Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 18 June 1997, Corrected Copy)

Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

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

Appropriation Bill
Appropriation (Parliament) Bill
Appropriation (Special Offices) Bill
Appropriation (1996-97 Budget Variations) Bill

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

Accommodation Levy Bill
Electricity Supply Amendment Bill
State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the consideration forthwith of a motion for Ms Nancy de Vries to be conducted onto the floor of the House to address the Legislative Assembly and for the calling on of Government business, notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Premier.

Arrangements have been made to interrupt the debates of the House at 10.30 a.m. to allow Ms Nancy de Vries, in her capacity as the representative of the Aboriginal stolen generation, onto the floor of the House. That is the purpose of the motion, and I ask the House to support it.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.03 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the motion. It welcomes the attendance this morning of the spokesperson on behalf of the Aboriginal community. The issue is significant, and it is appropriate that it be debated by the House. However, I wish to place on record the Opposition’s concern about the Government’s ongoing policy of inviting non-members of this House or of other parliaments to speak on the floor of the House. This House is part of a representative democracy, and its purpose is to permit issues that come before it to be debated by the people’s chosen representatives. It is not a debating Chamber as such, nor is it a forum for the exchange of public information. There are other more appropriate places for that.

The American practice, of which our Premier is so enthused, is to have ongoing successions of guest speakers to talk about various issues, but that has not been the practice or the policy of Westminster parliaments, of which this House is a part. For example, during the euthanasia debate there was a debate on the floor of the House. Representatives were chosen from each side of the euthanasia debate to put their respective views, as if honourable members were not already aware of what those respective views were. Recently the Vice-President of the Seoul Metropolitan Council addressed the House. Now we are to allow a representative from the Aboriginal community onto the floor of the House.

The issue is important; it is respected, acknowledged and supported by the Opposition. However, the issues that our society faces - the drought, the tragic situation of people with AIDS, the street children, the homeless and the consumption of prohibited drugs in our community - are also important. They should be aired, but that should occur in members’ offices or in the precincts of the Parliament, following which the matters would come before this Chamber for debate. The Government appears to be ignoring that issue. There is a feeling in the community that the Government, unwilling to submit itself to parliamentary scrutiny, as honourable members witnessed yesterday when the standing orders were suspended for two weeks, is prepared to engage in what some might regard as merely media opportunities. That is in no way a detraction from the importance of this debate, but the Government’s bona fides are on the line.

The Government is not prepared to allow debate on matters of urgency. If the Opposition were minded to move a matter of urgency about the stolen Aboriginal children, about the plight of the Aboriginal people, or about Aboriginal health or education, it would be denied that right. The people Page 10522
of New South Wales have been denied the right, through their chosen representatives, to move and debate these issues. The Opposition has been denied the right to debate matters of public importance and, as the position presently stands, to debate the issues in private members’ statements. The Government has appropriated all the parliamentary procedures unto itself. It is only prepared to allow members on the crossbenches, and members of the Liberal Party and the National Party, who represent the majority of the people of this State, to debate issues of its choosing and to do so in a manner that it determines. That is inconsistent with the principles of representative democracy.

I reiterate that the forthcoming debate is important and significant, and I welcome this morning the presence of representatives of the Aboriginal communities. They would not be aware of what happened yesterday when the Government changed the procedures of the House to deny the Opposition the right to raise matters of public importance and matters of urgency, and the right to put before the people of New South Wales matters that their elected representatives would wish to put before them. The Government does not come into this House today with clean hands in respect of any matters before it; the Government has arrogated dictatorship powers over this House and has denied the representatives of the people the right to raise important issues.

Motion for suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.08 a.m.]: I move:

That -

(1) At 10.30 a.m. at this sitting debate be interrupted to allow:

(a) Ms Nancy de Vries, in a capacity representing Aboriginals of the "stolen generation", onto the floor of the House to address the Legislative Assembly; and

(b) The Premier to move the motion of apology to Aboriginal people standing in his name on the business paper for today; and

(2) At the conclusion of the debate the business interrupted at 10.30 a.m. be resumed.

This is a proud day for everyone in the Government and the Australian Labor Party. I do not have any difficulty in allowing members of the community onto the floor of the people’s House. The Treasurer, a member of the upper House, is invited to this House to deliver the budget - a move which is always objected to by members of the Opposition. The Vice-President of the Seoul Metropolitan Council addressed the House in his capacity as Vice-President of the Seoul Metropolitan Council. In the future other members of the community might be invited to address this House. We might have to debate serious issues such as drug law reform in this country. This Government might also enable members of the community to address the House on matters of constitutional reform. We should be proud and delighted that a member of the Aboriginal community will enter this House today to speak on behalf of that community. Today the Premier will apologise to Aboriginal people and speak in support of the motion relating to the stolen generation. This Government will always enable members of interest groups in the community to come to the people’s House.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.11 a.m.]: This is a proud and important day. Nothing could detract from that pride or from the importance of this day. The issue about which the Opposition is concerned is not the significance of today’s debate but the Government’s denial of freedom of debate. For the hour in which this motion will be debated there will be bipartisanship from all honourable members. After debate on that matter is completed the Government will use the gag to prevent debate on other matters. It is prepared to suspend standing orders to prevent members from raising matters of public significance. That is the issue that has to be addressed.

Mr Whelan: This is very important to the public.

Mr HARTCHER: It is certainly important to the public. But at 11.30, when debate on that matter has concluded, the Government will revert to using the jackboot to confiscate hotel rooms, walking all over representative democracy and preventing honourable members who represent 54 per cent of New South Wales from raising matters of urgency, introducing matters of public importance, moving no confidence motions and moving censure motions. Yesterday a censure motion was moved against the Premier - a significant parliamentary procedure and an important parliamentary debate. What did the Government do?

Mr Whelan: It is a waste of time.

Mr HARTCHER: The Leader of the Government says that it is a waste of time. He does not want 54 per cent of the people who represent the Page 10523
community to talk about the Premier of this State. He does not want the Premier’s record held up or debated in this House. That is the sort of democracy we are getting in New South Wales.

Mr Whelan: Are you telling me that this is not as important as the bed tax? This is far more important! You know it is!

Mr HARTCHER: We regard debate on this matter as extremely important. The Opposition will support the motion. The Leader of the Government is playing to the gallery. What a poser he is! We know him from old. The Government will be democratic for the next 1½ hours and at 11.30 the jackboots will come out.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration of the Legislative Council’s amendments.

No. 1 Page 2, clause 4. Insert after line 15:

backpacker hostel means premises the principal use of which is to provide sleeping arrangements at low cost to backpackers and which include dormitories with communal and self-catering facilities and an emphasis on guest interaction.

No. 2 Page 2, clause 4. Insert after line 22:

youth hostel means premises owned, operated or affiliated with the Youth Hostels Association of New South Wales at which accommodation is provided for Youth Hostels Association members.

No. 3 Page 3, clause 7, lines 21 and 22. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 4 Page 3, clause 7. Insert after line 30:

(d) a backpacker hostel, or

(e) a youth hostel, or

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [10.15 a.m.]: I move:

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

Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [10.16 a.m.]: I take this opportunity to make a few comments about the Government’s budget and, specifically, about land tax. A few weeks ago the Government guillotined the budget through this Chamber. I did not get an opportunity to speak in that debate. There are a number of issues of grave concern to the community. The honourable member for Gosford talked earlier about a democratic Parliament and democracy in New South Wales. The people of New South Wales should be aware of what this Government -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The amendments deal with accommodation; they do not deal with land tax. The honourable member is referring to the wrong bill.

Mr DEBNAM: I would be happy to refer to the bed tax issue. Two weeks ago this Government guillotined the budget debate through this Chamber. I did not have an opportunity to participate in that debate. The definition of parliamentary democracy has changed dramatically under this Leader of the Government. The Accommodation Levy Bill introduces a bed tax on hotels in the Sydney central business district - a tax on a select number of hotels. This tax has caused outrage in the tourism and hotel industries in Sydney. It has embarrassed the Government and caused division between the Government and the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The honourable member is restricted to talking to the detail of the Legislative Council’s amendments. He is referring to other issues. Mr Chairman, I ask you to request him either to speak to this issue or to resume his seat.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Vaucluse will speak to the amendments.

Mr DEBNAM: Certainly. These amendments refer to backpacker and youth hostels. When the Government introduced this legislation there was considerable outrage throughout the hotel industry. Interests involved in backpacker and youth hostels were quick to point out that the Government was imposing a levy that those hostels could not afford. Similar complaints were made by hotel interests. This highlights the fact that the Government has not done its homework. It is obvious that a number of changes were made at the last minute before this budget was introduced. That has been the theme
Page 10524throughout the whole of the period that the Carr Government has been in office. The Government has backed down on one thing after another. It makes a policy announcement which it then changes the next day. That theme has been frustrating the community.

Ministers appear constantly on the front pages of newspapers and on television news programs explaining their policy positions. This is another example of last-minute changes to a government proposal - changes that could have been introduced before the budget was released if the Government had done its homework. That again highlights the incompetence of this Government. The one theme that has been apparent throughout the period in office of the Carr Government is that it tripped into office. It won the election but only by a bus load of people. It did no planning as it did not expect to win the election. From March 1995 this Government has been struggling to produce policies. Its policies are aired, they are opened to the public and there are various backflips within 48 hours. This is just another example of this Government’s incompetence.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [10.20 a.m.]: Sometimes the hypocrisy of this Government is breathtaking. Whilst the Opposition clearly supports the exemption that has been provided to the backpacker movement and the youth hostel movement in relation to the Accommodation Levy Bill, it recognises that the Government has realised that it is the younger section of the community that will be hardest hit by the accommodation levy and it has therefore decided to offer as a sop to that part of the industry and to young people an exemption from the accommodation levy. This is the same Government that is hitting young people by introducing this levy; it is the same Government that is undermining the growth of an industry that employs more young people than any other industry in Australia.

The Government, in introducing the accommodation levy, has taken the young people of this nation - the workers in a growth industry, an exciting industry, an industry that everyone recognises in the lead-up to the year 2000 and the Olympics will provide, or would have provided, massive opportunities for young people to embark not only on a short-term career but on a long-term career. On the one hand the Government says it will fix the problem for young people who use the services of backpacker hostels and youth hostels, but on the other hand it decides to put a levy on the luxury end of the market and in doing so undermine employment growth in an industry that is geared towards and caters for young people.

The Government is so hypocritical that it is beginning to take everyone’s breath away. I refer not to Opposition members, because they are used to it, but to the general community, which is starting to realise that members of the Government are so hypocritical in their dealings with the community that it is a wonder they can lie straight in bed at night. This Government said, "No new taxes." All we needed was the preface to those words, "Read my lips." As Leader of the Opposition the Premier did not say those words, but he might as well have said them because that was his intent. The Government has introduced another new tax in the budget and in the Accommodation Levy Bill.

I cannot believe that the Government is prepared to proceed with the bill and to ignore the community and in particular the young people, who were excited about the prospects that the Olympics would provide for them and thought they would have a future and would be working in the year 2000. The Government has betrayed them. It is not only the big end of town that the Government has betrayed; it is the young people who are looking for a future. At the next election an interesting combination of people will vote the Government out. It will be the big end of town, the young people and traditional Labor supporters who desert it at the next election, and the Opposition looks forward to the fact that those who have orchestrated this campaign will end up on this side of the Chamber, where they belong.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.23 a.m.]: The crossbenchers in the upper House have made a cop-out deal with the Government to salve their consciences because they were having difficulty with the bed tax. The Government announced that it was considering exempting youth hostels, so it told the crossbenchers in the upper House that if they passed the amendment it would make them look good to their constituency. That does not take away from the fundamental problem that Sydney now has a 10 per cent bed tax that will act as a major disincentive to visitors to Sydney.

The Government mistakenly believes that everyone wants to come to Sydney because it is a great place and that a 10 per cent surcharge will be absorbed. One of the reasons Sydney does so well in attracting business and tourism is its price advantage. It competes for the tourism market from Japan, but that is declining. Japanese tourists comprise the largest component of visitors to Sydney. Sydney also competes with Hawaii, Asian destinations, the United States and Europe. The
Page 10525Opposition, the tourist industry and the hotel industry are outraged about this tax, because it will make it hard to compete. It will cost thousands of jobs. The tourism industry offers tremendous opportunities for young people. There is a high unemployment rate among young people in this State, and they must be given an advantage. It appears that if an industry is doing well it is fair target for a tax under Labor. Remember the promise of no tax increases under a Labor government.

The bed tax on its own is one thing, but in two years there have been 13 tax increases, including three new taxes. That is an increase of $2 billion in taxes, or 18 per cent, in two years. I am sure no-one in this Chamber has had an increase of 18 per cent in his or her income in two years. That burden has made New South Wales the most expensive State in Australia in which to do business, and Sydney is the most expensive city in Australia to visit. The Government believes it will apply only to international tourism, but 50 per cent of the hotel market in Sydney caters to Australians visiting Sydney - people from country New South Wales and from other States. They will now holiday in other destinations or stay for shorter periods.

With regard to the amendments, the Government says it will exclude youth hostels from the tax, and it gives a definition of youth hostels as premises owned by, operated by or affiliated with the Youth Hostels Association of New South Wales at which accommodation is provided for Youth Hostels Association members. I predict that the tourist industry already is working out packages to take advantage of this exemption. To avoid the tax surprisingly high-quality youth hostels and packages to attract people to Sydney will proliferate. They will cost less than major hotels, so it will result in a lower income for Sydney.

More importantly, because of that product advantage there will be many more packages in the international market to attract young people to Sydney. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, except that it is a trade-off in the marketplace. The situation will change from one in which a significant number of middle-class and upper middle-class people come to Australia with money to spend at a high daily rate on restaurants, taxis, tourism and theatre. The marketplace will become warped. Sydney may have the same number of tourists but those tourists will have less money to spend in Sydney. They are backpackers; they travel on the cheap. It is tremendous that they get around the world and travel, but they are not bringing -

Pursuant to resolution progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Pursuant to a resolution adopted earlier today, the House will proceed with the motion to be moved by the Premier and with the address to be given by Nancy de Vries. The Chair notes the presence in the gallery of a number of members of the Aboriginal community who have been in some way affected by the policies involved in this debate. The Chair also acknowledges the presence in the gallery of Carol Kendall, Lola McNaughton, Jean Carter and Barry Duroux, of the Aboriginal community organisation Link-Up; Laurel Williams, Co-commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families; Linda Burney, of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation; and Aden Ridgeway, of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. The Chair also acknowledges the presence in the gallery of the teachers and students of St Vincent’s College, Potts Point, who have made a special trip to be here to listen to this debate.

[Ms Nancy de Vries was conducted by the Serjeant-at-Arms onto the floor of the Chamber.]

Ms de VRIES [10.32 a.m.]: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Premier, Leader of the Opposition, honourable members and members of the Aboriginal community. I thank you very much for the honour today to speak here in this House. I might add that this is very emotional for me; it is wonderful.

I was taken away from my mother at the age of 14 months and my journey as a lonely, homeless, unloved child began. Nobody could really understand the loneliness of an Aboriginal child in a non-Aboriginal environment who has nobody whatsoever around them, who is not treated the same as the other children in the home who are not Aboriginal, who is isolated, who is lonely, who cries at night, and who cries during the day. You could not possibly comprehend the life of that child.

Like hundreds and thousands of other Aboriginal children, I was taken away so that I could be given a better life. Believe you me, to put somebody in 22 different places before they are 18 is not giving them a better life.

When I finally reached home I found members of my family who were following the same Page 10526
profession. I was a registered nurse. There were members of my family who were registered nurses. There were members of my family who had been to university and who had become workers in the humanities. So, even though I was outside that family, I still had the same feelings and the same goals as my family. I can see no reason why I was ever taken away.

Growing up I had to live with people always telling me that Aboriginal people were no good, that Aboriginal people were drunks. I had no contact with Aboriginal people. I would see Aboriginal people, and I would want to run up to them and say, "Do you know Ruby?", who was my mother, but I was not allowed to. I used to run away. By the time I was eight or nine I became a real rebel. I was acting out my behaviours because I was angry and I did not know what was going on in my life. I used to run away.

I took myself to Queens Square to the department where the births, deaths and marriages registers were and asked an old man behind the counter, "Can you please help me find my mother?" This continued on all through my life. The authorities thought that it was a behavioural problem. It was not. I was searching for my identity and for my family. I needed my family.

I read my papers later in my life and read what had been written about one of my foster parents. It said, "We feel that this woman has regretted having such a member of such a despised race in her family." The first wonderful thing that happened to me in my life was when my first child was born, my son. Suddenly I had somebody who would love me unconditionally and accept me for what I was.

When I finally got home to meet my mother after 53 years, she could not relate to me. For 53 years she had been blotting out the fact that she had lost her child. I am very much like her to look at. She was a great lady. I just thank God that I got home in time to meet her and to actually speak to her. I am still not properly home yet. Because of my mother’s inability to accept me again into the family, my family is very divided. But I met her.

This not only affected my life; it affected my children’s lives too. They did not have a grandmother and they often used to ask me why. My son, who is 26 now, and a very male person, believe you me - sometimes overly male, I think - was standing in a pub up in Bourke. One of my cousins said to David, "Here, look, this is your uncle." My 26-year-old cried. Thank God it is not affecting my grandchildren. Two of my grandchildren have two grandmothers who were removed, but they are growing up with love, surrounded by a loving family. They are proud of their Aboriginality. They know who they are, and they know where we are going. I will protect their rights to the last breath in my body. I will never allow anything to happen to them.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to come here and share some of these experiences with you. It is very emotional for me. I do thank you.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [10.40 a.m.]: I move:

That this House, on behalf of the people of New South Wales -

(1) apologises unreservedly to the Aboriginal people of Australia for the systematic separation of generations of Aboriginal children from their parents, families and communities;

(2) acknowledges and regrets Parliament’s role in enacting laws and endorsing policies of successive governments whereby profound grief and loss have been inflicted upon Aboriginal Australians;

(3) calls upon all Australian Governments to respond with compassion, understanding and justice to the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled Bringing them home; and

(4) reaffirms its commitment to the goals and processes of reconciliation in New South Wales and throughout Australia.

The unanimous resolution of the House on 14 November last year was a landmark in this country’s move to reconciliation. In moving that resolution, I referred to the national inquiry. I extended on behalf of the Government and people of New South Wales our apology to the Aboriginal people. We became the first Parliament to do that. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has now published its report. It is called "Bringing them home". It is a profoundly moving, deeply disturbing document. It has stirred the conscience of our nation.

The lost generations of the stolen children have been given a voice at long last. We have been privileged to hear their message from Nancy de Vries. No more memorable or moving words have been spoken in this Parliament in the past 150 years. In the introduction to its report the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission quotes from one of more than 500 testimonies that the inquiry heard,
Page 10527
from Link-Up, the organisation devoted to reuniting Aboriginal families in this State and throughout Australia. Link-Up said:

We may go home, but we cannot relive our childhoods. We may reunite with our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunties, uncles, communities but we cannot relive the 20, 30, 40 years that we spent without their love and care, and they cannot undo the grief and mourning they felt when we were separated from them. We can go home to ourselves as Aboriginals, but this does not erase the attacks inflicted on our hearts, minds, bodies and souls, by caretakers who thought their mission was to eliminate us as Aboriginals.

That is what Nancy has put to us today, although in her case the separation is beyond those 40 years, having been 50 years separated from her mother. That Link-Up statement and Nancy’s statement to this House distil the hurt that Aboriginal people feel today about these matters. We are not dealing with some abstraction from the remote past. We are confronted with continuing, contemporary pain, grief and loss, as has been demonstrated in this House this morning.

The Link-Up statement goes directly to the root cause of this immense human tragedy, not only the specific issue of the stolen children, but the wider, complex question of our relationship with the Aboriginal people of this continent, the homeland that we share together. Let me emphasise these words "caretakers who thought their mission was to eliminate us as Aboriginals". What a wealth of meaning, and instruction, that phrase contains. The report acknowledges, and I gladly acknowledge, the many foster and adoptive relationships which grew up in a spirit of love, trust and hope - good, decent Australians also caught up in the web of this tragedy.

But while the report, in line with the terms of reference, focuses on forcible removal, it makes it painfully clear that the whole system of child separation was deeply tainted from the beginning - corrupted at its heart, not so much by the conduct of individuals or institutions acting under the law, but by the law itself and the official attitudes underpinning it, not least the laws and attitudes of this Parliament of New South Wales, acting in the name of the people of New South Wales. This great Parliament was the ultimate caretaker.

We cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that for a century this Parliament supported laws which inflicted, and continue to inflict, grief, suffering and humiliation - laws designed, in the words of the Link-Up statement "to eliminate us as Aboriginals". That is why this House must apologise. That is why today, in the presence of members of the stolen generations, I reiterate the words I spoke in this Chamber on November 14 last year:

I reaffirm in this place, formally and solemnly as Premier in behalf of the Government and people of New South Wales, our apology to the Aboriginal people. I invite the House to join me in that apology.

My own Government’s submission to the inquiry in June last year dealt very frankly with this Parliament’s role. A key piece of legislation in the process was the Aborigines Protection Amending Act of 1915. In his second reading speech the then Chief Secretary declared the purpose of the bill:

If we give the Protection Board these powers [that is, to take children from their parents on the sole ground of their Aboriginality] the Aboriginals will soon become a negligible quantity and the young people will merge into the present civilisation and become very worthy citizens.

The House will better understand the bipartisan nature of our responsibility in the eye of history when I recall that the Minister was George Black, a foundation member of the Australian Labor Party in 1891, and that the Government in 1915 was one of the great reforming Labor governments in New South Wales, under Premier W. A. Holman. It is, of course, one example of a wider truth: that the Australian story is many stories; that we can take pride in the achievements of the pioneer generations and celebrate what they did, while at the same time acknowledging the tragedy of Aboriginal dispossession. These co-exist as themes in the Australian story, in our history. But, as I have said, in the case of the stolen generations we are dealing with a living legacy. The testimony of physical and sexual abuse, of economic exploitation and social deprivation, form only one part of the story. The deliberate attempt at psychological elimination - the denial of Aboriginal identity - remains the unhealing wound for many thousands of our fellow Australians. It is not surprising therefore that the inquiry found:

Many witnesses were taught to feel contempt for Aborigines. Those who knew their own heritage transferred that contempt to themselves.

Yet, in truth, the most remarkable characteristic of the Aboriginal community, the brightest hope for the future, is absence of hatred, the faith that, despite everything, justice will prevail. That these people, who suffered such an injustice, can today deal with us without a sense of hatred is a great statement about the nature of our Aboriginal citizens, about the Aboriginal people.

Page 10528
When I moved the motion of 14 November I outlined the Government’s specific programs to advance the cause of reconciliation. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party spoke in equally positive and constructive terms. I believe we are similarly obliged to respond to the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It contains 54 recommendations, which are now being carefully analysed by the New South Wales Government. Today I make some initial comments. The Government already is reviewing child welfare legislation, and an Aboriginal officer has been seconded to the Department of Community Services to ensure that Aboriginal communities are properly consulted in this process. An important part of this review is to ensure child welfare laws provide adequate support for Aboriginal communities to care for their children.

On oral history, more than 535 Aboriginal people told their stories in the course of the national inquiry. For most, it was their first chance to describe to a government official the impact of these policies on their lives. However, due to the limitations of the inquiry, many people are still waiting for the chance to tell their story. This is part of Australia’s history and it should be recorded. I will be asking the State Library to work with the relevant government and Aboriginal organisations to establish an oral history strategy.

In recognition of the important role of the Aboriginal organisation Link-Up, a grant of $100,000 will be allocated to further counselling and family reunion services. I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Link-Up for its tireless efforts over many years and its dedication to the immensely important task of reuniting Aboriginal families. The national inquiry documented the immense grief and hurt that still exists within the Aboriginal community. Now that the extent of these policies has been fully revealed, there is a sadness not only among Aboriginal people but also in the broader community. This aspect of Australia’s history is worthy of commemoration, and I extend an invitation to Aboriginal organisations and to communities for their ideas on what may be appropriate as a permanent memorial. While for many the search is over, others are still trying to trace their origins. A significant section of the report of the national inquiry dealt with access to records.

Today I announce that the New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs will convene a working group to analyse these recommendations in detail and develop a strategy for improving access to records in New South Wales. Normally about 90 per cent of all government records are destroyed in accordance with the Archives Act. To ensure that valuable information is not inadvertently discarded, a moratorium on destroying government records relevant to the separation of Aboriginal families will be implemented for one year while the working group develops its strategy. The files of the former Aborigines Welfare Board constitute the most significant body of archival records documenting this area of government policy during the twentieth century, and the Government has already made the preservation of this information a priority. The real advances will come from the community itself. The report has shocked but also galvanised the community throughout New South Wales and Australia. Schools and churches have spontaneously offered their apologies. The Local Government Association of New South Wales adopted a resolution, from which I quote:

That the members of the State Executive of the Local Government Association of NSW unreservedly apologise for the appalling treatment of the Aboriginal people . . .

With that resolution and the one I hope the Parliament will endorse today, two tiers of government have formally apologised to Aboriginal people. We now await the third. The apology of this Parliament extended today is an act of recognition and acceptance - the recognition of deep wrongs, mistaken policies and misguided attitudes, and the acceptance of responsibility where it belongs. It brings to an end the denial of truth and history that has always been the great barrier to reconciliation. No longer can any of us say we did not know or we did not understand. There is a special significance in the title of the report, "Bringing them home". The commission has dedicated this report to "the generations of Aboriginal children taken from their families and communities, those who are still searching for home, and to the memory of the children who will never return".

But, in a deeper sense, the report is dedicated to all Australians who love this land and who believe in its great future - all of us who call Australia home. For, Mr Speaker, the meaning of reconciliation, the purpose of our apology today, the lessons we take from this report, our acceptance of its hard truths, our determination to make amends, all these things can best be understood and fully realised as part of a great national act of bringing us all home. The path home for all Australians lies through the achievement of justice, equality and respect for the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [10.54 a.m.]: This morning we have Page 10529
heard one very personal account of the grief and sorrow inflicted on this continent’s first inhabitants. We have heard the very personal story of Nancy de Vries, a woman who has suffered more than any of the speakers who will follow her in the Chamber today - suffered as a result of legislation passed by this Parliament. We have heard first-hand of the hardship and pain inflicted on Aboriginal families by a policy that was conceived and pursued until just 20 years ago by what may have been well-motivated but ill-informed governments of both political persuasions. Today we are talking about an event that is not a remote event shrouded in history; we are talking about an event that has occurred time and time again in our own lifetimes. The people who went through this experience are alive to tell us their story today. They have grown up sometimes alongside us; they are around to tell their story. This is a very personal story for all Australians.

Nancy de Vries has told us about the way in which children like her were taken from their families not because they lacked love, not because they were in danger, not because they were in need, but because they were Aboriginal and just because they were Aboriginal - nothing more and nothing less. The policy saw 100,000 Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their parents. The policy has seen 10 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders aged 25 years and over separated from their families. The policy resulted in many cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse. Put simply, it meant stripping away the honour and dignity in being an Aboriginal and, even more fundamentally, in being human. The dishonour and indignity are expressed on every page of Sir Ronald Wilson’s report, "Bringing them home", and especially in the moving accounts of the men and women who gave evidence to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. One witness expressed the totality of her separation with these haunting words:

I remember this woman saying to me: "Your mother’s dead, you’ve got no mother now. That’s why you’re here with us." Then about two years after that my mother and my mother’s sister came to The Bungalow but they weren’t allowed to visit us because they were black. They had to sneak around onto the hills. Each mother was picking out which they think was their children. And this other girl said: "Your mother up there." And because they told me that she was dead, I said: "No. That’s not my mother. I haven’t got a black mother."

Another witness spoke of the sexual abuse she suffered when she was removed from her mother as a three-year-old. She said:

I led a very lost, confused, sad, empty childhood, as my foster father molested me . . . I remember once having a bath with my clothes on ‘cause I was too scared to take them off. I was scared of the dark ‘cause my foster father would often come at night. I was scared to go to the outside toilet as he would often stop me on the way back from the toilet. So I would often wet the bed cause I didn’t want to get out of the bed . . .

Another stolen child told Sir Ronald Wilson’s hearings about the way in which her Aboriginality, far from entitling her to education she would not have got with her natural mother, actually denied her an education. She said:

I was the best in the class, I came first in all the subjects. I was fifteen when I got into second year and I wanted to . . . continue at school, but I wasn’t allowed to, because they didn’t think I had the brains, so I was taken out of school and that’s when I was sent out to farms just to do housework.

The commission’s report catalogues hundreds of accounts like those, revealing all victims’ feelings of separation; in most cases the primitive living conditions they survived; and, all too frequently, the brutal punishments and sexual abuse they endured and the education and medical attention often denied them. They were miserable lives, led day in and day out, as a result of decisions made and legislation passed by this and other parliaments. If it had occurred under the gaze of today’s international media, this policy would place Australia amongst those in the international community whose odious human rights records rightly attract the opprobrium of all right-thinking nations. If this policy had been inflicted overnight instead of over decades, Australia would be witnessing a humanitarian disaster to rival the great catastrophes of this century. If this policy had occurred visibly rather than being buried under layers of bureaucracy and hidden in remote places, it would doubtless have been stopped much sooner.

Although it is true that the policy was never motivated by malice, it was always inspired by ignorance. Today the Opposition joins in this apology, this recognition of past injustice to all who suffered at the hands of this policy based on ignorance and paternalism. This is the fourth time in the past year that this Parliament has expressed that sentiment and affirmed its commitment to reconciliation with the nation’s first inhabitants. It is to the credit of this Parliament that it has not been dragged into recognition of the injustice which befell the stolen children of Aboriginal families. It is to the credit of this, the mother of Australian parliaments, that we took the initiative.

As we set our eyes on the next millennium we must look forward to working with Aboriginal Australians to deliver real results to overcome their disadvantage. We must remember that Aboriginal men aged between 15 and 24 are nearly three times more likely to die than non-indigenous males, and that the death rate of young Aboriginal women is
Page 10530
3½ times the average. The disparity is even more pronounced in higher age brackets. We must remember that indigenous males die from diabetes-related illness at 12 times the rate of other Australian men, and that the rate for indigenous women is 17 times the average. We must remember that the life expectancy of an Aboriginal child born today is almost 20 years less than that of other Australian babies. Also, we must recognise that infant and perinatal mortality rates for Aborigines are about three times those for the general population.

These statistics fall easily from the lips but we must never forget that the raw figures equate to real suffering, that they equate to death. That is why in the past the coalition made Aboriginal health a priority in this State. I am proud that when I was the Minister for Health the former Government was able to advance Aboriginal health policy. I am pleased also that the current Minister has pursued many of those initiatives and has a similar personal commitment to Aboriginal health. It was the former Government that funded the first ever family health strategy targeting Aboriginal families. It established the first Aboriginal health policy branch of the Department of Health. Those initiatives should have been taken, and they are being continued today.

Those achievements were part of a new but long-awaited approach to Aboriginal health. It meant treating Aboriginal health as a health issue in its own right, not just one of the many problems facing the system. This applies also to black deaths in custody. I had a strong personal commitment to overcoming the problems leading to black deaths in custody, and we as a Parliament are committed to overcoming those problems today. We must not forget our achievements in the past 30 years. Remembering those achievements will inspire us to do more. Federally, we have witnessed the creation of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We have seen the passage of landmark Commonwealth legislation, such as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. We have seen landmark court cases unfold, such as Brown and Mabo. And, of course, this year we celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the great referendum, conceived and delivered by a coalition Government, which for the first time, in 1967, saw full citizenship rights extended to Aboriginal Australians. So it should have, but much, much earlier.

In conclusion, though we always recognise the pain, always share the pain, and are always sorry for it, we must remember the progress that has been made; and this should motivate us to achieve more. Also, though we respect the solemnity of this occasion and acknowledge the importance of our apology, we must never let mere words, even important words like "sorry", overshadow our deeds. Future generations will not measure our success by just listening to our words or reading the record of this Parliament. They will look to see whether we addressed this disadvantage, whether we improved Aboriginal health and whether, in the words of the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, "Aborigine and non-Aborigine went forth together throughout the country as friends and equals, and overcame the injustice and disadvantage" which has flowed from the actions of our ancestors. If future generations realise that we did act and that we were successful, they will remember our words and deeds and regard them as perhaps this generation’s greatest gift to the nation. I commend the motion.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [11.07 a.m.]: I support the Premier’s motion and lend my support to the words of the Leader of the Opposition. However, I condemn in the strongest terms any attempt to divide this debate in the community into an apology versus health, education and jobs. The two must go together. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that we can improve the living standards of Australia’s indigenous people without dealing with the past. Those governments that have been the least supportive of Aboriginal self-determination have also been the least supportive of health, education and jobs.

When a doctor diagnoses the poor health of a patient he or she needs to look at the patient’s history to establish the causes leading to the poor health. A government diagnosing poor health in a community should also look at the history of that community to treat all of the factors leading to that poor health. Poor health is a result of many factors. Some of the strongest influences on the health of Aboriginal people are as a direct result of their historical treatment. Grief is one of those factors: grief at dispossession, at attempted genocide, for lost children, for lost parents, for lost language and for lost culture. Grief plays a powerful role in everyone’s health. Every honourable member in this House must have witnessed the debilitating effects of grief on a person who has suffered loss.

Every honourable member would be aware of how important it is to the state of mind and wellbeing of someone who has suffered a loss to deal with his or her grief fully and openly and to be supported through that grieving process. It is totally
Page 10531
counterproductive to suggest that Aboriginal communities should stop that grieving process or that governments should not support them in that process. Healing and good health come from dealing honestly and compassionately with grief and loss. Our apology today says, "We value your culture, we recognise your loss, we support you in your grieving and we wish to begin the process of healing."

Closely associated with grief among Aboriginal communities is another factor in poor health - the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, a problem that is rampant throughout Australia. A list of factors that make children vulnerable to drugs includes family problems, poor self-esteem, the lack of support, and a feeling of isolation. Can any member of this House doubt that the same happens for all children, black or white? Can anyone doubt that the stolen generation and their loss of culture and family support are major factors in vulnerability? If anyone does doubt that, I suggest he visit the service run by Bobby McCloud at Doonooch near Nowra. It has been successful in helping young men with drug and alcohol problems by rebuilding their cultural and spiritual values. No-one can see the powerful effect of returning cultural values and not understand the power of loss.

When this Parliament supported a policy which forcibly separated thousands of Aboriginal children from their families, members claimed to be acting in the best interests of Aboriginal children. They claimed they were offering better education, health care and job prospects than the children would get from their own families. They were wrong then, and those who claim that members should only focus on health, education and jobs now are still wrong. The best chance Aboriginal children have of good health, appropriate education and an opportunity for a job is through the support of their families and communities. Their best chance is to make sure that the healing of that grief occurs in each family in each community. The best chance an Aboriginal community has of being able to support families in their community is to be involved in the delivery of those services.

The best chance the Government has of supporting communities is by building healthy Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, working with them to deliver services, and listening to what communities have to say. Right now communities are asking us to acknowledge and respond to their grief. They are asking us to respect their grief. They are asking that the next time the Government wishes to improve Aboriginal health, education or employment, that it is done in partnership with Aboriginal communities and families and not just by deciding that the bureaucracy knows best. "Bringing them home", the human rights commission report into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, had a positive finding about New South Wales. The report praised Link-Up, the Aboriginal corporation which has provided comprehensive assistance and support to Aborigines in New South Wales who are attempting to reunite with their families.

I am proud of the Government’s support for Link-Up and very grateful to Link-Up for the work it does. I commend to all members the book In the Best Interests of the Child, which is based on Link-Up’s submission to the national inquiry. It provides insight into and evidence of actual events in New South Wales. Today members have been privileged to hear Nancy de Vries talk to us and explain in her own words her own story - a very moving story, but one of many. Honourable members are thankful that Nancy has taken the time to air her grief publicly to help them understand a little more of what happened and will continue to happen in our lifetime. The Government will continue to work with Aboriginal organisations such as our Aboriginal reference group. Those organisations will form partnerships with the Government to deliver services to Aboriginal communities.

I should like to mention the members of the New South Wales Aboriginal land councils who are present in the Chamber. They are the chief executive, Aden Ridgeway, the chair, Ossie Cruse, Ivern Ardler, Millie Ingram, Ken Foster, Robert Lester, Tom Winters, Tom Briggs, David Clark, Rod Towney, William Murray and Wayne Griffiths. They also have a great task ahead of them and I am pleased that their direction forward is one that the Government certainly supports strongly and which will, I am sure, receive bipartisan support.

In conclusion, I should like to put a different light on this debate. We always talk about the Aboriginal problem. Sometimes it might be better to think about the white problem. Perhaps white Australians share unresolved grief about the destruction of the culture, language, and family ties which are part of our nation. Perhaps some of the poor self-esteem and anxiety which are making all Australian kids vulnerable can be linked to insecurity about our role in this nation, about our collective inability to deal honestly, frankly and openly with our past. All of us are going to be better off by not only making an apology, but by understanding it, meaning it and together going forward. I commend the motion.
Page 10532

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [11.15 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of members of the National Party, some of whom have asked to be named individually, such as the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. This debate has no doubt been accentuated this morning by the presence in the Chamber of Ms Nancy de Vries. I am sorry that this facade will end with an apology and nothing more. I would ask honourable members to dwell on those words. I am sorry for the pain that Aborigines have suffered, but my position at the outset has been clear: an apology is a sham unless it is accompanied by real action. This Parliament is the place of government in New South Wales where action can be taken to ensure from this day forward that incidents that occurred in the past will never again occur. But unless there is action, we may be judged by future generations as having participated in nothing more than a political exercise.

There is no doubt that at that time State and Federal governments, academics and, indeed, churches and many other bodies thought the separation policy was correct. There is no doubt that under Ministers such as Sir Paul Hasluck, who was in office in the 1950s and went on to be one of the most revered Governors-General and academics this nation has had, thought it was right, but hindsight has an amazing capacity to be able to educate us all. There is no doubt that the policies during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s which saw 20,000-plus children taken from their families - some were orphans and some of the parents did not even know that their children had been sent to the United Kingdom - were abusive by today’s standards. There is no doubt that abuses occurred to children, be they Aboriginal children or other children under myriad schemes such as Fairbridge farms, little brothers and big brother movements, et cetera. That is inexcusable.

There is no doubt that when talking about apologies, modern society has much to say sorry about; but unless we look forward it is simply a hollow exercise. How do we say sorry to the veterans of World War II and Vietnam who were not old enough to vote yet were sent away to defend this country? How do we say sorry to their parents? That is a difficult question by any standards and, of course, people in Australia and New South Wales are not the only ones thinking about such questions. This very question is currently being debated in the United States Congress. The debate there is whether America should apologise to black Americans for the slavery of the past. In recent days Ward Connolly, an African American community leader, said of an apology, "It’s absurd. Apologising is dumb. It’s not going to get us anywhere. Let’s move ahead. The nation wants to move ahead."

Jessie Jackson, a noted black civil rights leader, said, "A motion for an apology is distracting the nation from what is most important. There is no substance or value to an apology. There must be a program of substance beyond any apology." Congress Speaker Newt Gingrich said that the motion for an apology is "nothing more than airy-fairy talk, just emotional symbolism that won’t teach one more child to read". That is the point I want to make this morning. If we walk out of here today with a sanctimonious feeling, we will not have achieved one thing for Australians, be they white, black or from the myriad national backgrounds that we have. We have a responsibility to do more than talk. This morning the Premier said that on four occasions in recent times this subject has been discussed here. On four occasions we have talked about it but little action has resulted. That is my objection this morning.

As to the making of an apology, I ask the following questions. Will it wipe away despair? Will it create jobs? Will it give hope? Will it provide education? Will it stop petrol sniffing? Will it reduce domestic violence in black and white communities? Will it reduce the high level of sexually transmitted diseases in Aboriginal communities? Will it reduce the level of Aboriginal incarcerations in this country? If we are serious today we will look at the issues of jobs, education, health and one Australia and not go through this sanctimonious exercise. The Premier referred to a motion in this House last year when I joined with him and the Leader of the Opposition in talking about reconciliation. I am pleased that he made reference to my remarks. At that time I said:

That is not to say that these hurdles cannot be overcome, but attitudinal difficulties that exist throughout all sections of the community can be simplified and softened only by education, explanation and encouragement within rational debate. It could be argued that the progress of reconciliation is made more difficult by the recent robust debate on immigration and racism, which has been mainly directed towards Asian migration to this country. I have no doubt that the process of reconciliation will survive and endure the more emotive debate over Asian immigration. My personal wish is quite simple: I long for all Australians to be as one, observing one Constitution and one set of laws, and recognising one flag. I want our indigenous people to have the same desire and opportunity as non-indigenous people in bringing about a partnership founded on equality, justice, fairness and respect.

Further on I said:

Starting at ground level means identifying and acknowledging what changes must take place in our minds, our homes and our schools, and in the way we approach housing, employment, education, health, law and order, and welfare.

Page 10533

This should not be a one-way concern. It should be an attitude shared by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians . . .

I am pleased that in his presentation this morning the Premier acknowledged the statements that I made last year. I suggest that those statements are unarguable. The fact is that we are one Australia and an apology can only be meaningful if it leads to positive action to address the problems I mentioned. I am on record as having said that I will apologise to the Aboriginal people, but my heart will not be in it. The Government has manufactured this theatre today but not one Aboriginal person will necessarily benefit from it. It is convenient to vilify past generations in order to conform with today’s correctness. How will our generation be judged in the future? Will our churches be vilified for extending their care and protection to children, the homeless and the battered?

Whilst I have the opportunity I indicate that I am sorry. I am sorry for the homeless kids in Kings Cross this morning who can buy drugs in the streets. I am sorry for the people who slept in the streets of this city last night. I am sorry for the women who were bashed in their homes last night. When I turned on the radio at 3.15 this morning I listened to a university student say on 2GB that he cannot get a job and is on the dole at the age of 24. I am sorry for him. I apologise to them all. But the bottom line is that they are no better off unless we do something meaningful to redress the problems of our society. Sanctimonious, hypocritical words will not do it. In speaking to this debate I have the benefit of being from a older generation; I lived through most of the events we are discussing. Many of us understand about love in homes and about respect.

All I ask is that equality of value be extended throughout our New South Wales and Australian societies. All I ask is that we recognise that we cannot change history but can learn from it. I ask that the Parliament announce this morning as its main statement the following aims: that it is prepared to redress in real terms drug abuse in our Aboriginal and white communities and in our high schools; that it is prepared to work towards getting real jobs for Aboriginal people, whether they be at, say, Wilcannia, Bourke or Kempsey; that it is prepared to assist in the process of ensuring that all New South Wales people have fair and reasonable access to housing; and that it will address today’s imbalances where children are taken from their homes without just cause. A serious examination needs to be undertaken of the Department of Community Services and its treatment of both black and white children.

This is an historic day from which, through the experience of Aboriginal Australians, we can learn to understand the many problems in Australian society today. History should not be used for rhetoric and for feel-good purposes; it should be used to benefit future Australians, irrespective of colour, religion or background, and to help us become a society that looks after the disadvantaged and remedies inequalities. Right now, within five minutes walk of this place, people are suffering in a way that none here has ever dreamt of, and while we sit here very little, if anything, is being done about it. It is hypocrisy that last week one of the leading publications of this city identified the sale of drugs on a street within 10 minutes of here in the middle of the day.

The press can uncover this crime but we as law-makers in control of law enforcement agencies cannot stop it. The reason is quite simple. We can talk about policies, but we must make a decision to fix the problem. I have had enough of talk; it is time to get serious. If the press can locate the crime, so should the police be able to. It has been a privilege to participate in this debate this morning and I thank the Parliament for the opportunity. I hope that this day becomes a landmark from which we set out to rectify for all people in New South Wales many of the inequalities, injustices and sufferings that occur today. If we do not we all stand condemned.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [11.28 a.m.]: I apologise to the Aboriginal people in the gallery today for that statement by the Leader of the National Party. I am absolutely disgusted at his conduct and I apologise to you on his behalf. We are here today as a result of a convention held in Melbourne on 26, 27 and 28 May. Eight resolutions of that convention were incorporated in a document entitled "A Call to the Nation". Resolution 5 states:

We note that leaders across the social spectrum promised their own personal apologies and sorrow for the treatment of indigenous peoples; this was itself an historic moment. We call on all parliaments, local governments, organisations and institutions to follow this lead with their own form of apology so that we can all move forward together to share the responsibility for the future.

Let me talk about that historic convention in Melbourne and express the feelings that I experienced over those three days at the end of May. I know that my colleague the honourable member for Wakehurst would agree totally with my comments, because he was there with me at that convention, each of us representing this Parliament and our respective political parties. I will never forget the incredible changes of emotion at that
Page 10534
convention, from anger on the first day when the Prime Minister lost his cool and screamed hysterically at the 2,000 delegates, to feelings of humility and sadness.

During his summing up of the conference, Father Frank Brennan asked Patrick Dodson to come to the platform. He then suggested that every non-indigenous person should turn around or lean over and shake the hand of an indigenous person and apologise to him. I took that opportunity, and I did it with humility, but I was deeply saddened at having to do so because of what happened in this country over the last 209 years. And we should not kid ourselves that similar things are not happening today. Father Brennan also asked the non-indigenous delegates to that conference to stand and give a pledge. I shall repeat that pledge to this House and I believe that all of us should do likewise in the near future. We all stood and we made this pledge:

We who are recent migrants who have come to this land, having attended the Australian Reconciliation Convention, thank you, the Indigenous people gathered at this conference, for your tolerance of us, our cultures and aspirations.

Also, we apologise for the hurt done to you, your ancestors and your lands by our ancestors and our presence and our actions on this land over the last 209 years.

I cannot believe what was said by the Leader of the National Party. The invaders abused not only the children of this country - this very land is still being abused. The very mother of the indigenous people of this country is still being abused. Go and look at our river systems, go out and look at the land, go and look at what we have really done. We have decimated the very soul of the indigenous people of this country. After making that pledge, all 2,000 delegates were asked by Patrick Dodson to stand and complete their apology with the following words. Again I was proud as an Australian to be able to make a commitment to reconciliation, and I continued with my pledge:

[We are] committed to walk together on this land, we commit ourselves to reconciliation and building better relationships so that we can constitute a united Australia, respecting the land, valuing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and providing justice and equity to all.

I assure every member of this House, every person in the gallery and every citizen of New South Wales that I do not feel guilty for what happened - it was not of my doing - but for me not to recognise the past would make me feel guilty. It is all right for Australians to celebrate great achievements of this country, recognise great sports people, recognise national days and recognise what happened in the past in time of peace and of war, but we should flip the coin and also recognise past injustices. We must recognise what we have done. We cannot have it all one way.

I should like now to quote from some information that is available to anybody wishing to seek the truth about what happened to the indigenous people of this country. Three international speakers who attended the conference all referred in their speeches during that week to what had happened on the previous Monday. One of the most stirring speeches was from Mililani B. Trask, a native Hawaiian attorney who has walked the international stage fighting for the rights of her people. The convention heard also from Dr Alexander Boraine, Vice Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa; Professor S. James Anaya, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa; and Grand Chief Ted Moses, a long-committed activist for Aboriginal human rights. These people gave the conference first-hand experiences of what they have suffered as indigenous people in their own lands. It should not be forgotten that indigenous people throughout this world suffer at the hands of the so-called superior race.

I congratulate the Premier on his comments in this House today. Some weeks ago I spoke to the Premier about this very debate and suggested that one thing this House should do is to make sure that the first recommendation of "Bringing them home" is implemented: that all governments make sure that indigenous people in this country have the right to be able to tell their story. Sir Ronald Wilson told the conference that he sat opposite an Aboriginal woman who spoke to him for about an hour and a half about her experiences as a stolen child, and that he was moved to tears. His important final comments were, "That woman said to me, ‘Thanks for the opportunity to be able to tell my story. I feel as though the healing has already started’."

Counselling is about people being able to tell their stories unfettered. I shall conclude my remarks by referring to the Link-Up report to the human rights commission. I recommend that everyone obtain a copy of this report because it is a great book; it tells some tragic stories, and it has been one of the driving forces in bringing the children home. I recite a poem entitled Coming home, which was written by Bill Hennessy in January:

Finding our people
and coming home
Is like lighting a fire
and catching the smoke.

Page 10535

So much is hidden
living memory our fire
has been silently smothered
by indifference and time.

We stand in the ashes
and sift through the dust
Searching for traces
of what we have lost.

I say to all indigenous Australians: I am very sorry for what happened in the past and I will do whatever I can to make the future better for all of us.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [11.40 a.m.]: I fail to understand how any Australian could not be moved by what occurred to 100,000 - perhaps more - of our first Australians. I fail to understand how any Australian could not be moved, with great sadness, by the destruction of many Aboriginal families - a destruction that continues today. This issue is part of Australia’s history, but it is just as relevant today. Families still suffer high levels of stress because their children were taken away, because mothers have not seen their sons and daughters, and because Aboriginal children have not been able to learn about their culture, their history, their family and their place in the world. No reasonable-minded Australian should fail to be moved by that.

On behalf of the New South Wales coalition, I reach out to every Australian and say: you should listen to what Aboriginal people are saying, to what the first Australians are saying, and you should understand that an apology makes a difference. Aboriginal people need to know that we care about what happened to them and what is happening to them. I will not accept, under any circumstances, the proposition that we simply have to look after the material aspects of the lives of Aboriginal people. Certainly we want to see improved education, improved health, lower incarceration rates and a lot of such things. However, many of those things will follow if Aboriginal people understand that non-indigenous Australians feel sorry about what happened to them.

When we live in a country we are in a marriage with the other people who live in that country. We should be in a marriage with the indigenous Australians, the people who cared for this country for at least 60,000 years before the coming of Europeans. We should be prepared to say to the indigenous Australians that we, as a community, are sorry for the hurt that has occurred to them and to their families in the past 208 years. I have no hesitation in saying that; that is where we should be. Aboriginal people should know that the House supports this motion as strongly as possible.

Some people may not know this history, which may excuse their ignorance. I encourage all Australians to make the effort to at least get the summary version of "Bringing them home" and to learn a little bit about what happened to families and individuals in our community. The volumes of "Bringing them home", prepared by the human rights commission, outline a litany of injustice, the horror and the unbelievable tales of sadness that most non-indigenous Australians would probably not know about. We tend to live our lives in little cocoons and to not hear what is happening to other people.

As the honourable member for Keira indicated, I attended the Australian Reconciliation Convention on behalf of the Opposition. People who attended that convention could not fail to be moved by the agony, the concern and the sadness that were exhibited. There is hope of moving forward by sharing our history, by acknowledging past mistakes. If we are to get to the stage where we can acknowledge the way forward, we have to acknowledge what has happened in the past. We cannot avoid that. As I said, it is like a marriage: we talk about the problems of the past and we try to work out the way of the future.

No-one can tell me that this policy was in the interests of indigenous Australians. I do not accept that. I accept that on many occasions there were good motivations; that people thought they were doing the right thing. However, does that make it right? With the benefit of hindsight, clearly it was not right. We should apologise for the people who thought they were doing the right thing but got it wrong. It gets worse. Some policies were not motivated by good deeds or thoughts, and there was a lot of that. The human rights commission report, brought together so ably by Sir Ronald Wilson, outlines that the motivations were not always good, and there are plenty of examples of that. For example, I refer to "Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation: Sharing History: A Sense for All Australians of a Shared Ownership of Their History, Key Issues Paper No. 4", in which the chief protector - what a strange word - of Aborigines in Western Australia is quoted as saying in 1909:

I would not hesitate for one moment to separate any half-caste from its -

note the use of the word "its" -

Aboriginal mother, no matter how frantic her momentary grief might be at the time. They soon forget their offspring.

I cannot believe that any human being could say that; I cannot believe that any human being could ever justify those sorts of statements. On behalf of
Page 10536
the New South Wales Opposition, I reject any suggestion that we should ever accept those sorts of words when dealing with indigenous Australians. Those words need to be thought about and we should realise what they are: they are not words of great kindness, they are not words motivated by trying to achieve an increase in education or health or to lower incarceration. There was one simple fact: if people were Aboriginal or half-caste - as people liked to refer to them in those days - if they were the product of an Aboriginal parent and a non-Aboriginal parent, they were taken away and removed from their families, in all sorts of horrific circumstances. They were told to forget about love, affection and human relationships; to forget about an encouraging, nurturing family background in which to grow up. They were told, "We will give you another family or a home or just enough education to get you a job as a domestic."

People cannot tell me that that is acceptable to this Parliament or to Australians generally. It should not be. The simple fact is that those sorts of justifications existed. Fortuitously the first volumes of the report became available during the Australian Reconciliation Convention, which I attended. I am sure that all the 1,800 convention delegates thought it deeply appropriate that the "Bringing them home" report should have its public viewing at a convention looking towards the future, looking towards Australia’s reconciliation and towards the pathway that Australians can take for reconciliation - the way forward. But the report also emphasised the great sadness of what had occurred. More than 500 people presented their stories to Sir Ronald Wilson. I am not the slightest bit surprised that Sir Ronald Wilson has been moved by the highest level of compassion.

When one hears him speak one understands that he has been touched by the horrors that occurred to indigenous Australians: and so he should have been, and so should every Australian, because it was an horrific past. Today, in pockets around Australia, the approach to the difficulties experienced by indigenous Australians is not much better. The examples given by those 500 people were just horrific. They were examples of a complete lack of compassion, a complete lack of care. The report contains many examples, but I will quote from one that explains how a family was separated:

I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie (and cousin). They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we’d gone (about ten miles) they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mothers’ backs, crying, trying not to be left behind. But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us. We were screaming in the back of that car. When we got to Broome they put me and my cousin in the Broome lock-up. We were only ten years old. We were in the lock-up for two days waiting for the boat to Perth.

That is but one example. As shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs I have a fairly knowledgable position. I have been around a while; I would like to say that I am young, but I am not. I have heard these sorts of stories, but I did not know just how uncaring, dispassionate and horrific these sorts of separations were. So let us get it right today. Our history is not necessarily a good history, although it has many good parts. Many times non-indigenous Australians have tried to do the right thing for indigenous Australians. But, regrettably, until we as a community acknowledge the horror and the incredibly intensive psychological anguish and pain inside many Aboriginal people, and are big enough to say, "We are sorry that this happened to you", why should Aboriginal people feel that we are one community?

Why should they feel that we have a sense of one shared history and direction forward, until we Australians as a community acknowledge what happened. We should do that not with a sense of guilt - we were not there, we did not do it - but it is our country, and it is part of our history that these wrongs were done to Aboriginal people. I heard recently that some people are saying that similar events still happen on occasions in various parts of Australia. Hopefully, they do not occur with the frequency or natural inevitability of such happenings during the late 1950s and early 1960s. But in order for us to go forward, we non-indigenous Australians need to acknowledge what happened in the past. We need to say that we are really sorry that this happened, we are really sorry that their lives were in turmoil, we are sorry that they suffered such anguish and were not able to get on with their lives in the way that they should have been able to.

I encourage all Australians to read the executive summary in "Bringing them home" and to read books on similar topics. At the moment I am halfway through If Everyone Cared, the autobiography of Margaret Tucker. It is a story about an Aboriginal child who was separated from her family. She was a member of a normal Aboriginal family working on the station and she attended the station school. But along came the police. They took her and her elder sister away, but left the younger sister. The police threatened the mother with handcuffs because the mother did not want the two girls to go. After that Margaret Tucker did not see her mother for a long time. She was left
Page 10537
in a training centre for Aboriginal girls and became a domestic.

Her story is told not with hatred, not with a contempt for other Australians, but with humour, intellect, objectivity and, most importantly, in a way to inform other Australians about what happened to Aboriginal people. I encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to borrow this book and read it. I also encourage all Australians to read it and try to come to grips with what Australian history is all about. The Liberal Party recognises that many Aboriginal people are still locked on this island, Australia, with lost identities. We want Aboriginal people to have their identities, we want them to be able to share their identities and our collective histories. We want to go forward with Aboriginal people because it enriches all of us to do so. To achieve that aim I ask Aboriginal people to understand that we are sorry about what happened to them and their families in the history of Australia.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [11.58 a.m.]: I am pleased to have this opportunity to make my personal contribution to this motion. In the 1950s and 1960s I was a child, and my contemporaries included children of the lost generation. I grew up with this issue. This is not an issue of the past; it is not strictly about 1788, it is not about distant history. It is about our contemporary history of the 1950s and 1960s. I am a member of that contemporary society of the 1950s and 1960s. I believe society should apologise, and I add my apology. That is not to say that a mere apology resolves anything, but it is an expression of our humanity. I am equally concerned about the tragic issues of homelessness, education, health, social tragedy and suicide that still pervade the Aboriginal community. We need to address drug and alcohol abuse and the often seen lack of direction or motivation towards a better future.

As an Australian I want something done about those problems. Equally, I want something done about a whole raft of social issues facing Australia, including the tragedy of drought in rural Australia and the debilitating social dislocation caused by an overall loss of economy, depopulation and job opportunities to the bush. I am concerned about the desperate community problems faced in the cities, regional centres and rural communities as a result of our lost youth. Anyone who thinks the National Party might be less sensitive to the problems caused by the stolen generation would not be aware of the relationship National Party members of Parliament have with the Aboriginal communities in their electorates. I am proud of the Aboriginal community, which is predominantly from the Kamilaroi, in my electorate of Upper Hunter. I am particularly proud of the achievements of the Walhallow community near Quirindi.

I have taken people, including the Governor of New South Wales, to Walhallow to meet Mr Terry Allan and other leaders in the area, as well as the community. I have received the debs at the Walhallow debutante ball. The Aboriginal artwork presented to me hangs on my wall. The Aboriginal community is part of our whole community, especially in country New South Wales, and we all want to work together to solve the totality of the social, economic and environmental issues confronting rural Australia. The trap is to apply the political correctness and morality of this contemporary society to the morality of more than 40 years ago, when the process was endorsed by and participated in by governments at all levels, academics, social experts, educational experts and the churches. Likewise, 40 years from now the trap will be in applying the morality of the future to today’s actions.

The test in the current era is whether we can successfully use our existing resources to deal with and advance solutions to the problems of the Aboriginal community contemporaneously with other issues affecting the whole community. I ask the Aboriginal community to accept this heartfelt apology and to respond with goodwill and a commitment to a better future. The future is in your hands and only you can fulfil your destiny. With a sense of human equality and an equitable share of resources, the Aboriginal community will be faced with the problem of finding a contribution that both black and white can make to a greater Australia.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [12.02 p.m.]: I support the motion. I also support what has been said by those who have already spoken in the debate, with the exception of the Leader of the National Party; I found his words both confusing and uncertain. An apology is an important gesture and an important part of the repair process. However, an apology will only have significance if the ills of past policies of assimilation are genuinely recognised. I have read the report "Bringing them home", and I should like to quote from what was written about Millicent. The report states:

At the age of four, I was taken away from my family and placed in Sister Kate’s Home - Western Australia where I was kept as a ward of the state until I was eighteen years old. I was forbidden to see any of my family or know of their whereabouts. Five of us D. children were all taken and placed in different institutions in WA. The Protector of Aborigines and the Child Welfare Department in their "Almighty Wisdom" said we would have a better life and future brought up as whitefellas away from our parents in a good religious

Page 10538
environment. All they contributed to our upbringing and future was an unrepairable scar of loneliness, mistrust, hatred and bitterness. Fears that have been with me all of life. The empty dark and lonely existence was so full of many hurtful and unforgivable events, that I cannot escape from no matter how hard I try. Being deprived of the most cherished and valuable thing in life as an Aboriginal Child - love and family bonds.

The policy was evil; Aborigines were not even regarded as human beings. The report reveals a great deal about the impact of removal policies on present Aboriginal communities. The Sydney Aboriginal Mental Health Unit advised the inquiry of its experience with patients presenting with emotional distress. It is worth recording what the inquiry was told, because it puts the ramifications of past policies in a contemporary light. The inquiry was told:

This tragic experience, across several generations, has resulted in incalculable trauma, depression and major health problems for Aboriginal people. Careful history taking during the assessment of most individuals and families identifies separation by one means or another - initially the systematic forced removal of children and now the continuing removal by Community Services or the magistracy for detention of children.

Incidentally, I advise the honourable member for Wakehurst that the policies continued into the 1970s, and the report contains many reports of it occurring perhaps even into the 1980s. The report continues:

This process has been tantamount to a continuing cultural and spiritual genocide both as an individual and a community experience and we believe it has been the single most significant factor in emotional and mental health problems which in turn have impacted on physical health.

The report then states:

The Unit identified the risk of "major depressive disorder and use of alcohol and other drugs to ease feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, marginalisation, discrimination and dispossession, leading to breakdown in relationships, domestic violence and abuse" among its clients. The forcible removal policies are seen as the principal cause of these "presenting issues".

An apology is an acknowledgment of past wrongs. Those wrongs have given me feelings of great regret, shame and sorrow. The past cannot be undone, but we can attempt to right some of the wrongs. Opportunities for reparation are available. The greatest gesture that could follow an apology would be finding a way through the problem of native title rights and providing Aboriginal communities with the opportunity to celebrate their culture and to share the same access to resources that other Australians enjoy. Respect for those who have suffered under past policies is best shown by an unwillingness to entertain any current policy that perpetuates dispossession. By that I mean that nothing should be done to undermine the landmark decisions of the last few years, including those in Mabo and Wik.

On 6 June I organised a luncheon in Parliament House to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of one of the major development agencies, Plan International. The guest speaker at that luncheon was Noel Pearson. Aboriginal communities can be proud of him. He talked about the Mabo judgment. He said that the white judges of the High Court had made a unilateral offer of peace to Australia’s indigenous people with the Mabo and Wik decisions. He went on to say:

It is the only real chance we have to forge a peace plan, not on the basis of war, not on the basis of struggle, but on the basis of our democratic institutions delivering on this peace proposal.

He continued:

The High Court said that in 1788 when this glorious vista here [he gestured over to the domain] was occupied by the Eora peoples, at that moment when the Crown declared sovereignty over Australia, Aboriginal people were supposed to be recognised as citizens of the British Crown.

They were entitled to the recognition of their humanity and their traditional connection to their homeland.

Noel Pearson went on to say that of all the miserable baggage that came out of England, three things were of value: Earl Grey tea, the sublime game of cricket and the common law. He said the common law came upon the shoulders of those who held the sword of imperialism. That troubling imperialism for indigenous people had the redemptive prospect within it that the imperialists carried within them a law on their shoulders that was capable of civilised conduct. That civilisation came to the surface very late in the day but it came to redeem us all. His reference to redemption was a reference to the decisions of Mabo and Wik. The current attempts, particularly by the Federal Government, to undo the wisdom of Wik are a perpetuation of the dispossession and disadvantage imposed on the Aboriginal people that has been recorded in the report "Bringing them home".

An apology is of paramount importance, but as politicians we must not tolerate any perpetuation of policies that further disadvantage our indigenous people. I have a deep interest in Aboriginal health, and I am appalled by the shocking statistics relating to the plight of the Aboriginal people in that regard. In the past six months I have taken the opportunity to travel twice into remote Aboriginal communities to try to come to grips with the problem. As a member of Parliament based in the Sydney Page 10539
metropolitan area I have no significant Aboriginal community in my electorate but as a member of this House I consider it my responsibility to familiarise myself with the problems that exist in Aboriginal communities, particularly those relating to health.

I was saddened by the stories I heard and the conditions I witnessed in those remote regions. I have absolutely no doubt that resources to those areas must be increased. We also need to consider carefully and review the way services are delivered to those areas. Most importantly, those remote Aboriginal communities must be given a much greater role in decision making relating to housing, employment, culture, health and welfare services. Too many of those communities are still marginalised in disadvantaged conditions and lack proper services. In Brewarrina I had a most moving discussion with an 87-year-old Aboriginal woman who described the history of her displacement over the years. She was born in tribal conditions in a remote area and suffered what she called three displacements.

The first displacement was when she was moved with her tribe into a reserve. Some years later, I believe it was before the war, the second displacement involved the tribe being moved off the reservation and into a mission. After the war she was moved out of the Brewarrina mission and into the reserve on the outskirts of Brewarrina. That was the third displacement. Each time the members of the tribe were accorded no respect: they were moved in cattle trucks. My conversation with that woman has left me with a lasting impression and I personally pledge that for the balance of my political life I will work for the benefit of the indigenous people.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.13 p.m.]: First I thank Nancy de Vries for her courage in sharing her story with members of this House today. We listened to what she had to say and felt her anguish, but it is difficult to believe that we all truly understood her lifelong pain and the lifelong pain that is felt by so many members of the community she so ably represented in this House today. As the history of this tragedy has unfolded over many months, the real shock to me was the realisation that this problem occurred in my generation. The honourable member for Clarence is sitting on the other side of the Chamber. We went to school together and it happened in our time. It is not a part of the history we were taught at school of atrocities in some far-distant country. We are talking about something that happened in our time and in our own backyard. At school we were taught by the wonderful Christian Brothers that our nation was a land of milk and honey - it was the land of the Anzacs, a land of sweeping golden plains, the lucky country. But it was not lucky for everyone. In Sydney we lived in wonderful times of growth, development and education.

Ms Moore: Insularity.

Mr PHILLIPS: And insularity - very much so. While I was attending a Christian Brothers school, well-meaning religious people of the same order were separating children from their parents. I am not referring to the occasional disadvantaged or abused child; I am referring to the taking away of more than 100,000 children in our lifetime, in our generation, from their parents to live somewhere else. Their lives were changed. Their dignity was stolen. I wonder what our response would have been if while we were growing up we knew or lived next door to children who were stolen or taken away for no reason other than their race. That is the great tragedy of this story. At that time some members of this House were attending schools run by other religious orders such as the Methodists. Those religious orders were also taking children away and placing them in other homes in far distant parts of Australia.

While other honourable members were attending public schools the Government of this State was also separating children from their families and placing them all over the State and in other parts of the country. While we were living in ignorance and absorbing the bounties of this land, this tragedy was happening here in Australia, in our own land. I have no hesitation in joining with all of my colleagues in this Parliament to support this important motion. As members of Parliament we are not expected to know everything about every issue; I do not believe the community expects us to be experts on all issues. We are not expected to have experienced all life can offer or to have experienced all the pains of life. That would be unrealistic.

However, the community expects us to listen, to try to understand issues and to respond in a positive manner. That is all that is expected of us: no more and no less. There is only one response for anyone who has considered this issue in any way, who has read about it or spoken about it to members of the Aboriginal community. That response is an unreserved apology to the Aboriginal people of Australia for "the systematic separation of generations of Aboriginal children from their parents, families and communities". We all know that apologising, as heartfelt as it may be, is not enough. We must make amends, as other speakers have said. We have apologised in this House on four
Page 10540occasions in the past and, generally, those apologies have gone unrecognised. On 14 November the Premier made a substantial apology in this House. He said when debating a motion that he had moved, "They are the stolen children of lost generations." Later in debate on the motion he said:

I reaffirm in this place, formally and solemnly as Premier on behalf of the Government and people of New South Wales, our apology to the Aboriginal people. I invite the House to join with me in that apology.

We did and we will do so again today. We know that those words will turn into hollow rhetoric if, in the longer term, we do not take positive action. We must reaffirm our commitment to the goals and processes of Aboriginal reconciliation. We must be committed to addressing issues concerning the disadvantaged and we must take account of the aspirations of indigenous people in Australia. If we are genuine about this issue it should be constantly on our minds; it should not be placed on the agenda to which we return occasionally. We should try to correct some of the significant errors of the past.

For me, today is not about protecting our international reputation; it is not about the economic stability of our pastoralists; it is not about salving our consciences; and it is not about what we should do or could be doing physically for Aborigines. For me, today is purely and simply about being caring human beings, struggling to find meaningful ways in which to end the hurt of fellow Australians. That is our simple agenda today. We cannot heal the body unless we first heal the heart - a matter which must be stressed in debate today. We must not be distracted from our goal. This motion is an important step towards healing the heart and correcting the hurt that has been suffered by the Aboriginal community. I apologise unreservedly to the Aboriginal community. I make a commitment to do all that I can to ensure that members of that community have a better lifestyle.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.22 p.m.]: I strongly support the motion moved by the Premier, namely, that this House, on behalf of the people of New South Wales apologises unreservedly to the Aboriginal people of Australia for the systematic separation of generations of Aboriginal children from their parents, families and communities. I join with all other honourable members in supporting this motion. We must recognise and acknowledge what has happened and give support to members of the Aboriginal community as they grieve and attempt to heal the hurt of the past. We must work with the Government and members of the Australian community to overcome the disadvantages confronting those people. I will refer to a few matters which I believe are important. It is obvious that all members of Parliament support this motion. It has been pointed out in debate today that this policy of separation, which was pursued up until 20 years ago - it was based on ignorance and paternalism - emanated from this very Chamber. Laws were enacted that led to the action that caused such shocking dislocation of and destruction to the original inhabitants of this country.

As so many other members have done, I draw attention to the fact that the majority of people in Australia did not know that this policy was being enacted. They did not know what its consequences would be. They, like members of this Parliament, are truly shocked and saddened by the revelations that have come to light over recent months about the effects that this policy had on the Aboriginal community. I draw to the attention of honourable members the obvious: history can repeat itself. We study history because we know that it can repeat itself. Today I say to the Parliament, as I said yesterday, that we must have proper questioning, scrutiny and accountability in this place. Decisions must not be made and rubber-stamped behind closed doors. Legislation should not be rushed through this House. The community must not be kept in ignorance about what is happening in this place. Without proper questioning, debate and accountability, terrible policies such as this will again be enacted.

I call upon the Premier and members of the Australian Labor Party not to support what is happening at present, that is, a departure from democratic parliamentary processes. As I said earlier, the policy that has been so destructive of the Aboriginal community was enacted in this place. The majority of the Australian community who live in our cities had no knowledge about what was happening to the Aboriginal community. If they did I do not believe that they would have supported or endorsed that policy. Notwithstanding the mores, morality and policies of various churches of the day, I do not believe that the majority of fair-minded and right-minded Australians would have gone along with that. History must not repeat itself. This Parliament should be a proper place of scrutiny, accountability and questioning.

Paternalistic, unjust policies should not be allowed to develop again. We all say that these things will not happen again, but we know that history repeats itself. We must put this issue to rest and say that we require an accountable Parliament that will not allow such laws to emerge again. In conclusion, I support all the sentiments expressed by other honourable members in debate on this matter. Page 10541
Today has been an incredibly moving experience; it is something that had to happen. I echo the words of the honourable member for Keira, who has been so impressive in the work that he has done in this area over many years. I am sorry for what has happened in the past. I will do everything I can, as a legislator, to make things better for the Aboriginal community in the future.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [12.27 p.m.]: I have probably had as much experience in relation to this issue as any other honourable member. However, I have not had as much experience as those who were in the gallery earlier.

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Swansea might view this matter flippantly. However, some honourable members are aware of the anguish that many members of the Aboriginal community have suffered. It might do the honourable member a world of good to rest her bottom jaw. I had the good fortune of being able to spend some of the period of my youth in the Alice Springs area. When I was 17 or 18 I worked with surveyors and on cattle stations in that area. I witnessed first-hand the lifestyle of Aboriginal people. During that time I developed a great affinity for them and an understanding of the problems they faced. As members of Parliament, we are here today to apologise to the Aboriginal people for our past mistakes. We should not detract in any way from the heartfelt concerns of churches, institutions and Aboriginal people. We, as a society, undertook to protect Aboriginal children from a number of traumatic experiences; we tried to drag a stone-age people into a modern society, which was an impossible task. It was a task that the people did not understand; Aboriginal people certainly did not understand, and monumental problems had to be faced.

We are here to apologise for the sins of those who, with the best of intentions, instigated legislation which would provide for children to be removed from their parents, forcibly in some cases. But the sins continue. It was not only in 1962 that children were removed from their parents; it still happens today in Sydney and across New South Wales. The faces, places and names have changed, but it still goes on under the auspices of government - I refer to the Aboriginal Children’s Service and the Department of Community Services. But first I wish to provide a background to my understanding of what has occurred.

In 1963, in Alice Springs, camps were set up at Amoonganah, Jay Creek and, for those who were less lucky, Todd River. I was a young fellow, a stranger in a strange land; I came from the Snowy Mountains, in the south of New South Wales. There were few people my age in Alice Springs. I became friendly with Harry Wilson, an Aboriginal from the Top End. He had been taken from his parents at Daly River to Melville Island, where he was raised at a Catholic mission. Today Harry Wilson is Chairman of the Peppimenarti Aboriginal Land Council, south-west of Alice Springs. I hope to see him in a couple of months. I befriended Harry because he was about my age. In those days people were not allowed to drink until they were 21 years of age. I had other friends in the Aboriginal community: the Bray family, Robert in particular; the Perkins family, of which one member, Charlie, has become famous in recent times; the Taylors, a white couple who owned Elkira Court, and their son and daughter, Betty and Richard. We were all great mates.

When the prohibition on alcohol was lifted Bill Wentworth was the member for Mackellar and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He did everything in his power to prevent the lifting of the prohibition on alcohol consumption by Aborigines, not because he wanted to discriminate against them but because he saw great pitfalls for the race if the prohibition was lifted. I was amazed that he was labelled as a racist by the media. I did not understand what a racist was, because there was no such thing as black and white to me - they were all people. I have known Barbara Wentworth since I was a child. The Wentworths do not need to apologise.

Drunkenness became a major problem from the time prohibition was lifted, and as a consequence many Aboriginal children were neglected, as white children are neglected today when alcohol is involved. An Aboriginal woman by the name of Mrs Flynn - I have never known her first name - was respected by the members of our gang. Her humble home became a haven for the neglected children on the street, because there was no other place in Alice Springs which could take care of the children or young people. Because we were not allowed to drink we played football barefoot on the adjoining football field, in the dust and the bindi burrs. Mrs Flynn became ill, and I realise today that would have been because of undernourishment; she shared her food with all the children. She died and was buried a pauper. Her funeral was attended by 10 people, three Page 10542
of whom were white - Richard and Betty Taylor and me. When she died the children for whom she had cared were placed in the care of missionaries and the gang broke up.

Churches and missionaries in Alice Springs took care of Aboriginal children and their mothers. On one occasion I was camped with friends at a bore near Mount Ebenezer, a tourist centre on the way to Ayers Rock, and a young Aboriginal woman came to our camp in the middle of the night with half her cheek hanging off and a cut on the arm. She had been attacked by one of the elders of the Aboriginal tribe because she was bearing the child of a white man and was looking for a safe haven. Ted and Val Kunoth, who owned Mount Ebenezer station, took her in, cared for her and arranged for her to be taken to Alice Springs for treatment. That made me aware of the dire circumstances in which people such as that young woman - weeis as they were known - lived, and explained their failings or the failings of the white people with whom they associated, and the consequent costs to the children. Those children face great difficulties today. Many of them were placed in homes, as was the child of that young woman, The Aboriginal Children’s Service today plays the role of Mrs Flynn and the Alice Springs churches and missionaries. I am sorry to say that the Aboriginal Children’s Service and the Department of Community Services are not doing it very well.

For the past three months I have been dealing with the case of Tracey Fardell. I raised the matter with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Community Services and his staff, the media, and in this House. Tracey Fardell was separated from her children in 1991 when they were taken into the care of the Aboriginal Children’s Service. The Aboriginal Children’s Service has failed the children and failed Tracey Fardell. A report has been provided to me, which I will not read to the House because it would expose the identities of innocent people.

I appeal to this House and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on this day, which has been set aside as a day of some significance, to consider the case of Tracey Fardell, a white woman who was married to an Aboriginal man. After her children were removed from her care they were placed in the care of the Aboriginal Children’s Service and subsequently placed into foster care. It has been alleged that one of those children has been sexually abused, and I have documentation to support that allegation. Tracey Fardell is not able to see her children despite the fact that there have been opportunities for negotiations to take place between the Aboriginal Children’s Service, Tracey Fardell and others, and directions have been given that access should be granted to the children.

Tracey’s husband, the father of the children, has not been able to see them. In fact, he has reached such a point of frustration that he is prepared to relinquish his Aboriginality in order to have access to his children. The situation is intolerable. The Aboriginal Children’s Service needs to take account of the fact that if it accepts responsibility for the custody of these children, whether it be in foster care or through its own administration, it must also accept responsibility for the welfare of the parents. The reunification of the family unit is the responsibility of the service. Tracey Fardell faces a desperate situation. Apart from my appeal to the Parliament today, all avenues have been exhausted, and it seems that no-one is interested in taking up her case.

There would be little doubt in anyone’s mind about the sincerity and depth of feeling that most people have for the future of Aboriginal people. Much of today’s debate has demonstrated the existence of that sincerity. The Leader of the National Party made the point that an apology is fruitless, worthless and hollow unless there is some follow-up so that people such as Tracey Fardell, her four children and her husband receive some benefit from the remarks that have been made by members of this House. We should not encourage divided and bigoted debate about the issue of who owns Australia or who owns the children; rather, we should strive to achieve what is best for Australia.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [12.41 p.m.]: On behalf of many people in my electorate I join with those honourable members who have contributed to today’s debate to say that I, too, feel heartfelt sympathy for the Aboriginal people of this country. I apologise for the great disservice that was done to them by a system that simply did not understand. We all have our stories to tell, and many of those stories have been recounted today. I was raised on an orphanage property - not in the orphanage, but my father ran the property. I shared a good deal of time with people who were supposedly orphans. Most of them had mums or dads of one form or another somewhere around the place, so they were not all necessarily orphans. They were there because they had been taken into care and were being looked after.

I have great empathy with those people who, as children, were raised outside a normal home
Page 10543
environment with loving parents such as I enjoyed. We know that many Aboriginal kids were taken into care for their own welfare and protection. Today’s debate is not about those kids, as much as their stories are profound and regardless of how many suffered the same sorts of trauma. Today we are simply talking about a policy that was wrong. The genesis of the policy was wrong: the implementation of the policy was wrong, and the pain and the trauma that was visited upon so many people - over 100,000 children, their parents, brothers and sisters, and the communities they lived in - were wrong. For that I apologise.

I am not personally guilty; I was not there, in the sense of making that decision and implementing it. But that does not stop me from joining with the many people in this country who share a sense of grief for what the system has done to some Australians, simply on the basis that they were born Aboriginal. That policy can never be accepted and can never in any way be explained away. The policy was simply wrong. As a consequence of that policy many people grieved then, many people grieve now, and many will continue to grieve for the rest of their days.

Many honourable members on both sides of this House - in fact, I would say every member who contributed to this debate - have said that in some way or other we are all grappling with the consequences of a policy that was wrong. Until the spirit has healed we will never be able to attend to all the current day-by-day issues that have emerged from the dispossession, the trauma and the wrongs that have occurred between people over the years. Today is a step in the right direction towards that healing process. Today’s debate will not solve the problems of homelessness, ill-health, lack of education, poverty and all of those things that we know about and in some way try to deal with on a day-bay-day basis. However, the debate provides an opportunity for us to recommit ourselves to continue to deal with those issues and to continue to chip away, as quickly as we can and as genuinely as we can, at all those problems until we get it right. In so doing, as policymakers we might better inform ourselves about improving relationships between black and white Australians, between older residents and new immigrant families, and so on, according to the best human values we can possibly attain. Nevertheless, we will not have apologised as well as we might have done.

In a sense, it is true that words are cheap. But unless each of us, in the individual roles that we play, backs up those words with action, commitment and determination to try to improve the situation, to ensure that wrong policies dealing with human relationships are abolished, and that better policies replace them, we really will not have apologised as well as we ought to have done. I am proud to be part of this Parliament, in almost every way one could possibly imagine. But I am ashamed that this Parliament, along with many other parliaments in Australia and around the world, has from time to time got it very, very wrong. We did get it wrong, and I apologise.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [12.47 p.m.]: Kurnell, which is situated in my electorate, is the birthplace of modern Australia. There was a meeting in Kurnell between two cultures. I place on record the words spoken by Sir John Carrick on Thursday, 14 November 1996, Aboriginal Reconciliation Day. Sir John Carrick said:

The Report of the Committee of Review of NSW schools, adopted by the NSW Liberal Government in 1989 and subsequently implemented, contained these memorable words:

"Very few Australians understand the immense differences between the environment of the western world and the traditional culture, religion, family and tribal structures, divisions of labour and methods of learning and communication of the Aborigines. Fewer still know of the rich and complex history of the Aboriginal People, their achievements in survival, conservation of natural resources, their development of skills and creative arts. To know is to appreciate the present sense of alienation and loss of dignity, and sense of purpose of many Aborigines. To spread a sympathetic understanding throughout the community is an essential step in the healing and uniting process."

And these sentiments and understanding, reinforced by a series of sensitive and imaginative policies approved by Aboriginal educators, have been implemented throughout NSW schools to the great benefit of both Aborigines and non-aborigines. In these policies lies the great hope for the genuine fellowship of future generations.

Simply to advocate and implement equality of opportunity for all Australians according to Western values was not and is not enough. The abolition of the White Australia Policy . . . [and] the successful 1967 Referendum . . . gave Aboriginals equal citizenship with others.

The referendum mentioned by Sir John Carrick was referred to earlier by the Leader of the National Party. The greatest disservice one can do to an individual is to treat that individual as a non-person. That is what happened before 1967. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about his generation. The speech of the present Governor-General is worthy of examination because this achievement occurred in 1967, in part of the baby boom generation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Sir William Deane said:

From the wider social and political point of view, the significance of the carriage of the 1967 referendum is beyond

Page 10544
measure. It marked the first great turning point in the relationship between Australia’s indigenous people and the nation of which they formed such an important part.

Laws in themselves cannot confer equality, dignity and respect. It is individual attitudes which will determine a division or unification of a community. That is the message in the motion expressing apology. It is genuine understanding which will remove so many of the artificial causes and prejudices of division. Australian Aborigines have been, and remain, disadvantaged in spite of great efforts and public expenditure to mitigate hardships. The greatest invasion of Aboriginal traditional lifestyle was not by weapons but by the inevitable spread of western communicable diseases - including upper respiratory tract infections, smallpox, measles, and sexually transmitted diseases - to which they were and remain very vulnerable. The western diet too, so different from the foodstuffs of their hunting and foraging, has added its toll of diabetes and alcoholism.

Better dwelling conditions and improved health and hygiene are vital. But if Aborigines are to have equal dignity and friendship alongside other Australians, their problems will not be resolved simply by government patronage and handouts. Social security, health and housing supports are important but unless Aborigines, as others, can have access to worthwhile and satisfactory employment - not just the wholly unskilled jobs that others will not do - they cannot achieve that spirit of independence and achievement that is vital to their wellbeing. In true and genuine reconciliation there is no place for second-class citizenship. Neither Aboriginal children nor adults must be de facto wards of the State through permanent dependence on handouts.

Aborigines have achieved much in war and peace, in sport, in tertiary education, in the professions and in commerce and industry. They will achieve so much more and add significantly to the culture and way of life of all Australians if we break down those unconscious barriers that somehow divide us. Let us not wait for them to take the steps towards us. Many of us are naturally shy and may have memories, real or imagined, of past rejection. The bonds within the Aboriginal extended family have valuable lessons for us all. Above all, they, like us, are vital human beings, with so many of the same hopes, fears and strivings, and the hunger for spiritual values. They are different, yes, in many ways. But so are so many of our newer migrant arrivals. However, as with all human beings, the things that unite us are greater than those which divide us. Fine words, high-sounding pledges or even strong laws will not achieve reconciliation. Reconciliation is a positive and spontaneous expression of the human spirit, the natural "fair go" of the Australian philosophy.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration of the Legislative Council’s amendments to the Accommodation Levy Bill resumed from an earlier hour.

Motion agreed to.

No. 1 Page 4, Schedule 1, lines 9 and 10. Omit "by eligible customers of the licensee in that financial year". Insert instead "in that financial year by eligible customers who are connected to the licensee’s distribution system".

No. 2 Page 6, Schedule 1, lines 33 and 34. Omit "to an eligible customer by a licensee". Insert instead "by a licensee with respect to the supply of electricity to eligible customers".

No. 3 Page 7, Schedule 1, lines 7-12. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 4 Page 8, Schedule 1, lines 5-8. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(2) This Division applies to eligible customers provided with electricity network services under any contract.

No. 5 Page 8, Schedule 1, line 17. Omit "negotiated customer connection".

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:

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

Page 2, clause 2, line 7. Omit "1 September 1997". Insert instead "1 February 1998".

Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:
Page 10545

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

Legislative Council’s amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 12.55 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Petitions praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from Mr Armstrong, Mr Brogden, Mr Collins, Mr Cruickshank, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy, Mr Hazzard, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr MacCarthy, Mr O’Doherty, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, and Mr Tink.

Petition praying that the maternity ward and birthing centre at Camden District Hospital be retained, and that the hospital be retained as a general hospital, received from Dr Kernohan.

Petition praying that Bega and District Hospital be reclassified as a base hospital, received from Mr Smith.

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

Petition praying that Riverwood police station not be closed or downgraded, received from Ms Ficarra.

Petition praying that Swansea police station be reopened, received from Ms Hall.

Petition praying that two police officers be employed full time in each police and community youth club, received from Mr Peacocke.

Petition praying that a railway station be built at Blue Haven, received from Ms Hall.

Petition praying that west-facing ramps be constructed on the M2 Motorway at Windsor Road, Baulkham Hills, received from Mr Merton.

Petition praying against the increased tax on poker machines in registered clubs, received from Mr Beck.

Mr Nagle, as Chairman, tabled a collation of evidence of the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Hon. B. S. J. O’Keefe, AM, QC, on general aspects of the commission’s operations, taken on Friday, 25 October 1966, and Tuesday, 17 December 1996.

Ordered be printed.

Mr Rumble, as Chairman, tabled a report entitled "Proceedings of the Seminar on Debts and Debtors: Getting Better Results", dated May 1997.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from Christian Brothers High School, Lewisham. I understand that both the Minister for Education and Training and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are former students of that school. They will, therefore, be on their very best behaviour today. I acknowledge also the presence in the gallery of Tony Johnson.

Page 10546

Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Minister for the Olympics. Did influential International Olympic Committee member Anita DeFrantz, whose vote was critical to Sydney winning the Olympics bid, say that it might not have won had there been a bed tax at the time of the bid? Given these comments by one of Sydney’s most loyal supporters whose name the Minister frequently invokes, will he now admit the damage the tax is doing to Sydney’s international reputation?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Eastwood to order. I call the honourable member for The Hills to order. I place the honourable member for Davidson on two calls to order.

Mr KNIGHT: The only reports I have seen of Anita DeFrantz’s position are those that the Leader of the Opposition quotes. I have not yet had an opportunity to talk to Anita DeFrantz, but she is one of Sydney’s strongest supporters and is on the record on many occasions as praising the organising work of the committee.

Mr GIBSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. What action is the Government taking to curb illegal drag racing in New South Wales?

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

Mr SCULLY: I acknowledge the good work of the honourable member for Londonderry on this issue in his capacity as Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety.

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

Mr SCULLY: Illegal drag racing is dangerous, antisocial and unacceptable. It threatens the safety and, indeed, the lives of the racers themselves and their ill-advised spectators. More disturbingly, it endangers unsuspecting members of the community using the streets ignorant of the extreme and violent threat that may literally be around the corner. Last year this Government took action to address the understandable community concern about illegal drag racing by giving police powers to seize and impound vehicles of offenders. Today the Government is taking steps to strengthen those provisions, to give police stronger, wider and more effective powers to impound the vehicles of and deal with illegal drag racers. Legislation introduced and passed last December established a six-month trial of new police powers to impound the vehicles of drag racers. The legislation provides for cars to be impounded for up to three months for a first offence and forfeited for subsequent offences.

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

Mr SCULLY: Late last night I informed the House that the Government had decided to permanently enforce those legislative powers. This followed a review of the Act by the Staysafe committee and input from a wide range of interested groups, including police, the Roads and Traffic Authority, car clubs, road safety experts and members of the public. I indicated also last night that I would introduce amendments to the Act to take into account police experience in implementing the new powers. Under the new powers more than 140 drag-racing vehicles have been impounded in less than six months. This represents more than one car for every working day, or more than five cars for every weekend. This is regrettable and disturbingly emphatic confirmation of the extent of the drag-racing problem. The figures confirm the justification of the powers that have operated over the past six months and underpin the Government’s moves to strengthen those powers.

I am pleased to advise the House that a bill I shall introduce later today will give police new powers to impound a drag-racing vehicle up to 10 days after an offence, seize a vehicle from private property, subject to a search warrant being obtained; recover the cost of towing a seized vehicle; dispose of unclaimed impounded vehicles; and seize vehicles engaging in wheelies where only one car wheel loses traction. Under the trial powers vehicles could only be seized on the spot. This encouraged offenders to evade police to avoid having their vehicles impounded. By giving police up to 10 days to impound vehicles the escape route is being closed. I note that the honourable member for Vaucluse, the loudly self-proclaimed crusader on this issue -
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Oxley on two calls to order.

Mr SCULLY: - has boldly gone forward on behalf of the Opposition on this matter and
Page 10547
courageously put that police should have - wait for it - an extra 24 hours in which to impound vehicles! The Government will provide an extra 10 days. Where will the honourable member for Vaucluse be in this issue? Will he support the Government? He proposed 24 measly, paltry hours in which to allow police to impound vehicles.

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

Mr Collins: On a point of order. The incident that caused you to bring the House to order was provoked by the Minister saying to the honourable member for Vaucluse, "Where were you?" and inviting interjection, to which the Opposition replied.

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

Mr SCULLY: This is an opportunity for the honourable member for Vaucluse, the bold crusader who offered 24 paltry, measly and miserly hours to the police -

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

Mr SCULLY: The Opposition now has the opportunity to endorse the Government’s strong hand and measured, considered response that will enforce the position of police in being able to impound vehicles for up to 10 days after an event.

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

Mr SCULLY: Under the trial powers police could not seize a vehicle from private property, recover the cost of towing a seized vehicle or dispose of unclaimed impounded vehicles. In addition, performing wheelies, which involve only one wheel losing traction, has not been an offence. The proposed amendments will address all these issues. The legislation that the Government introduced in December sent an unequivocal message to those indulging in illegal drag racing. Today the Government sends an even stronger message to those hoons: your dangerous pastime is not acceptable.

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

Mr SCULLY: Screaming tyres, wheelies, burnouts and doughnuts have no place on New South Wales roads.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the honourable member for Pittwater on three calls to order. I call the Leader of the National Party to order.

Mr SCULLY: If drivers indulge in illegal drag racing, they will face an increased risk of forfeiting the possession so dear to them - the car.

Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Olympics. What did Juan Antonio Samaranch say when the Minister notified him that the bed tax -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. I ask the Leader of the National Party to restate his question.

Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Olympics. What did Juan Antonio Samaranch say when the Minister notified him -

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: I am sure other members do not think my question is a joke. What did Juan Antonio Samaranch say when the Minister notified him that the bed tax was passed by the upper House last night? What steps is the Minister taking to allay the growing concerns among members of the International Olympic Committee that this tax will harm the Sydney Olympic Games in the year 2000?

Mr KNIGHT: I am endeavouring to do a great many things in consultation with the International Olympic Committee. If the Leader of the National Party accompanies me to the board of the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games on Friday, we can talk about this matter.

Mr MOSS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Transport. What measures is the Government undertaking to increase safety and security for State Transit bus drivers?

Mr LANGTON: The safety of bus drivers on the State Transit fleet is of paramount concern to this Government. For the past two years my department’s transport safety bureau has been working with the State Transit Authority to improve security for bus drivers. The Government initiated a safety transit summit in February last year. From
Page 10548
this summit came a streamlined forum to examine all transport safety issues affecting passengers and employees on all modes of transport. So far a range of measures has been introduced to improve security on the system.

Some of those measures include the implementation of a uniform security incident reporting system designed to improve police intelligence and response to security incidents for all transport modes; the implementation of security awareness training for bus drivers; a joint program between State Transit and the Police Service known as Operation Stop Bus, in which police randomly stop and board a bus for security checks; and crime prevention audits of problem interchanges and locations. These initiatives are all good, but the Government has not stopped there. I am pleased to advise the House that in order to improve bus driver safety and security the State Transit Authority will soon advertise for tenders for the supply and installation of video surveillance equipment on Sydney’s buses. Cameras will be installed on selected buses across the State Transit network. This follows the successful trialling of equipment on five Sydney buses.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for North Shore and the honourable member for Eastwood wish to converse, they should do so outside the Chamber.

Mr LANGTON: Once the first 200 buses have been equipped with cameras, State Transit will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the scheme and will then consider extending it to the entire fleet. For the past few months on the trial buses video surveillance equipment has been found to be highly successful in deterring incidents of assault. That is because the video camera is visible to all passengers and signs are prominently displayed on buses advising passengers that taping is in progress. The camera is positioned to capture the driver, the front door and passengers on the bus, so that any interaction between the driver and the passenger is recorded.

The video begins recording immediately the battery power is turned on, so it cannot be switched off once the bus is operational. The Government believes that the concept of video surveillance equipment will provide a deterrent to any potential assailant. The State Transit Authority has also had positive feedback from bus operators who have been trialling the cameras. They have indicated that they feel safer with the camera’s visible security presence. Every employee deserves to feel safe at work and every passenger deserves to feel safe when travelling. The Government is making buses safer for its employees and passengers because the Government believes that they deserve nothing less.

Mr PHILLIPS: I direct a question to the Minister for the Olympics. Has the International Olympic Committee warned that four international sponsors, including IBM, have refused to sign Olympic sponsorship deals until the bed tax fiasco is resolved? What has the Minister done to allay the IOC concerns and ensure that these details can be signed along with sponsorship agreements with local companies such as Ansett, Carlton and United Breweries, and Westpac?

Mr KNIGHT: The Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games is more advanced in signing sponsorship arrangements than any organising committee in the history of the Olympic Games. We are confident that we will still end up with more than any other Games.

Mrs BEAMER: What can the Premier tell the House about the reaction to the bed tax since this morning’s vote in the other place?

Mr CARR: The first reaction was apparently out on the streets of Sydney where, according to page 2 of today’s Daily Telegraph, there were a number of outraged Sydney hotel workers. They were rather thinly disguised, because one of them has been identified as Scott Morrison, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Tourism Council Australia, Bruce Baird’s organisation. He is Bruce Baird’s executive assistant. Honourable members may join me in recognising the other outraged Sydney hotel worker, who was no other than our dear friend the member for Ermington.

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

Mr CARR: He was surrounded by a gaggle of young Liberals, in a broad-rimmed hat - a Groucho mask. There he was, cast as an outraged hotel worker. Can honourable members imagine being served soup by the member for Ermington? If he were a waiter, and a diner said, "Waiter, there is a fly in my soup," that strange gabbling voice would reply, "That was order, that was order." If a diner asked, "Where are the barbecued prawns I ordered an hour ago?" he would reply -

Page 10549

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. As much as I hate to interrupt that episode from Fawlty Towers, I draw attention to the question that was put to the Premier, which related to the reaction to the decision taken in another place. The question did not relate to the skills or otherwise of the member for Ermington as a waiter.

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

Mr CARR: Did honourable members notice that the member for Ermington encroached on my personal space? But I have had a tetanus shot - rabies perhaps. But the suit is being dry-cleaned because it had a close personal encounter with a weasel. In the media today one of the senior hoteliers in Sydney put on the record the facts about the bed tax -

[Interruption]

The Deputy Leader of the National Party should not diminish his reputation by interjecting. Of all the frontbenchers, he is the only one who, following his contribution today, deserves a bit of credit. He should not diminish his standing in the eyes of -

[Interruption]

All my intentions have been generous and I give praise where it is due. What did Dick Warburton, who runs the Sydney Harbour Casino, a vast hotel that is about to open, have to say about the bed tax? The transcript of the 2BL news at midday today stated that the Chairman of Sydney Casino, Dick Warburton, was speaking with tourism industry experience. The tax will affect his company. The transcript states that, when finished later this year, the permanent casino will have nearly 500 rooms.

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

Mr CARR: The member for Northcott should have been disguised as a waiter at that protest, or as a chef - Pie in the Sky. Mr Warburton said:

If I want to go to New York -

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. The Premier is quoting one hotel proprietor. Will he quote -

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

Mr CARR: It is not a good day for the Leader of the National Party. Mr Warburton said:

If I want to go to New York I will go to New York. I will complain bitterly about the three taxes that apply to a bed in New York but if I have to go to New York, I will go there and I think that will be the case here in Sydney.

Said the ABC reporter, and they are always scrupulously accurate:

Mr Warburton said that their taxes divided the hotel and tourism industry. He also believes the new tax will not see many tourists not visiting Sydney.

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

Mr Hazzard: On a point of order. The Premier is demeaning the House with his stupid antics and carrying-on. This House deserves better than this Premier, and does not deserve that sort of behaviour.

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

Mr CARR: I am trying to answer the member’s question as best I can - but there has been a reference in this House today to the bed tax and the Olympics. Several cities are bidding to host the Olympics in 2004 and if what Opposition members say is right, no city with a bed tax can win the Olympic Games. That is what they said.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr CARR: I did a bit of research in regard to Cape Town, Rome, Stockholm, Athens and Buenos Aires. This morning I rang the Hilton Hotel in each city.

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

Mr CARR: Those are the five cities that are bidding to host the Olympic Games in the year 2004. Do honourable members want to know what is added to the hotel bill for a bed? In Cape Town it is 14 per cent plus a special levy on top of that if it is a tour. The tour levy is a flat rate of 4 rand per room.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows the standing orders. If he wishes to make a comment about a statement made by
Page 10550
another member, other forms of the House are available for him to do so. I ask him to remain silent and to desist from interjecting.

Mr CARR: On Sunday he threatened to destroy the budget. He said that the budget would be thrown out by the upper House. That is how much influence he has around here. Rome, which is bidding to host the Olympic Games in the year 2004, charges a 10 per cent bed tax plus a 19 per cent deluxe accommodation tax. Has that disqualified those cities from bidding for the Olympics? I will continue: Stockholm charges 12 per cent for hotels. Athens has a VAT of 18 per cent but 8 per cent for hotels, plus, and this is a beauty, a short stay in a hotel - the kind of thing that Dr Pezzutti was referring to - attracts a special duty on top of that of 2 per cent.

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

Mr CARR: Athens has an 18 per cent VAT, 8 per cent for hotels and a short stay duty of 2 per cent.

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

Mr CARR: Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, has a 3.3 per cent tourism tax, 24 per cent service charge and 15 per cent room tax.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I have already warned him not to interject.

Mr CARR: Every one of the cities that is bidding to hold the Olympic Games in 2004 has a bed tax of at least 10 per cent, and in many instances somewhat in excess of that figure.

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

Mr CARR: Let us hear no more of this nonsense. The silliest reaction to the bed tax came, as one would expect, from the silliest person on the Opposition frontbench, apart from the honourable member for Ermington. It came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer. In a debate this morning he advanced this ridiculous proposition. He said the exemption for youth hostels for backpacker accommodation would lead international hotels in Sydney to redefine themselves as backpacker accommodation. He has said many silly things, but the idea of the Regent Hotel calling itself backpacker accommodation really takes the prize. Imagine a ding-a-ling like that being Treasurer of this great State.

Mr RICHARDSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Has Penrith Panthers club announced that it will cut funding to more than 70 community organisations because the Government’s poker machine tax will wipe out all but $200,000 of the club’s projected $4.3 million profit? Will he now admit that his poker machine tax is so harsh that even the biggest New South Wales clubs will have trouble paying it?

Mr FACE: The Penrith Panthers club has made certain claims and, as is the case in respect of many other clubs, those claims are being checked to determine the organisations to which the club donates money. That has been one of the difficulties throughout the previous debate relating to poker machines in hotels and clubs, as it has been on this occasion. Clubs make donations in various ways and the Registered Clubs Association presented a collective figure that did not represent the true total of club donations. For example, a club in the Maitland area stated that it had made a significant contribution to a particular organisation. When my officers contacted that organisation they determined that the club had merely given the organisation in question the use of a room. That could hardly be said to be a significant contribution to that organisation. As I have said in this House on several occasions, some clubs will give until it hurts. Others will give away all sorts of weird and wonderful things for their own self-gratification.

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

Mr FACE: It was exactly the same in respect of the collective figure that was being touted during the debate relating to poker machines in hotels. From memory, the figure was $720 million. When the figures for donations to charities and non-profit organisations were extrapolated, that total was a more realistic $58 million, approximately. It was nothing like the figure of $720 million that had been suggested. The clubs were including in the figures provided such things as buildings and the replacement of poker machines. In many instances the figures included meals that had been given away
Page 10551
to club patrons. A club on the north coast recently stated that it had given away meals totalling $300,000 but it was in fact a marketing tool.

The club was not giving away meals. Whether or not the club deliberately lost the $300,000 I am not in a position to say. It could have been due to inefficiency. The club was not saying to patrons, "Here is your meal, dear. Do not go away. Why don’t you play the poker machines or have a drink." That is a common marketing tool adopted by many businesses. As Minister I have been sympathetic to clubs that donate to non-profit organisations, for example, the local netball team, football club or cricket club. A club in the Newcastle area provided $100,000 to a particular professional sporting organisation. It could hardly be said that it was a junior soccer club.

There has been a lot of confusion with regard to what is and what is not a charity. Hundreds, if not thousands, of organisations come under the Charitable Collections Act in this State and are allowed to collect money, but only a percentage of those organisations are recognised by the Australian Tax Office as benevolent organisations. It has been difficult for the Government, because of a lack of cooperation over the years by some members of the Registered Clubs Association. Despite my constant appeals to the RCA since I became Minister I have had to go further afield than the RCA to get the evidence I needed. However, I have done that over a period of time.

Clubs such as the Illawarra Catholic Club do a lot for the community and that club has been able to provide concrete figures showing the amounts they donate to organisations that fall within that ambit. The problem is that Mr Kerr from the RCA insists that he provided me with a submission. However, when asked, the deputy director of that association stated that no such submission had been made. He stated that a submission had been made in 1994 to the previous Government who did nothing with it. If Penrith Panthers club wants to be spiteful and try to influence the upper House, that is a decision for that club. I do not think that is the case. I am sure we will work through the problems.

Clubs are supposed to be going bad, but a club in Kiama is going ahead with a $1.7 million upgrade. The Port Kembla RSL Club is quite happy to go ahead with building a $5.2 million retirement village. Representatives of a Newcastle club advised me on Saturday that although the club is not going ahead with a couple of projects, it is building $20 million worth of extensions. But I told them we would look at the rebate scheme and work through it. The clubs are the first to admit that the present club scene results from the failure of the Registered Clubs Association to come up with correct figures. There will probably be a change in the administration and the elected level in the Registered Clubs Association, because the clubs are fed up with the many lies that have been told over time. I am positive that we will work through these problems with the industry.

Mr STEWART: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. What is the impact of the recent Howard Government’s budget on New South Wales schools?

Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member for Lakemba and all Government members are concerned about the impact of the recent Howard Government’s budget on New South Wales schools, and in particular its devastating impact on government schools and public education generally.

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

Mr O’Doherty: The Federal Government has increased it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order for the second time. He will be placed on three calls to order if he does not cease interjecting.

Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai said the Federal Government has increased it. Let me put this clearly on the record. The State reaffirms its commitment to public education. It is concerned that at a time when the State Government is pouring record amounts of money into public education, the Commonwealth is trying to minimise its contribution by cost shifting between the State and non-State school systems. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai has said that the Commonwealth Government is putting a record amount of money into public education in this and other States. That is absolute nonsense. A document released by all State coalition education Ministers stated:

We are concerned that at a time when the State Government is pouring record amounts of money into public education the Commonwealth is trying to minimise its contributions by cost shifting between the State and non-State school system.

Page 10552

Those are not my words, they are the words of a communique signed by the Hon. Colin Barnett, Liberal Minister from Western Australia; the Hon. Fred Finch, Northern Territory; the Hon. Philip Gude, Victoria; Robert Lucas, South Australia; Suzanne Napier, Tasmania; Robert Quinn, Queensland; and Bill Stefaniak, Australian Capital Territory. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is the odd man out. He does not know where he stands on this issue. He is the only one supporting David Kemp and the Commonwealth Government for taking funds from government schools and giving them to the non-government sector. Bill Stefaniak was quoted in the Canberra Times as saying:

The Federal Government’s new Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment scheme is basically a cost-cutting exercise in which government schools lose money.

Those comments and criticisms of the Howard Government reinforce the belief that the Federal Government is shifting costs from the Commonwealth to the States and shifting funds from government schools to non-government schools. Contrary to the claims of the Federal Minister for Schools, Dr Kemp, and of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, the Howard Government’s budget will see Federal outlays on government schools decline by 3.5 per cent in real terms. In addition, government schools will continue to suffer funding losses because of the new enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme being introduced by Dr Kemp. The Government estimates that New South Wales government schools will lose $128 million between 1996 and 2000.

Mr O’Doherty: That is what you say. We do not have to believe you.

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

Mr AQUILINA: The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai said you do not have to believe me. These are not my words. They are the words of every coalition education Minister around the country. He is the odd person out, the only one who is out of step, supporting the coalition fraternity. By the year 2000 this scheme will cost New South Wales government schools at least $50 million a year and by the year 2006 the annual costs to the States will be $180 million, or more than $60 million annually to New South Wales government schools. Dr Kemp’s enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme and the Howard Government’s budget cuts are a direct attack on public education, New South Wales schools and our young people.

As I have said previously, this is not just my view and the view of the New South Wales Government. It is the view of every State and Territory government in Australia. For the first time in living memory there has been a chorus of condemnation of the Federal Government by all State and Territory governments. Among this chorus of condemnation where was the Leader of the Opposition, where were his words along with those of his coalition colleagues condemning the Federal Government, and where was the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai?

Mr Collins: Ask me another question.

Mr AQUILINA: Where do you stand on this issue? Where do you stand in relation to cuts by the Commonwealth Government to public education in New South Wales?

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. The Minister was asked a question. He is supposed to give an answer, not ask a question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should confine his remarks to the script and continue with the answer, rather than provoke other members.

Mr AQUILINA: I was only responding to the Leader of the Opposition. On 9 June the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai described as false the claims that the enrolment benchmark adjustment would mean a loss of Federal funding. This position is supported neither by the facts nor by his interstate parliamentary colleagues.

Mr O’Doherty: On a point of order. The Opposition would be happy to debate the issue. The Minister is making what amounts to a substantive attack. It would be better placed as a motion, because the Opposition would be happy to debate it.

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

Mr AQUILINA: Obviously the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai does not know what he said, nor does he know what he puts out in his own press releases. He said that the Carr Labor Government should be looking at the reasons students are transferring out of government schools, rather than making false claims about loss of Federal funding.

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

Page 10553

Mr AQUILINA: Once again the shadow minister for education has shown that he is not across the issues. He has not done his homework. He has not bothered to confer with his interstate colleagues, all of whom have condemned the Howard Government on this stance. He does not know precisely what the impact of the enrolment benchmark adjustment is. It will mean a massive loss to New South Wales government schools, something in the vicinity of $50 million a year. It is an absolute disgrace that the Opposition is supporting the Federal Government. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to show his position on this matter, to show whether he supports public schools in New South Wales or supports the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. If he does not support the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, he should sack him.

Mrs SKINNER: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. How does the Minister’s department plan to assist hospitals that have had a cut in donations from clubs because of the club poker machine tax? Will the Minister guarantee to compensate Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital for the $100,000 a year it will lose because Bankstown Sports Club has been forced to stop its annual donation?

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: Over three years this Government has provided almost $1 billion more than the coalition ever thought of providing to public hospitals. We are building them up and we are reopening hospitals closed by the coalition.

Mrs SKINNER: I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister advise what services Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital will have to forgo because of the loss of $100,000 revenue?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The hypocrisy of members of the Opposition! They want to defeat the bed tax, which will provide funding for our hospitals. They want to cut back the tax on poker machines and consequently cut back the funding that this Government is directing to our hospitals. I repeat, this Government is rebuilding our hospitals and reopening hospitals that the coalition closed, and that includes the Bankstown hospital.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. I have now asked two questions which sought specific details about the funding of Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital yet the Minister has not responded to them.

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

Mr IEMMA: I direct a question without notice to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women. What is the Minister’s response to attempts to introduce price competitiveness in the real estate industry in Sydney’s eastern suburbs?

Mrs LO PO’: I have been extremely concerned about reports in recent days regarding a real estate agent Mr Edwin Adamek and his attempts to introduce a measure of good, old-fashioned price competition into his local area. Mr Adamek has made very serious claims that a newspaper refused to accept his advertisements for fear of offending other agents who advertise in that paper. Why are Mr Adamek’s advertisements so offensive? It is not for any of the usual grounds that newspapers cite when declining to accept advertisements. They are not immoral, they are not misleading and they are not against the public interest. On the contrary, the public would be pleased to hear his message. The reason is that Mr Adamek’s services are much cheaper than those of his competitors.

The typical commission charged by real estate agents to sell a home is 3 per cent. Anyone who tries to shop around and negotiate a better deal will discover quickly how consistent and inflexible this figure is. Mr Adamek’s sin is to offer the same service for rates between 0.9 and 0.7 per cent. That is, he is undercutting his rivals by about two-thirds. What has been the response of sections of the real estate industry to this injection of good, vigorous competition? Threats, intimidation and commercial blackmail.
Home loan borrowers in the past couple of years have benefited enormously from increased price competition now operating in the market. Non-bank mortgage providers such as RAMS and Aussie Home Loans deserve much of the credit for that. Where would they be today if newspapers and television stations had refused to carry the advertisements of those mortgage providers for fear of an advertising boycott by the banks? That is exactly what is happening in the eastern suburbs. Mr Adamek wants to advertise, but his colleagues whose services are far more expensive threatened
Page 10554
that if his advertisements were accepted by the newspapers those agents would boycott the newspapers. No-one disputes the benefits of competition. Business groups are the loudest in hailing the virtues of unfettered market competition. However, like mobile phone transmission towers and rubbish tips, everyone wants them, but not nearby.

Some businesses prefer nice cosy arrangements by which everyone in their neighbourhood coincidentally charges the same high price. If a newcomer appears on the scene offering people a better deal, they fall on him like a pack of hyenas and drive him out. Mr Adamek took his advertisement to another local paper, which ran it. This week, its editor - to her tremendous credit - told him she would continue to run his advertisement as agreed, but said that doing so would be signing the death warrant of her newspaper. She told him that she had been threatened by her other real estate advertisers that they would put her paper out of business if she carried Mr Adamek’s advertisement. If this is true, it is not only reprehensible, anti-competitive behaviour on the part of those agents, it is commercial blackmail, which is against the law. I have directed my department to investigate these allegations urgently.

I sympathise with the newspaper editors and proprietors who are the victims of this kind of commercial extortion racket. They too are running businesses and employing people. They are very vulnerable to the market power of big advertisers. We have notified the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which administers the Federal Trade Practices Act. If these allegations of blackmail - or "exclusionary provisions", in the words of section 45(2)(b) of that Act - are proved, they are very serious and could result in charges against those involved. The Department of Fair Trading also will monitor the position closely with regard to the New South Wales Property Stock and Business Agents Act.

I believe entrepreneurs like Mr Adamek deserve our applause. Since his case received publicity on the weekend, he has been inundated with calls from other single operator agents across New South Wales, offering to join him in offering the public the same cut rates. Those people want to take on the high-priced, established operators and their cosy, protected market arrangements. They want to compete. It is no exaggeration to say that this competitive pricing initiative of Mr Adamek could potentially revolutionise the New South Wales real estate industry, in the same way that competition has transformed the home loan market. It is a revolution that many would say is long overdue. Their customers stand to gain a great deal. I wish them every success. Those who set out to stop Mr Adamek and break the law in doing so are on notice that there are serious consequences for such actions. I will do everything in my power to ensure that those consequences flow.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr O’DOHERTY: I seek the leave of the House to move that standing orders be suspended to allow the Minister for Education to bring on a debate about education funding in New South Wales, including his cuts of more than $100 million a year.

Leave not granted.

Debate resumed from 28 May.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [3.18 p.m.]: I thank honourable members of the Opposition for their courtesy in granting me pre-audience to permit an amendment to the Water Board (Corporatisation) Act 1994. This amendment is intended to make the method for appointing directors of the board of Sydney Water Corporation Limited consistent with procedures currently used for a number of existing State-owned corporations such as the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation and corporations established by the Energy Services Corporations Act 1995. This method provides for the appointment of one of the directors upon the recommendation of a committee comprising two nominees each of the voting shareholders and the Labor Council. The committee makes its selection from a panel of three persons nominated by the Labor Council. This system has applied to the Sydney Water Corporation Limited from the time of its establishment.

Without this amendment, which will maintain the status quo, the system will be changed by earlier amendments to the State Owned Corporations Act which was enacted in 1995 and which will take effect on 1 July 1997 after a long suspension during a transition period. Those earlier amendments would require that this director be selected by a committee
Page 10555
comprising nominees of the voting shareholders and Labor Council but from members of staff nominated for selection. I move this amendment to the Water Board (Corporatisation) Act 1994 in order to maintain a system of appointing directors which has been working effectively for the Sydney Water Corporation as well as for a number of other State-owned corporations. I table the amendments.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Hartcher.

Debate resumed from 28 May.

Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [3.20 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the bill. I foreshadow that the Opposition will move one amendment, which I shall speak to later in the debate. There can be no doubt that volunteers generally are an essential part of the Australian make-up. Australia is a country that relies on volunteers, a country that is proud of its strong volunteer tradition. Nowhere is that more true than for bush fire brigades. With a volunteer force of approximately 70,000 members, the bush fire brigades certainly make up one of the largest volunteer groups in the world. That group is characterised by the fact that its members are people who are committed to their local communities and who feel that they have ownership of their brigades. The members are the brigades and they are committed to ensuring that their brigades work properly. That is an ethos that must be encouraged and preserved and must continue to grow.

Opposition members are aware, as are all honourable members, that this is a time of great change for the bush fire brigades. In the past several years a new professionalism has entered the operation of bushfire services and the bush fire brigades. That is to the great credit of Ministers both past and present who have recognised the need to ensure that the brigades are provided with proper equipment and are introduced to new methods of training. More particularly, in recent times, as a result of the Coroner’s inquiry after the 1994 fires, it has been recognised that legislative change is necessary. All honourable members would support legislative change. When the Government received the Coroner’s report it rejected his first and principal recommendation, the amalgamation of the brigades. Clearly, that was the proper thing to do. Had the Government failed to reject that recommendation, the volunteer ethos - an essential part of the bush fire brigades - would have been undermined.

Other recommendations contained in the Coroner’s report have led to the introduction of this bill, which was preceded by the draft Rural Fires Bill. It would be an understatement to say that when the draft bill was released for public consultation it was the subject of considerable angst. I have said previously that I make no apology for taking a pro-active part in the consultative process on the bill. I met with members of brigades and groups such as the New South Wales Farmers Association, the Local Government and Shires Associations and the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. I believe it was important and appropriate that I as shadow minister took an active role in listening to all concerns. I believe that as a result of my listening to those concerns and being part of the lobbying process we have ended up with a better bill. As I said at the beginning of my contribution to the debate, the Opposition will support the bill. I take the opportunity in this debate to raise a couple of matters that are still of concern and to put on record that some slight angst still exists about the bill.

I stress that the Opposition recognises the importance of ensuring a continuation of the high standards of the bush fire brigades, particularly in relation to training and delivery of service. Most important, the Opposition recognises the importance of volunteers and the volunteer ethos. That ethos must be continued and encouraged. Most of the concern about the draft bill related to a fear that the volunteer ethos would be undermined in some way. In general, it would be fair to say that the most significant problem with the draft bill was the strong perception that it both overrode local autonomy currently enjoyed by the brigades and sought to exclude local government from its traditional role in rural fire services. The view of the New South Wales Farmers Association Illabo branch, illustrated in a letter sent to me after a meeting of that branch, expressed those concerns succinctly. The letter stated:

The concern expressed at the meeting was for one of self determination and local control. They [members] must have faith in the officers they choose to control any fire outbreaks, with the local knowledge that is available to them. They are concerned about the role of the future administration of the Bush Fire Services when they only want the administration to source the resources needed to fight fires and to be able to co-ordinate resources around the State as and when needed.

Brigade members must be able to control their own destiny as volunteers of a service that is a volunteer service and not one that is controlled by a system that is out of touch with the realities of a volunteer service dedicating itself to helping others in a time of need.

Page 10556

This bill has in large measure addressed many of the concerns raised about the draft bill. It should be noted that there remains some angst about the role of local government. Concern has been expressed both by those who would exclude local government from the management, operation and control of bushfires and by those who believe that local government should play a greater role. Particular concern was expressed by brigade members and local councils west of the Divide that the draft bill was based on the Coroner’s recommendations, which reflected the fact that the 1994 bushfires occurred in the metropolitan hinterlands and in other coastal environments. The submission of the shire of Narrandera was not atypical. The submission stated:

. . . it should be noted that these fires occurred in metropolitan hinterlands and in other coastal environments. These environments and their inherent firefighting methods are very much different from methods used in firefighting in the western rural areas of the State. It is also fair to state that the attitudes of the volunteers, their availability, their methods of running their brigades and their approach to fighting fires is totally different to their metropolitan and coastal counterparts.

The previous Coronial Inquiries did not take these points into consideration, and views of rural volunteers were not sought, hence the proposed legislation is biased towards the metropolitan and coastal areas. As a result of these oversights the resultant legislation is not representative, or acceptable to volunteers in these rural areas.

On the other hand, other councils, such as the Leeton Shire Council, supported the draft bill. A report presented to the council by the council’s director of engineering and technical services was quoted in the local newspaper. It stated:

. . . it must be remembered that the primary responsibility of the Rural Fire Service is to protect the NSW community from the ravages of rural fires. To do this effectively in a complex and changing world the Service must remain as an entity, a cohesive and integrated structure for the delivery of rural fire services to the rural areas of NSW.

In summary it is suggested that the new Rural Fires Bill, while needing some clarification from the Department of Bush Fire Services in areas such as Commissioners Instructions and dispute proceedings should provide an improved framework for the fire service delivery to the rural areas of NSW.

The best assessment of the bill as it now stands is to say that on the one hand it is accepted with "great reluctance", as it has been by the Local Government and Shires Associations, and on the other hand it is enthusiastically supported by organisations such as the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. I have received a number of letters of support from individual brigades. It is interesting that those letters particularly mentioned the Minister and congratulated him on his support. Perhaps the Minister should congratulate the Department of Bush Fire Services on the drafting of the letter; perhaps he should also suggest that the next time the department tries to orchestrate such a campaign it be a little more discreet and arrange for the circular letter to be faxed out on someone’s machine.

The Rural Fires Bill consists of seven parts. I do not intend to discuss each part in detail but will highlight some aspects that have been the subject of discussion and, in some cases, serious concern during the consultation process. Part 1 sets out the objects of the bill and, most important, defines rural fire districts. It should be noted that a rural fire district is excluded from a fire district that is under the administration of the Fire Brigades Act. The bill ties the rural fire districts to areas controlled by a local authority. There are three local authorities defined: councils, for which a rural fire district is the council’s local government area; the Western Lands Commission, with the relevant land being the whole of the Western Division; and the Lord Howe Island Board, which has responsibility for Lord Howe Island. Provision is made for an automatic change of rural fire district should the area boundaries of local authority change as well. The significant effect of defining the rural fire districts is that all land in New South Wales is now either a fire district or a rural fire district, and land in a rural fire district is subject to a bushfire management plan. I quote the explanation attached to the draft bill:

The bill provides for the comprehensive declaration of the State as either rural fire district (under the operational jurisdiction of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service) or fire district (under the operational jurisdiction of the New South Wales Fire Brigades). Public safety will be enhanced through the elimination of situations where parts of the State remain undeclared in respect of fire response systems.

This part also recognises that some councils may be better served by combining their responsibilities for rural fire districts with one council nominated as the responsible local authority for the rural fire district. As the Local Government and Shires Associations pointed out in its submission, it may be that a remote part of one side "is more conveniently administered (for fire fighting purposes) by an adjoining shire and the various local authorities concerned should be able to organise this locally". The bill provides the administrative flexibility to allow this to happen.

Part 2 of the bill establishes the framework of the new New South Wales Rural Fire Service. The bill defines the service as comprising the commissioner and other staff of the service, fire control officers, deputy fire control officers and volunteer rural firefighters. Volunteer rural
Page 10557
firefighters include officers and other members of rural fire brigades who fight fires under the authority and supervision of an officer of a rural fire brigade. The importance of this definition became apparent during the consultation period, as many people were concerned that only individuals who were on the brigade’s books could actually fight fires.

The Minister has given an assurance that this is not the case and that individuals who provide casual assistance in a bushfire situation are covered by the bill. This includes coverage for workers compensation and, I would hope, protection from liability. In his second reading speech the Minister said that casual citizens who step in to help put out a fire on the side of the road will receive workers compensation coverage. I ask the Minister to clarify whether they, too, would be protected from liability, as the definition under clause 128 of protected persons is somewhat vague. I should also like to know if the same coverage extends to people who are putting out fires on private property, that is, their own homes, as there is still a degree of uncertainty about the extent of coverage and protection in these areas.

The Minister in his second reading speech said that part 2 of the draft bill caused much concern in the bushfire community. It is fair to say that there was a mixed reaction to the clauses in part 2. Much of the concern was based on the perception that this involved a centralising of power in the hands of the commissioner. The comment often passed to me was that it was a "takeover" by Rosehill. This sentiment was particularly strong west of the Divide and was the basis of many fears about the loss of autonomy of local brigades. Most of the difficulties arose out of the clauses dealing with functions of the commissioner and, most importantly, his right to issue what are to be known as service standards. In the draft bill these were referred to as commissioner’s instructions and the extent of the number of references to commissioner’s instructions in both the regulations and the bill were taken to be a takeover by Sydney.

Strong concerns were expressed to me that the commissioner exercising such control would seriously undermine the volunteer ethos to which I have already referred. I agree with the Minister that no-one would object to standard operating procedures. Everyone is committed to increasing the professionalism of the service. Everyone recognises that introducing those procedures will improve the safety of the service, particularly where joint operations are involved, and will obviously improve the efficiency of the service. The change of nomenclature to service standards and the assurance that these standards will cover matters currently the subject of the existing memorandum of agreement between the Department of Bush Fire Services and the Local Government and Shires Associations in large measure has gone a long way to addressing the concerns of a number of brigade members.

The added assurance that the policy statements and standards will only be issued after consultation wherever practicable with the advisory council is a further reassurance to volunteers that the new rural fire service will be an inclusive body. The change of language is an important signal that these standards are not about an autocratic exercise of control, rather a genuine attempt to improve the service. Division 3 of part 2 sets out the procedures for establishing a rural fire brigade. Concerns have been expressed about the power of the commissioner to disband brigades if the local authority refuses to do so. The present bill provides that a brigade can be disbanded by the authority that created it. There is, however, an appeal process whereby an officer in charge of the rural fire brigades concerned can write to the Minister appealing against a request to disband a brigade and the Minister has the power to either confirm the disbandment or withdraw the notice.

Again, this amendment reflects concerns raised in the consultation period that the commissioner was entitled to both form and disband brigades, and the impression that the holder of this position now and in the future was essentially the arbiter of a brigade’s ongoing existence. Perhaps the most difficult issue for local government in relation to the position of fire controllers in division 4 is the question of their employment. That concern was probably expressed in almost every submission I received from a local government shire or council and it is perhaps expressed best at page 9 of the submission of the Local Government and Shires Associations submission, which reads:

The requirement in Clause 32 of the Bill that the Commissioner approve both the appointment and the revocation of an appointment as a Fire Control Officer or Deputy Fire Control Officer is totally counter to the Local Government Act and undermines the powers of the General Manager to hire and dismiss staff.

Clause 32(6) of the Bill makes it clear that a Fire Control Officer is not by reason of his appointment to that position under the Bill an employee of a local authority. Accordingly it would be possible for a person to be appointed to that position and not be an employee of the Council.

Further:

There can be no doubt that the effect of the Bill will be that a Fire Control Officer’s first responsibility will be to the Commissioner. To the extent that the Commissioner directs or requires the employee to carry out numerous duties which

Page 10558
wholly occupy employment hours there will be no obligation or ability to carry out any task directed by the Council or the General Manager. The Fire Control Officer will be placed in the invidious position of being employed by the Council with Council having little or no ability to instruct or direct the work to be undertaken.

I note that the Minister in his second reading speech said that matter was not going to be argued at all, that there would be no give and take. I accept from his point of view and his perspective that it is absolutely vital to the bill and the Opposition will not object. I remind the Minister, though, of his undertakings to the Shires Association of New South Wales that he will continue to discuss practical problems in relation to this position. I refer to the letter that he sent on 22 May in which he stated that the Government’s definite position is that:

FCOs and DFCOs are statutory appointments made by the State Government. As such, the Government views these positions as being both integral and essential to the cohesive command structure that was recommended by the Coroner after his two-year inquiry into the 1994 bush fire emergency, and which will be put in place by the Rural Fires Bill to be introduced into Parliament next week.

I note that the Minister has given an undertaking that he will in fact ensure a proper consultation process between Commissioner Koperberg and local government. The types of matters that would require satisfactory resolution include dual lines of responsibility and accountability, reporting arrangements, the resolution of conflicts between FCOs, local government general managers and the Commissioner of the Rural Fire Services, and the Government’s commitment that the policies on such questions will take account of regional differences and particular needs of individual local government areas. Again, I note that there will not be a one-size-fits-all policy in resolving these matters. In light of those assurances I note the reluctant acceptance of the bill by the Local Government and Shires Associations and its acceptance of the Minister’s assurances that the consultation process will continue to ensure that the matters which are still of some concern will be properly and adequately resolved for both parties.

Clause 36 of division 4 is the amendment which precludes councillors from being FCOs. The Minister has discussed with me an amendment to the schedule to the bill which will allow councillors who are presently acting in those positions to continue in those positions for the rest of their term. I congratulate the Minister on doing that because, as he is aware, a number of those people have been in those positions for a long time. They regard those positions as a great honour and they have fulfilled those duties with great skill and commitment. I recognise they cannot be there in the future but I acknowledge the Minister’s preparedness to allow them to continue in those positions until at least the end of this term. Division 35 of part 3 deals with the command structure of the Rural Fire Service and again I note with particular interest the Minister’s assurances that the new command structure retains local autonomy over local matters. It was certainly the feeling among many brigade members that the draft bill undermines this autonomy. I remind the Minister of the following statement in his second reading speech:

Day to day local issues will continue to be administered by fire control officers, captains and other brigade officers on the ground just as they always have been. Nothing will change in this regard.

The many volunteers who have had concerns about their local autonomy accept the Minister’s assurance on this point but they will remind him of it if this does not turn out to be the case. Part 3 deals with coordinated bush fire fighting, which is clearly the public face of bushfires. I turn first to the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee. I note that Commissioner Koperberg is in the Chamber today, and I thank him for his briefing to Opposition members and also for taking back so quickly to the Minister coalition concerns about the composition of the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee. After a briefing of coalition members by Commissioner Koperberg the lack of representation of farmers was noted and it was quickly announced that afternoon that those farmers will be represented. Thank you, Commissioner Koperberg. The Opposition notes that the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee is a pro-active organisation with a pro-active role to control and coordinate bush fire fighting. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the commissioner chair that committee.

The Bush Fire Management Committee, which is established under division 3 of part 3, is charged with the responsibility of preparing and submitting to the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee a draft plan of operations for bushfire management and a bushfire risk management plan for a rural district fire area. A draft bushfire management plan prepared in accordance with clause 55(1)(b) may confer or impose functions on the commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, the Commissioner of New South Wales Fire Brigades, the commissioner constituting the Forestry Commission, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife or any other person or body associated with the prevention, mitigation or suppression of bushfires in that part of the State.

I mention that clause particularly because it is important to place on record the need to ensure that
Page 10559
the National Parks and Wildlife Service is pro-actively involved in the development and implementation of plans. This is of particular concern to adjacent private land-holders. I seek the Minister’s assurance that the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be extremely cooperative in the development of these plans because it has been, and continues to be, a matter of strong concern in rural areas that the service has been less than cooperative in the management of bushfires.

I note also the transparency of the process of the development of the plan and congratulate those who drafted it, because it too will add to public confidence. I ask the Minister to address two concerns in his reply. The bill makes reference to the bushfire manager "having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development". The Minister’s second reading speech referred to this matter only in passing. People involved in bushfire services, including fire control officers, have some concern about what that means in a practical sense. Perhaps the Minister could give an example of how this will work.

Clause 54(2) allows a plan to prohibit the use of fire because of its effect on fauna and flora in, or the cultural heritage of, a particular place. Perhaps the Minister could explain what alternative methods could be used for hazard reduction in these circumstances. Part 4 of the bill deals with bushfire prevention and provides the procedures public authorities and private land-owners must take to manage bushfire fuel build-up on their properties. An authorised person, including an officer of a rural fire brigade nominated for the responsibility of hazard reduction, has the ability to enter Crown land for the purpose of hazard reduction with permission, including deemed permission, to give effect to a bushfire risk management plan. I trust this transparency approach will ensure a better relationship between those public authorities and private land-owners, because over the years there has been a less than happy relationship in certain circumstances.

The requirement that authorities notify a fire control officer before lighting a fire will be welcomed by those many brigade members who have had to fight fires that have become out of control when authorities such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service started fires in adverse conditions, which recently happened on the Razorback nature reserve near Crookwell. For almost four days brigade members fought a fire that had become out of control, but they had not been notified beforehand that it was to be lit. Hopefully those situations will be avoided. Part 5 contains the provisions regarding the New South Wales Rural Fire Fighting Fund. Funding provisions are retained under which local government, insurance companies and the Government contribute to the cost of Rural Fire Brigades.

I accept the Minister’s assurance that, in spite of his ability to determine expenditure levels in a rural fire district, as provided for in the bill, he will insist that the Rural Fire Service continues to consult local government authorities about resource levels, which are agreed to by both parties. Part 6 establishes the Rural Fire Service Advisory Council and is the provision that causes me problems. The council is established, amongst other things, to advise and report to the Minister and the commissioner on any matter relating to the administration of rural fire services, to advise the commissioner on public education programs about rural fire matters and the training of rural firefighters, and to advise the commissioner on service standards.

I have a philosophical objection to an advisory council that is supposedly providing independent advice not being independent of the people it is supposed to advise. I have a philosophical objection to appointing as the chair of that particular body the person who is to take advice from that body. My objection is not a reflection on anybody; it is merely a question of an independent body being independent in all ways. It should have an independent chair and, as I have indicated, the Opposition will move an amendment to ensure that an independent chairperson is appointed.

I accept that the commissioner should be a member of the advisory council, but he should only be a member and not chair it. I have received support for such an amendment from a number of groups, including organisations such as the New South Wales Farmers Association. Part 7 deals with miscellaneous provisions and powers to make regulations. Again the Minister has given assurances that stakeholders will be consulted in the process of drafting regulations and that negotiations will be ongoing at least until the end of July. I trust the Minister would be prepared to extend that period if there were outstanding problems, as he is aware that the draft negotiations caused as much angst, if not more, than the draft bill.

I thank those who have assisted in the discussions about this bill, including representatives from the New South Wales Farmers Association, particularly Dee Wilkes-Bowes and John Cobb; the Local Government and Shires Associations; Murray Kidnie; the New South Wales Rural Fire Service
Page 10560
Association; Keith McKewn and Stewart Clarke; and individuals such as Allan Mulholland, who might not be the favourite person of some honourable members present in the Chamber. However, I assure the House that he is committed to ensuring New South Wales Fire Brigades is a quality organisation, and one with which all members would be proud to be associated. I thank also the many council brigades and individuals who wrote to me providing their views.

All honourable members in this House are committed to ensuring the continued existence and improvement of the bush fire service. All of us - though some of us might not be able to physically fight fires - are supportive of the fire brigades. My mother accompanied me on a visit to Bathurst on Saturday. I told her that I was going to talk to people involved with bush fire brigades. Her immediate reaction was, "I think they are wonderful people. I think they provide a magnificent service to the community." That comment sums up how the community feels about the bush fire brigades. The bill ensures that the tradition continues and that the brigades grow and prosper. The Opposition is happy to support the bill subject to that one minor amendment.

Mr COCHRAN (Monaro) [3.48 p.m.]: I too support the Rural Fires Bill and the foreshadowed amendment. In doing so, I give credit to those involved in the consultation process, particularly the volunteers who involved themselves so much in the process by attending meetings across the country. No doubt they were inspired by the commissioner and the fire control officers. Credit should be given also to the shire and local government councils which have shown a willingness to accept this new bill. The introduction of this legislation was inevitable given that the old bill had reached the stage of being unworkable. I give credit to the rural fire service members, but I still cannot understand what was wrong with the name Bush Fire Brigades. It should have been retained for its unique qualities. I also commend the commissioner, Phil Koperberg, Tony Gates, and those involved in the preparation of the bill, for their understanding and consideration of the objections raised to the first draft.

I congratulate the New South Wales Farmers Association, and the shadow minister, the honourable member for Lane Cove, on their involvement. For one who has not been a firefighter the honourable member for Lane Cove has shown extraordinary interest in and perception of the historic values placed on the bush fire brigade movement. I also pay tribute to my regional officer, Barry Belt, who gave years of dedicated service to the former New South Wales Forestry Commission, and the current organisation, as one of the most outstanding regional officers in the State. He has not received due recognition, and I will take that up at a later time. I now give a bit of advice to the commissioner, Phil Koperberg, and the Minister for Emergency Services.

Bush fire brigades are going through a revolutionary period, a period of traumatic reform. They have totally changed in the 50 years of my lifetime. Existing bush fire brigade members find it difficult to accept new training methods, new equipment and a modernised bush fire fighting service. My advice is: no money can buy experience, wisdom, local knowledge or that very exacting ability to identify the best method to approach a fire in the scrub. Older firefighters around New South Wales may find it difficult to accept new methods; however, their firefighting ability should not be discounted. Many of us have witnessed examples in which a lone firefighter has gone up into the hills on horseback with a rake, a box of matches and a wet bag and put out a fire while others were still trying to start their trucks. I have observed that myself. We should never forget that bush fire fighters still exist; they deserve to be recognised and encouraged to participate in the activities of the brigade.

I also warn the Minister, the commissioner and the higher echelons of the Rural Fire Service that the perception in the bush is that the Rosehill castle grows larger, the bureaucracy grows larger, and the brass and braid are offensive to firefighters who have inadequate equipment. The list of appointments to the Rosehill headquarters has reached alarming proportions and the amount of money used to fund that headquarters is of growing concern to those in the poorer bushfire districts. I ask the Minister to maintain the emphasis on education, fire prevention, fire suppression and provision of the best equipment to brigades which are in the unfortunate position of being poorly funded by their councils.

I commend to the Minister and the commissioner the outline of the provisions of part 1, Preliminary, and of part 6 relating to the Rural Fire Service Advisory Council, which describes the opportunity for many local authorities to amalgamate. Around the State there are a significant number of these, for example, Queanbeyan City Council; Yarrowlumla Shire Council, where I reside; Grafton; and Goulburn. In those areas a city council is surrounded by a shire, and there is considerable merit in the amalgamation of those services for the purposes of effective firefighting. This bill effectively addresses that issue and provides the sensible option of amalgamation.

Page 10561

I raise now the issue of cultural change whichis occurring in bush fire brigades. The Minister and the commissioner would be aware of this. In brigade areas and local authority areas in close proximity to urban areas, bushfire brigades have become like recreational clubs, which no doubt should be encouraged. But in a recreational club a lot of inexperienced firefighters come in with all good intentions. A lot of young people do not have the experience and wisdom to be placed in dangerous situations on their own. A buddy system is needed whereby young people are under the control of an experienced firefighter. Certainly young, inexperienced firefighters in urban areas should not be placed at risk simply because we do not have enough experienced firefighters.

Simultaneously with inexperienced people joining the service, a lot of older, more experienced people are leaving the brigade movement because they are not able to keep abreast of the rigorous training or to spare the time needed for training. They leave the brigades because they cannot meet their training obligations. In addition, I refer to the commissioner’s standard operating procedures and remind the commissioner and the Minister that, whereas I would be a great supporter of the concept of standard operating procedures - they are vital to the control, management and safety of the service and its members - a risk is involved with the extraordinary powers that are available through establishing certain standards.

There can be overregimentation, and therefore the potential exists to drive older members away from the brigades. If the advisory council is to be responsible for approving the Minister’s service standards and the subsequent promulgations of those operational procedures, it should be recognised that brigades have the ability to self-regulate. Brigades can be educated, as opposed to regulated. The process of education and training fire patrol officers, without deeming regulation with pro formas and a bevy of unnecessary and cumbersome paperwork, is far more beneficial than regulation.

I also had the good fortune to write the first bushfire strategic plan for the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council, one of the first such plans in the State. In 1987 in that area, under the then Minister for Police and Emergency Services, George Paciullo, that strategic plan was put to the test within days of its approval. Had the standard operating procedures not been in place at that time the fire at Mount Dowling certainly would have been of substantially greater proportions. The Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee and the local fire authorities recognise that the green agenda on hazard reduction is still alive and well. The Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee is influenced by the green lobby and there is a great risk that firefighters and the effects of this bill will be undermined by the Greens agenda. At every opportunity the Greens will seek to reduce the effects of beneficial hazard reduction across the State. That has been their record historically.

If the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee does not take a responsible attitude towards fire hazard reduction there is potential for disaster to occur. Fuel build-up creates a hazard not only for land-holders but also for firefighters. I put it on record that I place the responsibility for hazard reduction firmly in the hands of the commissioner, the Bush Fire Co-ordinating Committee and those in bushfire services to ensure that the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests accept their responsibilities. That was one of the highlights of the inquiry that followed the 1994 bushfires: that inadequate hazard reduction had taken place in many areas, particularly in national parks. The consequences were there for all to see with the Royal National Park being as bare as a board after the fires had gone through.

The intensity of such fires can be reduced by sensible hazard reduction control. I join the shadow minister, the honourable member for Lane Cove, in commending the bill and the foreshadowed amendment, which is important. I congratulate those who have been involved in its formulation and wish them pleasant sailing with the bill. It will need some finetuning at a later stage and I hope that if there are teething problems with the legislation, the Minister and the commissioner will agree to the Opposition bringing it back to this House in a mature way so that appropriate amendments may be made to it. The bushfire movement is held in great esteem in the community and the defence of firefighters’ safety is pre-eminent in all of these decisions and laws, to ensure that firefighters can fight fires with legislation that works in their best interests.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr McManus.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [4.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 10562

On 15 May the Premier tabled three volumes of the final report of the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. Three years ago Justice Wood was given the task of uncovering the extent and causes of corruption in the New South Wales Police Service. It is a matter of public record and shame that the royal commission was able to reveal in such graphic detail the level and extent of corruption within the Police Service. However, with the problem now recognised and acknowledged, the time has come to move into the recovery and rebuilding stage.

The legislation before the House arises from the royal commission’s final report. It deals with a single issue, that is, the industrial rights flowing from the termination of employment of police officers under the provisions commonly referred to as commissioner’s confidence. If a single issue had to be isolated as crucial to reform of the Police Service it would have to be the ability of the commissioner to divest the service of those who fail to meet it standards. Without the means to quickly and efficiently terminate the employment of individuals who cannot or will not comply with minimum standards of integrity, conduct and competence, it is doubtful that we will ever reap the full benefits of the reform process.

The old system clearly did not work. It was cumbersome, protracted and legalistic. It effectively meant that the corrupt and the hopeless could seek sanctuary and remain within the Police Service. The system required the proving of departmental charges before the Police Tribunal. After the tribunal had made a recommendation, action was taken on the basis of its findings. The action was then subject to appeal to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal, GREAT, which routinely put dismissed officers back into the service. The system could be manipulated and beaten. Corrupt officers knew that, and took comfort from it

Basically, the system sheltered those who least deserved it, and failed the people of New South Wales, who looked to the Police Service to be a model of honesty, integrity and community service. In November 1996 this Parliament threw out the old system. Responding to the Immediate Measures Interim Report of the Royal Commission, section 181D was introduced into the Police Service Act. For the first time the Commissioner of Police was given a fast and effective way to rid the service of those who had forfeited the right to be police officers in this State. Of course, section 181B had previously allowed the removal of officers suspected of criminal or corrupt behaviour, but only in the limited circumstances of information arising from the royal commission.

Section 181D extended Commissioner Ryan’s power to ensure he is not only the most powerful police commissioner in the history of this State but also in Australia. The Carr Government is determined to ensure that Commissioner Ryan’s Police Service contains only officers in whom he has confidence. That is why the current bill only affects the processes after the police officer has been removed from the Police Service. Commissioner Ryan’s power to remove corrupt and inept officers remains unaffected. After the introduction of section 181D, the Premier and I, after consultation with caucus, agreed the post-dismissal process - the appeal rights, if you like - should be revisited after the final report of the royal commission was delivered.

The provisions which came into effect on 16 December 1996 were, as I said at the time, exceptional, designed to deal with an exceptional situation. The appeal rights were, to put it simply, that the exercise of the commissioner’s power to dismiss was subject to a limited review by the Supreme Court on administrative law or judicial review principles. In its final report the royal commission explored in some depth various proposals in relation to the appeal processes arising after an exercise of the commissioner’s confidence powers. The options examined had many points of similarity, the key issues on which they varied were the nature of the review provisions and the restrictions on how the parties could run their cases.

Honourable members may recall that, earlier this year, the royal commission convened a roundtable conference to consider the question of police appeals and disciplinary processes. The successful outcome of the conference prompted my establishment of a working party to consider the finer detail of the matters discussed at that conference. The working party comprised representatives of the Police Service, the Ministry for Police, the Ombudsman’s office, and the police associations. The report prepared for me by the working party was one of the options considered by the royal commission in the final report. In considering three options, the royal commission outlined a range of matters which it considered were appropriate for the new system.

Some of those matters were common to different options, whilst others were not. Since the final reports were delivered, I have examined the various options in great detail. The bill does not
Page 10563
conform exactly with any of the three options the royal commission considered. Rather it takes the best aspects of options two and three to strike a balance between the spirit of the royal commission recommendations and existing industrial law and practice in New South Wales. The result is a process that retains the commissioner’s power to ensure that the service is able to quickly free itself of those who fail to live up to professional standards of integrity, competence and behaviour, but also protects against injustice

It is that simple - the bill is anti-corruption but also anti-injustice. The bill accommodates the unique nature of policing, overcomes the problems of past appeal processes, and puts the police officer on a similar footing to other employees under the Industrial Relations Act. It is the first step in the long-term overhaul of the police disciplinary system. The other matters, such as the abolition of the Police Tribunal and the removal of GREAT from the remaining disciplinary processes, will be addressed during the next stage of reform.

The bill provides police officers with the right to go to the Industrial Relations Commission to seek review of a dismissal decision. Again, whilst similar to the protection provided to other workers under the unfair dismissal provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, it is not identical as there are some important differences which I will discuss shortly. The key aspect review to be conducted by the Industrial Relations Commission will be a review of the merits of the decision of the commissioner. It will allow both the fairness of the process by which the decision was arrived at, the facts on which the decision was based, and whether dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

However, it will be for the applicant to establish that a decision was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. These words will be familiar to those with knowledge of our industrial relations law as they are the same grounds on which an employee may seek redress under the unfair dismissal provisions of part 6 of chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. In making its decisions the IRC will be required to balance the interests of the applicant against the wider public interest, including the interest of protecting the integrity of the Police Service. This will also include the fact that the applicant was dismissed under section 181D(1), that is, for want of commissioner’s confidence. These are significant tests.

For the sake of clarity I should stress that the lodging of an application for review will not stay the commissioner’s decision. What that means in practice is that the applicant becomes a former police officer from the time the commissioner signs the order to dismiss him or her. This is an enormous change from the past, when officers not only abused the system to get back into the service but also made it virtually impossible to get them out in the first place. It is in the interests of the applicant, the community and the Police Service that any reviews arising out of dismissals be finalised quickly. That is why the bill provides that an application for review must be lodged within 14 days, and requires that the hearing be commenced within four weeks. Hearings under division 1C of the Police Service Act will be conducted by the IRC in a similar way to hearings under part 6 of chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act.

The bill also requires that if either party wishes to introduce new evidence to support its case, notice must be given. That means notice not only of intention must be given, but also notice of the substance of the evidence that is sought to be adduced. This will ensure that the issues are clearly defined and allow both parties to better prepare their case. If notice is not given, leave of the IRC can be sought. This provision of the bill is not intended in any way to reduce the discretion of the IRC to grant leave upon any basis it considers appropriate.

In the interests of fairness and justice, however, the IRC will be required to grant leave if satisfied of the following: where the commission is satisfied that there is a real probability that the applicant may be able to show that the commissioner has acted upon wrong or mistaken information; where the commission is satisfied that there is cogent evidence to suggest that the information before the commissioner was unreliable, having been placed before the commissioner maliciously, fraudulently or vexatiously; and where the commission is satisfied that the new evidence might materially have affected the commissioner’s decision.

Other issues addressed by the bill include the admissibility of transcripts of evidence arising out of the royal commission or the Police Integrity Commission, to which the commissioner may have had regard in coming to a decision. The bill clearly states that, subject to section 163(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, nothing in the bill is intended to override the existing law in this area. If a transcript from any proceedings has been considered by the commissioner in reaching a decision to terminate then it is likely to be relevant. In the normal course of events under section 181D, even before making a determination the commissioner is required to advise an officer of the grounds considered to warrant loss
Page 10564
of confidence. If an order is subsequently made it must also detail the reasons that have caused the commissioner to lose confidence in the officer and issue the removal notice.

Under the review process, the commissioner will also be required to provide the applicant with a copy of the documents and other material taken into account in determining that a termination order should be issued. The reasons put forward by the commission as supporting the termination decision will also be the first thing considered by the IRC in hearing the review application. Some concern had been expressed that as the decision maker, the Commissioner of Police would be routinely required to attend the IRC to give evidence in every review hearing. Whilst this is not currently the experience in matters before the Industrial Relations Commission, it was considered an issue of sufficient weight to warrant legislative guidance.

The bill therefore makes it clear that the leave of the IRC is required before the commissioner or a member of any advisory committee can be called as a witness before the IRC. Before giving such leave the IRC must be satisfied that extraordinary grounds exist that warrant evidence being personally given. I have now explained in some detail the provisions of this bill, and it will be obvious to all that the legislative framework will clarify the position in respect of challenging a decision to terminate employment under section 181D. Access to a right of review on the merits is important. However, it is equally important that the process followed in reaching a determination under section 181D is sound and does not itself give rise to appeals.

Section 181D contains certain key requirements such as advising officers of the case against them and providing an opportunity to respond. Commissioner Ryan has supplemented this with an administrative protocol which describes the procedures that will be followed in reaching a determination under section 181D. This protocol was developed in consultation with the police unions and endeavours to ensure the process is fair, open and accountable. Of note is the fact that under the protocol an officer has the opportunity to make a submission to a panel which includes a member of the community to provide advice to the commissioner.

I wish to advise the House that I intend to take the matter one step further and make a regulation which sets out in detail the steps to be followed in the exercise of the commissioner’s confidence power. This will ensure that the process is both open and known. This in turn will contribute to fair exercise of the power and further reduce potential for appeals. Of course, my intention is to again bring together the relevant parties in formulating this regulation, to ensure that the resulting process is the best and fairest possible.

In the course of drafting this bill I have consulted with the royal commission, the Commissioner of Police, the Police Integrity Commission Commissioner and the Police Association. There is one matter, requested by the Police Association, which the Government is simply unable to accommodate. The association requested that the appeal rights under the bill be made retrospective. The Government is unable to accede to this request for the simple reason that, as I said in November, the previous appeal was designed to institute an interim process which would always be superseded after the final report was delivered. There is no going back and the Government will not be persuaded otherwise.

Finally, in the next session of Parliament I look forward to introducing a new Police Service Act which will both lay the legislative framework for implementation of many of the changes recommended by the royal commission and symbolise the emergence of the new Police Service. That legislation will be historic and no doubt eagerly awaited by all in this Chamber. It will be wide ranging, touching on all facets of the Police Service from recruitment and terms of employment to methods of promotion and the management of misconduct within the Police Service. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Tink.

Debate resumed from 29 May.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.20 p.m.]: The Opposition will be opposing this bill. To Opposition members, this is one of the most important bills to come before this Parliament in this session. It is a major issue for this Parliament to deal with and it is a major issue for the people of New South Wales. The Opposition does not oppose a move to corporatisation. Opposition members clearly understand the need to do that under the national electricity market and under the competition principles and changes that are occurring in the electricity market in Australia. Understanding that, we do not oppose that process.
Page 10565
What we do oppose is the procedure the Government is adopting to determine water allocations which will affect the Snowy hydro-electricity scheme, the environment of the Snowy River catchment and the irrigation areas.

What the Government is saying to us through this bill is: trust me, I’m from the Government. The Government is asking Opposition members to approve corporatisation, let the matter sit on the shelf; let the Minister and this Government, in conjunction with the Victorian Minister and Government, appoint the commissioner, have the commissioner report to them, and then have the Ministers and the governments make decisions amongst themselves about the allocation of water to the environment, the hydro scheme and the irrigators of that area.

The Opposition cannot accept that that process, on such an important scheme, should be flick passed to two Ministers, enabling them to make deals in back rooms. There is absolutely no way that this Parliament should do that. If ever there was an issue that this Parliament should decide, and not the Executive Government, it is what happens to these major icons in southern New South Wales. I refer to the environmental icons of the Snowy River, an engineering icon in the Snowy River hydro scheme, and the food basket icon for Australia in the irrigation areas around those southern districts. The future of those three New South Wales icons should not be decided by a couple of Ministers and departmental people in back rooms.

This is an issue for the Parliament because once the scheme is corporatised the governments of New South Wales and Victoria have available to them the option to privatise the scheme, to take it off our books altogether, and give away our water rights forever. Such a scenario is just not acceptable to the people of New South Wales. It is certainly not acceptable to the Opposition. It may be acceptable to the Government, but I cannot understand why it would be acceptable to the backbenchers. I cannot understand why they would support the Government on this measure. What backbenchers in the Labor Party have done is flick pass to the Victorian and New South Wales Ministers the task of working out an arrangement on the distribution of those enormous water resources among those vital areas. That is what the backbenchers are doing if they support this bill. Do they not understand that those Ministers have a conflict of interest? The quite clear agenda and responsibility of those Ministers are to maximise the sale price of the Snowy hydro scheme. Apparently that is what New South Wales wants to do. It is what the Commonwealth wants to do and what Victoria wants to do.

The Commonwealth is carrying a debt that it wants to address; it has to roll over its loan soon, and has to work out the finances to enable it to do that. Consequently, the Federal Government has a vested interest in the agenda, and it will want to maximise the price of the hydro scheme. Victoria is in a similar position. It is a shareholder. The Victorian agenda clearly is to corporatise electricity generation and get out of the industry. So it wants to maximise the price of the Snowy hydro scheme. New South Wales is a 59 per cent shareholder in the scheme, and the Minister will be under pressure to maximise the price, to protect the integrity of the value of the hydro-electricity scheme.

It is very dangerous when members of the Labor Party fall for the trap of allowing Executive Government to make that vital decision. The issue involved here is a classic argument about the distribution of a scarce resource. There will never be enough water to supply the needs of the environment, the hydro-electricity scheme and the irrigators - never! There will never be agreement between the three parties on the distribution of water. To overcome that, the Government will allow a commission of inquiry appointed by the Government to produce a report and then have the Ministers come to an agreement in a back room. The Opposition, purely as a matter of principle, cannot support such a proposal.

Earlier I said that the Snowy hydro scheme is an icon of importance to the people of New South Wales. It supplies 2.5 million megalitres of water per year to the Murray and Murrumbidgee for irrigation purposes. Agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin is worth $8.5 billion annually. There are seven power stations. The scheme generates 16 per cent of the installed generating capacity in the south-east of Australia. There are 16 large dams, with seven million megalitres of storage capacity - 13 times the volume of Sydney Harbour.

In relation to the environment, part 4, clause 19 of the bill shows that the "designated area of inquiry" we are talking about is the Snowy water catchment, the course of the Snowy River flowing from that catchment, and the course of the rivers and streams flowing from that catchment to Lake Hume, Blowering Reservoir or Burrinjuck Reservoir. Yet the Government wants honourable members of this Parliament, who represent the people of New South Wales, to flick pass this issue so that the decision can be made by the Executive Government
Page 10566
downstream. Honourable members on the Opposition side just cannot accept such a proposal in principle.

As I said before, this is a major decision in which the representatives of the people of this State have a right to participate. So, do not ask members of the Opposition to trust the Government. The people of New South Wales trusted the Premier prior to the last election. They trusted him when he said he would dispense with road tolls, halve hospital waiting lists, and would not introduce new taxes or increase taxes. The list of promises goes on. Every one of those promises has been thrown out the window. We know that the Premier is a devotee of Neville Wran, who coined the phrase, "They will never break your arm if you break a promise." Bob Carr lives by that saying: tell them anything you want to get what you want. That is the principle that Premier Carr is following in this State.

The Opposition cannot accept a promise from this Government when it comes to our precious water resource. We just do not trust the Premier. Why should we? This decision should be made by this Parliament. If the Government were adopting an honourable approach to this issue, it would hold the commission of inquiry first; it would make sure that the commission of inquiry is properly represented and appointed; and it would ensure that the inquiry is open and public, to facilitate a significant input from all vested interest groups in this State and Australia. Let the environmentalists have their say. Let the irrigators have their say. Let the engineers, the accountants and financiers have their say about the Snowy hydro scheme.

The people of New South Wales are mature enough to understand the importance of having adequate water in the dams to generate electricity to maintain our system. The Government should have much more confidence in the people of New South Wales on this issue. I suggest the Government have the commission of inquiry first, have it put recommendations to the Government, then bring those recommendations into this Parliament with a bill to corporatise, including the specific water allocations and all the provisions that will guarantee protection of the environment, the irrigation area and the hydro scheme. Let the Parliament have a proper and genuine debate about one of the most important assets of this State.

The Parliament deserves to have that debate, and the people of New South Wales deserve to see the way in which their representatives approach this issue. I reiterate that the Opposition is philosophically opposed to the way in which the Government is handling this most important issue. I stress that it is not a small group of vested interests in shadow cabinet or in the coalition’s party rooms that have won victory over the rest of the coalition. All coalition members are united on this issue. The honourable member for Monaro, shadow minister for the environment; myself, as shadow treasurer with responsibility for future finances of the State; and the honourable member for Ballina, shadow minister for land and water conservation were united. All interest groups, ranging from environment to economic stability to the provision of land and water, were united. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee was part of that unity. Every member of the shadow cabinet and every member of the coalition united on the issue, whether National Party or Liberal Party members, whether Left, Right or Centre members. On this bill the coalition will fight the Government all the way.

Mrs Lo Po': On the beaches!

Mr PHILLIPS: Government backbenchers think this is a joke. I have been in government and I know what this is like for Government backbench members. There is no position more lonely or isolated than that of a backbench member of government. Government backbenchers have made themselves more isolated because they have flicked all responsibility to Executive Government. Do they not understand that the Government will fail because its backbenchers are not keeping it honest? Government backbenchers should have spoken up at their caucus meetings and said that they would not flick pass off to a Minister the responsibility of dealing with a Victorian Minister and the Liberal Federal Government and would not allow Executive Government to give away the State’s water resources.
This matter is nonsense. The Opposition will not support the Government. Opposition members have for some time held discussions with many people associated with the scheme, including the Commonwealth and Victorian governments. Opposition members understand the Government’s position. We know the arrangements that have been made with Victoria. But the Opposition cannot agree with the Government. It is the responsibility of Opposition members to stand up for the people of New South Wales to ensure that the Parliament decides the way in which a most valuable asset, the limited asset of water, is properly distributed between three major competing elements. The Parliament will make that decision. As I have said clearly, the Government has got it wrong. The Government has asked honourable members to trust it. The Opposition cannot and will not trust the Government on this issue. It would be wrong for the
Page 10567
Opposition to trust the Government on this issue. It is a matter for the Parliament. The coalition will oppose the bill at all stages.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Beamer.

Debate resumed from 21 May.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [4.35 p.m.]: The Opposition believes that this bill is yet another example of the Government’s inability, indeed unwillingness, to communicate, consult and understand. It continually treats the people of New South Wales with disdain. The Minister for Fair Trading received a ministerial brief on this issue in February 1996 and obtained Cabinet approval for this bill on 11 November 1996, yet, some seven months since that Cabinet approval and more than a year since her ministerial briefing, she has begun her headlong rush to push the legislation through without consultation with the groups and industries affected. Why is the Minister doing this? Is it because she needs to sign off on millions of dollars being transferred from outside agencies to the Government coffers? The Opposition believes that to be so.

We are close to midnight for the accountants - it is nearly 30 June. Why does the Minister want the $30 million-plus from the Property Services Council Compensation Fund in the accounts of the Department of Fair Trading? Why does the Minister want the statutory interest account of the real estate agents paid into the account of the Department of Fair Trading? Why does the Minister want the Building Insurance Fund paid into the Department of Fair Trading account? Is it because Treasury has pushed the Minister on this matter? It is noted in the Minister’s briefing note of 15 February 1996 that the recommendation in relation to the Property Services Council was that "steps should also be taken to vest the various accounts with the department and to remove the provisions relating to the financial year of the council".

The briefing note went on to say, "To enable the Department to effectively apply its resources to its entire range of operations under its various Acts, the provisions of the Property Stock & Business Agents Act, which restricts the payments of money received to specific purposes, should be repealed. This is subject to Treasury’s directions for the Department." There it is for the Minister - the grab for the money, clear and concise. The matter becomes even clearer further in the recommendations of the Minister’s briefing note, which states, "subject to the above recommendations discussions will be held with Treasury and Corporate Services as to the appropriate financial arrangements for the department in respect of funds received under the Acts". This is a grab for the money. But what is the reason for that? It is because that will enhance and boost, falsely, the economic balance sheet in New South Wales.

Why did the Minister snub, in the most disgraceful way, her own council, the Property Services Council, by advising it less than 24 hours before of the decision to disband it, when she was briefed to do this a year and a quarter ago and made the decision in Cabinet seven months ago? Is the Minister in control of her portfolio, or is she but a marionette for the Treasurer of this State? Has it been suggested by the powers that supposedly be that failure to put some money in the pot will bring down the ire of the benefactor of this Minister, the Premier? The answer to these questions is simply yes. It may appear that the Opposition is not totally enamoured of the Government’s legislation and its integration of various components and agencies that are seen as representing areas of fair trading. That observation is correct. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been provided to review the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 1941 and a further $25,000 to $30,000 for the Valuers Registration Act review.

My understanding is that the draft issues paper for the review of the Property Stock and Business Agents Act was drawn by the Centre for International Economics and David W. Brett Pty Ltd in April and that the final paper would have been available for public discussion in July and August, just one to two months away. The discussion paper for the Valuers Registration Act is already out in the field, with comment to close soon. It is nothing short of extraordinary for the Minister to be rushing this legislation into the Parliament while other wide-ranging and significant consultants’ reports into the future of the industry are under consideration and have not yet been determined, let alone discussed with the industry bodies. Thousands of dollars are about to go down the drain as this Minister unilaterally moves, with a stroke of the pen, towards a complete rewrite of half a century of proud tradition of what is now known as the Property
Page 10568
Services Council and those who administer its compensation fund. The Opposition will oppose proposed schedule 5 to this bill.

This Carr Government, with the help of Ministers, has alienated person after person, organisation after organisation, community after community until it has reached the point of alienating so many that in 1999 it will be but a passing memory of bad times, with the Premier, the master’s apprentice of arrogance, a master of non-consultation, becoming but a passing memory like that of his idol Paul Keating. One of the many other reasons that the Opposition has concerns about the bill in regard to the Government’s overall policy of the integration of fair trading matters which will effectively be finalised by this piece of legislation is that the infrastructure has not been, and will not be by this Act, put in place sufficient to ensure that the consumer and indeed the trader will be able to be dealt with properly, effectively and quickly and in a business-like manner.

It would appear to the Opposition that the Government’s actions to date have been to attempt to create employees who will be jacks of all trades and, without any disrespect to those employees, who will have to carry out government direction to the best of their ability and bear the criticism for the Government’s inadequacies, because of the diversity of areas such as fair trading they may well be masters of none. Only recently the Minister introduced and brought into play the Home Building Act. From my personal experience on behalf of constituents and that of colleagues and members of the industry, it showed that many staff members of the Department of Fair Trading simply had not had sufficient training to know and understand what was required of them and, indeed, in some instances did not know the Act. That is not to cast aspersions on the staff, but the proper infrastructure and integration has not occurred. I plead again with the Minister and the Government to ensure that, before they rush through legislation, they reconsider their position and pull back from the bill until full consultation has taken place and staff are trained and in place to give a full and comprehensive service to the public.

I stress that the Minister must be able to give assurances that officers from the Department of Fair Trading will have sufficient training and knowledge to be able to administer the various components of the Act if it is passed, including the Fair Trading Act, the Conveyancers Licensing Act, the Home Building Act, the Motor Dealers Act, the Property Stock and Business Agents Act and the Valuers Registration Act. I do not believe that this Government has provided that training. If this bill is passed, failure by the Government to adequately resource and train staff will mean failure of the program of integration by this Government. In that event, the Opposition will be watching the bill most carefully because, as I said from the outset, we are not sure that this massive conversion of fair trading services under the one umbrella will actually provide fair trading resources and advice sufficient for the consumers and traders of this State.

The abolishment of the Property Services Council will see the transfer of the functions of the Property Services Council to the Director General of the Department of Fair Trading, and as I have already said, all funds will be transferred to the department’s internal accounts. As mentioned, the real estate industry is appalled by the minister’s actions in this area. It is appalled by her treatment of its members of the Real Estate Council and appalled at the lack of consultation. The acting president of the institute, John Hill, in a press release on 25 May said:

The Minister seems to have adopted crash-through tactics to push the amendments through the parliament without involving the industry in any way, despite the fact that we are always ready to talk to government Ministers. It also ignores the fact that the current arrangements have worked extremely well for over 50 years.

He said:

The big question is "What’s the hurry" and why has the Minister adopted this approach. The changes could have far reaching effects for property consumers who are entitled to know what the real motives of the amendments are and what protection they will have in the future.

Mr Hill went on to say:

The amendments would also mean that the Property Services Council, which enjoys input from a number of industry representatives, would be replaced by a Board to be appointed by the Minister.

He also said:

The Institute’s representatives on to the Property Services Council were given less than 24 hours notice of the amendments before they were introduced to Parliament.

It means that the Minister is prepared to run roughshod over the real estate industry to get the amendments through, regardless of the consequences.

This action is also being taken at a time when the whole of the real estate licensing mechanism is undergoing a very extensive, and expensive, review by outside consultants. In

Page 10569
fact the consultants first discussion paper is due within the next few weeks.

Mr Hill called on the Government to recall the amendments so that proper discussions with the institute could occur once the results from the current inquiry were known. The Real Estate Institute is not alone in this criticism of the Minister’s lack of consultation. The Association of Property Conveyancers in a letter to me dated 26 May said:

Thank you for your letter of 22 May, 1997, concerning the introduction of the subject Bill. The matter was discussed by the Council of the Association last evening and we are disappointed that the Government did not consult with us or other industry groups before the legislation was drafted. Our main concern is that the Conveyancing profession will not, in the future, have representation on the Property Services Advisory Council.

Also the Master Builders Association, whilst giving some guarded support to the Minister, said in yet another letter to me of 26 May 1997:

Thank you for the information regarding the introduction of the Fair Trading Legislation Amendment. This Association has a number of concerns which should be raised with the Minister:

1. The lack of industry consultation on the changes - denying industry groups the opportunity to contribute, positively, to changes affecting the industry.

2. The lack of consultation on the composition of both the Home Building Advisory Council and the Fair Trading Council. We are concerned that the Department will follow previous practice and appoint persons who do not have the appropriate industry experience to effectively assess and report on building matters.

3. The haste with which regulations are put in place without proper information or eduction campaigns to achieve high degrees of acceptability. The omission of such campaigns perpetuate the adversarial nature of consumer relations. For a "Fair Trading" agency to continue such an adversarial culture contradicts the "fairness" implied in the name - Fair Trading . . . Thank you for your interest in our industry.

Additionally, the Property Industry Council of New South Wales wrote to me on 28 May and said:

It is with extreme concern and astonishment that we have been advised of the introduction into Parliament of the Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill 1997, amongst other things, to abolish the Property Services Council, remove any upper limit of levies that can be imposed on real estate licensees and transfer funds currently controlled by the Council into the Department’s internal account. These funds combined amount to well in excess of $50 million.

The above Bill has been introduced without any consultation with industry and more importantly without ample time for industry to consider the Bill as a whole. As you would be aware, this is not the first time that this Minister has done this and I refer you to the Regulatory Reduction Bill 1996 which again was vehemently opposed by industry.

Surely the industry has a right to have input into proposed change.

The first question that must be asked is why the Minister is in such a rush to push those amendments through Parliament. A review of the Property, Stock & Business Agents Act 1941 was commenced in February this year with the first discussion paper due for release within days. At great expense outside consultants were appointed by the Government to undertake the review and with this in progress we have the Minister pushing amendments through before the review is completed.

The council went on to say in relation to the Property Services Council:

Current arrangements have worked extremely well for over 50 years but the Government is prepared to make changes, without consultation, regardless of the consequences. The industry firmly believes that these changes will have far reaching effects on the industry, but more importantly on the property consumer in this State. For example, the ability of the consumer to have a fee review has been altered dramatically with the proposed legislation.

Are we not, and for that matter the consumer, entitled to know what the real motives of the amendments are?

We ask that you support our industry in ensuring that sections of this Bill relating to the real estate industry are defeated or at the very least deferred until such time as proper consideration can be given to the ramifications of such changes.

We stress that a full review of the Act is presently being undertaken and firmly believe that no change should be considered until the results of same are known.

Yes, Minister, the Opposition is consulting and the Opposition is getting the clear signal - she will not consult. Minister, do it. Just this once listen to what the industry is saying. Her failure to do so has alienated yet another large and significant part of her portfolio responsibility from her and this Government. Concern about the appointments of the proposed various advisory councils is not limited to those groups and others that have contacted me. The Opposition, as I said earlier, opposes at the very least the changes to the Property Services Advisory Council. In regard to the Minister’s other changes and hasty actions, the Opposition reserves its rights to seek the assistance of others in another place on matters concerning the Property Services Advisory Council and other contemplated councils.

The bill provides for the establishment of a puppet advisory council. The Minister can appoint anybody she chooses to her puppet advisory council, which once again illustrates the complete and utter disregard the Minister has for industry representation. As a gesture of the complete disdain in which the Minister holds the industry, members
Page 10570
of the so-called advisory council may be removed by the Minister "as a member of an advisory council at any time for any or no reason" - subclause 5(2) of new schedule 4A. Advisory councils are "required to meet four times during each calendar year". In other words, the puppet advisory council will also be subject to the arbitrary directions and political whims of the Minister.

The Minister will have to spell out clearly exactly how those councils will function, of whom they will be comprised and, more importantly, she will have to assure the Opposition that the councils will be politically independent and not merely an arm of the Australian Labor Party. The Minister will also have to assure the players in those various areas that they will be adequately represented on those committees. It is proposed that the Minister have only five people on the Fair Trading Advisory Council to advise the Minister on fair trading and consumer issues, as well as a director-general or his or her nominee. It will be interesting to see who is appointed.

I note from the Minister’s second reading speech that five members are to be appointed to the Motor Trade Advisory Council, including the director-general. However, I understand after speaking with the Minister that in fact there will now be 10 members and I am not sure whether the director-general is included in or is in addition to that number. The Opposition will not oppose a change to 10 members for this committee. The motor trade has many components to it: new and used cars, repairs, servicing, airconditioning, automatic transmission servicing and many others. It will be interesting to see again how the Minister will integrate into that advisory council the many facets of the motor trade industry and ensure that they are properly represented and able to represent the vast cross-section of the motor vehicle industry.

The Motor Traders Association also needs an assurance from this Government that the proposed Motor Trade Advisory Council will not usurp or undermine the Motor Vehicle Industry Repair Council, which provides a significant service to consumers. Likewise an assurance is needed that the Motor Dealers Compensation Fund will not be seized. As previously mentioned, the Opposition has significant concerns about the statutory accounts. It can well be said that this bill is a frantic grab for money for the Minister and her bureaucrats, particularly as the Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill provides that money in the council’s statutory interest account is to be transferred to the administration of the Department of Fair Trading and "may be applied for any purpose for which it is required or permitted to be applied by or under this or any other Act".

Further, the money in the statutory interest account can be used under any regulation which may be passed in future or under the prescribed provisions of any other Act. These extraordinary amendments mean that the money in the statutory interest account may be used at the demand of the Minister or the Cabinet for any purpose which the government of the day may determine, even if that purpose has nothing to do with the real estate industry. Additionally, the bringing of the building services insurance accounts, the Property Service Insurance Fund and the statutory interest income under the Department of Fair Trading gives a significant boost, firstly, to the Department of Fair Trading and, secondly, to the Government as the "off-budget" funds come onto the books of the Department of Fair Trading. But with the stroke of a pen the Treasurer can take those funds to consolidated revenue and pay out what he wants or thinks fit, as happened with the Coal Acquisition Amendment Bill.

Has the Minister thought that she might be the fall person in this proposal? Has she thought whether the Treasurer is setting her up for a grab at those moneys? Has the Minister asked Treasury why it wants moneys brought from all of the funds - the Property Services Compensation Fund, the Building Insurance Fund, the statutory account and the other sundry accounts - into her budget? It is because the Government sees yet another grab at the people’s money. This Minister is the fall person. She is about to let tens of millions of dollars of public money flow through to the Government yet she is the consumers’ protector!

The Act also introduces retrospectively anti-competitive and punitive measures against small real estate firms by requiring, first, that contributions in amounts up to $500 are to be paid as levies each three years by every licensee with the overriding proviso that at any time the director-general may arbitrarily impose a levy in any amount on every licensee in New South Wales, which will be "payable to the director-general at the time and in the manner fixed by the director-general". The grossly unfair nature of this unfettered discretion is demonstrated in proposed section 64E(4) of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act, which provides:

If, after being given the notice prescribed by the regulations, a licensee fails to pay a levy in accordance with this section, the Director-General may suspend the licence held by the licensee while the failure continues.

Page 10571

This provision for special levies has no ceiling or limit, unlike contributions up to $500 which are set out under proposed section 64D. The proposal is manifestly anti-competitive as it may clearly drive many smaller firms out of business. There is no provision for appeal against suspension by the director-general of the licence of any unfortunate real estate agent who may not have been able to gather together moneys in sufficient amounts to pay unspecified levies within the time limits to be fixed by the director-general.

It is noted that under schedule 3 of the proposed amendments to the Home Building Act, a Building Insurance Fund account is to be set up whereby amounts transferred to the fund from the Fair Trading Administration Corporation account, by way of supplementation under section 113, and all moneys received by the administration corporation that are referable to BSC insurance are to be paid. Under proposed section 113(3)(b) there is provision for payment from the general account to the Building Insurance Fund of "such amounts by way of supplementation of the Building Insurance Fund as may be necessary to enable current or future claims against or liabilities of the Fund to be met". The Opposition notes that the Government’s actuary consultants have reported that the Building Services Corporation’s equity is unsatisfactory. It is recorded in the Department of Fair Trading annual report that Trowbridge Consulting has noted that the total equity of the BSC as at 30 June 1996 was $10.144 million. However, in their report on the corporation’s insurance activities, the actuaries made the following comments in their conclusions:

Our advice on capital requirements is essentially unchanged from our previous report, that is: -

* if the Department were a private sector insurer underwriting this form of insurance cover, we believe it would be prudent for it to hold an unallocated assets (sometimes referred to as a ‘solvency reserve’) of about $20 to $25 million

* a lower level of capital would be acceptable if the Department were able to approach the State Government for extra capital at any time. However given the aim of both the Department and the Treasury to minimise the need for capital injections we believe the Department should hold capital in the order of $20 to $25 million while it continues to underwrite insurance schemes

* if the Department ceased to underwrite such businesses capital could be expected to be released gradually as claimed liabilities ran off.

It is interesting that the funds to be received from the Property Services Council Compensation Fund will be about $30 million. Will this be used to offset the amount recommended by the actuaries to be held in regard to possible claims against the Building Services Corporation? Further in the report the actuaries said that a provision for outstanding claims was recommended at $92.767 million. On the figures that the Opposition has seen, it would effectively mean that if all claims were called up there would be a potential shortfall of over $82 million. Is this the reason the Minister and the Treasurer want to pull the Building Services Corporation Insurance Fund under the Department of Fair Trading’s umbrella, to hide this shortfall, or is it perhaps to thwart the unwary public from making legitimate claims by placing the might of government in their way?

I ask the Minister to give an assurance that there will be sufficient funds in the general account to be transferred as considered under proposed section 113(3)(b), to supplement the proposed Building Insurance Fund to be set up under proposed section 112A particularly in light of the adverse comments made by the auditors. A further aspect of proposed section 112A that concerns the Opposition is in new section 112A(3)(c) as follows:

Payment from the Building Insurance Fund may be made for the following purposes only:

(3)(c) to meet departmental and other costs incurred in relation to the administration of BSC Insurance, including any relevant capital costs,

This is a far too sweeping clause to have in amending legislation such as this, particularly having regard to the negative funding situation for the BSC. This is open-ended for the Administration Corporation to milk from the Building Insurance Fund administrative costs and capital costs. Surely, part of the integration that is the centrepiece of this Act is that the Administration Corporation would have a separate administrative fund to run the overall integrated and amalgamated Department of Fair Trading. If that is not the case, there is little point in bringing together these various agencies for the purposes of amalgamation. For example, if separate administrative costs in relation to the BSC Insurance Fund are to be set up, the agencies might as well be left to continue to run their agencies with their funds outside the Administration Corporation.

The comments I have made about the Building Insurance Fund are applicable to the amendments to section 64 of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act proposed in schedule 5 in respect of the Property Services Compensation Fund. At present proposed section 64C(2)(d) states that the fund would be used to meet the costs of administering the compensation fund. Why have an amalgamated integrated department when stand-alone accounts
Page 10572
administer certain parts of those bodies that have been amalgamated or integrated? Either the new integrated Department of Fair Trading can stand alone on an administrative basis or it cannot. Facets of departments cannot be paying their particular share while others are paid from general administration.

In regard to the proposed separate administrations for such things as the Building Insurance Fund and the Property Services Compensation Fund, there will be the need for bookkeeping, to calculate, to adjust, to pay, et cetera. This is another overhead that should not be necessary if the concept of an amalgamated Department of Fair Trading was regarded as being a success. Likewise, under section 63, the provision of a Property Services statutory interest account again has a provision under proposed section 63B(2)(c) that the cost of administering that Act, the Conveyancers Licensing Act, the Valuers Registration Act and any other Act described by the regulation for the purpose of this paragraph will be met from the statutory interest account.

I do not want to go over the ground that I covered in the last two instances but it applies equally in this instance also. There are two other matters that are of concern to the Opposition in relation to sections 63 and 64. They are the provisions that money under the statutory interest account and the property services account can, at the Treasurer’s discretion, be invested "in schemes that relate to the provision of residential accommodation or, subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, loans to building societies registered under an Act". Again the hand of the Treasurer has emerged in this legislation. The Opposition is not sure that these funds should be spent in this way. Indeed, as a warning to the dangers that can be associated with such generality, it should be noted under a similar provision a half-million dollar loan has been identified as missing in the 1996 Auditor-General’s Report in relation to advances from the Rental Bond Board to the Kuringai Co-operative Housing Society.

I now turn to the Opposition’s specific reasons for opposing schedule 5. It is quite clear that the Minister has abysmally neglected to consult on this legislation. To insult her own Property Services Council by giving it less than 24 hours notice of its demise is deplorable. As mentioned, a proud tradition of independent administration of the real estate industry is going to be destroyed by this Minister. The Minister has again underestimated the anger, frustration and indignation she has again caused by the non-consultative program she has embarked on in this legislation. But, to make matters worse, she has not only isolated the industry, she has, in the name of expediency towards the Premier and the Treasurer, refused to wait for the finalisation of her own review into the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act and Valuers Registration Act.

Why is the Minister doing this? Is she under orders? Does she need to shore up the department’s showing with the Treasurer? Surely there must be a simple explanation as to why she will not wait for the review. Perhaps the Minister knows the answer and does not like it. Or more likely, as in her briefing note, she is under the Treasurer’s instructions. The Opposition believes that the part of the legislation that refers to the Property Stock and Business Agents Act and the Valuers Registration Act should be removed, pending the finalisation of what is, to date, a very expensive exercise for the taxpayer, the review of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. That review is about to be abandoned by this Minister’s crash through and "please Bob" mentality. I will be moving an amendment to schedule 5 later in this debate. The ironic twist is that because of procedural problems discussed with the Clerk, I will then vote against schedule 5. However, I invite the Minister to consider my amendment, as against the Opposition’s opposition to schedule 5.

The amendment I will move deals with a loophole that has been exposed and used by the Department of Fair Trading to deny people the right to claim against the compensation fund where people have lost money in the ordinary course of business and dealing at arm's length with what they thought were licensed real estate agent operators. For a long time the Opposition has expressed concern at the lack of a number of real estate inspectors for the Department of Fair Trading and the inability of the inspectors to properly carry out inspections to ensure that licensees are acting in accordance with the law. As a result, there are a number of licensees who are actually not operating within the law and therefore would be deemed not to be licensed.

The ordinary person would not necessarily know that these people may have defaulted the trust accounts or may be carrying on a business without a licensed agent on the premises or that any number of other faults may have occurred that would not be known to a consumer coming to a real estate agency to deal at arm's length. Those defaults can only be checked if the Department of Fair Trading has sufficient inspectors to carry out proper and correct inspections to ensure that only those that are trading properly are entitled to continue to trade as licensed
Page 10573
real estate agents. A person trading in the ordinary course of business with a real estate agent in good faith who is defaulted by the real estate agent for want of being licensed or having otherwise breached the Act should be entitled to claim on the compensation fund.

Worse, if a real estate agent is able to continue to trade while not licensed, with the knowledge of the department, obviously the person should be able to claim upon the fund and be paid in any event through the Department of Fair Trading for the funds lost during the period of time that the department was aware of the breaches of the licence. It is the view of the Opposition that the legislation should be amended to ensure that consumers are entitled to claim against the compensation fund when they have acted in good faith in the ordinary course of business at arm's length with people they reasonably believed to be licensed at the time that the transaction took place.

I will seek the Government’s support on the amendment in the event that the Opposition loses the vote on its opposition to schedule 5, as it protects not only landlords but also struggling people and consumers who are perhaps purchasing their first home and have paid a deposit to an agent who they thought was licensed but was otherwise, only later to lose their deposit. Under the present method of claiming they would not be able to claim for the loss of the deposit because the agent would have been, in the terms of the Act, not licensed at the time of the transaction taking place, although they have held themselves out as being licensed and the consumer reasonably believed that that was the case.

I return to the main thrust of the bill. The Opposition contends that the Government is using this rearrangement as a milch cow to convert money to consolidated revenue to prop up the failed budgets that have been handed down by the Government. The Minister must address the total integration of the department and not the fragmented integration by having separate funds to seek administration of the various components of the fund. The Minister must support our opposition to reference to the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act to enable full consultation and review to take place. The Government must also support our amendment to protect the battlers from the inadequacies of her department in not having sufficient inspectors to be able to police real estate agents and to protect the public from unscrupulous real estate agents who may default in circumstances in which people who have put money into the real estate agents hands or trust accounts are unable to recover those moneys.

The Minister might please the Premier by rushing this through, but she has put out yet another sector of the community. There is little left, Minister. She confused the home building industry to the extent that every builder and tradesman is offside. She got it wrong with prompt payments and put off every farmer and stock and station agent. The strata titles amendments are a mess through lack of consultation and knowledge and because the Minister obscurely allowed only 14 days within which to comment on draft regulations and model rules. Finally she has, because of her refusal to consult, managed to alienate the motor trade, the building trade and the real estate valuers industry. There is not much left, Minister!

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [5.07 p.m.]: I have some concerns about the haste with which the Government has brought forward the Fair Trading Legislation Amendment Bill. As has been the case with much of this Government’s legislation, very little consultation has taken place. The industries involved and, indeed, the government agencies to be dissolved are left wondering what the heck is going on. Here we have an example of a Minister capturing agencies and bringing them under the control of an ever-growing department. The Department of Fair Trading is becoming a monster. I ask: what is fair about a monopoly?

Clearly, the department is doing what it seeks to prevent others doing. It is becoming fat at the expense of the little bloke. When the Government announced its intention to amalgamate a number of agencies to form the Department of Fair Trading, it was supposed to be a positive move, a cutting of red tape, as it were. This was meant to ensure that all the functions and services of the relevant agencies would become cohesive in a one-stop-shop department. Anyone dealing with the Department of Fair Trading will say that it is anything but straightforward. The department is now dealing with such a diverse range of inquiries that it just cannot cope with the load. It has become extremely busy.

The bill proposes amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1987, the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1995, the Home Building Act 1989 - formerly the Building Services Corporation Act 1989 - the Motor Dealers Act 1974, the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941, and the Valuers Registration Act 1975, and repeals the Property Services Council Act 1990. The bill establishes four new advisory councils: the Fair Trading Advisory Council, the
Page 10574
Motor Trade Advisory Council, the Property Services Advisory Council and the Home Building Advisory Council. These councils comprise persons appointed by the Minister.

Their role will be to advise the Minister, not to represent sectional interests. However, I have doubts about this rationale. I have long held the opinion that industry is the appropriate self-regulating apparatus - this bill effectively integrates all these agencies within the Department of Fair Trading. So, how can they continue to operate independently under the legislation by which they were created? The agencies already under the Department of Fair Trading, such as the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, do not have any teeth. This bill seeks to transfer statutory functions that are presently exercised by various statutory bodies to the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading.

How can they continue to operate independently under the legislation by which they were created? The agencies already under the umbrella of the Department of Fair Trading, such as the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, do not have any teeth. The bill seeks to transfer statutory functions that are presently exercised by various statutory bodies to the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading. What a responsibility! The Minister is obviously trying to create public sector jobs. No doubt that is commendable, but who will serve on all these advisory councils? Is there any protection for industry in all of this? The vast majority of businesses do the right thing. Are they to be punished because of the few shonky, unlicensed traders who flout the law? The Minister and I both know that there will always be the bad apple that spoils the barrel.

This legislation, if it does nothing else, must protect the industry and the consumer from the unscrupulous dealer. It must have teeth to deal with and weed out the bad apples before consumers become victims and before honest, decent agents and traders are implicated merely by association. The Department of Fair Trading should do its job and stamp out illegal traders. Too often the department becomes involved after someone has been caught. But it is too late then. The Property Services Act has administered the fidelity fund which has protected property consumers in New South Wales for more than half a century. I understand that the fund is $30 million in credit. The transfer of the functions of the Property Services Council to the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading is just a money grab, in my opinion. The fact that the fund is $30 million in credit surely is a mark of its ability to function perfectly well without the support of the department. The industry is stunned.

I asked earlier who will serve on the advisory boards which are being set up to replace the various councils that have had industry input? Indeed, will the Minister be fair? The real estate industry is the subject of a current review. Surely it would be of benefit to all concerned to wait for the result of that inquiry before rushing into this legislation. Lack of consultation is becoming the norm with this Government. The Department of Fair Trading will become so huge and unwieldy that it will become dysfunctional. The Minister said that the legislation will ensure that the functions and services of the agencies are rationalised and integrated to bring cohesion and economy to the delivery of the Government’s fair trading programs. But what about service delivery?

Accountability and efficiency means delivering services to the wider community. The legislation seeks to protect the consumer against the crooked dealer or poor service delivery, but the industry also needs protection. The industry needs to have its good name protected. It does not want to be found guilty as an industry because one person does the wrong thing. This bill is too much too quickly. It is too much to swallow at a single sitting and should be broken down into digestible lumps and chewed over. The Minister is making a meal of swallowing agencies and absorbing them into her own department. The people out in civvy street know how hard it is to deal with big bureaucracies.

The bill provides for a Fair Trading Advisory Council to be established to furnish advice to the Minister on fair trading and consumer protection issues. What has the department been doing until now? Is it not always the responsibility of departments to advise Ministers on issues relating to a portfolio? Again, who is going to serve on this so-called peak advisory body? Will the five persons with expertise or qualifications relating to the area adequately represent the wider community? These are questions that the industry would like answered. In summary, I have reservations about the legislation which is ripping the carpet out from under industry. I also have doubts about the department being able to handle such a huge area of responsibility. I believe that the bill should be withheld until there has been more consultation with industry and more consideration takes place. I agree with the shadow minister for fair trading in regard to what would need to be amended at the Committee stage. As I said, I have several concerns and I put the Minister on notice as to them.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Beamer.

Page 10575

Private members' statements, by leave, taken forthwith.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.15 p.m.]: I refer to a serious human tragedy which the 1997 budget cuts have caused in the electorate of Gosford. Mr Rodney Frost, a resident of the central coast, suffers from severe brain injuries sustained in a head-on motor vehicle accident in 1993. Unable to cope with the crisis, Mr Frost’s wife left him. After his accident Mr Frost returned to live with his parents even though he has an ongoing and serious medical problem. However, in the past year his father has suffered a stroke and his mother has been hospitalised for major surgery. Mr Frost, who returned home to be looked after by his parents, finds himself the sole carer for both of his parents, and he has taken on responsibility for all household tasks.

With the help of a Community Access and Support Service - CASS - worker, Mr Frost has made significant improvements and is now working toward the goal of gaining paid employment. Mr Frost is just one of many who will suffer if the Carr Government’s funding cuts are allowed to drastically reduce the services that CASS can provide. Since he became involved with CASS, Mr Frost has received support from staff to enable him to attend weekly recreational and social activities; to undertake voluntary work at a community centre and a respite program for children with disabilities; to successfully complete a course on working with people with disabilities; and to co-facilitate a music appreciation group for other CASS consumers. A cut in CASS funding would result in the level of one-to-one support that Mr Frost receives being greatly reduced.

The social and recreational activities that Mr Frost attends and is learning to organise would no longer be provided; the group activity that Mr Frost is learning to facilitate would be cancelled; and Mr Frost would receive no support to assist him to cope with caring for his parents. He would be devastated. His parents would be devastated. In 1995 the Central Coast Disability Council received a two-year seeding grant of $375,000 from the Motor Accidents Authority to establish the community access program. The seeding grant was for capital funding of $52,252 with the remaining funds to be expended over the two-year period. This level of funding is considered to be in line with the amount that community access programs in other areas received, and with the level of funding that the service would receive from the Department of Community Services after the Motor Accidents Authority funds had been expended.

These funds from the seeding grant will be exhausted as at 30 June. However, contrary to reassurance that the funding would be maintained at least at existing levels, the Ageing and Disability Department has notified the Central Coast Disability Council that this is no longer the case. As of 1 July 1997 they will provide funding of only $136,829. That is well below the current funding of the council, which in turn is significantly lower than the estimated need for the area. If the service is forced to operate on a significantly reduced level of funding the issue of service viability will dictate that priority be given to fee-paying clients at the expense of those who are financially disadvantaged and possibly most in need of support. That compromises the ability of CASS to meet the disability standards, as eligibility will be based on ability to generate income rather than on priority of highest need. These cuts in funding have grave implications for all those who suffer from a disability.

The Central Coast Disability Council provides an important service and for many constitutes a lifeline without which they would be lost. Those people will now suffer twice: once at the hands of a tragic fate and again at the hands of the Carr Government. Any cuts in funding for people with disabilities can only further disadvantage them, and send out a message that this Government simply does not care for those in our society who are most in need. Mr Frost’s case is but one example of the tragedy. He was in a coma for 48 days and suffered from post-traumatic amnesia for 2½ months. At the time of his accident his prognosis was poor, and doctors indicated that his future would be bleak. However, with the assistance of this program he has been able to rehabilitate himself to an extent. He can now partially look after himself and partially look after the heavy support needs of his sick parents. However, it would be a tragedy to take from him the financial assistance and support that is so vital to him and his parents. [Time expired.]

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.20 p.m.]: I want to criticise Fairfield City Council on its failure to take a realistic and practical approach to the challenge it confronts in preparing a planning instrument which regulates the location of brothels within the Fairfield local government area. In 1995 the Government introduced amendments to the
Page 10576
Disorderly Houses Act. Those amendments made brothels permissible under most local environmental plans, including that of Fairfield City Council. Brothels are therefore now a legitimate land use which can be regulated through local environmental plans.

When brothels are not prohibited by an LEP, a council may consider a development application for a brothel in the same way as it considers applications for other permissible developments. If a brothel is not specifically defined in an LEP it would generally come under the definition of commercial premises. Fairfield council’s LEP allows brothels to fall within the definition of commercial premises. In a circular dated 29 December 1995 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning made it clear that the Government believed that any blanket prohibition of brothels through LEPs would have the effect of making the establishment of a brothel illegal under planning law, and that it would not be supported because it contradicted the intent of the Government’s amendments to the Disorderly Houses Act.

It appears that Fairfield City Council finds these simple concepts, instructions and policy decisions too difficult to understand and adhere to. That difficulty is allowing the city of Fairfield to become a bigger sleaze centre than Kings Cross. The failure of Fairfield City Council to come up with a reasonable and acceptable local environmental plan for brothels has meant that the council has lost control of its city centres, and lifetime houses of ill repute are mushrooming throughout the city. Whilst councillors and officers pontificate about the impossible, Alan Street is becoming a sleaze boulevard and swingers clubs are being set up across the road from schools. Fairfield council tried to be smart and carried out a political stunt in which the first draft local environmental plan prohibited brothels altogether. That plan was rejected, as was to be expected.

The council participated in another political stunt when it was involved with a resolution at the Local Government Association conference in September 1996 which sought to overturn the State Government’s amendments to the Disorderly Houses Act. That resolution was defeated, and that defeat illustrated the lack of maturity of the Fairfield City Council, particularly vis-a-vis other councils in New South Wales. Fairfield council then leapt to the other extreme when it released in February a new draft LEP which allowed brothels to be established in the city’s central business districts. The proposal included Fairfield and Cabramatta shopping centres. The reaction of the public was predictable: more than 2,500 petitioners and 46 submissions rejected the proposition. Chambers of commerce, religious groups, family organisations, businesses, residents and individuals were united in their opposition, and council had to dump its second draft LEP.

Finally, last week I received the third draft LEP. It has the stench of another political document because it takes the initial stupid position of prohibiting brothels altogether. The Government has made it clear that prohibition is inconsistent with government policy. The end result is a greater waste of time and more lifelong city centre brothels being approved by the Land and Environment Court. The word is out in the sleaze world that the people of Fairfield are fair game for morally bankrupt sex trade activities. Development applications from sex merchants are flooding in. As they reach the 40-day processing time limit those applicants go off to the Land and Environment Court and win the right to set up brothels in the heart of our family-oriented commercial centres. These places of ill repute can stay there forever using existing-use rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Political games and a lack of maturity by Fairfield council means that Fairfield city is fast becoming a sex industry metropolis.

A swingers club will now be permanently located across the road from Fairfield Patrician Brothers College and right next to residences; the premises at 5 Alan Street can operate legally and for ever in the Fairfield central business district, following another court decision, and its neighbour at 3 Alan Street has also got the green light. These sites are across the road from the Fairfield Adult Migrant Education Centre, which has a child-care centre, and adjacent to a private hospital and nursing home. The political gutlessness of the council has placed the city in jeopardy and is exposing it to more and more applications from those who believe Fairfield is becoming a home for the brothel industry. I call on the Minister to give consideration to this issue and urge the council to make a sensible and intelligent decision.

Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [5.25 p.m.]: I raise a most unpleasant matter which affects the community of Maitland. On 28 May a resident of the area of Metford, Mr Phillip White, was murdered on his way home from work. Mr White, who was in his mid-forties, was travelling from Metford railway station at approximately 6.13 p.m. on 28 May and only a 10-minute walk away from his home, through a public reserve, when he met his death. Maitland police responded in a manner of
Page 10577
which the whole of New South Wales can be proud. Less than 24 hours after the horrific murder, charges were laid against a young offender, and subsequently a second person has been charged. I do not wish to interfere with the legal process, but it is appropriate that due recognition be given to the police. The local community and the Mindaribba Land Council assisted police, as did the transit police.

Mr White and his family had moved to Metford not quite 12 months ago. They had the home of their dreams and a young family. Mr White had phoned his home in the afternoon of 28 May to say he would be home to prepare dinner for the family. The details of the horrific murder will come to light as the case proceeds. The fact that his body was not found until the following morning has had a devastating effect on the community, which has responded as I would expect any community to. Approximately a week after the murder, Metford Neighbourhood Watch held a public meeting in the Metford school hall which was attended by more than 500 residents.

The residents wanted to vent their anger and lay blame on State Rail for the unmanned railway station, Landcom for the lack of lights in the playing reserve, Maitland City Council for an overgrowth of trees along the footpath, the Department of Housing for the population movement, and the Department of School Education. They were looking for some form of community involvement in an effort to reclaim their community. On 27 July the Metford Neighbourhood Watch will hold a family outing in the reserve in an endeavour to get people together and to restore community pride.

This type of incident has a devastating effect on the community. All too often we read or hear of these incidents occurring in other areas of New South Wales and we think that it will not happen in our area. When it does, it hits with a thud. I and the community look forward to the passage of the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Bill. The community will be watching in the hope that the bill will provide a means for making our community feel safe and will give police power to deal with young people who are at risk or likely to commit an offence. The community looks forward to the council undertaking to set up an area in Metford and requesting the police and the Minister to take control of those areas. The community is calling out for these types of measures. Nothing will bring Mr White back. Our sympathies go to the family. [Time expired.]

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [5.30 p.m.]: I, and I am sure all honourable members, join with the honourable member for Maitland in expressing deep sorrow at the horrific incident that occurred at Metford station. I will urge all Ministers who have a part to play in assisting the Metford community rebuild to do all they can to assist the community. I will ensure that the matters raised by the honourable member tonight are brought to the attention of those Ministers. From a transport point of view, I have had the Transport Safety Bureau conduct an urgent review of the station. Already we have identified a number of actions that can be taken to improve safety, and those measures are now being implemented. As the honourable member quite rightly identified, a number of agencies are involved in this issue. Any government assistance that can be given to the community to restore a sense of security is worthy of our support. I am sure we will all work hard to achieve that. I will bring the honourable member’s comments to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.32 p.m.]: Tonight I raise a problem that has been aired in this House on a number of occasions. It concerns increasing noise and vibration levels on our railway line north of Newcastle and through to Singleton. This is a problem that one would expect with an increase in the volume of traffic, but in this case it is related to an increase in coal sales. On one hand, that is good for the economy of the State and for Treasury, but on the other hand there are the side effects of noise and vibration, which make life more difficult for those living close by the railway line. The exacerbation of problems is caused not only by an increase in the size of train engines but also the length of trains, as up to 80 wagons are included on some trains going to the Kooragang Island coal loader.

Obviously, trains of such length require a number of engines to haul them. Such trains, because of scheduling requirements, must stop intermittently at different locations along the line, particularly if there is any hiccup in the discharging of those wagons once a train reaches the coal dump site. Such problems are governed to a certain degree by the arrival and departure of vessels involved in the trade of exporting our coal. My current concern relates in particular to a family living in Beresfield, on the edge of the Waratah electorate. Mr Robert and Mrs Wendy Meehan of 1 Addison Road, Beresfield, virtually live under the railway line; their back fence is less than 10 metres from the rail corridor that services the port of Newcastle.

Page 10578

The Meehans' home, which was built quite some years ago, is now suffering noise and vibration to such an extent that quite serious structural damage appears to be occurring to the home. At the instigation of Freight Rail, tests were carried out by an independent authority and the results of those tests have been incorporated in a report known as the Cooper report, which was supplied not only to the Meehans but residents in the area who were suffering similar problems, although not to quite the same degree. The comment of Freight Rail on the report being presented was that it would accept no responsibility for the damage to the Meehan home.

The report revealed that noise levels range between 71 and 97 decibels, when under the occupational health and safety legislation noise levels above 85 decibels occurring over a protracted period are considered quite unacceptable in terms of habitation. So the problem is not only affecting the comfort of the Meehans but is causing structural damage to the home. Quite a number of contacts have been made with the department. I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture is in the Chamber for I wish to express to him my gratitude for the efforts that he has made on behalf of the family and others to address the problem. However, in the opinion of the affected people, the problem continues to be ignored. I now quote from a letter dated 9 October 1996 to another resident in the area from the Newcastle City Council. That letter was over the hand of Geoffrey Douglass, building surveyor:

To directly answer your question about the difference between today’s AS2870 and the building standards of 1940, I consider that the 1940's footing would be likely to be founded near the ground surface and designed to support the weight of the house and its contents without exceeding the bearing capacity of the foundation. The 1996 footing would be founded deeper into the ground, designed for a variety of load effects and other considerations.

My interpretation of AS2870 is that it does not, however, address vibration loadings from large locomotives and coal wagons. It is possible that a dwelling erected on AS2870 footings could be damaged to an unacceptable level by such loadings.

The 1996 version of AS2870 relates the performance of its footing systems to "a normal site which is not subject to abnormal environmental factors".

When that sort of information is supplied and the relevant department does nothing other than say it will not accept any responsibility for increasing damage problems that appear to be related to vibration, one has a problem that is difficult to overcome. I would like consideration given to the construction of a solid wall in the vicinity of affected cottages in order to deflect noise. [Time expired.]

Mr LANGTON (Kogarah - Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism) [5.37 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Both FreightCorp and the Rail Access Corporation are working to reduce noise and vibration generated by rail operations, all over the State, but particularly in the Hunter Valley. In August last year FreightCorp and the Rail Access Corporation launched a $5 million package of nine initiatives targeting noise and vibration reduction. Since August, FreightCorp has made significant progress on several of the initiatives. The first was modifications to the 82-class locomotives, to reduce noise made by dynamic brakes, work which has now been completed; modifications to the 90-class locomotives are under way; and I am advised that FreightCorp expects the modifications to be completed by September.

The second initiative is that FreightCorp is currently taking delivery of 400 new high-capacity coal wagons that incorporate new design features, including solid drawgear, to reduce noise and vibration. The rail organisations recognise that noise is an important issue and that they have a responsibility to work with the communities affected. I am pleased to advise the honourable member and the House that FreightCorp will hold an open day at the one-spot wagon maintenance centre at Port Waratah on 1 July. The open day will allow residents, including those mentioned by the honourable member, to see at first hand the measures being undertaken to reduce noise in the Hunter Valley.

On display will be a 90-class locomotive, showing the barriers fitted on either side of the engine to reduce noise; a set of seven wagons, with the end wagon lifted off its bogeys to provide a full view of the noise modifications; several FreightCorp drivers will be on hand to provide an overview of the environmental training that has been undertaken; and, I am also advised, local Environment Protection Authority representatives will be available to speak with residents on the day. I acknowledge the problems, but I must say that we are working very hard to solve those problems. I acknowledge the great efforts of the honourable member for Waratah on this issue on behalf of his constituents.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [5.39 p.m.]: This evening I shall talk about matters
Page 10579
pertaining to the Manning District Emergency Accommodation organisation, its youth refuge section and Boori House. Boori House is the youth refuge in Taree. I have had a long association with the refuge; I opened it. Regrettably, the refuge fell on hard times some years ago. It was then taken under the auspice of Manning District Emergency Accommodation, an organisation that provides a marvellous service for youth, women and men in the area. Under that auspice Boori House has gone from strength to strength. Sadly, however, it now faces real problems associated with funding. It is very difficult to fund and maintain funding for facilities such as Boori House. Last year Manning District Emergency Accommodation was allocated $244,000 to administer Boori House. That amount was about the bare minimum needed, although the organisation, admirably, has said that if it had to it could work on a slightly reduced figure this year.

Last year the Department of Community Services spent $9,000 on a review of Boori House. Reviewers recommended a base level funding of $265,000 for the coming year. I have concerns about $9,000 being spent to review a very good operation; it is my opinion that the money could have been better spent otherwise, but that is a separate argument. On 2 June Manning District Emergency Accommodation received a letter from the Department of Community Services advising that it would have to manage the youth refuge on the basis of $226,396. I reiterate that the department’s own review, which cost $9,000, recommended base funding of $265,000. The department’s advice has caused great concern. Manning District Emergency Accommodation may well have difficulty in maintaining this marvellous service to the young people in the Manning region. The Sydney Morning Herald of 28 May carried an article headed "Welfare money goes begging as homeless brave the elements", written by Ardyn Bernoth, which stated:

The Supported Accommodation Assisted Program (SAAP), giving crisis help to homeless people, left $2 million of its $78 million budget unspent.

The refuge is, of course, funded under the supported accommodation assistance program. For Boori House, all that is wanted is about $20,000 of the $2 million that has not been spent. The people of Manning District Emergency Accommodation are not greedy; they are responsible, dedicated people, many of them volunteers, who work well beyond the call of duty. I suggest that the expenditure of bureaucracy required to stipulate a reduction in funding from last year’s $244,000 to $226,396 could well have provided the $20,000 deficiency.

I implore the Minister for Community Services to consider increasing the funding of Manning District Emergency Accommodation to a level at which the organisation can operate safely and properly and meet all of its responsibilities, including wage payments and compliance with occupational health and safety and other awards. The organisation’s funding should be increased to at least the $244,000 allocated last year, although the organisation has said that it could manage on a slightly lower figure. The organisation should receive not less than it was allocated last year; probably it should receive more than last year. The Department of Community Services has acknowledged the great work done by the organisation. Its letter of 2 June states:

The Department acknowledges that MDEA is committed to providing a quality service to clients of the Youth Refuge, and to employing skilled staff with adequate Occupational Health and Safety conditions.

The department’s statement is testament to the work of the organisation, yet it intends to downgrade the program. The department undertook its E3 group study, which recommended base funding of $265,000. The reviewing group said that it would talk further, yet the further talk has meant a reduction in funding. I ask the Minister in the other place to give careful consideration to the marvellous work done at Boori House and the service provided to the youth of the Manning region. The Minister should bear in mind that there is a crisis with youth in the Manning region, as in country New South Wales generally. I have seen the product of the work at Boori House and I commend Manning District Emergency Accommodation for that. I ask that reasonable funding be provided.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [5.44 p.m.]: At Beaman Park in Earlwood in my electorate Miss Cheryl Clark of Marrickville on 28 February suffered an accident. She fell from the park into the Cooks River, adjacent to the park. Her fall resulted from her attempt to retrieve her dog, which had been caught in the river. In order to retrieve the dog, Miss Clark proceeded down a metal ladder into the river. The ladder is attached to steel pylons that form part of the riverbank. The metal ladder was so corroded that it virtually disintegrated as Miss Clark proceeded down it. Miss Clark fell into the river - it would be more correct to say that she fell into the silt, because that is what the Cooks River consists of at low tide. Fortunately, she was helped out by someone who had been playing golf at the
Page 10580
Marrickville golf course, on the other side of the river from Beaman Park. Miss Clark, as well as suffering emotional stress, cut her legs and received bruising from the accident. For a time she also faced a high risk of infection.

Miss Clark has raised with me concerns with respect to the condition of the river and the lack of maintenance attention to the Cooks River. On several occasions in the Parliament I have spoken about the deplorable state of the Cooks River, particularly its banks and the build-up of silt. Upstream the banks are lined with concrete. However, downstream, from the suburb of Canterbury through to Kyeemagh, near the mouth of the river, the banks largely consist of steel pylons that are in a very dangerous state and are corroding to a great degree. I accept that artificial banks around that part of the river are essential. Over the years the river has been recoursed on so many occasions that much of the parklands, the foreshores, are landfilled, and if some form of artificial bank were not provided most of the parkland would be lost into the river. However, the banks can be made more safe and can be made more aesthetically and environmentally acceptable.

One option would be to provide large boulders rather than the pylons that are now in place. From time to time the steel pylons have been patched up, but the work has always been piecemeal and far from satisfactory. As a result of Miss Clark’s accident, I believe bank restoration to be even more essential. Silt has existed in the riverbed for probably 209 years, ever since white settlement. Whatever ends up in the riverbed usually stays there. To my knowledge there has never been a serious attempt to dredge the river. When Captain Cook sailed down the river he referred to it as a very fine stream, not a river. His reference would indicate that the Cooks River has always been a fairly shallow waterway. The river is not self-dredging. In the Parliament we often talk about Sydney Harbour and its need for dredging. To a large extent, though, Sydney Harbour is self-dredging; because of tidal wash much of the material collected flows out to sea. That is not the case with the Cooks River.

When I came to the Parliament more than 11 years ago I devoted one-third of my maiden speech to the state of the Cooks River. Very little has happened since then, although we are forever hearing that the water quality has improved tremendously over the past 10 to 15 years. The problem is not the water quality itself but what is under the water in the riverbed and the state of the riverbanks - the big-ticket issues that need attention. I am grateful for the grants received from time to time to clean up the river, grants that enable the installation of grease traps to tend to sewage overflow problems. That is all very well, but until we attack the big-ticket issues the Cooks River will remain in a very poor state. The Cooks River region is the gateway of the city for anyone who arrives by air. Unfortunately, it is not too pretty for people who arrive at low tide. [Time expired.]

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [5.49 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the Minister for Housing the tragic situation facing Danny Flynn and his parents. On 23 December 1993 Danny was involved in a tragic motorcycle accident in which he received severe head injuries. He has received the best possible assistance in Lismore and Sydney hospitals with specialist treatment and therapy from highly trained and caring head injury teams. On 22 August 1995 he was returned to the Kyogle Memorial Hospital. He has progressed to the stage where he has limited speech and is able to assist in dressing and feeding himself. The head injury therapists working with him say that he is now at a stage where if he is to make further progress he should be moved to a home with a carer. It would be best if he could be housed in Bonalbo where his parents live and could assist him. I understand that the head injuries unit of the Department of Health has said that it would be able to organise a full-time carer. I will read from a letter written by his mother:

Danny is a 32 year old right hemephlegic following a closed head injury from a motor bike accident in 1993. Danny was sent to Kyogle Hospital in 1995. Danny was a government community worker prior to the accident and a St John’s Ambulance member.

Danny’s needs at the moment, for his progression and continued well being is a community house with a full time carer. I will be able to help during the day if we are successful in getting him his house.

A carer would have no problem in caring for Danny at home. Danny requires me on a one to one basis twice a day and if he lived in Bonalbo I would be able to see him twice a day.

Houses at Bonalbo are between $50,000 and $60,000 and estimating carer wages at $30,000 a year, we consider it would be cheaper to have Danny in a home in the community.

Total cost per bed per day at Kyogle Hospital is $305.00 a day or $111,000 a year. Surely it would be cheaper to have him in the community than in a hospital setting. Danny is in award with 19 aged people.

Danny is progressing to the point where he is communicating very well and is able to assist with his activities of daily living.

Danny can feed himself, can roll over from side to side and help with some personal care.

Page 10581
We feel, it is very important at this stage, for his continued progress.

We are pensioners and have no money to move to Kyogle if Danny remains in Kyogle, so we are urged to pursue his needs within the community.

As Danny’s mother, Mrs Judith Flynn, I feel we will have many problems in the future, as we have to travel 100 km each way, twice a week to see Danny. His father suffers from a heart problem and has bad glaucoma and is losing his eye sight, so you can see we will not be able to cope much longer.

Thank you for presenting this in Parliament for us.

It can be seen that Danny, his parents and government departments would benefit from the move to Bonalbo as it would result in reduced costs. I ask the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Health to do everything possible to house Danny in Bonalbo near his parents.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank - Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.53 p.m.]: I place on record my thanks to the honourable member for Lismore for his notification of this matter earlier today and, of course, the particular and caring interest he has taken in his constituents, Danny and his parents. These types of matters are always complex and difficult, particularly in locations where housing options are not as great as may be the case in more urbanised areas. Nonetheless, the needs of Danny, as outlined by the honourable member for Lismore, are great, and the obvious changes in the needs of Danny’s parents as they get older must be addressed and properly understood.

I am more than happy as Minister for Housing to undertake to the honourable member for Lismore, Danny and his parents to work with them to find a solution that meets their needs. At this stage it would be inappropriate for me to commit funds to acquire property in Bonalbo, but, with goodwill on all sides and a little hard work, I am sure we can find a solution that will satisfy everybody’s objectives. We all wish Danny godspeed in his ongoing recovery, recuperation and rehabilitation and also in finding a solution to his accommodation needs to assist him and his parents.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [5.55 p.m.]: A matter of importance to my constituency in particular and to the general community is the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into the disclosure of government information to people not authorised to receive it. The ICAC inquiry showed systemic and widespread corruption within the community and various government departments. I bring to the attention of the House the innocent release of information by a Sergeant C of the New South Wales Police Service. I do not say his name though it is disclosed in the report. The issue involved the release of unauthorised information in regard to records of the Roads and Traffic Authority to a private investigator not authorised to receive it. It was held that though the police officer’s conduct could not be described as corrupt, it was inappropriate conduct. Sergeant C remained in the Police Service until March 1992, when, unfortunately for him but fortunately for the community, he was charged with a fraudulent insurance claim to which he pleaded guilty and he lost his position in the Police Service.

Unfortunately that type of activity created a bad culture. Likewise, in another matter, Mr F paid to two officers of the RTA on 16 January $1,700 in cash, on 3 February 1989 $900 in cash, and $600, $840, $680, $720 in cash for searches. One of the RTA officers finally admitted before the commission that he had taken those moneys. This behaviour has given the private investigation industry a bad reputation in the community, so much so that many people are bitter with the industry. Members of my party, members of the Opposition, and I were approached by private investigators to try to do something about this matter. It was decided to prepare a submission for the control of the industry. That document has now gone to three Ministers for discussion. It is in their hands.

The objectives of the submission include cleaning up the private investigation industry and making it more professional, honest and accountable to the community, providing proper and efficient control of the industry through a control board with representatives from the community, government and other bodies, enhancing instruction education for specific practising certificates, reviewing and updating of those practising certificates as happens in the legal profession, the chiropractic industry, dentistry and others, and creating an acceptable credibility and professionalism in the industry. I assure honourable members that after reading volume 3 of the ICAC’s commissioned report on the unauthorised release of government information there was a lack of professionalism in what was done by many people involved in the private investigation industry.

The fourth objective is to provide a viable indemnity fund to protect people from the unscrupulous behaviour of private investigators. Another objective is to provide professional
Page 10582
indemnity insurance to protect the public at no cost to the Government, which I emphasise. The next objective is to make available access to information under limited and controlled circumstances. It will be a matter for government to consider whether access should be permitted in all the circumstances of the case, and, if so, under what conditions. A further objective is to protect the public and business from unqualified investigators by removing them from the industry. The wife of a recently retired police officer made application for a private investigator’s licence and was given one without any qualifications. She made the appropriate application and underwent the appropriate credit and character checks. The final objective of the proposal is to provide suitable penalties when breaches of the Act occur. [Time expired.]

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [6.00 p.m.]: Tonight I pay tribute to the Hope for the Children Foundation and specifically to its chairman, Dr Clarrie Gluskie; its ambassador, Ms Rachel Ward; its patron, Mrs Barbara Holborow, who is a former Children’s Court magistrate; its coordinator Mrs Luba Munroe; plus the myriad volunteers across Sydney who have been the sponsors and supporters of the Hope for the Children project. I call on the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services to offer this great foundation as much government assistance as he possibly can. I congratulate also Mike Carlton, who has been a big supporter of the foundation, always giving it outstanding publicity and also acting as master of ceremonies during any fundraising events.

Basically the Hope for the Children project began as an effort to combat the problem of family breakdown and inadequate child care within our communities. It is essentially a home visitation program through which distressed or socially isolated mothers are linked through a coordinator with a trained volunteer. Of course, in an ideal world all of these highly stressed parents would be linked to costly professionals. This service offers an extremely cost-effective way of reducing family stress and parental shortcomings before a crisis point is reached. At a time when we constantly hear of community indifference, family breakdown and the decline of civic responsibility, this program encourages civic mindedness. By supporting and enriching family lives, the Hope for the Children project takes the first steps in addressing issues of abuse, violence, suicide, homelessness and crime.

This project is a chance for us all to contribute to family support. It is a community-based program that encourages well-meaning citizens to offer their services as volunteers to be adequately trained by the foundation as professionals. Families today are increasingly stressed with greater demands and less support, especially since so many women now go to work. Many mothers become overwhelmed by the demands of family responsibility, which has been revealed by the 30 per cent who experience post natal depression, 27 per cent of whom are still depressed when their babies are four years old. This means that 7 per cent to 8 per cent of babies grow up with depressed mothers. Not surprisingly, many of these children will not benefit from a nurturing environment as the strains and pressures evolve into family dysfunction. In the longer term these children will have an impact on the increasing rates of crime, violence, youth homelessness, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, et cetera.

Support and treatment for individuals and families suffering from the consequences of inadequate family care cost enormous amounts of time and effort, and millions of dollars each year in Australia. Yet most of those in need are not able to access help. However, proven methods are available, which are less costly and readily accessible, and have been developed to enrich family life and child care to help prevent these problems. One of these successful programs is the Hope for the Children Foundation. Studies of the long-term cost benefit of such services have been undertaken in Michigan in the United States of America. The careful study of the long-term consequences of inadequate family care revealed that for every dollar spent on support of stressed families with infants and small children, $19 can be expected to be saved over time.

With the outstanding success of the Sutherland Hope for the Children family network being widely applauded, moves are afoot to develop networks in other areas of Sydney. In the St George area the project has been spearheaded by the Mayor of Hurstville, Councillor Peter Olah, supported by the Mayor of Kogarah, Councillor Sam Witheridge and the Mayor of Rockdale, Councillor Peter Bryant, along with relevant local rotarians such as Ferdi Dominelli, who has been most supportive. Future plans include expanding the program into the inner city of Sydney, which proposal is supported by the Sydney Rotary Club liaising with other inner-city Rotary clubs to foster support. Expressions of interest have also come from the eastern suburbs, the south coast and Adelaide. Since the publication of an article about the project in Rotary Down
Page 10583
Under more groups have sought information on setting up a similar project within their Rotary district. The Hope for the Children Foundation has developed this action plan and I wish it much success. [Time expired.]

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [6.05 p.m.]: On behalf of my Beverly Hills constituents I denounce Hurstville City Council for its disgraceful decision to dump the Beverly Hills main street amenity improvement program. The council has effectively dumped this program by its decision in its 1997-98 budget to allocate absolutely nothing for the main street improvement program for the coming year. This decision is in addition to council’s miserable $50,000 allocation in its 1996-97 budget. In two successive budgets Hurstville City Council has set aside only $50,000 for the main street improvement program. This allocation stands in stark contrast to the provision last year of $50,000 by the State Government and its commitment to provide $100,000 in this year’s budget for works that are essentially the primary responsibility of the council.

Beverly Hills shopping centre is the gateway to Hurstville city, but for many years it has been severely neglected. The main street program seeks to improve the physical amenity of the Beverly Hills shopping centre for pedestrians, shoppers and residents by undertaking improvements to landscaping, paving, lighting, parking and the general amenity of the shopping centre. Of all the shopping centres under the jurisdiction of Hurstville council, Beverly Hills is the one shopping centre that continually misses out on council funding allocations. It is also the shopping centre that the council continually neglects. The proof of that neglect is council’s 1997-98 budget: it has set aside absolutely nothing for the main street program!

The Beverly Hills main street program started in 1994 with a series of workshops and public meetings held at Beverly Hills Girls High School. Council engaged architects Paul Cox and associates to produce concepts, designs and plans to improve the Beverly Hills shopping centre in consultation with the community. The plans and concepts were adopted at public meetings, voted upon and approved by the local community. Since that resolution in late 1994 the council has looked for ways not to implement the program. A working party was established in 1996 comprising representatives of the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce and relevant council representatives from Hurstville and Penshurst wards representing Beverly Hills. The working party held a series of meetings throughout 1996 and this year is working on a priority list of works to be undertaken. Yet at the Hurstville City Council budget meeting of 11 June no money was set aside for the program. Incredibly, council stated that no money was set aside because no plans or list of priority works had ever been received. At that June meeting it was stated:

Council has not received any specific implementation plan on what the community felt was an appropriate mainstreet program.

On 2 September 1996 I wrote to the council informing it of the $50,000 allocation from the State Government and added:

This should assist council officers to prioritise the areas where this assistance is best utilised.

In a letter to me dated 28 August announcing the $50,000 grant, Minister Knight stated:

Council would need to identify specific works to implement.

Incredibly, the Beverly Hills community learns that the council has not provided that information. In addition, Hurstville City Council has allocated no money this year in response to a further allocation from the State Government of $100,000. This process began in 1994 and since that time the Independent Liberal-dominated Hurstville City Council has done nothing but excuse, delay and neglect its basic responsibility - improvements to foot paving, landscaping and lighting. [Time expired.]
Private members’ statements noted.

[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 6.10 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Page 10584

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture), on behalf of Mr Whelan [7.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides a number of measures to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court. Before outlining these measures, I would like to take the opportunity of detailing the existing jurisdiction and workload of the District Court and Supreme Court. The District Court currently has general jurisdiction to hear matters where the amount claimed does not exceed $250,000, whereas the Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction. District courts in other Australian jurisdictions have a far greater civil jurisdiction. For instance, the District Court of Victoria and of Western Australia both have unlimited jurisdiction in relation to personal injury matters. The District Court of South Australia has unlimited general jurisdiction. It is of interest to note that statistics maintained by the New South Wales Supreme Court reveal that 52 per cent of the verdicts and orders in the Common Law Division in 1996 were, at face value, within the District Court’s existing jurisdiction, that is, for an amount under $250,000.

Honourable members should be made aware of the significant inroads the District Court has recently made into the delays of that court. Currently the State average time period for civil matters in the District Court from commencement to finalisation is 14.8 months. This period should be contrasted with the time period in the Supreme Court for the completion of matters where the current estimated time to dispose of a civil matter on hand is 32 months. To ensure that judicial and court resources are utilised more efficiently, it is proposed to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court in a number of ways. Firstly, the bill increases the maximum amount for which civil causes generally may be brought in the District Court from $250,000 to $750,000. Secondly, the bill gives the District Court unlimited jurisdiction to hear all motor vehicle accident cases. The bill defines these cases to mean a claim for damages to which part 6 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 applies. The provisions of that part apply to claims involving death or injury caused by road vehicles, city and State trains, or ferries or other public transport watercraft.

Honourable members are advised that the District Court already deals with most of these cases and has the necessary skill and expertise to deal with the proposed increase in jurisdiction. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, the only distinction between motor accident matters heard in the District Court and those heard in the Supreme Court is the quantum of damages awarded. The issues in determining these matters are largely the same irrespective of which jurisdiction they are brought in. As a safeguard, the parties to proceedings in the District Court will continue to be able to apply to the Supreme Court, pursuant to section 145 of the District Court Act, to have proceedings transferred to the Supreme Court. Clause 12 of schedule 1 to the bill, however, modifies that right in relation to personal injury matters and motor accident claims.

An action for damages in respect of personal injury or death, other than a motor accident claim, may only be transferred to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court is satisfied that the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff in the case, if successful, would be likely to exceed $750,000 or that there is other sufficient reason for trying the action in the Supreme Court. In the case of motor accident claims, the Supreme Court may only transfer such proceedings if it is satisfied that the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff in the case, if successful, would be likely to exceed $1 million and that the case involves complex legal issues or issues of general public importance. This mechanism will ensure that the Supreme Court only deals with those more complex motor accident claims and personal injury claims which require the attention of the Supreme Court and cannot otherwise be disposed of in the District Court.

As an additional measure, the bill provides that the Supreme Court may consider, as soon as practicable after the commencement, and before the hearing of any action for damages in respect of personal injury or death, whether an order transferring the proceedings to the District Court should be made. Where the Supreme Court forms a view that such an order should be made, the court is required to make an order effecting the transfer of the matter to the District Court unless it is satisfied, on criteria specified by the proposed amendment, that the matter should be retained in the Supreme Court. The criteria are similar to those on which the Supreme Court decides on an application to transfer
Page 10585
a similar action from the District Court to the Supreme Court. In practice, the duty being placed on Supreme Court judges to consider whether an action is being brought in the appropriate jurisdiction will be exercised, as a matter of course, as part of the differential case management of matters in the Supreme Court.

It is also intended that the Supreme Court will rely upon this power to transfer not only matters filed in the Supreme Court after the commencement of the increased jurisdiction of the District Court but any backlog of matters in the Supreme Court which may subsequently be identified as appropriate for determination in the District Court. The bill amends section 143 of the District Court Act to make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power to make such an order. The bill also provides that, where a plaintiff in the Supreme Court applies to have the matter transferred to the District Court, the defendant is not permitted to oppose the application. This proposal is intended to encourage plaintiffs to transfer matters to the District Court without the intervention of the court.

By substantially increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court in this manner, a large number of matters - including the matters referred to earlier, which currently fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court - will be redirected to the District Court, which is the appropriate forum for these matters to be heard. In addition, once these matters have been redirected to the District Court, they can expect to be dealt with expeditiously by the District Court, utilising its efficient and well proven case management practices. The removal of these matters to the District Court will also free up the Supreme Court to deal with its backlog of criminal matters. Other than reduced court delays and a more efficient use of court and judicial resources, the parties to these proceedings can also expect to benefit from these measures. For instance, plaintiffs who are to receive awards of damages, such as plaintiffs in motor accident claims and personal injury matters, can expect to receive those awards at an earlier time than would otherwise have been expected.

In addition, as the District Court sits in more regional locations and sits more frequently at those locations than the Supreme Court, the extension of the jurisdiction of the District Court will mean that litigants in regional communities will be able to have more of their civil disputes resolved within their own region without having to travel to Sydney or to larger regional centres for sittings of the Supreme Court. Litigants in general will benefit from the more efficient use of court and judicial resources. Honourable members should be aware that, in the recent budget, the Government allocated $1 million to enable additional resources to be provided to the District Court to deal with an increase in jurisdiction of that court and the subsequent transfer of the backlog of Supreme Court matters. These additional resources will ensure that the increase in the jurisdiction of the District Court will not adversely affect the matters currently awaiting determination in that court.

This bill also provides a number of other measures to increase the jurisdiction of the District Court. First, the bill extends the equity jurisdiction of the District Court over claims involving money in the form of debt and damages to the extent of its new monetary limit of $750,000. This will allow the District Court to deal with those ancillary equitable issues which may arise from time to time in cases coming before the court involving a claim for debt and damages. Currently, petty nuisance and trespass cases involving injunctive relief must be tried in the Supreme Court; minor obligations cannot be specifically performed and actions at law cannot be defended by cross-claiming for equitable relief without transferring the matter to the Supreme Court. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.

Bill introduced and read a first time.
Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture), on behalf of Mr Whelan [7.40 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill was drafted following requests from the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service and the Police Integrity Commission for amendment of their respective Acts, to enhance the efficiency of their operations. The bill is supported by the royal commission, the Police Integrity Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the New South Wales Crime Commission. All four bodies were extensively consulted in the drafting process.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the Royal Commission (Police Service) Act 1994, the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985 and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act
Page 10586
1988 to enable the conditional release of witnesses who have been detained to ensure their appearance before the commissions; to enable these witnesses to appeal against detention or against the terms of their release; to enable a wider range of orders to be made for the protection of witnesses and to provide arrangements for the handling of royal commission witnesses as that commission comes to an end. A number of witnesses failed to appear before the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, in response to summonses issued by the commissioner. In these circumstances, section 11 of the Royal Commission (Police Service) Act 1994 provided for a warrant to be issued for the arrest of the witness for the purpose of bringing him or her before the commission.

However there is no provision in that Act for the commissioner to release the witness on terms and conditions, if the commission was not ready to take evidence at that time, or if the taking of evidence was to be continued at a later stage. This problem also arises in relation to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and the New South Wales Crime Commission Act 1985. It is not possible to resolve the problem by reference to the provisions of the Bail Act 1978 as that Act provides for bail to be granted, with or without conditions, only in relation to a particular offence with which a person has been charged. Persons summonsed to appear before the commissions are not therefore covered by these provisions.

This bill provides for the release of witnesses on such terms and conditions as the respective commissioner may wish to set. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions set by the commissioner will be an offence, the maximum penalty for which will be a fine of 20 penalty units or $2,000 and/or imprisonment for two years. Should the commissioner not wish to release the witness, because there is reason to believe that the witness may not reappear when required, or for some other reason, the bill provides for him to order the witness to be detained in a correctional centre or elsewhere. The bill provides witnesses with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court, against a decision of a commissioner either not to release a witness or against the terms of their release. Similar provisions for conditional release are included for witnesses awaiting the hearing of contempt charges in relation to appearances before the commissions.

The commissions currently have the power to make orders for the protection of witnesses or potential witnesses. This bill amends the acts, with the exception of the New South Wales Crime Commission Act, to widen the scope of these orders. The New South Wales Crime Commission Act has different protection provisions and is not therefore amended. The offence of obstructing or intimidating witnesses is extended in the Police Integrity Commission Act and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act to include persons detained as witnesses whether or not they are summoned to give evidence. With the royal commission coming to an end, some transitional arrangements have been included in this bill which provide for the Police Integrity Commission to have the same powers as the royal commission to make an order, give a direction for the protection of witnesses or in relation to the publication of evidence under sections 26 and 27 of the Royal Commission (Police Service) Act, or to vary or revoke such orders made by the royal commission.

It is also proposed that section 52 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act and section 43 of the Police Integrity Commission Act be amended. Under these sections, a witness who is appearing or who is about to appear before either the Independent Commission Against Corruption or the Police Integrity Commission may apply to the Attorney General for legal or financial assistance. The amendments to these sections will allow the Attorney General to delegate his powers under these sections to the director-general of the Attorney General’s Department. The Attorney General will, however, retain responsibility for determining applications for assistance made by ministers and departmental heads under this legislation. These changes will provide for more efficient administration of these matters. While this is a relatively minor piece of legislation, its passage will enhance the operation of the State’s investigating bodies. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.

Bill received and read a first time.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture), on behalf of Mr Yeadon [7.49 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As the bill was introduced in the other place on 14 May the second reading speech appears at pages 12
Page 10587
and 13 in the Hansard proof for that day. The bill is in the same form as introduced in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Armstrong.

Consideration of the Legislative Council’s amendments.

No. 1 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], line 1. Omit "A copy". Insert instead "Following inspection of the machine by an inspector, a copy".

No. 2 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], line 6. Omit "may refuse". Insert instead "is not".

No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], lines 8 and 9. Omit "is not to be moved without the approval of the inspector". Insert instead "must not be permitted entry into New South Wales".

No. 4 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], line 27. Omit "may". Insert instead "is required".

No. 5 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], line 28. Omit "inspect an". Insert instead "to inspect any".

No. 6 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], line 31. Omit "stop and inspect an". Insert instead "to stop and inspect any".

No. 7 Page 4, Schedule 1[1], line 35. Insert "to" before "require".

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [7.51 p.m.]: I move:

That the Committee disagree to the Legislative Council’s amendments.

I foreshadow that I will move further amendments to the bill. This bill was introduced into and passed by this House in 1996. The bill was amended in the other place. The amendments are before this Committee for consideration. The Government proposes that this House resolve to disagree with those amendments and accept alternative amendments having a similar effect. I remind the Committee that the object of the bill was to reduce the risk of noxious weeds being introduced and establishing in new areas of New South Wales. A major motivation for these amendments was to strengthen the procedures to stop parthenium weed establishing in New South Wales. The main purpose of the changes to the bill made in the other place was to make inspection of declared agricultural machines mandatory at the New South Wales-Queensland border.

A second change was to require that a machine that had not been cleaned or inspected as required could not enter New South Wales. My department had a number of concerns about these changes. Before making a decision on the issues raised by the amendments, I asked my departmental officers to carry out a detailed pest risk analysis to identify and quantify the various ways that parthenium weed could enter New South Wales. While this has resulted in some delay in bringing the amendments back for consideration before this Committee the issues raised were important and all the ramifications of the changes needed to be considered. The pest risk analysis made use of records of all outbreaks in New South Wales since the first occurrence in 1982.

Extensive consultations were also held with authorities in Queensland. This analysis showed that rates of incursions of parthenium weed into New South Wales have been slowly declining since the mid 1980s. A component of this decline is due to the drought in Queensland, but there is also strong evidence that this is due to the effectiveness of the New South Wales program. The majority of outbreaks in recent years have been single or a few plants along major roads in the north-west of the State. This result is a credit to noxious weed officers employed by councils in the north-west. Due to their vigilance, most parthenium weed plants are found in the first season, before they have had a chance to set seed. The analysis concluded that the risk of parthenium weed establishing on properties was greatest from grain harvesters and associated machinery and that there was no strong case for declaring other classes of machinery - although this is an issue that will be subject to ongoing review.

The pest risk analysis has been discussed with major stakeholders, and based on those discussions I am prepared to accept the continuation of mandatory inspections for grain harvesters and associated equipment. However, I am proposing alternative amendments to overcome some potential legal difficulties. The structure of the section has also been altered to make it easier to understand. The Government does not accept the amendment to prevent agricultural machines that have not been cleaned or inspected as required from entering New South Wales. There is a legal problem with this proposal in that the machines will already be in New South Wales when they are presented to the border inspector. In addition, it is not desirable to require agricultural machines that have not been cleaned to
Page 10588
return to Queensland. It is preferable that the border inspector retains control over a dirty machine. If it is sent back to Queensland the operator could stop just over the border and clean it out, creating problems adjacent to New South Wales on land over which we have no jurisdiction.

These proposed amendments allow the inspector to direct where the machine must be taken and what action needs to be carried out. This is preferable to sending them back to Queensland where inspectors have no control. The proposal also provides a sensible procedure for inspecting headers that are not able to be unloaded for inspection at the border, such as machines that have been wrecked or have mechanical problems. It allows them to be directed to a location where they can be safely unloaded and subsequently inspected. There have been a number of significant improvements over the past year in the fight to keep New South Wales parthenium weed free. They are as follows:

Inspection procedures at the NSW-Queensland border have been formalised, following input from major stakeholders such as the New South Wales Farmers Association and the Australian Grain Harvesters Association. This will improve the consistency of inspections.

New technology has been introduced for inspecting harvesters. Fibrescopes have been located at the main crossing stations which enable inspectors to see into the various nooks and crannies of these complex machines.

The parthenium weed awareness campaign has been expanded and now includes television and radio advertisements before harvest, to make farmers and header operators aware of the risks and their responsibilities. A series of television advertisements run early in the year encouraged the general community to report potential outbreaks.

A parthenium weed hotline has been established to provide a central contact point for all agencies and councils.

Closer collaboration has been established with Queensland Department of Natural Resources to improve coordination so that our requirements for harvesters to be cleaned do not result in infestations on the Queensland side of the border.

New South Wales Agriculture also carries out random checks on back roads to discourage harvesters from crossing the border illegally.

Overall the system has so far achieved the objective of stopping parthenium weed establishing in New South Wales - but there is always room for improvement, and my department, in cooperation with other interested parties, will continue to seek ways of further reducing the risk. The amendments from the Legislative Council will be amended by the Government’s amendments which, in effect, retain the principle of the upper House’s amendments but have been tidied up to correct any legal problems that may have occurred in the drafting stages. I understand that the Opposition will support the Government’s amendments.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [7.57 p.m.]: Having considered the Government’s explanation, the Opposition supports the motion. Originally it was unclear to the Opposition where the machines were to be inspected. The Opposition agrees that the machines are to be inspected in New South Wales, once across the border, at the border checking station and not in Queensland. The original problem related to the wording of the clause. The Opposition is now satisfied that the machines will be inspected in New South Wales and supports the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council’s amendments Nos 1 to 7 disagreed to.

Further amendments by Mr Amery agreed to:

No. 1 Page 3, Schedule 1[1] (proposed section 31(3)(a)), lines 23-27. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(a) The Minister is to make arrangements for inspectors to set up places at or near the border of New South Wales and Queensland at which machines may be produced for inspection (being places set up on a regular basis or by special arrangement with a person bringing a machine into New South Wales). The machine is to be brought into New South Wales at that place and produced to an inspector without delay.

No. 2 Page 4, Schedule 1[1] (proposed section 31(3)(c) and (d)), lines 1-11. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(c) An inspector at that place must inspect the machine.

(d) Following that inspection, the inspector is to sign a copy of the declaration and return it to the person in charge of the machine, unless the inspector is not satisfied that the machine has been cleaned as required by the regulations.

(e) If the inspector is not satisfied that the machine has been cleaned as required by the regulations, the machine is not to be moved anywhere in New South Wales, without the approval of an inspector, until the inspector is so satisfied and has signed a copy of a declaration (referred to in paragraph (b)) lodged with the inspector. Until the inspector is so satisfied, the inspector may only approve of the movement of the machine to an appropriate place to be cleaned or for its return to Queensland.

Page 10589

No. 3 Page 4, Schedule 1[1] (proposed section 31(6)(a)), lines 28-30. Omit all words on those lines.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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


Debate resumed from 28 May.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [8.00 p.m.]: This bill will amend the Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975 to put it beyond doubt that dental prosthetists may make and fit mouthguards and give related advice. Whilst this is current practice, it is somewhat ambiguous in the Act and has been interpreted differently by different people. The amendments will bring New South Wales into line with other States. The Australian Dental Association is concerned that because mouthguards are more sophisticated these days as a result of new technology, care needs to be taken to ensure that those fitting them or providing advice about them are sufficiently trained and have appropriate skills. Having made those comments and noted the concerns of the Australian Dental Association, the Opposition has no problem with the amending legislation.

The bill will amend the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 to make it clear that those who are caring for others may possess lawfully prescribed drugs for the purpose of caring for them. This amendment applies in particular to schools. I have one child still at school and I am aware of the difficulty experienced by schools in that regard. The amendment is a sensible attempt to overcome the problems, and the coalition will support the amendment.

The bill will also amend the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Act 1964 to reduce and alter the constitution of the membership of the institute to better reflect its changing roles and activities. It will broaden the membership, reduce the term of office of members, and establish new committees. The coalition wishes to make a number of points in the light of recent activities in regard to the New South Wales Cancer Council. It is necessary that the Minister guarantees that the institute, whose members are appointed by the Minister, will not be politicised; that the members will be a genuine representation of the community with a particular interest in psychiatry; and that there will be no ministerial or Department of Health directions as to their attitudes and roles.

Mr Watkins: That’s a disgrace.

Mrs SKINNER: It will be discussed further when the New South Wales Cancer Council Bill is debated tomorrow. As the honourable member for Gladesville knows, the Cancer Council has been in the headlines recently because of the Minister’s interference in the appointment of members of that board, including one of his colleagues from the upper House who stirred the pot. The Cancer Council’s reputation was damaged internationally by political interference, with disturbing results, such as the fall off in donations and the risk to the funding base of the Cancer Council, which has done a lot of good work in New South Wales. There is every reason to elicit a guarantee from the Minister that there will be no such interference in the membership of the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry.

With that guarantee the Opposition will not oppose the amendments. The Opposition also supports the final amendment, which relates to the Private Hospitals and Day Procedure Centres Act 1988. That amendment will clarify definitions to cover diagnostic procedures, amongst other things. I have consulted a number of organisations which are affected by the legislation. Some of those organisations, including the Association of Dental Prosthetists, have expressed concern that they were not consulted about the amendments. I am surprised that the association was not consulted, because its members will stand to gain by the amendment to the Act. Such bodies should have been consulted. I am also concerned that the Medical Services Committee was not aware of amendments to the Dental Technicians Registration Act, the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act or the Poisons and Therapeutics Goods Act. I seek an assurance from the Minister that those bodies will be consulted in the future.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [8.06 p.m.]: This bill covers amendments to the Dental Technicians Registration Act, the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Act and the Private Hospitals and Day Procedure Centres Act. Dealing first with dental technicians, although the current legislation does not prohibit dental prosthetists from making and fitting mouthguards, unfortunately in New South Wales many dental practitioners believe otherwise. The bill includes an express provision to enable dental
Page 10590
prosthetists who have the ability to make and fit dentures to also make and fit mouthguards. Such a right is legislated for in Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. The legislation will bring some national uniformity to the delivery of dental health care. The Australian Dental Association is opposed to the provision, and I therefore ask the Minister in his reply to give an assurance that adequate training will be required and monitored by the Department of Health to allay the fears of the association.

In regard to those who provide care or assist in the care of others as part of their employment or voluntary activities, it is proposed to amend the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act and to make associated amendments to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Schoolteachers, community service workers, volunteers and child-care workers have at times been placed in invidious positions by the necessary administration and possession of medication required by their students or clients. It is clearly sensible to alleviate any anxiety in regard to the legal position of carers by eliminating any possible breach of the Acts in relation to the possession or supply of medication lawfully prescribed for a person in their care, administering it directly or assisting in self-administration.

A major part of the bill deals with amendments to the New South Wales Institute of Psychology Act to reduce and alter the constitution of the membership of the institute to better reflect current-day objectives and practices, to reduce the term of office of members of the institute, to provide for regular turnover of input and experience, and to establish four new committees. In the past Institute of Psychiatry membership has been weighted with psychiatrists, reflecting the past need to encourage psychiatric research and the development of significant undergraduate and postgraduate psychiatric medical education. Such strong academic representation is not as important in current times, when the focus is being broadened to encompass multidisciplinary training and increased emphasis on community education in mental health. Community consultation leading up to the introduction of the bill saw 22 different community organisations and interest groups represented in the consultative committee process, due to the great interest in the institute’s role and operations. The New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry supports the bill.

It has been agreed with the institute to reduce membership by two, to 10 members, with the Minister nominating the chairperson. The Minister will also appoint a member of the business community; a person who has demonstrated consumer interest in mental health; a psychiatrist selected from a panel of three persons, nominated by the New South Wales branch of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists; a health professional selected from two nominees from the New South Wales branch of each of the Australian Psychological Society, the Australian Association of Social Workers and the Australian Association of Occupational Therapists. I am disappointed that there could not be a representative from each of those three worthwhile bodies, rather than one member from six nominations. I believe that their separate input and experience of views with respect to health care delivery would have benefited the institute.

Other ministerial appointments will be a mental health nurse nominated by the Australian and New Zealand College of Mental Health Nurses; two academic psychiatrists selected from a panel consisting of nominees from the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales and the University of Newcastle; and a senior officer of the Department of Health or a chief executive officer of an area health board. As the honourable member for North Shore indicated, the Minister would be aware of the medical and paramedical and research communities’ anger at his interference with the New South Wales Cancer Council. That issue has attracted a great deal of general public awareness of the political centralised control and cronyism that often goes with government appointments on boards such as this. This bill would allow potential manipulation of the New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry. I call on the Minister to give his necessary guarantee of non-interference and future reliance on professional recommendations in making the required institute appointments.
The institute will be required to establish within three months of royal assent to the bill a psychiatrists training committee, a research committee, a multidisciplinary program committee and a community education and outreach committee. This broad-based structure will better reflect current health care needs and community attitudes. Three-year terms of office, with a limit of two consecutive terms, will be in line with most other professional and government bodies and committees. A wider range of professional groups will have input to the Institute of Psychiatry. The institute will be requested to consult widely and regularly with relevant community organisations with a special interest in mental health, along with both public and private health care providers. I turn now to amendments to the Private Hospitals and Day Procedure Centres Act. The amendments are mainly
Page 10591
ones of definition and result from feedback relating to licensing provisions of private hospitals and day procedure centres throughout the State.

Diagnostic services should not be isolated or exempt from licensing requirements, as they can involve sedation of the patient or the administration of an anaesthetic. Thus, such diagnostic services have been included under proposed new section 3(1A). The bill also defines private hospital situations in which only one patient is covered, instead of the current reference to the plural "patients". All procedures are included; not just those for fee, gain or reward. This amendment is supported. The bill covers a variety of necessary health care amendments. What is disappointing is that the Australian Medical Association and its medical services committee were not aware of many of the amendments, as the honourable member for North Shore has said, and had little opportunity to investigate them or consult members about them. They did not know about many of the amendments before the honourable member for North Shore contacted them. I hope that the Minister, in his rush to have legislation passed through the House, will improve his departmental legislative consultative processes. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [8.15 p.m.], in reply: I welcome the support of the Opposition, or, rather, its lack of rejection.

Mrs Skinner: A lack of support?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Opposition has not supported anything, but it has said that it has no problem with the bill. Opposition members apparently have to be oppositionists; supporting is not in their lexicon. Some mention has been made of boards. My involvement with boards is based on the precedents of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, former Ministers for health. In no way do I do anything with boards for which those honourable members have not set precedents. That will not change. If the honourable member for North Shore and the honourable member for Georges River do not like what I do, they must have severe problems with the leaders of their own party. Although the legislation does not make major changes to some Acts, it is important. The honourable member for Georges River should realise that the bill makes amendments to the Institute of Psychiatry, not the Institute of Psychology.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 June.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [8.17 p.m.]: The objects of the bill are to amend the Local Government Act to make provisions for motions to rescind, alter or negate council resolutions; to delegate powers of councils and general managers; to enable councils to waive fees in certain circumstances; to enable the sale of land by councils for unpaid rates and charges; to enable councils to make domestic waste management service charges with respect to land exempt from rating; to enable councils to recoup income lost due to reductions in land valuations; to exempt from rates conservational land under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; to increase the penalties for offences relating to council orders; and to enable aforementioned factors to operate in the determination of rate and annual charges applicable to mixed land development.

The bill contains a package of necessary amendments identified over time from feedback via the operation of the Local Government Act 1993, the most recent major legislative overhaul in New South Wales. The amendments deal with meeting procedure, sound justice issues relating to rating and council charges, along with environmental protection aspects. Schedule 1 enables councils to give notice of meetings or make available business papers to the public and councillors in electronic form, for example, by e-mail. That is a necessity in this rapidly changing, technological world, in which communities want to be well informed and involved in their democratic processes. Schedule 1 also covers minor amendments to the State’s building laws governing Crown land and its approval for usage. Section 106 is amended to allow councils to approve amended plans without the need to notify relevant persons, if the amended approval does not vary substantially from the original approval and those objectors to the original plans are consulted.

Schedule 1 also deals with orders for unsightly buildings to be demolished or repaired. The amendments omit the word "unsightly", to avoid selective targeting of housing stock that may be non-conforming with other dwellings in local communities. Naturally, if buildings are unsafe, unhygienic or dangerous, necessary orders would still be issued. However, removing the word "unsightly" will eliminate discriminatory judgments. Proposed new section 131A contained in item [13] of schedule 1 relates to orders that will result in residents being left homeless. Councils, prior to making such an order, will be obliged to arrange alternative suitable accommodation in the area if the
Page 10592
resident or residents are not able to do so themselves. Councils have a social responsibility in this regard.

Item [14] of schedule 1 does away with the unnecessary obligation of councils to give public notice for the granting of financial assistance towards a program or persons involved in projects included in a council’s management plan for the year. The program’s budget should not exceed 5 per cent of a council’s ordinary rates income for the year. The amendment will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative delays to persons engaged in worthwhile community activities. Schedule 1 also covers rescission motions. The modification involves the following: that notice be given at the meeting at which the original resolution was passed; the rescission motion must be dealt with at the next subsequent full council meeting; the chairperson must call for rescission motions prior to the closure of the meeting and must announce such notices publicly; the chair must indicate that the intent of the original resolution cannot be carried out until the rescission motion is dealt with; and that motions for other resolutions which have the same effect as a rescission motion must be dealt with in the same way.

On the surface these amendments would appear to clarify and speed up the democratic process for the public. Honourable members know how political games can be played with meeting procedure to determine when best to implement strategies based on voting numbers present in the Chamber, and poor John Smith, citizen, is the meat in the sandwich, often being too confused by meeting procedure to know what is going on. These amendments to the operation of rescission motions are, in part, transparent and useful, as a public explanation of the process involved at each meeting. However, eliminating the chance to consider new and relevant facts will disadvantage the community. To take account of the time that it takes until the next meeting - anywhere from one to three weeks - I believe that this amendment should be restructured, and the coalition will move to amend it in the other place.

The Local Government Association and the Shires Association are supportive of this stand to give added flexibility to the lodgment of rescission motions. They want no further deterioration of the public’s right to be involved at all times in the local democratic process. Mistakes have been made by councils in the past and the amendment would preclude them from fixing up such mistakes. Schedule 1[19] covers requests for domestic waste services to land that is exempt from rating. The annual charge will be limited to recovering the cost of the service provision only and recovery costs for the use or occupancy or any structure on, under or over public land will now be possible by way of an annual fee. Schedule 1[22] will provide for councils to catch up on general income if valuations used in making rates are subsequently reduced as a result of a valuation objection or appeal, as has been the case with Baulkham Hills Shire Council.

Section 516 is amended to include a definition of boarding and lodging houses. Prior to 1 July 1993 such houses were categorised as residential. However, when the 1993 Act commenced they became businesses, and as such most experienced high rate increases. This undermined the financial viability of such premises, creating upward pressures on rents and discouraging improvements and refurbishments. This amendment will revert boarding and lodging houses to residential in order to provide low-cost accommodation. Amendments to section 555 of the Act will exempt from all rates public and private land that is subject to a conservation agreement under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, encouraging preservation of our flora and fauna, whilst amendments to section 608 will enable councils to recover fees in connection with services provided at an airport established and maintained by council, from the holder of a Federal aviation registration certificate.

In circumstances of hardship, amendments to section 610A will enable councils to waive payment of or reduce an approval fee. Public notice of such categories of hardship must be given under section 612. Penalties for failure to comply with council orders are covered in schedule 1, items [32] and [33]. Maximum penalties will be doubled, to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for corporations, for failure to comply with fire safety upgrading, cessation of hazardous activity, cessation of use of or evacuation of premises and leaving or not entering premises. Such additional powers will enable councils to intervene in unlawful situations where health and safety are at risk. Proposed section 735A will provide owner-occupiers with the right to request and be supplied with information concerning an order affecting their property.

Amendments to section 713 will limit the sale of vacant land on which any rate or charge is unpaid for 12 months or more in circumstances where a council obtains a valuation from the Valuer-General, the amount of unpaid rates or charges exceeds valuation, and the council sells the land within six months after the date of valuation. These changes will standardise, tighten and make transparent council procedures. An amendment to schedule 7
Page 10593
will provide for Maitland City Council to have 13 councillors from the next local government elections in September 1999. The Maitland city referendum, supported by a majority of the community, called for a popularly elected mayor, and as such this would increase the number of elected members from 12 to 13. However, the referendum questions were ambiguous and confusing. Results indicated a majority did not want to see an increase in council numbers, though they wanted a popularly elected mayor.

Thus, it is proposed to defer this increase until the 1999 local government elections and have a better worded referendum question with professional, comprehensive information being supplied in conjunction with the referendum for a clearer outcome. Again, this amendment will be moved in the other place. Schedule 2 deals with amendments to various Acts, including the Bush Fires Act 1949. As is the case in many rural, regional and urban fringe areas, councillors are often fire control officers and as such have a conflict of interest if they are reporting to the general manager of a council. Therefore, it is proposed to prevent their appointment as fire control officers. Amendments are proposed to the Defamation Act 1974 in respect of the Local Government Pecuniary Interest Tribunal to provide a defence of absolute privilege for the tribunal’s publications and reports of proceedings or the publication by other persons of the protected report of proceedings, either in part or in summary.

Unfortunately, in the game of politics it seems that almost anything goes and persons will misuse and often misrepresent such pecuniary interest tribunal proceedings. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister proposes to place any restrictions on such misuse of reports and findings. In conclusion, these amendments are necessary for the smooth running of that level of government closest to the people. It is essential that the Parliament regularly review and update legislation that has such significance to local communities and their wellbeing. Community involvement, transparency of process and empowerment of local communities are the ideals that are worth striving for. The coalition does not oppose the bill.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [8.27], in reply: I suppose it is a short time span, but the honourable member for Georges River has obviously learned nothing from last night. Today she rubbished John Smith, citizen, saying he is too confused to know what is going on in local government.

Ms Ficarra: That is right.

Mr E. T. PAGE: The honourable member confirms that is right. She is saying that the broader community does not know what is going on in local government, that the electorate is stupid. That is her perception of what is happening in the community. Last night she accused a majority of councils and councillors in New South Wales of being corrupt. I find it strange that someone who has a background in local government should accuse her peers in local government of being corrupt and the people who elect councils of being too confused to know what is going on. It is rather difficult to work out her perspective. I am concerned that she is confused about the issues.

The honourable member spoke about rescission motions but could not understand what the item was all about. It is worthwhile trying to explain the situation to her. Currently, a rescission motion can be lodged with a council before the decision is implemented. So, if it takes a week, a month or two months for the decision to be implemented, a rescission motion can be moved. I can attend a council meeting where that can be finalised and the decision made. Two days later three councillors might move a rescission motion unbeknown to community members who were present at the meeting. The first knowledge they have about the change is if they attend the next meeting and hear the rescission motion being debated. That procedure is a complete abrogation of the democratic process.

Ms Ficarra: Ask Peter Woods.

Mr E. T. PAGE: I do not need to ask Peter Woods.
Ms Ficarra: He is only the President of the Local Government Association.

Mr E. T. PAGE: The honourable member for Georges River may need to ask him, but I do not. I have my opinion on the matter. The honourable member’s opinion is ignorant of the people involved in local government. My brain can work something out. The honourable member obviously cannot. She needs someone to tell her. I am outlining for the honourable member the procedure that is followed, so she should listen. If someone is present in the public gallery of this House when the vote on this bill is taken, that is the end of the matter. Everyone knows the process that was followed and also that it will not change once they walk out the door.

Currently, when the door is closed on council meetings, it is not the end of any resolution that may have been passed. Any resolution from a council meeting can be stopped if three councillors move a
Page 10594
rescission motion after the meeting has closed. That is undemocratic as it excludes those who attend council meetings wishing to know what happens within their local area. Another important aspect along similar lines relates to building applications. A council meeting may be held on Tuesday night and first thing next morning an efficient and hyperactive building inspector processes the building applications that were passed at the council meeting and mails the appropriate approval letters. If that same building inspector were not so energetic and allocated Friday as the day for sending out letters, a rescission motion could be moved on Thursday. As the council officer had been slow in carrying out his or her duty, the rescission motion takes effect and the building application approval is not forwarded to the applicant. That is an abomination of the process.

Ms Ficarra: It worked well for years.

Mr E. T. PAGE: It has not worked for years, and that is the problem. That is why the honourable member does not understand; she is ignorant of the procedures. Every time she opens her mouth she demonstrates that she has nothing between her ears. The amendment has been proposed so that this unfair council process can be rectified. The next matter I refer to relates to Maitland City Council and changes in the voting method. Last night the honourable member for Maitland pointed out that at the last council elections two referendum questions had been put to the electorate. One referendum question about whether the mayor should be popularly elected was carried by a large majority. The other question about whether the number of councillors should be increased from 12 to 13, which was a requirement if the mayor was popularly elected, was narrowly defeated.

The honourable member for Maitland said that the vote was lost by a majority of 61 per cent, though I believe it was closer to 52 per cent. The main point of his argument was to attack the Department of Local Government because the council did not pose the correct referendum questions. A council calling a referendum has primary responsibility for it. Maitland City Council sought and received advice from the department, but council designed and printed the questions. Maitland City Council and the honourable member for Maitland cannot blame the Department of Local Government for the council’s failure to properly carry out its responsibility.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to clarify the issue. The department was not at fault; responsibility for referendums lies with the council. If council cannot get the procedure right, it is no-one else’s fault. After having received representations from Maitland City Council, which I believe was a majority council view, I formed the opinion that the community endorsed the idea of a popularly elected mayor. It is only reasonable to allow that process to take place before the next local government election. It is not a philosophical question; it is merely a reasonable process and will possibly overcome some problems that exist currently in Maitland City Council.

It is unfortunate that the local member views the matter differently and that the Opposition will not support the issue. I would hope that sanity will prevail and the will of the people from the last election is implemented so that the change to the process will help conciliation of Maitland City Council. I thank honourable members for their contributions, though some displayed mainly ignorance of the matter. Hopefully, they may learn something in time. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Lismore, who made the initial and positive contribution. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.36 p.m.]: It gives me pleasure to speak to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and to also remind honourable members that we should not always take for granted that such a bill could be innocuous. Whilst the Opposition supports some of the provisions in principle, I shall take a brief time to highlight four items, of which three make substantive amendments. Firstly, schedule 1.4 amends the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to remove the obligation to publish in full existing guidelines that the DPP furnishes to police in connection with investigations conducted by police about offences or prosecutions for offences. This proposed amendment will remove that obligation.

Accordingly, whilst the removal from the report of the full guidelines may be warranted, I ask the Minister to guarantee that it does not constitute a denial of public analysis of the guidelines. I would have thought that the police and the public would be better served by knowing where they stood in
Page 10595
relation to some guidelines for prosecution of offences. Though it may be removed from the annual report, it should still be publicly available. The second item concerns the Interpretation Act, about which my colleague the honourable member for Lismore will speak in more detail. This is an interesting method by which the Government through penalty units can obtain a tax increase.

Item [1] of schedule 1.11 proposes that one penalty unit representing $100 be increased to $110. Accordingly, this represents a 10 per cent tax increase via the back door, which is nicely hidden in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The third matter about which there is a substantive amendment concerns the Motor Accidents Act. The amendment seeks to remove the awarding of interest on claims for non-economic loss. Whilst this may be a transitional provision, it will certainly affect the number of claimants who, at the date on which the amendment was made, but not settled or finally determined, will lose the provision of damages for non-economic loss. Given the number of cases that have been filed in the courts - and the Minister for Agriculture referred to further amendments to the District Court Act - I believe that that is another substantive amendment.

Finally, schedule 1.13, which I do not quibble with, relates to amendments to the Law Foundation Act 1979. I place on record my representation on that foundation, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, having served on that foundation for some four years. This amendment is desired by the board to further the objectives of the Law Foundation. I now return to a matter I raised in my opening remarks. Honourable members may assume that in the past such an Act has been seen to be innocuous. But in years past governments have used such an Act to introduce important amendments. I ask the Minister for Local Government to guarantee that nothing is omitted which a reasonable member of the public would expect to be included in the Act. Accordingly, that will bring the matter to the notification of the public. I ask that that be clarified.

As a matter of interest, I mention that at long last the green and golden bell frog is mentioned in schedule 1.28[1]. Honourable members may not know that this endangered species was responsible for holding up projects at the Olympic Games site for some time. Indeed, the cost ran into thousands of dollars because until the preservation of the green and golden bell frog could be guaranteed it was not possible to undertake further excavation or construction. On a more serious note, the Opposition will not oppose this bill. Nevertheless, it would like clarification of the substantive nature of some amendments brought by this legislation.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [8.42 p.m.]: Although I support this bill I am concerned about two of its provisions. Schedule 1.11 amends the Interpretation Act 1987 to increase the amount represented by a penalty unit from $100 to $110. As a member of the Regulation Review Committee I consider that this will affect the committee’s evaluation of the many regulations it considers each year which impose penalties. If a regulation sets out the maximum penalty for an offence as five penalty units, the maximum penalty for that offence will be raised by 10 per cent, from $500 to $550.

My concern with this amendment arises from the explanatory note in the bill. This note states that the amount represented by a penalty unit has not been increased since 1987 but prices as measured by the consumer price index have increased by 45.3 per cent since then. I am concerned that this may imply that the increase is being made purely as a revenue measure, in the same way that increases in fees for services in regulations are often calculated as a percentage of movements in the consumer price index. The explanatory note also states that this amendment is consistent with recent amendments made to the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914.

These amendments were contained in the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1997. In his second reading speech on the bill for that Act the Federal Attorney-General said that since the enactment of the Commonwealth provision in 1992 inflation has diminished the value of penalties and, according to figures provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the change in the consumer price index numbers between June 1992 and September 1995 is calculated at approximately 9.6 per cent. For this reason he said that the penalty unit should be increased from $100 to $110. Accordingly, the Commonwealth increase, which has been rounded to 10 per cent, is directly based on the change in the consumer price index numbers between June 1992 and September 1995.

Although inflation may have diminished the value of penalties, clearly other factors such as the likely deterrent effect of increasing the penalties are relevant in this exercise. Indeed, the very same factors used in setting the specific penalties should be relevant in setting the level of the penalty unit. I ask the Minister to advise this House of any other factors considered in that increase. The amendment to the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 in schedule 1.26 also directly concerns the Regulation Review Committee. This extends the date for the staged
Page 10596
repeal of the construction safety regulations, and the factories, shops and industries regulations until 1 September 1998, as these regulations have exhausted the number of postponements of repeals permitted under the Act.

In May the committee invited officers of WorkCover to attend the committee’s meetings to discuss these regulations. The committee had been concerned about the number of piecemeal amendments made to the regulations without any substantive review. The committee was also concerned about the different competency standards required under each regulation. The officers indicated that the three Acts and regulations - occupational health and safety, the construction safety regulations, and the factories, shops and industries - were in the process of being consolidated into one Act and regulation. The officers said that conflicting obligations such as the one mentioned above would be eliminated.

The new Act and regulation will adopt the relevant national standards and will be flexible and performance based. Many specific provisions will be replaced by the general requirement for work to be carried out safely. The officers said that consultation will be undertaken in the form of seminars held at between four and six rural centres before the legislation is finalised. The consultation period will be extended to three months and will include direct mailing of interested parties. While the regulation could be exempted from the requirements for a regulatory impact statement, as it adopts national standards, WorkCover intends to undertake a full RIS for the regulation and to assess in particular any State variation from the national scheme.

The committee was informed that the review process with respect to the legislation started in 1990 and that it is not expected that the legislation will be operative until September 1998. In my view this is an inordinately long time for the review of legislation, particularly when compared with the normal five-year life span of a regulation. The review should have taken place on a comprehensive basis early in the staged repeal program under the Subordinate Legislation Act. There should have been no need for this amendment if WorkCover had done its job properly. The postponement provisions of the Subordinate Legislation Act were designed to accommodate the review of far larger pieces of legislation without the need for amendments of this kind. When the postponed provisions were formulated by the committee in 1989, the review of the Local Government Act and regulations was under way. That was able to be accommodated within the number of postponements permitted by the Act.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of the legislation on small businesses in rural areas and the lack of consultation on existing licensing requirements; for example, the existing requirement for a licence to be held for work on a scaffold over 1.8 metres in height. The committee was informed that this specific licensing requirement might be replaced by a general requirement to work safely and that the new consolidated regulation will not be trade specific as in the past, but will be generic for all occupations. It will also be a performance-based regulation and not the command and control type as previously applied. Under this approach certain performance levels will be specified and it will be up to the industry to determine how to achieve them.

While these reforms may be appropriate, the committee will continue to monitor the regulations to ensure that safety is not compromised and that full consultation is held with the parties affected by them. The essence of the statute law revision program, under which this bill is made, is that changes to principal legislation should be of a minor and non-controversial nature and such that the Minister responsible considers to be too inconsequential to warrant the introduction of a separate amending bill.

It is my committee’s view that this can only be assured if the amendments are preceded by appropriate consultation. In the past changes have been made to the Subordinate Legislation Act. Some of these changes have been preceded by informal consultations with the committee; others have not. Bearing in mind the responsibilities that my committee has in regulatory matters, I wonder if the consultation arrangements for future changes to the Subordinate Legislation Act could be more formal so that the Regulation Review Committee receives written documentation from the Minister concerned well in advance of the changes, substantiating the need for those changes in detail. I ask that the Minister have this matter followed up. With these qualifications, I support the bill.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [8.50 p.m.], in reply: I take on board the issues which were raised by the honourable member for Gordon and by the honourable member for Lismore. From my perspective the aim of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is purely to enact minor amendments and I certainly would not countenance anything of significance in a bill such as this. This has been a generally accepted
Page 10597
principle of governments. The honourable member for Lismore raised a couple of cogent points and these will be addressed by the Attorney General in the upper House. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [8.52 p.m.]: I move:

Page 69, Schedule 1. Insert after line 14:

1.30 Water Board (Corporatisation) Act 1994 No 88

[1] Schedule 3 Board of Corporation

Omit subclause (6A)(c). Insert instead:

(c) one director, selected under subclause (6B),

[2] Schedule 3

Omit subclauses (6B)-(6D). Insert instead:

(6B) The director referred to in subclause (6A)(c) is to be appointed by the voting shareholders on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising:

(a) 2 persons nominated by the voting shareholders, and

(b) 2 persons nominated by the Labor Council of New South Wales,

being a person selected by the committee from a panel of 3 persons nominated by the Labor Council.

(6C) The procedures for constituting a selection committee for the purposes of subclause (6B), for making nominations and for determining other matters relating to the selection process are to be determined by the regulations or (subject to the regulations) by the voting shareholders.

(6D) Subclauses (6A)-(6C) have effect despite clause 3(2) and (3) of Schedule 11 and the articles of association of the corporation may be altered accordingly.

Commencement

The amendments to the Water Board (Corporatisation) Act 1994 commence, or are taken to have commenced, on 1 July 1997.

Explanatory note

The proposed amendments replace a requirement for the appointment of a staff director to the board of Sydney Water Corporation Limited with a requirement for the appointment of a director from nominees of the Labor Council. In effect, the amendment restores the position that applied in relation to the board of Sydney Water Corporation Limited before the enactment of the State Owned Corporations Amendment Act 1995 and is similar to provisions and procedures applying with respect to the boards of statutory State owned corporations (such as those of the energy services corporations and New South Wales Lotteries Corporation).

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [8.54 p.m.]: This amendment to the Water Board (Corporatisation) Act is to insert a schedule that would enable the Government, through the shareholding directors, to appoint a representative of the Labor movement to the board. The amendment states that there will be a selection committee of two persons nominated by the voting shareholders and two persons nominated by the Labor Council and that that selection committee of four will choose a representative who will be one of a panel of three determined by the Labor Council by nomination. If ever there was a classic way to stack a corporation that was designed to serve the public interest with a trade union hack, it is this one with the combined forces of the Australian Labor Party and the Labor Council, to try to ensure that the Sydney Water Corporation has a good ALP trade unionist as one of its board members. This amendment is not acceptable to the Opposition.

The whole purpose of setting up Sydney Water Corporation was to take it out of the political and industrial arena, to make sure that Sydney Water operated as a business. Its core business was to provide clean, potable water to the community of Sydney and to remove waste water from the community of Sydney, and to do that in an environmentally sound way, as specified by the Environment Protection Authority and by the environmental objectives laid down under the Act and in accordance with the memorandum of understanding. But what we have here is a typical attempt by the ALP to amend the Water Board (Corporatisation) Act, but not to do so directly, honestly and up-front. It does not choose to say: we will set up a procedure to enable the voting shareholders to put an ALP union representative on the board. No, they will do it via the back door, through the provisions of the statute law legislation.

Not only that, but these amendments have been introduced by subterfuge. The bill had been circulated and only a couple of hours ago the Opposition was notified of this amendment. There was no amendment proposed to the bill tabled before the House adjourned a couple of weeks ago. Of course, the sting is in the tail, but the tail was not revealed until late this afternoon. If ever there was an example of the way the right wing of the
Page 10598
ALP likes to manipulate legislation, Government and statutory corporations, it is this one. This amendment is not acceptable to the Opposition.

The Opposition’s argument is quite simple: Sydney Water is not there to be filled up with Labor Party hacks. Sydney Water is a corporatised body that should be run as a business serving the community and that is why the shareholders are Ministers of the Crown, as representatives of the community. Their job is to ensure that it runs in a cost-effective manner, in an environmentally safe way, that it does not provide a sheltered workshop for certain favoured employees and that it does not provide a stream of income for those that the Government and the trade union movement wish to look after. This amendment is opposed.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [8.57 p.m.]: The proposed amendment will replace the requirement for the appointment of a staff member to the board of Sydney Water Corporation Limited, with the requirement for the employment of a director from nominees of the Labor Council. In effect, the amendment restores the position that applied in relation to the board of Sydney Water Corporation before the enactment of the State Owned Corporations (Amendment) Act 1995. Similar provisions and procedures apply with respect to boards of statutory State-owned corporations such as the energy service corporations and the New South Wales Lotteries Corporation and I recommend the amendment to the Committee.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

Division called for and deferred.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.

Debate resumed from 29 May.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.01 p.m.]: The National Electricity (New South Wales) Bill implements the national electricity law as part of the process of the national electricity market, which has been in place for some time. The Electricity Legislation Amendment (Wholesale Electricity) Bill amends the Electricity Supply Act to harmonise the New South Wales and Victorian electricity markets as the next step in the national electricity market. During debate on the bill the Minister spoke of the "substantial benefits" that the electricity reform program has provided, particularly the lower prices that industrial and commercial consumers enjoy. Interestingly, the Minister failed to mention that these benefits have been very much negated by the Government’s $100 million electricity distributors levy, which will cost New South Wales companies both competitiveness and jobs.

That is the sleeper tax in the bill. Most of the debate at the present time is about the bed tax and the super poker machine tax but this is a tax that will cost the New South Wales community, in particular business, more than $100 million in its first year. The levy is a disincentive to companies to do business in New South Wales. Businesses in New South Wales will be at a 5 per cent cost disadvantage compared with businesses in other States. That is not the type of economic climate that the Opposition would seek to encourage in New South Wales. Let me give some examples. Ampol’s Kurnell refinery contributes millions of dollars to the New South Wales economy and employs 700 workers. The levy will increase that refinery’s power bill by $800,000 per year. It is an impost on Ampol’s business that the company’s businesses in other States will not have to carry.

The levy will cost Pasminco, a substantial miner, $3 million per year - another disadvantage for doing business in New South Wales and in Australia. The Minister blithely forgets, when he talks about the substantial benefits that have been given to businesses in New South Wales through the competition policy, about the impost that the Government has placed on businesses. The Minister also referred to a 10,000 job increase these productivity improvements in the industry will provide. Business is hurting. The Minister referred to a 10,000 job increase but if the industry is to be saddled with a $100 million impost, one can be certain that the 10,000 jobs that were supposed to flow through to the rest of the community will now be substantially reduced. New South Wales will not be able to compete as it should be able to. How many workers will be laid off from companies struggling with the Michael Egan $100 million levy on jobs? How many will be laid off from manufacturing companies, which are struggling to maintain their manufacturing bases in New South Wales and Australia? How many will be laid off from mining companies or recycling companies?

Page 10599

Will the Minister guarantee that fewer than 10,000 jobs will be lost from the impact of this levy? The Treasurer is double-dipping in New South Wales. The Commonwealth Government provided New South Wales with a $73 million first-tranche payment to compensate the State for foregoing potential revenue from its monopoly government trading enterprises. This $100 million levy, this 5 per cent levy on electricity - the first time in Australia that a government has taxed electricity, which will rake in $100 million in its first year in New South Wales - is going to have a substantial impact on business and on jobs. It is double-dipping because the State has always been compensated by the Commonwealth for the cost of entering into this competition policy. The levy that has been imposed is contrary to the spirit of the national competition policy agreement and associated reforms.

IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, claims that there has been an overall 9 per cent reduction in electricity prices in New South Wales, equal to $400 million in savings. The levy will remove 25 per cent of those savings. As New South Wales has become more competitive in respect of electricity, a quarter of that amount will now be ripped off by the Government by way of taxes. This impost, of $100 million in its first year, will grow in future years and will permeate through the community so that every household will pay the 5 per cent tax directly through household energy use and will pay for it through the cost of products. The interesting part about reductions in the cost of electricity is that most people do not understand that it is not only because of restructuring and more efficiencies in the market, most of which occurred under a previous coalition Government in New South Wales. A significant part of the saving was made because of a reduction in interest rates.

A substantial investment and borrowing cost is involved in power generation. As interest charges have come down, so a substantial cost on electricity business has also come down. Much of that has been passed on to the consumer. New South Wales business will be disadvantaged compared with other States. Successful companies that are good for jobs, exports and the environment are being punished by the Government and are not being encouraged to do business in New South Wales. The levy is an incentive for energy-intensive industries to locate in other States. We have lost BHP to South Australia.

Mr Martin: Thanks, Liberals.

Mr PHILLIPS: The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries may well laugh, but he is really out of touch. BHP was lost to South Australia some years ago because of its inability to reach agreement for proper redevelopment of its manufacturing base in Newcastle. It invested money in South Australia, and now it is cheaper and better for it to do business in South Australia than in New South Wales. I predict that will continue to happen because it is much more expensive to do business in New South Wales than in other States. The Government has made New South Wales the highest taxed State in Australia. This $100 million electricity charge is part of an overall tax package. Before the election the then Leader of the Opposition promised there would be no tax increases, but in the last two years there have been 13 different tax increases, including three new taxes. They include taxes on homes, electricity and beds.

The cost of doing business in New South Wales is $2 billion more than it was two years ago. That is an increase of 18 per cent. One wonders where the money is going and why business is being conducted in other States. Large government electricity consumers such as the Department of Health and Sydney Water will be subjected to the levy. Those agencies will now have to pay tax and the community will pick up the cost through other services. This is a tax by stealth on large energy consumers and is yet another slug to jobs, investment and consumers. The ESAA, the CEA, the PCA, the Business Council of Australia, the Sydney County Council and the New South Wales Minerals Council were not consulted and are opposed to the levy. The levy is a sleeper tax that hits every one of Bob’s so-called battlers in western Sydney by way of lost jobs and extra charges.
The bills jeopardise this State’s electricity supply. In times of short supply the National Electricity Market Management Company Ltd - NEMMCO - will decide how much electricity is to be retained in New South Wales. The ludicrous situation could arise in which New South Wales could not supply its own electricity needs. In this information technology age disruptions to electricity would ruin the State’s economic reputation. Will the Minister guarantee that New South Wales will not return to the bad old days of the Wran era when blackouts constantly occurred? Will he guarantee that the lights will not go out in Albury while they burn brightly in Wodonga? Under this new agreement, if major strikes or breakdowns in Victoria result in a shortage of power, New South Wales could be called upon to supply that power and could therefore suffer blackouts or power shortages.

Page 10600

The Minister must provide a guarantee to protect New South Wales businesses and consumers. The Government is attempting to cover up its failure with the corporatisation of the electricity industry. It has put the cart before the horse with its attempts to corporatise the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority before the report of the water inquiry is completed and presented to the Parliament. After many mergers and upheavals in the industry, the benefits have not been realised. The Government has again been exposed as a failed economic manager. This State has failed to achieve its potential to reduce costs because corporatisation has failed miserably.

The Government came to power with a guarantee that it would be a bulwark against privatisation because corporatisation was the way to go. It has now admitted that corporatisation has failed the people of New South Wales. With proper management and proper drive electricity could be much cheaper and therefore an advantage to conducting business in this State. But the Government has failed to maximise the advantage that New South Wales can reap from this market. The Opposition cannot understand why NEMMCO, this national administrative organisation, needs offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. One wonders whether the industry will have a frequent-flyer led recovery. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response as to why three offices are necessary in this modern age of communication. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.17 p.m.]: I support the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The bill is one of a series of bills that will pave the way to the national electricity grid. I am concerned, as shadow minister for the environment, that the Carr Government, the Premier - who claims green credentials - and the Treasurer have a tendency to forget about the environmental issues that need to be considered as we move towards the national electricity grid. I call on the Government to include in this legislation and legislation which will follow it some emphasis on and environmental recognition of matters that are crucial to the health of this State.

Many people spend weekends in the Lake Macquarie area, and many others live in the area. Pacific Power’s Eraring power station and Delta Electricity’s Vales Point power station pump contaminants into the lake. I am extremely concerned that this legislation has failed to include environmental safeguards which would require those two power stations to ensure that, for example, by the year 2000 there will be a complete cessation of contaminants entering Lake Macquarie. I cannot understand why the Government would walk away from a fundamental environmental initiative such as ensuring the essential and much needed clean-up of Lake Macquarie. I suspect that is also beyond the comprehension of the honourable member for Lake Macquarie.

The Government was prepared to hold a commission of inquiry in 1995. It was prepared to require that Pasminco - a publicly listed company, as opposed to a government power instrumentality, and one of the large companies that pumps certain contaminants into Lake Macquarie - in exchange for its right to upgrade, cease putting any contaminated water into Lake Macquarie by the year 2000. I believe it was the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning who imposed that condition of approval. The Opposition certainly supports that condition. However, Opposition members cannot understand why the Eraring power station and the Vales Point power station, owned by Pacific Power and Delta Electricity respectively, should not be subjected to the same requirements now, in the move towards the national electricity grid.

Last week the report of a committee made up of representatives from the Environment Protection Authority, the Hunter Area Health Board, concerned anglers, commercial fishermen, Pasminco and other organisations contained the admission, for the first time, that there were very high levels of selenium in fish in Lake Macquarie. That in itself presents all sorts of issues. This evening, in the ambit of this bill, I am particularly concerned to know why, if the warning bells are already being rung, the Government, which claims environmental credentials, fails to address that issue. I challenge the Carr Government to come forward with a little substance, to live up to its obligations to those who reside around Lake Macquarie and those who use Lake Macquarie, and to build environmental safeguards into this progression of electricity legislation towards corporatisation and privatisation.

I ask the House to put some pressure on the Premier and the Treasurer. The House should say that it will not accept this bill or any other legislation leading towards the national electricity grid unless adequate environmental safeguards are put in place. Last week we were told that adults could eat only six fillets of fish out of Lake Macquarie in any one week. When an area health officer was asked how much fish from Lake Macquarie children could eat he replied, "They don’t eat fish; they eat only fish fingers, don’t they?" The situation is not a joke. The Government needs to focus on that matter before it goes too far down the path towards electricity corporatisation.

Mr Martin: Get on with it.

Page 10601

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister says that I should get on with the job. That is what I say to him and his Government. I know that the Minister is sensitive about the issue. I have received reports indicating that the problem is much greater than is being admitted at the moment. I am working on the matter and the Minister and the Government should be working to make sure that the electricity legislation proceeds only if safeguards are put in place to address the substantive issues. In the fullness of time, if the Government fails to address the environmental issues then the New South Wales Opposition will make sure that the people of this State know about the way in which the Government is failing.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.24 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate. Debate has been full and robust.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 28 May.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [9.25 p.m.]: I have pleasure in speaking in this debate. I thank the honourable member for Myall Lakes and the honourable member for Wakehurst, the relevant shadow ministers, for allowing me the opportunity to lead for the Opposition in debate on this bill. The reason I do so is that the bill has great impact for the Coffs Harbour electorate, as the Minister for Fisheries would recognise. I thank the Minister for Fisheries, the Minister for the Environment and their respective staffs for the assistance received by the Opposition over the past 48 hours. It has been of great benefit to go over the bill and talk through proposed amendments with officials. The coalition has been at the forefront in striking the right balance to achieve ecologically sustainable use of the New South Wales marine environment. It was the coalition Government that in 1990 enacted legislation that allowed the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve to be established in Coffs Harbour and managed under the same conditions as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

The Government has, unfortunately, decided that because of a promise made before the 1995 State election to establish marine national parks in this State it will push ahead and bring in the National Parks and Wildlife Service, rather than give the funding to New South Wales Fisheries in order to better manage the marine reserve in Coffs Harbour and set up marine reserves in Jervis Bay and other places. The decision will probably be detrimental to the future of those areas. I know that the Minister for Fisheries would like to agree with me but he cannot because his hands are tied. Because of the stink that has been kicked up locally in Coffs Harbour and because of grave concerns that have been raised throughout the State -

Mr Jeffery: And in Oxley.

Mr FRASER: Yes, including Oxley. More than 10,000 letters objecting to the way in which the legislation is being dealt with were received as a result of a campaign organised by the Solitary Islands Peoples Rights Association - SIPRA. In early 1995 the Minister for the Environment guaranteed consultation, yet that has not occurred. I understand that the Minister for Fisheries has to a large extent had his hands tied in regard to the matter, but consultation has not occurred. Present in the gallery this evening is Mr Paul Newman, from the Coffs Harbour fishing cooperative. Mr Newman has been at the forefront of the debate. It is sad that he has had to come to Parliament House today to lobby the Government and other honourable members on the legislation. He seeks a guarantee that the Government will not adversely affect the reserve until 1999. One wonders why there is a condition relating to 1999.

Mr Jeffery: Would there be an election in 1999?

Mr FRASER: Yes, and I think the answer to that question is that the honourable member for Clarence is in trouble on this issue. Six public meetings organised by SIPRA and held in the local area were attended by hundreds of people but not by the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Fisheries or the honourable member for Clarence. Those meetings questioned the need for this legislation and asked why there was no consultation. It is disappointing that no Government member turned up to address those meetings. During the meetings assurances were given on behalf of the Government and the Minister for Fisheries that there would be no change to the current management plans. This bill leaves a great deal to be desired. The Opposition will move 22 amendments at the Committee stage. I acknowledge that the Minister has agreed to many of those amendments, and I thank him for that. One of the amendments will
Page 10602
include in the objects of the bill commercial and recreational fishing.

Clarence and Coffs Harbour fishermen catch up to 85 per cent of their catch in this marine reserve area. The people who for the past three or four years have successfully managed the marine reserve, now to be known as a marine park, will tell honourable members that fish stocks are increasing and that management techniques are good. All they need is extra money to help police people who intentionally or unintentionally do the wrong thing within the marine reserve. If steps are not taken to ensure that the intention of this legislation is such that those activities will continue within that reserve, there will be major problems. Some 40 per cent of the snapper sold at the Sydney Fish Markets are caught in the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve. The livelihood of people in that area depends on this marine area. I am pleased that the Government did not decide to declare the area a marine national park.

The only good thing about this legislation, and I think the Minister will agree, is that John Radford will no longer ring me at 6 o'clock in the morning and 11 o'clock at night to complain about what the Government is doing. I feel sure that the pressure put on the Government led to the decision that the National Parks and Wildlife Service would not have sole control of the management of the area and that New South Wales Fisheries should be brought in. I will be moving amendments in Committee that will provide that New South Fisheries chair the authority, the council and the local advisory committees. I ask the Minister to support those amendments but I have some doubt that he will. I am concerned that the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, and the Minister for the Environment have stated on several occasions in the print media in Coffs Harbour and Sydney and on radio station 2KY that when this legislation and the operational plans are finalised there will be changes to sanctuary, exclusion, habitat and general use zones.

How can the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries say there will be changes when he has carried out no scientific study to date? How can he justify those changes? He cannot, because he has not spoken to the people who do know about these matters. The Minister has said, "We gave an election promise. We will put this out and get the green votes in Sydney and we will have the feel-good situation again." Marine parks are to be created at Coffs Harbour and Jervis Bay on the basis that this will pick up votes for the Government in Sydney. Not so long ago it was noted that in the South Coast-Wollongong area there were few shellfish. People from different cultures were picking the shores clean of shellfish.

If the Minister is really serious about creating marine parks in this State, I challenge him to create one in Sydney Harbour or on the border of the Premier’s electorate. Put one out there and see if local members in that area suffer the angst that I, the honourable member for Clarence and others have suffered because of fears of restrictions that may result from the legislation. In the past the Minister has said that only commercial fishermen will be affected. The Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries knows the fishery as well as, if not better than, many members of this House. He knows that if the operations of commercial fishers in the reserve are affected, the operations of recreational fishers will be affected also, because they are all fishing for the same fish, using similar techniques.

At the end of the day a better managed reserve under the auspices of Fisheries is one that I absolutely support. Unfortunately we will not get that. The five additional jobs created in Coffs Harbour should be given to Fisheries and not to National Parks. I know that members of the Minister’s staff who are present in the gallery tonight would not agree with that. They would say - especially National Parks and Wildlife Service staff - that they should have some control over the proceedings. The National Parks and Wildlife Service needs to look after its own backyard a little better; it needs to manage its own areas better. It should concentrate on ridding its terrestrial parks of feral animals and noxious weeds before it starts sticking its nose in an area where it is not wanted and not warranted.

Honourable members have been given no guarantee by the Minister that commercial charter operators will not be charged a licence fee. Indeed, the bill has a section that I will be attempting to amend. I notice the Minister’s staff smiling because they know there will be an effect which has not been flagged in the electorate, an effect that has been denied. Those charter boats will be charged licence fees. That is unacceptable. The Minister for the Environment said that the legislation will have the effect of increasing tourism. Honourable members know that the Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay are not the same as the Great Barrier Reef. If tourists go out on a glass bottom boat they will only be able to see four feet below the surface. The Solitary Islands will not have this great influx of tourists because the people who utilise the reserve
Page 10603
for scuba diving, fishing and conducting fishing competitions are utilising it to its maximum capacity.

The tourism industry could be detrimentally affected if under the operation plans the pelagic fish they come to chase are not able to be caught. The Easter classic attracts 700 or 800 people to the area. Those people, who bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars to Coffs Harbour, may not come back to Coffs Harbour. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that when the management and operational plans are put together these people will be allowed to continue their pursuits. At the Committee stage I will speak briefly to the proposed amendments and I ask that the Minister considers them with a view to ensuring the future of the marine park as it will now be known in Coffs Harbour. Give the Opposition credit for recognising what we had at Coffs Harbour in the past and for ensuring that it was and is preserved the way it should be.

In August 1996 the Premier of this Government issued a memo to all Cabinet Ministers directing them not to introduce any legislation until a full economic impact statement had been completed. Ministers ignored those instructions and brought in legislation that has decimated forests on the north coast. They are now introducing legislation that will have an adverse effect on commercial operations in the marine reserve, to be known as a marine park, without an economic impact statement. What about the people who sell fuel to commercial fishermen, charter boat operators and others? What about their families? What about the flow-on effect that this legislation will have? In my heart I believe that this will have a severe effect on tourism and therefore on the economy of Coffs Harbour. Since 1995 under this Government unemployment in Coffs Harbour has increased from 11.8 per cent to 14.35 per cent. Coffs Harbour has the highest unemployment rates and lowest rates of income in New South Wales.

Instead of making policy to appease a small minority of Greens who may give the Labor Party preferences in a marginal seat, the Government should establish a marine park in Sydney or in the beautiful area of Port Stephens. I grew up in Newcastle and spent a lot of time there. I suggest that the Minister might put a marine park from Stockton through to Port Stephens, take it up to the high watermark, over to Hawks Nest and see the reaction of the commercial fishermen there. In the past fishermen in that area have been treated somewhat favourably in some instances. Tell them their livelihood will be affected and see what happens at the next election.

I am disappointed at the lack of consultation by this Government and the way it has refused to consult. The Minister came to the north coast area and told the fishermen and the cooperative that there would be consultation. I appreciate the pressure the Minister would have been under in Cabinet, and a little bird told me to thank the Minister for this legislation, which is much softer than the original proposal. At the end of the day, I appreciate the Minister’s situation, but this marine park should be located in Kiama, in the Premier’s electorate, or in Sydney Harbour. I would like to see the reaction if that were done.

The coalition acknowledges the problems within Sydney and also that effluent will not be allowed into the marine park. The Minister for the Environment has a conundrum because only last week she authorised the licensing of Willis Creek until the year 2002. Everyone knows that effluent from the Woolgoolga treatment works is pumped into Willis Creek and then into the marine reserve. The Minister told us in his second reading speech that this will not happen, but in fact it will continue to happen until the year 2002. It will be interesting to hear how the Minister explains that in the next five or six years.

Another matter of concern is how the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was brought into this legislation. Though it is not contained in the bill, the Minister said in his second reading speech that any part 4 or part 5 development in the catchment would be the subject of consultation with the authority. Subdivisions are badly needed, but stormwater running through the local creek needs authority consent. Under this proposal an area that is already suffering economically could have an authority of three people from the Premier’s Department, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Fisheries making decisions that directly affect the livelihoods of local residents.

The Minister must clarify that these types of developments will not be adversely affected and that they will not become another planning authority while consultation takes place. The people of the Coffs Harbour and Clarence electorates need the assurance that they will be able to continue their lifestyles without having yet another body or bureaucracy looking over their shoulder. The Opposition will support the legislation. Perhaps it is
Page 10604
more accurate to say that the Opposition will not oppose the bill, on the basis that it fulfils an election promise. I have circulated the amendments I propose to move in Committee and I ask for the Government’s support in that respect.

I acknowledge that some amendments do not necessarily have support, but at the end of the day, with some fear and trepidation, the Opposition gives its support to the bill because it is frightening for the Minister to admit that the operational plans will not come into play until 1999. Such an admission smacks of political interference on the basis of what adverse effect the plans may have in the seat of Clarence. Wooli is a very small village, but 500 people attended a meeting to object to the plan. The Government does not want to know about the 10,000 letters of protest because the directors of two departments who visited the area refused to accept them. I was accused of trying to politicise the matter. In fact, because the Ministers were not game to come and announce the marine park, they sent their respective heads of department, which is a sad state of affairs.

Mr Hazzard: Is Harry Woods speaking on this matter?

Mr FRASER: I do not know whether the honourable member for Clarence will speak in the debate. I hope he will address some of the issues, but I suspect he will not. This legislation is not necessary. All that needed to be done was for the Minister to push Treasury for a decent allocation to his budget so that people could be appointed to manage the reserve in the manner we would like it managed. The area would then have a piece of heritage for the continued enjoyment of the people commercially, recreationally and environmentally. As mentioned in the bill, the ecological sustainability will include the definition under the Protection of the Environment Administration Act. That means that the Minister for Fisheries must take into account the economic circumstances of the area before making any changes.

I strongly suggest that when the authority, the council and the local advisory committee are formed the question of the area’s economic circumstances be placed at the forefront of consideration. Those bodies should be told to look after the interests of people in Coffs Harbour and Jervis Bay. I also bring to the attention of the Minister the answers he put on the notice paper regarding part 4 and part 5 developments. Will the Jervis Bay marina be allowed to proceed? The people of the coast rely on such matters. I shall conclude my remarks, though I will raise other matters in Committee when speaking to the proposed amendments. I commend the amendments to the Minister and to the House. I trust that from this mishmash we will end up with something manageable that will provide a future for the fishermen, represented here tonight by Paul Newman, and will give the people of Coffs Harbour a future through an environmentally and ecologically sustainable marine park in the Solitary Islands.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.46 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Marine Parks Bill, but it has some concerns about it. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour indicated that those concerns range over a host of issues, some of which are environmental, some from a fishing perspective and some from the perspective that this Government has broken another promise. The Government came to office on a litany of promises. Two years into Labor's period in office the State now has a litany of broken promises. One of the essential promises that many community members looked to was a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine national parks.

The Marine Parks Bill does not deliver the promise. Yet again the Premier, despite his prancing in the House and his pretence to be an environmental Premier, has let down those who wanted to see in place a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine national parks. We now have a negotiated middle ground system of marine parks, but I hasten to add that that does not mean the system will be bad. In fact, the Opposition hopes that the development of this marine park system under legislative control will be a positive move towards achieving ecological sustainability in the marine environment. Anybody in New South Wales will acknowledge that our marine environment, our coast, is very much a part of us all. Even if we live on the other side of the mountains, we like to come to the coast.

We like to know that the coast is clean, the ocean is clean and the waterways are clean. We like to know that the ocean is well managed and cared for. Fishermen also like to be assured of that. Obviously, they are keen to have access to fish stocks, but they are responsible and are concerned that this Government did not consult anywhere near as much as it should have. As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour acknowledged, up until the last 24 hours there has been a reasonable level of consultation, at least with the Opposition. However, I know from discussions today with environmental groups that they are concerned at the failure of the Government to properly consult on the matter. If the Government had not moved the guillotine to operate at 10.30 tonight, the House
Page 10605
would not be in a mad rush, as this Government tends to be when we get towards the end of a session.

The Opposition wants there to be more consultation, particularly with environmental groups and fishermen, to ensure that the right balance is struck. The best we can do is to work with what the Government has provided and try to achieve a reasonable result through a number of amendments that will be moved by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I will also move a few amendments. I will not take my full allotted time to speak on this bill; I am aware of the pressures that the House is facing. This bill has a poor background but offers great hope. I am sure that the honourable member for South Coast will take the view that Jervis Bay will benefit from the potential rise in tourism when the Jervis Bay marine park is established. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation. I will briefly comment on some of the amendments at the Committee stage.

Mr Martin: Before 10.30?

Mr HAZZARD: Yes, and I am sure the Minister will show the Opposition the same courtesy at another time when it tries to achieve some outcomes. Tonight the Opposition is helping the Government, so the Minister should not complain.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [9.51 p.m.]: In view of the fact that the Government has guillotined not only this bill but all bills tonight, I will be brief and allow my colleagues more time to speak on other matters. I do not want to be brief; as shadow minister for fisheries I regard this as a significant bill, and a lot more time should have been allotted to it. I highlight the magnificent work done by my colleague the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. He worked diligently on this legislation, which directly affects his electorate. The magnificent Solitary Islands are off the coast of his electorate and off the coast of the Clarence electorate.

The honourable member for Clarence has not spoken in this debate, so the honourable member for Coffs Harbour carried the Opposition’s debate. He spent many hours dissecting the bill to ensure that it can work and that there is a balance between the environment and the recreational and commercial fishermen. I congratulate him on that. Obviously from day one there has been a lack of consultation on this bill. I went to a rally at Grafton attended by 355 people. They were angry about the lack of consultation. It is a tribute to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour that he has been able to negotiate a position, virtually on behalf of the Government, and certainly on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, to get this bill to the stage it has reached today.

I remind honourable members that this is a National Party bill. In 1993 the National Party introduced the concept of marine parks. This bill is an extension of the legislation introduced by the Leader of the National Party in 1993. That bill had a strong component for commercial and recreational fishing and protected the natural environment as well as the fishers. It is good to see the Labor Party pick up a National Party initiative. The Opposition is full of initiatives and the Government picks them up and proceeds with them but is unable to initiate good legislation.

As shadow minister for fisheries I highlight the fact that commercial fishermen must not be disadvantaged by this legislation. They are entitled to act and be treated as they were previously. If they cannot, the Government must look to compensation or some other form of assistance for them. Likewise, recreational fishermen must be given the opportunity to continue to fish in this area and be able to enjoy it, together with the commercial fishers, the environmental sector, the spear fishermen and scuba divers. Finally, the Opposition will monitor this legislation very carefully. We will watch how it works and, as an Opposition, will make decisions. When we come to government in 1999, we will make decisions governing the future of marine parks in New South Wales.
Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [9.54 p.m.], in reply: In the first instance, it was intended that the Government may have been able to split this second reading debate between the two responsible Ministers, because of the importance of this legislation to fisheries and the environment. Unfortunately, the Minister for the Environment is ill tonight and the Government has covered the environmental part of this bill for her. The Minister wanted very much to take part in the debate. Also the honourable member for Clarence has made a major contribution to this legislation.

With a view to giving members opposite a fair go tonight, the honourable member for Clarence has agreed to place his contribution into the public arena and not contribute to the debate. Marine conservation has a long history in New South Wales, dating back to 1879 when the Royal National Park was reserved, as it included part of the estuary of the Hacking River. Today New South Wales Fisheries and the National Parks and Wildlife
Page 10606
Service together manage more than 38 marine and estuarine protected areas. Neither the National Parks and Wildlife Service nor New South Wales Fisheries, however, has had the range of powers and responsibilities necessary to effectively manage all the biota or all of the marine environment.

The Marine Parks Bill clearly addresses this problem and, for the first time, creates an integrated and comprehensive approach to marine conservation. This is historic legislation for New South Wales. Through it the Government will establish a world-class system of marine parks to protect and manage our unique marine environments. The Marine Parks Bill complements other marine conservation initiatives already undertaken by the Government. For example, three new coastal national parks or nature reserves have been created and major additions made to two more. As a result, significant habitats such as Cudgen Lake on the far north coast, Bonville Creek near Coffs Harbour, and Brou and Mumaga lakes near Narooma, have been protected in perpetuity.

Threatened aquatic species will also be comprehensively protected with amendments to the Fisheries Management Act that incorporate the principles enshrined in the Threatened Species Conservation Act. This means that all threatened species, populations and communities in New South Wales will receive appropriate levels of protection. The Carr Labor Government is delivering on its commitment to conserve the biological diversity of New South Wales. One important strategy for conserving biological diversity in the marine environment is by the creation of a comprehensive system of marine parks. This has always been the Government’s commitment, as articulated in the Government’s nature conservation strategy and its vision for the coast.

To emphasise this commitment, I will move in Committee an amendment to the objects of the Marine Parks Bill to make it clear that we intend to provide for a comprehensive system of marine parks. This legislation provides for marine parks to be declared over areas of the sea or areas of land covered by water from time to time; that is, land subject to tidal influence, including the intertidal zone and salt marshes. It also provides for the inclusion of any areas of land adjacent to, or surrounded by, such waters and for the inclusion of private lands, but only with the consent of the landowner and occupier of the land. This will enable the inclusion of adjacent lands where it is sensible to do so; for example, it may be sensible to include a boat ramp within the marine park to enable the authority to better manage boating activities and facilities

Also, the Government may include islands where necessary to effectively manage all marine biota; for example, the inclusion of an island may be important to properly manage seal colonies. The focus clearly is on water rather than land, however, and only those lands that are in the immediate vicinity of the marine park and required for essential park management will be considered for inclusion. It is not enough to merely declare marine parks, however. They must be managed effectively, and they must cater for a wide range of uses, to reflect the broad interests of the community. For this reason, marine parks will be zoned, with different zones providing varying levels of protection for the marine environment and its biota. This will ensure the protection of the resource where it needs protection and the wise use of the resource where its use is sustainable.

This also means that sustainable forms of commercial fishing, recreational fishing and aquiculture will be permissible within a marine park, although some forms of fishing may not be permissible in all zones. Existing aquiculture operations within a marine park will be allowed to continue until their existing lease has expired. New aquiculture leases will only be able to be granted, and expired leases renewed, however, if that form of aquiculture is permitted by the zoning plan for the park. This capacity to control fishing and aquiculture through the zoning plan also applies to boating, whale watching and other tourist-related activities, and all other activities that occur within a marine park, including dredging.

The Act also provides for sensible controls over developments that occur outside a marine park. In effect, the Act requires consenting authorities; that is, local councils and, in some cases, government agencies, to consult the marine park authority on any development that could significantly impact on the marine park. Examples might include a dredging application in a river flowing into the marine park, or construction on sand dunes adjacent to the marine park. The Act does not provide a power of veto for the authority but it does force consenting authorities to take into account the objectives of the Marine Parks Act, and any advice offered by the Marine Parks Authority, in making their decisions. Again, I would emphasise that this requirement does not apply to all developments within the catchment of a marine park,
Page 10607
only those that the consenting authority considers could have a significant impact on the conservation of biodiversity within the marine park.

Ultimately, marine parks must also have the resources, expertise and the trust of the community and stakeholders if they are to be successful. The legislation also addresses these issues. The Marine Parks Authority has access to the expertise available in the National Parks and Wildlife Service and in New South Wales Fisheries. It also has access to expert advice through the Marine Parks Advisory Council. The council and local advisory committees provide forums for stakeholders and the community to influence marine park management. They also provide a vital interface with key stakeholders and facilitate the desire of the Government to work closely with the community in developing these marine parks. Expressions of interest in membership of these councils will be sought through advertisements in key newspapers. Nominations will also be sought from key stakeholder groups.

Finally, the Government will ensure that the marine parks are adequately resourced. There will be no new bureaucracy; rather the resources will go into the management of the new marine parks. Ten new staff will be appointed and management funding provided from the Environmental Trust. This funding will be continued in the longer term through appropriate allocations from the Consolidated Fund. The first marine parks will be at Jervis Bay, near Nowra, and at the Solitary Islands, near Coffs Harbour. Jervis Bay is one of the icons of the New South Wales coast with its clear waters and white beaches. The declaration of a marine park there will help to ensure that the fragile beauty of Jervis Bay is properly protected.

Solitary Islands is a complex system of estuaries, rocky headlands, sandy beaches and offshore islands that represents the southernmost point in Australia for corals and many other tropical fauna and flora. As the Solitary Islands Marine Park and the Yuraygir National Park partially overlap, a seamless management regime will be created from the headwaters of the rivers within Yuraygir National Park through the estuaries and coastal waters of the marine park to the outer waters of the adjacent Commonwealth marine reserve. This integration of terrestrial and marine management is another first, and another great achievement. Again, in the spirit of the bill, I make this speech in reply as part of a joint sponsorship of this important legislation with my colleague the Minister for the Environment. The declaration of these parks is a vital step in meeting the Government’s commitment to conserving our marine environment.

In the two years that the Government has been putting this legislative package together, it has come up with a win for all. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour mentioned the two-year provision in the legislation. That two-year period will provide for extensive consultation. It is modelled on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is also modelled on the management plans that have already been in place for both Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay. It will provide for two years of consultation. If there is any need to change that, it will happen after full consultation. I thank all participants in this debate from both sides of the House. I would also like to pay a tribute to Michael Wright and John Gibbons from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and to Paul O’Connor and Dr Glaister from New South Wales Fisheries, together with their staff. I also thank Ken Long, Lawrie Daly, Christine Pedder and Patrick Holland for their great work in negotiating to have these amendments brought before the Parliament. I thank all participants, particularly those people who have made it all come together. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Clause 3

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [10.05 p.m.]: I move:

Page 2, clause 3, line 11. Insert "a comprehensive system of" after "management of".

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.05 p.m.]: I do not support this amendment. It is a watering down from a Greens amendment that referred to a comprehensive and adequate reserve system. It is one I do not want. It is a brilliant disguise, as far as I am concerned. We saw what happened with the forests. I have grave concerns with this amendment. Whilst the Opposition will not divide on the amendment, it will not support it.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.06 p.m.]: Whilst the Opposition will not divide on this amendment, it has some concerns about this matter. As indicated in the second reading speech, there was an undertaking prior to the election that the
Page 10608
Government would introduce a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine national parks. We understand there have been negotiations between New South Wales Fisheries and the National Parks and Wildlife Service and there seems to have been some sort of compromise arrangement. The Opposition expresses concern that once again the Government has broken another election promise.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [10.08 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3(c)(i), line 15. Insert "(including commercial and recreational fishing)" after "fish".

The objects of this Act need to reflect the fact that comme