Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 23 October 1997, Corrected Copy)

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

Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter - Deputy Leader of the National Party) [10.01 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members have just witnessed an extraordinary sequence of events outside Parliament House involving a group of people from Bardwell Park, Arncliffe, Bexley and associated suburbs who have come to Parliament House to exercise their democratic right to sit peacefully in the gallery and listen to a member of Parliament deliver a second reading speech on a bill that will directly affect their urban amenity and welfare, and indeed their emotions, family, investment and everything they stand for. The Carr Labor Government has declared these people to be part of a demonstration in order to prevent them from being present in the gallery to hear this speech.

I cannot believe what I saw outside Parliament House. Members of the group were placed in the embarrassing position of having to ask members of Parliament to come downstairs immediately and bring four people at a time into Parliament House as their guests. Opposition members had to go through that performance in the foyer so that the group could sit in the gallery to listen to a speech. I have not known that procedure to occur often in this place. The people in question were not violent: they had not spread out into the street, blocking the traffic. There was no reason for the police to be called. All that was needed was for the Minister for Roads to acknowledge their presence. If he does not want to do that, that is not a problem, but he could at least sit in this House and listen to the second reading speech. After all, this bill concerns one of the Government’s most significant road projects for the State of New South Wales.

Where is the Minister for Roads? He is not present in the Chamber. Was it necessary for him to send a message saying, "We have to deal with the mad lot out there in the street, these people who are a threat to democracy. I know, we will declare them black. We will put a ban on them and we will give the Opposition 15 or 20 minutes and see if they can get them in, one at a time." Well, Opposition members got them in one at a time, and the Opposition is pleased and honoured that they are present in the gallery of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales listening to this speech, which is their democratic right. They do not appear to be posing a threat to democracy.

Mr Price: On a point of order. The practice that has been referred to is not novel. It was introduced by the former Government and has nothing to do with the Carr Government.

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

Mr SOURIS: The Australian Labor Party is absolutely desperate. It looks as though there will be a series of interjections and that points of order will be taken in an attempt to put me off my stride. I do not care how long it takes me to complete my speech. The people who have come to listen to it today will hear it. The honourable member may just as well sit there - solitary representative of the Labor Party that he is - and listen to some commonsense.

Mr E. T. Page: Your numeracy is not very good.

Mr SOURIS: Oh, the Minister for Local Government is in the Chamber. I will give members opposite another five minutes to see if they can raise a crowd. This is important because you will lose the seat of Rockdale at the very least and Labor had better take notice.

Mr E. T. Page: I am the member for Coogee. Your geography is not much good, either.

Mr SOURIS: There is no point in the Opposition showing how much it feels the pain of what Labor is doing to these people. It is fairly obvious.

Page 1339

Mr E. T. Page: Why don’t you stick to the facts.

Mr SOURIS: Keep quiet! The purpose of the M5 East Motorway Bill is to restore the proposed route for the M5 East motorway to its original route, the road reservation that has been the preferred option for the past 46 years. This would ensure that residential areas on and surrounding the Carr Labor Government’s preferred route, announced by the previous Minister for Roads, The Hon. Michael Knight, were not subjected to the adverse effects of the M5 East motorway. The Government has refused to listen to the concerns of residents, many of whom feel so strongly about the issue that they are present in the public gallery today. They are welcome. Of real concern to the residents of Arncliffe, Bardwell Park, Bexley, Canterbury, Earlwood, Hurstville, Kingsgrove, Rockdale and Turrella is the Carr Labor Government’s refusal to stick to the original route proposed in the 1994 environmental impact statement that ensured that the M5 East motorway would be built in the Wolli Creek Valley on dedicated Crown land known as the Motor Transportation Reserve.

The Government’s decision in November 1996 to build the motorway through residential areas has caused undue anxiety and anger amongst local communities and has made it imperative for the future of the affected communities that the coalition’s bill is passed by this House. Many residents in the area of the motorway bought their homes secure in the knowledge that the road reservation that has existed for the past 46 years would be used for the M5 East motorway. The problems caused by the Labor Government’s proposed route for the M5 East motorway and the need to reroute the motorway to the road reservation is best summed up in a media release issued by the M5 East Community Co-ordination Group. It states:

The purpose of this "truth-in-planning" Bill is to prevent the kind of unjust disruption now being faced by these residents, who bought homes on the express basis that they would be well away from the Road Reservation but now find that the freeway is to be built right through their suburbs, and - in many cases - under their homes. These residents now face:

•having their quiet residential streets turned into a construction zone for 3 years, with dust, noise, dirt and vibration 16 hours per day

•likely cracking and moisture problems to homes caused by construction of the tunnel and consequent altering of the water table; a phenomenon which the RTA acknowledges was not considered in its EIS

•a series of "hot pipes" built under their suburbs, carrying unfiltered exhaust fumes from the tunnel to the exhaust chimney at Turrella

•loss of value of homes

•loss of peace of mind, knowing that a freeway runs under their homes.

The M5 East Community Co-ordination Group and the bill have the support of the honourable member for Rockdale, if he is true to his word and was not lying when he was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 12 February.

Mr Moss: You do not have my support.

Mr SOURIS: The honourable member for Canterbury is feeling the pain as well. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber. The article states:

Mr Thompson said that he wanted the route to go under the Wolli Creek where land has been reserved since the 1950's. "My personal stance is to support to the fullest extent their -

that is his constituents -

position to the authorities that are making the decision," Mr Thompson said.

The need for a new environmental impact statement is now urgent if the July 2000 completion date set by the current Minister for Roads is to become a reality and the very real concerns of the local communities are to be addressed. The dramatic deviations from the supplementary EIS announced by the present roads Minister and released in late 1996 have not had the desired effect of silencing opposition to the proposed route of the M5 East, and the concerns of residents need to be addressed in an open and accountable way. As to the urgent need for a new EIS, the honourable member for Canterbury has echoed my calls for a new EIS. In his recent contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate in this House he said:

An issue of great concern is the proposed chimney stack at Henderson Street, Turrella. Some argue -

the Premier and the Minister for Roads -

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 be 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.

Page 1340

I hope that the honourable member for Canterbury, who has just heard his own words, will, in a very short time, vote in the appropriate fashion in support of his constituents. This matter is of such significance that the Leader of the Opposition has been involved since it became a community concern. The Leader of the Opposition has been to local residents’ places and parks and has addressed their rallies. This morning he spoke to the peaceful gathering of residents outside Parliament House and addressed many of their concerns. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not know that after his peaceful discussions with the people the Labor Party pulled a stunt of declaring those people black, declaring their rally a demonstration, to impede their right to participate in the normal democratic process by sitting in the gallery to listen to my speech. It is unbelievable! The Leader of the Opposition is in the Chamber during debate on this important bill. Coalition members of Parliament were asked one at a time to sign in four of these dreadful demonstrators so that they could enter the gallery.

Mr Collins: The Labor Party is running scared.

Mr SOURIS: The Labor Party is running absolutely scared. Whilst the honourable member for Canterbury and the honourable member for Rockdale have made the right noises, I guarantee that they will not vote with the coalition and that their statements on the need to change the Government’s proposal for the M5 East motorway will be nothing but hollow rhetoric. One at a time they will deny what they have said publicly on many occasions and their comments will count for nothing. They will vote with the Government, loyal and faithful to their ALP masters forever. The decision to reduce the number of stacks from three to one massive stack has failed to alleviate community concern that a 25-metre high by 15-metre wide stack located in a residential area, spewing raw exhaust emissions containing carbon monoxide, benzine and lead into the valley will be detrimental to the local environment and to the health of residents exposed to the raw exhaust fumes. The Labor Government consistently refuses to release technical and scientific advice that it says proves once and for all that the concentrated raw exhaust emissions from four kilometres of tunnel carrying an extra 57,000 cars a day will not have an adverse effect on the health of residents living near the stack, first and foremost, and will result in the local environment becoming a no-go zone.

The exhaust stack will pump out raw exhaust emissions. Why the Government has refused to seriously investigate technology that would scrub the major pollutants from the exhaust fumes is an anomaly that must be rectified. There can be no excuses for a supposedly environmentally conscious Carr Government to pollute the environment with the concentrated exhaust emissions of more than 57,000 cars a day. The Minister for Local Government should have a little more concern for the local government areas that will be so adversely affected. He is the Minister for Local Government in name only. Watch him vote the bill down; watch him vote against the residents later. One after the other he and the members who represent the electorates where this dreadful roadway will be placed will betray their constituents and vote loyal to the core with their ALP masters.

Ms Ficarra: They think it is a safe Labor seat. Not any more.

Mr SOURIS: They do indeed think that it is a safe Labor seat. But the Opposition will remind them during the course of construction over the next two years exactly how safe it is and why they should never have taken the people of the area for granted. The hot shafts that will carry the exhaust fumes from the tunnel have the potential to leak raw exhaust emissions into the surrounding environment. But more importantly, people will be put at risk from the exhaust emissions that will leak insidiously into their homes over the life of the motorway. That is totally unacceptable to the coalition, but the Labor Government refuses to address the issue.

Mr Moss: What is your solution?

Mr SOURIS: Well might the honourable member for Canterbury ask what is the Opposition’s solution. He asked the question and he will get the answer. Go back to the 46-year road reservation promised to these people for a long time. If the honourable member does the right thing by his constituents the problem will be solved.

Mr Moss: Exhaust fumes right through Wolli Creek; an open road right through the Wolli Creek. What a wonderful alternative!

Mr SOURIS: Keep fighting the residents and they will get your measure. The location of the hot shafts containing poisonous gas remains a mystery. Where will the shafts leading from the roadway tunnel to the huge chimney be located? Under whose homes, under which roads? They will probably be about three metres square - not little tubes - and over the life of the roadway will leak poison into the surrounding soil.

Mr Rumble: Since when has the National Party been interested in the environment?

Page 1341

Mr SOURIS: Since when have I been interested in the environment? I am only too pleased to respond to these interjections to ensure that such comments from the Carr Labor Government are put firmly on the record for all to see. Keep making those interjections, lads; they will all appear in Hansard and, one after the other, will come back to haunt you.

Mr Rumble: It is just like Luna Park.

Mr SOURIS: The honourable member for Illawarra is a very slow learner. Another serious implication of the Carr Government’s preferred route has been brought to my attention by lawyers acting on behalf of affected residents. A letter received from Papanicolaou and Antoniou, a law firm, puts the Government on notice that natural springs may exist in the sandstone along the Government’s preferred route and as a result 178 homes may be structurally damaged by the tunnel. The letter states:

We have been informed that should the borer cut through natural springs there is a real danger that a significant number of substantial homes which have been constructed on clay will suffer structural damage. The natural springs feed the clay soil which causes it to expand. Should the borer cut through the natural spring stopping the flow of water it will impact upon the clay causing it to dry and as a consequence shrink. This will significantly undermine the foundations.

A further problem that will arise is that if the springs are diverted or the veins damaged the water pressure will result in new veins being created and the water escaping via other routes. This of course will lead to homes suffering moisture problems which presently they do not have.

This type of damage is not limited to residences above the tunnel alignment. Residences which are a considerable distance from tunnel alignment will also be affected . . .

On present information available to us the majority of homes situated in Bardwell Road, Churchill Street, Barnsbury Grove, Stotts Avenue and Bernard Avenue have been constructed on clay.

The writer telephoned the Project Manager, Mr Mal Cross at the Roads and Traffic Authority on 16th September, 1997 and was advised that the Authority only became aware of this problem when advised by Mr Bateman.

When questioned by the St George Messenger, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning - another vital ingredient to this horrible mess - said that legal reasons prevented him from commenting. If this project was so sound and secure I should have thought that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the watchdog of planning in this State, would be happy to endorse it and could have expressed a measure of confidence that the Carr Labor Government was doing the right thing, but he declined to do so. After all, the Carr Labor Government is intending to ram through the project before the Olympics. Construction seems imminent. This new development makes the Government’s preferred route for the M5 East even more unpalatable for local residents. It also highlights the need for a new environmental impact statement to address this issue.

Highlighting the depths to which the Carr Labor Government has sunk to keep residents in the dark about the proposed route for the M5 East and the adverse effect it will have on the lives of residents is the case of the Asproukas family, the first residents to be offered compensation by the Carr Government as a direct result of its misleading campaign. Mrs Asproukas has publicly revealed that when she and her husband were considering purchasing a home in Churchill Street in October 1996, at the height of the speculation over the M5 East, they sought advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority on the road plan. After the RTA told them that the property would not be affected, they bought the property for $280,000. Just five days later the then Minister for Roads, Michael Knight, announced his plans for an alternative M5 route.

With final papers yet to be exchanged, Mr and Mrs Asproukas again sought RTA advice, and on 11 November 1996 were reassured in writing that the authority had no proposals that required any part of the property. The Government was still telling these people that they had nothing to worry about even after this grand announcement. The Asproukas family completed the purchase on 16 November. On 22 November 1996 they inspected maps at the RTA office and found that their home was in the path of the tunnel.

The Labor Government’s decision to reroute the road through residential areas wrought havoc on the lives of hundreds of residents who, until November 1996, believed that the motorway was to be built on the road reservation and never thought that their elected New South Wales Labor Party representatives would sell them down the river to placate the green vote. It is no wonder that, on behalf of affected residents, the Leader of the Opposition has taken such a prominent role in this significant issue. It should be of significance to the Government that the Leader of the Opposition is leading on this debate wherever possible. The Opposition has elevated this issue to a number one priority. I sincerely hope that the Labor Government will take note of those facts.

[Interruption]

I do not think that it will take notice. I am just pointing it out. The Leader of the National Party has
Page 1342
entered the Chamber, which signifies the importance of this debate. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party are present in the Chamber to lend support to the residents living in the affected electorate. Now will they take some notice of us? Now will they hear the message? I doubt it.

Mr Collins: They will on 27 March 1999.

Mr SOURIS: On 27 March 1999 the Leader of the Opposition will extend the hand of congratulations to a genuine representative of the people who will represent the residents properly in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! People in the public gallery will refrain from clapping.

Mr E. T. Page: On a point of order. The Deputy Leader of the National Party refuses to address his remarks to the Chair. People in the gallery responded as they did because the Deputy Leader of the National Party was addressing the gallery and not, as the forms of the House require, addressing the Chair. I ask you to remind him and the Leader of the Opposition of the forms of the House and to direct him to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Armstrong: On the point of order. The interest that the Deputy Leader of the National Party has shown in this subject has drawn one of the fullest galleries for this time of the morning for a long while. The Minister would do well to remember that the public is entitled to hear the full debate and that the Deputy Leader of the National Party is endeavouring to expand the debate in light of the fact that the Government wants to contain it, constrain it and deny the public its rights.

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

Mr SOURIS: I draw to the attention of honourable members an advertisement that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 January. The advertisement is an open letter from the Mayor of Rockdale, Peter Bryant, to the Minister for Roads:

Dear Minister,

Our community (and the State) needs the M5 East but not at any price. The Council, and the citizens of Rockdale WILL NOT ACCEPT the proposal by the RTA to locate the M5 East in a tunnel under our homes and with health endangering pollution stacks near our children’s bedrooms.

We want to know the truth about the quality of the air from the ventilation stacks and only internationally respected standards will be accepted by our residents. Your commitment to air quality will be judged by the emissions from the Sydney Harbour Tunnel . . .

On Wednesday, 22 January 1997 the Councillors of Rockdale City Council unanimously demanded:

* That the M5 East tunnel follow the original route set aside more than 40 years ago. Why should the residents have the value of their homes plunge because the RTA now chooses to build the tunnel under their homes?

* That the health of children and the frail aged not be put at risk so the RTA can save a full dollars.

This letter is from Rockdale council, and I just hope that the honourable member for Rockdale is in his room listening to the audio broadcast. No doubt he is skulking away at this moment instead of attending the Chamber when so many of his constituents are present. The letter continued:

That any exhaust stack MUST be located in non-residential areas and exhaust gases MUST be scrubbed and filtered.

That the lives of the Citizens of Rockdale are worth more than the few lousy dollars that will be saved by this unhealthy RTA bureaucratic 3% cost saving proposal.

Minister the council and the citizens of Rockdale will not accept the current proposal. Only you can save us from this intolerable situation.

A very interesting point is made by Rockdale council about costs. We can all remember the present Minister for Roads saying, when the project was estimated to cost $520 million, that an extra $20 million, or whatever the figure was, would be required to put the tunnel completely under the Wolli Creek road reservation. He said that money did not grow on trees and asked which other road projects the Opposition was offering to cancel. The figure has now grown to $620 million according to this year’s Budget Papers, with potentially up to $80 million for compensation to acquire the homes above the road tunnel. So the total cost of the project is now around $700 million - and we really have not started construction yet.

The project has not encountered any problems, and pressure to meet the 2000 Olympic deadline has not seriously affected the construction schedule. We have not got anywhere near the final figure yet. So if it was a bit rich to spend $20 million so that the people of the area would not have to suffer all the adverse environmental impacts, I would have thought that the prospect of the cost of the project reaching $700 million and climbing would of itself be enough for the Government to reconsider the project and go back to the original budget to save local residents the unbelievable agony that they are going through.

Page 1343

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Mr SOURIS: I seek leave to move a motion to suspend standing orders to allow me to complete the remaining three pages of my speech.

Leave not granted.

Debate resumed from 7 December 1995.

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [10.34 a.m.]: It is rather interesting how a crisis suddenly arises when people -

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, it is good enough to play both sides. The Minister failed to address you at the start of his speech. If the Minister wants to play it hard with this side, as a Minister of the Crown he should observe the correct protocols and processes of the Parliament.

Mr E. T. PAGE: On the point of order. What the Leader of the National Party said is true: I did not use the words "Mr Speaker," but that is not required in the standing orders. What is required is that the member with the call address the Speaker. I was looking at you while I was talking, which was addressing you. So there is absolutely no substance in the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister may continue.

Mr E. T. PAGE: Mr Speaker, it is interesting that when coalition members went into opposition they suddenly found all sorts of problems about procedures and legislation that were overlooked when they were in government and could have done something about them.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, the matter before the House this morning has nothing to do with the processes or procedures of previous governments. Not only has the Minister of the Crown ignored your ruling; he has completely flouted it.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: The bill proposes that in future voters will be required to produce identification before they can cast a vote in a New South Wales State election. Presumably, this will also apply to local government elections, although that is not spelled out in the legislation. This would put our electoral system at odds with the Federal electoral system. In the past governments have aimed to make electoral systems as consistent as possible. There has been talk about scams, and not long after the Hon. Nick Greiner became Premier he asked the electoral commissioner to prepare a report on multiple voting. As usual in such situations, there was no evidence of a significant level of multiple voting.

One major reason that it appeared that people had voted twice was that an electoral clerk had made a mistake in crossing off names. The previous Premier had a shock-horror attitude about this, but what was done in the subsequent six years when the coalition was in government? Absolutely nothing. The coalition could have passed this legislation through the lower House at any time during its seven years in office, but it did not. It is not an issue and it has never been one. Now the coalition is just trying to cause problems to undermine public confidence in the electoral system. There has been reference to the electoral roll at the cemetery.

Mr Jeffery: That is where you get all your majority from.

Mr E. T. PAGE: That is your excuse why the coalition cannot knock me over in what should be a safe Liberal seat. I certainly hope the coalition continues to be so unrealistic and continues to put up appalling candidates in the eastern suburbs to knock me off. The aim of the bill is to require all voters in New South Wales to produce some form of identification prior to voting; and it prescribes a great long list of acceptable identification. This would only complicate the voting system and ensure that some people who may not be particularly well organised in their social life would forget to take their identification and would not be able to vote on election day. The bill would add a further layer of administration to the process and certainly would not guarantee electoral security. The fact that a person produces one of the prescribed forms of identification does not of itself prove that he or she is the person whose name is on the document.

The only two documents that include a photograph are a driver’s licence and a passport. The other documents have just a name or an address - sometimes not the current address - but do not
Page 1344
identify the person presenting the document. A Medicare card has only a number and a name or names, but no address; it has nothing to correlate the information on the electoral role that will be crossed off by a clerk to ensure that I am indeed the Ernie Page who lives at 8 Marion Street, Coogee. This bill will cause significant and unnecessary confusion and delay for voters on polling day. Failure to produce identification will not necessarily result in a person not being able to vote, because he or she can make a declaration under section 106.

Mr O’Farrell: On a point of order. I am concerned that students of Muirfield High School are missing this debate and the hard work of their local member, the honourable member for Baulkham Hills.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: The students certainly have not missed much. The Government opposes this bill because it would impose unnecessary requirements that would likely cause delay and confusion. The bill is inconsistent with Federal Government legislation and the current local government system. No evidence was given in the second reading speech of a problem with multiple voting, which was highlighted in the report by the former Electoral Commissioner to Premier Greiner. The former Premier was obviously impressed by the integrity of the system at the time, because he did nothing to change it. This Government agrees with former Premier Greiner that the current system is efficient, that it has no anomalies that are worth worrying about. Therefore, no doubt with former Premier Greiner’s concurrence, the Government opposes the bill.

Mr O'FARRELL (Northcott) [10.43 a.m.]: It is interesting that the students from Muirfield High School understand something that the Minister for Local Government does not: that when they become voters their only check on members of Parliament will be a fair electoral system; and conversely that if the electoral system is not fair, and people are able to vote fraudulently, their say in the affairs of this State and this nation will be diminished. I am sure that is something the students are taught at school; it is just a pity that it is not taught in Sussex Street.

Mr E. T. Page: You did nothing for seven years, you accepted the system, you said it was all right.

Mr O’FARRELL: The point, of course, with the interjection of the Minister for Local Government is that he seems to accept that there is a problem, but his argument for not fixing it is that the former Government did nothing about it for seven years. There are many things that the coalition got wrong whilst in government, and many things that it could not get around to doing, but that is no reason to let the electoral system continue to suffer from fraud or to continue to ensure that people can vote without producing at least the sort of identification that the students from Muirfield have to produce when they rent a video from their local Video Ezy. It is pleasing that the students from Muirfield High School are in the gallery today. Muirfield high was in the electorate of Northcott when it was represented by Bruce Baird. The school now has as its local member the hardworking member for Baulkham Hills, who is a strong supporter of a decent, clean and fair electoral system.

The Minister for Local Government essentially gave three reasons why this bill should not proceed. This bill seeks to ensure that people - whether it be Barry O’Farrell, Ernie Page, Paul Gibson or Wayne Merton - who turn up to cast a vote are the persons they claim to be. Currently there is no proper check to ensure that that is the case. The Minister’s first reason was that in some way the bill would affect people who cannot get their social life together, who might be out all night and forget to bring some identification to the polling booth. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour, very sensibly, has prescribed about 15 items of proof of identification. Most honourable members would have three of them in their wallet.

Our voting system is critically important and if people cannot organise their social life to the extent of attending the polling booth once every four years with the required proof of identity, they are not taking the voting system seriously; and the entire electoral system certainly should not have to suffer as a result. The second reason was that the bill would add bureaucracy to the process. Coming from a Labor Minister, that is a bit rich. Every day in this place unnecessary regulations, rules and other devices are enacted that add to the cost and number of bureaucrats in this State. If people were whether they would prefer to see increased bureaucratisation in local government and in the various areas of State or Federal government, or in the electoral system, they would strongly support increased bureaucracy in the electoral system.

Voters know that every four years in this State and every three years federally their only check on honourable members is at the ballot box. It is important that voters have that check; otherwise
Page 1345
parliaments could end up doing what the Labor Party headquarters in Sussex Street does every other day: engage in abuse of power. The third reason given by the Minister for opposing this legislation is that the proof of identity documents listed in schedule 1 to the bill are not sufficient because they do not contain photographs. Australia’s system for issuing passports is among the safest and most secure in the world. Most of the proof-of-identity documents prescribed in this bill also apply when one applies for a passport; they show a name and address, but they do not include a photograph. If that identification provides a secure passport system, surely it can also provide an honest and open voting system. Similarly, the documents prescribed in the bill are required when one opens a bank account or takes out a tax file number.

The great pity about this legislation is that it has been introduced not because of problems with the electoral system generally, or because of some idealism about the electoral system, but because the Government did not accept earlier legislation introduced by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour which, as he admitted in his second reading speech, would have been far better legislation. The only reason that legislation did not pass through this House, as you well know, Mr Speaker, is that you used your casting vote to vote against it. The Speaker used his casting vote to vote against a bill that would have ensured that people would not have to produce proof of identity on polling day, but, like when they joined the local Video Ezy store, would produce proof of identity when first enrolling to vote. That would have been far superior legislation than this bill. I acknowledge that this bill will result in some extra bureaucracy at polling booths on election day, that it will take people longer to vote.

Mr Fraser: We have got the staff there already; we can do it.

Mr O’FARRELL: In any event, that is a small price to pay. In an ideal world I certainly would prefer his earlier legislation. In the past couple of weeks the Parliament has debated legislation relating to a redistribution of seats in this House.

Mr Fraser: Tell us about the equity in that.

Mr O’FARRELL: As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour asks, many of us wonder about the equity of the legislation that has gone through both Houses to reduce the size of this House from 99 seats to 93 seats.

Dr Macdonald: It is an old Liberal tradition.

Mr O’FARRELL: I have no idea why the honourable member for Manly is attacking me. I am one of those in the Liberal Party who argue that the seat of Manly ought to be retained under the redistribution, and I will continue to do that. I want to ensure that the electorate of Manly continues to be represented in this House. In fact, I want to ensure that the electorate of Manly is better represented by having a Liberal Party or National Party member in this Parliament. The importance of a redistribution is that, among other things, it ensures that electorates in this State are of the same size. It essentially upholds the principle, which we hold dearly in our electoral process, of one vote one value. But, as I say, unless we have legislation such as the bill we are now debating, there can be no certainty at all that the votes cast will be reflected in the distribution of seats in this House.

Honourable members will recall that at the last State election 52 per cent of the electorate voted for the coalition and 48 per cent voted for Labor - fewer than two busloads of voters would have changed the election result. When it comes to 70, 100 or 140 votes, in an electorate with 38,000 voters, determining which side wins the seat, one starts to realise that the result could be influenced not by large numbers of suspicious votes, that it would not require fraud on a massive scale, that it would not require thousands, or even hundreds, of voters to misrepresent themselves. The result could be influenced by as few as 30, 40, 50 or 60 fraudulent voters. And that is not hard to do in selected seats, which will always be the major battleground of elections.

Most members have scrutineered at elections time in and time out, and I am sure they have all seen curious things. I am sure that members who worked at polling booths during The Entrance by-election - when, I am prepared to accept, the honourable member for The Entrance had a handsome victory - will agree that some pretty curious individuals turned up to vote. At one polling booth three people who had allegedly died in the previous six months came in to vote, but as soon as the Hon. J. H. Jobling challenged them they shot out quicker than the honourable member for Port Jackson shot out of the Premier’s office when she tried to get a ministry.

Fraud and the potential for it continue to exist within our electoral system. As legislators we should do all we can to ensure that we have a fair, open and honest electoral system. If we do not, we will not be honest, open and accountable to the
Page 1346
electorate, we will traduce the democratic traditions from which we have benefited, and we will leave ourselves open to potential abuse. I firmly believe, as I am sure the Minister for Local Government believes, in the merits of democracy and a system that allows the community to choose the people who govern them, and the opportunity, if necessary, to throw them out. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that the voters’ will prevails.

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [10.56 a.m.]: This bill turns on its head a democratic tradition that this State and this country have cherished: that the right to vote at elections should be free and open, and that people should not have obstacles placed in their path in registering to vote. We have witnessed the difficulty of many minority groups in the United States who, for many decades, have faced obstacles, legislative and otherwise, in firstly getting onto the register to vote and then actually casting their vote.

It surprises me that a National Party member, adhering to National Party philosophy, would seek to obstruct individuals from casting a vote at an election. Far from upholding any democratic tradition, this legislation strikes at the heart of the basic democratic principle that people, regardless of their origins, education and background, have a basic, fundamental, human and democratic right to register and cast their vote in an election. This legislation reverses that tradition and reverses the onus that people have a right to vote. Under this legislation people have to prove that they have a right to vote. And the legislation comes from the National Party - it places an obstacle in the way.

The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said this legislation is designed in such a way that anyone wishing to cast a vote in New South Wales at a State election will be required to present proof of identity. That reverses that very basic democratic principle we have always adhered to: that people have a free and unfettered right to register to vote and then to vote. What is the basis of his concern? Has he produced evidence that our electoral system has great problems? Has he produced evidence of wide scale fraud? No, he has not. His basic premise, like that of the Opposition, is that when they look at electoral reforms they are always looking at ways of making the system more difficult for people to vote; they are always looking at making it more difficult for people to get to the ballot box. Witness the sorts of reforms that we have seen from the coalition when it has been in government. The ticks and crosses legislation is an example. That certainly did not make it easier for people to cast a vote; it made it more difficult. When the coalition was in government it brought in zonal electoral systems whereby the vote of a person living in the city was worth only half the vote of a person living in the country.

Now we have a variation of something that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has tried before: voter ID. Once again this proposal is designed to make it more difficult to vote, because the coalition can never accept that when it is defeated in an election, that is a fair and reasonable result. No evidence of electoral fraud has been produced. In the upper House on 19 September 1995 the Hon. J. H. Jobling asked the Treasurer, the Hon. M. R. Egan, a number of questions on notice relating to electoral fraud, including irregularities in voting and multiple voting. In response, an official from the New South Wales Electoral Office provided instances of electoral fraud in New South Wales elections, particularly the 1995 election. He concluded:

No other examples were detected nor was any evidence received establishing fraudulent voting.

As the Minister said, most multiple voting resulted from clerical errors being made by polling clerks when checking the rolls. The list of multiple voting instances in marginal and sensitive seats shows that in Badgerys Creek the figure was 12; Blue Mountains, 11; Broken Hill, three; Coffs Harbour, 23; Drummoyne, 34; Gladesville, 13; in my electorate of Hurstville, 11; Kogarah, 14; Manly, 25, which is an interesting figure; Murwillumbah, six; Northcott, 22; Penrith, eight; Sutherland, 11; and The Entrance, eight. About 3.5 million votes were cast at the 1995 elections. If the incidence of multiple or scam voting is such a problem the Court of Disputed Returns can be petitioned. Persons with evidence of widespread fraudulent voting, multiple voting or ghosting voting can petition the Court of Disputed Returns.

[Interruption]

I am talking about the basis of this legislation. The Labor Party won the seat of Badgerys Creek by 103 votes. If there were 105 or 110 instances of multiple voting or of dead people suddenly voting, that would be a basis on which to petition the Court of Disputed Returns; and the judge would uphold the petition and order a new election. What evidence do members opposite have of the present system being fundamentally flawed? They have not produced any evidence. They simply want to reverse the onus so that those accused of fraudulent voting are guilty until proven innocent. They do not want people to have the right to vote until they prove their identity.

Page 1347

It is not surprising that the National Party has put forward this proposal. National Party members always talk about the fact that the coalition parties received 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, the Labor Party received 48 per cent of the vote, and the Labor Party is in government and the National Party is not. The way to fix that - the National Party would never propose this - is simple: introduce an electoral system based on proportional representation and multimember electorates. Such a system was adopted by the Tasmanians a long time ago and by the people of the Australian Capital Territory not so long ago. The National Party would never agree to that system because under the present system it received 11 per cent of the vote and about 20 per cent of the seats. In debates on electoral reform coalition members never get to the heart of their problem, that is, that their votes are locked up in certain geographical areas in this State: National Party votes are locked up in the country and Liberal Party votes are locked up on the north shore.

The solution is to introduce a system such as the Hare-Clark system adopted in Tasmania or the Robson rotation system adopted in the Australian Capital Territory. Whilst Liberal Party members are keen to have such a system, it will never see the light of day because National Party members are not keen on it. One way to fix the system is to reform the basis upon which people vote, not to reverse the free and unfettered right of people to cast a vote. The proposal that should have been included in the bill is that the party that wins 50 per cent of the vote should get 50 per cent of the seats, not that the onus should be on people to prove their identities in order to vote. Members opposite want to disfranchise all those hippies on the north coast who do not vote for the National Party.

This bill will not make the electoral system cleaner or fairer; it will simply disfranchise a large number of people by placing in their path obstacles to a free and unfettered right to vote in elections. I refer to the elderly in particular. The National Party has a particular set against the elderly, as evidenced by its total lack of support for what this Government is trying to do to reverse the Federal nursing home policy. This bill is about reversing the longstanding, time-honoured democratic principle that people have an unfettered and free right to register to vote and to cast their vote.

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [11.05 a.m.]: The honourable member for Hurstville spoke for more than 10 minutes but he said absolutely nothing. The Minister for Local Government said that winning seats by five, 10 or 100 votes is not the issue. The honourable member for Hurstville missed the point when he said that winning a seat by fewer than 100 votes is not the issue because the seat was not won by foul means. This bill relates to multiple voting - people registering more than once under various names and then casting multiple votes. The honourable member was wrong when he said that that has not happened and cannot happen. People registering to vote are not required to produce identification; to be registered they simply need to provide a name, address and occupation.

It is well-known that I send out welcome-to-the-electorate letters when people move into my electorate. The number of letters returned to me marked "Not at this address" is amazing. It shows that my electorate of Orange, like many others, has a floating population. It is easy to rort the electoral system because not enough checks are made of people who come and go. Sometimes it can take time for my welcoming letters to be returned. When they are returned, what checks are made to find out whether the person named ever lived at the given address or had simply moved on? At election time a swinging seat could effectively be won or lost by people who travel around the electorate to cast multiple votes. This is probably easier to do in the city than in the bush because of the vast distances between polling booths in regional New South Wales. In some cases people register their names, or the names of recently deceased persons, at every booth and then cast their votes; they can cast up to 20 votes.

The honourable member for Hurstville said that the electoral rolls are checked once vote counting has been completed. What happens if it is found that deceased people have voted or people have voted five times? The officers of the State Electoral Office cannot find deceased persons or persons who have registered at a specific address. In some cases five or six people with similar names may live at the same address. What can be done if an infringement notice is sent to an address but the person is not there? In the meantime votes have been counted and a member has been elected.

There are many instances of electoral fraud. Unions use fraudulent voting methods to influence a swinging seat in Labor’s favour. It happens not only in State and Federal elections but also in local government elections. To register to vote in local government elections one simply needs to visit the council chambers with a witness, and no check is made of the witness. People can provide any name
Page 1348
and be registered. Indeed, as the counter is not always staffed by the same people, they can return many times over a number of months to register. People can register a number of times and be entitled to vote more than once.

The Electoral Commissioner, rather than local government, is now in charge of elections, and that has made it more difficult to check on voting. But even at the local government level voters’ names can be cross-checked. More than one person registered at an address and not entitled to vote has voted. That person is not at the address and consequently does not pay a fine because that person does not exist. But a vote has been registered which, in many cases, can make all the difference to the result. The honourable member for Hurstville said that the bill will take away people’s democratic rights and make voting more difficult. That is hogwash! How many people who are entitled to vote would not have more than one form of identification? In this day and age people have drivers’ licences, Video Ezy cards, Medicare cards, Bankcards, Visa cards, et cetera.

Anyone who wants to go overseas seems to be able to produce adequate identification to obtain a passport. This morning as I was coming to this place on the ferry I was thinking about people who buy ferry tickets, bus tickets and theatre tickets, which are used once only. They are punched, cut in half, or in some other way marked so that they cannot be used again. If there is a will there is a way to produce a form of identification to be used once only on voting day. No double dipping would occur. It seems plain and simple to me. I cannot understand why, in this day and age of electronic voting, we cannot introduce a system of electronic voting. I do not agree with the assertion that such a system would cause bedlam on voting day and dramatically increase the workload.

Computer voting may be introduced in the near future. It can be done if we want it done. If we continue to give excuses as to why it cannot be done, it will not be done. This fraud cannot be allowed to continue. No-one knows how many times it occurs or what percentage of the vote is involved, although the honourable member for Hurstville came up with multiple voting figures of five here, 22 there, 30 there - but that is not what the bill is about. It is about the hundreds of people who have voted more than once because no checks are made. Many seats are decided on a handful of votes, which may make all the difference as to whether a particular person is elected. As a result of the inability to check whether a voter has voted more than once, the result may not reflect the will of the majority of the people.

Mr NAGLE (Auburn) [11.14 a.m.]: When one introduces a bill into this House, the first thing one should do is present the evidence to show that a mischief has to be rectified. When the honourable member for Coffs Harbour introduced this bill he produced not one iota of evidence to show that rorting had occurred in New South Wales in any circumstances or on such a scale as to warrant the introduction of this type of legislation. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour had the opportunity to present to this House and have recorded in Hansard the evidence to prove that there was a good reason that his bill should be passed by the House. That evidence would be empirical, factual evidence showing, electorate by electorate, systemic corruption in regard to voting thereby necessitating voters to produce some form of identification, such as a driver’s licence. The bill even mentions a death certificate.

The production of such documents would place an enormous burden on the people of New South Wales during an election. The honourable member for Orange has only been in this place for five minutes. If he were to come to my electorate and see the long queues of people waiting to vote on election day he would realise what a burden it would be for them to have to produce some form of identification. If the honourable member for Coffs Harbour could show me, electorate by electorate, evidence of widespread rorting in New South Wales I would be willing to re-examine the legislation. When he introduced this bill he quoted from some article written in a newspaper by Frank Hardy about the Yellow Brick Road, and all this other nonsense he goes on with, as a basis for proving that the Labor Party is involved in widespread electoral rorting and corruption. He has wasted the time of the Parliament by introducing this bill based on something that Frank Hardy wrote in a newspaper article. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour did not even identify the article.

Mr Fraser: You are wasting the time of this Parliament, not me.

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour had his chance to speak, but now it is my turn to speak. In a democracy I should be entitled to say what I have to say without continual interruptions from the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. He once called me unAustralian because I look after 38,000 families in New South Wales. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said that because Frank Hardy wrote this article Frank Hardy would know about widespread corruption in the
Page 1349
Labor Party. The Australian Encyclopaedia says of Frank Hardy that he is a well-known author who was born in Victoria on 21 March 1917. He left school at the age of 13 and worked as a fruit-picker, road-construction worker, seaman and grocer. The entry goes on to say:

He became a member of the Communist Party in 1939, and served in the Australian Army from 1941 to 1946. His writing career began at the age of 27 . . .

He wrote Power Without Glory, which was loosely based on the Wren era in Victoria. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour said that as Frank Hardy was a member of the Labor Party he would know what went on in relation to election rorting. Frank Hardy was never a member of the Labor Party. He never joined the Labor Party. He was a member of the Communist Party. He campaigned vigorously against endorsed Labor candidates. If any rorting was going on it would have been in the Communist Party. In every election, except in 1943 and 1946, the vote for the Communist Party was 2 per cent or 3 per cent.

[Interruption]

This is a democracy and I am addressing the House. I am entitled to address the House without you rudely interrupting me.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gaudry): Order! It is the province of the Chair to maintain order in the House. Members will cease interjecting.

Mr NAGLE: The 1943 and 1946 elections were the only elections in which the Communist Party in this country ever got more than 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the vote. In all other elections it polled about 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the vote. Yet the honourable member for Coffs Harbour has relied on an unidentified article by Frank Hardy, having given the House no intimation of when it was written, as the basis on which this House should impose upon the people of New South Wales the burden of having to prove their identity when they vote on election day. The honourable member would have to persuade the Government of the day that there was a real problem or a mischief to be rectified by presenting evidence that at the last election, or the election before last, on a seat-by-seat basis, widespread corruption occurred. If the honourable member does not want to target widespread corruption, he should examine what happened in marginal seats to determine the voting patterns. He should consider the voting pattern in his electorate, marginal Liberal-National party seats and marginal Labor seats to discover whether there has been widespread corruption.

The seat of Manly was won by about 170 votes and Badgerys Creek was won by 107 votes. The coalition had 14 days in which to lodge an appeal against the declared result in the seat of Gladesville if it had evidence of ballot rorting. It said it had all the information, but it never lodged one appeal against the result in any of those three seats. If the coalition had been able to prove rorting in those seats the Court of Disputed Returns would have overridden the results and ordered fresh elections. But it could not be proven, because there was no rorting. This nonsense legislation, based upon Frank Hardy’s article in a newspaper, would impose an enormous burden on people.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Oxley will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. He will remain silent.

Mr NAGLE: The more Opposition members squeal as the knife cuts into them, the more it becomes apparent that they know this is the truth of the matter. This legislation is about disfranchising a large number of elderly voters, ethnic voters, and people who may not have a driver’s licence. My electorate has a large ethnic community and many women do not hold a driver’s licence because the husbands do the driving, as is their tradition. Ethnic women would turn up to vote with an Australian citizenship certificate.

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

Mr NAGLE: Ethnic women would turn up to vote with an Australian citizenship certificate and no evidence that the person carrying that certificate is a person who is eligible to vote. What would happen to all the people who could not produce identification? They would be disfranchised and told that they were ineligible to vote. This reminds me of the amazing situation that occurred at the last election, in which ticks and crosses were outlawed for voting for the lower House but allowed for the upper House. In my electorate of Auburn the informal vote rose from 2 per cent to 7.5 per cent, because people put either a tick or a cross; they did not understand the voting system.

Some time ago, during similar debate about the electoral system, it was said that people of ethnic
Page 1350
origin who do not understand what they are doing when they go to vote should be deprived of the right to vote. Why should they be deprived if they do not understand the intricacies of a parliamentary system which does not allow ticks and crosses? The disallowance of ticks and crosses was not well advertised by the former Government, which won the election by two seats by doing away with ticks and crosses. If there is any rorting in the electoral system it emanates from the Opposition. The basic tenet of National Party and Liberal Party members is that they were born to rule and they will use any method that they can use to ensure they rule.

I call upon the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, who wants people to produce their licence or passport to the electoral officers before being allowed to vote, to prove one element that is essential to acceptance of this bill: that there is widespread electoral rorting in this State. He cannot meet that test. The figures speak for themselves. When I went to vote at the Regents Park polling booth on election day there was a line of about 30 people; they took only 12 minutes to lodge their votes because of the effective electoral officer working there. If each elector had to produce identification, that line would have been longer. Some people may decide not to vote if they have to stand in line in pouring rain or wait for any time before voting. In a democracy it is essential that all eligible voters are able to cast their votes.

Recently I spoke with people from the United States of America who said they envied our system of compulsory voting. In the State of California 36.4 per cent of enrolled voters actually voted and the governor was elected with 18.2 per cent of the vote. That is really a shame. That State is rife with corruption; it is so bad that numerous anticorruption bodies have been appointed to try to weed out electoral, political and bureaucratic corruption and fraud. We do not want that in this State. Australia has two things that set it above the most other countries in regard to the level of corruption; Australia does not have as much corruption as Malaysia, Indonesia, China and Peru. The two things that keep this country free from corruption are compulsory voting in a fair voting system, and question time. Those two great instruments have become an integral part of our fair voting system.

The burden that the Opposition seeks to impose on people by way of this bill will discourage 5 per cent or 10 per cent of people not to vote. That might not seem to be so bad, but the Opposition may well disqualify another 10 per cent or 15 per cent of voters. That latter group will include the elderly, widows, and people of ethnic origin, who may forget to take their identification to the polling booth. Effectively those people will never cast a vote for representative government. In this Chamber enormous power is wielded by members of Parliament and by the Executive. That power should be curbed by the right of the people to freely and without hindrance cast a fair and honest vote every three or four years without being called upon to produce identification.

Mr Fraser: This bill will stop Labor’s branch stacking.

Mr NAGLE: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour mentioned branch stacking. The difference between his party and my party is that Labor allows its rank and file to select its candidate and in his party candidates are appointed by a controlling bureaucracy.

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. The honourable member for Auburn has made a false accusation about the National Party method of preselection. We do have a rank and file selection of candidates.

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

Mr NAGLE: In my party candidates have to attend at least three branch meetings a year in order to be identified and properly credentialled, whereas in the National Party they have to pay $50 to get a vote. Someone who is rich enough can pay enough people to buy the vote. We will not have that inflicted upon the people of this State. I will repeat it so that the new member for Port Macquarie can understand. He is an intelligent, bright man; I saw him interviewed on Statewide. Honourable members have heard many points of order raised by the honourable member for Oxley; they leave a lot to be desired.

If the Opposition had factual evidence of widespread corruption and rorting in the electoral system of this State, the Government would act to make sure it would never occur again. The Opposition’s bill is a move to rip off the people, to disfranchise perhaps 20 per cent of the electorate by imposing an enormous burden on them, when there is not one ounce of evidence to show that there is a need for this legislation. There is no mischief to be rectified; there never was. The House should reject this bill.

Mr OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.29 a.m.]: I will pick up on a couple of points raised by the honourable member for Auburn and the
Page 1351
honourable member for Hurstville. In the last 10 minutes the honourable member for Auburn asked the Opposition to prove that electoral fraud is occurring. The Opposition cannot prove that electorate-by-electorate because it does not have those statistics. The system does not allow for that. That is exactly the point the Opposition is seeking to make. The bill seeks to put in place a system that will allow for proof of electoral fraud to be obtained and presented.

As to the Labor Party itself, I refer the honourable member for Auburn to incidents at Port Macquarie McDonald’s involving the honourable member for Cabramatta and the honourable member for Fairfield, and I encourage the honourable member for Auburn to read his own Labor document Abuse of Power. If those incidents were not playing with the system, I do not know what is. The honourable member for Hurstville argued that it is a human and democratic right to vote unfettered and unchallenged. It is a strange argument that people have both a right to vote and a right to defraud the system.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Ms NORI (Port Jackson) [11.30 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(a) congratulates the Telstra NSW Regional Small Business of the Year winner, Nowra Chemicals, and the regional category winners, Agrigrain, The Hunter Resort, the Stetson Steakhouse and Saloon Bar and Australian Lock Company, winner of the 1997 Telstra NSW Small Business of the Year and the other State category winners, Hans Hulsbosch, Photo Waste Management and Audio Sound Centre; and

(b) supports the continuing contribution by the small business community to NSW employment and economic growth.

Last month I had the opportunity to present the 1997 Telstra-Regional Small Business Awards and - later the same day - to represent the Government at the New South Wales Small Business Awards. The awards are widely regarded as a prestigious accolade for Australian business. They recognise the great contribution made by innovative and dynamic regional small business to the growing New South Wales economy. I know that honourable members on both sides of the House will join me in congratulating the finalists in both the regional and State awards. With more than 256,000 small businesses operating in this State, even to make the final is a great achievement. To establish a successful small business, one must first have a good idea. But it takes more than a good idea to make a successful business. It requires well-honed business skills to drive those good ideas into the marketplace and to realise that vision - the sort of vision shown by the finalists and winners of the awards.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business I have visited many small businesses outside Sydney in the past 18 months. I genuinely say that I have come to have great respect for the entrepreneurship and sheer hard work of so many businesses in the bush. In recognition of the extra challenges faced by regional businesses I shall give the House some background on the regional award winners. The Government, through the Department of State and Regional Development, was a sponsor of the awards. I understand that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands instituted the awards some time ago; they are a good idea. In the category of business with fewer than 10 employees the winner - and also the regional west winner - was Agrigrain. Agrigrain was established in Narromine in 1983 by a group of enterprising local business people to buy and resell locally grown grain. Agrigrain in its first year of operations handled 5,000 tonnes of grain. Today the business handles more than 120,000 tonnes of grain a year, employs seven, and has greatly increased its range of activities. Agrigrain has successfully tackled both the export and import replacement markets. I extend congratulations to the owner, Mr David Ringland.

In the category of business with fewer than 50 employees the winner, and regional winner for the Hunter region, was the Hunter Resort. The Hunter Resort is a secluded 80-acre estate in the heart of the Hunter Valley that offers guests four-star accommodation and the opportunity to stay at a working vineyard. Since 1991 the resort has been owned and operated by a brother-and-sister team, Karina and Phillip Hele. The resort was also a finalist in the 1997 New South Wales tourism awards for excellence. Regional Small Business Entrepreneur of the Year was awarded to Graham and Marlene Manvell from Tamworth’s Stetson Steakhouse and Saloon Bar. I attend the Tamworth music festival most years and I can recommend that business.

Mr Scully: Do you wear a stetson?

Mr Jeffery: Or an Akubra?

Page 1352

Ms NORI: I wear an Akubra and I go bootscooting. Although the Manvells started their business only in 1993, its unique character and great success have already led to franchised outlets. It is a credit to a regional small business to have reached the stage at which it can be franchised. The winner of the category of manufacturer with fewer than 60 employees, and regional winner for the Illawarra, was Nowra Chemicals. This business is a family-owned chemical manufacturing company that was established in 1977 with a staff of only two. Today it employs 36, and produces a wide range of cleaning products for industry and specialised products for the food industry. I am delighted to inform the House that Nowra Chemicals also won the overall regional category winner as the 1997 Telstra-New South Wales Regional Small Business of the Year. It is a delight to have the success of a regional, family-based business recognised by such an award. The contribution by Nowra Chemicals to the local economy and employment is to be applauded.

The State awards also present a great story for the regions. The overall winner as New South Wales Small Business of the Year was the Australian Lock Company from the Illawarra. The Australian Lock Company was also winner in the category of manufacturer with fewer than 60 employees. In 1982 Brian Preddey, a master locksmith and founder of the company, invented a locking system that was virtually 100 per cent pick resistant and gave absolute key and system security. Today his factory in Fairy Meadow employs 44, turns over $6.8 million a year and manufactures security systems recognised as among the best in the world. That is of great credit to a regional company. Each of the award winners has an impressive story to tell.

The winner of the business with fewer than 10 employees category was the Audio Sound Centre in Artarmon. After an extensive career in location sound recording, working for Channel 10 and Channel 9, Geoff Grist decided to establish his own professional audio solutions company. Geoff and his wife, Belinda, began hiring out sound equipment from their lounge room. Today the Audio Sound Centre employs nine staff and turned over more than $3 million in the last financial year. The more one has to do with small businesses the more one realises that some do start off very humbly, often operating out of a room in the family home. Through sheer hard work, determination and innovation they improve their position, employ more people and even export. That is of great credit to the ingenuity and guts of the people who are willing to take that risk.

The winner of the business with fewer than 50 employees category was Photo Waste Management. The company began operating in 1987 with one employee and today employs 37 people. It has an annual turnover of $5.3 million and has as customers multinational companies such as Kodak. Photo Waste Management specialises in assisting customers in effectively managing waste products from the photographic, X-ray and graphic arts businesses. Small Business Entrepreneur of the Year was awarded to the graphic design company Hulsbosch Pty Ltd. Hans Hulsbosch, who was born in the Netherlands, moved to Australia in 1979 and for five years worked as senior art director at Clemengers. During that time he identified a gap in the market and in 1986 set up his company with capital of $300. Today his company employs 17 and has a profit of $2.7 million. Telstra should be congratulated - as should the other award sponsors, Optus, Qantas and the Department of State and Regional Development - for their continuing support of these highly regarded awards. Tonight the winners of the Australiawide awards are to be announced in Adelaide and I am sure honourable members will join me in wishing the New South Wales businesses that will be represented there the best of luck.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [11.40 a.m.]: I join with the honourable member in extending congratulations to this year’s winners of the Telstra-New South Wales Regional Small Business of the Year Award. I also congratulate those participants who will not receive the accolade because every business that takes part in the awards is a winner at least in attitude. I congratulate the major sponsor, Telstra, and the other sponsors who put their names, and their money, to these awards. By doing so they are promoting one of the nation’s best assets, the small business entrepreneurs who are out there having a go, building wealth for the nation and finding new and better ways of doing business. The Department of State and Regional Development has carried on a tradition which I am proud to have established when I was Minister for Small Business and Regional Development in the former Government.

At that time I recognised that although many of the companies nominating for State small business awards were regionally based, they were able to compete with major companies and other companies that were city-based and had the benefits of a larger marketplace, a better skills base for selecting employees and so forth. I thought at the time that if they were able to do that, if they were
Page 1353
able to compete at the big end of town and win consistently, as they were doing, perhaps they were worthy of recognition in their own right. I recall hosting the first awards function, a cocktail party before the awards ceremony, on level 38, the top floor, of the former State Office Block. The participants were lit up like Christmas trees and pleased to think that, as a group of regional businesses, they were being given the opportunity to come to town and show their wares, join with one another, share the experience of their success and egg each other on to do even better.

That is the special nature of these award ceremonies. Similar awards are held at regional level and are sponsored by the existing State and regional development boards. An award ceremony was conducted in Armidale recently for the New England and north-west regions. The awards are important because they give the winners an opportunity to come together and support each other, and enjoy their success. It is tough in the marketplace and very competitive, and these business people often feel very lonely and isolated as they struggle on. In particular the awards give the owners and managers of small businesses an opportunity to pat their staff on the back and say, "We are a team. Without you we could not have done it." The camaraderie and spirit shown by the companies on awards night is something one has to experience to believe. It does wonders for everyone involved, for the company, for the industry, and also for the community of which they are part. Very often these businesses are operating in a back street of a town where no-one knows about them.

During my term as Minister for Small Business and Regional Development I travelled around the State and I encountered all sorts of weird and wonderful businesses operating successfully in the back streets of country towns, virtually unknown to anyone in town. I could name business after business that I located in that manner. Those businesses were getting on and doing the job. They were employing two, five, perhaps 15 local people and were delivering the goods. They did not spend time waving flags in the local community, they were just getting on with the job. I remember, late in my ministry, visiting Manilla and seeing a run-down shed - I am not quite sure what the building had been used for 100 years ago, but it was a very old building. In that building a company was making high pressure fire hoses that were being sold nationally and internationally. It was absolutely state-of-the art equipment but the state of the building on the outside disguised what was going on inside. However, the business was successful and achieving great results in a tough, competitive but isolated market.

Business award ceremonies bring to the fore those businesses that are having a go. In my home town of Armidale last year the regional small business of the year, Petals Network, took on Interflora, a one-only business in its field, but Petals Network has gone from strength to strength. Not only did it win the Regional Small Business of the Year Award, it also won the State and National Small Business of the Year Awards, merely by taking a service, analysing it, pulling it to pieces, putting it back together again and doing the job better using the latest technology. Anyone, anywhere can succeed: the awards give us an opportunity to recognise that potential. I particularly recall to mind an engineering firm in Newcastle that won the State small business award some years ago. It was involved in the production of high pressure vessels, hyperbaric chambers. Not only did the company win at New South Wales and national levels, it was producing a product which was by far the best in the world. In fact, the company did so well at producing its product that several international standards had to be rewritten to accommodate it.

That product was developed in a shed in a back street in a suburb of Newcastle, but it could just as easily have happened in a small country town. Those are the great success stories upon which Australian entrepreneurship and ingenuity have flourished for many years. Such success should be recognised by government in particular, and also by commerce and banking. One of the things that can hold these companies back is limited access to venture capital and finance when they need it. They need recognition by the financiers. A small business that is growing very quickly can get into difficulties with its cash flow. That does not indicate lack of opportunity or activity, merely that the business is growing so quickly that its needs are greater than they might otherwise be. I always made a point of speaking to bankers who attended award ceremonies. Often they would sponsor the award nights and I would say to them, "You have to get out there into the factories as Ministers and others do because you have to have a feel for just how successful these people are and how genuine their needs are."

It may be that those businesses do occasionally have a cash flow problem but it is a good problem because it arises from growth and success. I constantly made the plea to the banking sector and to the financiers, and I make it again today, that they need to understand small business better, so that they can serve small business better. We can all
Page 1354
gain from that, particularly by way of creation of jobs and profits for Australia. I want to bring to attention one other business, because it proves the point that a range of wonderful things come out of small towns. Just above Armidale is the town of Guyra. Recently the town’s abattoir was closed and everyone was sad about that. However, one Guyra business won the Regional Small Business of the Year Award. Ruddweigh Australasia makes electronic measuring scales and equipment in a little shed on the side of the road. As one drives through Guyra one can see the name "Ruddweigh" on the door. That company exports electronic scales to 36 countries and it is now making inroads into the South American market.

Mr Armstrong: They are weighing in very well.

Mr CHAPPELL: They are indeed weighing in very well. Accepting the award for the company on award night, Sally Thomson said that her parents had had a great idea, and had put a great deal of persistence, energy and creativity into the business over the years, as had the company’s loyal staff, but that it was the team as a whole that had brought success. That is a message from which we can all take heart. If the professions, commerce and trade in Australia could adopt the principles, the determination, the creativity, the sheer guts and hard work that go into running a successful small business, this country would be very much economically stronger than it is at present. These people are putting their own livelihoods and family investments on the line to produce a better product in a smarter way. They are the lifeblood of the country and they deserve these awards.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [11.50 a.m.]: I know that members on both sides of the House will take great pleasure in seeing the ingenuity and perseverance of the small business community recognised and rewarded. The Telstra small business awards are among the most important awards on the small business calendar. They play an important part in recognising and promoting the economic achievements of small to medium enterprises to the wider community, as well as serving to promote individual achievement. I believe the 1996 overall winners, King Communications, received additional orders worth $1 million after its triumph last year. As well as helping to facilitate small business networking, these awards also give businesses an opportunity to benchmark their own performance and critically assess their accomplishments, future goals and directions. Importantly, they provide an insight into what makes a small business successful.

The key to success in small business lies in combining creativity and entrepreneurial prowess. It is about recognising opportunities, managing risk, tackling problems, being flexible, persevering to the end and being able to work with other people. These awards highlight the strengths and virtues of small business. These virtues include: specialist knowledge and expertise that enable small business to be highly customer focused; an ability to keep pace with changes in the marketplace; a well developed understanding of what the customer requires, which enables small business to tailor products and services to meet changing demands, which gives them the ability to uncover and develop niche markets; and the total service provided by small business, with timeliness, variety and individual attention representing real value for money to the customer.

The economic significance of the small business sector to this State is immense. Small business is the core of the New South Wales economy. More than 256,000 small businesses operate in this State, accounting for 95 per cent of all enterprises. They provide 46 per cent of the State’s non-agricultural sector employment, a total of 879,200 jobs. Small business is the only sector of the Australian economy where there is net employment growth. In the 1995 financial year the small business work force in Australia grew by 6.4 per cent or 225,000 jobs. The dynamic nature of small businesses means that they are among the first to identify and service new or changing demands, particularly in newly identified niches in finance, property, business services, wholesale and retail trade, hospitality and tourism.

The sustained growth of the Australian economy will be led by individuals who have the ingenuity and commitment to build competitive businesses. Those people who recognise their own strengths, capabilities and knowledge have already gained a competitive edge. Australia needs many of these new dynamic entrepreneurs to consolidate its position in an increasingly dynamic world. The message that comes from the Telstra small business awards is that Australia is forging ahead through the small business arena. New ideas are being capitalised on. Better business practices are being implemented and the message is one of opportunity and optimism for Australia’s future. Indeed, New South Wales small business is ready to meet the challenge. Some 52 per cent of small businesses in this State responding to a recent survey indicated positive expectations for the economy in the year ahead. I understand that Qantas, Ericsson, Ernst and Young, Business Review Weekly and the Daily
Page 1355
Telegraph gave generous support to the awards program in 1997. Our thanks are due to them, and our congratulations to the finalists and winners.

Mr PEACOCKE (Dubbo) [11.54 a.m.]: I am delighted to support this motion. Many years ago, in 1989 when I was Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the small business awards were initiated and I think the Daily Telegraph was the leader in getting them going. The reporter who prepared a small business column for the Daily Telegraph and I cooked up the idea of having the awards. It was with some trepidation that we in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs made an annual donation of $10,000 a year to the award, and I am pleased that that has continued. Small business in Australia is the one bright light, as previous speakers have said, in providing more employment. Small business will become more important as time goes by because as middle management of larger corporations are retrenched, they will end up in small businesses.

Recognition of the small business awards is important because it highlights and encourages the efforts of small business to do what they do well. To be of real and lasting value, small business in Australia has also to play another role, that of becoming ultimately big business. Not all small businesses will become big businesses. Many businesses, particularly smaller entrepreneurs, like to be small but some are on the way to becoming big businesses. Governments at all levels, Commonwealth, State and local, should assist businesses to make the quantum leap from small to big, as that transition is difficult for many entrepreneurs. Some years ago in Boston I saw a friend of mine who worked with a large accountancy firm that had specialised in helping big business. His firm did the accounts for big corporations but there were so many mergers and takeovers that their client base began to diminish. They decided to look at up-and-coming small business firms and were amazed at what they found. Their business expanded dramatically because they were able to help small firms bridge the gap between small and big.

In Australia we should do the same and facilitate growth. Government should get off the back of small business, and develop a culture not of obstructing small businesses but of facilitating their growth and survival. Never in its history in Australia has small business faced more obstacles to success than it faces today. Not the least of those is the dramatic and ruthless growth of big business into monopolies and oligopolies. Big business has long since forgotten its obligation to use small business. Small business has the classic role of being the distributor for large business. Sadly, many big corporations forget that and therefore give benefits to similar large businesses, for instance in retailing, at the cost of the small business entrepreneur. There are many great features about small businessmen. Not all of them are big and not all of them are bad.

Ms Nori: And not all of them are men, either.

Mr PEACOCKE: That is true. It is pleasing to see the great growth of women in small business. Women in business care for their employees. They do not have the heartless number approach of some big corporations.

Mr Scully: Like John Howard and Peter Reith.

Mr PEACOCKE: No, they are facilitating the growth of small business by getting off its back. But your lot in Canberra recently created another problem for them by not passing the unfair dismissal legislation. I am pleased that the Minister raised this issue because it is the greatest deterrent to more employment in small business, next only to workers compensation and other on-costs. I congratulate Telstra and all the other organisations that have supported the truly worthwhile small business of the year awards. We should follow through more and give as much assistance as we can to the little guys in society to help them become big business.

Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [12.00 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the motion moved by the honourable member for Port Jackson. Small business makes a very significant contribution to the New South Wales economy and to job and wealth creation. According to business registration figures there are 256,000 small businesses in New South Wales. If the multitude of businesses operating under an owner’s name, and therefore not required to be registered, were added to that figure, the number would be even greater. Small businesses make up 97 per cent of all enterprises operating in New South Wales and provide 879,000 private sector jobs. The Telstra small business awards result from a close working partnership between Telstra, other private sector sponsors and supporters, and the Government. The awards recognise the efforts of individual organisations that are leading the way in demonstrating that competitive businesses can be built by innovation and commitment.

During the past 10 years most new jobs created in New South Wales have been in small business, particularly in those organisations employing fewer than 10 people. It is expected that small businesses will continue to be the predominant source of future job growth in the State. To assist
Page 1356
this growth, Government support and commitment to small business is demonstrated through a number of initiatives, such as the regional business development scheme; the AusIndustry scheme, in association with the Federal Government; expansion of the very successful women in business mentor program; the creation of agribusiness and export advisory programs; and the funding of organisations such as business enterprise centres. In 1997-98 the Department of State and Regional Development allocated $5.9 million of this State’s budget to small business development.

As a member of the Joint Standing Committee upon Small Business, I congratulate the honourable member for Port Jackson on the great work she is doing as parliamentary secretary, particularly her emphasis on the needs of small business. All committee members, especially Government members, realise that she has a great future in this Government. Not long ago she visited the Lake Macquarie electorate and launched the Toronto prospectus, a document that provides business people interested in establishing business in the region with detailed information about Toronto and surrounding areas. She was very well received by the local chamber of commerce and many small business people because her reputation had preceded her.

A significant proportion of the budget allocation of $5.9 million for small business development is being used in the delivery of advisory and information services to starters in business and to new businesses. Through the Small Business Development Corporation the Government is actively exploring issues affecting growth companies in order to identify and support those firms that have the potential to contribute to jobs growth. The Government values the contribution small businesses make to the community, and is committed to increasing accessibility to and the range of resources available for businesses to achieve commercial success. Because of their size, small businesses are confronted with special challenges, such as competition from big businesses with tiered management structures and in-house specialists on hand. In this respect it is particularly pleasing that large organisations such as Telstra have demonstrated a commitment to a program that encourages and rewards excellence amongst regional small businesses. Today I join with other members to congratulate not only the winners of the awards but all those who entered and took part in the awards night.

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [12.05 p.m.]: Today it gives me much pleasure to congratulate Telstra on its regional small business awards. I also congratulate the honourable member for Port Jackson on the role she is playing supporting regional small businesses. Telstra is not the only organisation that recognises the importance of regional small businesses. Throughout the country there are a range of business awards, from city awards to village community awards. The organisations associated with those awards should be congratulated on the efforts they make to recognise small businesses in their regions. Last Saturday evening I attended one of the social events of the year in Orange when the Orange Chamber of Commerce, sponsored by NZI Insurance, presented its business awards in front of approximately 650 people. More than 300 nominations had been made for awards. Whilst companies are finding it tough in Orange at the moment, a lot of small business owners use the awards as a form of reward to their staff.

Last Saturday night a special award was presented to a manufacturing company in Orange, Joma Engineering Pty Ltd. During the years the proprietors of Joma Engineering have had more than their share of problems. Last year the company went under, but the staff took over the company and it is now flourishing. I congratulate them on their efforts and on winning this manufacturing award. The Chamber of Commerce at Orange recognises not only businesses in Orange but those in surrounding areas. The chamber often presents awards to farming enterprises, to vineyards and so on. Many service industries in country New South Wales are closing, and I refer particularly to local post offices and banks. But small towns of only 150 or 250 people are demonstrating their resilience by taking over those services. For example, the corner store might take over the franchise for the post office, or for a bank or credit union. Country business people are determined to stay in business. Without such resilience small towns will die.

Businesses often look for government support but because of the bureaucratic red tape involved they give up or they find they are not eligible. I am proud to be part of the Orange small business community - a community with diversified business interests. One business venture involves the production of lucerne cubes for export to Japan. Down the road from my business a company is exporting Australian wild flowers to South-east Asia. Other businesses include conducted tours of central Australia. Big companies, and especially multinationals, are not interested in small jobs. As a consequence many small transport companies have trucks travelling thousands of kilometres a week to support and serve other small businesses. Whilst it is
Page 1357
necessary for major companies such as Telstra to recognise businesses on a State or national basis, it is also equally important for us to acknowledge that country cities and villages also support regional small businesses and that without those businesses regional New South Wales would die.

Mr Armstrong: Mr Acting-Speaker -

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! In accordance with standing orders, the next speaker to be called is the mover in reply.

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. I wish to participate in the debate as a member of this Parliament.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! Standing orders are clear on this matter. Under Standing Order 118 the Chair is unable to give the call to the honourable member. However, that does not preclude the Minister from moving a motion to suspend standing orders, should he so choose.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Scully agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the Leader of the National Party to speak to the motion for five minutes.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [12.10 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for Roads and the Government for their indulgence in allowing me to speak to this motion. I join with other members in complimenting Telstra on making these small business awards. I congratulate those who participated, both the winners and the entrants. It is important to recognise the value of these awards in the broader community, particularly the small business community in country New South Wales. Much government work suppresses and depresses the people of New South Wales. The tendency is to penalise people by legislating for what they can and cannot do. Indeed, the Parliament is obstructionist.

It is invigorating to talk about something positive. Many speakers this morning pointed out the value of small business. I shall make a couple of additional points. In most suburbs and country towns small business involves buying and selling. Some people go backwards financially; others tend to diversify their businesses. However, they are moving money and people. Small businesses operate most effectively. They give young people their first jobs, in which they learn the basic disciplines. They offer opportunities to people who have been relocated with a partner. Often partners of professional people or public servants who relocate to the country have difficulty finding employment in a new location. Small business often provides the vehicle that allows them to participate in the community and to earn a living.

Small businesses are truly multifunctional; they are multifaceted training, employment, business and money generators in the broader fabric of society. In addition, small business people provide much of the character of our country towns. Most importantly, they are frequently called on to support not only local charities but many government businesses. When the local hospital runs short of funds what is the first thing that happens? Someone knocks on the door of the local business houses. When organising the annual agriculture show someone again knocks on those doors. When an appeal