interim reports of the commission. I seek leave to table the report.

Leave granted.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.33 p.m.]: The people of New South Wales owe Justice James Wood their unending gratitude for the release of this report today. He has worked tirelessly to uncover entrenched corruption within the New South Wales Police Service. His systematic approach to the task at hand has been the major ingredient in the commission's success. The report uncovers tampering with evidence, drug dealing, armed robbery, receiving of corrupt payments and the theft of evidence. These pages stand in stark contrast to the assertions of senior ranking police officers prior to the commission's hearings that there was no institutionalised corruption to uncover.

Over the past two years those assertions have been proved wrong. Many walked into the police royal commission with their reputations intact and walked out with them shattered. Time and again graphic video footage showed up the farce of some witnesses' evidence. Day after day Justice James Wood pulled back the veil on the underworld of police corruption. He has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the right man for the job. The coalition is proud to have appointed him to this important task. We thank him for his tireless efforts, the energy with which he has applied himself and the success of his mission.

At the outset the coalition wishes to acknowledge the honest and hardworking officers who make up the vast majority of the New South Wales Police Service. They are a credit to the service. Daily they confront the dangers inherent in fighting crime on our streets. Tragically, some of those officers - officers such as Constable David Carty, Senior Constable Peter Addison and Senior Constable Robert Spears - have paid for that service with their lives. As a community we must express our gratitude to the overwhelming majority of the 13,000 officers in the service who go about their duties with honesty, integrity and diligence. We must remember that the police royal commission, while it has been rightly hard on corrupt police, has been a difficult process for honest police. Over the past 2½ years they have had to conduct their duties with a heavy cloud hanging over the reputation of this Police Service. It has had an obvious effect on the morale of the Police Service.

Today must be regarded as the opportunity for the service to begin the rebuilding process. It is important that the release of the final report of the police royal commission is not regarded as an end in itself. There must be no relaxing in the fight against police corruption. The report must be seen as a signal for the Government to redouble its efforts to ensure the effective implementation of the reform phase. The Opposition believes the Police Integrity Commission is the centrepiece to that process. Corrupt police officers do not generally enter the service corrupt; they progressively become corrupt. They start off bending the law a little, either intentionally or because of pressure from colleagues, and end up bending it a lot.

Our primary objective must be to prevent that first exposure to corruption to ensure that police officers do not get caught in a web that will eventually consume them. That is where the Police Integrity Commission can be most effective: mounting pro-active operations as an ongoing deterrent to corrupt activity. To do that job properly the Police Integrity Commission must be properly resourced. Currently, it has 68 staff; in other words, it has fewer staff than the Office of the Ombudsman. The Opposition would expect that figure to increase as the Police Integrity Commission
Page 8733
activities expand. We believe the successful fight against police corruption depends on it.

There is a commitment by all members in this Parliament to ensure that the corruption uncovered by the police royal commission is never repeated. The New South Wales Opposition has given the police royal commission its support every step of the way since its establishment. We have strongly supported the commission's interim reports of February and November last year, in particular the recommendation for the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission, which we regard as pivotal to the long-term eradication of corruption in the New South Wales Police Service. Given the Opposition's record of support, it was disappointing that the Carr Government left it until the last minute to allow the Opposition to be briefed on this critical report, a view which I do not in any way attribute to the royal commission.

I would like to be in a position today to give a detailed response to the commission's report. However, the Opposition has only seen the report in the last hour and has not had sufficient time to prepare a detailed response. It is all very well for the Premier to use pious words to seek bipartisan support. Over the past 24 hours the coalition has asked time and again to be given an earlier insight into this report so that we could give a more detailed response and, I would have hoped, a more positive response to the royal commissioner's findings after all this time. Given the importance of this report, the Carr Government's actions even on this issue are typically inappropriate and opportunistic. There are issues on which politics should be put aside in the interests of the community.

Mr Knight: You didn't do that when the vote was on.

Mr COLLINS: The Minister for the Olympics cynically laughs and says, "No, there are not issues on which politics should be set aside in the interests of the community."

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

Mr COLLINS: I say on behalf of the Opposition that just once Government members should stop playing their cheap political games and should reach out and seek the support of every person in the New South Wales community regardless of political persuasion. This benchmark report on the New South Wales Police Service is an issue well above any partisan political interest. This report and the two interim reports before it are a credit to Justice James Wood. They are a credit to his application, his tenacity and his endurance. Someone else in the role of royal commissioner may not have been able to achieve the same success as Jim Wood. But he served us, the people of New South Wales, well. It is now up to us as a Parliament to return the service. In conclusion, this report does not of itself end corruption in the New South Wales Police Service but it is certainly a landmark, a true beacon, along the road to recovery.

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 Souris and Mr Tink.

Petitions praying that the removal of the Macedonian and Italian interpreters from the Ethnic Affairs Commission in the Illawarra be opposed; and that the Ethnic Affairs Commissioner be replaced with a commissioner who truly represents the Illawarra community, received from Mr Markham and Mr Sullivan.

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

Petition praying that the position of Inspector at Bega police station is maintained and that the Bega police patrol is not downgraded, received from Mr Smith.

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

Page 8734

Petition praying that a lift be installed at Turramurra railway station, received from Mr O'Farrell.

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That the following papers be printed:

Report of the Working Party on Expedition of Criminal Charges against Police and Other Justice Personnel

Report and Determinations of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal under sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act 1993, dated 30 April 1997

Report of Charles Sturt University for 1996

Report of the University of New South Wales for 1996

Report of the Technical Education Trust Funds (Technical and Further Education Commission) for 1996

Report of Macquarie University for 1996

Report of the University of Newcastle for 1996

Report of the University of Wollongong for 1996

Mr O'Doherty gave notice of the following motion for urgent consideration:

That this House:

(1) notes the existence of the Challenging Homophobia Working Group, chaired by Amber Noonan, district superintendent at Port Jackson;

(2) notes that the group has met four times and has well advanced plans to introduce a new anti-homophobia program in up to 16 schools, involving 20 teacher days beginning in term 3; and

(3) notes the Minister's assertion that he knew nothing about the plan and asks him to explain why he did not.

Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Premier. Does the Cardiff District Workers Club in Newcastle say that the increase in club poker machine tax could be the final straw and result in the club closing down, with the loss of up to 190 jobs? On the day that BHP workers are striking over the loss of their jobs, why is the Premier giving the steel city another kick in the teeth?

Mr CARR: How can you believe anything he says after his performance a moment ago when he said he had received - how much was it? - half an hour's notice of the briefing?

Mr Collins: One hour's notice.

Mr CARR: One hour's notice. I have here a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, signed by him, to the head of the Cabinet Office confirming that two members of his staff were available for the lockup to brief the press and anyone else on the contents of the royal commission report. His own staff will not tell him what is in the report. I am happy to table the letter, unless the Leader of the Opposition objects.

Leave granted.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. My point of order concerns relevance. The question by the Leader of the Opposition referred to a club in Newcastle and the Government's new tax on poker machines, not the royal commission. I ask that you bring the Premier back to answering the question he was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Premier has the call.

Mr CARR: The Leader of the Opposition is irrelevant. Based on last year's figures the club that the Leader of the Opposition asked me about will pay tax of $2 million for the year commencing 1 September. The tax rate will increase from 23.55 per cent to 28.38 per cent. The club's profit will drop by about $420,000 to just under $6 million.

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

Mr CARR: This is a revenue measure going straight into the pockets of families with kids at school.

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

Mr CARR: It is funding the enhancements to the State's hospital system.

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

Page 8735

Mr CARR: It is a tax measure that is helping to put 100 extra police on the beat this year.

Mr Souris: On a point of order. The Premier does not know the difference between gross profit and tax -

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

Mr CARR: The honourable member knows all about these things. With his accountancy qualifications he managed to lose $50 million of taxpayers' money on Luna Park. One has to have accountancy qualifications to be able to lose that much money on a fun park.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. I am interested in hearing the Premier's answer, but I cannot hear it while he addresses the television camera and the gallery. I would ask him to address his answer to you, so that I can hear him.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order has validity. The Premier will deliver his remarks so that the whole of the House can hear what he has to say.

Mr CARR: Profits in the club dropped $420,000, but profits for the club are just under $6 million.

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

Mr CARR: With that amount of revenue this Government funds the enhancement of hospitals, police and school services in the Hunter Valley, and it is very proud of those fine achievements.

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

Mrs BEAMER: Will the Minister for Roads, Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development indicate to the House whether the Cashback scheme is working effectively on the M4 and M5?

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

Mr SCULLY: I am pleased to advise the House that the first refunds for the M5 and M4 tolls under the Cashback scheme are being processed. The refunds cover the first three months of this year.

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

Mr SCULLY: At close of business yesterday a total of $2,744,800 had been refunded to 21,411 account holders, representing an average refund of $128 per account. I am pleased to inform the House that refunds have been sought by both daily and less frequent users of the motorways. The number of Cashback cards issued has grown steadily as the scheme has progressed, increasing from about 8,000 at the end of last year to more than 57,000. These cards translate to more than 37,000 Cashback accounts. A significant number of accounts involve multiple cards. For example, families who have two, three, or four cards may be linked to a single account. The Government is continuing to develop measures to combat attempted fraud in relation to the scheme.

After liaison between the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Privacy Committee cameras were installed at tollgates on both the M4 and M5. I would like to reassure drivers about the operation of the cameras on the M4 and M5. The Government is not interested in people's identity, who is driving the car, or who is using the Cashback card. The cameras installed on the M4 and M5 are not even filming the occupants of the vehicles; they are recording registration plates to determine whether vehicles are privately or commercially registered. The State Budget has aroused media speculation that the estimated total refund under the Cashback scheme has been revised. To avoid any misunderstanding, I give an assurance that the Cashback scheme will in no way be scaled down.

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

Mr SCULLY: Every single person who is entitled to receive a refund under the Cashback scheme will receive it. If that means more money has to be allocated, more money will be allocated.

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

Mr SCULLY: It is quite possible that some people who are entitled to claim for Cashback refunds have yet to join the scheme. I encourage them to do so. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. When the scheme was announced the Opposition said it would not work because one million people would join the scheme. It said that too many people would be in the scheme. The Opposition then said that the scheme would not work because not enough people would join it. I
Page 8736
hate to disappoint the Opposition, but I can assure the House that people are joining the scheme. They are bothering to be involved. They are getting the money to which they are entitled.

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

Mr SCULLY: The election of this Government and its initiative in introducing the Cashback scheme have resulted in families in western Sydney having $2.7 million in their pockets.

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

Mr SCULLY: Families in western Sydney and elsewhere receive financial security and money in their pockets because of action taken by this Government. Commuters on the M4 and M5 will continue to reap benefits from the Cashback scheme. I am disappointed with the Opposition's view of the scheme.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I ask the Minister for Police a question without notice. Following yesterday's Moree rally, which highlighted the inadequacy of many police units to cope with increasing crime, will the Minister act with urgency to bring all country police patrols up to authorised strength to restore law and order to country centres?

Mr WHELAN: Tomorrow I will attend the attestation parade at the Police Academy at Goulburn. I am pleased to advise the House that following the attestation parade, New South Wales will have 434 more police than it had when I first became Minister, in April 1995. The Government is consistently ensuring increased police numbers throughout New South Wales. If the honourable member had listened yesterday he would have heard that I specifically referred to smaller country areas with patrols of less than four and said that they will be the first recipients of new police weapons. After two years Moree is suddenly on the mind of the honourable member, and I would like to congratulate him on that. Yesterday 1,000 interested constituents from Moree enjoyed a sausage sizzle with the Commissioner of Police.

They discussed, inter alia, policing, police reforms and police strengths. I am sure they would have been impressed by what the commissioner said. The Government and the commissioner are very much aware of the needs of country New South Wales in relation to law and order. The Government has implemented a number of measures to tackle those problems. The Government will ensure that police services in country New South Wales are adequately resourced, as I have indicated, with a record number of police. For the first time this Government, not any other government in the history of this State, allowed demonstration patrols of police to take place in rural New South Wales. One of the decisions I made was to allow the Dubbo patrol to be a demonstration patrol: that is how conscious we are of the need for police.

Today we received the report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, which highlights the fact that this Government is already putting police back on to the streets. We have removed the whole of the senior management level and we are streamlining the administration of the Police Service. Let me refresh the memories of Opposition members. As a result of a decrease in the number of districts from 25 to 11 and the number of patrols from 165 to 79 or 82 - the figure is yet to be finally determined - literally hundreds of police who were previously deployed doing desk jobs, working behind counters and sitting in offices, will be back doing front-line policing in New South Wales. Towns like Moree, Broken Hill and Bourke and all rural New South Wales will benefit.

The Leader of the National Party will be aware that this Government is undertaking an extensive program of new and upgraded police stations in rural New South Wales - at Dubbo, Tamworth, Broken Hill, Pilliga, Boggabilla and Moree. Moree was the beneficiary of largesse from this Government by way of new and improved facilities. This Government has allocated $4 million to upgrade the police radio network and eliminate communications black spots in country areas. New communications operations centres will be established at Tamworth and Wagga Wagga. Police patrols at Moree, Walgett, Orange, Tamworth and Gilgandra have Aboriginal community liaison officers attached to them. Recently the Government fulfilled an election commitment to provide all Aboriginal community liaison officers with access to designated cars.

The Government has actively promoted crime prevention strategies which have been tailored to meet local problems. In this context the Council on Crime Prevention is oversighting the development of guidelines for local council crime prevention initiatives. In Bourke the Government's regional coordinator has implemented a whole-of-government package of measures in cooperation with the local council to assess the problems in that area. Juvenile crime is of significant concern in country areas. Recently the Government agreed to expand parental responsibility throughout country New South Wales.

Page 8737

Mr Souris: Where?

Mr WHELAN: Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the National Party asked me to identify this allocation in the police budget, but he was not in the Chamber when I said that it was in the budget of the Attorney General.

Mr Souris: Where?

Mr WHELAN: Budget Paper No. 2. Look at yesterday's Hansard.

Mr Souris: What page?

Mr WHELAN: It is Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-60. That shows how hopeless Opposition members are! No wonder the Deputy Leader of the National Party lost $50 million on Luna Park! He does not even read the budget papers.

[Interruption]

I will give the Deputy Leader of the National Party $1 if it is not in Budget Paper No. 2 at page 4-60. I just got $1! On page 4-60 of Budget Paper No. 2 the following appears:

Additional funding of $500,000 per annum has been provided to fund the Safer Communities Development program that is administered by this Division.

That is, within the Attorney General's Department. What a shame the Deputy Leader of the National Party did not come and ask me about Luna Park!

Mr Cochran: On a point of order. Unless this House has taken some action that I and other honourable members are not aware of, these premises are not licensed for gambling.

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

Mr WHELAN: I remind the honourable member for Monaro that that was not a gamble; it was a sure bet. The Government's program in relation to law and order, policing and police numbers is typified by what I said earlier. Tomorrow there will be 434 more police in New South Wales than there were when I first became a Minister. Moree has been and will in the future be the beneficiary of the reallocation of resources, just as it will be part of the wider package of improvements to the New South Wales Police Service. Moree, along with all those 79 or so regional area commands, will benefit from the redeployment of police. The honourable member for Ballina knows a little bit about this redeployment. He is the only Opposition member who has read the SCORPIO report. I commend him for it. He congratulated the Government on its implementation. I suggest to all Opposition members that, after they have read the royal commission report, they should have a look at the SCORPIO report.

Mr MARKHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. What measures has the Government taken to promote new investment and job security in the Illawarra?

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

Mr CARR: No Government has been more active in the drive for new investment and job security in the Illawarra. We have moved to take care of a very great asset. As everyone says, we have the best parliamentary delegation from the Illawarra in the history of the New South Wales Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much discussion between frontbenchers and backbenchers. The Premier has the call.

Mr CARR: The centrepiece of our record in delivering job security in the region has been Port Kembla copper, approved by the Government in November last year. The project, which will deliver 940 direct and indirect jobs to the Illawarra, represents an investment worth $250 million. The new jobs include 360 direct jobs and 180 indirect jobs during the construction phase. The plant, once operational, will create 270 direct jobs and 130 indirect jobs. It is expected to boost wages in the region by $55 million during the construction phase and, carrying national significance as it does, it will increase Australian manufacturing industry exports by $190 million a year.

The Illawarra will also gain the major slice of benefits from the underground gas pipeline to bring gas from Bass Strait to New South Wales. The project will create nearly 6,000 new jobs, provide $250 million in direct investment and boost the State economy by nearly $2 billion. The jobs component includes 2,750 jobs during construction and 220 jobs once operational. It will also generate a further 3,000 jobs as the new energy source becomes available to homes and industry. The gas pipeline has the potential for bringing other new investments to the Illawarra. For example, the Government is examining the feasibility of a $300 million proposal for Australia's first eco-energy park at Tallawarra.
Page 8738
The concept is built around using part of the site for a new gas-fired power plant and a business park that is energy self-sufficient. Estimates show that the eco-energy park will provide 1,100 direct jobs as well as another 900 indirect jobs in the region.

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

Mr CARR: Opposition members are not interested in the Illawarra. They are not interested in industrial Australia. They are not interested in BHP at Newcastle. They have no interest. They are like John Moore, the Federal Minister, at the casino - they are not concerned about real jobs for people. Alone, these three major projects represent an investment worth $800 million and about 8,900 jobs. But this Government is pursuing other opportunities to diversify the region's economic base and, more importantly, its employment base. The Government has established the Illawarra Telecommunications Advisory Service, which will work with the University of Wollongong and Wollongong City Council to lure new telecommunications-based industry to the region.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the National Party to order for the third time.

Mr CARR: The Deputy Leader of the National Party is getting used to the roller-coaster ride of opposition. Potential investors can use the service to link into the research and development cluster at the university and other technical advice. The establishment of the system follows the Government's decision to fund a study for a network design and evaluation centre at the Wollongong Institute of Telecommunications Research. The Government's measures will help to anchor major new telecommunications industry in the region. Telecommunications call centres are expected to generate employment growth rates of over 25 per cent a year. Another initiative of the Government is the development of the University of Wollongong's science centre. The centre is a major tourism facility that has attracted over 150,000 patrons since it opened in 1989. It also serves as a valuable educational and research facility, with over 100 hands-on science and technology exhibits and a planetarium theatre. But the project has essentially become a victim of its own success with existing buildings unable to cope with current demand. For this reason the Government allocated $2 million in the 1997-98 budget to help construct a new centre.

The Government has also delivered on major election commitments to the region. It has allocated $47 million for the clinical services building at Wollongong Hospital. This Government is a tax-and-spend government: it taxes and it spends on health and provides security for families, especially in regional New South Wales. The Government is proud that the project is scheduled for completion by October this year and the services will be commissioned by the start of next year. Last week's budget allocated $1.4 million to Kiama District Hospital for community health services to coincide with the reopening of inpatient facilities - a measure that was welcomed by that great fighter for the Illawarra, the honourable member for Kiama.

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

Mr CARR: The Government has also allocated $17 million for major redevelopment works at the Wollongong showground. The development application has been approved by Wollongong Council and works should start on site later this month. So a lot is happening in the Illawarra - all due to the work of diligent members who can wear with pride the badge of Illawarra representation and carry unfurled the great flag of the Illawarra.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ermington to order for the second time. I call the honourable member for North Shore to order for the second time. The Chair has expressed its displeasure about the use of posters in the past. I direct that the poster be immediately put into the rubbish bin.

Mr CARR: The Opposition has displayed no interest in the region whatsoever and no interest in the manufacturing heartland of Australia. None of the projects that the Government is able to boast about would have happened.

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

Mr CARR: It is no wonder that the Illawarra Mercury says, "The Mercury believes that Mr Carr has been more supportive of the Illawarra region than any premier in the past two decades."

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

Mr PHILLIPS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading. Did the
Page 8739
Minister tell this House in September last year that it was her department's job to "monitor, investigate and act in matters relating to the publishing of false or misleading advertising, which is against New South Wales law"? What action will the Minister take against the Minister for Tourism after his admission yesterday that he released a tourism brochure knowing it contained false and misleading information about Sydney hotel prices?

Mrs LO PO': None.

Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Will the Sydney Harbour Casino be taxed about $8 million this year for the Community Benefit Fund? Given that the Budget Papers show that only $3 million will be directed to the fund this year, where will the other $5 million disappear to?

Mr FACE: The Deputy Leader of the National Party wants me to give the funds to Luna Park, but I will not do that. The question asked by the Deputy Leader of the National Party raises the important issue of the nature and extent of services for persons in New South Wales with gambling problems.

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

Mr FACE: It has long been Labor policy that generous and adequate funds be allocated towards problem gambling issues and services in New South Wales - something that the coalition was never prepared to do when it was in government. Labor's commitment was made abundantly clear in the policy paper that I wrote entitled "A Social Conscience Stand on Gaming", which the Government released prior to the March 1995 election. It is a commitment that the Government has given effect to ever since that landmark day. There should be no doubt that the Carr Government is committed to minimising the harmful consequences associated with problem gambling behaviour.

The Government recognises that though the majority of the population who participate in gambling do so harmlessly and for social enjoyment, gambling creates significant problems for others. The Government's commitment is being implemented through the incorporation in legislation of harm minimisation principles that permits gambling and through various regulatory measures that reinforce such principles. The Government's commitment is also being implemented through the establishment and operation of the Community Benefit Fund under the Casino Control Act.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the National Party to order for the third time.

Mr FACE: Funding has been and continues to be directed towards projects that research the social and economic impact of gambling on individuals, families and the general community; promote industry and community awareness of problem gambling; offer counselling services for problem gamblers and their families; offer treatment and rehabilitation services for problem gamblers and their families; and otherwise benefit the community generally.

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

Mr FACE: Financial assistance from the fund - usually in the form of grants - is approved by me as Minister for Gaming and Racing upon a recommendation of the 11 trustees who have been appointed to administer the fund. This contrasts with the slush fund policies of the Hon. Anne Cohen when she was Minister. The trustees are persons who have provided distinguished service to charitable, church or ethnic organisations over many years and who, quite rightly, are seen as leaders in our community.

Mr O'Farrell: On a point of order. The Minister was asked about the missing $5 million. I take a point of order in relation to relevance. The Minister should answer the question.

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

Mr FACE: The persons I speak about are drawn from the Wesley Mission, the Salvation Army, the Society of St Vincent de Paul, the board of social responsibility for the Uniting Church in Australia and the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales Inc. - the people that the Leader of the Opposition besmirched.

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

Mr FACE: Five trustees who represent various government agencies have relevant expertise
Page 8740
in the provision of services for persons with gambling problems. The fund represents the largest provision of funding in Australia's history to counter gambling problems. The Government believes that research and education into the social problems caused by gambling stand at the forefront of the activities that should be addressed by the resources available from the fund. To date in excess of $3 million has been granted or committed to projects involving problem gambling and other worthwhile community services.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for North Shore that she is already on three calls to order.

Mr FACE: This leaves a cash balance of just over $5.5 million. This slow rate of allocating funds is in the main attributable to the timing of round two of the grants and the time taken to negotiate funding agreements. I assure honourable members that as soon as recommendations for grants are made by the trustees they will be approved by me. Funded projects have produced new or expanded education programs and intervention and rehabilitation services for problem gamblers, including targeted ethnic communities, gambling-related research topics and other projects of a broader nature, such as community arts, community youth services and before and after school care facilities. Generally, grants are provided in response to applications that are invited from time to time through advertisements published in major city, country and ethnic newspapers. Honourable members will know from my recent correspondence to them that advertisements for the latest round of funding were published in newspapers during the week commencing 27 April and that applications must be lodged by 30 May. Application forms and how to apply guidelines are freely available from the Department of Gaming and Racing, which supports and services the trustees. Applications will be assessed according to the objectives and strategies set out in a strategic plan produced by the trustees for the first time and released last week.

Mr Speaker, I recently provided you and every honourable member in the Parliament with a copy of the published strategic plan. The plan aims to ensure that moneys paid into the funds are allocated in a way that enables problem gambling needs and services to be addressed in a strategic manner rather than with a short-term or bandaid program that may prove to be costly and ineffective. I have no doubt that when the trustees commence their assessment of applications received in response to this public invitation, they will regard the strategic plan as a most useful guide to the allocation of moneys from the fund which, as I have said, stood at $5.5 million at 30 April. The trustees should be applauded for taking a strategic view of their task.

Last year I approved a recommendation from the Casino Community Benefit Fund trustees to grant $100,900 to the University of Sydney to evaluate the main treatment methods for problem gambling. The study will be carried out under the supervision of Dr Michael Walker, who works in the university's department of psychology. The study will be carried out over a three-year period. It is an important study, the main component of which is to find the best way to treat the problem. Mr Paul Symond, President of the New South Wales Council on Problem Gambling - he is always running to the Opposition - was reported on Sydney radio, following a newspaper article, saying that the $100,000 is not enough. It has been established that Mr Symond had not seen the article before agreeing to speak to a radio station in relation to a press story that he knew nothing about. Worse, Mr Symond was not even in Australia - he was in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr FACE: I am informed that Mr Symond was telephoned by the radio station at about 3 a.m. Without seeing the article or having any way of checking its contents, Mr Symond was prepared to make a critical comment about the allocation of funds for problem gambling projects. Mr Symond does himself no credit when he runs to the Opposition and seeks to criticise the efforts of worthy persons in our community - people of the ilk of Harry Herbert, Gordon Moyes, Chris Pack and Angela Chan.

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

Mr FACE: Mr Symond has criticised these people for allocating insufficient moneys to problem gambling projects.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the length of the Minister's answer. His preamble is interesting, but we are looking for an answer. Mr Speaker, the Minister's answer is more lengthy than you would normally permit.

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

Mr FACE: Mr Symond is as well placed as anyone in New South Wales to submit a sensible, qualifying proposal for funding from the Casino
Page 8741
Community Benefit Fund. It is up to Mr Symond to submit such a proposal, and now is the time for him to do so. Mr Symond has continued to criticise the Casino Community Benefit Fund because he would like the money to be spent on his gambling addiction programs. He was not appointed by the previous Government, of which he was critical. He wanted me to appoint him, but I believe that he has a conflict of interest. For the information of honourable members, Mr Symond applies for funds from all these programs, and they all allude to St Edmund's Private Hospital - a hospital in which he has an interest that provides gambling addiction programs. He wants programs to suit his interests and not the interests of New South Wales. It is about time he stopped running to the Opposition.

Mr CRITTENDEN: My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What progress has the Patient Support Office made in assisting patients in the health care system?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The budget is about patient support, as has been recognised by the Penrith Press. In its first edition after the budget was handed done, it carried the front-page headline "Baby budget". The budget looks after the babies of Penrith. The article stated:

Future babies born at Nepean are the local winners in this week's budget.

The budget provides a secure future for the patients and babies of Nepean Hospital. The Penrith Press even reported the honourable member for Hawkesbury saying that there was good news in the budget. The budget contains lots of good news for people who live in the greater west. The Government is spending an extra $805 million to secure better hospitals and new services.

Mr Armstrong: Show us, Andrew. I don't believe you.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Obviously the Leader of the National Party does not want the West Wyalong hospital to go ahead - I will take that on notice. The Patient Support Office is a new service. It is one of this Government's significant initiatives. The office helps patients who have concerns and helps them to feel secure in the health care system. Last November, seven patient support officers went to work at six locations in Sydney and at one location in the Hunter. They have been helping patients who have queries or concerns about a range of health services and workers in the health care system, including public and private hospitals, doctors, nurses, medical centres, dentists, counsellors and physiotherapists.

When people are confronted by illness, they often feel upset and anxious. Hospitals and high-tech medical treatment can be difficult to understand. It would be easy for a patient to feel out of his depth and at a loss when facing illness. The health care system is complex. It is a stressful emotional time for patients, and problems and extra worry are the last thing they need. That is why the project is proving so important. The patient support officers help patients in a range of ways. For example, they can discuss any issue of concern, provide information about patient rights and suggest ways that complaints can be resolved. Many problems can be resolved locally and quickly. If problems are not resolved quickly they can develop into greater problems. Problems which are solved early in the piece produce a better treatment response and therapeutic outlook. Prompt action is preventing problems from having to go before the Health Care Complaints Commission.

The service is free and confidential, and it involves a simple phone call. The officers are employed by the Health Care Complaints Commission so patients can be sure that they are independent of any health service provider, any hospital, any area health service or the Department of Health. Since last November, the seven officers have received favourable comments not only from the people they have helped - that is, the patients - but also from health workers. I shall highlight a number of examples that show the importance of solving a problem promptly. A woman who had a bad reaction to an anaesthetic 20 years ago needed to have another operation. She wanted to know from the original hospital what anaesthetic was used previously so she could tell her doctor. The hospital told the woman that the information was not available. However, the patient support officer stepped in and clarified with the hospital the importance of the information. The hospital then found the woman's details in its archives and provided the woman with the information she needed.

In another example an elderly man who is blind and cannot walk waited for months for modifications to his home so he could use a wheelchair. The patient support officer found that the delay had been caused by misunderstandings between the man and the organisation arranging the modifications. A quick solution was found and the
Page 8742
work was done on the man's home. The blind man can now use a wheelchair to gain access to his home. In another instance, a woman rang the patient support office upset that a doctor had abused her about the loss of some X-rays. The patient support officer contacted the doctor and explained the woman's concerns. The doctor was horrified about the perception of his attitude and asked the officer to convey his apology to the woman for the misunderstanding. He thanked the officer for bringing the matter to his attention. The woman was pleased with the outcome of the intervention of the patient support officer. his project is an example of the Government's commitment to patients. The Government wishes to ensure that patients are aware of their rights and feel secure knowing that there are people who can help them find their way through the health care system.

Mr PHOTIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Did the list of programs that the Premier said yesterday should receive Federal funding include the Sunnyholt Road light rail project? Why is the Government asking Canberra for money when after two years it has still not honoured its pre-election promise of a $2 million feasibility study for this exact project?

Mr LANGTON: Is that the best that the honourable member can do? The honourable member is quite right in saying that the Government's 1995 election campaign included a specific commitment to conduct a feasibility study into the construction of light rail along the Sunnyholt Road corridor. Clearly that is what the Government is doing. The Government is honouring that commitment and investigating a number of public transport options for western Sydney, including the Sunnyholt Road corridor. I also advise the honourable member that a western Sydney public transport strategy is being prepared to guide future transport planning and projects in western Sydney. A large number of public transport improvements are either completed or under way in western Sydney, such as the new Cumberland line linking the west with the south-west; the amplification of the Richmond line, which is expected to commence next year; and a large number of railway station upgrades and commuter car parks.

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

Mr LANGTON: The Government has commenced the feasibility study of Sunnyholt Road and is reviewing public transport strategies for the north-west Sydney growth area. Sunnyholt Road features prominently as a key public transport link in that area. I also advise the House that I have asked the Public Transport Advisory Council to provide the Government with advice on light rail planning matters generally, including locations where light rail services would be appropriate, and the Sunnyholt Road corridor will be a specific consideration in that.

Mr Photios: Will be?

Mr LANGTON: In addition to the feasibility study we are undertaking. You are thick. Why don't you go and haunt a house.

Mr Photios: I am haunting you.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Ermington has asked a question and should listen to the answer in silence.

Mr LANGTON: Of course, the Sunnyholt Road corridor will be one of those considered to establish its patronage and its technical and economic feasibility. Clearly the Government has honoured its commitment to conduct a feasibility study into a light rail link on the Sunnyholt Road corridor. In these short two years the Government has achieved a great deal more in public transport, particularly in western Sydney, than the coalition did in seven years.

Mr PHOTIOS: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. Who are the consultants undertaking the alleged feasibility study? When will they complete it?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable has asked two questions and I will allow him to rephrase a question.

Mr PHOTIOS: Who are the consultants undertaking the feasibility study into Sunnyholt Road?

Mr LANGTON: It may seem strange to some members of this House that I do not know the name of every consultant undertaking studies on behalf of
Page 8743
the Department of Transport. At any one time there are literally hundreds of consultancies across the department. I will advise the House.

Ms HALL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. What opportunities are available for women to increase their involvement in sports administration in New South Wales?

Ms HARRISON: The honourable member asks a question which is of grave concern to women involved in sport in New South Wales. The Government recognises that women are vastly underrepresented in sports administration and decision-making positions within sport. After consultations with various State sporting organisations, four different levels of scholarships have been devised to address this issue and provide greater opportunities for women to fill senior positions within their chosen sports.

Level one scholarships will involve women being offered the chance to undertake an executive management and leadership training program. This program will involve professional training, practical experience and support through a mentoring scheme, with each of 15 scholarships valued at around $3,500. Level two scholarships will comprise three travel scholarships, which will be offered to provide women in sports administration with an opportunity to gain practical international experience. It will also enhance their skills and knowledge of organisational processes required for high-level sports administration projects. These scholarships will be worth $5,000 each.

Level three scholarships will comprise two research scholarships to support research to be undertaken in the area of gender equity and sports administration. The research will be designed to provide detailed information for the sport and recreation industry on key issues affecting women in sports administration. These scholarships will be valued at $10,000 each. Finally, there will be a level four scholarship, which will comprise an international travel fellowship to enable international best practice strategies to be implemented in New South Wales to address existing inequities in sports administration. This scholarship will be valued at $15,000. Already, almost 1,000 requests have been received for packages outlining the details of these scholarships, so clearly there is a strong acceptance of the program. I expect to be able to make announcements about the individual scholarship winners by the end of June.

Mr LANGTON: Further to my answer in relation to work on the feasibility study of the Sunnyholt Road corridor, I can advise the House that the work is being done by the Department of Transport.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [3.40 p.m.]: Today there has been a furious debate raging through -

Mr BECKROGE (Broken Hill) [3.40 p.m.]: I move:

That the question be now put.

The House divided.

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


Page 8744
Mr Armstrong Mr O'Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr Windsor
Dr Macdonald
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr Oakeshott Mr Jeffery
Mr O'Doherty Mr Kerr

Mr Price Mr Humpherson

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Humpherson Mr Price

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this House dissents from the ruling of Mr Speaker given on Tuesday, 6 May 1997, in which he first ruled a question without notice to the Minister for Gaming and Racing was in order and then ruled the Premier was at liberty to answer that question.

The Hansard records that on 6 May 1997 a question was asked by the honourable member for Maitland of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. That question was objected to by the Leader of the House and, Mr Speaker, you gave a ruling in which you said:

Order! The question is in order -

you then added to the ruling -

and the Premier is at liberty to answer the question if he so wishes.

Page 8745

I and the Leader of the Opposition then objected to your ruling. You were asked at that time upon what standing order you had made the ruling. No reply was given to that question. You were asked again what standing order you based that ruling upon and again no reply was given to the question. The duties of the Speaker in respect of this matter are summarised by the fact sheets issued by this Parliament, which state:

The Speaker's role in the House is to maintain order, put questions after debate and conduct divisions. In maintaining order the Speaker interprets and applies the Standing Orders and practice of the House by making rulings and decisions.

A search of the standing orders reveals no standing order which authorised you to make the ruling that you did, that the Premier was at liberty to answer a question which was not asked of him. Objection was taken at the time and the House divided on the matter. It was a vigorously contested ruling. Yet nothing in the standing orders justified your making of that ruling, and you gave no advice to the House about which standing order you sought to rely on.

The Speaker of the House is not the dictator of the House. He is not the creator of the standing orders of the House. He is simply the interpreter of the standing orders of the House. No justification or reason was given at the time and no statement on the matter has been made since. The Speaker can make statements after the fact and often does, and there have been two weeks to do so. As there was nothing in the standing orders to cover the situation we looked further to see whether there was something in the tradition and practices of the House which would justify the making of that ruling. A search of the 140-odd years of existence of this House showed no precedent and no ruling by a prior Speaker which justifies the ruling of 6 May, arbitrarily given without justification. None has been brought to my attention or notice.

We looked further for the basis of the ruling if it is not to be found in the standing orders or the tradition or practices of the House. Do the standing orders and the rulings of the Chair simply become a matter of Speaker diktat, with the Speaker deciding at the time that this will be the new ruling regardless of the standing orders? The Government has the power to amend the standing orders. It has the numbers. It chooses not to do so in this case because to give itself that power would show that the Premier is seeking to arrogate to himself a power outside the normal tradition of the House which he would seek to exercise to protect incompetent Ministers, dishonest Ministers.

Questions are asked of Ministers to make them accountable. If the Premier is able to snatch the questions from them their accountability to the House is denied. The House cannot call them to account if the Premier has the right to determine whether they will answer the question - even though the question has been put to them by the House. So the ruling of 6 May denies the accountability of Ministers and tramples on the privileges of the House.

I am advised that the only precedent for the ruling that can be found is a precedent from the House of Representatives. In 1970 a question was directed to and answered by the Minister for the Army and the Minister for Defence added to the answer. That precedent relates to a question being answered by another Minister from essentially the same portfolio: in those days there were a number of junior Ministers within the defence portfolio coming under the Minister for Defence. This is the weakest possible precedent. The Minister for Defence added to the answer already given by the Minister for the Army. He did not say, "I will answer the question directed to the Minister for the Army," he added to the answer. It was a question within his own portfolio area.

The Premier does not have portfolio responsibility for the Hunter, to which the question related. The Premier is simply the head of the Government from whom Ministers derive their commission. He does not have portfolio responsibility for the individual areas of responsibility of Ministers, nor is he the "Minister" in the Acts which they administer. The law makes it quite clear that individual Acts are administered by individual Ministers, and the Premier does not have a power in that respect. He has no power to issue a proclamation or an order under the Education Reform Act. He has no power under the environmental protection legislation; that must be exercised by the Minister who is notified as the Minister responsible in the Government Gazette. Yet the Premier claims to have the power to answer questions directed to other Ministers. That arrogation of power by the Premier was upheld by the ruling from the Chair.

The only precedents we have are from Canberra. A further precedent was established in 1987 when the Federal Treasurer responded to a question on prices not directed to him but to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. Let us look at the practice of the House of Commons. It is as set out in the accepted bible in these matters by Erskine May. There is nothing in that book stating that the Speaker can authorise the Prime Minister to answer
Page 8746
questions not directed to the Prime Minister. Erskine May stated that doubtful cases may arise upon which the rules of the House are indistinct or obsolete or do not apply directly to the point at issue. The Speaker will then usually give a ruling to cover the new circumstances.

There was no standing order that was indistinct in this case. There was no practice that was indistinct. There was no practice or standing order that was obsolete. Nor was there anything which did not cover the rule in issue. Erskine May went on to state that the duties of the Speaker are to rule on points of order submitted to him by members on questions. Points of orders were taken and a ruling was given but no justification was given for the ruling when the justification was sought at the time. The simple question about what standing order you were acting upon, Mr Speaker, got no response. One can only query why it got no response.

Erskine May went on to say that Speakers' rulings, whether given in public or in private, constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, members and officers are guided. Such precedents are collected and in the course of time become authority. The very reason this dissent from your ruling has been moved is to emphasise the point which the Leader of the Opposition and I took on 6 May: there was no justification for the ruling. There is still no justification for that ruling. The matter has now been brought to the attention of the House in the most formal way so that we can establish clearly that the Premier is not acknowledged as having legitimacy in answering questions which are not directed to him, not because this is just some procedural debating point but because it goes to the whole issue of accountability. A Minister cannot be pressed to account to the House or accept responsibility for his actions outside the House in the discharge of his portfolio if the Premier is there to protect him, to shield him and to make sure that questions are not asked of him. The Opposition strongly dissents from the ruling given by you, Mr Speaker, on 6 May. [Time expired.]

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [4.00 p.m.]: It seems I stand alone in this Parliament to defend your honour and dignity, and your truly wise and learned decisions, Mr Speaker. It is apparent to me that these fellows opposite do not have enough to do in their lives, so they bring on spurious dissent motions to fill up their days. It might be noted that Government members are busily working elsewhere creating jobs and opportunities for people around the State. But those opposite seek to waste the time of the Parliament, at considerable expense, to debate what is obviously a furphy of a dissent motion. This is another lacklustre attempt at a dissent motion.

Mr Hartcher: You've got 10 minutes to go. This is going to be hard.

Mr KNOWLES: I can assure the House that I will not speak for 10 minutes. I do not want to waste my time or the time of the Parliament. However, some things must be put on the record. This is a nonsense motion, as the Opposition well knows. There is clearly nothing unique about the Premier, or the leader of any government, responding to a question addressed to another Minister. I quote from a decision of former Speaker Rozzoli in the October 1996 edition, page 94, of Decisions From the Chair:

The Premier has a free range and capacity to speak on all matters that come within the purview of his Government.

That is a fairly straightforward ruling and a straightforward proposition.

Mr Phillips: That was a question to him.

Mr KNOWLES: Perhaps if Speaker Rozzoli, who does not have the breadth of wisdom that you have, Mr Speaker, was in a position to be more precise in his definitions, that assertion may be correct, but clearly the ruling by Speaker Rozzoli stated:

The Premier has a free range and capacity to speak on all matters that come within the purview of his Government.

The honourable member for Gosford also referred to rulings of the House of Representatives. The Government has had discussions with the Clerks in the House of Representatives, who indicated that it is also common practice for the Prime Minister to answer questions in lieu of the Minister who was asked.

Mr Kerr: When?

Mr KNOWLES: If honourable members opposite had been paying attention they would have heard the honourable member for Gosford, as I did, refer to specific instances. The House of Representatives Practice at page 521 states:

It is in order for the Prime Minister who has overall responsibility for the Government to add to the answer to a question addressed to another Minister.

Page 8747

Mr Kerr: Add to.

Mr KNOWLES: I would take issue with that.

Mr Hazzard: We are just agreeing with you.

Mr KNOWLES: Perhaps we should just put it to a vote and get it over with and all go back to work.

Mr Hazzard: That is what you blokes want, because you are so desperate. You have no substance to back it up.

Mr KNOWLES: I feel desperate listening to honourable members opposite. But the fact is a Premier or Prime Minister has an opportunity to respond to a question asked of anybody in his government about any matter ranging over the administration of his government. The Prime Minister may also commence the answer to the question or answer the entire question outright. The rationale is quite simple, even simple enough for those opposite to understand: how a question should be answered is solely within the discretion of the government. As former Speakers Ellis, Kelly and Rozzoli have ruled, the Speaker has no power to restrict a Minister. That ruling comes from page 86 of Decisions from the Chair.

As is constantly pointed out in this Chamber, particularly during some of the more delightful question times I have had to endure, the Speaker has no control over the way in which a Minister answers a question, other than to ensure that the answer is relevant to the question. The Government, through its spokesperson, the Premier, should be able to determine how a question will be answered. This may involve the question being answered by another Minister, which is the logic of that position. What members opposite fail to understand is that the Government is always in a better position to determine who can best provide the answer. It has been noticeable of late that the Opposition has strayed away from asking questions of the Premier. The Opposition is obviously not too interested in hearing from him, or it is frightened of hearing from him.

Mr Hartcher: We are not interested.

Mr KNOWLES: It is interesting to hear that Her Majesty's Opposition is too frightened to ask, or is not interested in asking, questions of the Leader of the Government. The principle is pretty basic: this is a nonsense motion, and one the Government will not support. I will not waste any more time of the House. The Government fully supports your rulings and your right to make them, Mr Speaker.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [4.05]: I feel sorry for you, sir, that the defence of you on this occasion has been so pathetic. I do not know what the Minister did to deserve such a terrible brief from the Leader of the House, but he is obviously in a bad situation with the Government to have been given such a poor task. I would like to take up some of the matters raised, no matter how spurious. I am sure the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing does not believe a word of what he said. Let me correct him on a couple of things. He referred to a ruling by me, which merely upheld rulings given by other Speakers, which states that a question involving any portfolio matter may be addressed to the Premier, and the Premier may answer that question across the full range of portfolios because the Premier is the Leader of the Government and, as such, is expected to be able to comment on any aspect of government.

That proposition does not have the extension that the Minister suggested: that the Premier could say, "Don't worry about that, Minister. I will answer that for you." That was an entirely spurious point raised by the Minister. The even more spurious point related to the oft-quoted ruling of many Speakers that in fact the Speaker has no jurisdiction or control over the way in which a Minister answers questions, other than to ensure the answer is relevant to the question. That is a perfectly correct ruling in its correct context, but one cannot draw an inference from that ruling that the Chair has no control over the Minister of whom the question is asked. It is a fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility in any democratic parliament that Ministers should be open to questions asked from any side of the House. It is for that Minister to answer the question in whatever way he or she deems appropriate, provided it is relevant.

The Minister can say, "Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to answer this question because it is not within the jurisdiction of my portfolio." We have heard that before, and it is a legitimate way to answer a question. It is usually embarrassing to the side that has asked the question, which is generally the Opposition, because it has wasted a question. Alternatively, the Minister can answer a simple yes or no, as we heard today. We received a resounding answer from the Minister for Fair Trading to a question about spurious advertising by the Minister for Tourism. They are legitimate ways in which a question can be answered. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Gosford, this House has absolutely no precedent for any Minister, not
Page 8748
even the Premier, to answer a question in lieu of another Minister.

Reference has been made to the practice in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives, being but a sibling Parliament to the New South Wales Parliament, based its original standing orders on New South Wales standing orders, as is the case with the standing orders of every Parliament in Australia. The interpretation of the House of Representatives of the rules leaves much to be desired. In fact, I believe that its procedures in relation to the proper conduct of debate are somewhat inferior to those in the New South Wales Parliament. The reference in House of Representatives Practice to this matter is fundamentally flawed. The practice in which the House of Representatives indulges is fundamentally flawed and abrogates the basic principles of ministerial responsibility which underscores everything we believe in about the system under which we operate.

The Opposition regrets the necessity to move this motion of dissent but, unfortunately, you, sir, have forced us to do so because you have placed on the record of this House a number of confusing and conflicting rulings. It must be remembered that the rulings of Speakers are recorded and can be used later as guidance to members in what they do. Therefore, it is important that the rulings of Speakers follow a clear and understandable line of logic and application. As the honourable member for Gosford pointed out in regard to the House of Commons practice, rulings of Speakers are often like judgments in the court: they are intended to fill in gaps in the rules or the laws which the community looks to for guidance. So when circumstances arise which might not be abundantly clear, the Speaker's rulings fill in the gaps. That is the way in which the rules and practices of this House have been built up to supplement standing orders.

If we tried to draft standing orders to reflect every possible shade of interpretation and every possible instance of what might happen they would run into several volumes and would be quite impractical. Over many years parliaments have decided to have this dual guidance: first, the standing orders and, second, the rulings which are capable of interpreting standing orders or infilling those matters that are not included or are not clear in relation to a matter that has arisen. On this occasion there were no grounds for you, sir, to intervene in the way that you did. The question, which was validly asked of the Minister, related to his responsibility for the Hunter region. Clearly, the Government had determined that it wanted to place a Minister in that role, a particular Minister representing a particular geographic area of this State, as distinct from a Minister representing a jurisdiction which covers the whole State. That was a perfectly reasonable decision for the Government to make, but having established that responsibility the Minister was responsible for matters relating to the Hunter.

The question which was asked related to the instructions which the Minister had been given by the Premier concerning Hunter development and the action which the Minister would take in response to those instructions. The Minister was perfectly competent to answer that question. Indeed, the Minister came to the table to answer the question, and I am sure he would have answered it quite well. So it was not a case of the Minister not being in the Chamber at the time, in which case the question might have been disallowed or the Premier might have said he would represent the Minister on that day. You, sir, ruled that the question was perfectly in order. That was the phrase that you used. The ruling that the question was in order must have meant that it should have been addressed to the Minister to whom it was addressed.

By your own determination of the point of order you indicated that there was a course of action which was correct. You then went along a course which was directly contrary to that. Unfortunately, we have had to move dissent from your ruling because we now have on the Hansard record of the Parliament a ruling which is in conflict with itself. First, the question was correctly asked of a Minister and, second, you indicated that the question could have been answered by the Premier. The logical extension of that is that the Premier could answer all 10 questions in question time, irrespective of the Minister to whom they are directed. Obviously, that would be a farcical situation. You, sir, have created a situation that is farcical. Therefore, it is important that this House upholds this motion of dissent in the interests of keeping the records straight. Even if the motion is not successful the moving of the motion will show that your ruling does not have the support of the whole House and, therefore, may be subject to change at a later time.

Debate adjourned on motion by Dr Macdonald.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Page 8749

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [4.15 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a request by Minnamurra Public School for part-funding for extensions to the school library. The Minnamurra community is proud of its local school and has an active parents and citizens association. It regards the school as its focal point. Over the years parents and students have conducted joint working bees to plant trees and shrubs and to carry out general beautification of the school grounds. They have had working bees to erect railings around verandahs to prevent erosion from occurring. In 1994 a covered outdoor learning area was constructed. A native plant propagation program was commenced with tank water being used for irrigation, a program funded by the school community with help from the Council of the Municipality of Kiama. A sphere to tap underground water has been installed to help keep grass and shrubs in sandy soil green.

The community has in mind another project which will greatly benefit its 615 school students. Over the past few years the community and the parents and citizens association have raised $25,000 towards the cost of this project. The aim is to extend the school library to include an audiovisual room. Recently the school was successful in attracting funding for four additional permanent classrooms which will reduce the number of demountables. Everyone is extremely pleased about that. Once those classrooms have been built the ratio will be 14 permanent classrooms and eight demountables. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the parents and citizens association and the community have been pleased with the level of assistance they have received from the department and the Minister over the last few years. However, there is a necessity to extend the school library. To that end, the community and the parents and citizens association have worked extremely hard to ensure the availability of dollar-for-dollar funding to lighten the burden on the Government, which, up until this time, has been particularly good to them.

I am pleased that the Minister for Education and Training is in the Chamber. He indicated that he was prepared to respond to my statement. I request dollar-for-dollar funding for the Minnamurra school library extension. I note that funding is available in the budget specifically for dollar-for-dollar projects within school precincts. I strongly urge the Government to give this matter favourable consideration. The local community, the parents and citizens association and the children work well together. They have demonstrated that they are not in the business of putting their hand out in anticipation that the Government will foot the bill for everything. They are prepared to fund 50 per cent of the cost of the facility. That certainly deserves consideration. I hope that the Minister is able to respond to this request in a favourable way.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [4.20 p.m.]: The honourable member for Kiama has raised this matter with me on several occasions. I am pleased that he has been able to bring it to the attention of the House this afternoon. I congratulate the community of Minnamurra Public School for the way in which they have gone about pursuing the objective of an extension to their school library. Their effort is notable and one that should be emulated by many other school communities. The department and I are supportive of Minnamurra Public School and the honourable member for Kiama in their expectation that this will go ahead. The Department of School Education and the Department of Public Works are re-evaluating the proposal for joint funding of the school library.

There are, however, two problems in relation to the proposal. One is that the proposed extension is quite large. To keep the price down details such as airconditioning, which would normally be installed in a tiered learning space, and carpets seem to have been omitted. The school is obviously attended by young children, and it is important to have carpet in a tiered learning space. Airconditioning is also needed because the rooms are usually closed and have no windows. The department wants to make sure that the school community is happy with the proposal before the project proceeds. Preliminary advice from the Department of Public Works indicates that some services will have to be relocated. The department is at present assessing the cost of the relocation of those services. Once those issues are resolved, and providing the school can still make a 50 per cent contribution towards the cost of the project, I will be very happy to make the necessary funds available. I will have them released as a matter of urgency to enable the work to go ahead so that the children, the parents and the teachers at Minnamurra Public School can have their extended school library.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [4.22 p.m.]: This Sunday an open day will be held to celebrate
Page 8750
the completion of the M2 motorway, which stretches from the old Channel Ten site to Baulkham Hills. The construction of the M2 motorway has been well supported by the people who live in Sydney's north-west. The motorway will significantly reduce traffic delays that motorists in that area have experienced for a generation. In particular it will mean that traffic delays across the Epping Bridge will be a thing of the past. The M2 represents a major capital works investment in that part of Sydney. I congratulate the companies involved with its construction. The project has been completed six months ahead of schedule. It is a matter of regret to me that the Carr Government has not seen fit to provide a Minister to open the motorway.

Members of this House know that Labor, in its attempt to win the seat of Gladesville, promised not to build the M2. The people of Sydney's north-west are certainly aware that that is a broken promise, a broken promise that they support strongly. I extend best wishes to those people involved in Sunday's open day, which is being coordinated by Rotary, an organisation of which I am a member. The day will be sponsored and participated in by Rotary clubs within my electorate, including those in Beecroft, Waitara, Pennant Hills and Thornleigh. I want to raise two minor issues, although they are not minor for those who are affected. Clearly, people will be affected by a major development that is put through a residential area. Residents in Beecroft and Cheltenham will be affected by this development, as will residents in the electorates of my friends the honourable member for Eastwood and the honourable member for The Hills.

My representations to the Minister for Roads concerning the placement, height and efficacy of noise barriers have not received a response. My representations to him concerning the buy-back scheme have also not received a response. When the former Government entered into the deal to build this road it gave a commitment that affected residents had until 12 months after the road opened to determine whether they would sell their properties to the Roads and Traffic Authority. It is a matter of shame and regret that last year the former Minister for Roads abandoned that scheme. That meant that those people who decided to wait and see what impact the road would have on their properties have now lost the opportunity to sell to the RTA. Regardless of what happens when the road opens, which will probably be on 26 May, they will now have no recourse. The RTA has reneged on the commitment it gave through a Minister of the Crown.

It is of concern to me that an issue that has been worked through by the Beecroft Civic Trust in cooperation with me over the past six months has also been ignored by the Minister. Last November I surveyed Beecroft and Cheltenham residents to determine their views about local traffic matters, local traffic flows, local pedestrian flows and traffic arrangements around local schools following the opening of the M2. In February a well-attended public meeting on this specific matter was held on a fairly miserable night in Sydney. After that meeting I forwarded the proposals that had gone forward at the meeting to both the Minister for Roads and the Hornsby Shire Council, but to this day no substantive replies have been received.

Those proposals are fairly simple. They seek to ensure that after the opening of the M2, Beecroft and Cheltenham residents will gain what was promised to them, that is, the return of their suburb and the removal of the enormous volume of traffic that passes through their suburbs each day - from areas such as Pennant Hills, where I live, or Cherrybrook and elsewhere - that has had such an impact on their lives. The proposal sought to have something done about the Beecroft Road-Pennant Hills Road intersection and the Copeland Road-Pennant Hills Road intersection to try to discourage drivers from using Beecroft Road to access the M2, and instead to use the Pennant Hills Road-M2 interchange.

The proposal sought to slow down traffic along Beecroft Road by considering clearway options, and by introducing a couple of sets of traffic lights to aid cross-suburb travel and to assist pedestrian travel across the suburbs. The proposal sought to provide some protection for school students. Along Beecroft Road there are two schools, Arden Anglican School and Beecroft Public School, and three child-care centres. Traffic regularly speeds along that road. One of the few traffic rules we all understand is that we should slow down near schools. If the Beecroft Civic Trust proposal had been accepted, that would have occurred. It is a disgrace that the Minister has not responded. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.27 p.m.]: I will refer the concerns of the honourable member for Northcott about the M2 to the Minister for Roads.

Mr CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [4.28 p.m.]: It is my duty to report to the House not a doom-and-gloom story but a story of problem solving. I am pleased that the Minister for Gaming and Racing is
Page 8751
at the table because the matter I wish to raise relates to his department. Honourable members would be aware that a few months ago a regulation was promulgated relating to charity housie. That regulation caused grave concern for a number of my constituents and for those who operate the Catholic parish housie at Noraville and the housie at Toukley Senior Citizens Centre. People became anxious about the changes. However, their concerns were able to be allayed because one of the Minister's officers, Jeremy Anderson, arranged for a senior investigator in the charities division of the Department of Gaming and Racing, Mr Gary Nelson, to speak to the affected groups at Toukley. The concerns of the Catholic parish housie, which has been operating in Toukley for 24 years, were allayed and the housie will continue to operate. Mr Nelson pointed out that the changes did not affect the Catholic parish housie, and he has confirmed that today in a telephone conversation with me.

The Toukley Senior Citizens Centre operates two housies, one on Wednesday and one on Saturday night. The Saturday night housie has been of concern to the centre. Again Mr Nelson has been able to allay the concerns in respect of the Saturday night housie. Unfortunately, the centre has decided to abandon the Saturday night housie and will operate housie only on a Wednesday. That is partly because of a decision by a registered club in the area to operate housie with a substantial jackpot on a Saturday night. Attendance at the Toukley Senior Citizens Centre has averaged only 110 to 120 patrons on a Saturday night for the three or four weeks after the commencement of the registered club's housie. The centre decided to withdraw the Saturday night operation. The withdrawal was also partly because of a decision made last year by the president of the Toukley Senior Citizens Centre to ban smoking in the hall while housie was being conducted on a Saturday night. The effect of that decision has been cumulative and the number of housie patrons has decreased.

Housie is important to the Toukley area. I hope that the Toukley Senior Citizens Centre will think long and hard about abandoning its Saturday night operation. It is not the result of any government initiative; it was the decision by the club. I hope that after a few weeks it will reassess the situation. The centre has many loyal patrons who would return to Saturday night housie. Charity housies are popular in my electorate. Several of my constituents - including one of the officers of this Chamber, Mr Ian Warman - patronise housie in the area. This matter has unnecessarily caused grave concern to a number of my constituents and I am pleased that it has been resolved. My constituents and I appreciate the fact that the Minister and his department have been able to allay the concerns of the operators. The housie operation in the Toukley area is well run and has always been beyond reproach. Housie provides a great social outlet for many of my constituents.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.33 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Wyong on bringing this matter to my attention in a sensible and rational way. As a result, I have been able to gauge the level of community concern in relation to housie and similar activities. When I became Minister for Gaming and Racing, I was faced with problems as a result of the previous Government's seven years of neglect in just about every area of my administration. No-one had acted on these sorts of issues and, as a result, they were completely out of kilter with modern-day application. The honourable member for Murray would be aware of the differences in prize limits between New South Wales and Victoria. New South Wales had a prize limit of $500 and Victoria had a prize limit of $2,000.

I have tried to bring the New South Wales housie operations into line with those of Victoria and Queensland. However, I do not want to make things difficult for others conducting housie games, big or small, in the marketplace. A few housies are disappointed, simply because they were not making a proper margin of profit. I have reduced that further from 15 per cent to 12.5 per cent. As I said recently, charity housies exist to raise money for charity, not to run at a loss or to break even. The honourable member for Wyong and others are concerned about an anomaly: small housies run by pensioner groups, such as those to which the honourable member for Wyong referred, the Country Women's Association and other non-profit organisations.

I am monitoring the system in Victoria. In other words, there will be a lower prize limit and housie operators will not be subject to quite the same number of restrictions. I do not want to create difficulties for these people. Small country areas rely on the small Catholic parish housies; they provide opportunities for social intercourse. Those organising large housie games will be able to raise money for charity, and small housies will be preserved. I thank the honourable member for Wyong for his contribution and, more importantly, for giving me the opportunity to tailor things to suit the housie community.

Page 8752

Mr SMALL (Murray) [4.35 p.m.]: I raise a health issue that is of concern to my constituents. I have approached the Minister for Health and asked him to respond to the matters that I will raise. Unfortunately he is otherwise engaged, but he has promised to deal with the matter. I look forward to his favourable response. On Wednesday, 14 May, last night, Hay held a second public meeting about health issues in the town. I would have liked to have been present at the meeting, but that was not possible because Parliament is sitting this week. However, I have participated in discussions with my constituents who live in Hay about their concerns. I have also had discussions with the Hay Shire Councillor Mayor Beckwith.

I will put before the House some of the issues that were raised during the meeting in relation to the Hay Hospital and health services in the region. I believe these matters require a response. The first matter relates to maintenance and the ongoing needs of Hay Hospital. In other words, my constituents are genuinely concerned about the amount of work that needs to be done on the hospital and they want an assurance that hospital maintenance will continue. The second issue relates to care in the home, as patients are sent home too early and need follow-up care. Because of present day-bed times many patients are released early from hospital and need back-up care in their homes.

The third matter that those at the meeting sought a guarantee about was that the aged can be admitted and stay in the Hay Hospital and will not be sent to other hospitals away from their loved ones. The fourth issue was a fear of the development of a multipurpose service when all services are already available at Hay. If the MPS is rejected, will hospital funding be fully maintained? The fifth item related to why redundancies are being suggested when qualified nursing staff are still desperately needed. Staff shortages and suggestions of fewer staff are of concern to the residents of Hay. The sixth matter brought to my attention by those at the meeting was a concern that all actions are money-driven and therefore there is less interest in the staff and patients. The State health system is underresourced, and I hope the Minister will address that matter. These days everything is in dollar terms and that is having a serious effect on patient care and medical needs.

The seventh matter raised by the people at the meeting related to how long it will take for the appointment of proposed local health councils. Lack of communication is of great concern throughout New South Wales. The eighth issue related to whether any action could be taken regarding the cost of ambulance services, as it can be very expensive to transfer between hospitals. That is an enormous worry. The ninth matter related to the problem of privately covered patients in Hay securing ambulances. That has happened in Hay, when the hospital has tried to avoid having the cost of the ambulance taken out of its budget. However, when patients have taken out private health insurance, it seems harsh to deny them that service. I know it benefits the hospital, but the patients must also be considered. I ask the Minister to respond to the important matters that I have raised.

I turn to the shire of Jerilderie. Dr Elder has left the town of Jerilderie, which has a population of 1,000, and it desperately needs a new doctor. I know that the Greater Murray Area Health Service has responded to me, through the Minister, advising that Dr Dreyer of Finley is prepared to make available two afternoons per week to temporarily provide visits to the area. Also, other doctors in Finley are prepared to help Jerilderie. The town of Jerilderie has a population of 1,000 and must have a doctor, so I strongly urge the Minister to do everything he can to provide that doctor. The town of Hay originally had three doctors but now only has two, and they are having difficulties servicing the hospital. Many patients are travelling to Deniliquin or Griffith, and this adversely affects the local hospital. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.40 p.m.]: The honourable member for Murray consistently makes representations on behalf of his constituents. I will refer this matter to the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [4.41 p.m.]: On 25 March I was fortunate to be part of the launch of a book entitled True Blue and Gold, which is a short history of the first 50 years of The Lakes United Rugby League Football Club. It was held at the Belmont Sportsman's Club, an organisation that sponsors the football club. Yesterday I was honoured to be able to arrange for members of the club to visit Sydney and present to the Parliamentary Library a copy of the book. The author of the book
Page 8753
is Stephen Brown, a member of the 1975 team that won both the major and minor premierships that year. I congratulate Stephen on an accurate, well-written book.

Jim Scoular, who was here yesterday, was the first captain of that side. He was halfback and represented both Newcastle and Country New South Wales. The Secretary of The Lakes United Rugby League Football Club is Chris Paul, whose father, Albert Paul, was the first Kangaroo representative from that club. Also present were John Hook, President of the Belmont Sportsman's Club, which was formed in December 1955 and instigated by Searle Barton from the cricket club, Pat Cahill from Lakes United, and Leo Miller from the baseball club.

The Belmont Sportsman's Club plays a vital role in Belmont and for a number of years has sponsored junior sport and supported the community. I thank the club for the work done by its members. Lakes United first entered the Newcastle first grade competition in 1947. It applied as early as 1945 but its application was deferred until September 1946. Believe it or not, in the first year the team entered the first grade competition the team was not only minor premiers but major premiers. The captain of the team, the prominent halfback Jim Scoular from Lithgow, had experience with Newtown and North Sydney before he came to Lakes United. He has not left Belmont since he first came there. In True Blue and Gold it is stated:

Scoular's leadership, individual play and ability to extract the best from his team enabled them to finish equal minor premiers.

The team was beaten in the semifinals by Northern Suburbs but managed to come back and win the grand final. That was an outstanding effort. The club has won the club championship in the Newcastle rugby league competition five times, the last time in 1986. It has won 10 first grade premierships and was major and minor premiers in 1947, 1975 and 1986. The reserve grade won eight times while third grade won on six occasions. Some outstanding players have turned out for Lakes United. The club is involved not only in senior football but also in junior football. Paul Crittenden, the honourable member for Wyong, played for Lakes United as a junior, and his father was a member of the first grade side in the late 1950s, early 1960s.

First among the former players I would like to mention Allan Thomson, who was a Kangaroo in 1967, and Rees Duncan and Albert Paul, who were Kangaroos in 1952. I mention also Paul Harragon and Adam Muir, both members who represent Australia now. They are members of the Newcastle Knights and came up through the ranks of Lakes United. I also refer to Des Kimmorley. His sons, the Kimmorley brothers are now playing for Hunter Mariners. Lakes United has made a great contribution to football in my area: it is a club that is second to no other. In the current season the team is undefeated and I am sure it will go through the season undefeated. The team's performance under the captain-coach, David Smith, has been outstanding this season. Adam Hall's individual performance has contributed to the team's success. I am delighted to see Matthew Smith, a friend of my son, having a good season. The team is leading the club championships and I am sure it will win. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.46 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Swansea on her contribution paying tribute to The Lakes United Rugby League Football Club, which has been an outstanding success since its formation in 1947, after the Second World War. People who know the Belmont district would realise that the area burgeoned after the war as a mining community as a result of the activities of the BHP colliery and John Darling colliery. It was an outstanding feat that the club's first team came into the competition as rookies, with the exception of Jim Scoular, and took out the minor and major premierships in its first year in the competition. It was a strong competition that consolidated after the war, with two teams later withdrawing, namely, Morpeth-East Maitland and the old Eastern Suburbs club.

This brings back wonderful memories because the late Detective Inspector Pat Cahill, with whom I worked in the police force, was one of the great inspirations behind the formation of the Belmont Sportsman's Club and The Lakes United Rugby League Football Club. Stephen Brown has done a magnificent job in writing the book and it is fortunate that someone who remembers all the events is still alive. I pay tribute to Rees Duncan, Wimpy Pitman, Russell Norton, Allan Thomson, some of them Australian representative players and some just great club players. I refer also to Albert Paul, my great friend, whose son is the secretary of the club. Albert's early demise was a great tragedy.

The Lakes United Rugby League Football Club is a great club for camaraderie and teams from many parts of my electorate, such as Redhead, always competed in The Lakes area when the area
Page 8754
had district football. Many people from my electorate have played with the club, with which I have had a close association through Pat Cahill and John Hook, President of the Belmont Sportsman's Club. I congratulate them on their fine club, which has made a significant contribution to the community.

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [4.48 p.m.]: Last weekend a storm swept across Sydney and though it brought welcome rain to most parts of Sydney and the State, it caused significant damage. Following the weekend the front page of one of the newspapers depicted considerable damage at Little Manly Beach. However, damage was also occasioned in the eastern suburbs and, unfortunately, the Bondi Surf Bathers Life Saving Club and the North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club both suffered losses in rescue equipment. I understand that this weekend both clubs are preparing to carry out an audit of their equipment to determine the exact losses. The damage may well exceed $10,000 for one club, though I am not sure about the other. It is appropriate at this time to acknowledge our indebtedness to surf clubs, in particular the club at Bondi Beach, where lifesavers cope with large numbers of visitors, often totally unfamiliar with what at times can be treacherous waters.

I congratulate both clubs - indeed all surf clubs - on their volunteer work. They deserve our support, especially in the current circumstances. Today I have asked the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Sport and Recreation to support the clubs by the provision of a one-off grant. A grant will help to remedy the situation during the winter months and to get the clubs' equipment back to full strength before the summer season. An audit will be undertaken by both clubs this weekend to determine their losses. I hope to be in a position to pass on that information to the Minister for Sport and Recreation next week and I ask her to favourably consider a one-off grant to Bondi and North Bondi surf clubs. The Minister may also wish to contact other surf clubs and ascertain their losses from last weekend's storm.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.50 p.m.]: I will draw the matter raised by the honourable member for Vaucluse to the attention of the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Bondi and North Bondi surf clubs have made a significant contribution to the New South Wales surf lifesaving movement, of which I have been an active member for 36 years. The honourable member may care to explore applying for the provision of funds from a gear fund set up by the Federal Government back in the period when the late Frank Stewart was the first Federal Minister for Sport.

The gear fund, which was set up for recurrent expenditure on sporting equipment, may be another avenue the honourable member can explore. Despite changes of government at Federal level, no-one has ever been game to tamper with that fund, as the honourable member for Newcastle, who is in the chair, would know. Over the years he and I have been actively involved in the surf clubs in our coastal electorates. Once the clubs are audited they may be able to get assistance from that gear fund. There is no doubt that at State level successive governments have been extremely supportive of the surf clubs. I compliment the surf clubs on the tremendous work they do in our community and I will draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Sport and Recreation.

Mr SULLIVAN (Wollongong) [4.52 p.m.]: I would like to comment on the BHP McMaster report which, of course, is the basis upon which BHP has taken the decision to close the steel-making plant at Newcastle and to make major changes elsewhere within its organisation. To summarise it, the recommended emphasis under the McMaster report is to move from a volume steel maker to a value-adding steel maker. While public attention has focused on Newcastle - and I do not want to detract from the seriousness of the situation facing that city - it is important to remember that the decision by BHP will have significant impact in the Illawarra. This new direction will significantly affect the Illawarra.

BHP has shed over 1,500 jobs from its various businesses in the Illawarra in the past few years. If one includes the time since the 1980s, that figure is in the order of over 15,000 jobs over a period of 15 years. Let me give some examples of what BHP proposes to do, and it seems determined to implement in the Illawarra: firstly, to close the Port Kembla stainless steel plant. That would result in the loss of 250 jobs. Many of the staff have been assured that they will be relocated, but the fact remains that Illawarra will have 250 fewer jobs. Second, 200 white collar jobs will be shed from lower management levels elsewhere in BHP's Port Kembla plants. Third, the tonnes per man benchmark will be raised from the present 600 tonnes to 1,000 tonnes. The present work force of
Page 8755
the steelworks is 7,000. If the production level is to be set at 5 million tonnes and the benchmark at 1,000 tonnes per person per year, the end result is a maximum work force of 5,000 and job losses in the steel-making area of 2,000.

What will be the impact on Port Kembla? The harbour will handle increased imports of approximately 350,000 tonnes of raw materials. However, this will significantly reduce the income of Port Kembla Port Corporation, the harbour authority. Up to this stage there has been a two-porting pattern of usage; in other words, a ship is loaded with raw material in Western Australia or Whyalla, sent to Port Kembla, half the load is taken off and then the ship is sent on to Newcastle to discharge the other half. If the same capesize vessels are used, then half as many vessels will come into the port. If a smaller size vessel is used, the panamax vessel, the port authority will charge a lower rate because it is the size of the vessel that determines the charges, not the payload of the vessel.

There will be an immediate decline, estimated at $500,000, in the Port Corporation revenue. In addition, because slab production for exports will be stopped immediately, half a million tonnes of export will go. That is to be compensated for by a gradual increase in finished product export which it is hoped will be built up over two or three years. The expectation is that it will not be built up and a loss of income will be incurred in that regard. In light of this, I call upon BHP to effectively put its money where its mouth is. First, it should start now on the $300 million upgrade of the tin plate mills. BHP has said in the past that this major investment has to be undertaken at Port Kembla. Start it now!

Second, BHP must get the repair and maintenance program back on track. Today's Illawarra Mercury reported that the repair and maintenance program has been put in hibernation for what appears to be an indefinite period on the basis that last month costs overran projected or allowable costs. I say to BHP: start getting that plant properly serviced and maintained, and start immediately. To that end I direct my remarks primarily to the boardroom and senior management of BHP in Melbourne. Port Kembla senior management are well aware of the need for these major programs.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.57 p.m.]: As a person who is deeply involved in the effect of BHP's decision on Newcastle and the Hunter region, I congratulate the honourable member for Wollongong on his contribution this afternoon. There has been a great deal of concern about the contents of the McMaster report and its availability, because it is effectively the framework for the decision that has been taken not only in Newcastle and the Hunter region but for steel making generally across the whole of the company now and into the future. Therefore, it is necessary that the McMaster report be made freely available to those it affects, not only at present but also in the long-term future of steel making in this State, the nation and the Southern Hemisphere.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [4.58 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House a matter that has been raised with me by my constituent Mr Robert James Knight. I ask the Minister for Gaming and Racing to refer this matter to the Treasurer in another place because I consider that not only is my constituent being unfairly treated in the matter of a transfer tax payable on the transfer of part of a taxi licence but there is a matter of principle at stake: that of double taxation, which needs to be sorted out if there is an anomaly in the legislation. My constituent and his then partner purchased a taxicab in approximately 1991. They went through all the normal procedures and each paid the fair share of the purchase price agreed on with the vendor and the transfer tax. That taxi licence has now been the subject of a further part sale, in the sense that my constituent has bought out his partner. That transaction was effected during the latter part of last year.

In effect, my constituent Mr Knight bought out the half-share of the other partner, purchased half of the value of the taxi, so that he now owns the whole of the value of the taxi licence. Yet he has been required to pay transfer tax on the full amount. In round figures, $200,000 is the transfer value, less a little for the value of the vehicle, membership of the taxi cooperative and so forth. He bought not $200,000 worth but $100,000 worth. Via his solicitors he made a payment of half of the amount of tax at the rate of 2½ per cent but the department wrote back saying that he had to pay the other half because there is no provision in the Act for him to pay transfer tax on half of the total value of the taxi licence. This must be an anomaly. I cannot imagine anyone being able to justify what in fact is double taxation, having to pay tax on twice the amount of a purchase. My constituent's solicitors appealed to the department on his behalf. On 12 March 1997 the Department of Transport replied in part:

. . . the transfer of the licence calculated at the rate of 2.5 per cent of its current market value.

Page 8756

There is no provision within the Act to transfer half a licence, therefore the transfer tax must be paid on the full value of the licence.

As an amount of $2,410 has been received thus far, it would be appreciated if the outstanding amount of $2,410 be forwarded to this office to complete the transfer of this taxi-cab.

Mr Acting-Speaker, I am sure that you would agree with me that, in all equity, if a person is purchasing a certain amount of value of a product which is subject to a tax, that is the amount upon which tax should be paid, not double the amount. It is only fair and reasonable that the Treasurer be called upon to review the situation. If, as the letter from the Department of Transport would indicate, there is no capacity for the paying of tax on half of the total value of the taxi, the legislation ought to be amended to enable that to occur. I ask in fairness to my constituent that the Minister refer this matter to the Treasurer in another place and request him to review the legislation and, if necessary, amend it. It should be backdated to at least cover this case and any others that might exist. People should pay the fair tax on the fair value of whatever they purchase. They should not be slugged double. I am sure that would not have been the original intention of the legislation.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.03 p.m.]: I undertake to draw the problems of Mr Knight to the attention of the Treasurer. The matter may well be in the domain of another Minister. Over the years problems have arisen with interpretation by the Roads and Traffic Authority. If another Minister is involved I am sure the Treasurer will contact his colleague to deal with the matter.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [5.03 p.m.]: This evening I raise an issue of great concern to a number of my constituents living in the West Wallsend area. It relates to contaminated petrol and the subsequent inconvenience caused. I shall read to the House how the people of the Hunter region learned of the contaminated petrol problem. On page 3 of the Newcastle Herald of 7 April a story was headed "Stranded motorists blame fuel for engine problems". The article stated:

A batch of contaminated petrol is being blamed for the mechanical problems of scores of vehicles in the West Wallsend area.

Motorists who purchased petrol from the Caltex service station at West Wallsend on Friday have found themselves stranded after their cars started stalling and backfiring.

The petrol was supplied to the service station on Thursday by the Gwandalan-based company Petro Pro.

Its director, Mr Ken Wilson, said problems that were proven to be related to the petrol would be paid for by the company.

Mr Wilson said he believed an anti-ice and anti-rust additive might have been inadvertently mixed with the petrol . . . But he said the petrol had also been distributed to other service stations in Newcastle where no problems had been reported.

Samples would be taken from service stations supplied by Petro Pro this week and tests for the additive carried out.

I received correspondence from Mrs Julie Murphy of West Wallsend stating:

Dear Mr Hunter,

My husband and I are one of the many unfortunate people caught up in the petrol Contamination at Caltex West Wallsend . . . My husband is self employed and his work vehicle was severely damaged through no fault of his own. He lost a day's wages yesterday and I have to commute him to work with his tools and material every day as I work as well.

All we are asking for is some vehicle for him to use until his can be repaired at the earliest convenience.

The insurance company was forthcoming and the Murphys had the use of a hire vehicle. I made representations to the Minister for Fair Trading asking for assistance from her department, the Department of Fair Trading, and the Fair Trading Centre at Newcastle was quick to react. Within 24 hours it had provided information to me, an eight-point procedural plan for people in the area on how they could claim through the insurance company, and copies of claim forms, which I made available to the people affected. The petrol station owner also made the information available at his service station and people were able to fax claims to the insurance company. Further problems arose: I received another letter from Mrs Murphy in which she wrote:

Dear Mr Hunter,

Reply to recent correspondence from you and Department Fair Trading on matter about Contaminated Petrol . . . 3 Weeks ago we employed a mechanic who firstly flushed our car as advised by Freemans Assessors which eventually found extensive damage to the engine. For the past 3 weeks Freemans have made every effort to fight us on the issue of getting our car road worthy.

Freemans are the assessors for OAMPS, the insurance company of Petro Pro, which is based in Melbourne. The letter continued:

Last monday a Freemans rep rang us and informed us that the hire car we have for Tom's employment had ceased because

Page 8757
we could not come to an agreement on repairs. Out of frustration we agreed to their terms on the condition we keep the hire car.

Our mechanic purchased a 2nd hand motor and proceeded to change old for new over.

We now have a problem where the mechanic wants a progress payment for payment of motor and Freemans want job completed before payment is made.

All along Freemans have made every customer feel like the guilty party.

She goes on to say that they are not the guilty party and that they would really like at least a preliminary payment to help out their mechanic. One constituent outlaid $120 to have the University of Newcastle do an assessment of the contaminated petrol. It showed lactic acid in the petrol. It amazes me what contaminated the petrol. I ask the Minister for Fair Trading to advise me and the House what her department can do to help these poor, unfortunate people who through no fault of their own have had their vehicles damaged and who have been severely inconvenienced by the contamination of petrol at the West Wallsend Caltex service station.

Mrs LO PO' (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.08 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Lake Macquarie on his representations for his electorate. It is always good to see local politicians doing the
job they are paid to do: representing their communities. This is an appalling case - 260 vehicle owners experienced mechanical problems. Officers of my department attended a meeting at the West Wallsend Workers Club on 21 April offering advice on some of the issues raised. An invitation was extended to people experiencing difficulty to lodge complaints with the Newcastle Fair Trading Centre. In the case of Mrs Murphy, I am happy to say that the Newcastle office of the department was able to negotiate a $1,000 payment for the mechanic. The hire car has been secured.

The department is negotiating for a further payment so that the mechanic can continue with the work. The departmental officers in Newcastle have worked in overdrive on this case and I expect that there will be a resolution of the problems. People need to understand that if they have problems they can go to the Department of Fair Trading for advice. But in this case the department has been very pro-active in negotiating a deal for the residents, particularly Mrs Murphy, whose husband needs a car. The car has been provided and a $1,000 progress payment has been made. There are ongoing negotiations with the insurance company to ensure that everything that reasonably can be done is done.

Private members' statements noted.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:16:41   :   Update this page