Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 24 September 1997, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by Dr Macdonald.

Motion by Mr Aquilina agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow Government business to take precedence of the Address-in-Reply debate at this sitting .

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs), on behalf of Mr Aquilina [10.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for amendments to the Trustee Act 1925. The principal purpose of the amendments is to confer a discretion on trustees to invest in any kind of investment provided that the investment is prudent having regard to the circumstances of the trust. Currently, section 14A of the Trustee Act 1925 sets out a list of securities in which a trustee may invest funds. This list is generally known as the authorised trustee investments list. The Act provides that a trustee may invest funds in any of the securities authorised by the Act, unless the instrument creating the trust expressly prevents him or her from doing so. Of course, a trustee may also invest in securities which are not authorised by the Act, if the instrument creating the trust contains such powers.

The proposed amendments repeal the list of authorised investments and replace it with what might be described as a "prudent person rule", that is, a trustee may invest trust funds in any investment provided that due care, diligence and skill are exercised. The approach adopted with respect to this test is consistent with that taken in legislation in New Zealand, Victoria, South Australia and, more recently, Western Australia, that is, the level of care, diligence and skill required in exercising a power of investment differs in accordance with whether the person acts as a trustee in either a professional capacity or as part of his or her business or employment or is a lay trustee.

The issue of authorised trustee investments was referred to the non-bank financial institutions working group, an officers working party, in 1991 by the Special Premiers Conference. Officers were asked to report to Ministers on whether the list approach - which was then taken in all Australian jurisdictions - should be retained or whether the prudent person approach should be introduced. The report of the working group supported the adoption of the prudent person rule. The Trustee Advisory Committee, an expert body established under the Trustee Act to advise the Attorney General on matters related to trustee investment, has also indicated its support for the adoption of the prudent person rule approach. The concept of the "prudent person" was first laid down in 1830 in the decision of Harvard College v Amory, which states:

All that can be required of a trustee is that he shall conduct himself faithfully and exercise sound discretion. He is to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable outcome, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested.

The abolition of the authorised investments list means that trustees will be able to take advantage of the diversity of financial investment packages available in the current financial market. However, in addition to the standard of care required under the prudent person test, the bill sets out a range of matters to which a trustee must have regard when exercising a power of investment. These include such factors as the risk of capital or income loss or depreciation, tax liability, the nature of the trust and the need to maintain the real value of the capital or
Page 459
income of the trust. In this context, provision has also been included enabling the trustee to obtain independent investment advice and recoup the cost of doing so from trust funds.

The proposed amendments introduce a number of other provisions, which are consistent with legislation adopted in other jurisdictions. These include provisions relating to the powers of trustees in relation to securities, including provision enabling a trustee to concur in a scheme of arrangement for the acquisition of securities or the amalgamation of body corporates. The bill also provides that, in proceedings against a trustee for a breach of trust, the court may take certain matters into account, including the nature and purpose of the trust, whether the trust investments were made pursuant to an investment strategy formulated in accordance with the trustee’s equitable duties under part 2 and the extent to which the trustee acted on the independent and impartial advice.

Provision has also been included in relation to the purchase of a dwelling house for use by a beneficiary. The existing statutory list approach has many shortcomings. It has the potential to mislead the inexperienced trustee and the public because it embodies a basic assumption that the investments included on the list are safe. Further, the list does not indicate which investments are suitable for which type of trust. In addition to the responsibility it imposes upon government to maintain such a list, the inflexibility of the list approach means that in a rapidly changing financial environment many new investment instruments, which are likely to be just as sound by objective criteria, are not available to the responsible trustee.

The existence of the list has also led to the undesirable situation in which deposit or investment bodies lobby government to be included on the list so that they may market their product as "authorised trustee investments". The repeal of this list will do away with this practice. The flexibility and diversification that the prudent person approach brings to investment choices could be considered vital to the wellbeing of any trust fund in today’s economy. I am aware that several other Acts, including the Local Government Act 1993, the Public Trustee Act 1913, the Protected Estates Act 1983, the Legal Profession Act 1987 and the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991, apply the list of authorised investments to other instrumentalities such as charities and local councils.

The investment needs of such organisations vary and the application of the prudent person rule may be inappropriate particularly for bodies dealing with public funds. Further, many private, non-professional trustees and executors rely on the list for guidance for investing relatively small amounts of money for short periods of time and the existence of a list obviates the need for these trustees to obtain expensive professional advice. In order to meet the needs of the organisations and trustees that I have set out, the bill includes transitional provisions so that the list of authorised investments may continue to apply while consideration is given to the investment powers of organisations currently bound by the list.

A regulation-making power has also been introduced to allow for the preparation of a list of investments which may act as a guide for trustees. However, the list, which will be developed in consultation with the Trustee Advisory Committee, will not be mandatory. Many trustees have invested trust funds on the basis of the authorised investments. Trustees will need to review investments following the introduction of the prudent person rule. In order to allow trustees sufficient time to review and reorganise the investment of trust funds, the bill includes a provision to ensure that a trustee cannot be liable for failure to discharge his or her duty as a trustee simply because he or she has invested in securities authorised by the Act for a period of two years after the commencement of the Act. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Downy.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [10.08 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce the Walker Trusts Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to allow distributions to be made from the Walker Trust Fund to the Central Sydney Area Health Service for the purposes of supporting and maintaining the renal dialysis service at the Dame Eadith Walker hospital. The bill also facilitates the use of appropriate parts of the Walker estates as public open space. The Dame Eadith Walker Convalescent Hospital for Men was established by the Walker Trusts Act 1938. Money from the estate of Thomas Walker was distributed from a trust fund to the Central Sydney
Page 460
Area Health Service for the purposes of conducting the hospital. The hospital continued to be used as a convalescent hospital until 1988, when the changing health needs of the population and of convalescent patients rendered the use of this heritage building inappropriate for that purpose. The hospital is now used as a renal dialysis centre where patients are equipped with the knowledge to perform dialysis on themselves.

This change in function of the hospital caused difficulties in the distribution of the trust funds. The Walker Trusts Act specifically states that the trust funds are to be distributed to a convalescent hospital for men. Accordingly, funds could not be distributed to the hospital after it became a renal dialysis unit which provides services for both men and women. To overcome this problem the bill allows the hospital to be used for the provision of public health services. The bill also validates the use of the hospital as a renal dialysis service. This will allow the Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd, which is the trustee of the Walker Trust Fund, to recommence payments from the trust fund to Central Sydney Area Health Service.

The bill also changes the name of the hospital from the Dame Eadith Walker Convalescent Hospital for Men to the Dame Eadith Walker Hospital. The Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd, as trustee of the Walker Trust Fund, has been consulted in relation to this bill. It endorses the amendments which allow the recommencement of payments from the trust fund to the renal dialysis unit at the Dame Eadith Walker Hospital. In addition to these amendments the bill facilitates the use of appropriate parts of the Walker estates housing the Dame Eadith Walker and Thomas Walker convalescent hospitals for open public space. The Walker estates are situated upon the large former land-holdings of Thomas Walker on the harbour at Concord.

The Government is committed to opening areas of the harbour foreshore for the use of the public. Appropriate parts of the Walker estates present opportunities for such public recreation without impeding the use of the hospitals in any way. For example, the Dame Eadith Walker estate, sometimes known as Yaralla, includes large paddock areas and a harbour foreshore walk. The bill facilitates the creation of this open space by inserting a provision in the Act which allows part of the land to be leased or licensed. The Department of Health is currently consulting with the National Parks and Wildlife Service for the most appropriate way to make suitable parts of the Walker estates available to the public. As part of this process it will be ensured that patient care at the hospitals is not adversely affected in any way. The bill provides that any lease or licence granted over the land is not to detrimentally affect the administration of, or the care of patients of, the hospitals.

The main provisions of the bill are as follows. Item [1] amends the Walker Trusts Act to institute the change of name to the Dame Eadith Walker Hospital and to allow it to be used for public health services. Item [2] allows the Minister for Health to direct that a lease or licence be granted over part of the Walker estates. Such a lease or licence may be granted only if the Minister for Health is of the opinion that it will not detrimentally affect the care of patients at the hospitals or the administration of the hospitals. Item [2] also amends the Walker Trusts Act to validate the use of the Dame Eadith Walker Hospital as a renal dialysis unit. The payment of money from the trust fund in respect of the renal dialysis unit is also validated. In closing, this bill allows trust funds once again to be made available for the valuable health care services provided by the Dame Eadith Walker Hospital. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Skinner.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [10.13 a.m.]: The purpose of this legislation is to allow visiting health professionals to provide health care in New South Wales in connection with declared sporting, cultural and other special events without becoming registered under State law. The exemptions are for care to be provided to the relevant overseas team members. The need for the exemptions became apparent when New South Wales was bidding for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. According to my consultation process no-one is opposed to the bill and therefore the coalition will support it.

As I said, the object of the bill is to provide exemptions from registration requirements of a number of pieces of health legislation for health professionals who accompany overseas visitors participating in or training for declared sporting, cultural and other events. Under the provisions of the bill the Minister may declare a sporting, cultural or other relevant event to be a special event, bringing the legislation into effect. This will allow such a practitioner to treat a resident of another
Page 461
country who is in New South Wales in a group to participate in, train or acclimatise for a declared special event.

The bill provides that notice of the person’s intention to provide the health care services must be given. People cannot just arrive here and decide that they want to provide health care services; notice has to be given and due processes have to be followed. Clause 8 authorises a visiting health professional to provide the health care services that she or he was engaged to provide. The exemption operates only during the period specified and the activities that the health professional may provide are limited. Clause 10 provides that the visiting health professional may issue a prescription for a substance classified as a restricted substance or drug of addiction under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 only if authorised to do so by an order of the Minister published in the gazette.

By such an order the Minister may authorise the issuing of written prescriptions for such substances by certain visiting health professionals and may authorise a person or class of persons to fill such a prescription. This is a really important provision. People have raised the issue with me. The clause also enables the Minister to authorise certain suppliers to supply those substances to the visiting health professionals. Clause 11 provides that the visiting health professionals do not commit an offence under a variety of Acts, including the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act, the Dental Technicians Registration Act, the Dentists Act, the Medical Practice Act, the Nurses Act, the Optical Dispensers Act, the Optometrists Act, the Pharmacy Act, the Physiotherapists Registration Act, the Podiatrists Act and the Psychologists Act. This shows that the legislation has a broad effect.

It is important to enable sporting and other teams visiting New South Wales for special events to have access to the type of ongoing care provided to them in their home countries prior to visiting the State. The legislation will also overcome potential difficulties caused by language barriers. The visiting sports men and women and others participating in cultural events may not be able to understand English should they be attended by Australian practitioners because there may be a shortage of practitioners with skills in the native language of the visitors. The bill suits everybody, it has been carefully thought out to cover all eventualities, and I am happy to support it on behalf of the coalition.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [10.19 a.m.]: This legislation, which is long overdue, is necessary to ensure the wellbeing and health care needs of the many overseas visitors New South Wales receives who are part of the myriad performing, artistic, cultural, theatrical, dancing and sporting groups and individuals who contribute to this State’s international reputation as a centre of sports and cultural excellence. The Sydney Olympics planning process has highlighted the need for such legislation. It is obvious that national Olympic teams will bring specialised health professionals with them to New South Wales to care for the wellbeing of their team members. Past legislation has been prohibitive and largely ignored. It would be unreasonable to expect each health care provider to be registered under this State’s relevant health professional Act. However, until now that is what the strict letter of the law has required. Clearly that was impractical and thus was largely ignored.

Proficiency in English is not important for overseas visiting professionals, who will not be providing services to the general public and, naturally, will be required to be suitably registered in their homelands. Overseas experience in the staging of Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games, the America’s Cup and other major sporting events has indicated that this type of legislation is required for the smooth operation of large-scale international events. Moreover, our State health care registration boards would be sorely taxed to handle the administrative nightmare if visiting health professionals were not to be exempt from our registration requirements. This legislation will allow the Minister for Health to make an order declaring a sporting or cultural event as a special event to which the provisions of the bill will apply. The order will specify under clauses the exemption period to apply.

Due notice by overseas health care professionals must be given in accordance with the procedures outlined in clause 5 and clause 7. If a visiting practitioner contravenes his or her order and provides services to the general public, that person can be prosecuted for practising whilst unregistered under the relevant health professional registration Act. The provision of pharmaceutical services deserves attention. Under Federal law practitioners can bring pharmaceuticals into Australia through an exemption to the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. To provide a workable environment, similar exemptions are required to the New South Wales Poisons Amendment (Therapeutic Goods) Act and the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Clause 11 of the bill will enable visiting health professionals to possess, supply and administer pharmaceuticals to team members from their "doctor’s bag" brought into Australia under Commonwealth law exemptions.

Page 462

As the Minister for Health would know some of these medicines are not available in Australia as they are not yet approved by the Therapeutic Goods Division of the Federal health department. How will these drugs be affected? Will the visiting health professionals be able to administer them freely? Could the Minister comment in his reply on drugs that have not received approval within Australia? Will the doctors concerned be able to bring drugs into Australia with special permission from the Federal health department? Consultation and co-operation with locally registered doctors will be required to replenish stocks or obtain additional pharmaceuticals. The organising body of the special event will be responsible for ensuring that such requirements are well known and adhered to.

Sensibly, the Minister for Health will have the power to authorise visiting professionals to write prescriptions and replenish their stocks. Logistically this is sensible when large numbers of performing participants are involved. Naturally, if required, restrictions relating to drug classes and quantity limits will be imposed if deemed necessary. It is reasonable and practical to designate certain pharmacies along with those pharmacists on site at the Homebush Bay Olympic Village to be nominated for the provision of pharmaceutical supplies under the relevant order. In addition, clause 10 of the bill provides for special, easily identifiable prescription pads, which will enable the system to function well. The clause also enables the Minister to authorise certain suppliers to supply substances by wholesale to certain visiting health professionals - logistically practical for large teams or groups.

As a result of this legislation sensible exemptions will be possible under the many health care services Acts regulating medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, chiropractors, osteopaths, optometrists, official dispensers, pharmacists, physiotherapists, podiatrists and psychologists. The registration and operational guidelines of each discipline obviously will need modification to handle international sporting and cultural events. Clause 14 makes it clear that a person who is already registered under a health registration Act will not be limited by the legislation in the practice of his or her profession. Clause 15 allows the Governor to make regulations that create an offence punishable by a penalty not exceeding 10 penalty units - $1,100 from 1 September. Clause 16 will allow proceedings for an offence against the regulations to be dealt with summarily by a Local Court magistrate.

The proposed legislation is workable based on past international experience. It will be reviewed after a period of five years from the date of assent, and a report will be tabled in both Houses within 12 months of the review. The bill has the support of the relevant health care registration boards that I have mentioned as well as the Medical Services Committee, the Australian Olympic Committee health officers, the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Olympic Co-ordination Authority, all of which have assisted in the development of the bill. The coalition does not oppose the bill.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [10.27 a.m.], in reply: I thank members opposite for their support or, as the honourable member for Georges River said, their lack of opposition to the bill. The honourable member asked about the ability of health professionals to supply and possess drugs. I am advised that this matter is addressed in detail in the second reading speech. The Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act already permits practitioners to bring pharmaceuticals into the country. Strict conditions limit this exemption, including a requirement to keep records of supply and administration. To complement these Commonwealth provisions, clause 11 of the bill provides that an offence will not be committed by visiting professionals when they possess or supply and administer to their team members drugs from their "doctor’s bag" brought into the country under the Commonwealth exemption.

There will be no general arrangements to allow practitioners to be supplied with additional pharmaceuticals to replenish their stocks, nor will practitioners be able to write prescriptions for drugs. This ensures there is no potential for drugs to be inappropriately used or stockpiled. However, this is not an absolute restriction. Clause 10 provides that when the organising body of the special event is able to establish that it has adequate arrangements in place to ensure that drugs will be prescribed only for and supplied to team members, I as Minister for Health when making an order under clause 5 can authorise visiting practitioners to write prescriptions and replenish their supplies.

In considering whether to grant such an authorisation, the need for conditions will be given careful consideration. In particular it may be appropriate for conditions to be imposed that limit the class of drugs that may be prescribed or the quantity of a drug that may be supplied to a medical practitioner. If no arrangements are put in place to permit prescribing rights to be granted under clause 10, visiting health professionals will need to consult with a local medical practitioner if a prescription is required.

Page 463

The honourable member for Georges River asked also whether doctors would be able to bring illegal drugs into Australia. My answer is that they will not, even if those drugs are legal in their own country. I do not agree with the honourable member for Georges River in her condemnation of her colleagues the former two health Ministers for the tardiness of the bill. I support the work they had done. Certainly I welcome the lack of opposition by the Opposition.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 18 September.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [10.28 a.m.]: I lead for, and will be the only speaker for, the Opposition on this bill. However, that does not mean that it is not important. The bill will amend the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Act 1978 by transferring to the Act an offence currently in the by-laws of unlawful entry to the playing field and increasing the maximum penalty for that offence from one penalty unit to 50 penalty units. I understand that the monetary equivalent is in the region of $5,500. The bill will also increase the maximum penalty that a by-law can impose for a breach of the by-laws from one penalty unit to 10 penalty units, or a penalty of about $1,100, and for the issue of penalty notices in respect of offences against the by-laws or the Act as an alternative to court proceedings. When the Minister laid the bill on the table at the end of the last session I jokingly made light of it by saying that such legislation had become necessary because the cricket last season was so boring that it had generated an outbreak of streaking and other unsociable behaviour at the cricket ground.

There is a far more serious side to this bill and the reason for it being introduced. Last year, for the first time in many years, an outbreak of quite unreasonable antisocial behaviour, including many instances of streaking and drunken and loutish behaviour, occurred at the Sydney Cricket Ground during the day-night series. Many people I know who attended those matches at the cricket ground were quite disgusted with the behaviour that took place, particularly on the hill. The Government should be congratulated on taking the bit between the teeth and taking what I and the Opposition regard as quite reasonable action to eliminate that sort of behaviour. Whether members are in government or in opposition they will be aware that the community does not tolerate the sort of behaviour that took place at the cricket ground last year.

The provisions of this bill can be regarded only as being quite reasonable. From that point of view the Minister should be congratulated, as should the working party that was set up, the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Police Service and the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust, which instigated these amendments. The reasonable attitude taken and the fairly realistic solutions to the problem that have been encapsulated in the bill contrast with what happened at the time of the incident I have referred to regarding some of the Minister’s ministerial colleagues. In some ways it was quite amusing to see other Ministers, who probably should have kept out of the whole debate, falling over themselves in an attempt to outdo each other in terms of toughness. For example, the Minister for Gaming and Racing indicated that he would introduce a special light beer to the cricket ground and that he had sent in his inspectors to police the cricket ground and its bars to ensure that the cricket ground trust was doing what it should do in a legal and responsible manner.

Frankly, as a former Minister for Sport and Recreation who had responsibility for the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust, I regarded that as an insult to the integrity of the staff who work at the Sydney Cricket Ground and to the management of that ground. I believe that the management of the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust does an excellent job in trying to control antisocial behaviour and cope with the crowds that attend cricket and football matches. Anyone who has seen the security set-up at the Sydney Cricket Ground and Sydney Football Stadium could not fail to be impressed by the way in which the trust manages those facilities. From that point of view I had a bit of a laugh at some of the comments made by the colleagues of the Minister for Sport and Recreation.

This legislation is necessary. No matter what legislation is introduced, no matter how heavy one makes the fines, there will always be some hoons who will try to outdo each other in antisocial behaviour. On a lighter note, I should say that the Kiwis are coming to play one-day cricket this season and we will see some really exciting cricket. However, I have no doubt that we will still get the hoons to those matches. They will cop big fines this summer if they indulge in the antisocial behaviour that has occurred in the past. I suppose it all gets down to the fans exercising a little self-restraint and thinking about all the others who are at the game,
Page 464
particularly the mums and dads who take their kids to the cricket, or the football, or whatever it might be. Those people want to see the game and want to enjoy themselves; they do not want these idiots wrecking their day. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation and congratulates the Minister on introducing it.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [10.34 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Sutherland for his contribution to the debate and his co-operation and support for the bill. The Government certainly wants to make the Sydney Cricket Ground and the Sydney Football Stadium places where it is safe to take a family. However, I take issue with some of the comments made by the honourable member about other Government Ministers and the Government. At no stage have we ever not supported the integrity or competence of the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Trust workers. Perhaps the honourable member was using a little poetic licence in making those comments.

The Government has worked closely with the trust on a number of initiatives to combat unruly behaviour. It believes that the measures detailed in the bill will be a successful deterrent to antisocial behaviour. A number of government agencies, including the Police Service and the Department of Gaming and Racing, will, of course, monitor those measures very closely this season. It is just and right that the progress of the bill be monitored. I also point out that 50 penalty units earns a penalty of $5,500. When the bill was originally introduced one penalty unit equated to $100, but as from 1 September one penalty unit now earns a penalty of $110, an increase of $10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 23 September.

Ms HALL (Swansea) [10.36 a.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak in the Address-in-Reply to the Governor’s Speech given at the opening of the New South Wales Parliament last Tuesday. The Governor’s Speech highlighted issues of great importance not only for this State but for the whole of Australia. The Government acknowledges the impact of jobs and security on our community and the need for governments to address those issues. The Governor highlighted the difference between the Carr Government’s legislative program and the economic rationalist approach of the Federal Government, with its slash-and-burn mentality.

The Governor referred to this Government’s proud record in supporting Aboriginal people. In the last session of this Parliament the Carr Government introduced resolutions supporting Aboriginal reconciliation and an unconditional apology was given on behalf of the Parliament and the people of New South Wales for the policies of previous governments which led to the generation of stolen children - an episode in Australia’s history that was shameful and an act that every Australian should be ashamed of. It is something that I am sorry ever happened, and I am appalled at the sorrow and hardship that it has caused to Aboriginal people and families. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Australia could not bring himself to apologise to the Aboriginal people of this country.

Nothing could more visually demonstrate the difference between a Carr Labor Government that will take responsibility for the acts of the past and move to see that history does not repeat itself and a Howard Liberal Government that is self-righteous and will not move to right the wrongs of the past. The Howard Federal Government continues to attack Aboriginal people through its 10-point plan to legislate to amend the Native Title Act. If such amending legislation is enacted, the Carr Labor Government will respond to that heartless legislation of the Howard Government. It is 2½ years since I was elected to the New South Wales Parliament to represent the people of the Swansea electorate as a member of the Labor Government - a Government that is a true Labor Government delivering services to the people of Swansea and New South Wales and a Government that cares for workers, families and the people in our community, including those who are most disadvantaged.

The Carr Government is committed to delivering a high standard of health care to all people in New South Wales and a quality education to all our children - not only those who can afford to attend private schools, like those who live in the electorate of the honourable member for Vaucluse. It is a Government that has acted to improve the literacy level of children in this State and created a safe environment in which they can learn. The Carr Labor Government has supported the development of regional New South Wales and is dedicated to creating jobs and providing a safe environment for all workers. This is in stark contrast to the Howard Federal Government, which has adopted policies that attack Medicare and universal health care. The Federal Government refuses to fund literacy
Page 465
programs in schools, attacks child care, abolishes jobs, is working to lower the wages of workers and slashes health care dollars to New South Wales.

The coalition Government in Canberra is committed to attacking the people of New South Wales and causing deep division in our society. In contrast, the Carr Labor Government is committed to ensuring that all people in New South Wales have access to health care. That is in contrast to the Howard coalition Government, which believes access to health care is a privilege, not a right. The health care needs of people with money are met; if people do not have money for health care that is their bad luck. The health care priorities of the Howard coalition Government have led to $1.7 billion being given to private health funds and $800 million being taken away from public hospitals in Australia. This has resulted in public hospitals in New South Wales being ravaged by these heartless policies and changes to health funding.

The reduction in Medicare payments in 1997-98 has cost New South Wales $40 million, yet in this cost-cutting environment the New South Wales Minister for Health has continued to provide a quality health care service to the people of this State. He has achieved this quality health service when the Federal Government is shifting the cost of providing health to New South Wales by slashing funds and abolishing such programs as the Commonwealth dental scheme, which has cost this State $34 million. Never has there been a greater contrast than that between the Carr Labor Government and its commitment to quality health care for everyone in New South Wales, and the Howard Government’s commitment to look after its friends in the private health insurance industry and provide health care to those who can pay.

The Carr Labor Government is the first State government to recognise the importance of providing quality health care for those who live in regional New South Wales. Recently the New South Wales Minister for Health increased health funding to regional New South Wales, thus enabling those who live outside Sydney, including those in the Swansea electorate, to access the highest quality health care close to their home. Both the Hunter and the central coast have benefited from this increase in funding, with the Hunter receiving an additional $12.6 million and the central coast receiving an additional $12.4 million. An even greater strain will be placed on our public hospital system as a result of the Federal Government’s decision to introduce entry fees for elderly and disabled people who are forced to enter nursing homes. These fees will be in the vicinity of $20,000 for persons with liquid assets of more than $5,000. People with money will be able to buy a place in a nursing home and will gain entry to the best nursing homes, while those who do not have a spare $20,000 will be forced to sell their homes; and while they await the sale of their homes they will be forced to be cared for in the State’s public hospitals.

It is a sad state of affairs when we as a community cannot care for the frail, the aged and the disabled in our community. Shame, Mr Howard! It is time the Federal Government stopped penalising the most disadvantaged in our community. Those for whom a government should care should not be penalised. It is impossible for this State to provide specialist geriatric medical care for people in our public hospitals. These people need nursing home care. Not only is it unfair to nursing home clients but it is unfair to the rest of the community, who will be denied access to the State’s public hospitals because our hospitals will be caring for people who should be in nursing homes but who cannot afford to pay the entry fees or are waiting for their family homes to be sold. Mr Howard and his coalition colleagues need to rethink their cruel, uncaring, harsh decision to penalise the elderly and the sick in New South Wales. No State government can pick up the Federal Government’s responsibility for the elderly in our community without being given resources to provide the services.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! People in the public gallery should turn off their mobile phones while in the Parliament.

Ms HALL: The Carr Labor Government has made a real commitment to the women of New South Wales. An action plan for women has been developed which sets goals, objectives and time frames to achieve those goals. As a result of this plan, the Government has established a council on violence against women and released a report by the pay equity task force which looks at the undervaluation of women’s work. Once again, this is in contrast to the Howard Government, which has targeted women and women’s services, and sought to abolish the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The Federal colleagues of the honourable member for Georges River showed that they thought women had some rights. I wish the Liberal women in this State Parliament would get behind women’s services and see what they can do to help this Government, instead of trying to abolish women’s services.

Mr Howard has betrayed all those who voted for his party at the last election. Not only has he attacked health care and education; he has made child care a luxury. Before the 1995 election he promised to maintain the non-means tested child-care cash rebate and the child-care assistance
Page 466
system, and said that he had no plans to change operational subsidies to community-based long day care. He has broken those promises to the people of Australia and the people of New South Wales. Since being elected the coalition Government in Canberra has reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent the level of child-care cash rebates for families with incomes above the family tax initiative threshold. It has also capped and frozen child-care assistance, placed a ceiling on child-care cash rebates for two years and abolished operational subsidies for community long day care.

Yesterday in this House members heard about the devastating impact that is having on our community. These attacks on child care are a direct attack on women and families. They restrict the right and opportunity for women to pursue careers and earn incomes, and they penalise those in greatest need. Rather than encouraging women to become self-sufficient and recognising that they have a right to a career, the Howard Government is forcing women back into the home because of the cost and availability of child care. This in turn is causing hardship for families. Under the Howard coalition Government women are becoming second-class citizens and are being pushed back into the kitchen. That is in contrast to the approach of the Carr Labor Government, which is to encourage women to feel safe and reach their potential. The Carr Labor Government recognises the value of the work women perform in their community. The Federal Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Dr Kemp, was quick to criticise the literacy levels of school students and slow to provide assistance to improve their literacy levels. Indeed, Dr Kemp has threatened to punish those schools that fail to meet literacy standards.

Ms Ficarra: And so he should.

Ms HALL: The member for St George says, "And so he should."

Ms Ficarra: Georges River. It will be St George tomorrow.

Ms HALL: The honourable member for Georges River has indicated her intention to run for the seat of St George.

Ms Ficarra: If there is one after the Labor redistribution.

Ms HALL: The honourable member for Georges River supports Dr Kemp in his attack on those in our community with poor literacy levels. Rather than help them to attain a high literacy level, they want to punish people. Once again this is in stark contrast to the policy of the Carr Labor Government. The Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. J. J. Aquilina, has increased the number of literacy teachers and resources for those schools where students have poor literacy levels, which is an excellent approach. Commonsense dictates that if students attending a particular school have poor literacy skills, the problem should be addressed by providing more resources, not by penalising those already disadvantaged schools and students. The big-stick approach does not work in socially and educationally disadvantaged areas; only increased resources, intense programs and caring, dedicated teachers will help.

The Howard Government’s approach to education mirrors its approach to everything: it attacks those who are most disadvantaged. It believes that those from advantaged backgrounds deserve more while those from a disadvantaged background deserve punishment. The haves should have more, the have-nots should have less, while the average worker should be kept where he or she is and receive less rather than more. His Excellency the Governor acknowledged that New South Wales continues to lead Australia in economic growth and business investment. New South Wales has the second-lowest unemployment rate in Australia as a result of the State Government’s pro-active approach to encouraging business to establish, relocate and develop in our State. Once again, this is in sharp contrast to the Howard Government, which has cut research and development funding and has implemented policies that have led to high unemployment.

The Swansea electorate is part of both the Hunter and central coast regions, with a higher unemployment rate than both the Australian and New South Wales average. The Carr Government recognises the requirements of the region I represent and has been quick to introduce programs to address the unemployment needs of the area, with a strong commitment to regionalism. On the other hand, the Howard coalition Government has abolished the Regional Development Fund, which was to provide $150 million over four years to regional areas.

The Carr Government is committed to promoting regional development and jobs in regional New South Wales, whereas the Howard Government has withdrawn funds from regional Australia and reduced regional jobs. This is graphically illustrated in the different approaches adopted by the Carr Labor Government and the Howard coalition Government when BHP announced closure of its steelworks in Newcastle. On the one hand, Premier Bob Carr came straight to the Hunter to offer his support to the region and assess the impact on jobs
Page 467
and the community. Within days of the BHP announcement, he announced the setting up of the $10 million Hunter Advantage Fund. [Extension of time agreed to.]

On the other hand, Mr Howard and his Ministers were too busy to visit the region until much later. Mr Howard eventually found his way to the Hunter in mid-July, three months after BHP’s announcement in April about the closure. No wonder people in the Hunter are disillusioned with the Howard Government. The Carr Government is committed to creating jobs whilst the Federal Government is determined to abolish jobs. The Federal Government is intending to abolish 30,000 public sector jobs by 1998, with a large percentage being in regional New South Wales. In the Hunter a number of public sector jobs have already been abolished. Swansea electorate is in the Federal electorate of Shortland, and the Federal Government has already closed Belmont Commonwealth Employment Service. Also, it has announced that the Belmont Medicare office is due to close soon and that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, where I worked prior to being elected as a member of Parliament - an office that services the entire Lake Macquarie local government area - is scheduled to close on 1 January 1998.

If the problem of unemployment is to be resolved, government intervention is necessary. The Government must make a commitment to create jobs, in particular in regional New South Wales. The approach adopted by the Howard coalition Government will only lead to hardship and division in our community, a community where some people, such as honourable members opposite, live in luxury while others find survival a struggle. The State Government has a proud industrial relations record and promised to introduce new industrial relations laws to make workplaces fairer. The Carr Government has repealed the former coalition Government’s 1991 Industrial Relations Act, replacing it with a new, user-friendly piece of legislation developed through extensive consultation with all sections of the community, something to which honourable members opposite are not accustomed. It is legislation designed to work and benefit everyone, not one section of the community at the expense of another.

There is no greater contrast between the Howard coalition Government and the Carr Labor Government than in the area of industrial relations. The Federal Government is intent on destroying the union movement and the award system and removing workers’ rights to work in a safe workplace and receive fair payment for their work. On the other hand, the Carr Government is intent on providing a safe, fair workplace, with workers receiving just reward for their work. It will continue to create an equitable, caring and safe environment for the people of New South Wales through its legislative program, which will foster growth in regional New South Wales and jobs throughout the State. This Government will create an environment where all schoolchildren have access to quality education and where public hospitals provide health care for everyone.

In conclusion, I should like to spend some time illustrating the benefits that have flowed to the Swansea electorate since Labor came to government. This Government has delivered on its promises to the people of my electorate. It has committed $1.5 million to rehabilitate and restore land on the foreshore of Lake Macquarie. For years my constituents have fought to have that land returned to the people of the region. When I was a councillor on Lake Macquarie City Council the Fahey State Government was asked to assist in the purchase of land at Green Point, but it refused. It would provide funds only if massive development was allowed in the area, development that would further destroy the lake environment. The coalition opposed the creation of the Lake Macquarie foreshore park. The honourable member for Lake Macquarie, Jeff Hunter, was pro-active in the establishment of that foreshore park and since Labor came to office his dream has come to fruition. My hope is that one day the Green Point foreshore park will be included in the Lake Macquarie foreshore park.

Belmont District Hospital, which was built in the 1960s, has needed capital works for some time but, unfortunately, the former coalition Government ignored its needs. If the coalition had been re-elected Belmont hospital may have even been closed. However, since the Carr Government came to office it has embarked on a series of capital works programs. An ultrasound machine has been purchased and installed in the hospital and trained staff have been employed to operate it. The Government has acknowledged the importance of Lake Macquarie. It has completed studies of the fish stock in the lake. Lake Macquarie City Council is currently in the process of finalising a management plan for the lake. When that management plan is completed I am sure the Government will offer support to the council to address the neglect of the previous Government.

In 1995 my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Lake Macquarie and I organised and conducted the first Lake Macquarie environmental forum. That forum was addressed by the Premier, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Minister for Fisheries, and key
Page 468
environmental experts. Action was taken following that forum and everyone in the local area has worked towards improving the environment of Lake Macquarie. We are in the process of organising the next forum, which will be held either at the end of this year or early next year. The Carr Government has announced that two new schools will be built on the central coast, one of them at Lake Munmorah in the Swansea electorate. I am certain that would not have happened under a coalition government, because coalition members disregard the needs of areas such as the Swansea electorate and look after their friends who live in Vaucluse and the other elite areas of the State.

The previous coalition Government removed police from Swansea police station. The Carr Government has overturned that decision and from July this year officers have been back on duty at Swansea police station from Monday to Friday. All these initiatives in the Swansea electorate are in stark contrast to what the Howard Government has done for the people of Swansea. It has cut services; it has targeted pensioners, who will not receive any increase in their pensions in September; child care is becoming a luxury rather than being affordable for everyone; and redundancies are becoming the order of the day. Once a job disappears, it has gone forever. Education and universities are being targeted by the Carr Government.

If the Howard Government is allowed to continue on its present path, the education system will return to the way it was in the 1960s: only the privileged will be able to attend university. Children of battlers and average workers such as those in the electorate of Swansea will not be able to attend university. Job creation programs have disappeared, funds have been slashed from the SkillShare program, health dollars to the States have been cut, nursing homes have been attacked, and the provisions governing superannuation have been changed. The list goes on and on. The average Australian living in New South Wales has been targeted by the cruel Howard Government, and that is in stark contrast to the caring, pro-active approach of the Carr Labor Government.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [11.03 a.m.]: It is a pleasure for me to take part in the Address-in-Reply to the Governor’s Speech. I want to ask the honourable member for Swansea when she is emigrating to another country, because her remarks would lead one to believe that this country is in a state of total disaster. On behalf of the people of the Barwon electorate I extend my sympathy and condolences to the family of Diana, Princess of Wales, and to the families and friends of the victims of the Thredbo disaster. I also express regret at the death of Mother Teresa, who was a saint in her lifetime and will be remembered around the world.

Barwon is the third-largest electorate in New South Wales. The lifestyle of those who live in the Barwon electorate is different from those who live in other electorates because of the vast area covered by the electorate. We have different priorities and problems to those who live in city electorates. Barwon is an agricultural electorate and is a major contributor to the wealth of New South Wales because of its exports of beef, wool, wheat, cotton, legumes and coal. One of the biggest problems in my electorate is the large number of unsealed roads. The Carr Government has not addressed that problem; it has reduced road funding throughout rural New South Wales by 20 per cent. Recently the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, which is a union of Labor mates, approached the Premier about the construction of a tunnel at Murrurundi to allow coal, wheat and cotton trains from the north-west hauling 86 wagons access to the port of Newcastle. That proposal has been put on hold, and consequently the rail capacity in the Barwon electorate is half that of the Hunter Valley.

The Government has failed to encourage and support the development of transport infrastructure. It has drained resources from rural communities to prop up overpopulated, overfunded Labor electorates in the Sydney metropolitan area. The closure of the Biological and Chemical Research Institute and the veterinary laboratories resulted in the loss of 700 jobs. The honourable member for Swansea spoke at some length about education. The Carr Labor Government has ripped 200 teachers out of the bush and relocated them to Sydney. No wonder kids in our State are experiencing problems with reading and writing. In a country such as this, that is a national disgrace. It is obvious that the power in the education system has been taken from the regions and returned to the desk of the Minister. Decisions are no longer made in the bush. That is a backward step.

The Department of Land and Water Conservation has had 400 employees taken from it. Recently the Minister crowed that 50 of those jobs had been returned to the bush. He claimed that was a step forward, but the figures represent a net loss to the bush of 350 employees. The Government has failed the people of the bush. The honourable member for Swansea and other speakers in the debate have blamed the Federal Government for cutting health service funding. Health services in New South Wales were in a state of disaster and decay long before those opposite started blaming the Federal Government. The sacking of the manager of the New England Public Health Unit, David Briggs,
Page 469
is the subject of an inquiry that will reveal some interesting facts.

In regard to law and order, the squeaky wheel gets all the grease so far as the Carr Labor Government is concerned. The New South Wales town with the worst per capita record for crimes of violence is Bourke, Walgett is second and Moree third. I have not heard the Commissioner of Police, the Minister for Police, the Premier or any member from the Government side of the House mention those three towns. Obviously they simply do not care; the problem is too hard for them. Regrettably, the Minister for Sport and Recreation is not at the table. I intended to ask her to increase sport and recreation grants in real terms because the funding for sport in my electorate has been slowly reduced during the time she has been the responsible Minister.

The Government has also failed the people of New South Wales in relation to the supply of electricity. A huge question mark still hangs over domestic users in this State. Will they receive cheaper power in the future? I very much doubt it. There is an old saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The Premier has spoken about New South Wales industrial firms receiving cheaper power, but those savings must be offset by increases somewhere else. Looking at my electricity bills, I believe I am offsetting those savings. The Premier has broken 374 promises and will continue to break promises. The proposed reduction of the number of electorates represented in this House from 99 to 93 is a desperate trick by a desperate Premier, and I believe the proposal will fail. The Government has failed the people of New South Wales and I look forward with great relish to the change of government in 1999.

Mr MOSS (Canterbury) [11.10 a.m.]: On the opening day of this session it was a pleasant change to see the Governor not wearing a uniform when he attended Parliament. The Governor made a candid Speech and did not mince words. I was pleased to hear him commend this Government for its apology to the stolen Aboriginal generation. I was pleased also to hear him use the word "so-called" when he referred to the Federal Government’s efficiency dividends. They are, of course, so-called efficiency dividends. In reality they are tantamount to massive funding cuts by the ruthless Federal Government. The Governor pointed out that this State has lost $31 million in public housing funding and $7 million in funding for vocational education and training. The Governor concluded his address appropriately by calling on us all to show leadership in the never-ending fight against intolerance and ignorance. All in all the Governor’s Speech was certainly the best I have heard since becoming a member of this Parliament.

The Governor referred in his Speech to budget provisions for road improvements. The Government can stand proud of its record on roadworks and road funding. I am particularly pleased with the Government’s recent courageous decision to complete the extension of the M5 through to Port Botany. For some years the road has been at a standstill at Beverly Hills. For many years there has been a good deal of procrastination about completing the road. The Wran Government decided that the road would proceed to Beverly Hills and that later it would continue along the designated corridor in the Wolli Creek area. That plan generated a great deal of opposition, and still does. The Unsworth Government suggested that a viaduct should be built over Wolli Creek. That suggestion produced so much opposition that the Greiner Government, true to form, sat back and did nothing. The Fahey Government suggested the construction of a tunnel.

The Carr Government has not only decided to build the road; it has refined the suggestion of the Fahey Government by proposing to extend the tunnel a considerable distance and diverting it away from the Wolli Creek. Since the most recent environmental impact statement about the proposed extension was released in January, my colleague the honourable member for Hurstville and I have managed to gain significant concessions in relation to the initial plan. For example, the road will now be built under King Georges Road at Beverly Hills. That will be a great relief to many residents in the Roselands-Beverly Hills region. I have managed also to secure east-bound access to the expressway at the Kingsgrove Road intersection. That is great achievement for the residents of my electorate.

Under the initial plan contained in the EIS residents in the eastern end of the Canterbury electorate in suburbs such as Hurlstone Park, Canterbury, Campsie and Earlwood would have had to have travelled along King Georges Road to Roselands to access the M5. Some people argue that the road will be wonderful: a driver will be able to start in Melbourne and travel all the way to Port Botany or Mascot airport. That is all very well for those living in Victoria, but for those living adjacent to the road in the south-western suburbs of the Canterbury electorate there was no way of accessing the motorway to travel to the airport, Port Botany or the city. That has now been changed, and I am particularly grateful for those changes.

Other problems still need to be overcome. One particular problem is the flyover that is still planned
Page 470
for the Kingsgrove Road intersection. I have opposed the flyover all along. It is argued that the road must run over Kingsgrove Road rather than under it because of potential flooding. I am not an engineering expert, but I have lived in the region all my life and I do not recall ever being precluded from crossing the road corridor at the Kingsgrove Road intersection. Although flooding is a possibility, in this day and age, with the engineering expertise of the Roads and Traffic Authority, the road can be constructed under Kingsgrove Road in such a way as to prevent flooding. I have been given estimates that an additional $15 million will be required to construct the road under Kingsgrove Road and to provide flood mitigation works at that location. I shall continue to support that proposal.

An issue of great concern is the proposed chimney stack at Henderson Street, Turrella. Some argue that an additional environmental impact statement about the chimney stack is not needed because the 1994 EIS dealt with it. The problem is that the 1994 EIS also dealt with the location of a chimney stack in Earlwood. The current proposal allows for only one stack to be located at Henderson Street, Turrella. To my way of thinking one chimney stack will have twice the amount of emissions of two chimney stacks. For that reason, I cannot understand how it can argued that another EIS is not necessary because the Henderson Street proposal has already been dealt with. It has indeed been dealt with, but in a completely different context. I hope that a further EIS will be prepared in relation to the proposed chimney stack at Turrella, but my main concern is that the stack should be relocated.

I have suggested to the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning that a more ideal location for the stack is Lusty Street, Arncliffe. Once the Government starts arguing for another site it is accused of wanting to push the problem into another electorate. I point out that the proposed stack is not in my electorate. I firmly believe that the alternative site I have suggested is better, because it would have zero visual and pollution residential impact. The area I have suggested is on the edge of an industrial estate and is surrounded by the East Hills and Illawarra railway lines. It would also be close to the proposed Wolli interchange station and a number of car yards which are situated along the Princes Highway.

The closest houses are approximately 300 metres away, whereas under the Henderson Street proposal homes are 150 metres away. For those reasons I hope that the stack is relocated, and I know the Government is seriously considering that proposal. While I am speaking about roads, I want to refer briefly to the Cooks River county road reservation, which I believe will be lifted when construction of the M5 extension finally proceeds. I say that because last year I received a letter from the Roads and Traffic Authority which stated that once the RTA proceeded with the M5 it would turn its attention to abandoning the Cooks River county road reservation. In a publication dated December 1993 entitled "M5 East Update" the RTA categorically stated:

Did you know?

If the M5 East goes ahead, the Cooks River road reservation would be lifted.

I intend to hold the RTA to that promise, because it has always been my contention that if the Cooks River county road reservation were ever used, it would spell the death knell for the Cooks River Valley; the Cooks River would become nothing more than a stormwater drain adjacent to a four-lane expressway. That would have a devastating effect on the region. In his Speech the Governor referred to health, as he always does. The new Innerwest Hospital in my electorate is both on budget and ahead of time. It was due to commence providing some services by mid-1998. It now seems that services will commence six months ahead of time, that is, early in 1998. That is a tremendous effort by the Government.

In July this year I took part in an exciting inspection of the new hospital with the Minister for Health. It was great to see that 75 per cent of the work on the new hospital is completed, so much so that the workers were out with paint brushes while others were laying electricity cables. At the inspection the Minister pointed out that in 1995-96 Canterbury Hospital dealt with 9,800 admissions. It is anticipated that the new facility will deal with approximately 14,500 admissions. That is a tremendous increase. The figure of 9,800 interested me. It demonstrated that the Government does not ignore local areas when it builds new hospitals.

The provision of health services on the Canterbury Hospital site continued while construction of the new hospital was under way. A ward and operating facilities are also available at Concord hospital that have been designated for the use of Canterbury Hospital while the new hospital is under construction. The facilities at the hospital have been mentioned before, so I will not repeat them. At this new hospital great emphasis is being placed on women and children. That is important, given the nature of the Canterbury area. For example, the paediatric ward will have 20 beds; obstetrics-maternity wards will have 22 beds; four neonatal cots will be provided; and the old and famous
Page 471
Tresillian facility, which deals with post-natal matters, is to be transferred to the Innerwest Hospital. That Tresillian facility will have 14 beds, and is great news for the women and children in the local area.

It is also important to point out that, because of the referral links to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the Concord Repatriation General Hospital, which is situated within the same region, a full range of specialist services will be available through Canterbury Hospital. The residents of my electorate will have access to a full range of services provided through the important community health services network. Traffic and roads connected to the hospital have presented some problems. At this stage the Roads and Traffic Authority believes there is no need to provide additional facilities. However, I continue to support the provision of a right-turn lane at the intersection of Canterbury Road and Thorncraft Parade.

It is argued that traffic management measures will be implemented when traffic conditions warrant their introduction. One does not have to be an expert to realise that the new hospital will be a great deal larger than the former facility. More patients will attend the new hospital and, therefore, there will be more visitors. The new hospital will have a larger number of staff. Provision is made on the new site for off-street parking, but the new hospital will generate a large amount of additional traffic. I believe that the traffic management conditions I referred to earlier will be warranted the minute the new hospital opens and that additional traffic measures around the site should now be implemented. I continue to support the need for such measures.

I commend the Government for the way it has restructured police districts throughout the State. Twenty-five police districts have now been reduced to 11 regions, and 164 patrols have now been reduced to 80 local area commands. The number of patrols virtually have been halved, and that amounts to a cut to the Police Service. However, it is the right sort of cut: it is a cut to the bureaucratic structure of the Police Service. That makes sense, because, as the Minister has pointed out, the massive restructure of police services has resulted in almost 1,000 extra police being taken from behind desks and returned to policing duties within the community. [Extension of time agreed to.]

It has been pointed out recently that the Government has ensured that police numbers have increased by 441 since it came to office. My electorate now has within its boundaries two region and four area commands. I have received great co-operation from the area commanders, whose assistance has been nothing short of excellent. The Ashfield command, which takes in the lower end of Canterbury electorate, has responsibility for the suburbs of Hurlstone Park, Canterbury and Earlwood, and I am pleased to say that an additional police station has been allocated to that area. In the past those three suburbs were serviced by a police station at Canterbury: today they are being serviced by a police station at Ashfield and a full-time station at Earlwood.

I have previously referred to the opening of the Earlwood police station. The Carr Government was responsible for the reopening of Earlwood police station as a shopfront police station. Now, because of the restructure of the Police Service, that shopfront station has become a 24-hour police station and has been widely appreciated by the local community. I am very grateful to Lola Scott and to the regional commander, Warren Fletcher, not only for recognising the need but also for doing something about it, which they certainly have done. The main requirement of the Campsie command is a new police station. As is the case with many older police stations, Campsie police station was built to cater for the courthouse, not for people. It is built in the backblocks of the suburbs and is surrounded by houses.

The courthouse now operates only as a children’s care court and there is no need for the police station to be attached to it. Although the police station continues to operate, it is really in the wrong part of Campsie. Police stations should be located near shopping centres and in areas where people congregate, because that is where criminal activity most frequently occurs. A police presence helps to deter criminals. A plan is being considered to sell the Campsie police station site and use the proceeds to move the facility further into the Campsie area, preferably into the shopping centre. It may be that when a new police station is established at Campsie it will be a shopfront station - but a shopfront operating 24-hours a day. I support that move and would be happy to see it come to fruition. I know that John Honeysett, the commander of the Campsie region, is anxious to relocate in the interests of providing a better service.

The Government announced recently that an inquiry will be held into the New South Wales Police and Community Youth Clubs movement. When that inquiry was announced there was a perception in the community that the Government was seeking to downgrade Police and Community Youth Clubs, but nothing could be further from the
Page 472
truth. The Government is fulfilling the recommendation of Commissioner Wood that there be an independent review of police clubs; that any review focus on issues such as the role of police working in those clubs and their administration; and that the review also examine the structure, management and effectiveness of police club programs. That is what the review will do. The Minister for Police said that he hopes the inquiry will improve this valuable service. It certainly is a valuable service.

The Canterbury electorate has a very large Police and Community Youth Club. In fact, there are 55 clubs in this State with a membership of approximately 70,000 young people. Our club is doing a tremendous job in the Canterbury area, particularly with young boys or young men who seem to have an excess amount of testosterone. Instead of being on the streets they are in the club playing indoor sports, exercising and learning a bit of discipline and respect for others. The Government will not ignore the needs of those young people. I too hope that the inquiry will improve this very valuable service.

Last week I lodged in this Chamber a petition signed by approximately 780 citizens relating to the restoration and preservation of the famous Canterbury sugar works. One aspect of the petition particularly interested me greatly. The petition calls on the Government to ensure that a proper use is found for the sugar works building, with emphasis on a public rather than a private use. That is a laudable suggestion of the petitioners but I have to say it is a very tall order, because the building is privately owned and it would be difficult to ask the Government to insist that it be used for public rather than private purposes.

Having said that, I would point out that since a fire at the sugar works some years ago - which completely gutted the building and took off the roof - there has been a considerable amount of friction between the owner of the building and Canterbury City Council, the local planning authority. The owner wants to develop the area around the site and has had considerable trouble getting his development approved, so much so that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning set up a commission of inquiry to determine the ideal development for the site. In my most recent letter to the Premier about this building, I pointed out that, in view of the current controversy between the owner of the building and the council, and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning with respect to the proposed surrounding development, it may well be that the owner would be happy to negotiate the disposal of the building. I do not know if that is the case, but it may well be.

I have been assured by the Secretary of the Ministry for the Arts and by the Ethnic Affairs Commission that my views are to be taken into account with respect to the sugar works building when the Government establishes a museum of immigration. That has been my suggestion for the use of this building if the Government were able to acquire it. In July last year the Premier announced that a museum of immigration would be established in this State within a few years. I do not know of a more appropriate building than the Canterbury sugar works, for a number of reasons. It is a very old building and that makes it a very historic building. In fact, it is the oldest pre-gold rush industrial building in New South Wales. The building is also associated with migrants and thus would be appropriate for an immigration museum.

Canterbury sugar works was built by Scottish stonemasons, who were among the first wave of immigrants to come to this country. Building commenced in the 1830s and was completed in the early 1840s. It is situated on the banks of Cooks River, which of course is a famous river because Captain Cook sailed down it. If that building were to house the museum of immigration, we may also get some improvements to Cooks River. That is the method in my madness, I suppose. There are very good public transport links to the site and excellent off-street parking facilities. The main reason that I would like to see this building converted into a museum of immigration - bearing in mind that it is privately owned - is that the Canterbury electorate is the most multicultural and ethnically diverse electorate in New South Wales. In my view the Canterbury sugar works would be an excellent site on which to establish a museum. I am grateful to the Ministry for the Arts and to the Ethnic Affairs Commission for taking my views seriously.

Finally, I join with the Governor in offering sympathy to the families of the victims of the Thredbo disaster. The Governor also paid tribute to all members of the various services who were called upon to assist in the rescue effort and worked under extreme conditions and in very tragic circumstances. Words do not come easily when there are no easy answers to such a disaster, but I join with His Excellency the Governor in offering my condolences and those of my constituents to the families and friends of the victims of the Thredbo disaster. I also express my gratitude for the very heroic deeds of the emergency services teams who worked tirelessly throughout that tragedy.

Page 473

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [11.40 a.m.]: I should like to make a few comments about the pomp and circumstance of the ceremonial opening of the Parliament, at which the Governor delivered his Speech. Last week it was claimed that all of the pomp of the official opening came about courtesy of the President of the Legislative Council. In fact, the events that led to the ceremonial opening of the Parliament were entirely in the hands of the Premier. The Premier prorogued the Parliament and he asked for a ceremonial opening of the Parliament.

Mr Martin: Yes, but not so grandiose.

Mr CHAPPELL: If the Minister intends to make a contribution, he should wait until I am finished. The ceremonial opening of the Parliament followed, in all respects but one, the same format used for ceremonial openings of the Parliament for decades. The only difference on this occasion was the large screen in Macquarie Street for guests of the Parliament seated on the verandahs to watch what was happening inside. The screen was provided courtesy of Qantas. The Premier knew that in all other respects this would be a standard formal opening of the Parliament.

It was unnecessary for the Government to stage a formal opening for this third session of the Parliament. It is entirely appropriate to hold a ceremonial opening at the commencement of a new parliament but it is unnecessary to go through all of the ceremony staged last week midway through the life of a parliament. It is my guess that the Premier wanted an official opening of the Parliament to give him an opportunity to demonstrate his credentials on the position of Governor following last year’s debacle when that position was substantially downgraded, as was the function of Government House. The opening of the Parliament was merely the Premier’s way of saying to people who were upset about last year’s decision that he really does like the role of Governor and wants to retain its ceremonial and traditional function.

It was appropriate for the Governor to refer at the beginning of his Speech to the remarkable efforts made by the tremendously courageous groups of people involved in the rescue efforts following the disaster at Thredbo. The Governor made reference to the police, emergency services and volunteers who gave of their all in the service of their fellow human beings trapped in that dreadful landslide. The Governor and many honourable members have acknowledged the sterling service given by the police, ambulance teams, fire brigade staff and all of the emergency service personnel, particularly the volunteers. At times of extreme danger there are always many volunteers who come forward, putting their lives at great risk, to serve the community and help others. After the Thredbo disaster people scrabbled away with their bare hands for days, clearing fill in an attempt to find survivors of the landslide. Unfortunately, there was only the one survivor. A tremendous effort was made by all those involved. As the Governor said:

In circumstances of great difficulty and danger, they all displayed skill, endurance and courage above the call of duty - the Australian community spirit at its best.

The Governor’s Speech claimed that great economic activity had been achieved. It is true that the majority of regional headquarters coming to Australia have been setting up in New South Wales, almost exclusively in Sydney. However, it would be desirable if some of those headquarters were to establish in the regions, whether in other cities or in some of the medium-size country towns. Significant growth has been made in attracting regional headquarters to New South Wales, but the growth is nowhere as good as it could be. New South Wales could make a much greater effort to attract investment. In the past couple of years at least a number of assessments have been made of the battle between New South Wales and other States, particularly Victoria, in seeking to attract overseas investment and jobs growth.

Generally speaking, the chief executive officers of overseas corporations investing in Australia would say that other States make a great deal more effort to lure them than does New South Wales. Last year the Leader of the Opposition said that Bob Carr was a long way from achieving his promise to "out-Kennett Jeff Kennett". There are several examples of New South Wales being out-gunned in the attraction of investment from overseas and from within Australia. The folklore of this country will show that if one is looking for a big-hearted effort in attracting economic investment and activity, Victoria is the place to go.

A study carried out last year, based on interviews with a great number of heads of private sector businesses, showed that only 5 per cent of the multinational companies surveyed considered the New South Wales Government to be highly effective in supporting and attracting business. Victoria’s rating stood at 40 per cent. I note that in the past 2½ years New South Wales has been subjected to 13 tax increases or new taxes. Increased taxing continues to diminish New South Wales standing as a competitive State. In the past two years there has
Page 474
been a 19 per cent increase in tax revenue, which amounts to a considerable cost burden on all of us who live here. It has been assessed that the additional tax take of some $2.35 billion a year equates to approximately $1,000 per family per annum.

The tax increases - increases in costs - work against the interests of the State in attracting economic investment and jobs. New South Wales will continue to suffer whilst this high-taxing Government continues to hike up taxes and charges. The cost of electricity to industry has reduced - an effort initiated under the previous Government - but household consumers are not enjoying a reduction in charges. As you said, Mr Acting-Speaker, when referring to your electorate of Bathurst, there is no sign that household electricity costs will reduce. We must be competitive, and it is good that big business has enjoyed reductions in electricity charges, but we must also be fair. Every consumer should benefit from the reduction in energy costs. The underlying aspects of the New South Wales economy are not favourable, and that will continue to be the case so long as this high-taxing regime is in office.

The Governor’s Speech referred to the Olympic Games and to the development of the showground and exhibition facilities at Homebush, and I acknowledge the importance of those new facilities for country New South Wales. There is a sense of excitement among country people who have visited Homebush and seen the remarkable development of showground facilities. For decades many people, particularly the regulars who come down from the bush every year to go to the Royal Easter Show, enjoyed the tradition of the old showground. But there is now a growing air of excitement about the opportunities presented by the new showground. I am sure that we all look forward to attending the first new Royal Easter Show at the new site to enjoy all of the additional facilities, the modern services and amenities provided. I believe that country New South Wales will be well served by having that marvellous new facility. The new showground ties in well with the development of the Olympic site facilities, but in its own right it will be a major new asset for the State.

There are several deficits in health-care funding, and generally speaking regional health services are underfunded. I constantly receive reports of delay in the payment for goods and services supplied to hospitals. In the past few days I heard of $24,000 owed for three or four months to a supplier of services to one hospital alone. That supplier is entitled to be paid. Recently in the New England health service one of the most highly regarded health professional administrators in country Australia was removed from office because he had to pull every trick he possibly could to keep his health service operating.

The only way this administrator could pay his staff was to go into bank overdraft, and I am sure that applies to other health services. On the one hand the Department of Health told him that he was not allowed to go into overdraft to provide his services but on the other hand he had to pay his staff. If there was no money coming from the department, how else could he pay his staff? Other underlying issues in that case will emerge in an inquiry in another place in the future. I am anxious that the same criteria that applied to David Briggs about his management of the health system will be equally applied in judgment against each of the other country and city health regions. But I fear he will be used as a scapegoat.

I have observed that by taking on a very high powered audit to the nth degree in the perilously difficult economic circumstances facing regional health to the nth degree against one person who is reputed to be the best operator, without making similar inquiries of other people, will set him up as a scapegoat to put even more pressure on all of the other operators in the health system, to squeeze more blood out of stones which is not possible. If at the end of that process the Department of Health and the Minister for Health do not attend to the matter by providing additional resources to country regional health services, several of them will simply grind to a halt. There will be an outcry from the community about services and goods that are not paid for, about medical services that will have to be cut back. The country community will not stand for that at all.

The police restructuring in a number of ways is quite good but unfortunately its implementation is very inefficient and flawed. For instance, a number of senior police officers are operating around country areas in an acting capacity. I do not know for how long this can go on. Senior officers need to be in a position of command; they need their troops to understand that they are the boss and will continue to be the boss in order to have real authority. At interview and at the selection process level the appointment of these people was flawed by overly rigorous and unnecessary requirements being placed on them. A lot of very competent police officers who have made a major contribution throughout their service were simply cast aside or given only temporary postings until someone else was available.

Page 475

Flowing from the police restructuring is the phone-only response to calls for police. It is entirely inadequate that police are directed not to attend the site of an offence but to respond only over the phone, and the community is unhappy about that. At the end of the day I am sure the standing of the Police Service will diminish in the eyes of the public simply because they will not get the service they believe they are entitled to. The Governor referred to the adoption later this year of a national registration scheme for heavy vehicles. All honourable members are pleased that that is gradually coming into line. I hope this will not be just another opportunity to hike up costs and impose even more onerous burdens on people in the heavy transport industry or on people who use trucks at the local level. Some concessions have been made for seasonal use of, for example, wheat trucks that are only used once a year to carry the harvest, but there really needs to be a further development of that.

As has been adopted in Victoria, we should have a rebate on charges for registration and so forth for people who drive their vehicles only infrequently on public roads. A lot of people have to keep their trucks registered because from time to time they have to use them on public roads, but in a year may only use them half a dozen times and only clock up a few hundred kilometres - and sometimes even less - yet they have to pay hundreds of dollars in registration charges.

When new legislation or regulations are brought in to deal with the transport industry - and registration in particular - the Minister should ensure that there is provision for reasonable charges for reasonable use of vehicles. Clearly the owners of vehicles that are constantly on the roads should bear their full cost of using the roads, but others who travel only a few thousand kilometres a year should not have to pay full charges. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Finally, I refer to a range of country issues that have escaped the attention of the Government and demonstrate its lack of concern and understanding about country issues. A recent Cabinet visit to Armidale was the most lacklustre country visit I have ever witnessed by the Government or its predecessor. Three press releases were issued from the 19 Ministers, and very little news came from the visit. On the evening television the visit was given about three minutes coverage. There was virtually no hoopla at all and certainly very little joy in it for country New South Wales.

After all of the promises regularly made by the Premier about the country summit task force and other bodies putting a lot of weight on the Government to respond to country issues, I am sure the Government could have done a lot better than it did. Various Ministers simply would not respond to, and did not take on board, the messages they received from the country. I instance the amalgamation of a number of rural lands protection boards and particularly Tenterfield in my electorate and Merriwa in the electorate of the Upper Hunter. Those two boards met the criteria established by the Minister to remain independent yet the Minister has forcefully amalgamated them. That has caused great consternation at the local level. The local community, particularly land-holders who pay their rates and entirely fund those RLPBs, is outraged that the Minister has ridden roughshod over them. They are now talking about expensive legal action to try to protect their right to run and to fund their own rural lands protection boards to their own benefit without having to amalgamate with others.

There have been a succession of cutbacks in government services and jobs in country towns throughout the length and breadth of the State. When addressing this issue the Governor referred to 240 jobs in the Department of Land and Water Conservation having been transferred from the metropolitan area to the country. That is the first of what will eventually be 400 jobs. That is good, but 240 jobs will not make up for the hundreds of jobs already taken out of the country. There is still a question mark over the future of small police stations and whether many country cops will be shifted back to the city to fulfil the promises made by the Premier.

Such cutbacks are still being made. Indeed, the 240 jobs that the Premier talked about cutting from the Department of Land and Water Conservation - he made that announcement during a visit to Orange - was news to the whole department; even the most senior staff did not know about it. Sources within the department have told me that on the afternoon of the announcement senior managers walked the length and breadth of department offices asking for volunteers to go and live in the country. That is not a successful or intelligent way to restructure a work force or to support country jobs.

I am sure that the number of jobs lost in metropolitan Sydney will not reach 240 because people will accept redundancy packages rather than move to the country. That is a great shame; nonetheless I believe it is true. Certainly, nothing like 400 jobs will ever see the light of day in country areas. The matter needs a lot more planning and thought. If that is the best the Government can do, attrition in jobs will continue across the whole
Page 476
range of government services, including the Department of Mineral Resources. Jobs are still being lost from places such as Armidale - recently the House debated that matter - at a time when we need more activity, not less. Job prospects in country areas still need to be explored. Work that is now done in the city should be done in those country areas where staff are already located.

There is a great deal of apprehension in country towns generally about job losses and other government policies. I know the agricultural community is apprehensive about the native vegetation conservation legislation that is to be introduced. People are concerned that restrictions under State environmental planning policy 46 will be continued, not reformed, and that potentially the restrictions on farming operations will be worse, not better. People in the country are concerned, and nothing in the Governor’s Speech allayed those fears or provided any sense of hope that conditions in the country will improve. By applying pressure the Opposition hopes to eventually get the message across to the Government that the State of New South Wales encompasses country areas as well as city areas. The Government must make a more concerted effort to, first, understand and, second, attend to the real needs of country New South Wales.

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [12.03 p.m.]: I welcome the address of the Governor to the Parliament last week. I am pleased to add my contribution on behalf of the Wallsend electorate and the people of the Hunter region on a number of issues raised in the Governor’s Speech. Firstly, I shall refer, as the Governor did, to the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales. In particular, I extend my special sympathy to the two boys. Their lives, already difficult because of their royal roles, have now been touched by personal tragedy. They deserve our special sympathy. I shall limit my remarks simply to say that clearly the people of Australia, whether monarchists or republicans, have reflected on their attitudes to the constitutional relationship of Australia with the British monarchy. It is possible that not many people have changed their minds on when Australia should move towards having an Australian as head of State. However, since the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, at least people have examined their attitudes to that question, and that is good.

As a member of the Staysafe committee, I note that most of the occupants of the vehicle involved in the crash in which the princess was involved were not wearing seat belts. I understand that although it is compulsory in France, as it is in Germany and many other places in Europe, for seat belts to be fitted to motor vehicles, the wearing of them is not compulsory, as it is in Australia, Canada, Britain and a number of other countries. I reinforce the message to Australians that it is good law that makes the wearing of seat belts compulsory in this country. Compliance with that law is reasonably high; 85 per cent to 90 per cent of those who travel in motor vehicles wear a seat belt. Let us ensure that we maintain that high level of compliance and encourage our young people in particular always to wear a seat belt while travelling in a motor vehicle, because the wearing of seat belts has avoided many tragedies in Australia.

I now refer to the landslide tragedy at Thredbo on 31 July. I join with the Governor in paying tribute to the members of the police and the rescue and emergency services who did a fantastic job under pressure, knowing that the whole country was watching what was happening for almost the entire day and the whole night. In particular, I commend a contingent of State Emergency Service volunteers who travelled from the Hunter region to take part in the rescue. They have now been debriefed, and their experience will add to the general build-up of experience so that future rescues may be carried out even more efficiently and better, just as those who helped in the rescue at Thredbo learnt from the way rescues were carried out during the Newcastle earthquake, the Oklahoma bombing and other incidents around the world. It is great that emergency services are able to put into practice their efforts to develop world’s best practice. The Government is committed to working with the people of Thredbo to help them rebuild their community. Its announcements of funding for projects at Thredbo are a tangible way of honouring that commitment. The Governor went on to express the Government’s concern about continuing job losses nationwide and unacceptably high youth unemployment, particularly in the regions. He said:

The Government is working with rural and regional communities to promote the creation of long-term, quality jobs. A total of 240 jobs have already been identified to be relocated to regional New South Wales. This is part of its commitment to decentralise 400 government jobs from metropolitan Sydney.

In the past day or so the Government has announced its intention to appoint a Minister who will be responsible for country and regional development. He or she will assist the drive for investment in jobs and pursue such projects as the $88 million Jerrys Plains rail link in the Hunter Valley, which will generate 200 jobs. That shows the Government’s commitment to the rhetoric in the Governor’s Speech. Once again the Government is quickly and
Page 477
consistently getting on with the job and doing its best for rural and regional New South Wales. Part of the Government’s jobs drive will focus on information services technology. The goal is to provide quality and equal access to government services in all areas of the State. I share the Government’s belief that modern technology, if resourced to the best advantage, will mean that for the first time we can begin to break down the tyranny of distance for rural communities. The new ministerial position will be part of the Government’s increased emphasis on security for the bush, and I commend the Government for it.

Members of the National Party in this Chamber who have spoken so far have persistently whinged about what the Government is doing for rural New South Wales. Last week the Deputy Leader of the National Party was reported as having said the Government’s performance in rural areas was rated by him as an FF. I presume that means fail, although he did not spell it out in a mid-term report card. I want to demonstrate briefly and decisively that those whingers are incorrect. The Deputy Leader of the National Party referred to a lack of capital works programs for rural schools and hospitals, and to the Government discriminating against coalition country electorates. He said decentralisation of government departments was not being seriously pursued. I have already referred to that this morning. He also attacked the Minister for Roads over roads funding.

I have referred to Hansard of 14 May, which records that during question time the Premier gave a supplementary answer to a question asked by the honourable member for Tamworth, who had apparently gone through the budget papers and announced that he could find only 10 new capital works worth $10 million for the 16 country electorates west of the Great Dividing Range. The Premier quoted figures and tabled documents. I hope that members who represent those 16 electorates, including the honourable member for Tamworth and the Deputy Leader of the National Party, have read that paper. The total capital works allocation to those 16 electorates was $795 million, not the $10 million that the honourable member for Tamworth referred to.

The 16 electorates west of the Great Dividing Range received $637 million in new capital works, of which $436 million was allocated for roads. In the electorate of Tamworth alone new capital works totalled $12.3 million, including $849,000 for 13 new housing units, $2.2 million for new rail work for Rail Access Corporation and $3.9 million for new forest plantations at Walcha. National Party members and their allies have been whingeing, wrongly, about what the Government is doing for rural New South Wales. Capital funding for the 16 western New South Wales electorates increased by 20 per cent in the current budget compared with the 1994-95 budget. Capital works funding in Tamworth increased from $27 million under the coalition Government to $59 million under the Labor Government. Labor is taxing the cities; it is taxing hotel beds and luxury homes around Sydney Harbour to send money to the bush.

I join with the honourable member for Northern Tablelands in praising the work which is being carried out at the Olympic site at Homebush. I had occasion yesterday to tell the Minister for the Olympics that a member of my electorate had said to me on Monday night, "You ought to tell Michael Knight that he is doing a fantastic job on the Olympics." What he did not know was that the Leader of the National Party had already given my colleague the Minister for the Olympics a 95 per cent performance rating. My constituent toured the Olympic site on Tuesday last week and was most impressed.

It is important for people who live in country areas of the State to see what is happening at the Olympic site. They should take the opportunity to attend the Royal Easter Show on that site next year. They will not only be able to see the new showground building but they will be able to see the new rail line, the construction of the Olympic stadium, and the aquatic centre. I urge people from the Hunter Valley to visit the Royal Easter Show next year. They could travel by rail and use the new station at Homebush, and I believe they would be impressed.

The Governor referred to unprecedented growth in health care funding over the three budgets of the Labor Government. Labor is spending almost $1 billion a year more than the coalition Government spent in its last budget before Labor was elected. In the current year all area health services have received funding increases flowing from a $223 million increase announced in the May budget. For the benefit of members I shall read details of those increases to area health services, including rural health services, to give the lie to the whingeing and unjustified complaints of members of the National Party in this Chamber.

The most underfunded areas, the growth areas, including rural New South Wales, have received the greatest share. Area health services have been allocated $173 million in additional funding, which has been allocated as follows: south-western Sydney,
Page 478
$50 million; the Illawarra region, $17.7 million; the Wentworth region, $9.1 million; western Sydney, $8.4 million; south-eastern Sydney, $8.9 million; the Hunter region, $12.6 million; the central coast, $12.4 million, the New Children’s Hospital at Westmead, $3.5 million; central Sydney, $2.1 million; and northern Sydney, $1.9 million.

Rural area health services have received $46.7 million in additional funding - enhancements above inflation - made up as follows: Northern Rivers, $11.4 million, mid north coast, $10.2 million; the New England region, $3.2 million; the Macquarie region, $4.3 million; the mid-western region, $5.9 million; the Far West, $3.4 million; the Greater Murray region, $4.5 million; and the Southern region, $3.8 million. In health service funding the Labor Government is looking after all of the growth areas. The biggest increases have been in the bush, and it is about time National Party members admitted it.

I have done my own bit of whingeing in the past about the historical underfunding to the Hunter region health services. I am pleased to say that with the increase this year, following on an increase last year, about 60 per cent of the underfunding has been poured back into the Hunter region. I thank the Minister for Health and the Treasurer for that. I can only imagine that my colleagues of south-western Sydney and the Illawarra region and all my regional colleagues from both sides of the House should acknowledge that the funding is available and it is up to the area health services to spend it wisely. For example, the increase in funds to the Hunter region will be spent on mental health service enhancements by fully funding Maitland hospital.

The Hunter region will for the first time have a medical psychiatric ward at Maitland hospital. Money will also be spent on community health services and elective surgery enhancements in the Hunter region. The Labor Party gets a big tick for health funding as outlined by the Governor, in particular in areas that were previously underfunded. The Government will shortly finalise its program to improve services to people with disabilities. It is vital for the Government and for the whole nation to admit that not enough money has been spent in the past on disabilities. There have been enough reports at Federal and State levels to indicate that higher priority should be given to funding disability services. I am personally committed to that, and will continue to work towards it. The problem is that at this stage there is not enough cash in New South Wales because the Federal cutbacks of $540 million since the Howard Government was elected have specifically included $68 million on health.

A doctor in the Hunter region sent me a copy of a letter she received late last year from Michael Wooldridge. In that letter he spoke about cost shifting between Commonwealth and State governments, specifying that the economy could not afford to pay twice for the same services. He was trying to negotiate a solution with the help of individual doctors, but did not want them to be the meat in the sandwich. He said:

I think it would help everyone if we had better information about some of the services for which Medicare benefits are paid. Accordingly I am seeking your assistance to identify on your accounts, from 1 November 1996, all pre-admission services, post-discharge services, and outpatient type services (ie services provided to a patient who was referred to you for treatment after presenting at an emergency or outpatient clinic at a public hospital or services provided at a public hospital on a non-admitted patient basis, except where the service is provided by a public hospital under the Medicare Agreements.).

He also said that he realises that proposal will require extra effort on the part of doctors, but essentially he was trying to say that a visit to the doctor before entering hospital and the visit after treatment in hospital should be charged to the State Government and not to Medicare. What a massive attempt at cost shifting! [Extension of time agreed to.]

The doctor who discussed this with me, and whose name I would rather not mention, wrote to me and said:

On re-reading the documents, it does specify that the service should relate to the hospital admission. This still leaves a lot of grey areas, for example:

- Most medical patients will visit their local doctor shortly after discharge as a matter of course, so that the GP can arrange follow-up and further management as is appropriate. This is not cost shifting but could be seen to be targeted in the new procedures as it relates to the hospital admission.

- There is a trend to shared care these days especially in antenatal care. These patients are booked into the hospital but appropriately see their GP for most of their management.

- Patients diverted from Public Hospital Emergency Departments for care elsewhere, eg [primary care or a polyclinic run by GPs] would also meet the criteria.

There is no doubt that general practitioners can provide many services which are currently hospital based more efficiently eg pre-op assessment for surgery, ambulatory care and hospital in the home, however the current dual funding system is a major impediment to moving this forward.

In the interests of more efficient and cost-effective delivery of health services, particularly having more GPs involved in more services, we should resist the Commonwealth’s attempt to cost shift these matters back to the States. I should like now to refer briefly
Page 479
to a recent announcement of the New South Wales Minerals Council, which is a collection of coalmine companies. It has done something that I had hoped would never happen: it has abandoned its support for the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Council.

The council was formed in the mid-1980s in response to Wran’s navy - the armada of ships anchored off the port of Newcastle in the early 1980s for a variety of reasons including that trade unions in various parts of the coal chain, that is, mines, transport, export and so on, were not sorting out problems before leading to industrial disputes. With enormous help from the Trades Hall Council, various unions in the Hunter Valley, companies and many government departments the coal chain council was established. An unprecedented era of industrial peace through the entire Hunter Valley coal chain resulted in much enhancement for the wealth of New South Wales from coal exports through the port of Newcastle.

I deplore the council’s decision to withdraw its support, just as I am disappointed that the Minerals Council is closing its Newcastle office. The Newcastle Ports Corporation is wondering to whom it can go for resolutions to problems. The miners branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is very upset as it knows the importance the community places on consultation before disputation. It is not that decision or the fault of any workers in the Hunter Valley that there is a queue of 38 coal ships at last count currently sitting off the port of Newcastle. At present coal is receiving a low spot price, but companies in the Hunter Valley are producing at maximum capacity. One wonders what that does for the preservation of resources.

At present, approximately 8 million tonnes of coal are awaiting export. Mine production is about 75 million tonnes per year with mines working flat out, yet the coal loader capacity is only 65 million tonnes. It is anticipated to expand the capacity of the coal loader, but coal is presently at overproduction and is being sold even though the owners know it cannot be shipped out through the port. Consequently, attempts were made to resolve the issue by imposing a moratorium on ships. However, the private part of that industry has not succeeded in addressing such a serious problem. I shall refer once again to the fact that New South Wales taxpayers are massively subsidising the rest of Australia by more than $1,200 million per year through the operation of the sharing arrangements of the Commonwealth and the States.

The situation is deplorable, but it has continued for far too long and is getting worse. It makes the scenario of Federal cutbacks to New South Wales more difficult to comprehend because we are so badly disadvantaged by the amount of funding we receive. Every man, woman and child in New South Wales carries a subsidy burden of $200 and the rest of the Australian States get the benefit of that. In 1995-96 dollars per capita the Commonwealth financial assistance grants were as follows: New South Wales $684, Victoria $660, Queensland $866, Western Australia $882, South Australia $1,014, Tasmania $1,370, the Northern Territory $5,023 and the Australian Capital Territory $742.

Using the equalisation formula for grants in the 1995-96 financial year, New South Wales was $824 million worse off. When the equalisation formula is taken into account with tax collected from each State, New South Wales is $1,200 million behind. I support the Treasurer in his efforts to get the Commonwealth to review urgently this underfunding to New South Wales and Victoria for the benefit of the remaining Australian States. At page 5 of the Speech the Governor said:

The Government will continue to implement the recommendations of the Police Royal Commission, resolutely and promptly.

He outlined a number of things that the Government has done. On 26 August when the paedophilia section of the royal commission report was released the Premier said:

Our priority now is to use the report to protect children and detect and prosecute paedophiles.

It is now our task to improve the way in which we prevent, detect and investigate child sexual assault and the way we care for children.

I support the Government’s approach and the recommendations of the Wood royal commission into paedophilia. I deplore the approach taken by a number of people who claim to be most caring for our children, yet whose only responses to the release of the Wood report have been to denigrate it and say it is worthless because it does not name names.

I reject the allegations made against the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the former President of the Labor Party, Terry Sheahan, the General Secretary of the Labor Party, John Della Bosca, and others without evidence. I share the concern expressed last week in this Chamber by the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier. I trust the special inquiry will bring an end to this most
Page 480
unsavoury matter. If we concentrate on that kind of reaction we cannot focus in implementing Justice Wood’s recommendations. Most members of this Chamber agree that those recommendations should be implemented for the benefit of the children of New South Wales. The Government has taken a number of steps. It has established the Child Protection Enforcement Agency and joint investigation teams. New child protection guidelines for government departments have been introduced. Recommendation 5 in the report states:

The NSW Crime Commission be given a reference to investigate matters relating to paedophile activity . . .

The Government is committed to implementing that recommendation. The coercive powers of the Crime Commission will greatly assist the work of the CPEA. The Government supports recommendation 131, which advocates the creation of a Children’s Commission to take over the responsibilities of the Child Protection Council and the Community Services Commission which relate to children. Details of the commission’s powers will be put before the Parliament in due course.

In relation to recommendations 35 and 58, the Government supports the Ombudsman undertaking the investigation of allegations of abuse by the staff of government agencies. The details involved in the implementation of those recommendations also require more work and will be finalised following discussion with the Ombudsman. In compliance with recommendations 82 and 93 the Attorney General will review the relevant sections of the Crimes Act and prepare legislation creating a number of new offences, including offences relating to persistent sexual abuse, tough new measures on child pornography, and restrictions on convicted paedophiles loitering in or near premises frequented by children. The Attorney General will approach the Commonwealth and other States to seek a national uniform approach to a register of sex offenders.

Recommendation 81 has attracted some controversy, and I understand that sooner or later a private member’s bill to reduce the age of consent for male homosexuality from 18 to 16 will be debated. The earlier part of the final report of the Wood royal commission said that drugs were the root cause of police corruption and recommended that support be given to the Australian Capital Territory heroin trial, and that a national summit be held to investigate whether safe, sanitary injecting rooms were appropriate. A number of other small steps were recommended. All of the recommendations I have referred to have been adopted by the Government, and I commend the Government for that.

I am disappointed, to say the least, that the coalition members of the Joint Select Committee into Safe Injecting Rooms have, without hearing the evidence, already made up their minds to reject the trial recommended by Justice Wood. I note that the Government, through the Attorney General, has announced its intention to remove custodial penalties for offenders found in possession of small quantities of cannabis. That is another small but important step in harm minimisation. We certainly need to keep up the war on suppliers, but we also need to bear in mind the health of addicts.

Yesterday the Minister for Health said that the Waismann method of detoxification will be trialled in New South Wales. My experience on the safe injecting rooms committee has taught me that the problem of solving heroin addiction does not have one complete answer. Many approaches need to be adopted. [Time expired.]

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [12.33 p.m.]: In his Speech His Excellency the Governor addressed a number of issues. I will deal with some of them, particularly as they impact upon the central coast. His Excellency spoke about trains and transport. The central coast has benefited, if I can put it that way, from the Government’s attitude to trains and transport. The people of Gosford were promised a set of escalators for their railway station. That may not sound significant, but escalators at the railway station were a major issue. When he was the shadow minister for transport, the honourable member for Kogarah visited Gosford and was photographed on the railway station. He met women with strollers and elderly people hobbling up the stairs. He pledged to them that escalators would be provided. He said that every citizen had the right to get off Gosford railway station by means of escalators. He promised that his pledge would be honoured within a short time of the Labor Party being elected to government.

Three years have now passed, and not a further word has been said about the promised escalators. No plans have been drawn up and no funds have been allocated for the promised escalators for the elderly, the sick and the Gosford women with strollers. The Labor Party promised that Gosford railway station would be a high-usage station that would be suitable for the people of the central coast. It was part of the CityRail system, but was heavily networked into Countrylink. In fact, it had a Countrylink auxiliary service attached to it.
Page 481
From 20 October this year the Countrylink service relating to passenger luggage at Gosford railway station will be abandoned. The elderly, the sick, and women with strollers now will not have an escalator to use on the long climb to the top of the station, and, in addition, they will have to manhandle their luggage on and off trains, down stairs, across the platform and onto the train. That is the standard of railway service delivered by the Minister.

I turn to some of the other issues. The people of the central coast were promised that Gosford would have adequate policing. His Excellency the Governor referred in his Speech to law and order. The incoming Labor Party Government issued a special central coast policy which stated:

Policing on the Central Coast is in crisis . . . Communities like Kincumber cannot rely on a timely response from police to calls for help.

What promise was made? The policy stated that a Labor Government would open a police station and provide extra patrols for Kincumber. When he was the shadow minister for police, the honourable member for Ashfield visited Kincumber and was photographed while making a pledge to the people of Gosford that Kincumber and Gosford would get a new fully manned 24-hour police station. He said under a Labor Government the people of Kincumber would be able to sleep safely at night because officers would be present at the new fully manned station.

But three long years have passed, and what has happened? The people of Kincumber have a little building, called a shopfront police station, which is manned from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., Monday to Friday, by a policeman who is on light duties. He does not have a car, and he is required only to answer the telephone. That is the police station that promises law and order to the people of Kincumber, one of the fastest growth areas on the central coast, which is itself one of the fastest growing communities in Australia. The Labor Party policy mentioned TAFE. It stated:

We will create a further 36,000 TAFE places over the next four years, and a TAFE system more in tune with the needs of students and the work-place.

For the Central Coast this means over 1,200 extra TAFE places.

The central coast was promised a TAFE college at Woy Woy, which is located in the electorate of the honourable member for Peats. The land was available, and was to be used in connection with the extra 1,200 TAFE places. But three years later what has happened? The TAFE proposal is not going ahead and the land at Woy Woy is to be sold. So much for that commitment to the education of our children! So much for that commitment to TAFE!

His Excellency also mentioned schools. Terrigal High School was visited by the honourable member for Riverstone when he was the shadow education minister. He met with the staff and the principal and promised them a performing arts space. But three years have passed and not a single dollar has been allocated and not a single plan has been drawn up for the implementation of the performing arts space for Terrigal High School.

The Labor Government promised that it would spend $300 million on roads on the central coast during its four years in office. After three years it has provided a total of $50 million. That represents a deficit of $250 million on the Government’s commitment to improve roads on the central coast. The Government promised that within four years Avoca Drive, a key arterial road in the electorate of Gosford, would be upgraded to a divided, dual-lane highway. The former Government completed that road up to the Davistown intersection. What has the present Government done to extend the road from Davistown to Avoca in fulfilment of its pledge? It has not done a single thing. Not a single dollar has been spent, not a single plan has been drawn up to fulfil the promise to the people of Avoca and the suburbs along Avoca Drive.

One issue is of greater concern than any other to the people of the central coast. That issue is jobs and employment opportunities for young people. The electricity industry power generators of Lake Munmorah and the surrounding areas are major employers on the central coast. In May the Premier had this to say about privatisation:

It is always an option but under the [Labor] Party’s approach would require a pretty convincing demonstration of social gain from privatisation. Further, we would want to be able to demonstrate that we were replacing one public asset with another public asset.

On 24 May the Premier promised that his Government would stand as a bulwark against privatisation of the power generation in this State. Later in May he took a different stance because the Hon. Michael Egan had produced a paper about privatisation of the power generation system. The Premier said he would adopt the role of umpire in the privatisation debate. He said he would not adopt an armchair neutral position and stated:

It would have been a comfortable existence, I suppose, not to challenge your own party but I think political leaders are under an obligation to do that from time to time. There is nothing wrong in a democracy about seeking to lead people and to shape thinking; that’s what we’re doing.

Page 482

On 1 June he said that a sale was essential as it was the only way to rebuild run-down hospitals and river systems. That conflicted, of course, with a statement he had made only three days earlier when he said, "No sale can go ahead without strong evidence that overwhelming benefits would result from this change." The issue for the central coast, an issue the Premier refuses to address, is the preservation of jobs. Several thousand people are employed in central coast power stations.

The Premier has now been asked in this Parliament a total of seven questions about what he would do to guarantee the jobs of workers in the electricity generation industry, but he has not answered a single question. The Hogg report has now been delivered. On Tuesday of last week Mr Hogg visited the central coast to address power station workers at the Mingara Recreation Club. Hundreds of workers listened to what Mr Hogg had to say and left unimpressed. There was no guarantee about their jobs; there was no guarantee of a future for them and for their children. On 11 June Mr Carr said about that issue:

It will take a bit more than a piece of boos to deter me from putting forward something I think is in the best interests of the people of this State. I’d like a massive upgrading of the infrastructure of New South Wales. I don’t like going around New South Wales and seeing old hospitals with leaky roofs.

In September he said:

I won’t be withdrawing . . . If the Labor Party doesn’t, the other side of politics will force it on the agenda. I’m determined the Labor Government will do it and manage the priorities involved.

The Premier will not tell the people of the central coast, particularly those employed in the electricity industry, what will happen to their jobs or what guarantees he is offering them for their future employment. That issue will not go away. It affects the development of the whole of this vital part of regional New South Wales. On behalf of the people of the central coast, I call upon the Premier to state publicly, simply and clearly what his proposals are in so far as they affect the central coast and the jobs of the thousands of electricity workers who live there. I await his answer.

Another issue that affects employment is the poker machine tax increase. That proposal was contained in a budget that was supported by the honourable member for Peats, the honourable member for The Entrance and the honourable member for Wyong. Each voted for an increased tax on poker machines although each was aware of the impact it would have on their local communities on the central coast. The only members of this Parliament representing the central coast who voted against an increase in poker machine tax were the Hon. M. J. Gallacher in another place and me, as member for Gosford in this House. No-one else was prepared to stand up for the hundreds of workers in the clubs whose employment is now under threat as the clubs scale back their development programs.

No-one in the Labor Party was prepared to stand up for the building workers who would have benefited from the expansion programs planned by the Ettalong Beach War Memorial Club, the Central Coast Leagues Club Ltd, the Mingara Recreation Club Ltd, the Toukley RSL Club and the Wyong RSL Sub-Branch Club. All of those expansion programs have now been scaled down or placed on hold because of the poker machine tax increase. Employment opportunities have dried up dramatically in the construction and building industry on the central coast and in the trades that supply those industries because of the increased poker machine tax introduced by this Government and supported by the three Labor members who represent electorates on the central coast.

What has the member for Peats said about the sale of land dedicated for the TAFE site at Woy Woy? She has said nothing at all. What have the Labor members representing electorates on the central coast said about the promised $300 million in road funding for the central coast, of which only $50 million has been spent? They have said nothing at all. What has been said by those Labor members about the Government’s failure to implement its promise in respect of the police station at Kincumber, a promise that is vital for a fast growing area of the central coast? They have said nothing at all. What have those Labor members said about the fact that Gosford railway station, which services the electorates of Gosford, The Entrance and Peats, will not have escalators and will lose its passenger luggage service? They have not said one word.

The Labor members representing electorates on the central coast have failed dismally to stand up for their areas on myriad issues. Nothing could be more telling against them than their failure to stand up in relation to the issue of electricity privatisation and challenge the Premier’s refusal to state publicly, simply and clearly what will happen to the jobs of thousands of electricity workers on the central coast. It is significant that the Government, which introduced what it called Labor’s infrastructure plans for the central coast when in opposition in 1987, has failed to honour commitment after commitment. In March 1995 the Labor Party released an anti car theft policy relating to the central coast. That policy stated in part:

Page 483

Car theft on the Central Coast rose by 17 per cent in 1993.

High and rising car theft meant many Central Coast families pay an extra $250 each year for their car insurance premiums.

What has the Labor Government done to stop car theft on the central coast? It has abandoned the police investigating the crime. How will that stop car theft? When someone’s car is stolen the police will simply take details over the telephone. The owner of the car will not be interviewed, the police will not go to the crime scene and they will not interview possible witnesses. The police will merely enter the details into their computer. So much for Labor’s commitment to fighting car theft on the central coast.

I turn to crime prevention. We were promised that a Labor government would ensure the provision of additional police to alleviate shortages in police patrols on the central coast. Where are the additional police? Gosford no longer has dedicated beat police. Kincumber police station has one police officer on light duties. Terrigal and Gosford police numbers stand at the same levels they were before the 1995 State election. Meanwhile, the crime rate on the central coast continues to increase and the incidence of break and enter is increasing dramatically. In reference to street crime - crimes against the person: muggings, violence, attacks and assaults - the Labor Party document states:

. . . growth areas like Gosford had street crime 50 percent worse than the state average in 1993.

The Government has not seen fit to honour its promise, not only in relation to Gosford but to all of the central coast. The people of the central coast have been sadly short-changed by the Government, which has shown indifference to them. At the end of the day the people of the area will realise that there was nothing for them in the Governor’s Speech. There was no pledge to ensure that the promises on roads, rail, police and education made to them by the Labor Party will be honoured.

I have highlighted serious complaints about the standard of health services on the central coast. Further incidents concerning the delivery of health services have been brought to my notice, and I intend to bring those before the House during this session. The central coast is one of the most significant growth areas in this State, yet it suffers from a lack of employment opportunities. The area’s biggest industry, tourism, has not been assisted by the introduction of the bed tax, which has reduced the number of overseas tourists coming to Sydney, many of whom make day trips to the central coast. One of the area’s biggest industries, power generation, is now under threat from the Government’s proposals. The Premier will not state, even to the Parliament, what pledges he will give to the thousands of people employed in the industry. The people of the central coast have suffered for the past three years. Many of them accepted the election of the Carr Government in 1995, though I have no doubt that they will be keen to see it go in 1999.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Knight.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 12.54 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Mr Speaker announced, pursuant to section 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, receipt of the special report to Parliament by the New South Wales Ombudsman entitled "The STA Report", dated September 1997.

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 Blackmore, Mr Brogden, Mrs Chikarovski, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr Kinross, Mr MacCarthy, Mr Merton, Mr O’Doherty, Mr O’Farrell, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith and Mr Tink.

Petition praying that daylight saving not be extended, received from Mr Rixon.

Petition praying that the heroin addicts program in Israel be evaluated with a view to establishing a similar program in all States of Australia, received from Mrs Chikarovski.

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.

Page 484

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

Petitions praying that, in line with the Inspector General’s report of 1993, permanent dedicated police officers be retained at police and community youth clubs, received from Mr Beck and Mr Richardson.

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

Petition praying that the St John’s College Act be amended to provide for the inclusion of elected representatives of current students as full voting fellows on the governing council of the college, received from Ms Nori.

Petition praying for extra funding for capital works at Gloucester Public School, received from Mr J. H. Turner.

Petition praying that telecommunication carriers not be allowed to erect transmission structures within close proximity of residential homes, schools, child-care centres, hospitals, and aged-care centres, received from Mr Brogden.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [2.32 p.m.]: I move:

That general business notice of motion (general notices) No. 92 have precedence on Thursday, 25 September.

From the first day of this session members have been banned from talking about the Government’s most significant policy. In a panic the Government has thrown up diversions, suspended standing orders, changed the program and generally dodged questions, all to save the Premier from exposing his policy centrepiece to the scrutiny of his colleagues, all to save him from mentioning the dreaded "P" word, the simple word that cannot pass his lips in this House: privatisation. It is a topic that has his backbench in panic. The ministry is split, workers are up in arms and $22 billion is riding on the word "privatisation", which he will not even say in this House. The motion finally poses the question fair and square. Will the Premier guarantee that power workers will not be sacked? It is simple. His backbench members want to know, his ministry wants to know, and the workers want to know. Today is his day, the day for him to answer that question. Do they keep their jobs or do they lose them? On every other employment issue the Premier breathlessly talks about job security.

For anything to do with the Federal Government and job security the Premier is the first to speak out - textile tariffs will stay. But when it comes to electricity workers, what do we get from this Premier? Deathly silence, a complete blackout on privatisation. Now is the time for the Premier to tell this House and tell the workers in the electricity system the fate that awaits them. It is a simple question and it deserves a simple answer. A dozen backbenchers who have power workers in their electorates are listening now in the deathly silence, waiting for the Premier’s answer, waiting for his guarantee on jobs. In a moment they will have a chance to vote. They can vote with the Opposition and get an answer for their power worker constituents, or they can stay where they are and support the party ban on debating the subject in this House. The choice is theirs. Electricity workers have a right to know, the constituents have a right to know, and that is what this motion is about. Those members must vote with the coalition if their constituents are to get an answer.

Mr CARR (Maroubra - Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs) [2.35 p.m.]: On a day when two members of the Federal Cabinet so ignominiously suffer a loss of job security the Leader of the Opposition raises the subject of job security. What does it mean for Badgerys Creek, which the Leader of the Opposition opposes?

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

Mr CARR: We want job security for the honourable member for Ermington. We do not want the faintest doubt. One thing is clear to every electricity worker in this State. Their prospects and their job security are infinitely greater under this Government than they would be under a Collins Liberal Government.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

Page 485

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Hartcher Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Smith
Mr Humpherson Mr Souris
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Mr Kinross Mr J. H. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr O’Doherty Mr Kerr
Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Neilly
Mr Carr Ms Nori
Mr Clough Mr E. T. Page
Mr Crittenden Mr Price
Mr Debus Dr Refshauge
Mr Face Mr Rogan
Mr Gaudry Mr Scully
Mrs Grusovin Mr Shedden
Ms Hall Mr Stewart
Mr Harrison Mr Tripodi
Ms Harrison Mr Watkins
Mr Knight Mr Woods
Mr Knowles Mr Yeadon
Mr Langton
Mrs Lo Po’ Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Mr Debnam Mr Hunter
Ms Ficarra Mr Iemma
Mr Fraser Mr Markham
Mr Glachan Mr Nagle
Mr Oakeshott Mr Rumble
Mr Schultz Mr Sullivan
Mr Small Mr Whelan

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Mr SPEAKER: I draw the attention of members to the presence in the northern gallery of Professor Dr Gjorgi Tonovski, Professor of the University of Ohrid, who is leading a delegation visiting the Parliament today. I welcome him and his delegates. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of students from St Luke’s School, Dee Why.

Mr COLLINS: Did the Premier intervene last month to prevent the proposed downgrading of his local Malabar police station? When police stations in other areas hit by soaring crime rates have had local police presence cut, how does the Premier justify this preferential treatment in his own backyard?

Mr CARR: St Marys got an increase, so I suppose I will be implicated in that. Regentville, Cabramatta and Macquarie Fields have also had an increase.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will answer the question, rather than seek assistance from Government members.

Mr CARR: I give this warning before there are any more interjections. This is a special day in the Parliament, because we have in the gallery students from one of our finest schools, Charlestown East. With the rise in police numbers under my Government, all these areas -

[Interruption]

I will continue when you bring the House to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! During question time on the past three or four days the Chair expressed concern about the level of interjection, and on two occasions members were removed from the Chamber. Members who interject today will also be removed.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, it is not appropriate for the Premier to direct you to bring this House to order. He absolutely did that. He turned to you, Mr Speaker, and said "when you bring the House to order". That is disrespect to the Chair. You would reject that from the Opposition. You should not take instructions from the Premier.


Page 486
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order is involved.

Mr CARR: Police numbers in these areas have been increased, reflecting my policies, my interventions. Is there any reason why gallant little Malabar should be excepted?

Mr MOSS: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Can the Minister give a response to the Ombudsman’s report on the State Transit Authority tabled in Parliament today?

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

Mr LANGTON: I inform the House that the State Transit Authority has personally and unreservedly apologised to Mrs Benson for any distress and hurt it has caused her.

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

Mr LANGTON: When allegations were made in the House concerning the alleged sexual assault of Mrs Benson, a STA bus operator, I asked the Ombudsman to investigate. The Ombudsman’s report on this matter has been tabled, and may I say on behalf of the Government that it is welcomed. For the record, the Ombudsman rejected allegations made in this place by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Ermington. The main allegations made by the Opposition, which caused me to write to the Ombudsman, included the allegations that STA management had threatened to sack Mrs Benson if she went public; that the emergency alarm activated by the bus operator did not work; that STA management told Mrs Benson to return to work saying, "It’s like riding a bike. When you fall off you have to get back on and ride it."

In respect of these allegations, the Ombudsman found, first, there was no evidence that Mrs Benson was threatened with the sack if she went public; second, it could not be determined whether the emergency button was or was not working; and third, no person from STA management said what was attributed to them, but an STA employee, with no intended malice, did make what we all would agree were inappropriate comments. In a statement released today, the Ombudsman said that Mrs Benson’s employer genuinely tried to assist her with counselling and support. But regrettably, this was inadequate. The STA has been swift to act upon the Ombudsman’s 38 recommendations.

Mr Photios: Was it 38?

Mr LANGTON: Yes, 38, not 32 as in your press release. In fact, the STA has already acted on 26 of the 38 recommendations. I am advised that the STA has ordered a complete review of the emergency technology on Sydney buses and the hardware and software systems used in the bus radio network are already being updated. New radio-controlled equipment has also been installed in the bus radio room, as well as new base stations, to improve the coverage and quality of radio signals.

Moreover, the radio system will be replaced as soon as possible and the new system will include a satellite tracking system. Tenders have been finalised for the supply and installation of security video cameras on the first 200 of the STA buses and an order will be placed this week. The Ombudsman’s report is far reaching and provides an in-depth analysis of the management structures and occupational health and safety and rehabilitation programs in place at the STA. The STA has adopted the report as a blueprint to implement better mechanisms for managing incidents of assault and minimising the risk of assault. While the report indicates that the STA, as an organisation, failed Mrs Benson, it is also clear that that was unintentional. The Ombudsman makes it clear that the STA genuinely tried to assist her with counselling and support, and clearly recommended that no person be made a scapegoat.

The absence of prior experience in sexual assault matters and of clear lines of communication between management and the occupational health and safety officer resulted in the department providing an inadequate response to Mrs Benson. The report is critical of management’s failure to spell out policies, such as not risking assault over a fare dispute. I am advised that the STA has already amended its employees’ handbook to address those issues, and that the handbook will be re-issued as early as next week. A workplace training program on policies and practices regarding workers compensation has been developed, and an amended safety management plan will be issued by the year’s end.

I am pleased to say that the STA has responded positively and quickly to both the Ombudsman’s report and the recommendations. While the report finds that the STA’s actions were motivated by good intentions, the handling of Mrs Benson’s case was poor, and caused her offence and
Page 487
great distress. The Ombudsman is critical of the counselling process and the fact that the occupational health and safety officer managing Mrs Benson’s rehabilitation did not arrange for a new counsellor when Mrs Benson complained. At the same time, Mrs Benson was vulnerable, being subject to rumours emanating from some sources in the depot and was understandably upset not to be reassured her position was secure.

Management should have had some mechanism in place to address those concerns. The Ombudsman notes that when Mrs Benson withdrew from contact with the STA this should have been a sign to management that something was wrong. It is essential for all staff members to have a sense of worth and value. Bus operators do an important job and serve the community well. If it is of any comfort to Mrs Benson, I assure her that the result of this most unfortunate incident will be a permanent structural change that will improve the safety and security of STA employees. I thank the Ombudsman for her report and I commend the STA for its mature and well-considered response to it.

Mr Collins: We were right again.

Mr LANGTON: Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Mr ARMSTRONG: My question is addressed to the Premier. Last year did the Minister for Police open the Kincumber police station on the central coast with great fanfare, saying it would be a 24-hour operation with additional patrols? Why has this station now been downgraded to a 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. operation run by one officer on light duties without a car, while the Premier has saved his local station from being downgraded?

Mr CARR: I do not remember quite precisely, but I think the Leader of the National Party has issued another report card, this time on the Minister for Police, giving him 90 out of 100. He is always dashing off these report cards. I will refer the question to the Minister for Police.

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

Mr SHEDDEN: My question is directed to the Premier. What details is the Premier able to give of the Government’s plans to improve community safety throughout New South Wales?

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

Mr CARR: This morning I joined police commissioner Ryan and deputy commissioner Lawson in releasing for public comment a new $4.25 million community policing plan for the State.

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

Mr CARR: My Government is giving commissioner Ryan the tools he needs to do the job: 650 additional police officers by 1999, tougher penalties for crimes such as large-scale drug dealing, and more equipment for police at the front line, including bullet-resistant vests and the modern pistols that were denied them for seven long years by the former Government. Until recently the New South Wales Police Service was focused only on traditional measures. During the 1980s under the previous Labor Government the Police Service became involved in community policing: Neighbourhood Watch, the safety house program and community consultative committees. This Government wants to build on that, and so does the police commissioner.

I commend to the House the elements of the draft plan released today. They include new and flexible community safety committees to bring police and communities together to solve local crime problems; a new full-time community safety officer to implement community safety plans; and a series of programs appropriate to particular areas to reduce crime and the fear of crime, such as Neighbourhood Watch, the safety house program and crime prevention workshops. These plans will be made appropriate to the community and to the needs of that particular community. It is not the Government’s intention that a statewide model be imposed regardless of its applicability. Shopkeepers who want foot patrols will be able to put that to their local police and negotiate that service from local police.

Ms Ficarra: You took it away from them.

Mr CARR: Now, listen. The spotlight fell on you yesterday. I am prepared to back you in your preselection challenge but that is conditional on your observing a bit of decorum in the House. I cannot do what you want me to do, send a letter to your Liberal branch members saying, "Send her back," if you do not give me the material I can use. Decorum in the House is the starting point. I will not endorse any of you unless there is a bit of good behaviour in
Page 488
the House. Unreasonable? I think not. It is another indication that the New South Wales Police Service - under the leadership of the new police commissioner, supported as always by this side of the House - reformed and in touch with the community, is exploring every avenue to achieve that great goal of a more secure and safer community for New South Wales.

Mr TINK: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of his allegation that Labor members of the House are happy with the Government’s policing policy, how does he explain the distress of the honourable member for Lakemba, who, having been shot at three hundred yards away from a police station, found that it took 20 minutes for police to answer his distress call?

Mr CARR: He is one person I hope is not threatened by that little charmer who I hear is out of the cellars once again - Lyenko Urbanchich. There is no doubt about the New South Wales Liberal Party. When you think they are sunk in boredom -

Mr O’Doherty: On a point of order. There is no doubt the Premier is trying to avoid answering the question, and is flouting your persistent calls for him to answer the question. On the basis of relevance, under the standing orders I ask you to direct the Premier to simply answer the question.

Mr CARR: Lyenko Urbanchich is back in business. You would not believe it! The man called "the beast of the Balkans" is back, running the Liberal Party.

Mr Photios: Hear! Hear!

Mr CARR: Hear! Hear! Hansard will record that, because I responded. The honourable member for Eastwood always gets it wrong. He is the man who, by voting against the motion to set up the royal commission, opposed the clean-up of the Police Service. He is the man who says that police numbers keep falling when the official record is 441 more police now than in April 1995. He is the man who says that police numbers will fall because of the sacking of corrupt officers. One cannot believe a thing he says.

Mr LYNCH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Environment. What action is the Government taking to finance waste reduction initiatives by community groups, local councils and business?

Ms ALLAN: As part of the Government’s campaign on the causes of excessive waste generation, I was today pleased to launch the second round of the Carr Government’s waste program grants. For years under the coalition, community groups, local government and business have all had to struggle because they have been starved of financial support and leadership in respect of waste reduction. The coalition’s solution to waste was to create megadumps all over New South Wales, let illegal dumpers off the hook with soft penalties and keep the Waterloo incinerator and the Castlereagh toxic waste dump open indefinitely.

Mr Scully: And Ryde.

Ms ALLAN: And Ryde. Labor has rejected that approach. We have passed the Waste Minimisation and Management Act, which embodies the only legislated 60 per cent waste reduction target in the world. Importantly, though, we are backing up this commitment with record funding of more than $35 million over a three-year period. Honourable members should compare that with what the coalition spent.

Mr Hartcher: Oh, come on.

Ms ALLAN: The former Minister for the Environment is embarrassed. He spent more money on his bed linen and his office than he did on waste programs! The Government is inviting industry, community groups and councils across the State to apply for a further share of this money, by making available $1.68 million for waste reduction strategies. As was the case during the first round of the grant applications, individual grants of up to $100,000 will be made available. It is imperative that we as a community get smarter about waste. The Government believes that there is talent and commitment in local government and industry, and in the general community, and the sorts of initiatives that those bodies are coming forward with should be tapped into. The Government has set aside $1.6 million for community projects to develop locally based solutions for waste reduction. The types of projects we will be looking for will continue to avoid or reduce waste produced by business, government and the community. They will be innovative projects and those that will provide information or models for others in the community to follow.

Page 489

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

Ms ALLAN: Projects that involve whole industries will be encouraged. Those which represent partnerships between business, industry and local government will also be funded. The Government is committed to work with the whole community to achieve the 60 per cent target by the year 2000. There will be numerous funding priorities for the second round of grant applications. They will include green waste, construction and demolition waste, commercial and industrial waste, producer responsibility and education. The Government is also interested in initiatives that reduce domestic hazardous waste such as batteries, paints, motor oil and solvents - waste that might otherwise end up illegally in the State’s waterways.

The first round of applications was very successful. Sixty-one projects were funded to a total of $3.4 million. That sum combined with the $1.6 million the Government is announcing today builds on the Government’s financial support to the eight new regional waste boards, which are currently finalising their regional waste reduction plans. Guidelines and application forms for the grants are available from the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority pollution line. I suggest that honourable members encourage their local communities to apply for the grants. The money is available now and applications close in mid-November.

Mr PHILLIPS: I ask the Premier whether he has given an undertaking to his Australian Labor Party colleagues that under his privatisation plan there will be free shares for electricity workers who stay in the industry. Does this mean that there will be a public float of electricity assets, which would require legislation passed by both Houses of the Parliament?

Mr CARR: No. Is it not interesting that when the Leader of the Opposition was asked in an interview to nominate the top performers on his front bench he nominated the honourable member for Eastwood, the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai and the honourable member for North Shore.

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

Mr CARR: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the question. I answered it with one word. Listen! I could ask the Minister for Education and Training to set up remedial classes -

Mr Collins: On a point of order.

Mr CARR: - for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition somewhere in the House, if that were desired. The answer was no.

Mr Collins: On a point of order. When the point of order was taken the Premier was given time to complete his answer, and then he sat down.

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

Mr Collins: Which question did the Premier answer -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr GAUDRY: I ask the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs what the Government is doing to address the serious complaints about specialist impotency clinics.

[Interruption]

Dr REFSHAUGE: Mr Speaker, might I suggest a short break so that the jokes might be done now. I presume this issue of some importance can generate some hilarity. There has been a dramatic growth in the number of clinics advertising specialist services for the treatment of impotency. In the past two years the Health Care Complaints Commission has received a number of serious complaints about these clinics and the treatments offered.

[Interruption]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but it appears that the jokes are continuing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Premier may have heard an interjection; the Chair did not.

Dr REFSHAUGE: In response to the complaints made the Government has established a
Page 490
committee to review standards and operating procedures within impotency clinics. This scrutiny is about protecting patients. Since 1996 the Health Care Complaints Commission has received 12 complaints relating to infection control, the drugs used and incorrect treatment of impotency. Infection control procedures are crucial to ensuring patients’ safety, yet one complainant alleges a complete breakdown of infection control guidelines while seeking treatment at an impotency clinic.

The patient claims that the same syringe was used twice to transfer medication from supply bottles to a previously used vial. The patient challenged the doctor, pointing out a breach of established infection control guidelines. The patient claims that the doctor did not understand what a breakdown of infection control meant. Another patient claims that his penis developed a 90-degree bend following treatment prescribed by an impotency clinic. It is alleged that when he returned to the clinic he was told that the clinic could not assist him as he obviously suffered from a pre-existing condition. Independent medical advice sought by the patient recommended surgery to correct the problem. Without surgery the problem might take 12 to 18 months to correct naturally.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. I draw to your attention the hilarity being expressed by Government members and ask that they behave appropriately. This is a serious matter.

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

Dr REFSHAUGE: These are indeed serious complaints. The committee established by the Government will examine issues such as: infection control; preparation and storage of pharmaceutical products; mixing of injectable substances for patient self-administration; patient assessment, diagnosis and monitoring; pricing of supplied appliances and medications. Under the committee’s terms of reference it will inquire into the current standards of practice provided by impotency treatment clinics.

The committee will also investigate the establishment of standards or a code of practice in relation to impotency treatment services. It will examine the adequacy of current New South Wales legislation in relation to the clinics. The committee is to be chaired by the Health Care Complaints Commissioner, Ms Merrilyn Walton, and will include representatives of the Department of Health, the New South Wales Medical Board, independent medical experts and a consumer interest group. The committee will consult extensively with the Health Insurance Commission, the Pharmacy Board and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Public submissions to the inquiry are also being sought.

The committee wants to hear from community and professional organisations, from health service providers, including practitioners providing impotency treatment services, and from individual members of the public. It has already advertised for public submissions. The review is expected to take at least six months. Once again the Carr Government is demonstrating its determination to ensure that patients are protected and that the highest quality standards of health care are secured.

Mr SOURIS: Will the Premier impose yet another tax on clubs, pubs and restaurants to pay for crime prevention, when his $140 million bed and poker machine taxes were supposed to pay for schools, hospitals and beat police? Will he rule out this regressive tax slug announced by his Commissioner of Police, Mr Ryan?

Mr CARR: No. Yes.

Mr WOODS: Will the Minister for Land and Water Conservation give details on the effects of the Government’s restructuring of the New South Wales timber industry?

Mr YEADON: I know that the honourable member for Clarence takes a keen interest in forestry and is very proud of the achievements of this Government in forestry. Today New South Wales can properly and proudly reflect on a year of great achievements and fundamental change to the management of forests. The honourable member for Monaro, who persistently interjects when this issue is raised in this Parliament, did absolutely nothing for seven years when his party was in government in regard to forestry matters.

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

Mr YEADON: I will comply with the ruling but it is extremely difficult given the interjections of the honourable member for Monaro. These great and fundamental changes and achievements in forestry
Page 491
management have resulted in world-class protection of high conservation value forests in New South Wales and greater security for our timber industry.

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

Mr YEADON: The reforms announced by the Carr Labor Government one year ago this week - it is the anniversary of that announcement - represent the greatest leap forward in the management of our forests in this State’s history.

Ms Allan: They hate it.

Mr YEADON: The Opposition absolutely hates it because when in government it spent seven years promising the world everything and delivered nothing. Opposition members cannot stomach the fact that this Government has achieved world-class environmental protection and at the same time ensured that the hardwood timber industry has gone forward in a positive and sustainable way.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries to order.

Mr YEADON: The Government’s forestry package has redefined how government works in partnership with the community, industry, conservationists and workers to address the very complex and difficult issues of forest management. The community component of the Government’s forestry package is a hallmark of the forestry package and one that will be applied by this Government right across the board in relation to natural resource management. Native vegetation management is another crucial issue. The Government is setting up committees of interested groups including farmers and rural representatives.

[Interruption]

I will talk about the numbers later but certainly there will be a balanced representation on those committees. Regional vegetation management plans will be developed by them so that proper and appropriate farm activity will occur whilst at the same time those areas of remnant native vegetation will be preserved. That is a natural proposition. Why would the Government implement policies in relation to forestry, Greener Sydney 2000 and the like, and take no account of the other side of the coin, namely, the clearing of native vegetation?

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

Mr YEADON: Just as there is a component of community representation in relation to forestry and native vegetation, the same applies in respect of our water resources. This Government has done an enormous amount to address the issue of water resources in that State, yet that issue remained unaddressed for the past 50 years.

Mr D. L. Page: What about the river committee?

Mr YEADON: The honourable member for Ballina has no need to interject, I will get to him in a minute. I have a few interesting revelations about the honourable member for Ballina.

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

Mr YEADON: The Government is also putting in place community representation on committees.

Mr D. L. Page: When?

Mr YEADON: The Government is doing it already. That is how far behind the game the honourable member for Ballina is. He asked, "When?" I inform the honourable member for Ballina, as was announced publicly 1½ to 2 weeks ago, that the Government -

Mr D. L. Page: Three chairmen.

Mr YEADON: That is right. The Government has nominated the three chairmen and it has written to interest groups that wish to be represented asking them to nominate members to those committees. Those community-based committees are already in place and will manage this State’s rivers and ground water resources in a sustainable way. That is a hallmark of this Government’s approach to natural resource management. The former Government shrouded itself in secrecy and whipped up conflict in the community for its own cheap political advantage. But this Government is bringing members of the community into the process and making them a fundamental part of it.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. The Minister has been speaking for almost eight minutes. He has been told to talk it out. He has been speaking for far
Page 492
too long. Mr Speaker, you have sensibly and appropriately ruled on this matter in the past.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the gist of the point of order. If members ceased interjecting the answer would have been completed by now.

Mr YEADON: Indeed. The community is a fundamental part of the Government’s natural resource management program. That stands in stark contrast with what is occurring in other States under the national forest policy statement. One regional forest agreement has been determined in Australia, at East Gippsland in Victoria, and it was roundly condemned by most players for being an absolute rort. That agreement involved no science, no consultation, no assistance to the industry, and no assistance to the workers in that industry. The workers were put out the door without any assistance. It is a different story in New South Wales. What this Government is doing has fundamentally redefined the whole approach to conservation and forestry management.

In the Government’s first year in office its reforms have seen the creation of 10 new national parks and 12 new wilderness areas; the protection of high conservation value old growth forests; the establishment of 816,000 hectares of State forests in an interim deferred forest area for assessment, while allowing at the same time industry access in a very limited way; and the protection of high conservation value forests. The former Government promised long-term and sustainable wood supply agreements but it never delivered on those promises.

[Interruption]

If your watch is broken you should take it to a watchmaker.

Mr Collins: No, your watch is broken and so is your speech. You have been told to talk it out and you are abusing question time.

Mr YEADON: I know such successful policy implementation hurts.

Mr Phillips: On a point of order. The Opposition complied with the ruling not to interject, but the Minister tried our patience and Opposition members were forced to interject again. This is obviously a filibuster exercise designed to waste time in question time. It will bring this House into disrepute. Mr Speaker, you have the right, as previous Speakers have done in the past, to ask the Minister to return to the point of the question and to wind up his answer to make it reasonable. A 15-minute answer is not reasonable.

Mr Carr: On the point of order. We have had non-stop interjections at a level rarely seen in the history of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I shall ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the Leader of the Opposition if he does not come to order.

Mr Carr: Only a moment ago the Leader of the Opposition, for want of anything constructive to contribute to debate in this House, was bellowing inane interjections. The Minister was derailed from the material in front of him.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. I will hear no more on the point of order.

Mr YEADON: To continue, at 20 million -

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [3.32 p.m.]: I move:

That the honourable member for Granville be not further heard.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Collins Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Ms Seaton
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Ellis Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr O’Doherty Mr Kerr
Page 493
Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Scully
Ms Hall Mr Shedden
Mr Harrison Mr Stewart
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Knight Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Windsor
Mr Langton Mr Woods
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Dr Macdonald Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Ms Ficarra Mr Hunter
Mr Fraser Mr Iemma
Mr Glachan Mr Markham
Mr Oakeshott Mr Nagle
Mr Schultz Mr Rumble
Mr Small Mr Sullivan
Mr J. H. Turner Mr Whelan

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. Under the standing orders the time for asking and answering questions has expired.

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

Mr YEADON: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, the Government’s reforms have resulted in $20 million being spent on new investment in timber mills and value-adding equipment, the creation of 133 new jobs, help for displaced workers and a massive expansion in hardwood timber plantations. Those reforms have been a revelation for many in the timber industry who have finally received much-needed long-term security and help to upgrade their businesses and to encourage more value adding.

At the same time this State’s forests are undergoing the greatest scientific assessment ever undertaken in this country. As a result of the Government’s forest reforms, conflict has been at an all-time low. People often complain that governments do not make policies for the long term, that they do not have long-term vision, and that their attention is concentrated on the next election, but the Carr Labor Government is providing a clear example of its vision for a sustainable future for forests. Honourable members need not take only my word for it. People in the community are saying exactly the same thing. Lexie Hurford, the director of Hurford Timbers, said:

We are going to be building a better, more modern production centre than the one we have now and increasing and developing our marketing. We really want to build on the skills that our people have.

Mr Photios: On a point of order. The Minister’s preamble has been rather lengthy. He has been speaking now, including the time taken for procedural matters, for over 20 minutes. I ask you to draw him to a conclusion. He is making a complete farce of this place. I ask you to bring some decorum to this place by asking him to lead by example.

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

Mr YEADON: Lexie Hurford continued:

A lot of our people have been with us many years and that’s an asset that is very important for us and we are very excited about the future.

Mr Spiro Notaras, the director of J. Notaras and Sons, said:

If it weren’t for the package we would have half the staff or be out of business. With the restructure, we could go well over 60 people. It’ll be a challenge, because we have to retrain, but without the restructuring it would have been disastrous for us and disastrous for Grafton.

Members on the other side of the House will know that the Notaras family were no friends of the Labor Party prior to the last election, but that is the present view of Mr Notaras.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Procedure) Bill

Page 494

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

Health Legislation Amendment Bill

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

Mr Speaker -

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following Resolution:

That, in accordance with section 68(2) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, Mr Johnson be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission as a member of the Legislative Council in place of Ms Staunton, resigned.

Legislative Council Max Willis
24 September 1997 President

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

Mr Speaker -

The Legislative Council desires to inform the Legislative Assembly that it has this day agreed to the following Resolution:

That, in accordance with section 31D(2) of the Ombudsman Act 1974, Mr Kelly be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission as a member of the Legislative Council in place of Ms Staunton, resigned.

Legislative Council Max Willis
24 September 1997 President

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [3.45 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because today will be the first opportunity, other than yesterday’s sitting, to repudiate the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated and completely erroneous attack on the position taken by the New South Wales Government in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. The motion is urgent because it is absolutely necessary to place on the public record a repudiation of the Prime Minister’s statement and place on record this Government’s positive achievements. My motion will provide an opportunity for the House to debate an issue of great public importance prior to the Federal Government and all State governments adopting a national greenhouse strategy, which is to be finalised in October.

The matter should be debated today because the Prime Minister, by his unjustified attack on New South Wales, has generated unnecessary and unjustified fears regarding jobs in this State, despite having no evidence to support his claim. Indeed, the opposite is true, and that of itself justifies the claim that the motion is urgent. For those reasons I urge this House to grant my motion priority.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [3.47 p.m.]: My motion is considerably more urgent than the motion of which the honourable member for East Hills has given notice. It is urgent because the Carr Government is blatantly rorting the redistribution of New South Wales electorates. The Premier’s plan to cut the number of Lower House seats from 99 to 93 would enable him to win the 1999 State election with as little as 45 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Obviously the Premier does not feel confident that he can win the next election on his own merits, so he has gone for the big gerrymander. The fix is in. The Premier proposes to take New South Wales back to Queensland in the 1970s. We now have Bob Bjelke-Carr!

[Interruption]

I know it hurts those opposite, particularly the honourable member for Bathurst. As John Laws said yesterday, "It is corrupt, it’s rotten and it stinks." When he said that, he was referring merely to the redistribution plan, but he could have been referring to the entire Labor Party. Even the Premier’s own caucus colleagues think it stinks.

Mr McBride: On a point of order. In the absence of the honourable member for Londonderry, I make the point in terms of the standing orders that, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, he has to speak to urgency. He has yet to explain why his motion is more urgent than the motion of which the honourable member for East Hills has given notice. So far he has not made any reference to urgency. We all know that he is referring to the 1999 ballot. What is so urgent about that?

Page 495

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has expressed his point of order clearly. The Leader of the Opposition will abide by the standing orders.

Mr COLLINS: My motion is urgent because yesterday behind closed doors, as the honourable member for The Entrance knows, Labor Party members said the redistribution plan was a rort. The figures in the caucus vote show that even members of the Labor Party think the Premier’s plan is a rort. The plan barely scraped through caucus. If the next election were a higher school certificate exam, the Premier would be done for cheating! The Labor Party scraped into government and sits on the other side of the House with only 48 per cent of the two- party preferred vote. It now wants to retain office with as little as 45 per cent of the vote. This plan demonstrates that the Premier and his colleagues believe they cannot win a fair election.

Mr Anderson: On a point of order. A few minutes ago you ruled that the Leader of the Opposition was entering into the substance of the debate rather than speaking on urgency. I ask you to bring him back to that urgency.

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

Mr COLLINS: My motion is urgent because the plan announced yesterday by the Premier is not about saving money; it is about saving his skin and the political necks of his colleagues at the next election. The plan, which was hatched yesterday and is now in the public arena, must be debated as a matter of urgency. It is a disgrace that the electoral redistribution has been delayed by a record 30 months. The issue must be resolved today. The electoral rort proposed by the Labor Party must end now. This debate is critical. How much of a leg-up does the Labor Party want to give itself? It won the last State election with 48 per cent of the vote and is trying to stay in office with as little as 45 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. [Time expired.]

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

The House divided.

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

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

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Page 496

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [4.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Federal Government for its unjustified attacks on the New South Wales Government’s initiatives on greenhouse, and calls upon the Federal Government to restore the greenhouse programs removed as part of its cost cutting; and

(2) calls upon the Federal Government to match the New South Wales Government’s positive greenhouse initiatives.

I make it clear at the outset that this debate is not about the Federal Government’s internationally stated position on greenhouse targets or differentiation. It is about the Prime Minister’s unsubstantiated and unjustified attacks on the positive greenhouse initiatives taken by the New South Wales Government. The debate is also about the hypocritical position taken by the Federal Government on greenhouse gas emissions. It wants Australia to be given special consideration internationally in relation to greenhouse gas emissions, but at the same time it is doing little or nothing to attack the greenhouse problems in Australia.

I understand that the attacks on the New South Wales Government and on the Premier in particular were provoked by something the Premier said last weekend. That was not about targets; it was simply about the lack of leadership demonstrated by the Federal Government on this issue. This week the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that as many as 90,000 workers in the energy and mining sectors could lose their jobs and that the price of petrol could increase by as much as 70¢ a litre, the price of natural gas could increase by as much as 40¢ a litre and electricity charges could increase by 100 per cent. The Prime Minister said:

. . . those who argue that we should give in on the most extreme view on this issue are completely ignorant of the very drastic consequences that this country would suffer.

In yesterday’s Australian the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

[Bob Carr] apparently thinks we should be out there agreeing with what the Europeans want at the forthcoming Kyoto Summit.

Wrong! As I said at the outset, the Premier said that the Commonwealth Government should take the lead on this issue, as New South Wales has. Referring to Premier, the Prime Minister also said:

I wonder whether he will have the guts to go to Newcastle and tell the people of the Hunter Valley just where he stands on this issue.

Bearing the facts in mind, those alarmist statements are completely unjustified. The Prime Minister is setting up a greenhouse bogeyman and is behaving like a punch-drunk fighter, lashing out ridiculously at the one State that is doing more than any other about the greenhouse effect, and doing it cost effectively. However, the Prime Minister’s statements are consistent with his despicable performance at the South Pacific Forum, at which he questioned the legitimacy of climate change as an issue for South Pacific island nations and made light of the vulnerability of their land to changes in climate as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect.

The Prime Minister would do well to remember that while it is assumed that Australia’s overall contribution to the greenhouse gas problem is small, it is amongst the dozen highest emitting countries in the world and is the world’s highest producer of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Those factors must be taken into consideration when this nation puts forward internationally its position on the greenhouse problem. The Prime Minister’s statements are absurd when one considers that Federal Ministers have been trotting the globe, distributing a New South Wales document to bolster their position. The document to which I refer is "NSW Tackles Greenhouse", which was released by the Premier on World Environment Day. The Prime Minister now claims that the greenhouse policy of the New South Wales Government is somehow undermining the position taken by Australia internationally. The greenhouse effect is one of the most critical environmental issues facing the world today. Even large oil companies agree. In a recent speech on climate change, BP Group chief executive John Brown said:

The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven . . . but when the possibility cannot be discounted.

The Federal Government’s posturing in relation to its international position on greenhouse reduction targets is bringing into disrepute the reputation of New South Wales as the leading State in implementing greenhouse abatement actions, thus jeopardising Australia’s position internationally, not
Page 497
to mention the Sydney Olympics. The price rises claimed by John Howard are based on Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics modelling which, to say the least, has been highly contentious. The modelling has been funded by industry groups and released without peer review.

The Prime Minister’s recent scaremongering figures on job losses is astounding. In a moderate energy demand growth scenario for Australia - and I am now talking about renewable energies such as solar, photovoltaic, thermal, waste, wind and hydro energy - it is believed that if demand is supplied by locally manufactured products, seven new jobs would be created per megawatt of new generating capacity. That means that 2,500 jobs would be created under a moderate growth scenario and perhaps as many as 17,000 new jobs may be created under a high growth scenario.

In light of these figures I challenge John Howard to explain exactly where his 100,000 job loss figures comes from. They would seem to be more a result of his Government’s cutbacks than anything else. Rather than catching up, the Commonwealth Government is in danger of falling further behind. It abolished the Energy Research and Development Corporation and slashed a further $11 million from the national energy efficiency program on top of a $3 million cut in its 1996-97 budget.

The budget cut represented a reduction of $50 million over four years from Commonwealth energy research and efficiency programs in the resources and energy portfolios. The only things the Federal Government really has going for it at the moment are voluntary agreements with industry, which were started by the former environment Minister, Senator Faulkner. Meanwhile New South Wales is actively supporting the development of a national greenhouse strategy. Research undertaken by the CSIRO shows that significant climate change could occur over the next two or three decades with the potential to impose major impacts on New South Wales ecosystems and the economy.

Advice from the CSIRO indicates that by the year 2030 New South Wales may experience temperature increases of between 1 degree and 1.5 degrees and variations in rainfall patterns that could result in reductions in rainfall of up to 15 per cent in some areas and an increase of as much as 5 per cent in others. I am sure that members of the National Party would be interested in these concerns. New South Wales is leading the way in Australia in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Its promotion of energy efficiency, renewable energy and co-generation will result in greenhouse emissions being reduced, money being saved and jobs being created.

Programs launched by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority to achieve cost-effective emission reductions through energy measures have created dozens of jobs. Job increases from such programs are expected to reach many thousands by 2010. Only this week I had the privilege to open Honeywell’s refurbished building under the SEDA energy smart buildings program. The Honeywell refit has achieved an 18 per cent reduction in the energy consumed by the building and resulted in the reduction of 657,000 kilograms of CO₂ emissions per year.

The refit cost $0.25 million, will give a return of $80,000 per year and has a pay-back period of 3.5 years. The refit is clearly justified on economic grounds and, indeed, environmental grounds. The New South Wales approach is consistent with a major statement made in February 1997 by six Nobel laureates and 2,000 of their colleagues concerning the costs of responding to the greenhouse effect. They said:

Climate change can be slowed by measures which do not harm employment or living standards and may improve productivity in the long run. Many of the measures required have benefits exceeding their costs and can be efficiently implemented through market mechanisms.

To promote energy efficiency and encourage the development and application of renewable energy, this Government established the Sustainable Energy Development Authority, and the investment of $39 million has already yielded remarkable returns. New South Wales is the only Australian Government to have legislation requiring greenhouse reductions for the electricity sector. New South Wales is investing in new technologies and renewable resources, such as EnergyAustralia’s new photovoltaic power station in the upper Hunter. SEDA’s energy star labelling system in office will save $25 million per year in energy costs, while cutting emissions equivalent to taking 50,000 cars off the road. In conclusion, we on this side of the House completely repudiate the Prime Minister’s attack on the Premier.

Instead of attacking the New South Wales Government’s very positive program, the Federal Government should set an example by emulating it. Indeed, this whole debate has to be switched from costs to savings and jobs because this is the area where the jobs will be created. The Government is showing, by positive example, how that can be done. It ill behoves the Prime Minister to make the attacks he did. He should get his own house in order before he even suggests that other governments, including
Page 498
New South Wales, are doing less than they should be doing to meet the greenhouse challenge.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.10 p.m.]: The New South Wales Opposition opposes the motion because it trivialises the problem of greenhouse gases. It approaches the whole issue in an overly simplistic way and is designed purely and simply as a point-scoring exercise. It is something to fill the time of the House this afternoon when those on the Labor benches do not wish to debate the issues that the people of New South Wales really care about. They do not want to talk about the issues that flow from the incompetence of the Carr Labor Government.

This House is not being permitted to debate the issue of concern to so many members opposite: privatisation of the electricity industry. It is entirely appropriate for the Labor Party to play those silly games, because that is the way it administers government. It does not have any idea how to govern, other than to play silly games. The coalition shares the concern of the Federal Government and the community about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the global warming of our environment. Perhaps 20 years ago the issue was debated more, but as the years have gone by there has been less controversy about the concept of greenhouse gases and their effect on our environment. Today there is an acceptance by the Labor Party, the coalition parties and most experts in the community that greenhouse gases pose major problems for global warming.

Recently concern was expressed by the Pacific nations about the levels of rising water as a result of global warming. Each nation has to look at this issue from the perspective of what is a balanced approach for that nation. The Federal Government is attempting to ensure a balance between jobs and the environment. There is no question but that greenhouse gases need to be reined in, and there has been a great deal of voluntary activity by major companies in Australia that have recognised the need to do that in relation to not only carbon monoxide but also a range of gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 25 June stated in part:

This month marks the first anniversary of one of the most ambitious voluntary environment programs ever undertaken by Australian industry. Exactly one year ago, four of Australia’s biggest companies - BHP, Shell, ICI and CRA - signed agreements which will cut their aggregate greenhouse emissions by a staggering 18 per cent below business-as-usual levels by 2000.

That type of voluntary contribution, encouraged by a concerned community, is the answer for Australia at the present time. I am surprised, and I am sure that many members of the community would also be surprised, that the honourable member for East Hills and the Labor Party are prepared to play political games with people’s lives and jobs. Certainly the environment is extremely significant and important, but jobs have to be the issue, particularly in the Illawarra and Hunter regions. The honourable member for East Hills will be aware that the coal industry will suffer most in Australia as a result of the imposition of binding legal targets for greenhouse emissions. Those binding legal targets, which are apparently supported by the Carr Government, would by definition result in the loss of many jobs in New South Wales, jobs that are desperately needed by New South Wales families.

The coalition is particularly concerned to ensure that jobs in the Hunter and in the Illawarra are maintained but certainly not at the risk of a potential health hazard to the people who live in those areas. We have to find the right balance. The community in Australia understands the complexity of this issue, but apparently the Carr Government does not. Some small groups can afford the luxury of taking a particular position but other nations, such as Japan, understand our position. As the honourable member for East Hills said, Australia is a relatively small producer of greenhouse gases. The percentage is of the order of 1.3 per cent or 1.4 per cent of the total world contribution to greenhouse gases. I believe that America contributes approximately 45 per cent. That tends to put into perspective how we are not damaging the rest of the world to the extent that the Premier would have us believe.

We are morally obligated to try to reduce greenhouse targets, but we are not causing sufficient damage to our neighbours in either Asia or the Pacific to warrant our throwing ourselves headlong into a position that would result in a massive loss of jobs. The coal industry would suffer enormously. I am stunned that when jobs are so much a focus for the community, the New South Wales Labor Party is willing to move this motion, and I move the following amendment:

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

this House congratulates the Federal Government for its justified criticism of the New South Wales Government’s appalling record on the environment, greenhouse gases and air quality.

It is the ultimate irony that the Labor Party is willing to squander the time of this House and
Page 499
prevent debate on privatisation and other issues that affect the community. While it is doing that it is also doing absolutely nothing to improve air quality in western Sydney. The air quality in the Hunter, the Illawarra and the Sydney basin is pitiful under this Government and nothing has been done to improve it. There has been no improvement to transport in the west of Sydney and no improvement in air quality overall by the Government. The only thing that the Government has done since it came to office is add a couple of extra air monitoring stations to the 27 that had been established by the former coalition Government. The Government promised the community that motor vehicle exhaust emissions would be checked at registration time. Cash for clunkers was one faddish suggestion last year by the Acting Minister for the Environment.

The Premier was going to find money for old cars and suggested a wonderful system of cash for clunkers. The only clunkers, unfortunately, are sitting on the Government benches. They simply do not have the combined intellect to realise that the community understands how hopeless they are and that they are delivering nothing on the environment. When government members jump up and down about what the Federal Government is trying to do, no-one believes them. It is just one big clunk so far as the community is concerned.

The Opposition takes the view that when the Premier gets his own house in order he might have legitimate reason to criticise the Federal Government. At the moment Mr Howard, Mr Fischer, Mr Downer and Senator Hill are trying desperately to find that right balance. The Kyoto conference will be held in December and a lot of wheeling and dealing is taking place. The honourable member for East Hills said that he is not talking about differentiation. The developing countries in eastern Europe have recognised the necessity for differentiation. They accept the need to allow different levels of emissions, recognising various social effects such as job losses and destruction of industry.

The New South Wales Government does nothing for jobs. In fact, it has lost an enormous number of jobs since it took office. The honourable member for Clarence, of course, managed to get a job and is now trying for one on the Government’s front bench, but the rest of the community is being left out to dry. The Opposition is angry at the Government’s hypocrisy in attacking the Federal Government, which is simply trying to protect the jobs of Australians. The Federal Government is aiming to achieve a balance that recognises the need for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the need for employment. The coalition has a concern for workers, although it would appear that the Labor Party does not share that concern.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [4.20 p.m.]: The Prime Minister is clearly misinformed about what has been going on in New South Wales in relation to greenhouse gases. I intend to bring to the attention of the House some of the Government’s actions. The New South Wales Government is not relying on the Commonwealth Government to provide leadership in the national response to the greenhouse dilemma. The State Government has a policy to reduce emissions, to promote energy efficiency and research, and to educate the community. The Government is active in all those areas. The Government considers that it is important to build a better understanding of climate change.

The first five-year research program into this problem by the Environment Protection Authority and the CSIRO was completed in 1995. A further three-year project has been funded to provide more precise climate-change scenarios to guide future management of greenhouse gases. The project is being undertaken by the division of atmospheric research of the CSIRO, and the EPA is providing funding of $250,000 as part of the ongoing commitment of the New South Wales Government to implementing national greenhouse strategies. The CSIRO climate-change modelling is internationally renowned for its state-of-the-art research technology and methodology. This research is at the cutting edge of climate-change science and is essential for our knowledge of potential climate change in New South Wales.

Scientists have been able to reproduce seasonal patterns of average maximum and minimum temperatures and rainfall for inland and coastal New South Wales. The modelling suggests that by 2070, maximum temperatures in New South Wales are likely to increase and there will be an increased frequency of extreme temperatures. The tendency statewide for more frequent heavy rainfall is likely to be combined with a significant decrease in winter rainfall in some parts of the State. The New South Wales Government recognises the need to start planning now to address effectively the climate change that is likely to have an impact on this State in the coming decades. The EPA-funded research allows the Government to base its planning on the best possible data on the likely impacts of greenhouse gas emissions.

The honourable member for East Hills has outlined the profound reforms initiated by the Government in the energy sector. All the
Page 500
Government’s activities are spelt out in "NSW Tackles Greenhouse", a booklet launched by the Premier in June this year. The booklet is proving to be a valuable educational resource in many different forums. New measures to preserve and enhance existing vegetation were announced earlier this year by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Such measures included new native vegetation conservation legislation, regional vegetation management plans and a substantial incentives package. Transport and land use planning are critical to greenhouse management. Whole-of-government processes in matters such as planning and transport will deliver a range of environmental benefits to New South Wales, including a reduction of greenhouse gases.

The Government’s landmark waste reforms, enshrined in the Waste Minimisation and Management Act, do not deal with reducing waste only; they set up a comprehensive system for managing the environmental impacts of waste disposal. Methane emissions from landfills are specifically addressed in the environmental guidelines for solid waste landfills, which require the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through extraction of the methane and its combustion or utilisation for energy generation. These requirements will be placed on the licence conditions of all landfills licensed under the Act from 1 July 1997.

The launch of the Government’s green power program in March this year followed a successful trial of the scheme in the Newcastle area. Newcastle is on the ball - and not only when it comes to rugby league. Newcastle is a champion in energy efficiency. The Newcastle City Council, for example, has introduced an extensive energy efficiency program that will go a long way towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Newcastle hosted the international Pathways to Sustainability Conference in June this year. Flowing from the conference is a strong recognition by businesses in the area of the need to become involved in ecologically sustainable development and to take business opportunities in that regard. The Hunter region development organisation now has a business cluster dedicated particularly to sustainable development. The Kooragang wind farm is being set up, along with Energy Australia, and is proof of dedication to other methods of generating energy. Solar energy generation features also. The Government, the people of Newcastle and the people of New South Wales are committed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [4.25 p.m.]: It is not difficult to understand why the honourable member for East Hills was not appointed Minister for Energy, as he was expected to be. He would have been a dismal flop; he would not have looked after his constituency in any way. In this debate the honourable member for Newcastle has not demonstrated concern for his constituency. He does not understand the nexus between the coal industry, the power industry and the provision of jobs in the Hunter region. I was astounded at his contribution, given that the Hunter would be one of the regions most affected by binding greenhouse gas emission targets.

Opposition members understand the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to tackle the problem of global warming on an international and co-operative basis. However, we also say that all countries are different and have different obligations in addressing these issues. The European Union, for example, has tried to suggest that Australia should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent from 1990 levels. It is easy for a country such as France to make that suggestion because more than 80 per cent of its electricity is generated by nuclear power. Do the honourable member for East Hills, the honourable member for Newcastle and the honourable member for Gladesville advocate that Australia should change from coal-fired power stations to nuclear power stations? Is that what the Labor Party wants for New South Wales? Is that what the people of this State want?

Mr Watkins: That would be quite a talking point.

Mr RICHARDSON: Perhaps we should construct a nuclear power station in the Gladesville electorate. Australia has a high dependency on coal-fired power stations because they provide us with a comparative economic advantage. I realise that such acknowledgment does not come easily from Government members. They do not understand economic issues. The Governor’s Speech paid scant attention to economic issues - apart from criticising the Commonwealth Government. Government members are a bunch of economic illiterates. It is a fact that that economic advantage has to be preserved if jobs are to be preserved.

Opposition members and the Howard Government say that some sort of allowance should be made for Australia being the most arid populated continent on earth and having a very large land mass and a small population. Australia has very little in the way of water, so hydro-electricity - which environmentalists decry anyway - cannot be embraced to the extent that it is in other countries. There is a definite objection within this country to
Page 501
the generation of electricity by nuclear power, so how is Australia to proceed?

I have heard the honourable member for Newcastle talk about the wind farm at Kooragang, which is an excellent idea. I have met Martin Green and seen the work being done at Pacific Solar to create more efficient solar power cells. Australia is leading the world in that respect and that industry may become a substantial export earner for this country in years to come. Members on this side of the Chamber continue to support those sorts of initiatives. But the binding targets that are likely to be sought to be forced on us in Kyoto in December will cost this State jobs.

The Commonwealth Government is implementing the following to reduce greenhouse emissions. Forty-two enterprises have signed agreements with the greenhouse challenge program, accounting for more than 45 per cent of emissions in the mining, manufacturing and services sector. The estimated carbon dioxide emission savings below static efficiency by these companies will be 1 million tonnes by the year 2000. There is a $318 million national vegetation initiative, and plans to establish 1.25 million hectares of vegetation during the next five years. That needs to be taken into account when one considers greenhouse gas targets. [Time expired.]

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [4.30 p.m.]: I am happy to support this urgency motion. Earlier this year on World Environment Day the New South Wales Government launched its reaction to the greenhouse problem, "NSW Tackles Greenhouse". In February this year the summary of a public declaration on the American situation by six Nobel laureates in economics plus 2,000 of their colleagues stated:

Climate change can be slowed by measures which do not harm employment or living standards and may improve productivity in the long run. Many of the measures required have benefits exceeding their costs and can be efficiently implemented through market mechanisms.

That outlines the approach of the New South Wales Government to the problems of greenhouse. There is no need to harm employment and lower living standards. Improved productivity can be achieved and benefits can exceed the costs of a proper greenhouse strategy. That puts a lie to the Prime Minister’s position that the greenhouse choice facing Australia is between the reduction of greenhouse gases and jobs. That is a simplistic, outmoded idea, and the Prime Minister needs to move beyond it. Despite concerns about the Prime Minister’s position, New South Wales has actively involved itself in the national process dealing with climate change.

The New South Wales Government has supported initiatives that include a review of the national greenhouse response and membership on an intergovernmental committee on economically sustainable development. It is not relying on the Federal Government’s agenda. If it did, it would not be making essential gains. New South Wales is implementing policies that reduce emissions and promote energy, efficiency and research and concentrate on education. The Prime Minister misjudges the electorate when he discounts the importance of this issue to local communities. These greenhouse issues are not just the business of international treaties and meetings; they have a local face.

Earlier this year I was very proud that the New South Wales greenhouse document was launched in my electorate on World Environment Day. On that occasion the Premier and the Parliamentary Secretary came to Riverside Girls High School at Huntley’s Point and launched the document. The students, as always, demonstrated concerned interest in environmental matters and an understanding of the greenhouse threat that faces Australia and indeed the world. It was appropriate that it was launched at a school because greenhouse problems arising today will impact on future generations far more than they do on this generation. What is most upsetting about the Prime Minister’s stance is that he refuses to face, or act in favour of, the future.

The second local illustration of the Government’s greenhouse position as outlined in the document relates to the Olympic village, which is easily seen from my electorate and yours, Mr Speaker. The 2000 Games Olympic village will have the largest solar photovoltaic residential development in the world, generating more than 1 million kilowatt hours a year of electricity from sunlight. Solar photovoltaic modules will be integrated into the roofs of at least 665 permanent houses in the village. Those houses will also have a range of energy-efficient design features, from passive solar design to five-star energy efficient appliances, including solar hot water.

As well as the Olympic Games site the green power initiative has been embraced by the people of New South Wales. It is open to all power customers in this State to take part of their power from a renewable energy source and I understand that that has been warmly embraced. That is not just a policy in words, launched and then forgotten; it is living
Page 502
proof of steps to give effect to a greenhouse policy. Further local environment groups in my area are concerned about the greenhouse position put forward by the Prime Minister, and they argue strongly that he should reassess the position on behalf of Australia. The New South Wales approach has four prongs, and I suggest that everyone involved take time to read the document. [Time expired.]

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [4.35 p.m.], in reply: I do not believe that the Opposition understood the motion. Somehow or other members of the Opposition missed its import.

Mr Hazzard: There was an amendment.

Mr ROGAN: I made it very clear at the outset that this debate was not about the Federal Government - [Quorum formed.]

Whenever the Opposition is sensitive about a motion it calls a quorum. The honourable member for Wakehurst realised that I was about to deal with the nonsense he put forward about targets and differentiation, which, at the outset, I made clear was not in the motion and was not part of this debate. The honourable member for Wakehurst lost sight of the fact that this debate is about the unjustified attacks by the Federal Government on the New South Wales Government. The Federal Government’s record is so poor that when the honourable member for The Hills finally got around to saying something about its initiatives he had only 30 seconds left to speak. At that point I interjected to say that the 30 seconds was about all the time the honourable member needed to outline the Opposition’s initiatives, although he could probably have covered them in 10 seconds. The honourable member for The Hills talked more nonsense than the honourable member for Wakehurst. The honourable member for The Hills said that jobs would be lost in the Hunter region. At the outset I made it clear - and the figures demonstrate this - that greenhouse initiatives lead to jobs, not the loss of jobs. Members opposite talked nonsense.

The honourable member for The Hills referred to nuclear power. That was never mentioned. Indeed, a Labor government introduced legislation to ban nuclear energy in New South Wales. The honourable member referred to the excellent work on photovoltaics done by Professor Martin Green at the University of New South Wales. It is not the Federal Government but the New South Wales Government that is assisting the University of New South Wales through the former energy authority Pacific Power. The honourable member for Wakehurst should remember that what he says in this House will always come back to haunt him. What he said today will not be well received in the community, not only by those concerned about the environment but by young people in particular who are concerned about their future. This is not about jobs. The initiatives I have outlined today will create jobs.

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Armstrong Mr Oakeshott
Mr Beck Mr O’Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Photios
Mr Cochran Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Mr Fraser Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Smith
Mr Hazzard Mr Souris
Mr Humpherson Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross Tellers,
Mr MacCarthy Mr Jeffery
Mr Merton Mr Kerr
Page 503
Mr Carr Mr Collins
Mr Hunter Ms Ficarra
Mr Iemma Mr Glachan
Mr Markham Mr O’Doherty
Mr Nagle Mr Schipp
Mr Rumble Mr Schultz
Mr Sullivan Mr Small
Mr Whelan Mr J. H. Turner

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

Mr Armstrong Mr O’Farrell
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Peacocke
Mr Brogden Mr Phillips
Mr Chappell Mr Photios
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rixon
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rozzoli
Mr Debnam Ms Seaton
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Ellis Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr Windsor
Mr Kinross
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr

Mr Carr Mr Collins
Mr Hunter Ms Ficarra
Mr Iemma Mr Glachan
Mr Markham Mr O’Doherty
Mr Nagle Mr Schipp
Mr Rumble Mr Schultz
Mr Sullivan Mr Small
Mr Whelan Mr J. H. Turner

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Mr AQUILINA: I seek leave to suspend standing orders to move a motion.

Leave not granted.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [4.58 p.m.]: I raise a matter of extreme public importance, one which goes to the heart of the certainty with which 1,500 leaseholders in the Western Division of this State go about their daily business. All honourable members would be familiar with the history of native title, and I do not propose to dwell on the decision of the High Court here, except to note that the existence of native title was confirmed, along with the circumstances in which native title was extinguished. However, the principles established by that decision were dramatically extended in the Wik decision, which was handed down by the High Court on 23 December 1996. Essentially the court found by the smallest majority that pastoral leases did not necessarily extinguish native title rights. This decision challenged the ability of pastoral leaseholders across Australia to continue working their land in the manner in which they had been accustomed.

The decision has cast a giant pall of uncertainty over the future of grazing and productivity in the Western Division of New South Wales - an area extremely vital to this State’s economic health. After much negotiation with governments and interest groups around the country the Federal Government tabled the Native Title Amendment Bill, which seeks to address the uncertainties created by Wik, but because of the inaction of this State Government has left farmers in western New South Wales in a state of heightened
Page 504
confusion. In simple terms, the State Government has abandoned the 1,500 holders of 4,250 grazing leases to six years of case-by-case and lease-by-lease assessment and challenge.

Following the Wik decision, the Premier quite properly sought legal advice from the Crown Solicitor. Among other things, this 10-page advice found that " . . . the terms of the lease instruments under the WLA contain provisions which might indicate that exclusive possession was to be taken . . . " Although the Solicitor-General later qualifies this for leases in less remote and substantially smaller areas, it remains that certain grazing leases in the Western Division of this State extinguish native title. Despite telling the Australian two days after receiving this advice that "we will not let our farmers down on this", the Premier has done exactly that.

The Premier sat on this crucial piece of advice for almost nine months, despite knowing that that advice to the New South Wales Farmers Association was firm in the opinion that grazing leases extinguished native title. This advice, provided by no less an authority than the former Solicitor-General, Denis Rose, QC, found that western lands leases are simply common law leases. Therefore, they differ from Wik leases, which are pastoral leases. According to the New South Wales Farmers Association this means that western lands leases have all the statutory rights and obligations of ordinary, everyday leases such as those that would be signed to take possession of a home unit in Sydney, including the right of exclusive possession.

Mr Yeadon: Why not ask your Federal colleagues to put it into legislation?

Mr ARMSTRONG: Because it is the State Government’s job to argue the matter. It has exactly the same rights and obligations as any lessee on any personal property. It was only under pressure from the National Party and New South Wales Farmers Association that the Premier decided that sitting on his hands was not an adequate response to the concerns of our farmers and he agreed to seek further independent advice. Only after receiving that pressure did he act, otherwise he was content to sit on that advice from January to September. As he revealed last week, this advice was sought from his close friend John McCarthy, QC, and provided to the Premier on 15 September.

As the Premier noted, Mr McCarthy has had a great deal of experience with native title matters in New South Wales because he was the barrister who executed the first native title case at Crescent Head. That case set the precedent of native title being compulsorily acquired after the payment of $3 million to the claimants. That is how Mr McCarthy settled that claim and two days ago the Premier was extolling Mr McCarthy’s virtues for having bought out the claim. I note in passing that an administrator has recently been appointed to the Tribal Council involved in the matter. The advice from John McCarthy, QC, and Mr Jeff Kildea is instructive. In part it states:

[that] . . . to draw a general conclusion -

as the State Government is trying to do -

as to the effect on Native Title of the many thousands of leases which have been granted under the legislation in its various forms over the last 95 years is a daunting and nigh impossible task, particularly in a context where the purposes of scheduling of interests is to confirm, rather than to effect, the extinguishment of Native Title . . .

The advice continued:

. . . we are of the opinion the WLA leases for grazing purposes only do not necessarily confer exclusive possession. We provide the qualification ("do not necessarily") because a court determining the issue may consider it relevant to take into account the size and location of the leased area . . .

For the holders of pastoral leases in the Western Division the focus of this debate so far has been whether the State Government would schedule their leases under the Commonwealth’s Native Title Amendment Bill. Yesterday the Federal Government indicated that these leases were not to be scheduled because, in the words of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, " . . . the New South Wales Government as the administrator of the Western Division leases failed to nominate the leases for inclusion on the schedule". The State Government might not like it, but it has failed absolutely.

The bottom line is that for these leaseholders there has never been any doubt that they have exclusive possession of their land. They are vexed at the lack of action by the Premier. Western Division leases are nothing like Wik leases. For all the Premier’s huff and puff about the issue being Commonwealth legislation, land title is a constitutional matter for the State Government. Principally, it is up to the Premier to submit these leases to the Commonwealth so that the matter can be cleared up quickly and cleanly, as has happened in other States, of which members opposite are aware.

Despite the clear finding in the advice available that certain grazing leases extinguish native title, the Premier has abdicated his responsibility and
Page 505
left it entirely to the Commonwealth. Why has the Premier not scheduled the leases that have been found to confer exclusive possession? His advice says those leases have exclusive possession, but he will not have them scheduled. I am at a loss to know how the Premier’s actions to date fulfil his rhetoric. For example, on 29 April the Premier told radio 2UE that he welcomed the Howard package on the basis that it provided "certainty for the farmers who have been through very hard times and should not be asked to negotiate before they do what they want to do, that is, continue primary production".

Mr Watkins: We will just upgrade and extinguish.

Mr ARMSTRONG: These are the comments of the Premier, to whom you should talk. He told Ray Hadley:

I reckon mum and dad on the family farm who have come through years of drought and years of low agricultural prices, who want to plant some crops in a paddock instead of running cattle on it, that those people shouldn’t be forced to negotiate with a Native Title claimant at that point . . .

They were the words of the Premier, Bob Carr, earlier this year on radio 2UE. He has avoided this issue. What is he doing for leaseholders in the Western Division? He can no longer hide behind his naive view that because the Native Title Amendment Bill is a Commonwealth statute he can wash his hands of the matter because his comments on 2UE and elsewhere explicitly acknowledge his responsibilities and duties on the matter. Land-holders who have been part of the New South Wales livestock industry for three and four generations suddenly have no definite future because the Premier has abdicated his responsibility. He has gone back on his word.

Mr Watkins: You are peddling lies.

Mr ARMSTRONG: I am happy to make a copy available to the honourable member. Is he challenging what the Premier said on 2UE? [Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [5.08 p.m.]: I assume that the motion of the Leader of the National Party must have been provoked by the comments of Senator Nick Minchin in today’s Sydney Morning Herald under the headline "Anger as Wik list of leases revealed". The report states:

The Federal Government has revealed for the first time the leases across Australia which extinguish native title . . .

It is confusing that the Leader of the National Party raises this matter in the House when clearly the Commonwealth must take the lead on a national approach to native title. That national approach must not lead to further litigation. That is the likely result of the legislation that is now before the Federal Parliament. That national approach must provide security for farmers and Aboriginal people. If the Prime Minister cannot deliver that security New South Wales and, indeed, Australia will be the losers. The issues arising from the determination by the High Court in December last year about how pastoral leases in Queensland are affected by native title have now been debated in the Federal arena for nine months. The Carr Government has sought as much information as possible about native title and its implications for the States. But the fact remains that it is a national issue that can only be resolved by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Parliament has not yet enacted legislation.

It is Commonwealth legislation that will pass through the Commonwealth Parliament. Until that legislation is enacted, the States will not be in a position to accurately or fully assess its implications. Surely that concept is not too difficult for members opposite to comprehend; it is fairly straightforward. I do not need to remind the Leader of the National Party of the ongoing and lively debate, for want of a better word, that has followed the introduction of the Commonwealth bill. It would be irresponsible for the State to pre-empt the enactment of the Commonwealth legislation.

[Interruption]

I know those opposite do not understand how the courts work and they do not know about the separation of powers. But some issues in this country, including Aboriginal issues, are national issues. Members opposite should start to inform themselves about how this country works and how its Constitution works. They may then be able to make a reasonably worthwhile contribution to debates of this sort. But they make fools of themselves and the parties they represent when it is obvious that they do not know what they are talking about.

Why is the Opposition seeking to raise this issue when the Leader of the National Party knows only too well that the implications for New South Wales depend on the Commonwealth legislation? I do not want to speak out of turn, but I suggest to the Leader of the National Party that he should take up this matter with his Commonwealth colleagues. Why
Page 506
does he not do that rather than seek to influence the outcome of the national debate on native title by raising a matter of public importance in this House? What is he seeking to achieve, bearing in mind that the real game is being played in Canberra?

Where does the Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, stand on this issue? What is the Deputy Leader of the National Party, John Anderson, doing about this issue? Why are members of the coalition not talking to people who are in a position to do something about the national legislation? They are not doing so because they have been told to get lost. Perhaps their opinions are falling on deaf ears in Canberra, in the same way as their opinions on forestry matters and everything else. People in Canberra do not listen to the rabble opposite. Indeed, I believe no-one anywhere listens to this rabble. The Commonwealth Government is surely seeking to represent the concerns that are being expressed in the House today by members of the coalition.

It is a simple question: what is the Commonwealth Government’s legislation about if it is not about addressing the issues raised in this House today? That is why the members of the Opposition need to get down to Canberra. Only days ago the Commonwealth launched a major rural policy. With that launch the Federal Government sought to represent itself as the farmers’ friend. At its 1997 conference the National Party passed a motion supporting the Commonwealth Government’s approach to native title. The Leader of the National Party appears to be contradicting that motion by raising this matter of public importance.

Why is the Leader of the National Party using this diversionary tactic in an attempt to implicate the Government in a Commonwealth matter? For some time there have been rumblings in the coalition ranks, and I can only conclude from the raising of this matter of public importance that there is serious discord just below the surface of the National Party. The way they are carrying on today confirms that. I repeat that the implications for New South Wales of the decision of the High Court in the Wik case remain solidly in the Commonwealth’s lap. It is a national issue. The State Government has sought to work with the Commonwealth to achieve a speedy and just solution in relation to native title in this State.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Mr MacCARTHY (Strathfield) [5.15 p.m.]: I raise several matters relating to schools in the Strathfield electorate. Some time ago I was contacted by the Burwood Girls High School Parents and Citizens Association after it had received complaints about the condition of the toilet blocks at the school. The association asked me to visit the school one afternoon and inspect the facilities, which I did. The facilities are utterly unacceptable. The entrance path is broken and has slabs of concrete protruding. Other slabs move when one stands on them. They are clearly a safety risk. The toilets have not been refurbished for more than 30 years. I grew up in that area and as a young boy I attended vacation play schools at that school. The toilets may have not been renovated since then.

Mr Chappell: For that long?

Mr MacCARTHY: For that long - it is at least 30 years since the toilets have been renovated. As I have said, the entrance is dangerous because of cracked tiling and uneven floors. The tiling throughout the facilities is unsafe and needs upgrading; it is falling off and cracking. The toilets are in an appalling condition. I have been told that some girls at that school will not use the toilet facilities; they prefer to wait until they get home. That is unhealthy. As the father of daughters I would certainly not be happy if my daughters were attending that school and had to use those facilities. I have written to the Minister for Education and Training about my concerns. I advised him that I intended to raise this matter today. In reply he told me that the Department of School Education is aware of the need for maintenance in the toilet blocks and that work will be undertaken in the coming months to improve the facilities. No indication of time has been given.

I hope that the Minister will come into the Chamber today and give me and the parents and students of Burwood Girls High School a far more accurate idea of when the work will be done. I do not expect to be told the exact date, but at least he could give us an idea if the work is to be done next term or next year. That school has four timber classrooms that are at least 40 years old. For the reasons I gave earlier I am able to say from personal
Page 507
knowledge that those classrooms are well over 40 years old, and are probably more than 50 years old.

The rooms are in very poor condition; they are difficult to heat in winter and to keep cool in summer. They are beyond economic repair. They have rotting verandahs, termite worries and fire risks. The school was promised a new block of six to eight classrooms and work was scheduled to commence in June 1996. That apparently fell through when school regions were abolished and the school has heard nothing more about it. Because of its excellent reputation, the school experiences consequent pressure on enrolments. It can only maintain its current enrolment number of 900 by using the old timber classrooms. A school with such an excellent reputation and with full enrolment deserves better facilities than it has at present. I again ask the Minister to try to provide a definite response as to when some improvements might be expected.

Another school in my electorate, the Chalmers Road Special School, caters for children classified as having moderate or severe intellectual disabilities. The school has seven classes. Each class has a wide variety of matters to confront, including medical, behavioural and physical issues. The staffing formula means that the school is currently entitled to six teachers’ aides, special. That is a quaint term. At the beginning of this year the school was entitled to 5.7 such staff but an increase in enrolments has increased the number to six.

The problem is that the school needs seven teachers’ aides, special. Sometimes teachers are alone in classes with children who can be violent, or may need personal attention for toileting or illness. Parents and staff have expressed grave concern. There are not many schools similar to the Chalmers Road Special School. I understand the need for a formula to apply to staffing in the wide range for schools, but a special school needs individual attention. I ask the Minister to consider the school as an individual entity, and give it one teachers’ aide, special for each class. That is what the school needs. [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.20 p.m.]: I apologise for not hearing the entire contribution of the honourable member for Strathfield. However, as I understand it, he spoke about toilet facilities and timber classrooms at Burwood Girls High School. I am pleased to advise the honourable member that staff from the Department of School Education properties directorate have recently inspected both of the matters mentioned by the honourable member. Everyone acknowledges, as I certainly do, the need for maintenance work. I give an undertaking to the honourable member that the work will be undertaken during the first few months of the new maintenance contract to improve facilities to predetermined departmental standards.

It is expected that the new maintenance contract covering Burwood Girls High School will be let during term four of this year, so it is a matter of only a few weeks until the contract is let. The department has also acknowledged the desirability of upgrading facilities at the school. That upgrade involves the replacement of timber classrooms. The needs of Burwood Girls High School will be taken into consideration for inclusion on a future capital works program when the provision of school facilities across the State is next reviewed. The toilet facilities will be upgraded under the new maintenance contract, but the replacement of the timber classrooms will be part of a future capital works program. As I understand it the honourable member is not happy with the staffing formula at the Chalmers Road Special School. However, the school is well staffed. There are five IS classes for severely intellectually disabled students, with five teachers and five teachers’ aides, special. There are also other teachers and assistants, so the staffing of the school is well within departmental guidelines. [Time expired.]

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [5.22 p.m.]: On behalf of the many waterfront workers who reside in the electorate of Kiama, I congratulate the Maritime Union of Australia for its principled and courageous stand in defence of unionised workers in the port of Cairns. Recently the Federal Government and its lickspittles in the ranks of the shipping companies and some sections of the media have been waging a misleading attack on Australian port workers by the use of fallacious figures related to throughput and wages. The Federal Government obviously believed that the Port of Cairns was a soft spot and an appropriate place to launch its anti-union, so-called workplace reform legislation.

It transpires, and it is patently obvious to anyone who looks at it, that the workplace reform, which has been much vaunted by the Howard Federal Government, amounts to nothing more than government-sponsored scabbery, the breaking of the trade union movement and the imposition of a system which employs non-union labour under non-union conditions. In Cairns, 26 union members were sacked and replaced with non-unionists who were
Page 508
prepared to scab on the union members. That action was enthusiastically supported by Peter Reith on behalf of the Howard Government. The might of the entire Federal Government was pitted against 26 union members in the small port of Cairns in north Queensland. If ever the parable David and Goliath was revisited, this was it. But surprise, surprise: David got up and again bowled over Goliath.

The Federal Government was forced to acknowledge an ignominious defeat at the hands of 26 workers and the support, both national and international, that they were able to generate. I note that BHP is now making threatening noises about waterfront reform. It is nothing new to see BHP lining up against waterside workers and the Australian working class. I can harken back to the dispute at Port Kembla, where I hail from, in the 1930s when BHP was surreptitiously, in collusion with Pig Iron Bob Menzies, diverting pig iron to the Japanese war machine to bomb the soul-case out of Chinese cities. That is the sort of record BHP has.

Honourable members should compare that with the record of the Waterside Workers Federation. Over the years it fought the battles of everyone in the world. It resisted sending pig iron to the Japanese war machine to bomb the soul-case out of Chinese cities. It resisted sending barbed wire to South Africa to be used in compounds for the enforcement of that country’s apartheid policy. It had a proud record in relation to ships of shame and of support to workers from other parts of the world, including Asian crews working under appalling conditions in rat-infested and cockroach-infested ships and being supplied with the sort of food and accommodation that no worker in the world should be asked to accept.

Thanks to the might of the Waterside Workers Federation, those workers who come to the Australian coast are now able to enjoy reasonable working conditions and accommodation. It is appropriate that it is pay-back time. The support and international solidarity that the Waterside Workers Federation has generated over the years is now starting to be paid back. It was particularly pleasing to see our brother unionists in the United States of America telling the Australian Government, "If you attempt to break the trade unions in Australia and load cargo for American ports with non-union labour, the cargo will not be unloaded when you get it to this end." That forced the government of the day into an ignominious but totally appropriate defeat.

Let us have no more illusions, if we ever had any, about the so-called workplace reforms that are being introduced by the Howard Government in consultation with people such as Peter Reith. Those reforms mean institutionalised scabbery is being adopted by the government of the day. I salute the Cairns waterside workers, the Waterside Workers Federation and the international solidarity that it has been able to generate with brother unionists in other parts of the world. As I have said, the Waterside Workers Federation will be the first line of attack so far as the Government is concerned, but if it breaks the union on the waterfront, it will then break every other union and will impose scab labour on every work area in this country. That is what the Howard Government is about. It is anti working class and deserves total condemnation. Long live the great Australian trade union movement! [Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [5.27 p.m.]: I commend the honourable member for Kiama for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Many of his constituents are waterside workers, and he has been fundamentally committed to unionism throughout his life. He has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of unionism and has represented trade unions in many forums. I can only concur with the honourable member. The result of the dispute in Cairns sent a morale boost through the trade union movement, given the difficult circumstances the movement is confronted with across this State and, indeed, across this nation.

The honourable member for Kiama spoke about scabs. Unionists and many workers find it abhorrent that scabs are brought in to work at times when others are in dispute and trying to advance their position by collective bargaining. It is wrong to bring in other people to take their jobs and undermine their position. The current Federal Government has in place a regime of workplace reform which includes provisions for bargaining. In that environment people involved in appropriate bargaining activities should not be undermined by scabs. Such abhorrent practices take away the rights of workers.

Mr PRICE (Waratah) [5.29 p.m.]: I congratulate the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Minister for Roads on the national road network from Minmi through to Thornton, East Maitland. Some $60 million in Federal funding has been allocated to this project, with the RTA designing and operating as the constructor. The whole project is on time, and certain sections are slightly ahead of schedule. Completion of the F3 connectors to John Renshaw Drive will mean that Lenaghans Drive will
Page 509
be returned to a relatively quiet country road, except that it will have a surface of international standard. The two four-lane connectors will enable the speed limit to be increased to that applicable on the F3, that is, 110 kilometres per hour. They will improve the driving facility in the location and should eliminate the black-spot conditions that currently prevail because of varying speed limits and the road profile on Lenaghans Drive.

The recent completion and rather peculiar opening of the John Renshaw Drive overpass onto the New England Highway at Beresfield brought about a welcome improvement to the local road network. Whilst it is disappointing that the Federal ministry saw fit to have a senator remove the barriers without any announcement and without involving the local community, it is great to have this $11 million facility in service and working well. I congratulate the Roads and Traffic Authority on its perseverance with the project. I also congratulate the contractors involved with the entire project.

It is noteworthy that the State Government has with the overpass for the first time contributed to major sound attenuation. An amount of $600,000 has been allocated to build timber walling from Beth Street in Beresfield to Christie Road in Tarro, parallel to the New England Highway and adjacent to the downcoming side from the overpass. The facility will make a significant difference to sound penetration in those suburbs and is certainly welcomed by local residents. I take my hat off to the Minister for listening carefully to what the community had to say and for acting accordingly. This roads project has been suspended because of the withdrawal of funding for the provision of an access road between Thornton Road and Anderson Drive in Beresfield. A private contractor is considering development in that area and it is to be hoped that he can be persuaded to provide that access road and contribute to the interchange at Weakleys Drive.

In the interim, the traffic lights designed and provided by the RTA at the intersection of Weakleys Drive and the New England Highway and also Thornton Road and the New England Highway have been extremely successful and have greatly improved traffic flow. The accident level in that area has been reduced to almost zero since the lights have been in operation. The improvement has been of tremendous relief to the local community and has allowed residents living along Weakleys Drive clear and safe access to the shopping centre at Beresfield and to the road through to Green Hills and Maitland.

Because of the requirements of the F3 and the New England Highway at that junction there will always be increasing traffic pressure. Traffic coming down the New England Highway turning off for Sydney along Weakleys Drive is increasing daily because of the excellent road conditions. Equally, traffic accessing the Pacific Highway from John Renshaw Drive has found the arrangement to be much more accessible with the operation of the flyover. A set of traffic lights at that intersection has been eliminated. The community is delighted with the improvements. I ask that the Minister pass on my congratulations to the RTA officers concerned.

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Roads, Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development) [5.34 p.m.]: I came to the Chamber this evening in response to a request by the honourable member for Oxley. The contribution made by the honourable member for Waratah has been a very pleasant surprise. It is disappointing that many people criticise the RTA. Occasionally the criticism is justified but often it is not. I am pleased that the honourable member for Waratah is giving credit where it is due. I shall convey his sentiments to Ron Christie, Chief Executive Officer of the RTA, to be conveyed down the line to the very good officers who have assisted with the roadworks in the Waratah electorate. I thank the honourable member for Waratah for his warm words of support for the RTA.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [5.36 p.m.]: I have recently been advised by the northern regional office of the Roads and Traffic Authority that the organisation is no longer permitted to provide members of Parliament with assistance. That follows a circular issued by the Minister for Roads. Representations on behalf of constituent inquiries now have to go through the Minister. I am pleased that the Minister has come to the Chamber to respond to my concern. Yesterday I spoke to him about this matter, and I am disappointed to report that he is adamant that representations will have to go to him or his office. That is a ludicrous position. It is a frivolous waste of time and money. It is no more than a blatant attempt by the Minister for Roads to make rural constituencies suffer.

The Minister will claim that this policy is the result of a John Fahey directive at the time of the
Page 510
former Government. That may be the case, but it does not make the policy right. I certainly was not subjected to such treatment previously. If the present Minister was given such advice at the time of the former Government, he should not have been, and I apologise for that. Members of Parliament should take matters of policy to the Minister. It is important that members of Parliament be able to help their constituents, however, and, no matter who introduced this policy, the directive has to be fixed now. The Minister is merely empire building at the expense of country people. He already has five portfolios.

I have never been treated this way by any Minister. The RTA staff are very good, and my sympathies are with them. Unfortunately, it appears that the Minister for Roads will not listen to reason. It is my hope that he will respond positively to my request this evening. What would happen if members of Parliament had to write to the Minister for Housing every time a housing issue was raised? The Minister for Roads proposes that members of Parliament go to him every time a constituent has a problem - we are to go to him with concerns about a particular bend in a road or certain line marking on the Pacific Highway. Issues such as these are matters of road safety and members of Parliament should be able to telephone the RTA and have a difficulty rectified.

I am the senior Opposition member on the Joint Standing Committee upon Road Safety. The honourable member for Bega is also a member of that committee. It is unbelievable that the Minister proposes that a local member who has a roads concern should phone his officers, who will pass that concern on to the RTA, and that body will then get back to the local member. The vast majority of roads difficulties are housekeeping matters and should be handled locally. The effectiveness of a local member of Parliament is enhanced by regional office support. I do not make that claim for political reasons; I make it on behalf of my constituents.

Many of my constituents who raise problems with me have not voted for me, and of course that makes no difference. I do not ask about a constituent’s politics; I serve my constituency without fear or favour. Government departments have a responsibility to the public and, through local members of Parliament, provide information and assistance on a range of issues. This policy leads to double handling, or perhaps I should say triple handling. The hundreds of thousands of dollars being wasted by this policy could be spent on our roads. My electorate has more than 10,000 kilometres of roads, including the Pacific Highway and other major links. Local issues such as road signs and turning lanes must now be presented to the Minister for Roads. How ridiculous! The RTA’s sudden work-to-rule attitude, because of the Minister, is having a detrimental effect on the people in the country.

Recently I received a letter from Mr Peter Collins, the good regional manager at Grafton, who said that this is longstanding practice. I can only assume that goes back to this so-called directive but it is still wrong. The outright refusal to deal with inquiries on behalf of my constituents is new, and I do not believe that members of Parliament should be singled out because they cannot now approach the regional director direct. Referring every mundane inquiry to the Minister’s office will choke up his office. It is bad enough now, with the turnaround time for the Minister for Roads being about two months.

For example, I wrote to the Minister on 24 April about the Stuarts Point community. I received a reply on 16 July, 12 weeks later, and that is not good enough. I know that the Minister and his staff are busy with five portfolios but now he says he will take 12, 15, 16, 18 weeks or whatever to provide answers. This delay will cost taxpayers money for problems that could be fixed up with a local phone call or a letter direct to the local office. How will the Minister’s directive help anyone, regardless of the rights or wrongs in the past? Let us move on. More particularly, will the public be further disadvantaged?

Who will they be dissatisfied with? They will not be dissatisfied with me because I will blame the Minister; so they will be dissatisfied with the Minister. I am here to help the Minister to turn this ridiculous direction around. The public is already disgruntled and disenchanted. I hope the Minister will listen to logical and practical lessons that need to be heeded. Honourable members have to recognise the importance of the role of the local member and that simple inquiries require simple expediency. I ask the Minister to put some commonsense back into this issue. [Time expired.]

Mr SCULLY (Smithfield - Minister for Roads, Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development) [5.41 p.m.]: The honourable member for Oxley must not be fair dinkum. Yesterday he told me he had a problem. I asked him for the details of the matter he required to be investigated. Members on both sides of the House often approach me before, during or after divisions and I take
Page 511
details. I have many inquiries from members who come to my office or ring me up, and I take down the details and the matter is investigated.

But, as I say, the honourable member must not be fair dinkum. He said, "No, I am just going to bag you in the House. I am not going to tell you what the problem is." I am merely observing a longstanding practice that contact on issues of policy affecting my portfolios should go through my office in the first instance. This policy is necessary to ensure that I am quickly informed of issues concerning members so that I might make policy decisions and solve their problems. I am surprised by the comments of the honourable member for Oxley about the following direction issued by Premier Fahey:

There has been a growing tendency recently for members of Parliament and/or their staff to contact public servants direct when seeking information on particular issues.

This practice of course is contrary to the longstanding tradition that Members of Parliament obtain information by writing to the responsible Minister, or making contact with the Minister’s staff . . . Adherence to this tradition assists in ensuring information given to Members of Parliament is accurate and as complete as possible.

There is no difficulty with referring individual licensing and registration matters to the RTA, which will continue to provide information. In relation to other matters it is quite appropriate that as the Minister responsible for roads I am aware of the local concerns of individual members and that those concerns be conveyed to my office. I am simply continuing the practice that John Fahey commenced in 1992. [Time expired.]

Mr SMITH (Bega) [5.43 p.m.]: It was only a few months ago that the Bega Co-operative Society announced that it would go ahead with a new cheese packaging plant to be located in Bega. The plant would employ a significant number of people - possibly up to 150 in total - and involve a massive capital works program of some $20 million in construction funding. That was an exceedingly pleasing announcement for an area that has been severely targeted by this Labor Government, and in some ways it will help to alleviate the hundreds of jobs that have been lost in the area due to the destruction of the timber industry. However, for the new packaging plant, as well as other industries and transport companies in my electorate, to be competitive with other areas throughout New South Wales, it is imperative that the most modern units of transportation be available on an equal footing in my electorate.

I refer to B-double trucks, which now operate in the majority of other areas. The far south coast, however, is struggling with pilot programs on limited routes, basically because the road network is not of a sufficiently high standard and, in fact, has been neglected by the present Government from day one of its assuming power almost three years ago. The roads to which I refer are the Princes Highway both south and north of Bega and the Snowy Mountains Highway, which links the coast with the tablelands and Canberra. During the years of the present Government not one major construction project has been started in my electorate of Bega. I would like to compare this abysmal record with the record of the coalition Government, which completed the following major projects, which were good not only for road safety and transport needs but also for employment and for the prosperity of the area.

I instance the Merimbula bypass, Yellow Pinch deviation, McLeods Hill, Tilba bypass, Frog’s Hollow and Higgins Bridge, all of which are on the Princes Highway in the Bega electorate. There was also major upgrading of the Clyde Mountain Road, or Kings Highway, between Batemans Bay and Canberra. The positive announcement of the Bega Co-operative Society, with the support of 140 dairy farmers in the Bega Valley, is a sign of confidence and progress in the area. However, the co-operative needs to be assured that the co-operative and other industries can compete on an even footing in the transportation of cheese and other products from the area.

I now call on the Government, through the Minister for Roads, to do the detailed design work and as soon as possible commence construction of the Bega bypass. The corridor for this bypass has been identified for many years. I gave an undertaking after completion of the last major works at McLeods Hill that at that time I considered the bypass to be the next major project at the southern end of my electorate. It certainly needs to be well aired in the public arena, through such organisations as the chamber of commerce, the main street committee and in particular the Bega Valley Shire Council.

The co-operation has to be assured also that the business community will be brought along with it and that it is happy that the bypass will not only produce a good transport system for the Bega co-operative and others but make Bega a more prosperous and attractive town. Now is the time to make a commitment to this project, which would not only resolve the problems and improve the Princes Highway but also assist greatly in having the Princes
Page 512
Highway approved for B-doubles so that the transport problems of the cheese factory and other businesses can be overcome.

We must also remember that the far south coast does not have a rail system and so is totally locked in and dependent on road transport. The Princes Highway and the Snowy Mountains Highway link Bega with Canberra, and the big problem on those routes is Brown Mountain. Parking bay facilities for B-doubles is desperately needed so that trailers can be coupled and uncoupled at the top and the bottom of the mountain. At present investigations are under way into the possible location of parking bays. I believe that there is sufficient land available through either the RTA or State Forests, and in recent days I have been approached with possible generous offers from the Bega Rural Lands Protection Board. I call on the Government to urgently start detailed planning for the Bega bypass as a major project to be identified in next year’s budget.

Mr SHEDDEN (Bankstown) [5.48 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the real and growing problem of dementia and its impact on the ageing community of Bankstown. What is dementia? Dementia is described as a group of symptoms resulting from widespread brain damage. The most common symptoms are progressive memory loss and confusion, intellectual decline and personality changes. Dementia is not a normal part of ageing. What happens to people with dementia? They suffer a progressive decline in their ability to remember, to think and to learn. Their personality changes. The effects are severe enough to interfere with their social and occupational functioning. The changes affect the physical, social and emotional life of sufferers, their carer, their family and their friends.

Who gets dementia? In Australia approximately 135,000 people over the age of 60 have dementia. By the year 2016 this number will increase to about 222,000 - an increase of 64 per cent. One in every 1,000 people aged 65 and under may have dementia. Between the ages of 65 and 70, one person in 70 may have dementia; between the ages of 70 and 80, one in 25; between the ages of 80 and 90, one in four; and over the age of 90, one in three. What are the causes of dementia? At present there is no proven cause. A variety of suspected causes are being investigated, including lifestyle and environmental factors, biochemical disturbances and immune processes. Is there a cure for dementia? At present no proven medical treatment will cure or slow down the disease. Drug therapy to ease the symptoms or slow the progression is being studied.

What can be done to assist people with dementia and their carers? Approximately 50 per cent of those suffering from dementia have moderate to severe dementia, and approximately 50 per cent require residential care. That means that one in four residential places must be made available for the total number of people suffering from dementia. Bankstown local government area is a microcosm of New South Wales and Australia and has a population of almost 158,000 people. Bankstown’s demographics are slightly different to those for New South Wales and Australia in that the percentage of the population aged 60 and over is higher: 18.68 per cent in Bankstown, 16.57 per cent in New South Wales and 15.84 per cent in Australia.

If one in four people over the age of 80 suffers from dementia, this means that there are 900 potential dementia sufferers in Bankstown at present. Of those 900, half would have moderate to severe dementia; and half of those 450 would require residential care. This means that in 1996 Bankstown needed 225 dementia-specific aged-care beds. How many dementia-specific aged-care beds are available in Bankstown at present? It may surprise honourable members to know that we have 18. That means that people with dementia are being housed in non dementia-specific facilities because dementia-specific aged-care beds are simply not available. If that is the problem now, what will the problem be like in the year 2016 when Bankstown, if it continues to be a microcosm of New South Wales and Australia, will need 365 dementia-specific aged care beds?

As a local member I will do everything in my power to draw this issue to the attention of the State Minister for Health and, through him, the Federal Government to ensure that they meet their responsibilities for the aged in my community. Dementia is a real and growing problem. We must address the issue now so that we have the resources to meet the increased demand in the future. It takes up to five years to build, equip and staff a dementia-specific facility. If we are to meet the increased demand we must start work on the problem now.

Mr CRUICKSHANK (Murrumbidgee) [5.53 p.m.]: I draw the attention of honourable members to problems with the appointment of small businesses as scratch lottery ticket outlets. I believe these problems exist not only in my electorate of Murrumbidgee but in many other electorates as well.
Page 513
Mr Paul Driscoll, who has been in business for a couple of years and is doing an excellent job, made application to sell instant scratch lottery tickets but was declined. A meeting was organised between Department of Gaming and Racing officers, Mr Driscoll, the local member of Parliament and local people, including two shire councillors and a bank manager. Unfortunately, the three departmental officers who came to see us were distinctly uncomfortable during the meeting. All of us present at the meeting were amazed at the end because we could not understand the reasons given by the department for not granting Mr Driscoll’s application to be an instant scratch lottery ticket outlet.

Mr Driscoll has owned his store for two or three years. When he purchased the store he was selling $1,000 of fuel per month. He increased that figure to $20,000 per month and it has now settled at an average of $15,000. I think Mr Driscoll would be the type of person who would also increase the volume of instant scratch lottery ticket sales. The distance from Mr Driscoll’s store to Leeton - 3.5 kilometres - was offered as an excuse for not appointing his store as an outlet. People will not walk 3.5 kilometres, and there is no public transport whatever. There is a major backpacker hostel at Wattle Hill and, as the Minister would be aware, the area has many itinerant fruit pickers and overseas visitors. Mr Driscoll believes that the volume of phone cards that he sells to overseas visitors to ring home is proof enough that the people of Leeton and those who visit Leeton are being short-changed.

As I said, Mr Driscoll’s store is 3.5 kilometres from Leeton, and there are no instant scratch lottery ticket outlets between Leeton and Griffith, which is 75 miles away. People living in the area must go into Leeton to buy their instant scratch lottery tickets. Most people believe that small businesses outlets are necessary to increase the volume of instant scratch lottery ticket sales. The departmental officers told Mr Driscoll that an outlet in his store would take business away from other outlets in the centre of town. However, a chemist shop and a newsagency directly opposite each another in the centre of town both sell instant scratch lottery tickets, and in my opinion those outlets would not have any effect on Mr Driscoll’s ability to increase sales. I am not sure whether the Minister for Gaming and Racing has yet received a letter from Mr Driscoll expressing his extreme disappointment at the obfuscation that we suffered at the hands of the departmental officers.

The departmental officers did not want to meet at the shop; they wanted to meet in my office. However, they relented and agreed to meet us at Mr Driscoll’s store. One reason cited for declining Mr Driscoll’s application was the cost to the department of supplying all the necessary equipment. However, Mr Driscoll is willing to pay the capital costs of all the equipment necessary to sell instant scratch lottery tickets. At the meeting the departmental officers constantly referred to the department’s formulas for assessing potential outlets. However, they would not divulge those formulas, citing obvious commercial reasons. That is not good enough. The reasons for declining applications for instant scratch lottery ticket outlets must be open and transparent. Mr Driscoll does not want to sell all the lottery products available; he simply wants to sell instant scratch lottery tickets.

The Minister should tell us about the formulas used by the department to assess potential outlets. If too many public servants apply secret formulas for the allocation of anything in the commercial world, the Minister knows that they start to become the province of the bureaucrats, not of the people involved in the commercial arena. The Minister should undertake a transparent review of the method of allocating instant scratch lottery ticket outlets. Nothing else will show the community and prospective retailers whether their rights are being ignored. [Time expired.]

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [5.58 p.m.]: I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the matter raised by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. The honourable member obviously has not realised that New South Wales Lotteries is a State-owned corporation and that its operations are financed by its sales performance. Naturally, this commercial focus is reflected in its agency network, in which new appointments must be aligned with the demands of customers and an organisation’s business needs. Applications are based on a number of standard criteria which are applied to all applicants for agencies. This assessment process takes into account the level of service provided by the existing network, the extent of retail activity surrounding the applicant’s business and whether a worthwhile financial return will result from an additional agency appointment - not on the perceived need of someone who wants to bolster his business.

The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has previously made representations about this matter, and I stand by the advice I have received and given to him. New South Wales Lotteries concluded that a lottery agency in Mr Driscoll’s store was not justified. The existing agency network in Leeton, which is less than three kilometres away,
Page 514
provides a more than adequate service. A new agency at Wattle Hill would merely redistribute existing lottery sales at Leeton and increase the overheads of the corporation. It would appear that the bulk of Wattle Hill residents travel the short distance to Leeton to undertake their household shopping.

New South Wales Lotteries believes that a lottery agency in this location would not provide a worthwhile return and is a commercially unsound option. I understand the concerns of the honourable member, but there is no conspiracy. If he has new information he can put it forward. The Government will not allow people to pick the eyes out of business to bolster their own profits. The matter is being reviewed because some newsagents believe they have a God-given right to operate a lottery agency. I have asked New South Wales Lotteries to examine the issue in depth, not only on the whim of members of Parliament. [Time expired.]

Ms HALL (Swansea) [6.00 p.m.]: In April last year I drew the attention of the House to the plight of Belmont Public School. On the Thursday before Easter last year the school was destroyed as a result of a fire started by an arsonist or arsonists. The fire struck at the very heart of the Belmont community and the sadness and loss was enormous. But in true Belmont spirit the staff gave up their holidays and joined with the parents to clean up the school. They salvaged as many resources as they could and worked hard to ensure that the school was operational by the beginning of second term. Anyone who saw the dedication and commitment of the staff and parents at that time would understand why Belmont Public School is special.

A number of teachers have taught at the school for more than 25 years. Jan Hamilton, who teaches second class this year, has been teaching at the school for 31 years. Adelle Lancey has taught at Belmont Public School for 22 years. She taught Michelle Scott, a friend of my daughter, when she was in kindergarten. Michelle, who is in the House tonight, is now a first-year university student and has fond memories of Adelle Lancey. Michelle’s experience in kindergarten laid the foundation for her education and her love of learning. Adelle Lancey currently teaches my next door neighbour, Timothy Shaw, who holds her in high esteem. He has gone ahead in leaps and bounds since she has been his teacher. Jan Hamilton and Adelle Lancey are only two of the teachers at Belmont Public School, but they are representative of all the teachers who have worked hard to rebuild the school.

Recently the district superintendent at Lake Macquarie, Sandra Lloyd, gave the staff of the school a certificate of appreciation for skills and dedication in providing exceptional service to students with understanding and humour. That represents the spirit of the school. Though the school was entirely destroyed, it is being completely rebuilt. It has operated out of demountable classrooms since the fire. Fourteen new classrooms are being built, as well as a new hall, a covered outdoor learning area, and a multipurpose room. The school has the most up-to-date technology and new playground equipment. The new school will be operational at the beginning of next year. I thank the Minister for Education and Training for the support he has given the school and teachers during this difficult time.

The school colours of blue and gold reflect the sand and the sea, and are visible everywhere. Because of the location of the school, its colours are symbolic. The school community is grateful for the new building and looks forward to occupying it in 1998. The school continues to flourish. Its most outstanding feature is its committed, caring staff, parents and citizens. This year they have worked on an advanced technology system and plan. The school has a great choir and band, a debating team which reached the district final, after-school maths and art classes and a fifth-sixth grade talented class. Eight children were chosen from the choir for the Australian Youth Choir, which is a great achievement and shows the dedication of students, parents and teachers. The children have been involved in a multicultural public speaking competition, and Kassandra Wood was a finalist in the inter-district competition.

The school performed very well in the University of New South Wales English competition. Year 3 gained one distinction; year 4, one distinction and three credits; year 5, one high distinction, five distinctions and four credits; and year 6, one distinction and eight credits. Belmont students performed well in the University of New South Wales mathematics competition and the Newcastle Permanent Building Society mathematics competition. The school had representatives in the regional athletics carnival, the regional cross-country carnival and the regional rugby league and rugby union carnivals. All this reflects on the dedication of the teachers and parents and the high calibre of the students of Belmont Public School, and demonstrates the spirit of the school and the community.

Page 515

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [6.05 p.m.]: I congratulate the honourable member for Swansea on once again raising an issue of great concern to her. I congratulate also Belmont Public School. The honourable member for Swansea takes a special interest in educational matters. She is concerned about the welfare and needs of all those who are involved in education within her electorate and is particularly concerned for the welfare of teachers and students. The honourable member expressed that concern most succinctly in this Chamber last year following the disastrous fire at Belmont Public School, and she made an urgent plea that the concerns of the teachers, students and parents be taken into earnest consideration when the school was rebuilt.

I was pleased to respond to those strong representations, and I sincerely hope that the school has been rebuilt in a way that reflects the interests of the students, parents and teachers. It was wonderful to hear the honourable member for Swansea relate yet again the many outstanding achievements of the school, its teachers and its students, who have been through so much in the past 18 months. It is always difficult to rebuild a school, and to rebuild a reputation. But from the account given by the honourable member, Belmont Public School is doing this in grand style. As Minister for Education and Training, I extend my congratulations to the school, and in particular to its teachers, parents and students on their many achievements. That school, like many other public schools in the State, stands as a jewel in the crown of public education.

Mr SCHULTZ (Burrinjuck) [6.07 p.m.]: I raise a serious matter related to health services in the township of Boorowa in my electorate, and more specifically to a health service that comes under the auspices of the Southern Area Health Service. The nurse manager at the Boorowa District Hospital now has a reduced role. She is endeavouring to combine the clinical management of not only the Boorowa hospital but also the Harden District Hospital. The deputy manager at Harden took a redundancy package and the nurse manager at Harden accepted a job in a private hospital in Bathurst.

The nurse manager at Boorowa hospital is attempting to manage both hospitals and health services, working two days at Boorowa and three days at Harden. This can only be described as one of the most disgraceful, unreasonable and dangerous situations in health services, despite the rhetoric of the Minister, who tells members of this Chamber day in and day out what a wonderful job the Carr Government is doing for health services. It is dangerous not only for the patients but for the nurse manager. I was first alerted to this matter on 4 September when I received a copy of a letter from Dr Ron Scott, who is the medico providing services to Boorowa hospital. He sent the letter to the chief executive officer of the Southern Area Health Service. I should like to read this letter onto the record to make the House aware of this serious situation. The letter states:

Dear Sir,

RE: CLINICAL MANAGER, BOOROWA DISTRICT HOSPITAL, REDUCTION OF AVAILABILITY.

It has come to my attention that the clinical and managerial responsibilities of the clinical manager have been reduced to two days per week.

From this action it would appear that the executive of the Southern Area Health Service are not entirely aware of the clinical requirements of the Boorowa Hospital and Community Health services.

The Clinical Manager is involved in the day to day services of Patient Management, outpatient and inpatient. She has a role in Community Health Services which are administered distantly from Young, Goulburn or Queanbeyan. The luxury provided to such services have never been able to provide satisfactory outcomes in respect to services previously provided.

Any decision limiting the Clinical Services of this town and surrounding area must be made in consultation.

Those providing Primary Health cover, do so for a town population of at least 1400 whilst that of the surrounding area is 2500.

As the sole Local Medical Officer and VMO, I must protest any decision to limit the availability of such a person to this service.

Clinically, we are stretched past the limit. VMO services are provided 24hrs per day, 7 days per week. There is a heavy reliance on senior clinical back-up and expertise. Boorowa District Hospital services a portion of the Lachlan Highway for Medical and Trauma Emergencies.

The present Clinical Manager provides expertise locally and has in the short term provided replacement relief to other areas in good faith. This has been possible locally due to extended efforts by senior staff.

Accreditation requirements for the District Hospital requires full time Clinical Management.

Further economic gain cannot be achieved by sacrificing possible safe practice within the Hospital and its allied Health Services.

This concern was summed up in an article in the Boorowa News on 18 September referring to time
Page 516
sharing the nurse manager-clinical manager, Margaret Rose, when Mayor Rob Gledhill said:

Mrs Rose is currently working two days at Boorowa Hospital and three days at the Harden Murrumburrah District Hospital.

The reduction of Mrs Rose’s days at Boorowa Hospital has incensed the Shire Council, local health workers and the community at large . . .

Quite rightly so. Despite what the Minister says, he has demonstrated to the people of rural New South Wales that what is heard in this place about the wonderful work he is doing for health services in regional New South Wales is nothing short of nonsensical. In this particular instance - and in many more across the State - he is putting the lives of patients at risk in two hospitals. He is putting those professionals, such as the nurse manager, under enormous personal and professional stress, which can lead only to disaster through staff collapsing or breaking down, or result in a dangerous situation in the treatment of a patient because of the stress placed on those health professionals. I implore the Government and I plead with the Minister to contact the chief executive officer of the Southern Area Health Service and make funds available to stop this nonsensical and dangerous practice being perpetrated at the Boorowa and Harden district hospitals. I await the Minister’s response.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [6.12 p.m.]: I advise the House of the recent success of St Cecilia’s School at Wyong in the Wakakirri 1997 Australian Primary Schools Dance and Drama Eisteddfod. Wakakirri is a fun and educational event especially designed for Australian primary schools. It is an eisteddfod that invites schools to tell a story within seven minutes as imaginatively as possible by incorporating the use of dance, music and drama. A minimum of 20 students must be involved in the presentation. Each school entering Wakakirri presents its item in one of a series of heats. Each heat takes place in front of a panel of judges and an audience of family and friends.

Mr Jeffery: Do your children attend this school?

Mr McBRIDE: If a school is selected in its heat, it qualifies for the grand final. In judging Wakakirri the emphasis is not placed on the students’ technical dancing ability or the extravagance of the sets and costumes. Rather, the emphasis is on teamwork, creativity and resourceful use of materials as the important features of an outstanding Wakakirri item. This particular event is divided into two divisions to allow Australian primary schools more access. The Super League has schools that have reached a grand final within the last five years and the Premier League has schools that are either new to Wakakirri or have not reached a grand final within the last five years.

St Cecilia’s performed in the Newcastle heat on 5 August 1997 in the Premier League held at Newcastle Workers Club. The heat comprised nine items and participating schools came from the Newcastle and central coast regions. St Cecilia’s won the heat and progressed to the next stage, the grand final, which was held on 18 September 1997 at Darling Harbour Convention Centre. The theme performed by St Cecilia’s was the Ned Kelly story. A combined effort of parents, teachers and students provided the opportunity for St Cecilia’s to perform at that grand final. This was the first time St Cecilia’s had taken part and 82 children participated, which represented the largest school group of any participants in the grand final and heats.

The children were responsible also for the production and design of props. Parents helped supervise the students on performance days during the heats and much preparation went into the performance before it reached the stage. The following are some of the many people that helped St Cecilia’s: Robert McRae, principal of the school and very much a supporter of the dance and drama eisteddfod; Francesca Toomey, co-ordinator and major organiser of the dance drama; Emma Douglas, make-up; Louise Rosier, props and backdrops; and Damien Stockwell, lighting.

Numerous parents were involved with supervision, make-up, backstage preparations and costumes. The list is endless but particular attention should be paid to the following parents for their contributions to the performance: Mrs Neems and Mrs Cunningham for backstage; and Mr Foley and Mr Jarrett for making backdrops. Character costume making was undertaken by Mrs Cabarrus and Mrs Colvin for the Ned Kelly gang; Mrs Pearce, Mrs Sharkey and Mrs Janovics for the townswomen; Mrs Neems, Mrs Cunningham and Mrs Dixon for the judge and jury scenes; Mrs Curtis and Mrs Smith for the soldiers; Mrs White for the townsmen; and Mrs Rowlandson for the towns children.

The children of St Cecilia’s showed dedication, enthusiasm, skill and talent in their performance. On grand final night they obtained two certificates, one for the encouragement award and the other for best sets and costumes. In summing up, the students, parents and teachers combined their efforts to
Page 517
produce an energetic and thought-provoking story through dance and drama. I personally congratulate the school and all its participants and parents on an outstanding example of school and civil spirit. For the benefit of the honourable member for Oxley, yes, one of my daughters was a member of that team.

Private members’ statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 6.17 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Discussion resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [7.30 p.m.]: It is fair to say that New South Wales has led the way in using the provisions of the Native Title Act to mediate just and equitable outcomes. I cite the agreements on Crescent Head and Byron Bay as two outstanding examples of the State leading the way on native title. Those two agreements were different in nature, but brought about the same conclusion, which was a well- and widely-accepted agreement within the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.

I turn to the schedule which the Commonwealth has developed. It is not up to New South Wales to determine which leases are included. Although there have been discussions between the States and Commonwealth about native title, the Commonwealth Government, on the basis of legal advice, has determined which leases are to be included in the schedule. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wishes to take issue with the Commonwealth Government’s legal advice, I suggest that he raise it with either his Federal colleagues or the Federal legal advisers who have furnished the Commonwealth with legal information. He is certainly free to do that without reference to this House.

The Commonwealth schedule is included in a Commonwealth bill and obviously the Commonwealth Government determines the content of its bills. Much as New South Wales would appreciate having the power to dictate to the Commonwealth Government on some issues and legislation, the reality is that the State has no power to do so. Indeed, there is a whole range of issues on which the State would like to be in a position to dictate to the Commonwealth. One example is the Federal cutbacks to health funding - cutbacks that the State Government is struggling with. Another is that bids to improve literacy have been met with Commonwealth threats of further education funding cutbacks.

The State is left powerless to address these issues, so why does the Leader of the National Party take this inappropriate approach in New South Wales? The answer is obvious when one reads the press release he issued this afternoon: he is covering his back and the back of State members. The Leader of the National Party knows damn well that the Federal Government has charge and carriage of this matter. He needs to go to Canberra to sort out this issue with his colleagues and stop the theatrics that he is playing at in this Chamber. [Time expired.]

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [7.33 p.m.]: The High Court Wik decision has placed many farmers and miners in the Western Lands Division in a state of uncertainty, insecurity and dormancy. More than 1,500 families and 5,000 opal miners do not know whether their lands are secure. Therefore plans for fencing, water improvements - as the Minister is fully aware - stocking and general business practice in Western Lands Division leases have been virtually brought to a halt. Western Lands leases, contrary to popular opinion, can be bought and sold the same as any other business or holding in New South Wales. It is exactly the same as in the case of many other types of real estate.

The Federal Solicitor-General, Dennis Rose, QC, has found that Western Lands Division leases are common law leases and that they differ from pastoral leases. The uncertainty is having an effect on land prices. Who would buy land that was under threat of a land claim? Recently in the Australian the Premier was reported as saying that he would not let our farmers down. That is a joke! It is another broken promise: he has scuttled the Western Lands people yet again. This type of land title has a clause stating "exclusive possession to the lessee"; and that clause is under threat.

This is not a race issue; it is a rights issue. If the Carr Labor Government claims that it is a racist issue, then it should tell that to the many miners of Lightning Ridge who are of Aboriginal extraction, and to land-holders on Western Lands Division leases who have Aboriginal holdings. I refer of course to Warrengulla Station, which has 10,000 hectares - or 24,000 acres - under threat from the Eulah-i Dixon clan. This is a threat from people never known to belong to the local area. Some areas are under claims from two or more clans. This is a total disaster.

Page 518

The honourable member for Broken Hill said that he would "keep Mr Carr honest and make sure he keeps his promise and not leave New South Wales farmers out in the cold". I thank the honourable member for Broken Hill, because he has just chucked away his seat at the next election. The 6,500 people affected by this will not forget that he cannot keep the Premier honest. The Premier cannot fob off or pass the buck as the New South Wales Government is the administrator of the Western Division leases and has failed to include those leases in the schedule. The Premier is bending over backwards to appease the ill-informed trendies in his city electorates. He cannot wash his hands of this matter. He has acknowledged his responsibility and duty and he should let all people, black and white, get on with their lives without this threat of uncertainty.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [7.36 p.m.], in reply: This debate has demonstrated two things quite clearly: firstly, that unfortunately the Minister for Land and Water Conservation either has an appalling lack of knowledge and understanding of his responsibilities, particularly in matters pertaining to the Wik decision, or, secondly, that he is quite prepared to avoid addressing any data or specifications of his responsibilities contained under the Western Lands Leasehold Act. It is quite simple. This is one of the oldest land Acts that we have in New South Wales; the Crown Lands Occupation Act goes back to 1861.

Tonight the Minister has failed to address any specific issues. Clearly, the Premier is not prepared to back the statements he made earlier this year. When I drew attention to this, Government members indicated that they doubted the veracity of my comments. In support of my allegations, I have the transcript of the program broadcast on radio 2UE on Tuesday, 29 April 1997. I am prepared to table it in full to put to rest the spurious rejection by members of the Labor Party of the Premier’s statements on that day. I seek leave to table the transcript.

Leave not granted.

I suspected that that would be the case, and I am sure that you, Mr Acting-Speaker, are as disappointed as I am. It is unfortunate that the Government will not accept the transcript. I realise that that is embarrassing, but the bottom line is that many untruths have been told about the Wik matter, particularly in this debate today. The Minister continued to repeat in various forms that this is a Commonwealth matter. When will the Minister acknowledge that the title of all lands in New South Wales is vested in the Crown?

It is incumbent upon the Government of the day to indicate to the Governor any changes it wishes to make in title, distribution of title, or allocation in this State, and that goes for leases too. All leases of Crown lands come under the State and the incumbent government has the responsibility to advise the Governor accordingly. When will the Minister acknowledge that and accept his responsibilities? It has been established on legal advice that the Premier sat on it from 21 January this year - for nine months. He had obtained legal advice that he was not going to release the advice until we questioned the matter in this House this week.

Because the Premier was reported in the Australian on 23 January we were able to catch him out on withholding information on one of the most important fundamental factors in the management of land, giving confidence to the pastoralists of the Western Division. It gave them confidence to continue to manage those leases in an environmental and productive fashion, and to continue to contribute to the economy of New South Wales. Most importantly it gave them confidence to continue to enhance the environmental conditions of land covered by those leases so that they can pass it to future generations, hopefully in a better condition than they found them.

The Minister has spelt out the New South Wales Government’s policy on Wik and for that we thank him. He will do nothing. He has totally abrogated his responsibility. I have one question: when will the Government of New South Wales request the Commonwealth to take over responsibility for the title of all lands in New South Wales? Obviously the Government is not prepared to honour its responsibility and Ministers are not prepared to honour the obligations they assumed when they were sworn in as Ministers of the Crown in New South Wales. It is a most disgraceful act, rejection of fundamental and basic responsibilities by this Minister and by the Premier of New South Wales. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has rejected his own statements and has failed to honour his obligations. That once again reinforces his attitude.

Discussion concluded.

Assent to the following bill reported:

Special Commissions of Inquiry Amendment Bill.

Page 519

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [7.41 p.m.]: I lead for the coalition on this legislation. I indicate at the outset that, while I will be raising two reservations about the bill - and I have advised the Minister’s office about the nature of those reservations - the coalition will not oppose the legislation. The bill amends certain parts of the Real Property Act 1900 and the Conveyancing Act 1919. These amendments deal principally with the severance of joint tenancies, the survival of actions for sale or partition, caveats, and the service of notices in respect of plans. As a general comment, it would seem that this bill will make for clearer and better administration of property and conveyancing related matters.

An important aspect of the legislation is that it provides the right to unilaterally sever a joint tenancy and for the giving of notice to the other joint tenant that that has occurred. This confirms the common law right of a joint tenant to sever the joint tenancy by transferring his or her interest to himself or herself. It is important to understand why this is sometimes necessary. Under a joint tenancy the rule of survivorship applies. In other words, if one joint tenant dies, the other automatically acquires the deceased tenant’s share in property. However, circumstances such as a marriage break-up or some other matter can mean that one joint tenant no longer wishes his or her share to be left to the other joint tenant. The courts have recognised the right to sever a joint tenancy and this legislation confirms that right in statute law to put the issue beyond doubt.

When a joint tenancy is severed, a tenancy in common comes into place. However, a question arises as to what happens when, say, one tenant in a joint tenancy involving three or more people wishes to sever the joint tenancy. Advice to me from the Land Titles Office is that the severing tenant would become a tenant in common with the other tenants, but that the other tenants could maintain their joint tenancy as before. I would be grateful if the Minister in his reply will confirm that that is the case. I wish to raise two matters that have been drawn to my attention by the Law Society of New South Wales, both of which relate to proposed new section 97. In a letter dated 19 September the Law Society of New South Wales stated:

The first matter of concern is the inclusion of the words "or by a third party" in sub-section 2 of the new section. The Law Society is concerned that possibly those words could be judicially interpreted as providing the statutory authority for a third party to severe the interest held by a party in a joint tenancy. It is understood that the only circumstance envisaged in the use of those words is in connection with the transfer of a bankrupt joint tenant’s interest in land to the trustee in bankruptcy. The Law Society contends that the joint tenancy is not severed by a third party in that instance; severance occurs by operation of law upon the making of the sequestration order, vesting (without further assurance) the bankrupt’s property in the trustee. It would then be open to argue that, since the words "or by a third party" cannot refer to a trustee in bankruptcy, they imply a statutory power for someone, other than a party to the joint tenancy, to exercise the power of severance contained in sub-section 1. The Law Society recommends that the words "or by a third party" be deleted from the second line of sub-section 2.

As I read the letter, essentially the Law Society is saying that it does not believe it is necessary to include that reference to a third party because the situation in relation to bankruptcy cannot occur at law and the inference may be drawn by judges in the future that somehow a third party may have rights in relation to a joint tenancy which are not intended in this legislation. The second matter that has been raised by the Law Society arises from the use of permissive rather than mandatory language in dealing with actions to be taken by the Registrar General under subsection (2). The Minister referred in his second reading speech to the Registrar General taking on the responsibility for giving notice of a severance transfer to the non-severing joint tenants. The Minister confirmed that the Registrar General cannot accept that responsibility for old system title as he will for Torrens title land.

It is essential that non-severing joint tenants be notified of the registration and, arguably, the lodgment of a severance transfer. The section should impose an obligation on the Registrar General to give notice to non-severing joint tenants. If succeeding generations or beneficiaries under trusts were to lose their entitlements in land by reason of a fraudulent severance transfer of which they were totally unaware, they should be entitled to claim compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund. As drafted, the legislation empowers the Registrar General to give notice, but does not impose any obligation to do so. Where there is no obligation it is difficult to argue whether a duty has been overlooked or omitted.

The Law Society contends that the State guarantee of title requires that the actions legislated under section 97(2) should be mandatory and not merely permissive. In other words, the Law Society of New South Wales is of the view that the Registrar General should be obliged to notify the
Page 520
joint tenant who is not the initiator of the severance. That should be an obligation rather than a voluntary arrangement to make it perfectly plain to future generations who may feel aggrieved that people who ought to have been notified were in fact notified.

To summarise the two concerns, according to the Law Society it would be better if the words "or by a third party" were deleted from the second line of proposed section 97(2). Secondly, the requirement to report the severing of a joint tenancy by the Registrar General should be mandatory rather than voluntary so that people who lose their entitlements in land by reason of a fraudulent severance transfer of which they were totally unaware should be entitled to claim compensation from the Torrens Assurance Fund. The other provisions of the legislation seem to be reasonable. The provision that ensures that an application for sale or partition to the Supreme Court involving joint tenants survives the death of one of them merely guarantees that the severing joint tenant’s intentions are not frustrated by his or her death. In other words, if someone wishes to make application to the court for the severance of a joint tenancy and subsequently dies, that person’s rights will be protected. The intentions of the person who wanted to sever the joint tenancy will be respected even though he or she may be deceased.

The other provisions clarify the circumstances in which a caveat which is not in proper form will be ineffective, and allows a person to lodge a caveat against an application for abandonment of an easement. Again, these appear to me to be reasonable provisions. In summary, the Opposition does not oppose the legislation, but I would appreciate clarification of the situation when the joint tenancy involves more than two people. Secondly, the points raised by the Law Society of New South Wales are worthy of closer examination and I urge the Government to consider the two minor amendments that society has suggested, to make the legislation clearer and better.

Mr ANDERSON (St Marys) [7.50 p.m.]: I support the bill, which amends the Real Property Act and the Conveyancing Act, the legislative cornerstones of property and conveyancing law in New South Wales. The amendments in the bill are intended to enhance the effectiveness of those Acts, to improve their administration and to assist the smooth and ordered running of conveyancing in this State. One amendment concerns the survival of actions for sale or partition of property under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act. The purpose of the Act is to make it clear that proceedings of that kind will not be defeated by the death of one party.

Section 66G provides an important facility for people who own property together. It entitles them to apply to the Supreme Court for an order for the sale or partition of their property. The section was introduced as one of a series of important amendments to the Conveyancing Act in 1930 and has proved to be very useful to landowners in this State. Under section 66G proceedings can be taken in the Supreme Court in respect of any property, other than chattels, that is held in co-ownership. That covers property held either in joint tenancy or as a tenancy in common. An application for sale or partition is usually brought when one or more of the co-owners wishes to have the property sold or partitioned but the owners cannot agree. The Supreme Court is authorised to appoint trustees for the sale or partition of the property. The trustees then implement the court’s order.

The New South Wales Law Reform Commission considered one aspect of section 66G in its recent report on joint tenancies. In that report the commission raised the question as to whether the rule of survivorship would apply to actions pursuant to section 66G between joint tenants. As the Minister has already pointed out, the rule of survivorship means that the property of a deceased joint tenant will automatically vest in the surviving joint tenants. Normally an action will survive a person’s death. That is due to the terms of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944, which displaced the common law rule that an action died with a person, and made it clear that an action would continue to survive for the benefit of the deceased person’s estate.

However, if the rule of survivorship does apply in cases for actions for sale or partition and a party who is a joint tenant dies then the property in dispute would vest completely in the survivor. That would effectively terminate the action, and the deceased’s estate would be left with no right to continue that action. The commission concluded that it was unclear whether an action pursuant to section 66G by a joint tenant would continue after his or her death. The commission went on to recommend that section 66G be amended to make sure that actions involving joint tenancies survive the death of one of them so that his or her estate can continue the action. If this amendment were not made, the question would be left unresolved until tested in the courts. That would impose a difficult and expensive burden on the parties. Failure to act would maintain the element of doubt that exists at present. Through this amendment, that doubt can be easily avoided. I commend the amendment to section 66G, and I commend the bill to the House.

Page 521

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [7.54 p.m.]: I join the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow minister for land and water conservation, in expressing reservations about this bill. I have a specific reservation about proposed new section 97(2) and its reference to the severing of a joint tenancy by a third party. As the honourable member for St Marys has said, this legislation is important. Property is an important source of revenue for the State and is one of the most important assets for an individual. An interesting amendment to the legislation was occasioned by the decision of Justice Young in J. A. Westaway & Son Pty Ltd v Registrar General and Ors, an unreported judgment of 6 September 1996, wherein His Honour held that a caveat that is under requisition but has been uplifted from the Land Titles Office remains effective as an injunction against the registration of dealings so long as there is a reference noted to it in the register.

This amendment will seek to overcome that decision by stating that if there is any uplifting of the title, that will be ineffective for that duration. Therefore there is an attempt to bring dealings and caveats that are uplifted to occupy a similar position. As has been stated, the Opposition will not oppose the amendment. I, as a regular legal practitioner - although less so in contractual and conveyancing matters - would appreciate the Minister for Land and Water Conservation replying to the specific matters raised by the honourable member for Ballina. I ask whether there is a specific reason for the commencement date of 1 January 1998. It may be that provision is being made to allow the Law Society and other practitioners to note the change in the law.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [7.57 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for St Marys and the honourable member for Gordon for their contributions to the debate. I addressed the key aspects of this bill in my second reading speech so I shall not canvass them in their entirety again. The honourable member for Ballina has raised several issues and I shall respond to his concerns. The honourable member for Ballina was concerned that the bill would widen the severing of a joint tenancy. I assure honourable members that such is not the case. Under this amendment the common law position remains the same. If there are more than two joint tenants, severance by one joint tenant will not affect the joint tenancy between the others. For example, if there are three joint tenants and one of them severs unilaterally, the remaining two joint tenants hold their two-thirds interest in the property as joint tenants between themselves, but as between them and the person who has severed the joint tenancy they hold an interest as tenants in common.

The amendment does not give any new rights to sever a joint tenancy. In circumstances in which the right to sever a joint tenancy does not already exist the amendment will not assist someone seeking to sever. There has been a suggestion that the terms of proposed new section 97 of the Real Property Act will expand the category of people who can sever a joint tenancy. That is not the intention of the bill. At present there are a number of people, in addition to the joint tenants, who can register documents at the Land Titles Office that have the effect of severing a joint tenancy. Those people include the trustee of a bankrupt, a mortgagee exercising a power of sale and a sheriff selling pursuant to a writ. The application of proposed new section 97 is limited to those rights which currently exist in respect of a transfer to oneself, thus confirming that the common law right applies to Torrens title land. The proposed new section does not create any new or additional rights.

The final concern of the honourable member for Ballina was whether the obligation to serve notice should be stated in the amendment. He is concerned that the notification by the Registrar General is not mandatory. It is unnecessary to state the obligation to serve notice in the new section. At present the joint tenant is free to sever a joint tenancy without telling anyone. The amendment introduces a new approach to advising people when their joint tenancy is severed. The amendment is necessary only to allow the Registrar General to call for information. At present he does not have that authority. He already has the power elsewhere in the Real Property Act to serve notices. The addition of further statements on the service of notice would be merely repetitive.

The Registrar General has been carrying out his obligations in respect of Torrens title land since 1863. He carries out a range of functions and duties such as registering dealings and plans, converting land from old system title to Torrens title and providing information and services to the public. The Registrar General carries out those and other duties without any express direction in the Real Property Act. In fact, many of the functions of the Registrar General are not the subject of express directions in the Real Property Act. He has developed and operates the world’s most technologically advanced land titles system without express statutory dictates.

I can safely say that the Registrar General can be relied upon to carry out this additional service
Page 522
without an express statutory direction to do so. In addition, making the service of notice a statutory obligation would lead to waste through the issue of unnecessary notices. A notice of the type envisaged in section 93 is simply not necessary in every case where a joint tenancy is severed. Often the two parties will know precisely what they are doing; they will have reached agreement and there will be no need to serve notice on them because they will already know what is occurring.

In a case in which a joint tenancy is unilaterally severed the amendment gives the Registrar General the power to obtain information so that he is then able to notify the other party or parties. Only in certain cases when it is clear to the Registrar General that he needs to serve the notice will he indeed serve it. For example, the following dealings can bring about the unilateral severance of a joint tenancy when they affect one joint tenant’s interest: a transfer by one joint tenant to a third party, a transfer by the sheriff pursuant to a writ, a transfer by a mortgagee or a chargee exercising a power of sale, foreclosure, and bankruptcy applications.

In some of those cases a notice will obviously be unnecessary. When a mortgagee or the sheriff sells one joint tenant’s interest in land, the other joint tenants are bound to become aware of the transaction. That is particularly true because the certificate of title is needed to register all of these dealings other than a transfer by the sheriff. In cases when it is clear to the Registrar General that the other joint tenant would be aware of the transaction, such as a transactions in relation to which they produce the certificate of title, the Registrar General would exercise his discretion and refrain from sending notice.

Indeed, if it were otherwise the system would be more complicated, time consuming and costly. That is not the intent of the bill. That in turn could result in increases in fees and charges, thereby impeding the current common law right to sever a joint tenancy. As I said in my second reading speech, the bill is about ensuring that the two Acts with which it deals can operate more effectively and efficiently and at the least cost to the people who use the service. To make the service of notice mandatory would simply put in place a rigid system that would have the opposite effect. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.05 p.m.]: The object of the bill is to amend the Crimes Act to create new public order offences relating to the contamination or the threatened contamination of goods or the making of false statements or threats about the contamination of goods. Several incidents involving such matters remain in the public’s mind. I recall the Arnott’s extortion threat and an incident involving the Nestlé company in relation to which, if my memory serves me correctly, a person was extradited from Victoria to New South Wales. Those recent incidents of public threats relating to the contamination of goods cause significant economic loss to businesses, notably the two that I have mentioned.

The bill proposes the creation of specific offences relating to such threats including the contamination of goods with the intention of causing public alarm or anxiety or causing economic loss through public awareness of the contamination, making threats that the goods will be contaminated, and making false statements with the intention of inducing persons to believe the goods have been contaminated. The bill also creates an offence of aggravating the circumstances of any such threats. An offence will also be created when persons are injured or killed in such circumstances. The maximum penalty for these offences will be imprisonment for ten years.

If the offence is committed in connection with an unwarranted demand involving aggravated circumstances, the penalty is imprisonment for 14 years, and if the offence causes death or grievous bodily harm, or is intended to do so, the penalty is imprisonment for 25 years. The bill discloses no monetary penalties; only gaol penalties are provided for. I lead for the Opposition, which does not oppose the bill. I ask the Minister to comment on the difference between a threat to contaminate and an unsuccessful attempt. I am unsure whether the generic criminal law is relied upon to deal with an attempt when contamination of goods may be unsuccessful. Subject to the clarification of that issue the Opposition will not oppose this bill.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.08 p.m.], in reply: The honourable member for Gordon said the Opposition
Page 523
will support this legislation but has sought clarification of section 93IC and, as I understand it, drawn a distinction between a threat to contaminate goods and an unsuccessful attempt. My understanding is that an unsuccessful attempt would be dealt with under other sections of the Crimes Act. However, I cannot be positive about that as I am not the Minister responsible for the legislation. I shall seek clarification from the Minister responsible and provide that information to the honourable member prior to the matter being debated in the other place. If there is any continuing concern it can be dealt with in that House. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.10 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this relatively small bill. Currently the Motor Accidents Act 1988 provides that the board of directors of the Motor Accidents Authority is to consist of the general manager and seven part-time directors. The bill amends section 84 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 to provide for a minimum of seven and a maximum of 10 part-time directors so as to enable additional part-time directors to be appointed to the board. In the important growth area of insurance, with its wider ramifications for policy making, the amendment will have the desired effect of enabling the board to draw on expertise which might otherwise not be available. The bill also provides for a broader range of representation on the board, as occurs with many other boards in this State. For that reason the amendment is not opposed by the Opposition.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [8.12 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Gordon for his contribution to the debate. The purpose of the bill, which is to alter the number of part-time board members, was canvassed by the Minister in his second reading speech. As the Opposition has indicated its support for the legislation I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr KINROSS (Gordon) [8.13 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. I know the House is waiting with bated breath for a riveting diatribe on the law of the sea, but I will not deliver that treatise tonight. Indeed, other honourable members are more able to do so. The bill is opportune because it updates the law relating to rights of action under bills of lading, which in my view is a difficult area of law in which to practise. The bill will bring the law into line with current contractual principles and allow for updated technology. At present technology does not provide a paper trail of transactions, especially for the carriage of goods by sea from one country to another. Frequently, the importance of these transactions will involve electronic exchange of data, hence the reason that some of the reforms are opportune.

If I am not mistaken, the Law Reform Commission examined the Sale of Goods Act. I understand that the provisions relating to the sea carriage of goods were drawn to the attention of the commission during its analysis of sections of the Act. Clearly, current technology and developments in commercial and legal practice have led to a need to revise the law on overseas trade. The bill is based on the provisions of the United Kingdom Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 and is part of uniform legislation adopted by all Australian jurisdictions in accordance with uniform legislation agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. It will modernise the law on bills of lading and ensure the provision of modern technology and developments in commercial and legal practice. Many parties have been consulted about the bill, including the Australian Chamber of Shipping, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Law Society, a number of leading maritime lawyers and solicitors in New South Wales and the Maritime Law Association. For the reasons outlined the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [8.16 p.m.], in reply: I acknowledge that once again the Opposition is supporting decent legislation put forward by this Government. The honourable member for Gordon indicated that this may be a boring subject, and he illustrated that admirably in his speech. I thank him for his support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Page 524

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr RIXON (Lismore) [8.17 p.m.]: The Opposition will support this bill but I should like to place some concerns on the record. First, I shall outline the history of this bill. In February 1997 the Minister for Local Government released a discussion paper on reform of the state of the environment reporting provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. At that time the Labor Government stated that it was committed to improving state of the environment reporting and would ensure that better links with local government strategic planning processes were created. In May 1992 the Australian Local Government Association and all State and Territory governments signed an intergovernmental agreement on the environment.

That agreement recognised that local government has a responsibility for the development and implementation of locally relevant environmental policies within its jurisdiction, in co-operation with other levels of government and the local community. The agreement stated that all signatories should ensure that principles of ecologically sustainable development are incorporated in policy making and program implementation. State of the environment reporting requirements were enacted in the Local Government Act in 1993 and in the main have worked well in achieving their purpose.

Councils produced state of the environment reports in 1994, 1995 and 1996, many of which have been outstanding. Section 428(2)(c) of the Local Government Act specifies 10 themes which councils must address in those reports. Many councils have indicated that they have experienced difficulties in addressing the 10 themes. Reasons for the difficulties include the themes being vague and overlapping, or that they were incomplete. It is costly to councils to produce state of the environment reports. The Carr Labor Government will ensure that the format of the reports is consistent with that used in the New South Wales state of the environment report. That will assist the Government and save it great costs as councils will do much of the work for the State report. This is just another example of this Labor Government forcing other bodies to do its work, but with no funding or assistance.

It would help local government if this increased cost in carrying out administrative duties could be addressed. It is now a requirement that a major state of the environment report is completed each year following a general council election, and then updated annually. At this time there are no guidelines as to the structure of the reports, because the Minister is still working on them. How can we support the production of those reports without knowing what the guidelines will be? This is an example of the Labor Government enforcing its responsibilities onto local government without adequate financial assistance. The production of these reports is a costly venture as it stands, and there are no guidelines for local government to be able to gauge how much it will cost each council to undertake this project on behalf of the Carr Labor Government. I trust the Minister will address these points in his reply. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [8.22 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Lismore said, the Opposition will not oppose the bill. In fact, it supports the object of the bill, which is to require councils to take into consideration the principles of economic sustainable development when compiling state of the environment reports. That requirement has been successful since its implementation in 1993. In fact, many councils not only compile their own reports but combine to report on a regional basis, such as most councils in southern Sydney do as part of Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. I congratulate councils such as Hurstville, Kogarah and Rockdale on their endeavours.

I support the honourable member for Lismore in calling upon the Minister to ensure that councils have adequate reporting guidelines. Some councils have been better than others in their quality of production to date, and some need to have accountability and some assistance by way of reporting guidelines. That would mean something to their constituents and enable them to provide and plan better for the future development of their cities and municipalities and to provide enough resources for local government authorities to be able to complete these reports in a worthwhile manner. There is no doubt that Australians enjoy a high standard of living and a relatively good environmental quality. However, our small population, large land area, long coastlines and abundant natural resources do not make our environment immune to current patterns of living.

Page 525

Many natural systems have been significantly degraded in ways that reduce biodiversity and the productivity of the land and water. Australian patterns of development and consumption are contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect and the world stockpile of hazardous and intractable wastes. Local issues are combining to have a more devastating effect on our local environment. The loss of bushland, urban pollution and the degradation of our waterways are serious issues. Our consumption and wasteful use of resources give rise to wasted opportunities and the need for costly disposal. Traffic and urban sprawl cause serious health effects and reduce safety in local areas. All these local issues combine as threats to ecological and resource sustainability on a global scale.

Local governments that fail to recognise the extent of popular concern about the environment will increasingly be out of touch with the views of their electorates. The vast majority of Australians are concerned about the environment and believe that environmental protection will be the most important issue a decade from now. About 70 per cent of Australians now hold the view that economic development and environmental protection can co-exist. Environmental concerns are now addressed not only by national conservation groups but also by organisations in virtually every local community. Community-based environmental groups usually address specific local environmental concerns. The sophistication of these groups has grown dramatically over the past two decades, and their views must be taken seriously by local governments.

Ecologically sustainable development means using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that the ecological processes on which life depends are maintained and the quality of life for both present and future generations is increased. Changes in the nature of production and consumption are required so that they can better satisfy human needs while using fewer raw materials and producing less waste. The key to ESD is integrating environment and development considerations in decision making. Local government will play and has played a big role in this process. I will not go into the history of the agreements that were made for ESD on a national and international basis. That has been covered by previous speakers. However, I will say that agenda 21 has played a significant role internationally in promoting the principles of ESD.

Agenda 21 was an historical document developed at the United Nations conference on the environment and development, the earth summit, in Rio in 1992. Almost half a million people representing 18,000 organisations and 178 countries attended the earth summit and the accompanying global forum. ESD involves all levels of government, including local government. Monitoring and reporting must be key elements in ensuring its implementation. I am pleased to hear that the Minister for Local Government will encourage reporting on a regional basis. A local agenda 21 was promoted within local government, and it was developed and supported by the Municipal Conservation Association with the support of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sports and Territories. I am afraid it was beyond some local councils and because very few guidelines were produced, few local governments complied with it.

Local government in Australia, whether large, small, urban, suburban or rural, are all attempting to grapple with innumerable processes of change. While the nature of the changes confronting a local government appear to alter from month to month, the state of continual change now appears to be permanent for local government areas. A local agenda 21 has helped a number of local government areas and their communities to develop a locally appropriate means of managing change towards a desired future. That includes reconciling the apparently competing pressures for economic development, environmental protection, and a more equitable society. The goal of managing for the future is to achieve sustainability.

I could continue and bore people to death with this favourite topic of mine, but I am cognisant of the time and other legislation that needs to be debated. Local government must be accountable to the communities it serves, as indeed should State Parliament. That responsibility keeps people informed about decisions and the implementation or implications of those decisions for the achievement of sustainability. However, accountability requires more than merely providing access to information about local government activities. As part of the communication process local government must supply the community with information in a form that people understand. That also means providing opportunities for community members to engage in two-way communications about policies and the principles guiding decision making. Many local governments are taking that direction, particularly in the St George area.

Once again I congratulate Hurstville, Kogarah and Rockdale councils and the Sutherland Shire Council on their achievements. I particularly commend the extraordinary standard of the
Page 526
publication entitled "The Framework for a Sustainable Future" prepared by the Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils, the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Northern Rivers regional economic development organisation. This publication compiles the Northern Rivers’ regional strategy, a schematic structural plan, to the year 2016. It is a high-quality, well-researched publication that looks at the short- and long-term implementation of economically sustainable development principles in a language that ordinary residents can understand. It has had much success with local community consultation and workshops within the Northern Rivers region. I commend the Government for introducing the bill, which the Opposition supports.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [8.31 p.m.]: Earlier this evening I had the pleasure of listening to this bipartisan debate. I commend the Government for introducing this amending bill. I was fortunate to be in Newcastle at the Pathways to Sustainability Conference, the international conference on agenda 21, and the five years-plus Rio conference, at which the Premier made the commitment that the Labor Government would introduce ecologically sustainable development amendments to the Local Government Act. It is a pleasure tonight to see that amendment introduced in the House with such bipartisan support. No doubt at the local level, the household level, which is closest to the people, it is important that the community understands these principles and that they are brought into consideration in all council activities at local, State and national levels

The principles of ecological sustainability should be taken into account in all council dealings and in economic development. Those principles are clearly set out in this bill. The precautionary principle and the intergenerational equity principle may sound highfalutin, but they mean that in any development the impact on the environment and its cumulative impact on future generations must be taken into account. That includes taking into account the implications of the greenhouse effect and its global impact on climate change. It is important to incorporate that within the local government framework and to continue to support and educate local government and the community about the important principles contained in this bill. I congratulate the Newcastle City Council on its foresight and forward-thinking approach in considering the agenda 21 items and the Rio conference and on having the courage to take up an international challenge to bring the conference to Newcastle. It should be congratulated also on involving local government and obtaining the Premier’s dedication to introduce changes that have bipartisan support in this House.

Mr BLACKMORE (Maitland) [8.35 p.m.]: I join my coalition colleagues in supporting the bill, but I shall express concern on some aspects of it. In 1993 when the Local Government Bill was drafted I opposed the requirement for councils to provide state of environment reports as I considered that another imposition on local government. I remember members of local government associations telling me they did not want to be responsible for acts of environmental vandalism that happened 50 years earlier. However, I am now one of the first to say that local government has successfully grasped this issue. As other honourable members have congratulated their respective councils, and contrary to public notification about problems occurring at Maitland, I too shall congratulate Maitland City Council on its work regarding ecological sustainable development and on its state of the environment reports.

When the matter was proposed I sat in amazement considering the environmental links in Maitland that involved remnant areas of natural bushland, and I wondered whether council was forcing developers away. Every council I could think of or with whom I had had dealings was keen to promote development at any cost. I congratulate also the other councils in the Hunter region. Nothing is more rewarding than to have people who have been absent from a city for a few years return and remark on the wonderful changes that have made the area beautiful. They are able to see that the ecology has been looked after and that state of the environment reports are available to the public. As other honourable members have mentioned, I too am concerned that the Local Government Act 1993 specifies 10 themes that councils must address in their state of the environment reports. Many councils have experienced difficulties with this requirement.

I am prepared to accept the requirement and I am sure the Minister for Local Government will issue guidelines, which will be outlined in a subsequent bill, to offer assistance. Another major concern is that perhaps this is another imposition being passed on to councils. Local government is still paying the price for that blessed Dog Act, which is a State Act, that councils have to implement. This is another imposition on councils, but, in fairness, some reports have been outstanding and when the benefits are weighed up, there is a notable difference in reading the reports for 1994, 1995 and 1996. As I say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am prepared to join with other members and support the bill, but I express my
Page 527
concerns about the cost to local government. At the moment no guidelines have been established, but I feel confident that the Minister will produce sustainable guidelines, which local government will be able to follow for the benefit of the environment and, of course, ecologically sustainable development.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [8.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank Opposition members for their support of the bill. I also thank them for acknowledging that the inclusion of the requirement for state of the environment reports in the 1993 Act has turned out to be a success. I moved that amendment in 1993 and I am pleased that I am now able to introduce this amending bill to update and provide greater thrust for those reports. Mention has been made of the cost to local government, but in my view that cost has not been terribly high. Any council worth its salt should have a statement about its environmental level and what it perceives as the future of ongoing environmental development in its area. This requirement really does not impose on councils anything that, as responsible bodies, they should not have been prepared to do.

The cost to councils of these reports has been mentioned, but it will now be cheaper for councils, because at the moment they are required to present a complete report every year. This bill requires them to provide one report every four years, and in the intervening three years to provide amending documents. So under this bill it will be cheaper for councils to provide reports. Initially there will be an additional cost - which will not be onerous on councils - for a regional state of the environment report. But, again, any costs will be far outweighed by the benefits that the region will get from the overall state of the environment report. The honourable member for Maitland lives in the Hunter Valley and that is certainly one area that should have one overall state of the environment report. The collection of information by the 11 councils in that area will result in the production of a very valuable document.

Mention has been made of the 10 themes which councils found difficult to accommodate, and that has been addressed. The Government is now listing various areas of environmental concern, such as land, air, water, biodiversity, waste, noise and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage. Those heads of consideration will provide guidelines for councils to prepare their reports. Certainly, guidelines will reflect the comments which have flowed from the discussion paper issued to councils and the community. If any member of the Opposition or the community has a problem with the guidelines I am happy to look at them. If a suggestion has merit I would be happy to amend the guidelines accordingly.

This legislation will work only if it has community support. If the community and local government generally do not believe it is worthwhile, it would be a waste of time. For that pragmatic reason, apart from the philosophical principle that this is good legislation, I want to make sure that everyone is on side. If people believe that this is worth doing there will be no problem, and it will be done. I do not want any dissidents, who believe that what is proposed is not worthwhile. This discussion paper was issued last February. Responses to it were heartening, which indicated to me that there is great support for environmental reporting within councils and within the community. That augurs well for the success of this bill.

I thank the honourable member for Newcastle for reminding me that the Newcastle City Council hosted this international conference. Certainly it is an indication that local government is prepared to play a very positive role with the environment. Environmental integrity is a waste of time if local government is not on board. It is essential that councillors and local government staff believe that state of the environment reporting is worthwhile; and they have shown that in the past. I have no doubt that the requirements which are included in this bill will assist them to safeguard the environment, and to do it in a credible manner. I thank the Opposition for its support and I hope and believe that this is a positive measure so far as the monitoring and safeguarding of the environment of New South Wales is concerned.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from 17 September.

Mr PHILLIPS (Miranda - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.47 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes this bill. This is the second attempt by the Government to introduce this legislation. On the first occasion it attempted to ban Starr-Bowkett societies, but was thwarted by community outrage. When one goes to Starr-Bowkett societies or housing co-operatives, one finds an accusation of a severe lack
Page 528
of consultation and understanding of what Starr-Bowkett societies are about, what they are trying to achieve, and whom they are trying to help. It is quite clear from this legislation that the Star-Bowkett societies and housing co-operatives are absolutely right. This legislation is flawed, because of its lack of consultation with the affected industry groups. This seems to be a hallmark of the performance or style of this Government.

Both key industry groups, the Starr-Bowkett Society Association and the Co-operative Housing Societies Association, are opposed to this legislation. I emphasise that both societies, which have the care and control of their members, are opposed to this legislation. The Government must understand that these two organisations clearly recognise the need to update the Co-operation Act of 1923. However, they do wish to be consulted on this legislation and they want that consultation process to be undertaken properly.

The coalition opposes the bill because it will directly impinge on the ability of the two organisations to fulfil their objective. The legislation is styled in such a way as to make it very difficult for these organisations to fulfil their objective of assisting low-to-middle income groups to obtain housing finance. The role of these organisations is to help people in our community who find it difficult to obtain housing loans through normal banking channels and building society processes. The people ultimately affected by the legislation will be low-to-middle income groups who, without assistance, would never be able to afford to buy their own homes. The result of the passage of this legislation will be an increase in the number of people on government housing waiting lists. The Government and this House should be seeking ways to encourage people to achieve the Australian dream and own their own home, not be dependent on a government handout, waiting years for a Department of Housing home.

Starr-Bowkett societies and co-operative housing societies assist members who are attempting to help themselves. This legislation dates back many years. It is outdated and has been superseded by the many developments and reforms that have occurred in the financial markets, particularly in light of the Wallis report. The recently released Wallis report contained many recommendations which supersede this legislation. In relation to prudential regulation, Wallis recommended that the majority of financial institutions currently regulated by FINCOM should be transferred to the Commonwealth. That would mean that credit unions, building societies and friendly societies would all be handed over to the Commonwealth, posing the question of what should be done with FINCOM, which would be responsible only for the regulation of Starr-Bowkett and co-operative societies.

This legislation should be introduced after the Carr Government has decided whether it will implement the recommendations of the Wallis inquiry and what it will do with FINCOM. The introduction of this legislation at this time will leave the Starr-Bowkett and co-operative societies with a fundamental problem and a question hanging over them. The industry does not consider it appropriate or fair that FINCOM, at its own discretion and with no recourse to anyone, should be empowered to order the transfer of engagement of a co-operative housing society to a credit union. If it did that it would be passing over those powers to an organisation controlled by the Commonwealth.

I was interested to note that the Minister’s second reading speech made scant reference to one of the major issues in this legislation, the imposition of a supervisory levy. That is something that, to my knowledge, has not occurred in the life of regulation of the Starr-Bowkett and co-operative societies. When one reads a Minister’s second reading speech one looks for that to which scant reference has been made or to what the Minister has not said. As one would expect, the words contained in a Minister’s second reading speech are supportive of the Government’s position. It was not until halfway through the last paragraph of his second reading speech that the Minister mentioned the levy or even used the word "levy". There was little or no reference to the impact the levy would have upon these societies and their members.

The supervision levy will raise $400,000 per year to cover the supervisory costs incurred by FINCOM. A supervisory levy of $400,000 is to be paid by low income earners who are struggling to afford to buy their homes. This is another insidious charge or tax. The Government has embarked on a course of making this State the highest taxing, highest charging State in Australia. In only two years the Government has moved New South Wales into that position. The Premier said time and again during the election campaign that there would be no new taxes and no tax increases. In a mere two years there have been 13 tax increases, including three new taxes, an increase of more than $2.5 billion.

It is hard to grasp the concept of that amount unless one writes down all the noughts. If one does, one can see the extra burden that our community is carrying under this Government’s extra taxes and charges. The Government now proposes to hit low
Page 529
income earners with an additional $400,000 charge on the co-operative housing and Starr-Bowkett societies industry, which is helping low income earners. I do not know whether it is the Minister’s intention to support the Treasurer’s continual grab for additional money. I find these types of charges surprising. This is not the New South Wales Labor Party that I once knew. The introduction of the levy fails to take into account the ability of the societies to pass on the levy to their borrowers, hence their ability to pay the levy. This is an important point and I hope the Minister will respond to it in his reply. I understand that the co-operative societies have received legal advice that they will be unable to levy 50 per cent or 60 per cent of borrowers because of the provisions in their mortgage documents.

The $400,000 burden that has been placed on those societies will be carried by approximately half of the borrowers, or the societies will go down the gurgler. The co-operative societies have informed me that that is the legal advice they have received and I trust the Minister will address that issue in his reply. The vast majority of borrowers are former HomeFund borrowers. They have been hurt enough. Over the years they have experienced difficulties because of a dramatic fluctuation in interest rates in the marketplace, and in the housing market, and they have fallen victim to the shenanigans in this House. They have endured enough. A lot of former HomeFund borrowers are now with co-operatives and the Government’s proposal will undermine those co-operatives and create further concern for those borrowers. Other than passing on this levy to borrowers, the societies have no capacity to pay the levy. They have no other way of raising the income.

They are not banks or building societies and they do not have huge product ranges. They focus on one very regulated and restricted market, that is, loans for low income earners to obtain housing. Co-operative housing societies’ management fees are controlled by the Government. The management fee is not structured to include the expense of the supervision levy or the provision of surpluses out of which reserves could be established. This bill is an example of the onerous effect on the business community of excessive government regulation. It is particularly onerous on an industry that aims to assist low-income earners achieve the simple Australian dream of their own home.

The industry in New South Wales has performed particularly successfully and safely for many decades. I do not recognise the necessity to undermine the industry and cause great concern and angst. It is not as though there could be great political gain from this measure; there are no votes to be gained from this legislation. Surely it is not too much to ask that the Government engage in proper consultation with the co-operative housing and Starr-Bowkett societies to get the legislation right, remembering that the effect of its first attempt at the legislation was to cut the throats of those societies.

Everyone is suspicious of this bill. Many of the societies have operated for more than 60 years without encountering financial difficulties. What has prompted this over-zealous regulation? I repeat that the coalition opposes this bill. Opposition members will not be party to this yet another new tax on low-income groups. The industry has stressed that it is eager to sit down with the Government to formulate an integrated policy that takes into consideration the special needs of these financial institutions and the recommendations of the Wallis inquiry. It is to be hoped that the Minister might be a little luckier when bringing the legislation before the Parliament for a third time.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [9.02 p.m.]: Of all the co-operatives in New South Wales and in Australia generally none has a better record of sound administration and performance than the co-operative housing societies. They began business in about 1923 as terminating building societies, and all honourable members would be aware of their operations. When I was a very poor young solicitor trying to establish a practice -

Mr Amery: Did you say a poor solicitor?

Mr PEACOCKE: Yes, I was in those days, and now I am a poor old solicitor. In those days I was able to buy a house only through a terminating building society loan. I paid off my loan very quickly. I oppose this bill. I acknowledge that new legislation for co-operative housing societies and Starr-Bowkett societies was the last part of co-operative legislation I proposed as Minister, before being reduced to the ranks. Massive legislation was passed with regard to general co-operatives and with regard to friendly societies, and significant legislation was passed - although I acknowledge some unwillingness on my part - bringing certain other co-operatives under virtual Commonwealth control by template legislation.

The co-operative housing societies and the Starr-Bowkett societies have existed for more than 70 years. Leaving aside the matter of HomeFund for the time being, terminating building societies and Starr-Bowkett societies have in all their time in existence suffered a total of less than $4,000 in
Page 530
losses. No other financial institution has a better record than that, although it is perhaps matched by the friendly societies. The Minister in his second reading speech advanced no reason for the introduction of this legislation. He advanced no reason for subjecting the societies all of a sudden to stringent control by the Financial Institutions Commission - FINCOM.

The Co-operative Housing Societies Association and the Starr-Bowkett societies have clearly indicated to me as recently as 11 September that FINCOM, the prudential supervisor, in reviewing the draft bill has not accepted many of the views put to it that support the workings and social issues of the two industries that this bill is supposed to benefit. For every other piece of co-operative legislation that it was my pleasure to bring before the House there was lengthy consultation with the industry concerned and with the Opposition - everyone had input. The result was legislation that was satisfactory to everyone. FINCOM maintains that the industry has been fully consulted, yet the association claims that, after a number of submissions, it has been ignored in relation to many aspects contained in the draft legislation.

When querying the participation of FINCOM in this legislation, one has to understand that co-operative housing societies and Starr-Bowkett societies do not accept deposits. Clause 56 prohibits co-operative housing societies from receiving money on deposit or raising money by the subscription of its members, except money raised by the nominal subscription required by its rules for a person to become a member. Therefore, co-operative housing societies bear no resemblance to other building societies or to a bank or other financial institution. Co-operative housing societies receive money from banks, governments and various other sources on a wholesale basis and, under government guarantee, on-lend that money to people who are less able to involve themselves in bank finance, to poorer people. They carry out a worthwhile function in our society, a function that is put at considerable risk by this bill.

Today the co-operative housing societies and the Starr-Bowkett societies face competition in the industry that they have never had to face before. It is my opinion that the competition is transitory and that before too long the co-operative housing societies and Starr-Bowkett societies will again come back into their own. To do so, they need to survive. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, the bill in its present form is to a large extent superseded by the acceptance and implementation by the Federal Government of the Wallis report. That will remove control by FINCOM of the major industries presently falling under the supervisory powers of FINCOM.

One is left with the strong suspicion of two things: first, that the Government wants to find something for FINCOM to do and has decided to bring co-operative housing societies and Starr-Bowkett societies under its control, and, second, that the Government does not want the cost of administering prudential standards in the industry so will pass that on by levy to the co-operative housing societies and the Starr-Bowkett societies. That is all very well, but I reiterate the comments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the societies have no way of raising money to cover the levies that will be imposed, without reference to them, by FINCOM. The bill does not specify the levies but states that they will be eased in over a period of time. That is not a great help as the societies do not have the means to pay them and will pass the cost on to their clientele. That is a substantial cost which will further reduce the power of these societies to compete in today’s home loan market.

Another factor of great concern to the industry, to me and to anyone thinking about the matter is the power of FINCOM to modify the rules of the society and to interfere in a very significant way with the proper operation of building societies. Many aspects of the bill require FINCOM’s prior approval before management decisions can be reached. That is certainly not in keeping with the objects of efficiency to be derived from the new legislation. The management agreements will be valid only after being approved by FINCOM despite the current structure of management agreements which have been successful to a very marked degree for more than 60 years. As I said earlier, losses have been less than $4,000 in the years of operation of these societies.

The bill requires the establishment and maintenance of a level of reserves which are appropriate only to deposit-taking institutions. Why does the Government want to do that? These are not deposit-taking institutions. They are organisations which receive money wholesale and on-lend in the retail market with small margins, except for Starr-Bowkett societies, which have a slightly different but similar system. Today some co-operatives will have a level of reserves sufficient to meet the required levels but many other efficiently operated societies have reserves which would not comply with these arbitrary arrangements.

Will it be at the arbitrary whim of FINCOM to transfer their engagement to a credit union or
Page 531
whomever FINCOM decides they should be with? That is not what the Opposition or anyone in this House would wish. It is suggested that the levy is a user-pay principle but generally, because the loans made by the housing co-operatives are government guaranteed, the supervision, if any, is really more for the benefit of the Government and it is on that basis that the co-operatives object. The co-operatives also object because when the Wallis report is implemented they will be passed over into the control of a Federal bureaucrat.

It has been suggested by FINCOM and the Minister that the proposed levy could be charged on borrowers’ accounts. As my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition rightly said, the mortgage documents under which the societies operate would not permit that. That simply imposes another burden on people struggling already to pay off their homes, people who otherwise would not have homes. Finally, the management fees of co-operative housing societies are controlled by government. It is wrong that the Government through FINCOM should purport to impose direction and control on the societies in their management fees and management arrangements.

This legislation could have been good and could have brought all the co-operative movements into the latter part of the twentieth century. I am sure that co-operative housing societies and Starr-Bowkett societies would welcome that but would not welcome being thrown to the wall with FINCOM merely to keep an organisation, whose day has come and passed, in operation. Some parts of the legislation have been well thought through. I do not condemn the entire bill - it is, like the curate’s egg, good in parts - but the critical and basic objection is to FINCOM involvement.

The societies do not ask that the Opposition achieve an outright defeat of this bill. They fairly and rightly ask for the industry to be allowed to have input into the legislation and that they be consulted instead of being ridden roughshod over by FINCOM, and the Government obviously doing the bidding of FINCOM. One has to understand that the withdrawal by the State Government of its government guaranteed housing loan program in 1994 has resulted in the co-operative housing societies having great difficulty achieving the industry objectives to assist with the provision of housing finance to lower to middle income earning sectors of the community, and that is a tragedy.

I now comment on the HomeFund scheme, which was basically destroyed by political motives from both sides of the House. That was a good scheme that was rorted by a building society not under the supervision of the Registry of Co-operatives previously but under a different supervision. To date that scheme has not cost the Government of this State or the taxpayers one red cent. By and large that scheme was very well administered by co-operative housing societies, with one exception. For the people in my community condemned to a lifetime of living in welfare housing, the scheme gave them an opportunity to own their own home. They still own their homes and are still paying the loans quite happily.

The bill is a travesty of justice in that it places societies involved under the control of FINCOM. The Opposition asks the Minister to defer further consideration of the bill until proper consultation has taken place between the co-operative housing societies and the Starr-Bowkett societies. It is not hard to talk to those people affected by legislation. That was done with every other piece of legislation that the former Government passed in respect of co-operatives. The then Opposition was also spoken to, and in the end the legislation was accepted by all sectors of the community and industries involved. I ask that such consultation take place with this legislation. I hope the Minister has the intestinal fortitude to delay the passage of the bill to allow discussions to take place and appropriate amendments to be made.

Mr AMERY (Mount Druitt - Minister for Agriculture) [9.19 p.m.], in reply: On behalf of the Treasurer, who has the carriage of this bill in the Legislative Council, I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Dubbo for their contributions. The honourable member for Dubbo rightly pointed out that when he was Minister for Co-operatives he was heavily involved in reforming prudential standards of various non-bank financial institutions. One of his successes during that time was reform of co-operative societies legislation.

I shall respond to a number of the points raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Dubbo. I could not believe that both honourable members gave us a gift when they referred to the HomeFund scheme. If ever there was an issue that coalition members should not want mentioned by Government members, I would have thought it would be the HomeFund scheme. However, on a bill that will reform one small aspect of home lending, the honourable member for Dubbo claimed the HomeFund scheme was good, was administered very well, and so on. I do not know what is happening with HomeFund borrowers in Dubbo or Miranda,
Page 532
but hundreds of people have been thrown out of their homes as a result of that very good scheme. Many people have come to my office and to the offices of many other Government members -

Mr Peacocke: I have had only one.

Mr AMERY: The honourable member for Dubbo says that only one person has approached him about the HomeFund scheme. People in western Sydney have made home loan repayments for years, only to find that the amount they owe HomeFund is substantially more than the value of their house. The end result is that they have been thrown out of their houses, which have subsequently been sold. No other housing scheme in the history of any State has caused more despair and heartbreak to home owners and home buyers than the HomeFund scheme.

Mr McManus: And they’re still proud of it.

Mr AMERY: As the honourable member for Bulli says, coalition members are still proud of that scheme. I am at a loss for words to describe the recognition given to the scheme by members opposite. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition used this debate as an opportunity to attack the Government for raising a levy of $400,000; he claimed it was a new tax. He further claimed that the present Government is the highest taxing Government, and he condemned it for introducing a system to recover the costs of supervision. Which State Government introduced cost-recovery legislation in many areas? Who was the exponent of the term "user pays"? That term was introduced by a former member of Parliament, Nick Greiner.

In this debate members of the former coalition Government attacked the Government for introducing legislation similar to that introduced throughout the country to recover supervision costs not only from financial institutions but also from financial organisations. Honourable members will recall that under the previous Government the amount of debits tax increased by 100 per cent. When the Federal Government handed back to New South Wales its share of the debits tax collected, the previous Government doubled the amount of the debits tax in its first budget. Tobacco tax increased by 50 per cent, from 50 per cent to 75 per cent; liquor fees increased by 33 per cent; stamp duty on motor vehicle transfers increased from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent; and various other racing tax measures were introduced. The total cumulative value of these tax increases between 1989 and 1995 was approximately $5.8 billion.

I am pleased that members opposite strayed from the clauses of the bill to mention such matters as tax increases and the wonderful HomeFund scheme. I shall comment on a couple of the general political issues raised by members opposite in opposition to the bill. In opposing this bill, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that this was the Government’s second attempt to reform co-operatives, and that there was a severe lack of understanding about and consultation on the bill. The honourable member for Dubbo also used lack of consultation as a major argument against the bill. This matter has been around since the honourable member for Dubbo reformed co-operatives and credit unions.

I remember talking about such reform legislation when I was Opposition spokesperson. I understand that under the former Government most of the major points of this bill almost reached Cabinet level. The Government did not think of this legislation last week and decide to rush it through the Parliament in the first couple of weeks of this parliamentary session. The former Government was heavily involved in the preparation and drafting of the reforms contained in this bill, which is consistent with the reforms undertaken in other non-bank financial institutions.

Mr Phillips: Who gave you these briefing notes?

Mr AMERY: I am working from memory and from contemporaneous notes. If New South Wales had had the misfortune to have the mob opposite re-elected in 1995, no doubt a coalition government would be introducing this legislation and members opposite would not have taken the same position about it. The Treasurer in the other place may pick up some of the points raised by members opposite. I shall expand on the claim that the bill was hastily prepared, without due recognition of the industry and with a lack of consultation. Use of the term "lack of consultation" in relation to all legislative reforms is a cheap shot. As I said, the proposals in this bill have been developed over some years. In broad terms they do not differ from the proposals of the former Government. A detailed outline of the proposals was given to the association in March 1996, nearly 18 months ago. The president’s response was taken into account in further development of the proposals. A near final draft bill was exposed to the industry in March 1997.

The bill was not kept secret by the Government. It released a draft bill in the industry
Page 533
in March this year, and copies were sent to all the societies involved. Is that the record of a government that has not consulted? The Government did not work on this bill behind closed doors. For goodness sake! A draft bill was exposed to the people. All industry responses were discussed with the advisory committee and a summary of submissions and recommended outcomes, with comments, was made available to every organisation that made submissions. The issues covered were the focus of an industry seminar arranged by the Australian Financial Institutions Commission on 6 June 1997. So the alleged lack of consultation involves consultation, copies of the draft bill being distributed to societies and a seminar in June 1997. If that is keeping the document a secret, the Government does not keep secrets too well.

All societies were invited to attend the seminar, and attendance was good. There were presentations and papers on all key issues. The outcome of these exposures was taken into account in preparing the draft bill introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 27 June. So that is a lack of consultation with, and awareness by, the industry of the bill. During the winter recess the bill was released in the community; copies of it were made available to all societies. No detailed submissions have been received as a result of that draft. Recent representations have been received from the association and individual societies. FINCOM officers met with the association’s executive on 18 September 1997 to discuss the association’s remaining concerns.

The Treasurer has also agreed to meet with the association executive in the next few days. Exposure drafts were released and the bill was introduced before the winter recess. The associations and societies know all about this legislation. That is a great example of a government consulting with interested parties, and it is consistent with what the Government is doing in regard to all forms of legislation and reform. Comments were made about the registration of new societies. I do not know whether there will be new societies.

Mr Peacocke: There will not be new societies the way you are going about it now.

Mr AMERY: That may or may not be the case. New South Wales is one of the last remaining outposts with legislation that facilitates the incorporation of new Starr-Bowkett societies. Other jurisdictions, including those in the United Kingdom where these societies originated, have banned them either because of scandals associated with their management, because of some aspects of their methods of operation which may be undesirable, or because they have simply become irrelevant in a more sophisticated financial market.

Mr Peacocke: Not in New South Wales.

Mr AMERY: The honourable member for Dubbo is right. New South Wales has a very good record in regard to their operations. The honourable member claimed there was no reason for introducing this legislation. The Government is responsible for introducing legislation and updating old legislation. This legislation dates back to 1923. If there were a scandal like those that rocked one of the societies overseas, the Opposition would be the first to claim that the 1923 legislation should have been updated, and that while the Government had introduced regulations to cover building societies, credit unions and banks, it had not touched this legislation.

These societies operate by the subscription of members to a fund on which no interest is paid and out of which loan funds are made at no interest in an order of priority determined by ballot amongst members. The societies, which have a life cycle of about 30 years, are not in a position to make any adjustment or allowance for the effects of inflation. Significant problems of equity arise between those members who are lucky enough to be allocated a loan early in the life of a society and those who are unlucky enough to qualify for the last balloted loan, which is usually made after 16 years of contributing to the common fund. The late loan has a significant loss of purchasing power. It is not all good news. Those who get an early draw can do very well, but many people wait for many years. It is like a lottery.

The Government has been persuaded by one of the only two groups of societies which actively recruit new members that there is a genuine small following among people who understand the Starr-Bowkett system and who continue to see some advantage in it. The provisions of the bill which relate to the objects and powers of co-operative housing societies are intended to be expressed in the broadest terms. So long as a proposed activity is concerned with assisting members and other persons to achieve home ownership, a co-operative housing society will have all of the necessary powers to carry out that activity unless the Act specifically prohibits or limits that power, or unless a standard in some way regulates that activity.

For instance, it is not intended that co-operative housing societies become deposit-taking institutions. Section 56 will prohibit the raising of money on deposit. That prohibition on deposit taking will not affect the ability of a society to co-operate with another society by making advances to that other society for purposes consistent with its object
Page 534
of assisting members or other persons to achieve home ownership. In regard to home ownership programs, I have said enough about HomeFund. I thank the Opposition for its plea of guilty with an explanation on that matter.

The bill is not directly related to government housing programs, although HomeFund was referred to many times by the Opposition. The development and management of government housing programs is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Housing and his agencies. This bill is primarily concerned with the registration, governance and effective supervision of co-operative housing societies, Starr-Bowkett societies and their related associations.

The objects and powers of co-operative housing societies will be sufficiently wide to enable them to participate in any private or public home ownership arrangements. However, the extent to which they may participate in any future government programs will depend on the details announced by the Minister for Housing at the appropriate time. Comments were made about the Wallis report. The Federal Treasurer has already acted on many of the proposals in that report. The bill does not conflict with the recommendations of the Wallis report. Those recommendations and the Federal Government’s announced proposals do not embrace co-operative housing bodies that are not deposit-taking institutions. Whilst the draft replicates many provisions of the Financial Institutions Code and the Corporations Law, the Act is self-contained and will operate independently of the code. It will, of course, be subject to review in the light of any changes in the national regulation of corporations.

During the years in which I have been Opposition spokesman on financial matters or have observed, through the Cabinet, some of the non-bank financial institutions regulations that have been dealt with by this Government, there has been a consistent pattern: there will be proper accounting and supervision, and there will be a strategy right across financial and other areas that the cost of supervision or auditing will be recovered by those organisations which are supervised or audited. That has been a consistent trend not only under this Government but under the coalition Government. The former Minister for Co-operatives, the honourable member for Dubbo, introduced legislation which incorporated that principle, so there is nothing to suggest anything untoward about the introduction of a levy that will cover the costs of supervising or auditing these societies. It is in the public interest that appropriate auditing takes place.

Mr Phillips: Are there any differences?

Mr AMERY: I need say only one word: HomeFund. The Government does not believe it was a good idea; the Opposition does. Many other points have been raised, some of which relate to various clauses of the bill. It is probably not appropriate to deal with those points in a second reading debate. They will be referred to the Treasurer when the matter is debated in the Legislative Council. No doubt he will make some detailed responses to some of the Opposition’s claims. I thank members of the Opposition for their contributions, but I am disappointed by their opposition to the legislation.

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

The House divided.

Ms Allan Mr McManus
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Ms Nori
Mr Clough Mr E. T. Page
Mr Crittenden Mr Price
Mr Debus Dr Refshauge
Mr Face Mr Rogan
Mr Gaudry Mr Scully
Mrs Grusovin Mr Shedden
Ms Hall Mr Stewart
Mr Harrison Mr Tripodi
Ms Harrison Mr Watkins
Mr Knowles Mr Woods
Mr Langton Mr Yeadon
Mrs Lo Po’ Tellers,
Mr Lynch Mr Beckroge
Mr McBride Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr O’Farrell
Mr Blackmore Mr D. L. Page
Mr Brogden Mr Peacocke
Mr Chappell Mr Phillips
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Richardson
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Ms Seaton
Mr Downy Mrs Skinner
Mr Ellis Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Dr Kernohan Mr J. H. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Mr Merton
Ms Moore Tellers,
Mr Oakeshott Mr Jeffery
Mr O’Doherty Mr Kerr
Page 535
Mr Carr Mr Armstrong
Mr Hunter Mr Collins
Mr Iemma Mr Glachan
Mr Knight Mr Humpherson
Mr Markham Mr MacCarthy
Mr Nagle Mr Photios
Mr Rumble Mr Rixon
Mr Sullivan Mr Schultz
Mr Whelan Mr Small

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Motion by Mr Aquilina agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the routine for general business to have precedence of the Address-in-Reply debate until 2.00 p.m. on Thursday, 25 September 1997.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:16:52   :   Update this page