Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Assembly, 13 November 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 AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [10.00 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Universities are a source of our State’s intellectual power and knowledge. They provide thousands of students with the skills and ability to actively participate in society and in employment. Without them this State would not have the rigour and capacity to be a leading force in business and industry, whether it be large or small. Learning and education are fundamental rights of all people. They should be available to students regardless of their background, their ability to pay, where they live and what their goals and ambitions may be. Learning institutions, therefore, require input from the community and must be receptive to the community’s needs.

This bill goes a long way towards looking after the people in one of Sydney’s fastest growing and demanding populations - western Sydney. It will ensure that local residents and those from greater New South Wales have a first-class learning facility available to them. This legislation strengthens the federation structure of the University of Western Sydney while, at the same time, leaving the university members able to respond to the needs of their local communities in the greater western Sydney region. The legislation also repeals and replaces the University of Western Sydney Act 1988. As this House would be aware, the University of Western Sydney has been a federated network university since its inception in 1989. It comprises three network members: the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury; the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur; and the University of Western Sydney, Nepean.

Back in 1995 one member of the university federation, the University of Western Sydney, Nepean, sought to secede to achieve greater autonomy. This proved to be the catalyst for structural changes required for the future evolution of the university. What followed was extensive community consultation within the university itself and with the wider community led by a review committee headed by former Supreme Court Justice and current Chancellor of Southern Cross University, the Hon. Andrew Rogers, QC. The concerns of the University of Western Sydney, Nepean, were fully aired at that time and a range of models for a new University of Western Sydney structure was reviewed. The outcomes of this consultation are addressed in the detail of the structural arrangements identified in this new legislation.

The bill proposes a strengthened university federation and clarifies the governance of the university. Clause 7 clarifies that the structure of the federation consists of the office of the vice-chancellor and the university members - the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury; the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur; and the University of Western Sydney, Nepean. As is currently the case, there is provision for the creation of new members. There are two other significant amendments: first, a change to the university’s governing body, currently called the board of governors, which will now be called the board of trustees; and, second, new member councils will be established for each of the three university members. The purpose of this bill is to effect these and other changes. It will clarify the functions and roles of the university, the board of trustees, the new councils of the university members, the academic senate and key university office holders, and will institute a number of other consequential amendments and procedural improvements. The latter includes processes for the variation by the university of the terms of trusts and prizes, when such variation is considered necessary.

I will now outline the key changes. The bill provides for the board of trustees, which is the governing authority of the university. Each university member will have a council. The current powers and functions of the member chief executive
Page 1740
officers have in part been transferred to the university member councils. Clause 10 effects the replacement of the board of governors by a smaller board of trustees. The board of trustees is the governing authority of the university and will have a stronger focus than the former body on co-ordination and overall policy development. Its ultimate responsibility will be the development of broad policies and strategic plans, defining the university’s education profile, resource management and performance monitoring, representing the university and carrying out other functions which the law gives to or imposes on it.

Membership reflects the two levels of university governance and includes the chancellor, vice-chancellor and chair of the academic senate ex officio, as well as the chairs from each of the three university member councils. The council chairs also have the status of deputy chancellors of the university. There will be 18 members of the board. The constitution defined under clause 12 differs from the constitution of the existing board of governors, although the principal categories of membership remain the same, that is, there is provision for parliamentary members, elected members, official members and members appointed by the Minister. Under clause 12(6) the board may also appoint an additional member of the board to provide additional skills or expertise in specific areas which the board feels are necessary. This appointment must be external to the university, that is, not an immediate university staff member or student.

The membership will now be more in favour of external appointees, which is consistent with most other university governing bodies. This change is appropriate given the creation and membership of the new member councils for each of the three university members, which will have internal membership and representatives from the local communities. As I said earlier, another significant change in this bill is the establishment of a council in each university member as provided for in clause 16. Each will be chaired by a deputy chancellor, who will be a member of the board. Each university member council will be a standing committee of the board of trustees and will be responsible and accountable to the board for the internal operations of the relevant university member. This change will locate the delegated decision making at the local level.

The member councils will also provide advice and guidance to the university member on local issues and provide a channel of reporting and advice to the board of trustees through the chair, who is a board member. Clause 13 of the bill provides for the university chancellor. The chancellor is elected by the board and, if not already a member, becomes an official member upon election. Schedule 1 to the bill provides that the chancellor is to preside at all meetings of the board or a committee of the board at which he or she is present. The vice-chancellor remains the chief executive officer of the university and is responsible for the Office of the Vice-Chancellor. As outlined in clause 15 of the bill, the vice-chancellor is the university’s academic and administrative head. The vice-chancellor is to exercise stewardship of the university on behalf of the board and is a member of every committee established by the board, the vice-chancellor, a council or a principal executive officer of a university member.

Under clause 18 each university member will also have a principal executive officer, who will be appointed by the board. They will be the academic and administrative heads of the university members and will be subject to the overall authority of the vice-chancellor. This position replaces that of chief executive officer of the network members under the current legislation. Clauses 15 and 18 of the bill, respectively relating to the vice-chancellor and the principal executive officers of the university members, provide that the by-laws may specify the use of an additional or alternative title for these key university office holders. In addition to the above changes, the bill also amends the structure of academic authority in the university. The existing Act refers to a university-wide academic board. Under the new arrangements in clause 20 this will be replaced by the Academic Senate, which will be the key academic body for the university reporting directly to the board of trustees. The Academic Senate is to be the peak forum of the university for academic debate and discourse, and the primary custodian of academic values and standards for the university. The Chair of the Academic Senate is to be an official member of the board of trustees.

Academic boards will also be established for each network member and they will report through the member councils to the board of trustees, with the board taking overall advice on academic matters from the Academic Senate. This is another way of ensuring that the board of trustees exercises overall control of the federated network. The bill also amends section 32 of the Act, covering reappointment or re-election to the governing body, in order to limit the terms of some board members to two consecutive terms in the same category of membership. This change is detailed in clause 38, which, in addition, provides discretion for the Minister to allow a person to be re-elected or
Page 1741
reappointed to a third consecutive term. This amendment is proposed to ensure a turnover of expertise in the membership of the board and is in line with the recommendations made in the Hoare committee report of December 1995, "Commonwealth Review of Higher Education Management".

The proposal originates from, and is clearly supported by, the university. The board members subject to limited tenure under clause 38 would include the chancellor, members appointed by the Minister, elected members, the board-appointed member and the council chairs. The university also wishes to make certain minor changes to its existing legislation which are not related to the structural reforms. Clauses 30 and 31 will allow a simpler process to vary the terms of trusts which have been established for the university and prizes which have been endowed. With the passage of time and the effects of inflation the quantum of prizes and trusts can become inadequate to meet their original purpose, and universities have had to approach the courts to make the necessary changes. It will mean that, with the approval of the Minister, the university will have the power to vary the amount of a prize and that it can also vary the terms of a trust with the endorsement of the Minister and the approval of the Attorney General. These changes are no different from those afforded in other Acts.

Schedule 4 contains savings and transitional provisions that will ensure a smooth transition to the new operating structure. The University of Western Sydney has requested the legislative changes reflected in this bill as a matter of urgency to allow university business to be conducted with certainty from the start of 1998. The passage of this bill will ensure that the necessary changes to the University of Western Sydney structure are implemented satisfactorily and that their operation can commence as soon as possible in 1998. I must add that the revised structure has been trialled by the university since 1996 and is working with apparent success. It has the strong support of the university and of the broader community in greater western Sydney.

The details of this bill will ensure the continuance of an effective federated university. This system is considered by the local community as the best way of ensuring responsiveness to local needs in greater western Sydney while simultaneously achieving the critical mass necessary to ensure the university’s national and international standing. As a member representing Sydney’s greater west, I am proud to introduce this legislation, which will provide stability to this well-respected and greatly needed higher education facility in the greater western Sydney area. It will secure the future of thousands of students who attend the university, despite the damaging 25.5 per cent slashing of university funds by the Howard Federal Government. The bill will go a long way to providing a learning environment that will only enhance intellectual rigour and provide skilled workers to the south-west. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr O’Doherty.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I acknowledge the presence in the public galleries of students and staff from Hill Top Public School and St Bernard’s School from Coonamble. I welcome the students and staff to the Parliament and trust they enjoy their time with their respective members. I hope they have enjoyed the debate this morning about the University of Western Sydney.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [10.18 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of the Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Bill is to regulate the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail as part of a national scheme for dangerous goods transport. The bill covers all aspects of the transport of dangerous goods including the packing, loading and unloading of dangerous goods for the purpose of their transport, as well as the actual transport of the goods. The bill has been prepared following intergovernmental agreements in 1991 and 1992 for heavy and light vehicles. The agreements provided for the establishment of the National Road Transport Commission. Its charter is to establish a national road transport regime to improve road safety, improve transport efficiency and reduce the cost of administration of road transport.

The National Road Transport Commission is developing the national road transport law in six modules. The first module relates to vehicle charges and was implemented in this State by the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Charges) Act 1995. The bill, which relates to dangerous goods transport, will enable the implementation of the second module. All
Page 1742
States and Territories are in the process of legislating by 1 January 1998 to enable the implementation of the dangerous goods transport scheme in their respective jurisdictions. The Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Bill substantively re-enacts the Commonwealth Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Act 1995, which was developed by the National Road Transport Commission in consultation with all Australian governments, key industry groups and the public.

At present differences in the laws applying to the road transport of dangerous goods between States and Territories cost the dangerous goods transport industry a great deal of money and cause it considerable concern, frustration and delay. The bill enables a national approach to things such as dangerous goods vehicles and driver licences, responsibility for decision-making and mutual recognition of administrative actions, exemptions and approvals. The national scheme will enable national safety requirements, such as those contained in the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods, to be implemented more simply and directly.

The road and rail transport of dangerous goods in this State is currently split between the Dangerous Goods Act 1975, the Transport Administration Act 1988 and regulations under those Acts. Under this bill New South Wales will have one piece of legislation covering the land transport of dangerous goods, integrating the road and rail provisions for the first time. This will ensure harmonisation between transport modes, now and in the future, and help to reduce unnecessary costs, duplication and inconsistency. In addition, the bill extends responsibility for compliance to all parties in the transport chain, thereby creating a more comprehensive regulatory framework for the safe transport of dangerous goods. The bill requires all persons involved in the transport of dangerous goods to do so safely. An offence is constituted where a person fails to comply with the bill and the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the non-compliance threatened the safety of another person, property or the environment.

The bill contains a broad regulation-making power. This will enable the making of regulations to implement in this State the provisions of the Commonwealth Road Transport Reform (Dangerous Goods) Regulations and the Australian Code for the Transport of Dangerous Goods, as applicable to both road and rail transport. The regulations and code have also been developed as part of the National Road Transport Commission process. The regulations will cover matters such as the classification of dangerous goods, the packaging of dangerous goods for transport, the management of bulk containers of dangerous goods, the marking of containers and vehicles, the procedures to be adopted in the course of land transport and the procedures to be adopted in emergencies. The Road and Rail Transport (Dangerous Goods) Bill will enable the application in New South Wales of national provisions that regulate the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail to promote public safety and protect property and the environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

Ms ALLAN (Blacktown - Minister for the Environment) [10.24 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill to amend the Pollution Control Act 1970 enables implementation of a pollution load-based licensing scheme, referred to during the public consultation process as LBL. This is undoubtedly the most significant reform of our system of pollution regulation since its introduction in 1970. This package of reforms will enable New South Wales to overtake other States in the integration of economic growth and environment protection. The package harnesses the dynamic and innovative forces of competition for the protection of the environment. This is a huge step towards sustainable development. For licence activities, the environment will be part of core business, not merely an afterthought. Industries that reduce their pollution and consequent risks to human health and the environment will be rewarded for their actions; others will experience ongoing incentives for improvement.

New South Wales will gain early leader benefits in the Pacific region, as industry develops innovative, low-cost environmental solutions and expertise that can be exported in the future. The principles of this scheme are strongly supported by industry. The package has been developed after extensive consultation and collaboration. The Government is committed to reforming environmental regulation to provide a healthy environment that is ecologically and economically sustainable for us and future generations. The
Page 1743
objective of this package is better environment protection while allowing industry the flexibility to find low-cost methods of pollution reduction. The reform package comprises this bill, a forthcoming regulation, a series of approximately 30 pollution-load calculation protocols and a program of associated amendments to licences.

The package is required to deal with a number of problems with the current environmental licensing system. First, the existing system focuses primarily on controlling the concentration or dilution of pollutants in emissions. This is effective in controlling immediate acute impacts from discharges. However, many pollutants are persistent and can have serious impacts on the environment, which become apparent only in the longer term. Some environments may be able to withstand short-term stresses from pollution loads but may become increasingly degraded if these are maintained over a longer time period. In some cases, irreversible damage may occur. Cumulative increases in total pollution can also arise from an increasing number of sources of pollutants due to economic expansion, even though each individual licensee may comply with its technology-based concentration limits.

Second, concentration-based licences do not encourage conservation or reuse of water. On the contrary, by themselves, they may even encourage wastage for dilution purposes. Although it is strong in defending an environmental bottom line for each premise, the current licensing system is weak in stimulating ongoing improvements beyond minimum compliance. It is also weak in managing cumulative environmental impacts. Third, the current licence fee system is also in need of reform. At present licence fees provide no incentive for industries to reduce their emissions below licence limits. In many cases companies that have taken responsibility for reducing the harmful impacts of their activities have invested considerable sums to improve their environmental performance. The current fee system perversely favours the less responsible competitors because both good and bad performers pay the same fees. The bill is necessary to ensure that companies that show leadership in environmental innovation are no longer disadvantaged.

Fourth, reform is also required to redress inequities that exist in the current licence fee system. Some organisations pay more than others that have similar impacts on the environment. For example, 75 per cent of the current fees are levied on Sydney Water’s five primary treated effluent discharges. This means that Sydney Water pays more than $23 million per annum, whereas the average fee for the remaining 3,400 pollution licences is only $2,200 per annum. An amount of $2,200 is clearly a manifestly inadequate amount to encourage better environmental performance or to compensate the community for the costs of environmental degradation arising from pollution. This bill is needed to level the playing field to help ensure fair competition and equal treatment under the law.

The Pollution Control Act 1970 provides the Environment Protection Authority with powers and duties to issue licences and approvals for the purposes of the Clean Air Act 1961, the Clean Waters Act 1970 and the Noise Control Act 1975. More than 3,400 licences are currently issued under the Act. The EPA uses licences to prevent or minimise pollution by requiring licence holders to comply with emission limits, operating, monitoring, reporting and other specific conditions. In granting licences, the Act requires that the EPA consider the pollution caused or currently caused, the resulting environmental harm and the practical measures that can be taken to abate or prevent the pollution and the harm.

The Act also provides for the Minister to make regulations under the Act containing the details of how licences and approvals are to be issued. This bill will amend the Act so that the new load-based licensing scheme can be implemented and a new pollution control regulation made under it. The purpose of the current fee system is to recover the costs associated with the administration, monitoring and enforcement of the licensing system. Fee levels broadly reflect the potential to pollute. As I have explained, however, the current fee system does not generally operate as a disincentive to pollute or provide any significant financial incentives to reduce pollution beyond the licence requirements, in terms of either concentration or load. Because the fees are a fixed and unavoidable cost to industry, there is little incentive for licence holders to track or manage licence fees, as they do with other business costs. The fees are not directly linked to pollutant loads, and are very small compared to the costs of abatement.

The results of that are that good environmental performers are disadvantaged to the extent that they commit more resources to environmental protection than their competitors, and the cost of environmental harm caused by pollution is currently borne by the wider community rather than the licensees who have caused the harm in the first place. The current fee system, which is more than 25 years old, is less fair and economically less efficient than it could be, and is therefore no longer acceptable to the Government. The Government is committed to reforming
Page 1744
environmental regulation to provide a healthy environment that is ecologically and economically sustainable for both the current and future generations. This package of proposals is necessary to overcome the limitations of the current licensing system and set in place a mechanism to more efficiently protect the New South Wales environment. The Government intends that performance-based controls such as load limits and fees will progressively replace less efficient types of environmental regulatory controls.

This package is consistent with the recommendations of the OECD and world’s best practice regulation. In 1991 OECD countries agreed that pollution prevention and control costs, as well as pollution damage costs, should be borne by the polluter. These reforms will significantly strengthen environment protection in New South Wales. Environmental outcomes will be improved. The only flexibility that will be provided, however - and this is crucial - is flexibility for licensees to find the simplest and cheapest method to meet the required environmental outcomes. Load-based licensing also delivers on the Government’s policy platform of providing more pollution information to the community. Reported pollutant loads will be on the public record. Members of the community will be able to find out the quantities of harmful pollutants being discharged by licensed premises. Disclosure of emissions is a proven further incentive for emission reductions, as evidenced in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

This bill provides the necessary legal framework to implement the Government’s package of reforms. It provides for much of the detail of the proposal to be implemented via a forthcoming regulation. The Government has selected this configuration because it is committed to maximising the opportunities for stakeholders to participate in settling the final details. There will be a two-month consultation period for the proposed regulation in February and March, conducted by the Environment Protection Authority. This consultation will be in addition to extensive discussions and collaboration that have already taken place. Since I announced the Government’s intention to implement a pollution load-based licensing scheme extensive consultation has been undertaken in order to seek the views of the widest possible range of stakeholders. The package has been crafted to incorporate the many positive and useful suggestions that have been made.

The first stage of development was overseen by a steering committee chaired by the EPA and comprising representatives of Australian Business Limited, the Total Environment Centre, Sydney Water and New South Wales Treasury. A draft operational plan was developed under the direction of that group which set out the conceptual framework for the scheme for public consideration. More than 3,500 copies of the draft plan were distributed, and more than 600 people attended nine regional workshops to discuss the plan. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. By a large majority, stakeholders responded that the principles of the scheme should be applied now in New South Wales to overhaul the current licensing system. A number of stakeholders suggested adjustment and refinement of some technical aspects of the plan. The EPA has committed considerable additional resources and time to address these issues.

The goal has always been to have a world’s best system that is cost and environmentally efficient. To this end, the EPA has convened more than 20 additional specialist industry workshops, attended by more than 350 industry representatives from 14 industry sectors. These were part of the second stage of consultation, which was intended to contribute to the development of cost-effective load calculation protocols. Next year’s third and final round of consultation in February and March will focus on the revised technical details and the practical impacts of the scheme, including the levels of fees. It will include individual discussions with all interested licence holders, so that the EPA can ensure the best possible fit between the strategic objectives of the scheme and the practical environmental and economic outcomes. What is needed now is a statutory foundation to correct the deficiencies of the current system and implement the Government’s reform package. That is what brings me before the House today.

As honourable members will know, the Government is proposing to consolidate the State’s principal pollution control statutes, including the Pollution Control Act, into one new act. The draft of the new Act - the Protection of the Environment Operations Bill - includes a range of changes to the EPA’s licensing powers, including new integrated criteria for determining the need for activities to be licensed. These changes are set out in a discussion paper and draft exposure bill that was released for comment late last year. The load-based licensing regulation that will set out much of the detail of the load-based licensing scheme is being prepared so that it will be easily transferred to operate under the Protection of the Environment Operations Bill. As honourable members now know, the fine detail of the load-based licensing scheme is nearing completion, and the Government sees no reason to delay the benefits of load-based licensing reform. Accordingly, the load-based licensing package has
Page 1745
been prepared to be implemented via this bill, but will be transferred to operate under the Protection of the Environment Operations Bill as soon as that bill commences.

The Protection of the Environment Operations Bill cannot commence until after an extensive consultation phase to give the community, industry and councils time to prepare for its implementation. I would also like briefly to draw to the attention of honourable members a number of salient features of this package. As I said earlier, this bill amends the Pollution Control Act 1970 to enable implementation of a pollution load-based licensing scheme to provide major reform of the pollution control licensing system in this State. The load-based licensing scheme will initially apply to 25 hazardous pollutants discharged to air and water by approximately 1,000 of this State’s largest polluters. The main advantage of the shift to load-based licences is in providing a framework for managing cumulative impacts. It will be much simpler to compare licensees’ performance and impacts based on load information.

Load-based licensing makes environmental licensing performance based, with more flexibility for cost-effective compliance. Its whole-of-premise control will lead to better targeted abatement efforts than the current licensing system’s separate controls on each drain or stack. The EPA also intends to use load-based licensing as a platform to implement emission trading schemes. Trading schemes are intended to provide greater assurance of overall environmental outcome in a region and to reduce overall environmental compliance costs. The Hunter River salinity trading scheme, in the region of the Deputy-Speaker, is a successful example of integrated load-based licensing and emission trading. Reform of the current fee system will ensure fairer recovery of administration costs and implements the Government’s polluter-pays policy platform. The fee system will be just and economically efficient - the lower the discharges, the lower the fee.

This bill sets the framework to implement load-based licensing. Once the bill is in place the Government will finalise and then release a draft regulation and regulatory impact statement. These will set out the full details of the scheme, including proposed fee levels, for consideration by all stakeholders. After the commentary period in February and March the EPA will carefully consider submissions that have been provided and make any desirable adjustments to the draft regulation. After being satisfied that the regulation will provide for the best possible licensing scheme for the State, I will commence the scheme by gazetting the regulation. As is required under the Subordinate Legislation Act, a copy of submissions received and any changes made in response will be provided to the Regulation Review Committee within 14 days of gazettal.

The package of reforms will see this State overtake many others in the integration of economic growth and environmental protection. This is undoubtedly the most significant reform of our system of pollution regulation since the introduction of the Pollution Control Act in 1970. Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Act to make provision for the new structure of licence fees and provides a framework of additional technical amendments necessary to implement load-based licensing in an effective manner by regulation. Schedule 2 amends the Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 to provide consistency for licensing administration between the two Acts, in order to minimise red tape for licensees. In conclusion, load-based licensing delivers on the Government’s policy platform. It provides more pollution information to the community as a method of meeting the community’s legitimate expectation of being informed and encouraging polluters to reduce discharges. It implements the polluter-pays principle as recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to make regulation fairer and more efficient. It demonstrates this Government’s continuing leadership in both regulatory reform and environmental protection. Finally, it overhauls the pollution licensing system to make New South Wales a better place for investment and employment as well as a better place to live. Most importantly, it should make this State cleaner, healthier and more attractive. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Kerr.

Debate resumed from 22 October.

Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.40 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. The bill can be divided into four main areas. The first involves the licensing of Sydney Water Corporation and Hunter Water Corporation to accommodate the need for those authorities to be regulated by the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation. The second main area deals with temporary transfers of licences in regard to regulated river systems. The third area deals with management of underground or bore water. The bill also deals with the matters which the
Page 1746
ministerial corporation must consider when making its decisions, and adds the principle of ecologically sustainable development.

The bill also amends the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 to bring it into line with the Water Act in regard to the power of the department when setting conditions for permits issued under that Act to include conditions for the protection of the environment. It also imposes a requirement that the Government’s policies be taken into account by appeals tribunals. I shall deal with the last matter first. It is not appropriate that the Land and Environment Court should be restricted to having regard only to government policies, particularly when the Government has made much of the fact that local river management committees will in future have a say about water policy.

Under the provisions of proposed new section 22L(4) the court will not have to take into account regional or valley-by-valley management plans as a relevant policy. That either is an oversight by the Government in drafting the legislation or is perhaps a reflection of the importance the Government attaches to water management plans developed by local communities. Valley-by-valley policies cannot be developed at a community level and then ignored by the Land and Environment Court. The legislation provides for the Minister to certify in writing that a particular policy is or was relevant. However, it does not provide sufficient mechanism to guarantee that a local land and water management plan would need to be considered by the court. As the bill stands, it will be at the Minister’s discretion whether local land and water management plans will be considered relevant. This part of the bill needs to be clarified and strengthened to make it clear that local land and water management plans would be regarded as relevant and would therefore need to be considered by the court.

Another area that concerns the Opposition relates to the matters which the ministerial corporation must consider when making decisions and exercising its functions. I have no difficulty with the inclusion of the principle of ecologically sustainable development. After all, that is what all good natural resource management should be about. Having said that, I believe the legislation would be improved if it related specifically to economic and social impact. The Premier is on the record as supporting community impact statements, although he has done nothing about them. At least he said he believes they should be taken into consideration before Government decisions are made.

I intend to move an amendment in Committee to include social and economic impact along with the six other matters that the corporation must consider, as outlined in proposed new section 11(1A)(a) to (f), referred to in schedule 2 to the bill. The Government believes the definition of principles of ecologically sustainable development as described in section 6(2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 covers my concern. Whilst I concede that to some extent that is the case, because the definition of ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in the decision-making process, it would be clearer if economic and social considerations were directly referred to in the primary Act rather than having to find a reference to economic considerations in another Act. I also make the observation that the words "social consideration" are not mentioned in either legislation.

I now refer to the substantive parts of the bill. The bill provides for the declaration of certain statutory authorities and for the licensing of water management works operated by those water management authorities, with the initial intention of licensing the works of Sydney Water Corporation and Hunter Water Corporation. The bill requires water management authorities to obtain and hold licences under the Act for the taking and using of water from rivers, lakes and ground water sources. It will allow those authorities to be granted licences for up to 20 years. Those licences may be extended every five years for a further five years. Because things change over time, the bill requires that a review of the appropriateness and efficacy of the conditions of any such licence be carried out every five years and, if appropriate, the conditions can be varied.

In addition, an initial review will be carried out six months after the granting of the first licence to enable the licence to be finetuned. That appears to be sensible. However, the overriding reason for strongly supporting this aspect of the bill is the desirability of separating the role of the new corporation as a commercial operator with commercial objectives, on the one hand, from the role of the regulator, the Department of Land and Water Conservation through the ministerial corporation, on the other. In many ways that makes these corporations subject to the same statewide regulatory regime as applies to other commercial water operators in New South Wales, even though the terms of their licences may be different, and that is clearly desirable.

Page 1747

The ministerial corporation will have the power to impose a penalty of up to $500,000, together with a daily penalty of $20,000 on the Water Management Authority if the licensing conditions are contravened or the authority fails to comply with the lawful direction to take preventive or remedial action under section 198. The authority has a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court under section 199. I am concerned, however, that the penalty may be a bit low, given the size of Sydney Water’s commercial water business. It would be prudent to monitor the penalty situation and to increase the penalty if over time it proves not to be a sufficient disincentive to ensure that large corporations like Sydney Water and Hunter Water do not contravene their licence conditions.

I now refer to the part of the bill that amends the Water Act 1912 to alter the existing five-year limit on temporary transfers for water allocations on regulated river systems. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Government in 1996 extended the period of currency of a temporary transfer from three years to five years by regulation. The Opposition supported that move. Under this legislation if irrigators want to extend a temporary transfer they will need to prepare a land and water management plan, the minimum requirements for which are set out in the bill. I have looked closely at section 20AI, and I believe the drawing up of land and water management plans by land-holders would sufficiently protect the environment, without being an unreasonable burden on land-holders.

Obviously, if land-holders do not want to prepare land and water management plans they have the option to seek a permanent transfer, which requires a more comprehensive environmental assessment and a higher level of public scrutiny. Ultimately land-holders will decide whether they want a permanent transfer or a temporary transfer. Either way the needs of the environment are properly looked after and, at the same time, provision is made for the irrigator or the land-holder who needs these transfers to maintain economic viability and the capacity to maintain that economic viability. I have received a letter from the Ricegrowers Association of Australia about the question of temporary transfers. I want to read into Hansard one paragraph of the letter that deals with the issue. The Government might like to take on board the general point that is being made, because I think it has substance. The letter is dated 31 October and signed by M. J. Hedditch, Executive Director. The letter states:

With regard to the alteration of the five-year limit on temporary transfers of water allocations, I believe the Bill, or at least the way it is integrated by the Department of Land and Water Conservation, needs to be clearer about the circumstances when a water management plan will be required. I agree that small volume transfers to maintain water availability at "normal" levels should be ignored. However, I believe that large volume transfers should also be ignored (i.e. not require a water management plan) if the transfer results in water availability for the property that is in accord with the various volumetric allocation schemes - 6 megalitres per hectare. For example, a large property at Hay (10,000 ha) may have a water allocation of only 1,944 megalitres (two 972 megalitre licences) - a water use intensity of 0.1944 megalitres per hectare.

That is quite clearly a lot less than the six megalitres per hectare. The letter continues:

This property should be able to transfer water in temporarily up to an intensity of 6 megalitres per hectare without the need for a water management plan.

That is the principle the association is putting forward. I know that the Government is moving away from area-based allocations to volumetric-based allocations and I support that move, but the point being made in the letter is that perhaps some consideration should be given to the circumstances and when a larger property has a low intensity of use a transfer should be allowed to occur without the need for a land and water management plan. I now turn to that part of the legislation that deals with subjecting the taking of bore water or ground water to a similar management regime to that which applies to surface water under part 2 of the Water Act. Approximately 150 rural towns rely wholly or partly on ground water for their supplies. Similarly, in some valleys irrigators rely heavily on ground water.

In the past decade ground water use has increased significantly and, of course, the imposition of the Murray-Darling Basin cap on surface water has also increased pressure on ground water use. Existing legislation provides for the Department of Land and Water Conservation to grant water allocations to bore owners, but does not allow the flexibility to raise or lower allocations according to current ground water reserve conditions. The legislation provides for flexibility in ground water use, including transfer schemes, thereby allowing people to buy water from licence holders with existing allocations who do not wish to fully use their allocations. In other words, it enforces the principle that applies to surface water, which is that people can transfer arrangements and get the best use of the water that is available. Specifically, the bill provides for the ministerial corporation to have the power to declare embargoes on the issuing of licences, the declaration of annual shortages or surpluses of ground water, the introduction of water allocation transfer schemes and the power to change licence conditions during the currency of the licence.

Page 1748

Let me make it clear that I do not support the use of embargoes except as a short-term measure, whether it be for surface water or for ground water. Embargoes which are left in place for years do not allow for an equitable distribution of water over time and do not provide ultimately for the best use of water. One only has to look at the embargoes that the Minister has placed on many rivers up and down the New South Wales coast to see the distorting effect this policy is having on water distribution. New high-yielding horticultural industries, for example, cannot get water because of a water licence embargo, whilst down the river people who have water licences are not using them. Having said that, an embargo is a policy tool which should be available for short-term use until a better policy alternative is worked out.

I support the increased flexibility that this legislation will provide in regard to transfers, and the capacity to access more water if it is available or to modify consumption of ground water if it is not available. I believe the legislation will, however, pave the way for the Department of Land and Water Conservation to significantly increase charges for ground water. In keeping with what happens with surface water, in time there will be widespread use of volumetric metering and prices will no doubt go up from the current level of $85 for the licence and 60¢ per megalitre fixed charge for uses of more than 20 megalitres and 20¢ per megalitre on a usage basis for use above 20 megalitres. In other words, I believe this is the thin edge of the wedge so far as the charging regime is concerned. Another point I wish to make about ground water is that the scientific database about ground water is probably less than adequate - although it is certainly not entirely inadequate.

Whilst it is estimated that there are about 5,000 million megalitres of ground water under the surface in New South Wales, it is not all good quality nor is it uniformly distributed. It is estimated that less than five million megalitres are suitable or obtainable for use. Records reveal extreme variations at depths from a few metres to approximately 400 metres, yields from nil to 400 litres per second and salinity from about the same as rainwater to about 10 times that of sea water. Ground water varies in terms of recharge potential, vulnerability to pollution and its connection to surface water. It is, however, a vital resource for country towns, agriculture, mining and recreation. Total consumption in New South Wales is about one million megalitres a year, with just over half of that used to support agriculture and grazing. With 70,000 licensed bores in New South Wales it is obviously important to manage the resource on a sustainable basis and in a flexible manner. My opinion is that for this to occur there should be more capping of bores and, where practicable, more piping of water, in preference to open drains where a lot of water is lost through evaporation - and, of course, frequently water quality suffers because animals may die in the drain and so on.

Consideration should be given to spending more money on capping the bores as they come out of the ground so that the water is controlled and it is not just spewing out on a continuous basis, going into shallow, open drains and evaporating in the process. In general terms, the Opposition recognises the need to have more flexibility and accountability in the management of bore water. The Opposition has consulted widely on this legislation and I would like to include in my remarks a letter from the New South Wales Farmers Association in relation to the bore water issue, because I believe there will be some concern in the community about the subjecting of bore water to a similar management regime as surface water. The letter from the New South Wales Farmers Association is under the hand of the association’s Assistant Director for Water Policy, Malcolm Rowe. Referring to the legislation in relation to bore water, he stated:

Improved management of ground water across the State is urgently required, including the monitoring and modelling of surface and ground water interactions. The amendments which bring ground water management further into line with surface water recognise a sensible move toward the ‘one resource policy’ which has been called for by the Association. While providing increased capacity for restrictions to be imposed, the current lack of a full understanding of ground water resources requires that a precautionary approach be implemented. These amendments are welcomed by the Association.

It is worthwhile putting on the record that the New South Wales Farmers Association strongly endorses the provisions that relate to ground water.

Mr Yeadon: We always get on well with the farmers.

Mr D. L. PAGE: The Minister should quit while he is in front. He should not provoke me into responding to inane interjections such as the last one. Honourable members will recall the headline in the Land newspaper shortly after the Minister was appointed, which read, "Yeadon must go. Sack Yeadon." I assure the Minister that his performance in country New South Wales has made my life very easy. He tells people when I am visiting particular areas, which I appreciate. He has made so many enemies in country New South Wales that people are pleased to see someone from the New South Wales Parliament who is receptive to their needs. They find that in the shadow spokesman for land
Page 1749
and water conservation; they do not find it in the Minister.

In summary, the Opposition supports most of the legislation; we certainly will not oppose it. However, I intend to move an amendment which will ensure that when the ministerial corporation is making its decisions it considers the social and economic impact of those decisions on the communities that are affected by them. Although other legislation which is related to this bill but which is not part of it refers to the possibility of considering social and economic factors in the decision-making process, it would be better and clearer if the bill were amended to that effect. That is only one of about six or seven factors that the ministerial corporation has to take into account. The basic consideration of the ministerial corporation relates to ecological sustainability and management of the resource. The Opposition is comfortable with that but in this day and age regard should also be given to the social and economic impact that these decisions will have on communities. That is particularly so in many irrigation communities where water is the central economic driving force. Although the ministerial corporation has to protect the resource, it would not be responsible for it to ignore the social and economic impact of its decisions on the community. I foreshadow that I will move an amendment in Committee to ensure that the corporation considers the social and economic impact of its decisions.

Mr ANDERSON (St Marys) [11.02 a.m.]: I support the Water Legislation Amendment Bill, and particularly the provisions relating to the management of ground water in New South Wales. The bill is evidence of the Government’s recognition of the significant threats that the ground water resources of this State are under from overuse, contamination by pollutants and environmental degradation. It is also evidence of the fact that this Government is prepared to do something about it. The Government has identified that if appropriate management of ground water is not undertaken at State level the existing important environmental and human uses of ground water could be lost for ever. The risks of ground water degradation are real and significant and, in some areas of the State, the effects of degradation are already beginning to translate into economic and environmental losses.

In recent years community concern has increased about the declining condition of the State’s water resources. Contaminated ground water has been identified in both rural and urban areas. In addition, rising water tables and salinity problems have detrimentally impacted on the possible future uses of some land and water resources. Ground water is often referred to as the forgotten natural resource. I suppose it is a case of out of sight, out of mind. It is a resource that is poorly understood by most people, although many of us have heard of the Great Artesian Basin and, at one time or another, most of us have consumed bottles of the many types of spring water that are available. I emphasise that ground water is an important natural resource for New South Wales: it is important for both human and environmental reasons. Ground water is an important commodity and a vital part of urban and rural industries and our economic and social framework.

Ground water is a source of water for the maintenance of many wetland environments and it is also a source of vital low flow in many small rivers and streams. It is integral to the long-term maintenance of water resources at local, regional and State levels. The volume of all ground water in New South Wales is estimated to be five billion megalitres, which is enough water to cover the State to a depth of four metres. Unfortunately, all of that ground water is not of good quality, with fewer than five million megalitres suitable or obtainable for use. With only a relatively small amount of this precious resource available for use in New South Wales there is an urgent need to properly manage it to prevent its overuse or contamination. If action is taken now there is a good chance of reducing the degradation of the ground water resource that is a feature of ground water systems elsewhere in the world. This bill gives us that chance.

The power of the Department of Land and Water Conservation to manage the use of ground water are set out in part 5 of the Water Act. Ground water has always been the poor relative of surface water from a legislative point of view. The power of the Water Act relating to the management of surface water has been enhanced and refined significantly in the last 20 years. On the other hand, the tools of management for the State’s ground water have stayed at a relatively rudimentary level. That reflected the original legislative and licensing objectives to record the geology of the areas where ground water occurs and to record its general availability and quality. In the last decade, however, there has been a shift of emphasis towards a management system in which the sharing and conservation of the resource is of paramount importance. However, the legislative tools for achieving this have been limited to a 1996
Page 1750
amendment giving the department power to declare restricted subsurface water areas.

In these areas the department can issue notices to licence holders to restrict their ground water use to specified volumes and, in most cases, it can also require the licence holders to install meters on their bores. These are very limited powers, but this bill supplements these rudimentary provisions and will bring the management of the State’s ground water into line with that of surface water. Briefly, the bill proposes the following: to enable the Department of Land and Water Conservation to raise or lower ground water allocations on an annual basis to take into account existing ground water reserves; to enable the department to raise or lower allocations differentially so that vital town and domestic supplies can be given priority during times of drought; to enable the department to declare embargoes on the issue of further entitlements in fully committed systems; to enable the transfer of ground water from one entitlement holder to another subject to environmental and resource constraints; and to enable licence holders to carry over unused parts of their allocation or borrow from the following year’s allocation, subject to departmental approval.

The Government’s recently announced water reform package includes measures to significantly improve the management of the ground water resource in this State. A core feature of the reform package is the development of local ground water management plans through a partnership approach between the Government and the community. Ground water management plans will be the major vehicle for resource sharing amongst users, and between users and the environment. Plans will also address issues such as the phasing out of non-sustainable uses of ground water, rehabilitation of degraded areas and the replacement of environmentally degraded processes and practices with more efficient alternatives. Initially, they will concentrate on systems under most stress or threat, and will set clear environmental objectives for each of the State’s underground systems. The bill will enable the Government to implement the outcomes of this community-based planning process. The management of the State’s ground water resource is now outmoded and to date has been carried out on a comparatively ad hoc basis. The plans and proposed legislation will not merely assist the department. They will also assist water users to plan ahead and at the same time protect underground dependent environments. Therefore, these plans will be of immediate relevance to local communities. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I welcome to the House students from Lalor Park school, which is in the electorate of the Minister for Education.

Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [11.10 a.m.]: I support the bill. I will derive greater pleasure from speaking on this bill than I derived from speaking on another bill yesterday. If the same consideration had been given to the reform of our planning laws as has been given to the reform of our water laws, the planning law would be much further ahead. When considering water reform it is absolutely essential to acknowledge firstly that water is a precious and finite commodity, particularly in Australia, where seven-eighths of the land mass is arid or semi-arid. Although the social and economic impacts of the control of water must be acknowledged, as my colleague the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow minister, has conceded, it must be remembered that if we do not get the management of our water resources right in the next 20 years we are heading for social and economic disaster for generations to come.

The management of water resources is extraordinarily complex. The bill is but one part of a complex and difficult system and the community must be persuaded of the value of implementing necessary reforms. I want to put my remarks about this legislation in the context of some of the wider elements of water reform. The Minister referred in his second reading speech to the fact that this legislation was part of a much more extensive package. Most of my colleagues on this side of the House would agree that the bill goes beyond merely providing farm water allocations. It has a major effect in urban areas such as Sydney and Newcastle because it brings under a system of licensing two major authorities, Sydney Water and the Hunter Water Corporation. I compliment the Minister on the Government’s initiative in this regard. From personal dealings with the Minister I know that he is deeply committed to a process of water reform. I do not envy him one iota because in the introduction of that process of reform he faces the difficulty of trying to please everyone.

The licensing of Sydney Water is extremely significant to the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. I have had a long association with that area and am extremely dedicated to its welfare. It is important to acknowledge that Sydney Water is the principal extractor of water from the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. The Hawkesbury-Nepean system supplies roughly 90 per cent of all the water used by the city of Sydney. Nothing could be more imperative to the survival of the city of Sydney than the water that is
Page 1751
supplied from the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. While acknowledging the social imperative and the need to extract huge quantities of water from the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment, the impact of that extraction on the system and the environmental consequences of it cannot be overlooked.

Therefore, it is appropriate that Sydney Water, as the major extractor of water from the Hawkesbury-Nepean system, has conditions imposed upon it that will safeguard the environmental values of the river system and the social and economic interests of those who live downstream of the dams that provide the major catchment and storage areas on the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. That brings me to the moratorium that has been placed on the construction of farm dams on the Hawkesbury-Nepean and the issuing of extraction licences for farm irrigation purposes. The Hawkesbury-Nepean, in its extended context, supplies water to some of the richest agricultural soils in New South Wales. The area is one of the biggest producers of agricultural products in New South Wales. There is argument as to the economic value of horticultural production in the Hawkesbury, but in round terms it is approximately $1 billion a year. That is an enormous industry. If the value of the equine industry, which is equally as dependent on water as the horticultural industry, is taken into consideration, that amount can be doubled.

So the value of agricultural-type industries that are dependent on water extracted from the Hawkesbury-Nepean system for their survival is approximately $2 billion a year. That social and economic asset must be protected. The moratorium has had a considerable impact on the capacity of many agriculturalists within the area to grow their fruit and vegetables or undertake other agricultural production. The point I want to make to the Minister is that if Sydney Water did not extract the water then most of the problems faced by the farmers would not exist. So the problem has not been created by the farmers; it has been created by Sydney Water.

Sydney Water cannot be taken out of the equation but there needs to be a balance between what is done for the benefit of the population of Sydney as a whole and the benefits provided by the farming community of the Hawkesbury, which are also for the support, continuity of welfare and amenity of life of those who live in Sydney. Once water is taken from below Warragamba Dam the effect of the extraction of water from the river system is minimal, if indeed it has any consequence at all. Certainly if water was not extracted further upstream there would be no consequence whatsoever. I plead with the Minister to be a little more tolerant to those who seek water licences on the Hawkesbury-Nepean below Warragamba Dam. The extremely rigid attitude of the department to date has caused economic hardship and loss of agricultural productivity in the Hawkesbury region. That attitude has no particular consequences for this legislation or for the licensing of Sydney Water.

Constituents of mine want to construct farm dams that are so close to the mouth of the Hawkesbury that they could not possibly have any effect on the matters dealt with by the legislation or, in the broader context, on the water reform package envisaged by the Minister. I urge the Minister to talk to officers of his department about the moratorium on the Hawkesbury and whether it has the validity that is attributed to it.

I turn to the question of ground water, which has already been dealt with in detail by my colleagues. It is a significant factor in the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. We need to accelerate our knowledge of ground water supplies and the effect of extracting ground water. Maroota is a farming community in my electorate which also is a major source of sand extraction under regional environmental plan 9. There is strong evidence that mining activity in the area is having a significant effect on ground water. That is not a problem for the Minister for Land and Water Conservation; it is a problem for the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, who last night had the carriage of the environmental planning and assessment legislation. It is detrimental that the Government has removed from REP 9 the requirement for a detailed study of ground water in the Maroota area and the effect of sand extraction on ground water before the issuing of consents to extend the current sand extraction in Maroota.

The original REP 9 required such studies to be undertaken, and development consents were to be delayed until the studies were completed. It was anticipated that they would take approximately three years. When we talk about extractive industries we do not talk about the extraction of ground water for farming but the two are interlinked. If the ground water supplies at Maroota are damaged it will reduce the capacity of the Maroota area to provide vegetables and fruit for the Sydney region, which it has done for more than a hundred years. We must understand the parameters of what we are dealing with and the consequences of what we do on and below the land so that we can ensure that in the future the community will have the greatest water availability, whether it be surface water or ground water. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Page 1752

The honourable member for Ballina queried the quantity of water that may be available from ground water supplies. The fact is that the quantity is not known. In the absence of knowing what ground water supplies are available and the rate at which they can be tapped into, we should act with caution and take less rather than more. Part of that involves linking the taking of ground water and the use of the water when it is extracted - that is, the form of irrigation, storage and reticulation from the extraction point to the point of use. The use of open channels for the carriage of water, which is common, is very bad because so much water is lost through seepage and evaporation. Much more sophisticated methods of irrigation should be used so that the amount of water extracted for the result, growing produce, is the minimum. We need to take the water: we cannot survive without food. But we should not waste a precious commodity.

There is much to be commended in the legislation. I will be interested in the years ahead in the development of the licence under which Sydney Water operates and the commitment Sydney Water has to environmental flows in the Hawkesbury River. Responsibility for the maintenance of environmental flows should not rest solely with those who extract from below the dams; it should be a major factor in the policy of Sydney Water. The community serviced with water by Sydney Water will have to bear the financial responsibility of releasing significant environmental flows from Warragamba Dam in particular. It is a community responsibility to share out the use of the resources to the best possible advantage. That is why Sydney Water is to be commended for the initiatives it has taken to reduce the take of water by ordinary domestic users, and to encourage people to use water frugally rather than wastefully. Water is wasted in communities in which people do not understand where it comes from. People turn the tap on without appreciating that water is a finite resource.

Another consideration in relation to the licensing of Sydney Water is water quality objectives. Clearly, the quality of water in the river is very much determined by the flow. That consideration should be embodied in licensing conditions as well. Sydney Water provides for flows in the Hawkesbury, even if it is ex sewage treatment plants, but we need to address the return of water extracted by Sydney Water into the river after it has been used. It is a long-term ambition of mine to ensure that all water extracted from Warragamba Dam is returned to the river whence it came. That has to be done in a process which addresses the water flow objectives and the water quality objectives. Having come to terms with those, the licence of Sydney Water should preserve the riparian rights of those who use water from the river. They are many and varied. I repeat this point because it cannot be emphasised too strongly: the farmers of the Hawkesbury supply a vast amount of food for the city of Sydney. It is not a matter of helping the farmers to earn a living or protecting them in any way that can be identified to benefit purely the farming community; farmers are providing a public service. Without food and water we die. They are the two most precious commodities we have. Whatever we do in water reform must recognise the right of farmers to use water to grow crops.

When the river is running fairly full, water can be extracted but when the flow drops below a certain level water cannot be extracted. But it is when water is scarce that farmers most need to extract water to grow the commodities. We cannot stop eating in the middle of a drought simply because we are not allowed to extract water from the river. So the preservation of water for riparian right use for farmers is absolutely essential in getting the water balance correct. My colleague the honourable member for Ballina took a couple of shots at the Minister for Land and Water Conservation following an interjection that was made - I appreciate why he made those remarks - but after the dealings I have had with the Minister I compliment him on trying to tackle a huge problem, the most significant problem facing the Australian continent today. Hopefully we can co-operatively work through the problem. I hope there is a change of government in 1999 but, whether there is or not, this issue is apolitical. We should build up a regime that will lead to proper water reform which is carried on from government to government. This is a 20- or 30-year program. It is not something that can be done overnight. Unless there is a commitment by both sides of politics to carrying this through in an objective, sensible, and apolitical fashion the problem will not be solved. I support the legislation.

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [11.30 a.m.]: I agree with 99.9 per cent of what the honourable member for Hawkesbury had to say, but I cannot agree with the quip at the end of his contribution concerning a change of government. I too would like to congratulate the Minister, as the honourable member for Hawkesbury did, on embarking on these most ambitious and absolutely necessary reforms to the whole issue of water supply and water security in New South Wales. It is appropriate that the students of Lalor Park Public School and Boronia Park Public School are present in the Chamber today, because the discussion is all about securing
Page 1753
that scarce resource that is essential to the survival of our communities, as other speakers in the debate have said, in economic, environmental and social terms. Certainly up until the time that the Minister embarked on these comprehensive reforms New South Wales was in a parlous state, as is the rest of Australia, in terms of its water resources. I join the honourable member for Hawkesbury in congratulating the Government, the Minister and his staff for the work that they have done in reforming our water laws.

The bill draws together several key planks of the Government’s water reform agenda. These include redefining institutional arrangements of water management authorities, particularly Sydney and Hunter water corporations, to separate the operator and resource management roles. It is only fair that I point out to the House that the whole issue of water reform and the user pays principle started long ago in the former Hunter Water Board and the Hunter Water Corporation, and those principles have now spread to all the other areas of the State. The Government’s water reform agenda also includes improving the management of the State’s ground water resources, and other members have spoken eloquently about the need to do that. The Government’s agenda provides users with greater flexibility to trade water and ensures that the State’s water resources are managed in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Those principles are being written into the Act, as they are also in so many other areas of Government endeavour.

The honourable member for St Marys has already discussed the provisions of the bill which relate to improving the management of the State’s ground water resources. I would like to discuss some of the other elements of the proposed legislation. The provisions for the licensing of the Sydney and Hunter water corporations will bring those corporations into line with virtually all other water users in the State. The corporations will now be on the same level playing field as all other users of water and will be accountable for the method of use of their storages and other water management works. By bringing the corporations into the licensing system the Government will be able to ensure that their activities are co-ordinated with the activities of other licensed water users. Similarly, the Government will be able to co-ordinate effectively provisions for environmental flows and other aspects important to the environment. The corporations will lose their current status of being outside current regulatory regimes in terms of their water management activities.

This change of approach is particularly appropriate from the viewpoint that the corporations are State-owned corporations. This type of corporation was always intended to be accountable in the same way as privately owned corporations are accountable. This is consistent with the principle of separating the roles of operator and regulator in accordance with the requirements of the Council of Australian Governments. In addition, potential conflicts between commercial imperatives and resource management objectives will be removed. Members will see the merit in the licensing of the corporations, and I do not need to labour this point. I will now turn to some of the other provisions of the bill.

The provisions of the bill to extend the period for which temporary transfers of surface allocations may be made represents part of the Government’s commitment to ensure greater flexibility in the water market. This will promote regional development while still allowing New South Wales to remain within the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council cap on water diversions. As the Minister stated, some irrigators are now approaching the five-year limit for temporary transfers which was put in place to ensure that the comprehensive scrutiny associated with permanent transfers could not be circumvented. In most cases, however, these temporary transfers have been used as a top-up in years when the department has declared reduced allocations throughout a valley. This has been a common practice of users wishing to maintain water use at the level scrutinised and approved when they obtained their licence. It is therefore not necessary to count such top-up transfers to achieve the original policy objective. The proposal that these should not be so counted is therefore sensible and worthy of the support of the House.

The bill preserves the original objectives of the temporary transfer limit by requiring water users to submit a farm water management plan if they wish to temporarily transfer in excess of licensed entitlement past the five-year limit. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation in his second reading speech explained the reasons for introducing the provisions for farm water management plans. On large properties where only a part of the land is being irrigated, the plans will apply to that part of the land and give details of nearby land which may be affected. The plan will not have to cover the whole of each property in this situation. The degree of detail required by the department will depend also on the relative size of the transfer applied for. The department will prepare guidelines on this aspect, and it will also prepare guidelines on the time at
Page 1754
which advertising of a plan should be carried out. I welcome the fact that the bill will incorporate references to ecologically sustainable development into the Water Administration Act, and will also ensure that management of the State’s water resources is consistent with that of other natural resources. As I emphasised at the commencement of my contribution, that is an absolutely important section of the legislation in terms of both the social and economic objectives of the State, because it is important that we have sustainable agriculture and that communities are sustainable within regional and rural New South Wales. This bill is an important aspect in the management of both communities and the environment.

Finally, I am pleased to note that the bill will amend the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act to bring it into line with amendments to the Water Act passed during the last session. These amendments will require the department to include conditions for protecting the environment when setting conditions for permits under that Act. The amendments will also require appeal tribunals to take into consideration State and departmental policies. These are sensible provisions which will improve the management of the State’s vital aquatic resources. The bill contains a number of significant provisions which will enhance the department’s ability to manage the State’s water resources. These will in turn be of benefit to the public. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [11.38 a.m.]: The objects of the Water Legislation Amendment Bill are as follows:

(a) to amend the Water Act 1912 so as:

(i) to provide for declaration of certain statutory bodies as water management authorities and the licensing of water management works operated by water management authorities so declared, and

(ii) to alter the existing 5 year limit on temporary transfers of water allocations on regulated river systems, and

(iii) to subject the taking of water from bores licensed under Part 5 of that Act to a similar regime to that which applies to the taking of water from works licensed under Part 2 of the Act, and

(b) to make minor, consequential and ancillary amendments to various other Acts.

I do not take issue with comments made by other members because there is no question that Australia is an arid country. The Murray-Darling Basin is a large catchment area, covering about 14 per cent of the entire country. In 1956 - a wet year - 41 million megalitres of water flowed through the Murray-Darling system, but in dry years the figure may fall to only 2.5 million megalitres. That is a huge variation in water flows. The Amazon Basin in South America, the largest water catchment in the world, has a daily flow equal to the yearly flow of the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin produces one-quarter of 1 per cent of the water outflow of the Amazon. Therefore, we must manage our water resources in an environmentally friendly manner.

In 1888 the first government irrigation scheme was developed at Euston in the Sunraysia area, and several major private schemes followed. After the Second World War, the Snowy Mountains scheme was developed to provide more water inland. That magnificent feat provided sufficient water to the western parts of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Over the past 20 years the transfer of water has been difficult to achieve. Even between irrigation holdings within a government scheme, water could not be transferred from one property to another. Properties in the southern districts - properties involved in the rice industry and so on - had to consider the benefits of transferring water. Some soils can physically absorb large quantities of water to produce crops while other light soils contain aquifers and gravel beds underneath from old river systems and require careful use of water. The transfer of water is important and even with today’s technology it is difficult to know the correct quantities available under different valleys. The extraction rate from aquifers and large gravel beds within the soils is quick, compared with the slow extraction rate from finer sands and gravels.

The quality of the water must also be considered. Though one valley may have water with a high saline content, another might not and, therefore, transfer for use in those circumstances must be undertaken carefully. In the Hay Plain region, and particularly in the Murrumbidgee Valley, there are large quantities of water. Farmers who have installed deep bores can obtain up to 22 megalitres a day, though that amount may decrease to 6 megalitres per day, depending on the type of gravel beds from which water is being extracted. The Department of Land and Water Conservation has identified the allocations from those deep bores as anywhere from 800 megalitres to 2,000 megalitres and, in some cases, even up to 6,000 megalitres.

Today many farmers have taken measures to protect their properties against drought, thereby enabling them to produce food for Australia and for export. From day one of the granting of a licence,
Page 1755
landowners pay 40¢ a megalitre, whether or not they use the entire allocation 6,000 megalitres. Where is the fairness in that? This legislation will allow for the transfer by sale of water to an area with plentiful supply from an area with a diminishing supply. I do not have a problem with that. If overextraction results in a reduction of water in one area, and if the Minister or the relevant authority reduces the annual extraction rate from 800 megalitres to 600 megalitres, that would have a detrimental effect on irrigation farmers because they would be unable to obtain the required amount of water for their crops. However, if the farmer could transfer those unextracted 200 megalitres to another valley in the State, that would result in some small compensation to the farmer, and that is an important consideration.

The previous speaker said that a whole-farm plan would not be necessary. I ask the Minister in reply to clarify that aspect because farmers within the Hay Plain have already applied to build an en-route water storage facility for the water extracted from the soil. Because of the sodicity levels within the soil, farmers are being denied that option unless a full environmental impact statement is done on the whole farm. A farmer may own 10,000 acres of land but only intend to irrigate 1,000 acres with the use of the water storage. I ask the Minister to verify whether it will be the whole farm or only part of the farm that will be subjected to this process. It is irresponsible and wrong to expect a farmer to pay for an EIS for the whole property when only 1,000 acres will be irrigated.

This matter is within the province of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and Minister Knowles. Farmers who have fast-extraction bores do not need storage facilities, but a storage facility is essential for a farmer with a slow-extraction bore in order than he can irrigate efficiently and cover the ground quickly. I wish to mention also the embargo areas referred to in the bill. Irrigation licences have been issued for the Murray River system for about 100 years. After the construction of the Dartmouth storage facility, which holds up to four million megalitres of water, water availability increased by 10 per cent within Murray Valley holdings, thereby providing security of supply to farmers. Irrigators along the Wakool River and the Niemur River were licensed to pump water but, unlike other irrigators in the system, they were not given an allocation. I took this matter up with the then Minister and it was agreed that the farmers, who had held licences for approximately 60 years, would be given an allocation so they could have security. However, 19 irrigation farmers along the Edward River - they are in the same system - have licences to pump water but they do not have allocations to pump water. They have been able to get water only from off allocation during rain-injected periods when the river is in flood. I appeal to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to examine this matter. These 19 farmers have been unfairly embargoed given that other irrigation farmers in the area have received allocations. Farmers have spent a lot of money on land forming and development for their agricultural production of fat lambs, cattle, beef, rice, et cetera. However, they have no security. Water is important. People are concerned that big brother is looking over their shoulder. I refer to the cost of what is happening. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Water transferability is a good concept, and I have no problems with it. However, I would not like to see the permanent transfer of water from one valley to another in river systems, although that is a good practice during a drought. Water transferability during exceptional times allows water to be moved and helps production. The Billabong, Yanco and Colombo creek system has been experiencing a major problem because of the five-year licence of transferability of water. For example, a person who has a sleeper licence or a dozer licence - in other words, he has not gone through the formalities of using all his water - is able to transfer by sale a portion of the water from other licensed irrigators on Billabong Creek.

I know of one land-holder who spent approximately $1 million on aquaculture, planting thousands of trees and developing his property. It was then discovered that he already had water transferred from properties over three years, which the Minister extended to five years to help him overcome the problem. I believe that there should not be a time limit. When properties, the environment and the farm plan are fine, people have some security. Of course, people can buy water but it is terribly expensive - between $350 and $400 a megalitre. People cannot afford to buy large quantities of water.

The Chairman of the Yanco Billabong Irrigation Trust, Hunter Landale, built a large en-route storage so that rain-injected flows could fill it because of the five-year limited transfer. However, he is not able to get off allocation water because of the cutbacks and restrictions - there has been a 10 per cent reduction in the water availability in the Murrumbidgee system and an 8 per cent reduction in the Murray system. He is not able to use his storage, which cost him more than $100,000. Decisions made by the Parliament and by the government of the day can have serious ramifications for people who, in good faith, expend a lot of money to drought-proof their property to help produce food for this nation. We have to be conscious of such matters when
Page 1756
considering bills such as the one before the House. The Minister and those drafting the bill have to understand that they have the potential to hurt and affect a lot of people. However, they also have the potential to help a lot of people with temporary transfers and the possibility of deep ground bore water.

Water is a precious commodity. We are trying to drought-proof Australia, particularly New South Wales. Today surface run-off water is being cut back for environmental reasons. I do not think anyone would dispute or deny that we must do that if there is overuse of water - we must act sensibly and responsibly. The farming community, particularly the horticultural industry, has moved to microjet and underspray systems. A lot of people still have problems with microjet blockages, so it is not cost-efficient in these circumstances. Therefore, people have returned to underspray systems. Electroprobes into the ground ensure that people are utilising the exact amount of water in the root zone - they may have only two hours of spray three times a week rather than a day’s water. The irrigation farmers of today have come a long way in relation to successful farming, efficient use of water and cost effectiveness.

Murray Irrigation has worked with the Government to compile land and water management plans - there are catchment storages for rain run-off, tree plantations and land forming reticulation. It is wonderful to see these things taking place. People who enjoy working with the environment also enjoy working in a place that operates well. Most irrigation farms are becoming efficient, productive and well-resourced properties, which can be achieved only through the management of water - how it is handled by the government of the day and the end user.

I agree with the majority of the proposals contained in the Water Legislation Amendment Bill and I support it. I ask the Minister to look at the whole-farm plan in those areas, which includes only large irrigation holdings - not small irrigation holdings, such as in Murray Irrigation. In addition, when water is transferred or extracted from one area to another the salinity level of the water must be taken into account. I am glad that surface bores in the Murray Irrigation Area which are not affected by salinity can be used in irrigation management without affecting the level of salinity, even though ground water tables have been rising.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.58 a.m.]: I support the bill. I have been waiting for some time for this sort of legislation to be introduced. In fact, when the Labor Government was elected in 1995 I hoped it would introduce such legislation, and I commend it for doing so now. In the context of this legislation it is worth reflecting on the saying that we never know the worth of water until the well runs dry. In a broader sense, we need to put a value on the commons, of which water is one, which has not been done for many years. Ground water is not a subject with which I am particularly familiar; my colleagues from the rural sector know more about it. But it is time that ground water and its extraction were regulated.

One of the many reasons for regulating the extraction and use of water is that the river systems are becoming more and more degraded and the opportunity for extraction from river systems is being reduced, which puts pressure on ground water systems. New crops are being developed which have a high demand for water. A framework is necessary to manage that ground water so it does not become depleted and so that the resource remains sustainable. Australia has an expanding population, with increased demands on water resources. It is an arid continent and Australians have been derelict in managing water. I am not criticising the way in which water has been managed in the rural sector; the use of water by city dwellers is a scandal.

I want to focus my remarks on the activities of Sydney Water. For many years I have crusaded against Sydney Water’s management of its business. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, Sydney Water and the Hunter Water Corporation have totally unfettered access to water, and they need to be brought into line by a licensing system. I ask the Minister to make it clear that any licence that is granted to Sydney Water to access and store water must be tough. I am not clear about whether the licences referred to in the bill will be subject to an environmental impact statement, or whether there will be public access and an opportunity for public comment in the determination of those licences, but I would like the process to be open. The storage capacity for water may well run out.

There has been talk of the possibility of another dam - the Welcome Reef dam - being built at Braidwood. That should be avoided at all costs. When setting the conditions on any licence, Sydney Water should be required to go beyond the consideration of issues relating to extraction and to consider issues relating to demand management. The Sydney Water Corporation Act 1994 provides for demand management. Sydney Water is not tough enough in regard to demand management and reduction of water use. If conditions are imposed on licences, the opportunity to conserve water will
Page 1757
increase. Any licence that is imposed on Sydney Water should take into account ecologically sustainable development principles, and should be subject to an environmental impact statement. Sydney Water must be properly accountable. It should consider avoiding any increase in the amount of storage, and must address issues relating to demand management.

The second reading speech refers to the fact that if the water corporation activities under the licence system causes harm or injury to the water sources from which the water is abstracted or returned, these matters must be taken into account and a remedial notice can be issued. That probably relates to the water systems. The honourable member for Hawkesbury referred to the significant impact on the Hawkesbury river system of the abstraction of water higher up and its impact on environmental flows. I ask that when the Minister is examining means by which water can be returned to the system he bears in mind the need to consider methods that are beyond the narrow scope of returning the water to the river system.

At the moment very little of the water that is extracted is returned to the river system. Some of it is returned through the Hawkesbury-Nepean plants, but the vast majority of water extracted from our systems goes into the ocean. That issue should be contemplated in the context of this legislation. Currently - and today is no exception - one billion litres of water a day pass into the Pacific Ocean through Sydney’s three main headland sewage treatment plants. I despair at the fact that 400 million litres go through the North Head treatment plant, in my electorate. That is a waste of a great resource. It has to be extracted at great cost from catchments and river systems. It is not returned to the rivers but effectively causes long-term damage to the system. The scope of the discussion should be broadened to take into account those issues when considering granting of licences to Sydney Water and the Hunter Water Corporation. I commend the bill.

Mr SLACK-SMITH (Barwon) [12.05 p.m.]: Most of the provisions in the bill have applied for many years in my electorate. The bill improves the status of water, and in particular ground water, and brings underground water into line with surface water. Stock, domestic households, towns, irrigation and mining depend on underground water. Little is known of our water resources. The underground water resources in the Namoi Valley probably undergo more detailed observations than any others in the world. More than 99 observation bores are checked regularly for the levels - rises and falls - of water. It is important that those observations take place not only in the Namoi Valley but for all other sources of underground water.

For every litre of water in a dam there are 3,000 litres in the underground system. It is important that decisions made about underground water and surface water are based on scientific facts and are not simply knee-jerk reactions or mass hysteria. They should be made on fact, not fiction. The bill will enable people in areas where there is a poor water source to purchase allocations of 500 megalitres of water. The allocations can be sold or transferred to another area. The temporary transfers to which the honourable member for Murray referred are commendable, but making underground water saleable would put it in the same category as surface water is in today.

It is important that the transfer and purchase of irrigation allocations be advertised to allow input prior to sale from those who have misgivings or concerns about being affected. This bill does not deal with the socioeconomic impact of such transfers. Some 4 per cent of the Barwon electorate is irrigated; 80 per cent of its revenue is derived from irrigation. That flows on to jobs. A dollar earned by any industry creates jobs at the ratio of about one to four, so each dollar is spent four times in the community. That is important for farmers, towns, service industries and employment. The provisions of the bill, which is good legislation, have been in existence unofficially in my electorate for many years. The passage of the legislation through the Parliament will make it official. Transfer schemes have to be investigated to enable transfers to take place. I support the bill.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [12.10 p.m.]: I speak briefly in debate on the Water Legislation Amendment Bill and refer in particular to ground water because of its implications for the Northern Tablelands area. More and more people are looking at other water uses - and I am talking only of relatively small quantities - for diversification and agricultural production. It is well known that most of the Northern Tablelands area is grazing land; it is not a high level water user. People living on top of the hill tend to claim that the Northern Tablelands area produces water that is used to irrigate the plains. Because of the state of the rural economy many farmers are diversifying and are turning to more intensive farming practices, such as horticulture, viticulture and aquaculture, which require a secure supply of water. In the Tenterfield area much interest has been shown in extending the viticulture industry south of the granite belt developments in the Stanthorpe region. The nature
Page 1758
of the soils and the availability of useful areas of land lend themselves favourably to that type of economic development. But it needs water.

The Northern Tablelands electorate does not have a great deal of surface water. In many places the country is high and steep and the run-off is swift. That leads to a good downstream water supply, but the water does not stay very long in our part of the world. Ground water is important for diversified farming practices. The establishment of new industries in the area is dependent on our ability to identify viable supplies of quality ground water. The only option available for many farming communities is accessibility to a viable water supply. Farmers must be able to transfer their water rights. Farmers who have a high-value use for water will be able to buy into licences. However, there is not much point in buying a licence when the water is 100 or more kilometres downstream. For that reason the availability of ground water is important. Governments must give serious consideration to the social and economic impacts of water and its potential future use. The Department of Land and Water Conservation has an obligation to contribute significantly to the cost of locating and identifying ground water reserves. That is beyond the capacity of farmers who have no experience in water usage and are not operating on a scale which justifies an extensive commitment of funds to locate water.

Given the social and economic potential of ground water use, the department is obliged to make more of a commitment to locate ground water reserves. I ask the Minister and his department to do just that. I raise also the option of using existing retained surface water or ground water that is currently being used for domestic purposes for small-scale intensive irrigation of vines or vegetables. Farmers should not be told that they can store water and use it for stock but cannot use it for growing alternative crops such as grapes or vegetables. Farmers must be given a degree of flexibility that will enable them to use that water for other purposes. I do not argue that there should be any less water on the plains so that it is available in the Northern Tablelands area, but I will quote a few figures to show that water can be more efficiently used in the high country. A farmer growing rice might make $150 for each megalitre of water used; a farmer growing corn might make $300; a farmer growing cotton might make $625 to $700; a farmer growing lucerne might make $300; and a farmer growing wine grapes might make $9,000.

In the economic interests of rural communities and the State as a whole we must ensure that water is available in the higher country. I ask the Minister to take those matters into account. There are strong social and economic arguments in favour of doing that. In the overall scheme of things I am not talking about a lot of water; in fact, I am talking about very little water. Not many farmers in the Northern Tablelands area are interested in diversification - the interest exists only in small pockets - but there could be some genuine investment if water supplies were proven and the degree of flexibility to which I referred earlier were available.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [12.18 p.m.]: I support the Water Legislation Amendment Bill. I ask the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to consider the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ballina, the shadow minister for land and water conservation. The Government must take into account the social and economic implications of water management generally when it introduces its water reform package. Reference has been made to the fact that water, particularly in the drier parts of New South Wales, is essential for life, as it is everywhere, but the lack of water has a dramatic effect on communities west of the range. In this debate I will refer to the broad issue of water and to the ongoing reform process and I will make a few suggestions about the direction in which this Government should be going. Any water reform package that is finally released should be flexible.

I take on board what the honourable member for Northern Tablelands said earlier about water allocations between the slopes and the plains, those who have water now and those who do not, the regulated and unregulated streams, and the new agricultural industries that require water. A blanket pricing policy on the transferability of water or access to water will not really deliver the sorts of things that the honourable member for Northern Tablelands was talking about. If one assumes that is the case, there must be a degree of flexibility in the way that policy is put together. It would be hopeless to impose a blanket water reform policy across the State - and I am not suggesting that the Minister or the department is going to do that. It has to vary from catchment to catchment and to underground water and regulated or unregulated streams.

In some areas the nature of the water problems is parochial. Any attempt to impose an overarching framework in those areas would be detrimental to development. In regard to the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Ballina, it is essential that some sort of social judgment framework is built into water reform so that people will be aware of what they may gain or lose. The water reform legislators should be involved in that
Page 1759
role. A specific example is the Peel Valley above the city of Tamworth in the electorate that I represent. That valley provides a unique example of the variations that occur across the State. That valley and many others in New South Wales would be adversely impacted on by a blanket policy. The Peel Valley has two dams - Chaffey and Dungowan - that provide water to the city of Tamworth, to local irrigators and to downstream flood plain irrigators.

If a broad State policy were imposed on that catchment area and transferability of water were allowed out of that catchment area into the Greater Murray-Darling system, the development of the city of Tamworth would be stifled by the mere stroke of a pen. There are many sleeper and dozer licences in that catchment area, as there are in many other catchments. If pricing policies or deregulation permitted the transfer of water out of the valley for its most economic use, even though the town has security of water now it would face a water crisis almost immediately. Many of the water users in the valley are small irrigators who, in terms of the economics of agriculture, would be classified as being less viable than those in the cotton industry further downstream.

One would assume that the cotton industry would be able to afford to pay more to maintain each megalitre of water. If transferability came on line, the cotton industry, for instance, would be able to access water that at the moment is held in the storage dams above the city of Tamworth. The position at Tamworth is different from that at Copeton and Split Rock dams, or some of the other dams in the south of the State or in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Similarly, other parts of the State have unique problems. I mention that so that the Minister can take those sorts of things into account when the reform package comes through the system.

As the honourable member for Northern Tablelands suggested, a number of issues impact on those whose land is on the slopes and who have not had access to irrigation water in the past. Some of their agricultural activities could become much more productive economically. One would assume that the pricing policy would drive that scarce resource towards use in those activities. But that does not necessarily occur. The Government must look closely at how that mechanism will work so that reasonably small packages of water are available to highly productive users.

The wine industry is one such industry, as are many of the horticultural industries. Aquaculture, an industry in which I declare some self-interest and which the Minister for Fisheries talked about recently, has enormous potential. But it requires water. The mechanisms of licensing procedures and permits must be put in place to assist these new industries, especially in sloping areas such as the northern tablelands where dams have not been constructed to provide water. It should be recognised that these new industries require small parcels of water, not like some of the broader irrigation areas on the Murrumbidgee or in Barwon or west of Barwon. The way that transferability and pricing policy impacts on these matters will be crucial to the proper management of that valuable resource.

Many honourable members and some people within the department tend to have a closed view on how much water is available. They should raise their sights a little. It is the right of government to have policies to manage what it considers to be the available resource. But I believe that there is a lot more water available in New South Wales than the department is suggesting at the moment. The Minister is essentially trying to impose a timber industry solution to a water problem. I do not argue with that, but it must be remembered that the difference is that timber is finite; trees can be physically counted. At the moment the department does not have a handle on how much water the State has available. New technology, such as satellite imagery, is available that can locate very deep water - in a sense new water.

I urge the Minister and the Government to have a good look at the equations that are being used for transfers and allocations of water for environmental flows and so on; in my view, we should not be talking about a fixed amount of water. In fact, if that sort of mind-set had been adopted in the early 1970s this country would have run out of oil in 1975. That has not happened. Oil is still being discovered by the use of new technology and pricing policies. The new imagery technology that is available has to be used to search for deeper water aquifers. I understand that in the Dubbo area in recent years a new source of water has been found. There is concern as to whether the new source has moved from an existing location and relocated through an aquifer. It would be no good using that new source if it drained another source. But if it is a new source, new rules should apply to it.

In the broader water debate I consider that there is room to examine the possibility of water diversions in New South Wales. Attention should be directed to the economic and social implications of water diversion not only to inland areas but also to areas from which the water would be extracted. As the honourable member for Manly said, Australia is
Page 1760
an arid continent and water is a limited resource. We should examine schemes that are being contemplated in other parts of the nation, such as in the Fitzroy River in Western Australia. On very good advice I am led to believe - the Minister may be able to correct me - that the Fitzroy River is second in the world only to the Amazon in the amount of water that flows from it into the ocean. A number of people have suggested that that is a fact. I notice that some of the departmental advisers are nodding their head and others are not.

Mr Thompson: It is true.

Mr WINDSOR: A water expert on the Government benches has suggested that it is true. Irrespective of whether it is true, an enormous amount of water is entering the ocean from the Fitzroy. In the future there may be good economic reasons for diverting the water across the nation into other States, not necessarily New South Wales. At the Council of Australian Governments the New South Wales Premier or Minister of the day can have an input into broader national water policy. I ask the Government to maintain an open mind on the principle of diversion of water into other areas. The debate has been politicised and the problems of salinity and rising water tables in southern New South Wales have been applied to the State as a whole. The problems water diversion has caused in southern New South Wales have been caused to a certain extent by the soil types and the historical environment in the area. Many of the problems do not translate into the northern parts of the State. The State should be divided into half a dozen different environments for the purposes of water diversion. I would not divert water to some areas of New South Wales but in others it would be safe for the environment to accept more water.

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Land and Water Conservation) [12.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members representing the electorates of Ballina, St Marys, Hawkesbury, Newcastle, Murray, Manly, Barwon, Northern Tablelands and Tamworth for their contributions to the debate. The honourable member for Ballina, who led for the Opposition, indicated that the Opposition agrees with the bill except in relation to a definition. The honourable member foreshadowed an amendment in that regard, which I will address in due course. The Government also intends to move a housekeeping amendment. I will detail it in a moment.

The honourable member for Ballina expressed concern about the definition of ecologically sustainable development contained in schedule 2.4 of the amending bill, saying that it does not give enough recognition to social and economic factors. In discussion with him prior to this debate I pointed out that the definition is based on an interstate agreement which the Government is not in a position to vary. Approximately 50 other Acts contain that definition. Some relate to other aspects of matters concerning the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The department is bound to take into account social and economic factors in exercising its responsibilities under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The Opposition’s amendment therefore is not necessary because the position is already covered. I was concerned that the foreshadowed amendment would distort the definition contained within the other Acts.

However, now that I have had the opportunity to read the circulated amendment I realise that the honourable member is not seeking to amend the definition of economic sustainability itself but is seeking to add in schedule 2.4 an additional phrase, proposed new section 11(1A)(g), to give emphasis to or make explicit the need for socioeconomic factors to be taken into account. Given that that is where he wishes to amend the bill and that the amendment, therefore, does not impact on the definition of environmental sustainability, the Government will accept the amendment. As I said, the department is bound to take those factors into account in any event, and I have no problem with this being explicitly outlined in new section 11 in relation to functions of the ministerial corporation. The honourable member for Ballina said that he thought it must have been an oversight that land and water conservation plans were not taken into account. It is not an oversight. I refer him to proposed new section 22L(4) on page 26, which provides:

In this section, relevant policy means any governmental policy relating to the management -

I underline "management" -

protection and enhancement of the State’s rivers and foreshores.

So it is a self-contained proposal clearly indicating that "relevant policy" does mean governmental policy relating to management, and "management" clearly picks up land and water management plans. Land and water management plans will be taken into account in the practical implementation of the bill. The honourable member for Ballina quoted correspondence he had received from the Ricegrowers Association. The rice growers, if I understand the correspondence correctly, propose a geographic entitlement or a physical area entitlement for a property based on, in their area, six megalitres
Page 1761
per hectare. The Government cannot accept such a proposal in good conscience. The bill allows the transfer of water into a property up to the level of the allocation. If water was available the transfer of 70 per cent or 80 per cent - up to 100 per cent - of the allocation could be made without the need for a farm water plan.

As I understand what the rice growers are putting, the proposal would significantly increase the ability to use and transfer water without proper account of environmental factors. For example, a particular operator may have a physical water entitlement of six megalitres per hectare over only 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent of his property. Extrapolating from that to say that someone can transfer six megalitres per hectare for the remaining area of the property which has no entitlement involves an extraordinary increase. The honourable member for Murray drew that out in another point he made about the development of water management plans. He asked whether a water management plan is required to cover the entire physical area of a property if irrigated agriculture occurs only on a small portion of the property. He suggested that a whole range of activities other than irrigated agriculture could occur on the property.

A water management plan will be required only in relation to the area in which the water entitlement or transfer of water will be used, notwithstanding some wider factors that need to be taken into account as a result of that transfer. But the important point is that the plan will be simply looking at that portion of the property that will be dealing with the water transfer matters. On the other hand, it is not open slather on transferring water on the basis of property size. That could give a distorted outcome in terms of water use without environmental considerations being taken into account. As I said, the present allocation entitlement for a large property may relate only to a small portion of the property.

At this time the Government cannot accept what is being proposed by the rice growers. However, one aspect of the Government’s water reforms is an attempt to get away from the archaic approach that water is fundamentally connected to land title or based on hectareage. The Government wants to ensure the best use of, and economic return from, the State’s water, and those sorts of approaches are inappropriate. Some examples have been given by earlier speakers. In horticulture and wine growing, for example, those sorts of concepts become irrelevant. We should seek to get the most efficient use of water to produce a particular crop, and that may bear little or no relationship to physical land size. In fact, history clearly indicates that the concept of land size came from consideration being given to single modes of production, for example, cropping. The department and the commission, as it then was, clearly took into consideration the amount of water required to grow a particular crop. At that time, activities such as cropping for cattle fodder production and so forth were examined, rather than the types of potential production that are being brought to the fore at present, such as horticulture, grape growing and so forth.

The honourable member for Ballina and other members spoke extensively about the management and use of the ground water resource in New South Wales. That is appropriate because it is an important component of water availability and use. I agree with the honourable member for Ballina that in the past ground water has not received the attention it should have received. One of the key problems of ground water management is, indeed, a lack of appropriate information. The Government’s water reform program is about rectifying that problem and ensuring that the necessary data needed to manage those resources is gathered. It is about putting management committees in place to deal with stressed ground water resources that are identified through the processes within the program, and to ensure that those resources are properly managed. A similar management approach will be taken to those unregulated rivers that are deemed to be stressed.

The Government acknowledges the need for flexibility and the need to take into account unique circumstances in particular areas. It is true that the Government cannot take a blanket approach to water management across the State. The State has great variations in geography, climate, modes of production and a range of other factors. Proper and appropriate management require those unique circumstances to be taken into account. That is why the Government is taking a river-by-river, valley-by-valley and catchment-by-catchment approach to its reform agenda. Indeed, community-based management committees have been put in place in relation to each of those rivers. With their local expertise and knowledge of the history of water management and use, they will be able to work in partnership with the Government to deal with these issues. The Government is taking that valley-by-valley, catchment-by-catchment and river-by-river approach to ensure the best possible outcomes.

The honourable member for Ballina said that he does not favour embargoes as an ongoing long-term policy tool in ground water management. I agree with him. Embargoes can be put in place so that information can be obtained to ensure the long-term sustainability of ground water. The honourable member for Hawkesbury hit the nail right on the head when he said that the precautionary principle
Page 1762
must prevail when there is a lack of information. The Government certainly adopts that approach. If there is a lack of information and a hell-for-leather approach is taken, the result may well be an unsustainable management regime. Embargoes are available to be used as the complex and comprehensive reform of water management begins. It is fair to say that at the end of the day some ground water resources will be allocated to the maximum. Indeed, they may perhaps be overallocated. In that sense an embargo will become permanent. However, it will not be an embargo in the true sense because it will be clear that the particular ground water resource has reached its limit. Ongoing management and monitoring may allow a change in policy or use, but it may well be that it will not be possible to extract further ground water from some aquifers. That would not be an embargo. It would simply be fact of life and water may then have to be transferred to meet particular industry and production needs.

I agree wholeheartedly with the emphasis placed on reuse by the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Manly. They referred particularly to the requirement for the Hawkesbury-Nepean system to provide metropolitan Sydney with water for drinking and for domestic use, and to the small amount that is returned into the system. The Government is working on a number of fronts to ensure greater reuse in the future. For example, the Government has set up a task force to examine the implementation of measures for the possible reuse of so-called grey water. The Government’s approach to the Coffs Harbour sewerage scheme at Emerald Beach and Mooney Beach emphasises the matters identified by the honourable member for Hawkesbury and the honourable member for Manly.

The Government is working towards reuse options in its comprehensive reform agenda. Although it will be some time before those options are implemented the Government will endeavour to achieve the best possible outcome. The report of the Commissioner for Healthy Rivers, who is currently examining the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, will deal with a range of issues. Undoubtedly one of those issues will be reuse. The precautionary principle and reuse fall within the general lexicon of New South Wales Farmers, whose opinion was placed on the record by the honourable member for Ballina. I am familiar with the view of New South Wales Farmers in relation to the one-resource-policy approach on surface water and ground water. That is a sound proposal and it is in line with the Government’s view.

If measures for ecologically sustainable development and the proper management of surface water are put in place, one cannot ignore ground water; there is increasing pressure to use it. Therefore, it is imperative to move simultaneously on those two resources to avoid an inappropriate bias of use between them. Indeed, in many instances could be used in conjunction for the best possible production and sustainability outcomes. During the second reading debate great emphasis has been placed on ground water charges. Pricing for water falls within the purview of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The Government, through the Premier, has referred ground water and surface water pricing to that tribunal in accordance with the requirement of the Council on the Cost of Government to move to cost recovery.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal is consulting the public in its investigation and deliberation on water pricing. Members of this House, including the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Tamworth, and members of the community will have an opportunity to put their views before IPART. The Government has put its view to that tribunal so that it can move towards recovery of the cost of water, as required by the Council of Australian Governments agreement. The honourable member for Hawkesbury referred to the embargo in the Hawkesbury-Nepean system on on-farm dams. He said that some applicants have sought to place on-farm dams close to the entrance of that river system and, therefore, they will have a negligible impact on the amount of water that enters the river system. I understand what he says but at the present time the embargo on on-farm dams is necessary across the board until the Commissioner for Healthy Rivers hands down his report.

The Government will then be able to deal in a systematic and appropriate way with water equity, water use and ecological sustainability issues in the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. I am aware of the pressures, but the precautionary principle must apply until more information is available about the overall state of the river system. By and large that information will be the result of the work of the Commissioner for Healthy Rivers and his report is imminent. The Government acknowledges that the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system is Sydney’s bread basket. It is important not only as a catchment for the supply of drinking water to Sydney but for agricultural production.

Debate adjourned on motion, by leave, by Mr Yeadon.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the Chair at 12.58 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

Page 1763

Mr CARR: I advise the House that during the absence of the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism, who is attending the Australasian Transport Council in New Zealand, I will answer questions relating to his portfolio. During the absence of the Minister for Roads, Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development, who is also attending the Australasian Transport Council in New Zealand, the Minister for the Olympics will answer questions relating to his portfolio.

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [2.17 p.m.]: Like all honourable members, I was deeply disturbed to hear this morning that the bodies of Bega High School students Nichole Collins and Lauren Barry had been found. On behalf of the Government and all members of Parliament, I extend sympathy to the parents, family, friends and school of Nichole and Lauren. The loss of any young person’s life is always very sad. That Nichole and Lauren lost their lives in such circumstances is deeply tragic and horrific. Our thoughts and prayers are with those close to the two girls.

As honourable members may know, Nichole was in year 11 and Lauren was in year 9 at Bega High School. The disappearance of the two students last month - and now the news of their tragic death - has had a devastating impact on the students, the teachers and the community of Bega High School. The student welfare personnel of the Department of School Education will play an important role in assisting students, staff and parents to deal with the tragedy. I advise honourable members that since the time that the students disappeared the department has provided extra support and assistance to the students and staff through additional counsellors and resources. I am advised that seven Department of School Education counsellors are working in Bega High School and the nearby Eden High School today.

Any student or staff member who seeks support will have access to one of the school counsellors. Additional counsellors will be provided by the Department of School Education and the Department of Health if necessary. I have spoken to the principal, Mr Jim Connolly, on a number of occasions throughout this ordeal, including as recently as this afternoon. I have offered him and his school all the support and assistance they may need. As one would expect, this tragedy has had a devastating effect on the school and, understandably, many students are deeply upset. I also understand that the teaching staff is shattered by the incident - not only did they know and teach Nichole and Lauren, but many are close personal friends of their parents.

As is often the case, tragedies such as this can bring out the strong sense of community in schools. Mr Connolly has told me that while there is a deep sense of sadness in the Bega High School community, it has rallied together and is providing strong support to and for each other. Many parents have volunteered to help at the school and are providing another valuable source of support for the students and teachers. While Nichole and Lauren were not year 12 students, their disappearance and death has obviously upset many of the senior students currently sitting the higher school certificate examinations. I am advised that a large number of students are still to sit for exams in a range of subjects.

Clearly, as a result of this incident many of the students may not be able to perform at their best. A number of measures have been put in place to ensure that they are not penalised because they may not be able to focus fully on their forthcoming examinations. The Board of Studies has in place special procedures for dealing with incidents of this nature. I am advised by the principal that a group appeal under the board’s illness and misadventures procedures has already been lodged. That was followed by a letter from the school to the board. Prior to the commencement of examinations some days ago supervisors were given a special briefing. A senior officer from the Board of Studies has contacted Bega High School again today to provide further advice and assistance on the actions it should take to ensure consideration is given to year 12 students undertaking the remaining higher school certificate examinations. Particular attention will be given to students who were close friends of or had a family association with Nichole and Lauren. I can give an assurance that the Board of Studies will give sympathetic and positive consideration to students of Bega High School given these tragic circumstances.

The principal has indicated that the community is grateful for the assistance being provided by the Department of School Education and the Board of Studies. He has also indicated that community health workers have been most supportive. The school
Page 1764
community is appreciative of the sensitive manner in which the Police Service has handled the situation. The hearts of the whole community go out to the Bega community, especially to the families and friends of Nichole and Lauren at this time of deep tragedy. I request the media to respect the privacy of the families, students, teachers and school community. They should be allowed to grieve and to come to terms with their loss in private.

Mr O’DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [2.23 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I express our heartfelt sorry and deepest sympathy to the families of Nichole and Lauren, and indeed to the whole community of Bega. I do so in particular on behalf of the honourable member for Bega, to whom I have spoken today. He has written to the parents of Nichole and Lauren and has issued a statement on behalf of his community, some of which I will place on the record. The honourable member for Bega has extended the heartfelt sorrow of that community to the Collins and Barry families. As he said, there are no words that can heal the hurt, frustration and anger felt by the community at this time.

He said that the Bega Valley is in a state of shock and deep regret over the incomprehensible loss of two delightful young students. He went on to say that the sad and tragic events of the past few weeks have been an unbearable burden on the two families and on the students, teachers and staff of Bega High School and the close-knit community. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bega and the entire Opposition, today I rang Jim Connolly, the Principal of Bega High School, and assured him of our sympathy and of our assistance in anything he requires.

I know that the honourable member for Bega has been in close contact with the principal over the long weeks and will continue to assist the community in every way. Mr Connolly told me that the school has been planning for this event for some time. It is the sort of planning that is done for an event that one hopes will not happen, for news one would expect or hope not to hear, yet deep down I suppose everybody in that community fully expected that this dreadful day would arrive. Mr Connolly told me that the school has had a management team in place for some time involving district office staff and staff of the Department of School Education. Therefore, they were able to put the plan into action immediately they received the news.

The school broke the news to the students early this morning. Distraught students were given special grief counselling and continue to receive that counselling. However, perhaps because of the planning that the principal put in place, classes were able to resume fairly quickly. As the Minister said, it is a mark of the professionalism of the staff that things have been managed in such a manner. I thank the Government for the consideration it has given students by making immediate arrangements for the Board of Studies to look sympathetically at illness and misadventure claims. The tragedy will obviously affect every student in the school and probably will affect students throughout the Bega Valley because of the proximity of the events to their preparation for the higher school certificate examinations that some are sitting even today. It is important that the arrangements are put in place and that everybody understands them precisely.

In times like this schools come into their own as places that help the community to deal with an immense range of happy and sad occasions. A school is an extraordinary community, and it is a mark of public education in New South Wales over a long period that it has been able to manage various pressures, tensions, tragedies and happiness in the New South Wales community in the same way that Bega High School is managing this tragedy on behalf of the families and the community today. The community that is built up around Bega High School will help the Bega community to grieve in its own way. I join with the Minister in asking the media to respect the privacy of those concerned, while allowing all parents in New South Wales to express their sorrow through the various avenues that the media provides and reflect on how close such events are to everyone. These two young people in the community were engaging in the normal social interaction of the young and trying to make their way in their community when they were horribly murdered and swept away from their families and the community.

One cannot begin to imagine what the last six weeks have been like for the families of the girls. The honourable member for Bega expressed the deepest sympathy of his family, his staff and the wider community to them. I echo that expression of sympathy once again on behalf of the New South Wales Opposition. With the honourable member for Bega, I commend the Bega community for the caring support, co-operation and unity that it has exhibited in its determined attempt to search for the missing girls. We wish them the best and hope and pray that that unity will continue to help them manage their grief in the weeks ahead.

Petitions praying that the office of Governor of New South Wales not be downgraded, and that the role, duties and future of the office be determined by a referendum, received from Mr Blackmore, Mr Brogden, Mr Collins, Mr Debnam, Mr Downy,
Page 1765
Ms Ficarra, Mr Glachan, Mr Hartcher, Mr Hazzard, Mr Humpherson, Dr Kernohan, Mr Kerr, Mr MacCarthy, Mr Merton, Mr Oakeshott, Mr O’Doherty, Mr O’Farrell, Mr Phillips, Mr Photios, Mr Richardson, Mr Rozzoli, Mr Schipp, Mr Schultz, Ms Seaton, Mrs Skinner, Mr Smith and Mr Tink.

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

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

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

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

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

Petition praying that buildings on Homebush railway station platform 3/4 that were damaged by fire in 1994 be restored in accordance with heritage requirements, received from Mr MacCarthy.

Petition praying that State Rail maintain a luggage booking facility on Countrylink services, received from Mr Souris.

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

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

Petition praying that the draft plan of management for Cudgen Nature Reserve be varied to ensure the continued use of Cudgen Lake and North Cabarita Beach for existing recreational purposes, the improvement of the tidal flow into Cudgen Lake, and the removal of recent reed growth from Cudgen Lake; or, that Cudgen Lake and the portion of North Cabarita Beach east of the Coast Road that is sandmined be removed from Cudgen Nature Reserve, received from Mr Beck.

Petition praying that the Local Government Act be amended to prohibit local councils from using closed workshops to develop policies, received from Mr Oakeshott.

Mr COLLINS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Was the trial of an alleged sex offender aborted in Queanbeyan two months ago after comments by the Minister which a judge branded as extraordinarily prejudicial?

Mr Carr: On a point of order. The Government has quite unambiguous Crown Solicitor’s advice that highlights the fact that this question represents a breach of a suppression order made by the court and, further, that it canvasses a matter that is sub judice. It is potentially prejudicing a possible future trial and current police operations. The advice that the Government -

Mr COLLINS: On the point of order.

Mr Carr: I am concluding my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting while the Premier is taking a point of order. The Chair must hear what the Premier has to say about this matter.

Page 1766

Mr COLLINS: Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition may speak to the point of order when the Premier has enunciated his proposition.

Mr Carr: The Crown Solicitor’s advice is overwhelmingly that this matter is sub judice.

Mr COLLINS: On the point of order. Mr Speaker, you cannot possibly adjudicate on the question until you have heard it. You cannot possibly know what I am about to ask the police Minister. Once the question is heard, you may indeed rule and make a fair determination, and that is your prerogative. But you and this House have a right to at least hear the question before you give a ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What the Leader of the Opposition said is perfectly true. The Chair cannot know what the question is until it is completed. The Leader of the Opposition may complete the question.

Mr COLLINS: My question was directed to the Minister for Police. Was the trial of an alleged sex offender aborted in Queanbeyan two months ago after comments by the Minister which the judge branded as extraordinarily prejudicial? Given that the man was facing 10 charges of child sexual assault, why did the Government’s prosecutor agree to the man walking free on bail?

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. A suppression order has been made by the court in the matter the honourable member has referred to. The Crown Solicitor has advised that I make no comment inside or outside this House, and I intend to abide by that advice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order taken by the Minister for Police reinforces the point of order taken by the Premier and relevant to the issue. It is a longstanding rule that if the House has advice that a matter is sub judice then the matter is dealt with in that manner. I rule the question out of order. As the Minister for Police did not reply to the question, there will be a further 10 questions during question time.

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. I indicate to the House that at the conclusion of question time I will move to have the question put by the Leader of the Opposition struck out.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The Premier has made certain statements to the House in relation to advice from the Crown Solicitor. I ask on behalf of all members and the community of New South Wales that he table that advice in this Parliament.

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

Mr SHEDDEN: My question is to the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health. Will the Minister give information about the worrying increase in the incidence of whooping cough and measles?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I thank the honourable member for his question and his continuing interest in public health matters in this State. What are often thought of as ordinary childhood illnesses can be deadly diseases. Whooping cough and measles can have serious complications and even be fatal. The latest figures show that New South Wales is in the midst of a record whooping cough epidemic and is on the brink of a statewide measles epidemic. It is now especially timely to remind parents that immunisation is one of the most important ways to protect their children’s health. So far this year there have been 2,438 cases of whooping cough, more than double the number of cases of whooping cough last year. Tragically, since late last year six children have died from the disease. New South Wales is also on the verge of a measles outbreak. This year to date there have been 186 cases of measles compared with 190 for the whole of 1996 and, most significantly, 29 cases have been reported in October compared with 16 cases in September.

Already there have been measles outbreaks in New England and the Hunter. To prevent further cases amongst classmates, the New South Wales Department of Health has conducted immunisation clinics and unimmunised children have been excluded from those schools until the outbreak has settled. These serious diseases can be prevented by vaccination. Vaccinations against whooping cough are recommended at the ages of two, four, six and 18 months, as well as at four to five years of age, just prior to starting school. Vaccinations against measles are recommended at 12 months and again between 10 to 16 years of age. Parents are also
Page 1767
reminded that children enrolling in kindergarten need a vaccination certificate from their doctor. If there is an outbreak at a school, children without certificates can be excluded to protect them from getting the disease and to prevent them from passing on the infection.

The vast majority of parents support immunisation. It is just that in these busy times it is often, too often, easily forgotten. Also, parents sometimes do not realise how important it is for children to have the entire course of a vaccine. All parents are urged to check whether their children are up to date with their vaccinations, and if not to get it done straight away. These vaccinations are free to all children. The Carr Government has been actively promoting this vital message. In recent years we have supported the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register which reminds parents when their child’s immunisations are due. Also, New South Wales, under the former Government, was one of the first States to introduce legislation requiring parents to show evidence of their child’s immunisation status on entry into child-care facilities and schools. There are also immunisation co-ordinators in each area health service whose role is to identify and overcome any barriers to people gaining easy access to immunisation. Immunisation is one of the most important ways parents can protect their children’s health and the community’s health. It is effective and it saves lives. Do not forget to save your children’s lives.

Mr COLLINS: My question is directed to the Premier. When did the Premier receive the Crown Solicitor’s advice about the child sex offence case to which I have referred? Why will he not now table that advice behind which the Minister for Police seeks to hide?

Mr CARR: I received the advice at question time. The advice is, and I quote the final sentence:

I would add that if the Minister is asked a question about this matter either inside or outside the House he could properly respond that he is prevented from commenting because of the sub judice rules.

The advice the Government has received is that this matter is listed for trial in early December.

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

Mr CARR: If some of the geniuses opposite want to explain how that escapes sub judice, then they should be on their feet doing so.

Mr WOODS: My question is directed to the Premier. What action is the Government taking to improve job opportunities in regional New South Wales?

Mr Hazzard: They have given you one.

Mr CARR: The job the honourable member for Clarence got compensates for the job that the Leader of the Opposition is about to lose.

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

Mr CARR: All members are waiting for the latest count from the Liberal Party room. Since yesterday, undecideds down two, Chikarovski up two.

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

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The question was asked by the honourable member for Clarence. There was no interjection or comment from the honourable member for Lane Cove. The question to the Premier has no relevance to the honourable member for Lane Cove. The Premier must answer the question put to him by the honourable member for Clarence.

Mr CARR: Why is the honourable member for Gosford attacking the honourable member for Lane Cove? Why is he attacking this woman? She said in the Australian today that she would not rule out a leadership challenge. She ought to be commended and praised for her honesty. No wonder that her support stands at 16. As a member of the press gallery, who is very experienced in these things, said, "Kerry Chikarovski is on the rise."

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The Premier has now passed the time for making preliminary remarks. He should now be answering the question. Question time is for the benefit of the community of New South Wales, to ask questions of the Government -

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

Page 1768

Mr CARR: Mr Speaker, if there are no interjections I will be able to proceed to talk about the subject that interests me and the honourable member for Clarence, that is, employment in regional New South Wales. Already since Tuesday’s decision the news is looking fantastic. For example, the western Riverina subregion has great news on employment.

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

Mr CARR: We are talking about Griffith, Hay, Leeton, Murrumbidgee and Narrandera. The fact is that the employment picture is so good that the local community is asking us to send workers there. Perhaps this is a career opening for the Leader of the Opposition. There is a labour shortage in the region.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is attempting to answer this question and I expect the Opposition to listen to his response in silence.

Mr CARR: Bartter Enterprises at Griffith has urgently contacted the Government. It is one of the largest poultry producers in Australia, employing more than 1,400 workers. It is developing expansion plans to invest an additional $125 million over the next 10 years. In doing so it would create an additional 970 jobs. It is asking where it will get the workers from. There is full employment in the area. The plans include a processing line for the meat facility, expanding the feed mill operation and expanding and developing new poultry farms. The company’s managing director, Mr Peter Bartter, has warned that worker shortages threaten the company’s expansion plans. I can announce that the Government, in response to this request from employers in the region, has convened a working group to help attract new workers to the region. It will address four critical issues, including the availability and cost of residential land in the main urban areas of Griffith, Leeton and Narrandera using Crown land. Who wanted to draw my attention to them? Was it the member for Lane Cove? I think it was she. I recognised the voice. Why would she not want to focus attention on herself at this sensitive time in the history of the New South Wales Liberal Party?

Mr O’Doherty: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, the Premier should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is trifling with the House and seeking to interrupt the Premier. There is no point of order. The Premier may continue.

Mr CARR: Mr Speaker, I would at all times address my remarks through the Chair, it is just that the seething ambition is creating a turbulence in the Chamber, a veritable turbulence. You can feel the restlessness.

Mrs Skinner: It is all behind you, Bob.

Mr CARR: It is all behind you - saying, "I want Peter’s job." It is a terrible thing.

Mr Hazzard: It is behind your head.

Mr CARR: I will look up whose column I have got you in. Let us check the details.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will return to the answer.

Mr CARR: He is in the Lane Cove camp. The employers of the region are saying, "Give us more workers. We have a shortage of workers, such is the health of our regional economy." The Government is taking positive initiatives to secure the expansion of Bartter Enterprises, which is worth 970 new jobs. For example, the condition of some of the local roads has the potential to cause damage to chickens in transit from the poultry farms to the processing facilities. The roadworks in the Griffith and Murrumbidgee shires require $1.47 million but the councils cannot afford to provide immediate funding.

The Government is now proposing to provide the funds through State and regional development as industry infrastructure support. And we ought to do that: it is infrastructure to enable the private sector, which this Government supports, in regional New South Wales to get on with the job of generating good regional jobs. That is what this is about. It is conditional, of course, on Bartter Enterprises committing itself to the expansion program I outlined earlier. But it is possible for roadworks to begin within the next three months and to be completed by early 1999. Other regional centres around the State are experiencing very impressive growth - for example, Orange, and this reflects the decision we made through legislation in this place to get the Cadia gold and copper mine running. Special legislation it took -

Mr Armstrong: Did you discover the gold?

Mr CARR: Well, I might have had a role in that. Legislation was passed to facilitate that development. History might record that we gave a helping hand in discovering the resource. That is an indication that we will stop at nothing to get local jobs going. Cadia is roaring ahead with all those jobs at Orange. At Oberon, where we facilitated the
Page 1769
expansion of the CSR timber mill, there is full employment. The boys and girls from the local high school know that there will be local jobs with CSR when they graduate from high school.

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

Mr CARR: With the election to my Cabinet of the honourable member for Clarence, regional optimism is on the increase.

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

Mr CARR: The temperature is rising; it is not surprising.

Mr ARMSTRONG: What role did the office of the Minister for Police play in soliciting a letter from Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan, yesterday in relation to documents being referred to the privileges committee? Why is it that last night a senior member of the staff of the Commissioner of Police refused to rule out that the Minister’s office had contributed to the content of the letter?

Mr WHELAN: I have a transcript of what Commissioner Ryan said on the Alan Jones program this morning and I will send it to the Leader of the National Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party has asked his question and he should remain silent.

Mr WHELAN: Commissioner Ryan’s letter contains an analysis of the material produced in the upper House. It outlines a series of possible consequences and his concerns about any release. The Legislative Council requested Commissioner Ryan and Justice Nader to analyse the material and then report. Commissioner Ryan has yet to report. It is incorrect for Mrs Arena to say that the letter vindicates her information. Contrary to Mrs Arena’s statements to the media today, Justice Nader read material in volumes 1, 2 and 3 and parts A and B of volume 4 but made no assessment of the material because it did not relate to "any of the issues defined by the terms of reference of the inquiry". I received Commissioner Ryan’s letter at about 2.45 p.m. yesterday. I sent the letter to the Attorney General for his information. I will -

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

Mr Armstrong: On a point of order. Clearly the Minister is about to wind up his answer. He has not addressed the question -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Mr WHELAN: I was going to table the letter -

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

Mr WHELAN: As I said earlier, I received Commissioner Ryan’s letter at about 2.45 p.m. yesterday. I then sent the letter to the Attorney General for his information. I will table the copy of the letter, which is dated 12 November, and I will read it to the House. The letter reads:

Dear Attorney,

Please find attached correspondence from the Commissioner of Police addressed to myself.

In view of the current proceedings in your Chamber, I am forwarding a copy to you for your urgent attention.

Yours sincerely,

I table that letter, together with the letter from Commissioner Ryan.

Leave granted.

I advised the Attorney General that the commissioner had raised with me a number of concerns. Commissioner Ryan then put his concerns to me in writing.

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

Mr WHELAN: It is proper for the commissioner to raise concerns about actions he believes may impede, pre-empt or subvert current investigations. Equally, it was proper for me, as Minister, once aware of those serious concerns, to convey them to the Attorney General. Indeed, it would have been derelict of me not to have passed on those concerns once I was aware of them. I understand that the upper House crossbenchers were provided with Commissioner Ryan’s letter at about 3.50 p.m. yesterday and the Opposition was shown the letter at about 3.30 p.m. I understand also that at 8.15 p.m. the Hon. Jan Burnswoods read the letter into Hansard. Any meetings I have with Commissioner Ryan are in the presence of the commissioner’s staff and my staff. The staff who
Page 1770
attended meetings that I had with Commissioner Ryan were the same staff who attended the meeting that I had with the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Eastwood; and the staff took comprehensive notes at that time, as they always do.

Ms MEAGHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fair Trading. What is the Government doing to improve protection for people joining gymnasiums?

Mrs LO PO’: The honourable member for Cabramatta always takes an interest in issues of great concern to the Department of Fair Trading. The department has investigated three gymnasium closures this year, namely, Body Focus at Wallsend, the Club World of Fitness in the Sydney CBD, and Contours at Willoughby. The fitness industry is highly competitive and volatile. The costs involved in running a gym and keeping up to date with the latest technology and equipment are substantial.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The purpose of question time is to elicit information. Last session the Minister answered a question on the subject of what action the Government is taking in relation to gymnasiums.

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

Mrs LO PO’: One of the joys of my life is getting up the nose of the honourable member for Gosford. I have also upset the honourable member for North Shore - so it is a double bonus! Some gyms meet operating costs by spending fees as soon as they receive them.

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

Mrs LO PO’: This means that gyms must attract a high volume of new members through the doors each week, or end up with a serious cash flow problem. To keep people coming through the doors and the cash flowing, some resort to heavily discounting annual fees. Some discounts are so extreme that the income they generate does not even cover the running costs. The result can be failure of the business, leaving behind members who have paid in advance for a service the operator can no longer provide. The Newcastle gym, Body Focus, closed its doors in March and just one week later the Department of Fair Trading had received 95 formal complaints from people who had paid membership fees of between $199 and $440. Much of that money was paid in cash and some people paid for memberships extending up to October 1998.

By April, 272 official complaints had been received by the department from people who had paid more than $60,000 in advance fees. Hundreds of consumers were also affected by the closure of the Club World of Fitness and the women-only gym, Contours. While many gym owners are reputable and financially secure, the department has evidence that some operators have continued to take payments from unsuspecting consumers right up until the day they suddenly close their doors. In fact, the department has evidence that some operators knowingly conduct membership drives to raise cash when they know full well they are about to stop trading.

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

Mrs LO PO’: Trading while insolvent is a very serious offence. The Department of Fair Trading will vigorously pursue such breaches of fair trading laws. Besides chasing the bad guys the department has taken an active and constructive approach on behalf of New South Wales gym members. In recent months the department has been working closely with the fitness centre industry, in conjunction with the Department of Sport and Recreation, to formulate a voluntary code of practice. It is my aim to see the implementation of a strong industry code of practice that will end the demands and enticements made by some fitness centres for large up-front membership fees. The code is currently in draft form and close to being finalised. It will see a shift towards monthly payment of fees in the industry. I am happy to report that many fitness centre operators are already abandoning yearly membership fees for monthly payment systems.

I urge people to seek out those gymnasiums that offer pay-by-the-month membership. The code will also cover advertising and marketing standards, privacy requirements, disclosure of pricing, rules for discounting, refunds, fitness centre standards and complaint and dispute resolution procedures. Gyms that are signatories to the code will be easily identifiable. Part of their compliance with the code will be to display a logo so people can be more confident in their choice of gym. I have repeatedly warned about the risks involved with paying large up-front fees before receiving any goods or services - whether they be a personal computer, a lounge suite or gym membership. If people pay up-front and the business fails because of bad
Page 1771
management, bad luck or bad practice, they become unsecured creditors with little chance of seeing the money again. Until a strong code for fitness centres is in place, I urge people to shop around for a gymnasium that meets their needs in exchange for reasonable and monthly membership payments.

Mr TINK: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. When a person charged with multiple sex offences is released on bail, is the community entitled to expect police to keep such an offender under close surveillance? Will the Minister reassure this House that this policy has been effectively implemented under his administration?

Mr WHELAN: The question of bail from courts is a matter for judges and magistrates.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. I place the honourable member for Gosford on two calls to order.

Mr WHELAN: The question of the grant of bail is a matter for judges and magistrates.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. The Minister has not heard the question. It is about police surveillance of sex offenders on bail, not bail requirements.

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

Mr WHELAN: I can only repeat that it is a decision of a judge or magistrate to keep someone in the court system and refuse bail.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Leader of the Opposition on one call to order.

Mr WHELAN: If a judge or magistrate decides to let a person out on bail on various conditions, that is a matter for the judiciary, not for the Minister for Police.

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

Mr WHELAN: It is not a matter for the Minister for Police, it is a matter for the court. It is a matter for the judiciary, judges and magistrates, not a matter for the Commissioner of Police.

Mr CRITTENDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation. What action is the Government taking to develop sports coaching facilities across New South Wales?

Ms HARRISON: This is an important question for the sporting community of New South Wales. After our athletes, the standard of coaching is arguably the single most important factor contributing to an athlete’s success. In recognition of this the Government is committed to a program of expanding the operations of the State coaching centre and the coach education programs of regional offices of the Department of Sport and Recreation. The purpose of the centre is to co-ordinate the delivery of coach education programs throughout New South Wales on behalf of the department and to provide an extensive range of services to a number of client groups. Those groups include coaches and potential coaches at all levels of sport, State sporting organisations, other high performance coaches throughout New South Wales and Australia, the Sydney Academy of Sport staff and other departmental agencies involved in coach development, and coaches involved in the Sydney academy and regional academy of sport athlete development programs.

The centre is part of a national network of coaching centres linked to the Australian Coaching Council and plays a part in the overall national approach to the development of coaching. My department utilises the expertise of the sports science staff and other sports professionals involved with the Sydney Academy of Sport, the New South Wales Institute of Sport and State sporting organisation programs to provide coaches with up-to-date information and practical advice on issues such as coaching, nutrients, training and psychology. The Sydney academy also operates a sports information centre, which has direct links to the National Sports Information Centre at the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra.

The sports information centre services a wide range of coaches, my department’s regional offices and their clients, together with students from across the State. Many of the centre’s programs and services are conducted at the Sydney academy and utilise the various facilities available there, including the sports science laboratories, the sports medicine clinic, accommodation and the academy’s sporting
Page 1772
facilities. The State coaching centre has also established a coaching directors’ committee, made up of representatives from all major stakeholder groups, to assist with the determination of the strategic direction for coaching development in New South Wales and to provide a consultation forum. In addition to the work of the centre, the Government has provided considerable funding to subsidise general coaching courses. These funds are designed to allow many volunteer coaches to complete their coaching principles courses. This is another way in which the Government recognises the efforts of the thousands of volunteer coaches across a whole range of sports at all levels and the critical need to assist them to advance their coaching knowledge.

As part of this process the Government has expanded the number of places available in correspondence courses as a means of reaching more rural and outer metropolitan coaches. Whilst New South Wales has the highest number of accredited coaches of any State - almost 10,000 as at June this year - we will not rest on our laurels but will continue to pursue the cause of further education for all our coaches. I have spoken previously in the House about other important initiatives of the Government in the area of coach education and development. In particular, I remind honourable members of the announcements I made recently regarding extensive assistance from the Government to encourage the development and training of coaches from two groups within our society which have not received adequate levels of assistance over the years - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups and, of course, women. The Government is determined to continue to enhance coaching knowledge and experience throughout New South Wales to provide an overall sporting environment second to none in this country. The Government’s programs are visionary and innovative, and will quickly show the benefits of a comprehensive and committed approach to improving the quality of this State’s coaching ranks.

Mr SOURIS: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. What limitations has the Government in place to restrict bail for people charged with sexual offences against children? Is it correct that bail is sometimes granted to individuals facing multiple charges?

Mr CARR: This is a matter for the judiciary.

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

Mr CARR: It is no secret that my Government has disagreed time and again with decisions made by judges.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Vaucluse to order for the third time. I place the Deputy Leader of the National Party on one call to order.

Mr CARR: Isn’t it great that the Deputy Leader of the National Party is a qualified accountant! Someone told me he has several accountancy degrees. Someone said he has more degrees than a thermometer. Imagine what a dud he would have been without those qualifications. A little lecture in civics -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party will remain silent. I place the honourable member for Davidson on two calls to order.

Mr CARR: The judiciary in our system is independent of the executive arm of government.

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

Mr CARR: It is no secret that from time to time my Government has disagreed with decisions made by judges in courts.

Mr D. L. Page: You have changed the legislation.

Mr CARR: It is not a matter of changing the legislation; it is a matter of changing the Constitution. When the coalition was in government time and again courts made decisions that honourable members opposite had to live with.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I place the Leader of the National Party on four calls to order but I will disregard an earlier one. Let that be a warning to other honourable members.

Mr CLOUGH: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister give details of the results of the recent rural lands protection boards elections?

Mr AMERY: I should like to acknowledge the efforts of the honourable member for Bathurst as the chairman of the task force that immediately after Labor came to government reviewed the Coopers
Page 1773
and Lybrand report which set in train the review of rural lands protection boards. As a result of the quadrennial elections held for the now 48 rural lands protection boards in New South Wales, which were concluded on 15 October, considerable improvement has been made in the number of women elected to seats on rural lands protection boards.

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

Mr AMERY: When I became Minister, of the 456 directors of rural lands protection boards only 11 were women.

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

Mr AMERY: I inform the honourable member for Bathurst that at last month’s election of 386 directors 34 women were elected. There are 18 more women on rural lands protection boards than there are Liberals voting for the Leader of the Opposition. In addition, the number of people voting for the Leader of the Opposition is falling, but the number of women elected to such boards will continue to increase. I am proud of the continuing review of rural lands protection boards. As a result of the changes, the number of boards has been reduced from 57 to 48.

Mr Chappell: It was forced.

Mr AMERY: There were no forced amalgamations. I have accepted the recommendations of the governing body of the rural lands protection boards, the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards. More reform is on the way: new legislation is to come before the House to ensure that voting procedures are reformed to allow all family members to take part in elections. The recent election was significant for rural lands protection boards because it set the scene for a more dynamic and relevant future for the board system. The most significant result to come from the election is the number of women elected as directors. I am proud of that position. When I became Minister women had only 2.4 per cent representation on the boards, which has been increased to 9 per cent - and more positions will be filled by women in the future. Female members were not elected to the boards until 1979.

The Government is proud of the dramatic increase in the participation of women in the decision-making process. I pay credit to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women, who contributed significant funds from her portfolio to promote the involvement of women on boards, which resulted in this pleasing outcome. I also congratulate Cathy Seleiki, who prepared a video to raise the profile of rural lands protection boards and to promote their involvement throughout the State. Women have had little representation on these boards in the past. The Government believes that through continued promotion it will significantly increase the number of women on boards - I still consider 9 per cent representation to be insufficient. Boards are more representative of the community and better able to perform their important tasks with female members. Another significant outcome of the election was the increase in the number of nominations for positions as directors, from both men and women.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Northern Tablelands will cease interjecting.

Mr AMERY: Members of the National Party usually ask questions about roads in Rockdale, the M5, the M2 tunnel and other roads in Sydney. As I was saying, another significant outcome of the election was the continued interest in the board system. For example, the Gloucester board had its first election in more than 24 years and the Balranald board had its first election in 12 years. The high degree of apathy in many boards has been reduced by the increased publicity given to the reforms of the rural lands protection boards.

Mrs Skinner: What about Merriwa and Tenterfield? Does the Minister even know where they are?

Mr AMERY: The voice of the honourable member for North Shore would not go well on easy-listening radio, would it? Can honourable members imagine Bob Rogers playing an Elvis song and then her voice following it? She should stay off Radio 2CH. Mr Speaker, after you removed the honourable member for Ermington from the Chamber yesterday a young boy in the gallery said to his father, "Dad, when I grow up I want to be like Michael Photios." His father replied, "Sorry, son, you can’t have it both ways." I take this opportunity to thank the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards for its work in developing and implementing the reforms. I acknowledge the work of the former chairman, Mr Peter Merton, who was not re-elected to the Balranald board. The State council and the board system will benefit from the work of Peter Merton. Although I believe that 34 women elected to the boards is not enough, it is a significant improvement on the number of women previously elected to the boards.

Page 1774

Mr CLOUGH: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s answer, will he outline the attitude of the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards with regard to the amalgamations?

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. Under the standing orders, a supplementary question must arise out of the answer given by the Minister. The honourable member for Bathurst has asked a question about the attitude of the Minister to a new matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member for Gosford spent less time talking to his colleagues and more time listening to the Minister’s answer he would have heard him refer to the amalgamations. The supplementary question is in order.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. Mr Speaker, when I was on my feet, at your call, the Minister for the Environment made an obscene and indecent remark. I ask her to withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair was paying strict attention to what the honourable member for Gosford was saying, and that is all the Chair heard in terms of a response from any member.

Mr Armstrong: On the point of order. The question of the honourable member for Bathurst calls for an opinion. Question time is for information, not opinions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has already ruled on that point of order.

Mr Kerr: On a point of order. The honourable member for Gosford said that he was offended by the remarks made by the Minister for the Environment. Mr Speaker, I appreciate that you did not hear her remarks. However, you can ask the Minister whether she made such remarks and what they were.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has already ruled on that matter.

Mr AMERY: At no time have I, as Minister, or the department had maps drawn up for the new rural lands protections board boundaries. A task force chaired by the honourable member for Bathurst made a number of recommendations, one of which was that each board in New South Wales, with the exception of the Western Division Rural Lands Protection Board, should employ one veterinary officer, and must come under the authority of the Auditor-General.

A number of boards discussed amalgamation with their neighbours because of their overheads. As a result of the report of the task force the State Council of Rural Lands Protection Boards was given the opportunity to discuss the role of amalgamation with a number of boards. The State council recommended to me that a number of boards, including Tenterfield and Merriwa, be amalgamated. At no time did the State council change that recommendation. It received a response as a result of a special conference. In answer to the honourable member for Bathurst, the amalgamations have taken place and many of the new boards have been established. The boards have a positive attitude. The State council did the right thing in recommending the rationalisation of a number of boards, and the Government was pleased to accept its recommendations.

Questions without notice concluded.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [3.31 p.m.]: I said on Tuesday, in answer to a question by the honourable member for East Hills about the Blackmarket hotel, that I would inform the House if any additional information became available to me. I have been advised that the licensee of the hotel has given an undertaking to close the hotel for one week. My director applied to the court for a ruling that the premises not be permitted to trade for one week, until 4.00 p.m. next Thursday. That application was granted.

Two applications are before the court, one by my director of compliance and one by police. The application by the director of compliance is that the premises be closed for a period in addition to the one week that the court has granted, to allow the director to further investigate the issue. The application by police is also that the premises be closed for a period. The matters will be listed for mention at 10.00 a.m. next Monday. The director of compliance will seek a hearing of the matter during that week, before the expiry of the one week’s closure.

Page 1775

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [3.32 p.m.]: I ask that my motion be given urgent consideration because I believe the process of reconciliation in this State and in this country is of paramount interest to many people. In the last few weeks Pat Dodson has resigned from the council, and the Government has shown a lack of support by not reappointing him.

Mr Souris: On a point of order. After half a minute the honourable member has not stated why his motion is urgent. A member seeking urgency should explain why his motion is urgent.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair’s attention was devoted to the Leader of the Opposition, who was seeking advice on another matter. However, I know that the Deputy Leader of the National Party would never utter anything but the truth in this House, and I therefore uphold the point of order.

Mr MARKHAM: I assure the House that this is a very important issue. That is why the House should grant urgency to my motion.

Mr Fraser: On a point of order. Whilst this issue may be important to the honourable member for Keira, he must show the House why it is urgent. Every matter that is raised in this House is important, but he must show urgency.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the member has finished his contribution.

Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan - Leader of the National Party) [3.33 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because in August 1996 the Premier promised that any major changes proposed by government departments to rural New South Wales will be subject to a rural communities impact statement. My motion is urgent because it is now November, and although the Premier was forced into making the announcement -

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. The standing orders are quite clear. The Leader of the National Party must establish why his motion is more important than that of the previous speaker. He has no right to go into the substance of the debate, no matter what happened previously. It has nothing to do with the urgency motion.

Mr ARMSTRONG: On the point of order. The honourable member for Londonderry has made a cogent point in terms of the propriety of this House, but he fails to recognise that while we have agricultural cutbacks -

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

Mr ARMSTRONG: The honourable member is accusing me of not outlining my case.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the National Party was speaking about urgency, and I rule him in order.

Mr ARMSTRONG: My motion deserves urgent consideration because since the Premier’s announcement the Government has shown no sign of letting up on rural New South Wales. It is urgent so that there is no suspicion that the alleged rural community impact statements are pure political fiction. It is urgent because the people of New South Wales believe they have been left out. It is urgent because country people believe the Government does not understand the impact of its policies on rural New South Wales. It is urgent because of the drop in services to country people in education, health and policing -

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. The standing orders are quite clear. It is not appropriate for the honourable member to say it is urgent before every point he makes. That does not establish why his motion is more important than that of the honourable member for Keira. He has to establish that his motion is more urgent than the motion of the honourable member for Keira. He is not entitled to say the word "urgent" before each point. He is delving into the substance of his debate. He must prove urgency over the previous motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member for Londonderry to the content of the urgency motion, which is very specific and covers five areas. I have listened to the honourable member closely, and on no occasion has he delved into detail in relation to any of those matters. There is no point of order.

Mr ARMSTRONG: Mr Speaker, you have ruled twice against the honourable member for Londonderry for taking frivolous points of order.
Page 1776
My motion is far more urgent than the motion of which the honourable member for Keira has given notice because the person to whom his motion refers will not resign until December. My motion deals with events that have actually happened. The impact has been felt across rural New South Wales and has resulted in the restructuring of many rural economies, particularly smaller towns with populations of fewer than 5,000 people. Rural road funding has been slashed by $50 million.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order.

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

[Time expired.]

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

The House divided.

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

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

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [3.47 p.m.]: I move:

That this House recognises the significant and valued contribution of Mr Patrick Dodson in his role as Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation since the council began its work in 1992 and regrets his departure, which is a loss to all Australians who share the council’s vision.

I should like to place that vision on the record as it guides all of the council’s endeavours. It states:

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

The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was formed by a unanimous vote of the Federal Parliament in 1991 to promote a process of reconciliation between indigenous Australians and the wider Australian community. The council commenced its operations in 1992 with Patrick Dodson as its inaugural chairman. The council has
Page 1777
many significant achievements and the direction and experience of Patrick Dodson have contributed enormously to its success. The council is committed to improving race relations in this country and to fostering an ongoing national commitment to address the social, economic and political disadvantages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Mr Dodson’s dedication to his task as chairman of the council is obvious. He was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and worked for a number of years with the church in the Northern Territory. He subsequently left the priesthood to work for the Central Land Council in Alice Springs, and in 1989 was appointed to assist the royal commission in investigating the underlying issues related to the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in custody. Prior to his appointment as Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation he was the director of the Kimberley Land Council in Western Australia. Patrick Dodson is actively involved in issues relating to the maintenance of his culture and language. His ideals are reflected in the aims of the council, which also aims to foster an appreciation by the wider Australian community of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and achievements and of the unique position of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as indigenous people of Australia. Eight key issues form the essential part of the reconciliation process. They are:

(1) Understanding the Country: The importance of land and sea in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies.

(2) Improving Relationships: Learning about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and the impact of past policies and attitudes on Indigenous peoples.

(3) Valuing Cultures: Valuing the diversity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures.

(4) Sharing History: Sharing all our history and acknowledging the past.

(5) Addressing Disadvantage: Understanding the disadvantages faced by Indigenous people and why they exist.

(6) Custody Levels: Understanding the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and addressing the need for reconciliation and cross party commitment to alleviate the disadvantage and lack of power of Indigenous Australians.

(7) Destiny: Greater opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to control their own destiny, and,

(8) Formal Document: An agreement on whether the process of reconciliation would be advanced by a document or documents of reconciliation.

I should like to mention two of the council’s many significant achievements. First, a number of major regional agreements have been signed between local government and local Aboriginal traditional owners. For example, the Lord Mayor of the City of Newcastle signed an agreement with the Awabakal people which recognised their prior ownership and disadvantage and undertook to improve relations between the two peoples. During the week of the Australian Reconciliation Convention, which was held in Melbourne in May, Wollongong City Council, which has responsibility for the area in which I live, also recognised the rights of the indigenous people of the Illawarra.

The second achievement I draw attention to is the importance and impact that the Australian Reconciliation Convention had on the Australian community. The council, under Patrick Dodson’s leadership, assembled a convention to enable a broad cross-section of Australians to review progress in the reconciliation process and to help it plan an agenda of achievable goals for the council’s final three-year term which is due to end on 1 July 2001, the centenary year of Federation. The convention was a landmark occasion that attracted national and international coverage. Participants represented the breadth and diversity of Australian life: indigenous communities, law, industry and business, the arts, education and health, politics and faith communities. Perhaps one of the most poignant moments of the convention - and there were many - was the closing ceremony. During that ceremony Patrick Dodson said that reconciliation is now a people’s movement. In an article on the front page of today’s Australian Mr Dodson is quoted as saying:

Now more than ever it has to be a people’s movement. Reconciliation will survive on that basis. Reconciliation relies on the people’s push.

Without the leadership and foresight of Patrick Dodson, the onus is on the people of this country to lead the reconciliation movement. I am concerned that the Australian people have lost the energy, foresight and drive of one of the great Australians of modern times. Patrick Dodson has indicated not only in words but in actions his commitment to his people, his culture and his land. But Patrick Dodson did not exclude ordinary Australians from his actions. He recognised that Australia is a multicultural country which is made up of people from different cultural backgrounds. He recognised that there was much to be done to bring about reconciliation in this country. He has been the driving force behind reconciliation in Australia for the past seven or eight years.

It saddens me greatly to know that Patrick Dodson can no longer work with the Federal Government because of the actions of that
Page 1778
Government during the past couple of years. The letter of resignation Patrick wrote to the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, John Herron, outlined those deep concerns. Anyone who has had anything to do with the indigenous people of this country knows full well that reconciliation is not only about Aboriginal people forgiving the Australian people for what has happened in the past 200 years. Reconciliation is about acknowledging the stolen generation and appreciating the indigenous people’s close association with the land. Patrick Dodson was shocked by some of the things that have occurred recently at the Federal level.

I have no doubt that it hurt him immensely to write to the Minister indicating that he could no longer serve as a statesman of this great country - the country of the indigenous people which we have been privileged to be part of. On numerous occasions when speaking to me Patrick Dodson has indicated that land is paramount to the indigenous races and tribes of this nation. Land has been their soul for 60,000 years or more. Patrick Dodson is one of this country’s great statesmen and it is a loss to every Australian that he is no longer the Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [3.57 p.m.]: The Opposition welcomes the opportunity to join with the Government in acknowledging the valued contribution of Patrick Dodson as chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and to support the expressions of regret at his departure from that position. I have had the pleasure of meeting Patrick Dodson on a number of occasions and have had the opportunity to hear him speak on many occasions. As the honourable member for Keira has indicated, for many years Patrick Dodson has been a great statesman for the cause of Aboriginal people and for reconciliation in Australia. In the past five years his particular focus has been as chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

The council is an indication of the developing maturity of Australia. The leaders - and they certainly are leaders - who have served on the council during its first five years have faced difficult hurdles. They have had to come to grips with difficult issues. Their efforts to bring to the wider Australian community the message of the need to reconcile Australians of indigenous background and of non-indigenous background have been groundbreaking. They have had to find a new way forward which will give more hope to Australia in the next 100 years.

It has been 209 years since Europeans came to Australia; 209 years since Aboriginal people, after 60,000 years of looking after Australia, had to accommodate to a totally different way of life in many parts of Australia and suffer the anguish of the impact of another civilisation on their civilisation and their longstanding occupation of this ancient land. It was 96 years ago that, in effect, six English colonies were brought together under the Australian Constitution. As shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs I express my disappointment that our Founding Fathers did not have the foresight then to bring the Aboriginal people to the table to consider what should be the future of Australia. As a result the Constitution does not contain a particular Aboriginal perspective. This is another time of change. We are about to take part in a constitutional referendum. I am sure that Patrick Dodson, along with many others, would take the view that it is time for Aboriginal people to sit around the table to consider and reflect on where the Australian Constitution should be heading.

I encourage all Australians in the current climate to think about voting for the Australian Reconciliation Group in the Constitutional election of 1997. That group consists of Linda Burney, Father Frank Brennan, Wendy McCarthy and Aden Ridgeway. I know two of those people personally and feel that it would offer hope for Australia and be a great step forward if Aboriginal people sat at the constitutional table. I am certain that it would carry on some of the work that Patrick Dodson has done in his five years on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

Patrick Dodson could be described in many ways. While the honourable member for Keira was speaking on this matter I sat on the Opposition benches writing a few words about what I thought about Patrick Dodson. To an extent he is larger than life. When speaking to him about Australian and Aboriginal concerns one feels that one must listen to his words and take in the truth of what he is saying. The words that I penned a few seconds ago state that to my mind Patrick Dodson is the public face of the council, the rock on which it has been built for the last five years. He is one of the principal beacons of light to which the eyes of all Australians desirous of reconciliation have turned in the infancy of the reconciliation process over the last five years. He is the personification of the wisdom and depth to be found in this ancient land of Australia and those born of its thousands of years of history.

Patrick Dodson is an artist: he can paint pictures with words, setting before us a magnificent
Page 1779
picture of what Australia should be in the next 209 years. I for one am very sorry that Patrick Dodson resigned from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation because he did not find it appropriate to continue in that position. I am certain that had he stayed he would have served the indigenous and non-indigenous communities very well for another term. In April 1996 he spoke to the National Press Club. When speaking to the journalists there he said:

I would really rather be out where the rivers join the sea, near my home town of Broome, in the country of my grandfather.

These are places to sit and think. Think about people, think about politics, think about the sort of country we are shaping.

Many Australians don’t know how to think themselves into the country, the land. They find it hard to think with the land. We Aboriginal people find it hard to think without the land.

A story to draw a picture: my grandfather taught me how to think about relationships by showing me places. He showed me where the creeks and rivers swirl into the sea. The fresh water meets the salt, the different worlds of ocean and river are mixing together. He showed me the foam and the turbulence, pointed to the eddies and swirling mud, the colours intermingling. And he showed me where it was always good to put a line into the water and wait for a feed.

The river is the river and the sea is the sea. Salt water and fresh, two separate domains. Each has its own complex patterns, origins, stories. Even though they come together they will always exist in their own right.

Patrick Dodson was painting that picture of his youth to tell us all as Australians what his hope for reconciliation is, and I am sure it still is today. The honourable member for Keira read the stated aims of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. We reflect upon them and share those aims. Patrick Dodson has been able to bring together the disparate interests of both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. He has painted a picture for Australians to help us understand the way forward for Australia. I share that vision with Patrick. I share the vision of an Australia that understands that we have had 60,000 years of history.

I share the hope that one day my children will be able to reflect on the fact that Australia's history extends not just for 209 years but far beyond most other histories in the world. I share the vision with Patrick Dodson that one day all Australians will understand the intrinsic worth of that history and understand the place of indigenous Australians in a future Australia. I encourage all other Australians, both indigenous and non-indigenous, to join in that vision and to join hands as we walk forward in the hope that we can all find a better Australia, an Australia that is a reflection of all the hopes and aspirations that Patrick Dodson has put before us in the last five years in his position as Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [4.07 p.m.]: Patrick Dodson is a truly great Australian. It is only fitting that the House, through this motion, formally recognises his significant and valuable contribution to our country in his role as Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. As the honourable member for Keira knows, Patrick Dodson is a Yawuru man who was born in Broome in Western Australia. He was raised at Katherine in the Northern Territory and educated at Monivae College in Victoria’s western district. He studied for the Roman Catholic priesthood, was ordained and worked for a number of years for the church in the Northern Territory. He subsequently left the priesthood to work for the Central Land Council in Alice Springs. In 1989 he was appointed to the royal commission to investigate the underlying issues relating to the disproportionate numbers of Aboriginal people dying in custody.

After the completion of the royal commission, Patrick Dodson returned to work with land issues as the Director of the Kimberley Land Council, before being appointed as Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1992. Throughout his term as chair Patrick Dodson walked the fine line that was implicit with the responsibilities of the position with great distinction. He, more than any other, has become the public face of reconciliation. In the words of Linda Burney reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 6 November 1997:

There is no other person, black or white, in this country who can lead the reconciliation process like him.

I believe it is a tragedy for Australia that Patrick Dodson has been effectively forced out of his position on the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. He has been forced out by a mean-spirited Prime Minister and his bemused and incompetent Aboriginal affairs Minister. While I believe his departure is a tragic episode for our nation, I was not really surprised by it. Australians generally have watched with an increasing sense of despair as John Howard has allowed our nation’s reputation for tolerance and fair play to go down the drain. As reported in the Australian Financial Review of 16 October 1997, Cheryl Kernot summed up the position as follows:

For 18 months I have watched as the Howard Government has allowed an agent of division to vilify and scapegoat black Australians and migrants under the cloak of free speech. We have all seen this do enormous damage to Australia’s standing in the rest of the world.

Page 1780

I firmly believe the Howard Government has demonstrated itself to be a new government, shackled by old ideas. Its policy approach has been a patchwork of mediocrity and confusion.

Its economic prescriptions still look to Margaret Thatcher for their inspiration. Its political response in so many areas is the cynical, time-honoured, conservative appeal to the lowest common denominator, willing to exploit, in my view, the worst in people.

But, over and above all this, to me this Government’s key crime is not its list of incompetent ministers fallen by the way, its blind eye to racism, its pettiness. It simply lacks any vision about the future direction of the country.

The Government’s pathetic lack of vision upsets me too. No wonder good and decent people despair and worry about the future, about what sort of a nation we are becoming and where Australia is heading. John Howard put the writing on the wall last May at the Australian Reconciliation Convention in Melbourne. Who will ever forget the emotion, the goodwill and the high sense of expectation of that occasion. But while everyone else had a great sense of that occasion - its significance for the success of the reconciliation process - it took the Prime Minister of Australia to raise the spectre of guilt and vision. He ranted and raved in his advocacy of his dismal 10-point plan, giving a clear signal that he did not have within him the capacity to simply apologise on behalf of the nation for the deprivation and destruction caused to Aborigines by past and present generations. Such was his effect on the audience that many stood and turned their backs on him.

Throughout his time as Chair of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Patrick Dodson continually stressed that reconciliation is a process that can succeed only if the whole nation embraces it. Clearly, the Prime Minister does not embrace it. The refusal to reconsider Patrick Dodson’s reappointment and the threats to conduct a Federal election with race as the main theme are but two of the latest examples of the Prime Minister’s callous disregard for the damage he is doing to Australia and Australia’s international reputation. The cause of reconciliation has suffered a very serious setback as a result of Patrick Dodson’s departure from the council, and the temperature in the race debate has been increased. The Governor-General recognises this, as he was recently reported in the media when he made a heartfelt plea over the proposed Wik legislation. The departure of Patrick Dodson as Chair of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is a loss to all Australians. He is a man of energy, foresight and drive. His sense of logic and justice for his people and the manner in which this is expressed have ensured his status as one of Australia’s great statesmen.

Ms FICARRA (Georges River) [4.12 p.m.]: The coalition also recognises the significant and valued contribution by Patrick Dodson in his role as Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation since the council began its work in 1992. The coalition regrets his departure from the council and agrees that it is a significant loss for all Australians who share the council’s vision, which reads:

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

This is not just a catchcry; it is something that every level of government and every community within Australia should be striving towards. The coalition would also like to pay tribute to the Hon. Ian Viner, one of the past Ministers for Aboriginal affairs in the Fraser Government. The shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs also wishes to pay tribute to the great work on the council of Ian Viner, who is a great supporter of Patrick Dodson. It is a shame that we have a departure of minds such as Dodson’s and Viner’s, and the reconciliation process in Australia will be the poorer for it. Patrick Dodson has often stressed that reconciliation is a process that can succeed only if the whole nation embraces it. Reconciliation cannot be achieved by the council alone, nor by a select group of national leaders. It must have the support of Australia’s elected representatives. During 1996 the Federal Parliament, the parliaments of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, and the legislative assemblies of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory all passed motions in support of reconciliation. But there has to be more than just motions in this process: there has to be action and there must be sincerity.

At a State level the coalition implores its Federal counterparts to revisit this situation and to proceed with a more positive and sincere attitude. Reconciliation in Australia essentially depends on the ideas, efforts and goodwill of people in the community. If one ignores the controversial Federal debate going on at this moment over Wik, Mabo and native title, communities are producing positive outcomes at local, regional and national levels, where projects are being developed by schools, local councils, churches, businesses and individuals. These projects range from art displays to employment programs, study circles and written agreements involving service providers at the level of health services and housing services. This is the sort of process that must continue.

I acknowledge the positive attitude shown by the honourable member for Keira. The New South
Page 1781
Wales Government and the New South Wales coalition have always dealt with this process of Aboriginal reconciliation in a bipartisan, sincere and positive manner, and we have been involved in workshops throughout the State. As the honourable member for Keira will recall, I visited four Aboriginal workshops in Tamworth with him, when I really got to know what is important to the people out there on the land: the provision of health services, better housing and more employment opportunities for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. These are the issues that are often forgotten about when controversial issues such as Mabo, Wik and native title are discussed, and people ask why their real concerns are not listened to. Of course, native title is very important; it is at the forefront of what is important to Aborigines. In conclusion I would like to quote some of the words of Patrick Dodson in his address to the Press Council in April 1996. He said:

Reconciliation, to be effective and lasting, has to take on board the lessons of history and tackle a broad agenda. We can’t pick and choose which aspects we’ll accept and which we won’t.

If we support reconciliation, if we respect indigenous culture, then we must respect also their relationship to land, from which every element of pride flows to us.

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville) [4.17 p.m.]: It is a great privilege for me to speak in support of this urgency motion that recognises the work of a great Australian, Mr Patrick Dodson. He has provided a critically important role over the past five years as Chairperson of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, during a time of great uncertainty, turmoil and often, unfortunately, bitterness. He has guided the council, his people and the Australian community through the Mabo decision and its legislative response, the report on the stolen generation and its legislative response, the obscenity of the meteoric rise of Pauline Hanson, and the early stages of the Wik debate.

Any of those issues, but especially the Mabo legal and legislative earthquake, had the potential to cause overwhelming bitterness and dispute in the community. One reason they did not was because of the thoughtful, controlled leadership provided by Mr Pat Dodson. He has done this nation a great service. Mr Dodson is only one of a group of wonderful Aboriginal leaders who are working in the service of reconciliation. Honourable members know the names of Mick Dodson, Noel Pearson, Lois O’Donoghue, Gatjil Djerrkura and Aden Ridgeway, but there are hundreds of other good-hearted, hardworking indigenous people throughout this nation who have been inspired by Pat and his work on the council. Those Aboriginal people and the hundreds of thousands of non-Aboriginal Australians concerned over the issue of reconciliation have been very disturbed and disappointed at the loss of Pat Dodson from the position of Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. However, those disappointed people are aware of the great pressures on Pat in recent years and have an understanding of the step that he was forced to take.

Pat Dodson realised that if his role as Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was to have continuing meaning, he had to take a stance against recent trends in Aboriginal relations caused by the Howard Government. After serious consideration he declined reappointment, and this is a great tragedy for reconciliation. In his letter of resignation he eloquently outlined his reasons and his reasoning deserves to be made clear today. He said:

Given the enthusiasm that had been demonstrated during the first four years of the Council’s existence by Government and Opposition alike it has been extremely worrying to have watched the present Government actively pulling apart the delicate threads of Reconciliation that many Australians have been weaving into a beautiful garment. The attempt to diminish the status and rights of Aboriginal people in this country will not see history record great praise of this period.

Budget cuts merely make life difficult and can be dealt with, but when Governments reject out of hand opportunities to act with magnanimity I am anxious for the spirit of our nation. When the recommendations on Social Justice that the Council and ATSIC presented to the Parliament after a major national consultation with the Australian community, the Government chose not to act. When the Government deems it anathema to apologise to the Stolen Generations and their families how are their cries for peace to be met. When the Government believes that the High Courts recognition of Native Title in the common law and recognition of concurrent and coexisting rights with pastoralist on pastoral leases is a case of the pendulum swinging to far in favour in Indigenous Australians I am astonished. How can indigenous Australians who have been dispossessed by the myth of Terra Nullius for two hundred years ever trust in knowing lasting justice. If the Governments vision of justice is restricted to one that is relevant to itself, I despair for my country and regret the ignorance of the political leaders who do not appreciate what is required to achieve true Reconciliation for us as a nation.

All thinking Australians should be devastated by Pat’s decision and the reasons he was forced to take it. It is not often that one person is critical to a process. Patrick Dodson is an exception. Accordingly, I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Federal Government to reconsider their approach to Aboriginal reconciliation. The first step would be to embrace Patrick Dodson’s offer to return to the council. Patrick Dodson has demonstrated an overwhelming dignity and tolerance in his leadership. At times that must have been sorely tested. He will continue to provide leadership and
Page 1782
vision for the way forward wherever he serves his people. It is essential for our future as a nation that the Federal Government recognises that vision and stops its headlong rush towards racial conflict and division. The Australian this morning quoted Pat as saying, "Now more than ever it has to be a people’s movement." I pray that the Australian people will take note of the vision that Patrick Dodson has given and will react in a positive way to the need for reconciliation.

Mr MARKHAM (Keira) [4.22 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members representing the electorates of Wakehurst, Rockdale, Georges River and Gladesville for participating in the debate. All speakers referred to the respect for Patrick Dodson that is reflected throughout the Australian community. Patrick Dodson has the respect of all leaders of State and Territory governments but the Prime Minister does not share the same respect that has been shown by this Parliament. I am sure that the vast majority of members of this House share that respect for Pat Dodson. The honourable member for Gladesville mentioned the letter written by Patrick Dodson to John Herron on 30 October when he indicated to the Federal Government that he could no longer hold that position because of the Federal Government’s actions. He said in part:

Over the last few weeks I have sought to gain some sense of the Governments vision of what might be achievable in the final three years of the formal Reconciliation process. The meeting with yourself and the Prime Minister in August and two subsequent meetings with yourself and the deputy of the Council Mr Ian Viner -

who I believe has also played a magnificent role in reconciliation in this country -

on October 15 and ATSIC Chairman Mr Gatjil Djerrkura on October 27 have given me no confidence that either yourself as Minister or Mr Howard as the Prime Minister understand or appreciate the significance of the matters that give rise to the discord and division that continue to exist between us. I am left with no sense of commitment from yourselves that significant progress will be made on such matters. I therefore do not have the necessary confidence to undertake the chairmanship of the Council in its final three years.

We will all live to regret that Patrick has been forced to write a letter in such strong terms and with such a commitment to his people. He feels he has been let down badly. It is not governance that will bring about the real process of understanding, respect and reconciliation but the majority of people at the grassroots level, the ordinary people, as they learn and understand what has happened to Aboriginal people in this country over the last 209 years. It is also what we, as politicians, can learn and gain from them. That is what will drive reconciliation, though the task will be just that little bit more difficult. Honourable members made mention of the many great Aboriginal leaders, and those people will not let the movement flounder.

However, I believe that the impetus that Patrick Dodson gave to reconciliation in this country has been severely restricted; in fact, a blow has been dealt. Patrick Dodson is a man of vision and compassion. He is respected and admired in both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal world. His logic and sense of justice for his people have caused him to be recognised as one of Australia’s greatest statesmen. He has gained the respect of many people. Even those opposed to the things he stands for cannot disagree that he is an honest, open, sincere and genuine Australian. If more leaders in this country had his intestinal fortitude, the country would be a far better place to live and the problems faced by Aboriginal communities in their daily lives would be resolved much more quickly.

Motion agreed to.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [4.27 p.m.]: I ask that the House note as a matter of public importance the role of government in regional development. This is the first occasion on which I have presented a matter of public importance before the House. Today we have seen game playing in the House in relation to regional and country matters. Many members of Parliament, people in country areas and I view the growth of regional communities as important, and the Government has a role to play in this regard. I wish to explore the roles that governments of either political persuasion can play in the development of country New South Wales. I am pleased that the honourable member for Clarence - the Minister-in-waiting for regional development - is in the Chamber. I presume that he will speak to this issue on behalf of the Government. I hope that he will give us an overview of what he intends to do when he becomes a Minister. He has a lot of catching up to do in the delivery of the Government’s commitments to country New South Wales. I wish the honourable member well in his exploits as Minister. I hope that he will deliver on some of the initiatives proposed by the Government.

I believe, as many people in country New South Wales do, that the Government has a role to play in the delivery to country people not only of private sector but public sector amenities and facilities. During question time today the Premier raised the employment predicament faced by people
Page 1783
in the Griffith area. On many occasions, both in the House and in country areas, the Premier has made commitments to country New South Wales. He has used words well, but he has failed to follow them through. For example, the Premier spent a lot of time last year, particularly in response to initiatives of the country summit, suggesting that the role of government was to create an economic environment of which the private sector could take advantage in order to grow. That was his vision for job creation in country New South Wales. He downplayed the role of the Government’s provision of services and people to country communities, saying that it was a secondary function of government. I agree with the way that the Premier arranged his priorities.

Only yesterday the delivery of private sector investment to the country was thwarted by the Government - I refer to the delivery of the State Transit Authority bus contract, by way of tender, to the firm Custom Coaches in western Sydney. The current STA contract is being fulfilled by Austral Pacific, a company located in Tamworth. The Minister for Transport, various other Ministers, Government members and bureaucrats have visited the facility at Tamworth and complimented it on its work on the buses. A tendering process took place for this contract. I am led to believe that the tender of the Tamworth company was much cheaper than the tender of the company that won the contract. I am led to believe that politics were played in the delivery of the contract. I am also led to believe that the company that will be fulfilling the contract will be importing part-completed chassis from overseas and will carry out some panelling, glass and seat fitting. That process would be different if the buses were to be built by other companies in New South Wales.

The awarding of that contract sends a twofold message to the community: first, we are looking at importing a near-finished product and beefing it up to put it on the market; and, second, we are accepting higher-priced contracts because of the politicisation of the delivery of the contract. The politicisation of the contract flies in the face of some of the words of the Premier. I do not mind if governments of the day make a political decision to locate a business in a particular area - all honourable members know that western Sydney has great employment problems. However, some people wander around the country saying that they will encourage private sector developments and that the private sector is the way to go to create jobs. I hope that the honourable member for Clarence does not do that when he is Minister. Between 50 and 60 jobs will be transferred out of a country town into western Sydney, and that flies in the face of commitments given by the Premier.

This is a classic example in which the Government could have quite legitimately promoted a country business. There were no problems with the economics of the deal or with the tendering process. There were no problems with the quality of the product - no-one has ever suggested that the quality of the product made by the company is substandard. This is a classic example of a tender being accepted for political reasons, which flies in the face of the Premier’s commitments to country communities. The political decision will have some implications for people involved in the bus industry. On another level, in relation to the role of the Government providing public sector jobs - I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr Acting-Speaker, because this example reflects on your electorate of Bathurst - FreightCorp has undertaken a review of staff in country locations.

The review has recommended that rostering staff be removed from the community of Lithgow; a community in my electorate, Werris Creek; and the communities of Junee, Parkes, Goulburn and Port Kembla North, and relocated in Parramatta. I do not have a problem with a government making such a decision. However, I have a problem when Ministers and the Premier say the opposite when they are in country areas. The technology that has driven centralisation can drive decentralisation. Perhaps the honourable member for Clarence could consider that issue. The people who are rostering at the moment can do so as well from Lithgow and Werris Creek as they can from Parramatta. The underlying problem faced by the Government is that it has no real plan in relation to regional communities, or in relation to the problems created socially and environmentally in the western Sydney basin. It is feeding the problem that may deliver it seats in western Sydney, but it is delivering a great deal of hardship to the people who live in that environment. This issue will plague the Government for quite some time. I believe that the honourable member for Wagga Wagga will speak about the delivery of education to rural New South Wales.

I refer to a document that was recently released by the Auditor General’s Office, which I will speak to in my reply to the debate. Occasionally people are found out when decisions made on economic grounds are revisited - there is an audit of the decision-making process and an assessment of the delivery or non-delivery of the intended savings.

Page 1784

Mr WOODS (Clarence) [4.37 p.m.]: I acknowledge the real concern of the honourable member for Tamworth for rural and regional affairs. The role of government in regional development and regional affairs in New South Wales and Australia is an interesting subject. Day in and day out members of the Opposition list the problems that are experienced in country areas. I do not want to belittle those problems, but solutions are hard to find. The causes of the problems are many and varied. In recent years the country has suffered from the consequences of drought and high interest rates, and in the last 20 years or more there has been a diminution of our trading ability, especially with regard to commodities.

Also in more recent times the economic rationale that has been in the ascendancy has been that resources should be distributed where the market demands that they go. It is important to canvass that issue, and at some stage I would like to talk to the honourable member for Tamworth further about it, but I will make a few comments now. When honourable members talk about the role of government they are all likely to make motherhood statements that are meaningless without action or will. It all relates to one’s philosophies and beliefs about the way the economy should or could work. I suppose the genesis of that argument goes back 100 years or more; it is the old argument between the free market and the interventionist government.

I know that members of the National Party will disagree with me, but I would argue that economic rationalism, that free market philosophy, comes through time and again with coalition governments. Although members of the National Party may say something quite different, they are powerless to effect it. That is apparent in a million ways. The Federal Government has an obsession with the budget. I am not saying that governments should not be responsible in a budgetary sense. Labor governments have also taken that approach from time to time, but in a philosophical way Labor governments and members of the Labor Party are far more likely to be interventionist than are coalition governments. It is far easier for us. That is a strong basis for the argument that this Government has the will, the philosophy and the belief to do what is necessary in a strategic sense, bearing in mind budget responsibilities, to address some of these problems.

The problems are wide and varied. They relate to jobs and commodity prices, but in essence I am referring to economic growth that will provide those jobs. The problem is twofold. The economic growth in recent years has varied from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, or figures of that magnitude. Even at 4 per cent that economic growth would not provide a national reduction in unemployment figures. Absolute growth needs to be higher than 4 per cent if there is to be national economic growth in Australia, reduced unemployment, and increased opportunities for business and industry. That is not the only problem for regional and rural Australia, because that economic growth is not distributed equally across the country.

In general, there has been less economic growth in regional and rural Australia than there has been in urban areas. It is logical that regional and rural Australia will fall further behind with each year whilst that gap remains. It is not only important to increase the absolute national economic growth, but the gap between urban Australian growth and regional and rural Australian growth must be reduced. That issue is, in a way, more important to regional and rural Australia because year by year it will fall further behind unless the gap is diminished. Because of its belief in equality the Labor Party is far more suited to do that.

To back up that statement - and I realise no government is perfect - I remind honourable members that under Nick Greiner, a person whom I admire somewhat, the Government made cuts which decimated rural New South Wales. It abolished the payroll tax rebate for country New South Wales and cut railway services. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to May show that in 14 months John Howard has cut 28,700 jobs from the public sector. That means each and every day the Howard Government tells 100 people that they are not entitled to a job. Jobs have been lost in Lismore, Wagga Wagga, Tamworth and Orange because of the closure of taxation offices. John Howard has cut $150 million straight out of the regional development office, which has virtually eliminated the regional economic development organisations.

Regional economic development organisations were built on the concept that change should come from the community, the grassroots, and should not be imposed. And that would be the view of most thinking people. Those who know best the advantages, strengths and weaknesses of country towns are the people in those towns and regions. Unless we have the co-operation and support of those people in the regions, country towns will not be able to develop. The Federal Government did not want regional economic development organisations,
Page 1785
so it did away with them. Some still exist, but the money has gone and they do virtually nothing.

This Government has already relocated 450 public sector jobs to country areas - 240 in the Department of Land and Water Conservation, 140 in the Department of Agriculture and 70 in the Rural Assistance Authority. This Government is doing all it can for rural New South Wales. I readily accept that more needs to be done, as the honourable member for Tamworth said, but we need to be strategically selective, build on the strengths, and take notice of and work with local people. People must also stop exaggerating. I am not belittling the problem, but we should not play on it and tell people how crook things are, because there is a perception among city people that the country is not a good place to be.

A perfect example of that is what the Premier referred to in question time. The Government has stepped in and assisted Bartters to grow in the Riverina, but that area does not have a skilled work force. Often rural areas suffering high unemployment do not have a skilled work force, and that it is an impediment to growth. It is also an impediment if people are not keen and willing to go to those areas. I want to expose those strengths and opportunities and be a bit upbeat about it. I think Australia has a great future. We are entering an era of what could be called the information technology revolution. If we have the right public policies we will overcome many of the impediments that have been in existence for years. It is up to governments such as this State Government, which has the philosophies and beliefs, to provide for a planned and co-ordinated expansion of information technology throughout country New South Wales. [Time expired.]

Mr SCHIPP (Wagga Wagga) [4.47 p.m.]: Since the 1995 State election country people have been reeling from government policies - a matter to which I will refer later because of my own experience at Wagga Wagga. I congratulate the honourable member for Tamworth on raising this matter of public importance. The honourable member for Clarence, who will soon be appointed to a ministerial position, gave us a general outline of his concerns and understanding of the problems confronting regional New South Wales, but he did not give us any answers. I am not criticising him for that but I hope that, over time, he gives us some answers and does not refer only to the problems of which we are all aware. The honourable member for Tamworth and I have for a long time been on the front foot in regard to rural issues. One of the most progressive cities in this State is located in my electorate. The tripartite agreement between Tamworth, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga sent a signal to everyone that regional communities can work together in a competitive field in a way that they have never been able to before. The tripartite agreement between those three cities has worked wonders.

I refer to the serious matter raised earlier by the honourable member for Tamworth relating to the bus contract that was not awarded to a company located in Tamworth, even though it was the lowest tenderer. The member for Tamworth should refer that issue either to the Auditor-General or to the Council on the Cost of Government. A company that has a great record is providing the sort of service that is required by the Government but, for political reasons, the Government did not accept its tender. That is exactly the sort of matter that should be referred to the Council on the Cost of Government. The Auditor-General has referred in his reports to the fact that governments have done things that are not in the best interests of taxpayers. The Government must address the serious issue raised earlier today by the honourable member for Tamworth. Today the Premier, when answering a good question asked by the honourable member for Clarence, made an announcement regarding the Bartters operation. However, sadly, throughout his answer he made jokes about a number of matters.

The honourable member for Clarence asked the Premier about job creation and the Premier said that 930 jobs had been created and that money had been set aside for the necessary road infrastructure. The Government cannot create 930 jobs using a multiplier of three - in other words, an additional 3,000 people - without providing additional educational facilities and health services. Health services in country areas and throughout Australia are in crisis. I hope that the creation of those 930 jobs will not disrupt country areas and place stress on existing resources. I welcome the allocation of additional resources to the regional road structure. The former Government allocated additional resources for the construction of a road between Junee and Wagga Wagga to overcome some of the problems that occurred as a result of cutbacks to rail services. Unfortunately, that road has not been completed; it requires an additional allocation of $1 million. One travels on that gravel road at one’s peril. I invite the honourable member for Clarence, when he is sworn in as a Minister of this Government, to look at the economic value of that road. Unemployed people at the industrial estate at Junee could be usefully employed on such work.

Mr Martin: They are railway workers.

Page 1786

Mr SCHIPP: They are skilled people. People should lobby hard for the completion of the road between Tumut and Yass, which will provide direct access to Canberra. A number of things could be done. I am sorry that the honourable member for Clarence introduced politics into this debate. We must determine this matter from a country perspective and should not concentrate on the negative aspects.

Mr WINDSOR (Tamworth) [4.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Clarence and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga for their contributions to debate on this matter of public importance. I listened with interest to the contribution of the honourable member for Clarence and agree with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga. The honourable member for Clarence outlined the broad parameters within which we operate. However, I was disappointed that he did not highlight any positive solutions. The only positive thing he said was that the new technological age into which we are moving should be seen as an advantage to country locations rather than as a disadvantage. The new technological age will remove distance as an impediment to growth. The State and Federal governments can do a number of things in the provision of communications systems, the cost of those systems and the equity of access to those systems for the benefit of country communities.

The State Government could be doing far more for country commuters under the proposed new regime. Even though there is a degree of overlap between the Federal and State governments, a committed State government and Minister would receive support in this area. Governments cannot keep blaming the problems being experienced in rural New South Wales on the drought and interest rates. A number of members of this House tend to believe that country New South Wales is made up purely of farmers. That is not correct. In fact, regional communities have a tremendous number of positive things to offer the community. Governments of every political persuasion have not sent the correct signals to urban communities to inform them of the good things available in the community - the education systems, our infrastructure and even the air that we breathe. In answer to a question asked earlier by the member for Clarence, the Government can do a number of things to encourage business in this State. There are still impediments to business activity in the country, such as State and Federal taxation. Distance is still viewed as an impediment to growth and the development of businesses.

The honourable member for Clarence referred to the building up of a skills base in Griffith and in many other communities. That skills base is just not there. One of the areas in which I have been working hard, in concert with this Government and with the previous Government, is building up the fabrication business in Tamworth, whether it be through the provision of ambulances or buses, or building vehicles for the army, the navy, the air force and the airline industry. The decision taken by the Government a week or so ago did not take into account the work that has been done in this area. Over the last five years money has been spent on TAFE training courses and the skills and the infrastructure are available. The Government should deliver; it has been playing with words for far too long. It is up to the honourable member for Clarence, when he is appointed as a Minister, to deliver on these matters. I hope that he gets support from within the ministry when he has to make those sorts of decisions. At least the honourable member for Clarence understands the problems; most of his colleagues do not have a clue.

Mr Schipp: How much is it worth?

Mr WINDSOR: The tender was worth $115 million. I agree with the honourable member for Clarence that over the years neither side of Parliament has delivered to country New South Wales. There are tremendous opportunities for the political party that grabs country New South Wales by the throat. A third of the seats are in country New South Wales, as Mr Acting-Speaker would agree, and I note by his demeanour that he is paying attention to my contribution to the debate. Country New South Wales can determine who governs in this place. The country is represented by 32 lower House seats - one-third of the lower House. The country delivers two upper House seats to the ALP each election. Country people have a contribution to make, both in a productive sense and politically. If both sides continue to ignore that contribution, country New South Wales may have to make its own arrangements.

Discussion concluded.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [4.57 p.m.]: I move:

Page 1787

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow Government business to have precedence of business with precedence at this sitting and the taking of private members' statements forthwith.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [4.58 p.m.]: This is the second time in two days that the Government has sought to suspend standing and sessional orders and to deny members the right to follow the ordinary procedures of the House. The effect of the Minister's motion will be to ensure that two matters of business with precedence, both of which are motions of dissent from rulings from the Chair, are not debated by this House. Both of those motions are to be moved by me and I am here ready to move them. The Government pretends that Parliament does not have time to debate the Government’s agenda and then wastes time on pointless debates on motions to suspend standing and sessional orders. The real motivation for the Government is that it is not prepared to face up to issues such as motions of dissent from the rulings of, in this case, Mr Speaker. The notices of motions have been on the agenda for about two weeks. I gave notice of them before this House rose for the two-week adjournment at the end of October-early November. The Government is fully aware of the motions but is not prepared to debate them.

Mr Whelan: To debate the dissent motions?

Mr HARTCHER: Yes.

Mr Whelan: Just start.

Mr HARTCHER: The Government has a motion before the Chair.

Mr Whelan: Seeking leave to withdraw the motion until 5.15 p.m. would be a waste of time.

Mr HARTCHER: Exactly. The Minister for Police agrees with the point I am making.

Mr Whelan: That is why we want to bring on private members' statements. Have you now agreed to debate the dissent motions from 5.00 p.m. until 5.15 p.m.?

Mr HARTCHER: Yes.

Mr Whelan: What a ridiculous interruption.

Mr HARTCHER: When will my motions be heard?

Mr Whelan: You can have your dissent motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House dissents from the decision of Mr Speaker given on Tuesday, 14 October 1997, when he upheld points of order taken against the Leader of the Opposition while speaking to establish priority for consideration of an urgent motion pursuant to Standing Order 120.

Standing Order 120(4)(a) provides that members have five minutes to establish priority of their motion. There have been a number of rulings that members must seek to establish why their motion should have priority and must not debate the substantive motion. The Opposition understands those rulings. However, on 14 October a motion in relation to electricity privatisation was moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Willoughby. The Leader of the Opposition started at 3.32 p.m and after approximately 25 words he was interrupted by the honourable member for Londonderry. The Leader of the Opposition said:

In May 1995 the Premier said, "Let me say very firmly that there will not be privatisation of electricity under a Labor Government."

That is a simple quotation of what the Premier said which was relevant to the motion. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

Spot on. In fact, it is a line that we will pinch. This motion is urgent.

On the basis of those seven words the honourable member for Londonderry took a point of order, with which we are all familiar. Hansard records that the point of order went several sentences longer than the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution up until that time. The Leader of the Opposition had barely stated his motion when the long-winded point of order of the honourable member for Londonderry was taken and upheld by the Chair. You, Mr Speaker, said, "Order! I uphold the point of order." The point of order taken was that the Leader of the Opposition had to establish priority. But the Leader of the Opposition had only made one quotation and said, "Spot on. In fact, it is a line that we will pinch. This motion is urgent."

He was not even allowed to open his mouth to state the priority. He was not even allowed to enter into any debate about the priority of the motion. The Leader of the Opposition then proceeded to attempt to speak to the priority of his motion. He was allowed to say only what took up approximately
Page 1788
seven lines in Hansard to do so. Then the honourable member for Londonderry again rose to take a point of order, which once again was equal to the time taken to that stage by the Leader of the Opposition. The honourable member’s long-winded points of order are repeatedly tolerated by the Chair. After he took a third point of order, which once again went for the same length of time as the Leader of the Opposition had spoken, Mr Speaker, having allowed the honourable member for Londonderry to make a trivial series of remarks, said, "Order! The member will state the point of order."

So the Chair was indulging the honourable member for Londonderry, in a deliberate attempt to waste the limited amount of time allowed to the Leader of the Opposition. Five minutes was allocated to the Leader of the Opposition and at this stage Hansard records three paragraphs of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and three paragraphs of the comments of the honourable member for Londonderry on points of order. The member’s points of order were upheld in each case by the Chair. Hansard states:

Mr Gibson: That the Leader of the Opposition must prove why his motion is more important to be heard today than the Deputy Premier’s motion.

And the ruling was:

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

What was the point of order? The point of order was simply, repeated again and again, that the Leader of the Opposition must establish the priority of his motion. There was never an attempt to argue whether he was establishing priority, but simply a parrot-like repetition of a trivial phrase that the honourable member for Londonderry repeats every single day in this House, under instructions from his masters. His one contribution to debate in this Parliament, his one contribution to the Parliament at all - when he is not on overseas trips as chairman of the Staysafe committee - is to take, by arrangement, a point of order to interrupt Opposition members.

It is interesting that this member who is so concerned for the standing orders of the House never seeks to take a point of order when members from his side of the House are speaking to establish the priority of motions before the Chair. Accordingly, the issue is: was the Speaker in order in upholding the points of order moved by the honourable member for Londonderry? Standing Order 120(4)(a) clearly states that the member shall have five minutes in which to make a statement in support of his motion.

Having heard his statement in support of his motion, the House shall then adjudge whether he has established priority. The standing order clearly does not say that the member must simply argue all the time as to what the priority should be. It is for him to give a supporting statement so that the House can determine, each side having made a statement, which matter should be given priority. Standing Order 120 makes this clear distinction. The honourable member for Londonderry regularly says "the standing orders provide" but he would not even know the number of the standing order. He would not be able to read it or understand it unless it was presented in coloured pictures.

However, Mr Speaker, that is not the issue. The issue is that on that occasion - and I am not talking about other occasions - you repeatedly upheld the points of order of the honourable member for Londonderry, though there was no basis on which any reasonable person could determine that the Leader of the Opposition had strayed outside the provisions of Standing Order 120. Having dealt with the first point of order, I turn to the second one. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition had been allowed to speak for approximately one paragraph. He said, "It is urgent that the Premier put his views on the record in this Chamber." He was referring to the Premier’s views about electricity privatisation, the subject of the motion of which the Leader of the Opposition had given notice. That was what he was asking the House to do. He was saying that it was a matter of current interest, a matter of importance, a matter that involved the Government.

The Premier had been taking a very public stand yet had not been prepared to make any comment in the Parliament. He had not been prepared to face up to parliamentary scrutiny. The Leader of the Opposition was saying that it was urgent that the Premier put his views on the record in the Chamber. That matter goes to the very issue of establishing priority. The honourable member for Londonderry then raised a long-winded point of order which was upheld by the Chair. What is a person expected to do to establish priority under that form of ruling? Is a member expected to simply stand up and say, "I ask for priority for my motion" and then repeatedly read out the motion and repeatedly ask for it to be given priority? On any reasonable reading of the standing order he is entitled to make a statement. It should be so phrased that members, having heard it to completion, can make a reasonable judgment on the priority to be determined under the standing orders. That is what the Leader of the Opposition sought to do on that day. The way in which the Chair handled the trivial, irrelevant, time-wasting, narky interruptions by the
Page 1789
honourable member for Londonderry on that occasion means that the House cannot have confidence in the rulings by the Chair. Accordingly, the House should dissent from those rulings.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mrs Lo Po’.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

Ms ANDREWS (Peats) [5.13 p.m.]: This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, the oldest surf lifesaving club on the central coast. Although the club had been operating since approximately 1919, it was not until Sunday, 29 January 1922 that it was resolved to officially establish the Ocean Beach Woy Woy Surf Lifesaving Club. The first president of the club was Charles Staples and the first secretary was Wal Dawson, who also happened to be a past vice-captain of Coogee club. Wal Dawson was re-elected to the position in 1922 and 1923 and served as treasurer from 1923 to 1928, as captain in 1923-24 and as boat captain in 1928.

In the club’s 1996-97 annual report, in a special article marking the club’s first 75 years - I have drawn upon the article to assist me in making this statement - Mr Dawson was credited with establishing and maintaining Ocean Beach as a viable club. Charles Staples, the club’s first president, was also a long-serving councillor on Erina Shire Council, which in those days extended from Wyong to the Hawkesbury River. He was also the local coroner and held many honorary positions within local organisations on the Woy Woy peninsula. In the club’s formative years it had a close association with both the Freshwater and the Coogee surf lifesaving clubs. In fact, in the very early days Ocean Beach club members competed in Coogee caps, and the new club adopted as its colours the two blues of Coogee and the maroon of Freshwater.

Mick Green, the first life member of the club, was the owner of the new Ocean Beach hall in Trafalgar Avenue, which was used to run dances and other functions to raise funds for the fledgling club. While the club did not become official until 1922, history records that a "lifesaving demonstration" at Ocean Beach on 20 March 1920, conducted by visiting officials and lifesavers, was witnessed by "between two hundred and three hundred people". The exhibition was arranged by the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving and Recreation Club. On 6 December 1925 K. G. Henkel became the club’s first bronze medal recipient. He went on to become, on 4 April 1926, the club’s first member to receive his instructor’s certificate. Nine bronze medallions were awarded during the 1925-26 season. In the same season the club’s first surf boat, "Poipus", was launched on 26 December 1925. In the following season 10 members gained their bronze medallions.

As a clear demonstration of how this club has gone from strength to strength, in the 1996-97 season 17 members of the club gained their bronze medallions. I am very happy to inform Parliament that seven of them are young women. Fourteen members gained their surf lifesaving certificate, and again seven of them are female members. Those figures demonstrate the changing face of lifesaving in New South Wales: more and more women taking a very active role in the movement. Not content to be in the background rendering service to the club, the young women of today want to be out front competing with their male counterparts for the highest awards that the surf lifesaving movement has to offer. And the female members of the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club are certainly to the forefront in that area. I believe that healthy competition augurs well for the future of the club.

During the war years when so many members were called away to serve their country, women played a very important role in the club and were trained in the elementaries of resuscitation. They were given a special mention by the parents of a lad rescued during the 1944-45 season. Woy Woy was dropped from the club’s name in 1938-39. From 1939-40 the club became known as the Ocean Beach-Broken Bay Surf Lifesaving Club to avoid confusion with an "Ocean Beach" at Manly. Around the mid-1970s the club once again became the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club. The club continues to have a strong association with the lifesaving movement at regional, State and national levels. Many of the club’s officials hold positions at those levels.

I make special mention of former club president, Warren Boyd. Warren has held continuous office in the club for over 40 years. His dedicated service to the club was acknowledged with a special function in 1996. In August 1996 the New South Wales Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon. Gabrielle Harrison, who is present in the Chamber, visited the club and met a number of the officials.
Page 1790
The Minister was very impressed with the club’s achievements and the latest improvements to the clubhouse, including the balcony. The Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club has a proud record of protecting surfers and since its inception no life has been lost at any beach it has patrolled. The club is such a vigorous and highly respected one because of its dedicated, hardworking members and supporters. I congratulate the club on 75 years of achievement.

Ms HARRISON (Parramatta - Minister for Sport and Recreation) [5.18 p.m.]: I join with the honourable member for Peats in congratulating the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club on its seventy-fifth anniversary. As the honourable member stated, I visited the club when I was in her electorate last year, and I compliment the club on its continued hard work. As the honourable member for Peats has said, the club has a strong and proud history. It is pleasing that an organisation such as this, after so many years in existence, is still working strongly for the safety and wellbeing of the community. I am also pleased to hear the comments of the honourable member for Peats in regard to the increasing participation of women in the movement, especially their achievements in it.

The honourable member mentioned the financial support provided to the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club. I should like to add that the New South Wales Government also provides significant financial support towards the operations of surf lifesaving in New South Wales. That funding supports the important work undertaken by lifesaving clubs in the promotion of safe participation in sport and recreation, community education and injury prevention strategies. With the summer beach season almost upon us, it is timely for the House to reflect on the important work that these surf lifesaving volunteers do for the community. I again congratulate the Ocean Beach Surf Lifesaving Club on its first 75 years. I also congratulate the honourable member for Peats on her enthusiastic involvement as patron of the club and on her assistance in promoting the club’s important role in her community.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [5.20 p.m.]: The intersection of Mobbs Road and Terrigal Drive at Terrigal is one of the most notorious black spots on the central coast. On one side of Mobbs Road is the well-established Bungalows Mobile Home Village and on the other is the new Stratford Park housing estate. As a result of that development the area now has a considerable volume of traffic. For some time local residents and motorists have been frustrated by dangerous conditions, poor sight vision and long delays at the intersection. The narrow gutters and the lack of footpaths and pedestrian crossings makes the intersection an accident waiting to happen for both drivers and pedestrians. Since the completion of the new development many children have to cross the busy intersection to and from buses. Another school is scheduled to be completed in the area by 1999, which will mean that even more children will be compelled to use this dangerous intersection.

By reneging on a 1991 decision to install a roundabout, the State Government is putting more lives at risk and showing that it does not care about the people of the central coast. In 1991 the Labor Party issued a central coast policy which said that it would upgrade the Mobbs Road intersection. That was further expanded on by the then Labor candidate for Gosford, Tony Sansom, who, in a letter to constituents in March 1995, promised that a Carr Labor Government would undertake major upgrading work in its first term, including a roundabout at the Mobbs Road intersection. That confirmed the promise that was made by the Premier in Labor’s infrastructure plans for the central coast, which were detailed at the election polls in 1995, to upgrade the dangerous intersection.

The Roads and Traffic Authority now plans to install not a roundabout as promised but a seagull intersection. That proposal is completely inadequate and unacceptable to residents. The seagull intersection does not have their support or the support of other users of the area. My office has already received more than 290 letters from concerned residents. As a result of that, on 6 November I attended a public meeting in the car park of the Bungalows Mobile Home Village to discuss the intersection of Terrigal Drive and Mobbs Road. About 150 to 200 concerned residents were present at the meeting, and I was impressed by their active interest and concern for the safety of their fellow community members. They are wonderful people, and I am proud to have them as my constituents.

The overwhelming response at the meeting was that the people involved are unhappy with the RTA plan and regard traffic lights as the preferred solution. While the people of Gosford naturally look to me to ensure such an outcome after 1999, they want something done prior to that. Urgent action is required now, not in 18 months time. Gosford council voted to reject the RTA’s compromise offer of a seagull intersection, with protected right-turn bays into Terrigal Drive, in favour of the roundabout. I have now sent a letter to all affected residents asking them to express a view as to
Page 1791
whether they would prefer a roundabout or traffic lights, and I am awaiting their response.

I urge the State Government to honour the promise made by the Premier and the Labor candidate, Mr Sansom, to upgrade the area. Mr Sansom and the Premier also claimed at the time the promise was made that the works would be "part of Labor’s program to completely upgrade Terrigal Drive under its $300 million program to fix our roads". Not only has the Government failed to deliver on the Mobbs Road intersection roundabout, it has also failed to honour other key promises for the upgrading of central coast roads, including the widening of Avoca Drive from Green Point to Avoca Beach, the upgrading of The Entrance Road from Erina to Bateau Bay, the Barralong Road bridge and the upgrading of Terrigal Drive, all of which were pledged prior to the 1995 State election.

This statement is about more than a broken promise. It is about the safety of the central coast residents, especially the residents of the Bungalows Mobile Home Village and the Stratford Park estate. For far too long the promise made to these residents has languished on the agenda, and the promise of road safety has not been realised. The delays are inexcusable, and the people of the central coast must not be forced to endure such dangerous conditions any longer. The immediate construction of the originally promised roundabout or the installation of traffic lights are the only viable long-term solutions to ensure that these people can use the roads in safety and without fear of accidents.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [5.25 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to inform the House and the Cabramatta community of the progress of the Cabramatta place management project. Following the launch of the project by the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Police earlier this year, a project manager from the Premier’s Department was deployed to Cabramatta to co-ordinate a whole-of-government approach to the issues confronting the local community. The project manager has undertaken an extensive consultative process with the local business community, community associations, non-government organisations and other key stakeholders. The objective of this consultative process was to identify and prioritise the issues of concern locally and to develop an innovative whole-of-government plan of action to achieve lasting solutions.

Vital to the success of this process has been the enthusiastic support of Fairfield City Council and the local community. Fairfield council has contributed a staff member to facilitate council’s close involvement in the project, and that staff member will be co-located with the State Government manager in the Cabramatta central business district. The local business people have demonstrated their co-operation by hosting a reception dinner to publicise the program which was attended by more than 400 people. As a result of the extensive groundwork undertaken by the project manager the Cabramatta place management program now has a formalised structure, which I would like to briefly outline.

The engine room of the project will be the action teams. The action teams will be required to develop a set of strategies with an agency and individual responsible for implementation of the recommendations against an agreed timetable. There are four proposed action teams, which include the training and employment action team. That action team will be tasked to develop projects and programs that can deliver training and employment outcomes for young people in Cabramatta. The focus will be on young people at risk of involvement in the drug culture or who have had drug problems and are involved in rehabilitation programs.

The second team will be known as the tourism action team. The role of that team is to identify strategies to draw shoppers back to the Cabramatta central business district. That will require a concerted media and communication strategy to create positive images of Cabramatta in the public’s mind to counter the negative publicity of the past. That action team would also look for sources of support for small business in Cabramatta, which in turn may support some of the employment and training initiatives of the training and employment action team. The third group will be known as the town planning and amenity action team. That team will deal with the need to improve the physical environment in Cabramatta. It will provide a co-ordinated approach to improving public infrastructure and will address such issues as public toilets, needle and syringe bins, waste disposal, street cleaning, lighting, traffic flow signage and general maintenance.

The fourth and perhaps most important team will be known as the drug action team. That team will be charged with co-ordinating strategies involving the Police Service, the Department of
Page 1792
Health, the Department of School Education and the Department of Juvenile Justice. It will focus on prevention, education, rehabilitation and harm minimisation. The action teams that I have outlined will be responsible to the senior management reference group. That steering committee will ensure that the action teams deliver a strategic focus and clearly identifiable outcomes. The committee will also be tasked with the responsibility of ensuring a collaborative effort from relevant government agencies.

That comprehensive management structure will facilitate the impetus for lasting reform. The structure embraces community input but is secured against degenerating into a talkfest. The Cabramatta project is dedicated to results and represents an understanding by the Carr Government that the challenges confronting the Cabramatta community are more than simply law enforcement issues and require a whole-of-government approach. Without question this program represents a second chance for Cabramatta and will complement some of the initiatives that have already been taken. Those initiatives include the $1.4 million safety upgrade of the Cabramatta railway station.

Perhaps most noticeable and most welcomed is the ongoing police operation in the Cabramatta central business district, Operation Puccini II, which is in its second phase. It has gone a long way towards restoring public confidence in the State government agencies that are dealing with the Cabramatta problems and is alleviating the unreal levels of community fear that have in many ways robbed people of the opportunity to utilise public space freely. It has also gone a long way towards restoring community confidence and the confidence of the community in the State Government.

Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.30 p.m.]: It is pleasing to hear the sort of outcomes that can be expected when governments and the community work together. As elected members we understand that we do not have all the solutions. The solutions often lie in the community and all we have to do is tap into them. I congratulate the honourable member for Cabramatta and the government agencies that are giving Cabramatta the second chance it well and truly deserves.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [5.31 p.m.]: I seek funding for the building of a weir at Collingen Creek, which is an offshoot of the Edward River approximately 30 kilometres downstream to the west of Deniliquin. Stevens Weir was built in the 1930s to provide a holding facility which feeds water into Collingen Creek to be used in the Wakool irrigation system. So the weir serves a good purpose. However, the level of the Edward River at Deniliquin is often low. That has been the case recently. Although that might have been a result of nature before weirs were constructed, the low level makes it difficult for tourism and for irrigation pumpers to pump water from the river. I seek funds from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Minister for Tourism and perhaps from the Heritage Trust for the construction of a holding weir at the mouth of Collingen Creek.

The weir could be easily and cheaply constructed because there is a well-constructed concrete bridge structure on which drop boards could be placed and the cost would be less than $150,000. The weir would be a huge benefit because it would help to hold the water upstream and regulate the height of the river at Deniliquin. Boating activities cannot be undertaken during the winter months because the water level is too low. When there is insufficient water flowing towards South Australia, as has occurred recently, that has a detrimental effect on tourism, fishing and irrigation pumping. Some years ago Norm Barrett, the president of the boating association, approached me about this matter. At that time I made representations to the then Department of Water Resources, but my representations were unsuccessful.

Mr John MacKnight, a well-known identity in Deniliquin, has for many years operated a local charter plane service. He has now asked me to follow this matter through. A weir would provide a controlled height for the Edward River as and when required at little cost but with significant benefits. The Edward River is an anabranch of the Murray River, which separates from it in the Milawa forest area. After flowing through Deniliquin, it joins the Wakool River and flows back into the Murray River. The Edward River carries irrigation water to South Australia. It is also the source of the main water supply for the Wakool irrigation district. Given that the bridge could be converted into a weir with the use of drop boards only, the cost will not be high. The benefits for irrigation, recreation, tourism and the residents and businesses of the Deniliquin municipality would be enormous. I seek funding for the project from the two departments and the trust I referred to previously.

Page 1793

Mr TRIPODI (Fairfield) [5.36 p.m.]: I speak about young people in my electorate who have purchased specific parts for their motor vehicles and who are then fined by police. It came as no surprise to me or to many who have been fined that the fines are particularly directed at young people and not older people. However, that is not the issue I want to raise. The conflict has arisen because people have purchased in good faith products available to motor vehicle owners and have then been fined for having installed the products in their vehicles or having had their vehicles modified. Regulation 92(1)(b) of the Motor Traffic Act relates to non-complying seat belts. Recently a young person went into a store in my electorate and purchased a racing car seat belt, installed it properly in his car, and was later pulled over by the police and fined for having that seat belt in his car. My problem is not so much with the fact that the young persons or the police were doing the wrong thing. The problem I have is that the product was readily available in stores, it was purchased in good faith and installed in cars and young people were then fined for being in breach of regulation 92(1)(b). They find that quite aggravating.

Regulation 92(1)(b) also refers to unauthorised lamps on vehicles. Often young people buy lamps which are readily available in stores, install them on their cars and later find that they are in breach of the regulation. Another example of equipment that does not comply is a tachometer. A tachometer can be purchased in a normal automotive parts store and installed on the dash in compliance with the instructions. Having done so, the driver can be pulled over and fined for having equipment on the vehicle that prevents safe driving. That is what happened last night. As I have said, I do not have a problem with the regulation or with someone being found to be in breach of it. The problem arises because people purchase these items in good faith and end up being fined.

I refer to other fines, such as the unlawful use of rotating lamps and the unlawful use of horns. People purchase these goods, use them in the way in which they should be used and are fined. Regulation 92(1)(a) refers to driving a vehicle not equipped with specified equipment. For example, a person who buys a car with equipment on it that he does not like goes to a store and purchases substitute equipment and puts it on his car, only to discover that it is not the specified equipment. He is then fined by the police for possessing such equipment. Young people often buy modified air filters and are fined because they have an illegal modification. Service stations often install air filters but do not tell people that the modification is illegal. People also go to the relevant professional to have their vehicles lowered, only to find out that the modification is in breach of another of the traffic regulations, and they are subsequently fined.

A lot of young people who are good friends of mine have been the victims of such fines. They always act in good faith. They have a passion for their motor vehicles and spend a lot of time and money working on them. A number of them have part-time jobs, so they have to save to purchase these goods. Once they purchase and fit the goods they are fined. The police may not be able to fine these people for speeding, but they go through their cars and look for modifications and particular goods. I call on the Minister for Fair Trading to review the products that are available on the market and whether people who purchase and install them in their cars as instructed are breaching some kind of regulation. That inconsistency is misleading a lot of people and is causing a lot of frustration, particularly to young people who cannot afford to pay the fines. These young people save and sacrifice to buy the goods so they can enjoy something, and end up on the wrong side of the law.

Mrs LO PO’ (Penrith - Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister for Women) [5.41 p.m.]: I thank the honourable member for Fairfield for paying me the courtesy of advising me that he was going to speak about this matter. It no doubt shows my age that I do not have friends who suffer from this problem. However, I am interested to hear what is happening. I think what the honourable member is saying is this: people trust the stores to get it right. When people buy something from a store and install it properly they are stunned to find that there is a problem. I need to get on top of this matter, which will mean liaising with the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Minister for Roads. I understand the confusion. I remember that some years ago we knew that CB radios were banned, but we could still buy them. The products mentioned by the honourable member have no favour with the police, even though they are being sold. I shall report back to him on this matter.

Dr KERNOHAN (Camden) [5.43 p.m.]: My electorate comprises 50,815 people - the highest number of people in a New South Wales electorate. It is one of the major growth areas of the State, hence a lot of young people live there. All the high schools in the electorate are at capacity. Because of the amount of time it takes to build a high school, plans should be under way for the Mount Annan
Page 1794
High School. Picton High School, the only high school in Wollondilly, is currently facing a number of problems. It services 34,000 people. Its current enrolment is 1,090 - it is bursting at the seams. The projected enrolment for 1998 is 1,235. Picton High School is built on 5.6 hectares and the departmental code for a 1,000-student high school is six hectares. However, 0.6 of a hectare cannot be used because of old transpiration beds, open drains filled with thicket and noxious plants. The remainder of the area is sloping topography and terraces. There is a great reduction of the area available to students.

The Department of School Education properties officer has noted the extreme overuse of the area that is badly eroded. There are insufficient classrooms at the high school, classes are currently timetabled in an agricultural shed and the science preparation room, and two classes are often conducted in one room. The school is entitled to demountables in 1998, but where will they be located? They will reduce the already limited space. Students may have to be moved by bus to community facilities to do physical education, at a cost to the parents. The pump-out capacity of the school is equivalent to that of a school with 400 students. The community uses the school. The pump-out system is emptied every day. When it rains there are often overflows into land below.

The staff accommodation has not improved. This year the school has had 65 staff, next year it will have 83. The back boundary of the school borders the council tip. A couple of strips of barbed wire separate the two. A fifth student went over the cliff recently. This problem was recognised by the former Government prior to the election. The Labor Party platform stated:

Building a new Wollondilly High School and new halls at Mawarra and Camden South. Renovating Elderslie High.

I thank the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs for the Mawarra and Camden South halls and for the Elderslie High School renovations. However, Picton High School was the priority. This is another broken promise. No money has been made available in the past three years to look at a site. If a site were found today, it would be at least two years before the students would be in the school. What will happen to the students of Picton while they are waiting for their new high school? I am sure Picton will get a new high school, but it will be too late. What will happen in the interim? I have a copy of a letter to the Minister from the Parents and Citizens Association dated 29 August. I have been waiting to see how long he would take to respond to the letter, which outlines the problems. Nothing has happened. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [5.47 p.m.]: I am somewhat embarrassed by the statements made by the honourable member for Camden - she has highlighted the extraordinary amount of Government spending on capital works in her electorate. She did not mention Camden High School, a completely new high school. I am embarrassed because a number of my colleagues are in the Chamber. They have been knocking on my door asking me to build schools in their electorates. I have said no to them, that we have to accept the priorities.

The Minister for Corrective Services has one of the fastest growing electorates in the State. The honourable member for Camden said that her electorate is the largest in the State - my electorate is the sixth largest in the State, so I am not that far behind her in terms of expansion and growth. The Department of School Education acknowledges the sloping nature of the Picton High School site - which is just under the standard size for a secondary school site - and that this presents some constraints. I am currently investigating the possibility of a site extension. Picton High School has just passed its enrolment capacity of approximately 1,100 students. Two demountable classrooms are on site. The school’s enrolment pattern is similar to a number of other high schools, and during the peak phase students are accommodated through the use of demountable classrooms. Enrolments would appear to be closely monitored and demographic planning is being updated for the Wollondilly shire, with the latest census information to determine demand and timing for a future secondary school. The Government is considering a number of environmental issues which could restrict further its urban development scheme for the Wollondilly shire, and that in turn would affect the short-term demand for a secondary school. Clearly it is not an open and shut case that there will be a new secondary school, but the Government is closely considering it.

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [5.49 p.m.]: I wish to continue the remarks I made on 23 October about Detectives Edlund and Casey, referred to on page 1399 of Hansard. Almost immediately Edlund was targeted. An inquiry stemming from a frivolous complaint was blown out of all proportion and pursued with the vigour that Edlund and Casey have come to expect as the Police Service attempts to
Page 1795
deal with them. Edlund was transferred back to the academy from Goulburn police station. He then became alarmed that the senior officer to whom I have referred took an active role during the course of the computer inquiry allegations against him.

He wrote to Superintendent Hobden of police internal affairs expressing his concerns, but Edlund alleges that no action was taken. Eventually he expressed his concern to the senior officer, then found himself the victim of the latest allegations of making an implied threat of harm against that senior officer. The transcript of a taped conversation between Edlund and that senior officer contains the alleged threat of physical harm. As anyone can see from the transcript, no such threat was made:

. . . the other thing is that as far as I’m concerned I’ve been treated like shit. I’ve been taken off teaching ever since way back when er you took over in the investigation. I was taken off teaching, um I understand now it was because of a ***** investigation. I haven’t been allowed to teach since then, now it’s almost as if I am Roger Rogerson, and that, I am not. I’ve got 28 years, the vast majority of it out in the field and I haven’t had one complaint against me. I’ve got one complaint against me for corruption which was blown out of the water because *****

S.O. . . . ***** listen to me, one I cannot talk to you about **** **** I can’t comment about it, I can’t, secondly in relation to the allegations which you’re making, and I assume you’re making them against me **** Be very careful, be very very careful, I warn you, be very very careful, I will be, I will take legal action **** against you or anyone else that comes up with these allegations publicly *****

E. . . Alright.

S.O. . . . Be very careful.

E. . . Well, in return I warn you that I’ll take action, civil action **** because I’ve already.

S.O. . . . Be careful alright because I just warn you.

E. . . Warn me as much as you like and I’ll warn you too that that’s exactly the situation I’ll be taking . . .

The only thing Edlund is talking about there is taking civil action to protect his good name and his integrity. Following that the allegation of the implied threat of physical harm against the senior officer was made. Detective Edlund has applied for medical discharge from the Police Service. I want Detective Edlund’s good name to be cleared. The Commissioner of Police, Mr Ryan, has had a copy of that transcript since July, and Assistant Commissioner Christine Nixon has had the transcript of the tape since June, and nothing has happened to clear Detective Edlund’s name.

Of course, nothing has happened to the senior officer who raised the allegation against John Edlund. Edlund has basically been railroaded out of the Police Service. He was escorted off the premises at the Goulburn police academy on 22 May when the principal was made aware of the alleged implied threat Edlund made against the senior officer. He was paraded before his colleagues like a criminal. He had to hand in his service revolver and he was suspended from duties. Nothing has been done to restore the good name of this detective. He has applied for medical discharge and his application will be granted.

It is too late for Detective Edlund, but it is not too late for his partner, Mat Casey, who is still in the Police Service. I make a plea on behalf of Detectives Edlund and Casey that their allegations of a constant campaign of victimisation and harassment stem from the allegations they made about mismanagement and acts of bastardry at the police academy in 1994, which triggered an internal police inquiry and resulted in senior officers being removed from their positions. Ever since, those two officers have been subjected to an ongoing campaign of victimisation and harassment.

Edlund has given up. He wants out of the New South Wales Police Service but it is not too late for Mat Casey, who is still in the service. I make one last plea to Commissioner Ryan, who has a copy of the taped conversation that can clear John Edlund, to act and clear him and to ensure that Mat Casey can continue in his employment without any further obstruction or harassment and without spurious charges and allegations being made against him.

Mr CHAPPELL (Northern Tablelands) [5.54 p.m.]: Honourable members would be aware of the recent flood of publicity about serious paedophile activity that is supposedly taking place in Armidale and districts. Armidale was singled out, in particular by some parts of the national media, as the centre of a major network of paedophile activity. Many unsubstantiated claims were made, by one individual in particular, and were blown out of all proportion by the media. I wish to give a brief chronology of events.

The matter first came to my attention by way of a phone call from the acting chief executive officer of the New England health service on the evening of Thursday, 30 October. She advised me that one of her employees had been charged with
Page 1796
aggravated indecent assault and another person was being investigated following allegations of paedophile activities. According to subsequent media reports, officers from the Child Protection Agency raided an Armidale home a day or two before that and seized computer records and other items of pornography. Following the raid the Department of Community Services removed a juvenile from the care of one of the men.

The following day, Friday, 31 October, a second man was charged with six counts of homosexual intercourse with a child between 10 and 16 years. Those charges were reported in the media that evening. On Sunday, 2 November, two men were found dead in a car and a third person was found to be in a critical condition following an apparent suicide pact at Wivenhoe Dam, near Esk in Queensland. All three were members of the gay community in Armidale, and at least two of them had come to the notice of police a few days earlier.

The following day it was reported that the Child Protection Enforcement Agency’s Operation Diamante had been formed following allegations that more than 10 children in the New England area had been abused. Media claims also indicated that a further four people were under investigation in Armidale and Coffs Harbour, and we began to hear claims that this was a network of paedophile activity, with links stretching out to a whole range of other northern towns. On that day I met with the Director-General of the Department of Health, Mr Michael Reid, who visited Armidale. The department had arranged for sexual assault workers to come to Armidale from Dubbo and the north coast so they could counsel parents and children and work with staff members, particularly employees of the Department of Health in Armidale, who were heavily traumatised because one of their colleagues had been involved in this activity and had apparently taken his own life.

I spoke with health officials, police and the Premier, all of whom took prompt action to render assistance and try to unearth the facts of the case. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of hype in the national media in particular, and it appeared that Armidale was the centre of paedophile activity. However, it became clear in subsequent days that many of the allegations were unsubstantiated and that the issue had been beaten up on the basis of information given by a former deacon of the Catholic Church - who had long been defrocked but still called himself reverend, although he has no right to that title - who claimed that this great paedophile network was alive and well.

He was quoted in one newspaper as having said he brought the matter to my attention and I had reported it to police. My staff and I have gone through my records for the past two years. We have found no reference to such a name, and I cannot recall ever having spoken to that person. In fact, it would appear that he gave information direct to Armidale police a few days earlier, towards the end of October.

There is no evidence of substantial paedophile activity in Armidale any more than there is in any other community. Members of the active gay community in Armidale are outraged at claims that have implicated their community. They are asking, quite rightly, for facts rather than allegations. I place on record the excellent work of departmental employees in health, community services, police and other organisations in the Armidale area. Regrettably, our local community has its share of abusers, paedophiles and others. Without diminishing the seriousness of the issue which has come to notice, attempts to paint Armidale as a major paedophile activity centre appear to be the sentiments of one sick imagination.

Mr McBRIDE (The Entrance) [5.59 p.m.]: I congratulate the Attorney General, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, on his proposal to introduce the International Transfer of Prisoners (New South Wales) Bill. I do so on behalf of one of my constituents who, since 1991, has been making representations on behalf of her son who is currently in prison in Florida in the United States of America. The main purpose of the bill is to facilitate the transfer of prisoners, including some war crimes tribunal prisoners, between Australia and certain countries with which Australia has entered agreements. The bill will enable prisoners to serve sentences in their country of nationality or in countries with which they have community ties. The progress of this legislation has been slow and tortuous, having been agreed to by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in July 1992 and endorsed by draft Commonwealth and State legislation in October 1996.

The Commonwealth legislation, which received assent on 18 June 1997, will commence only upon the passage of complementary State and Territory legislation. No international agreement can be effectively put in place or enforced until that complementary State and Territory legislation has been enacted, hence the importance of the urgent passage of the legislation through this Parliament,
Page 1797
and other State and Territory assemblies in Australia. I urge this Parliament to support the legislation for humanitarian reasons, firstly, in relation to the prisoner’s family and friends and, secondly, to improve the prisoner’s prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Some members of the community may take the view that Australian nationals guilty of a crime in another country should pay the penalty and do their time in the country in which they offended. This incredibly simplistic approach totally ignores the unintended consequences of the penalty and suffering inflicted on the offender’s immediate and extended family in Australia.

Under the current circumstances my constituent and other family members in Australia also become victims of the crime. My constituent, a pensioner, who is now 66 years old, last saw her son in April 1990. It is now more than 7½ years since her son was first arrested. Because of her financial circumstances it is impossible for her to visit her son in the foreseeable future. She and her extended family could only visit him in the future if he were returned to Australia under the proposed transfer of prisoners bill. Currently, given the length of her son’s sentence, it is unlikely that she will ever see him again. Such a punishment for a loving mother is something only a mother could appreciate. However, as a father, I was moved by her appeal and by the magnitude of her grief. I first interviewed my constituent in August 1993, at which time she presented to me a letter dated August 1991, which asserted that her son would be returned to Australia in the immediate future. Two years after receiving that letter, no progress had been made in respect of the transfer of her son.

In October this year my constituent again met with me to try to further the case of her son. Obviously, as time passes, my constituent will become more and more distressed when she realises that she may never see her son again. As a result of the actions of this Parliament and other relevant assemblies passing similar legislation, the process of repatriation of my constituent’s son may begin. I am sure that there are many other equally distressing cases throughout Australia that will be affected by this legislation. As I said earlier, my constituent has been suffering for 7½ years. With the best will in the world it could be many years before any relevant application under the new legislation is successful. On behalf of my constituent and the many other Australian families in similar circumstances throughout the world I urge honourable members to hasten the passage of the International Transfer of Prisoners (New South Wales) Bill.

Mr DOWNY (Sutherland) [6.04 p.m.]: I raise a number of issues concerning train services into and out of Sutherland shire. Some weeks ago I received a copy of a letter that a constituent of mine sent to the Minister for Transport, which referred to a fine of $100 that had been imposed on him by CityRail because he was not travelling with a valid ticket. It is worth referring tonight to this whole issue. My constituent explained to me - he offered this explanation to the Minister in his letter - that he had forgotten to purchase his weekly ticket which had expired the day before. He said that, when it had happened in the past, he had been able to purchase another ticket at his destination. However, on this occasion, CityRail did not allow him to do that. It appears to be more interested in fining commuters who have not purchased tickets. This is not the only instance of this sort of incident. My constituent pointed out to me that people will stop using trains, in the long term they will not be encouraged to use trains and CityRail will lose customers. He said that he is now travelling to work by car and while that is not the method of transport that he prefers it is preferable to the "random and undeserved attacks on his wallet by CityRail". He went on to say:

My wife will travel with me to reduce costs and CityRail will have lost an ongoing annual revenue in excess of $2,000.

As I said earlier, this is not the only incident that has been brought to my attention and it is not the only complaint that I have received. I am a regular train traveller and I have noticed in recent months that CityRail has increased its campaign against people who do not have valid tickets. Honourable members might say that that is fair enough because people should purchase a ticket, but there are always valid reasons why people do not have the right ticket. As my constituent explained in his letter, he had forgotten to renew his weekly ticket. At Martin Place and Town Hall, two major stations on the city line, I have noticed in recent weeks that ticket inspectors are simply fining people rather than giving them an opportunity to purchase a ticket. This is not only a public relations disaster for CityRail; it is an issue that must be addressed by CityRail management. Honourable members might say that the State Rail Authority needs as much money as it can because of the parlous state of its finances and that this is simply a revenue-raising exercise. But what about the present state of the trains? How are our trains being managed?

In the last six months I have noticed that the cleanliness of the trains has been pretty abysmal.
Page 1798
Yesterday, when I boarded the 8.13 a m. train from Como - this might sound trivial but it is symptomatic of the problem - I wanted to sit on a seat in the Tangara, which obviously had not been cleaned for a few weeks, and there was a cigarette butt on the seat. The 8.13 a.m. train comes from Waterfall. Obviously no-one was prepared to pick up that cigarette butt, which had probably been there the previous night, and get rid of it. I, like my fellow travellers, was not prepared to do anything about it so I just found another seat. Trains on the Illawarra line are not being cleaned. They are often filthy early in the morning. On 14 and 21 October the 10.30 a.m. train from Jannali stopped at Mortdale. On both days passengers were told that there were mechanical faults and everyone had to pile out and catch anther train. When I spoke to fellow travellers who catch that train regularly - as I do not - they told me that this was a regular occurrence. CityRail management must get its act together. It must ensure that people are able to travel in clean trains. It must also afford people an opportunity to purchase tickets, if for no reason other than they have made an innocent mistake. [Time expired.]

Private members’ statements noted.

[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Clough) left the chair at 6.09 p.m. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from 22 October.

Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes) [7.30 p.m.]: The Opposition will be opposing certain parts of this bill and will oppose the bill on the third reading if our amendments are not accepted. In June the Minister advised in a ministerial statement that a draft exposure bill concerning inland fishing and certain trust accounts pertaining to the fishing industry would be exhibited. A vastly different bill has now been introduced into this House. The bill incorporates amendments to the Fisheries Management Act dealing with threatened species and conservation, amendments to commercial fisheries management, amendments relating to charter fishing boats, miscellaneous amendments, some of which are significant in consideration of constitutional matters, together with the contents of the original exposure bill, namely, amendments to freshwater fishing licences and special fishery trust funds. It is another demonstration of the non-consultation process and "keep them in the dark" concept that the Minister has embarked on since he has been the Minister for Fisheries.

My colleague the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will speak on the finer points of that part of the bill that pertains to threatened species. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour is the National Party representative on the Joint Select Committee on the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and has an intimate knowledge of the terrestrial threatened species legislation. I am indebted to him for the work he has done on the examination of the finer points of the threatened species provisions of the bill. The Opposition believes there are inherent difficulties in their implementation and I fear that some of the terms and descriptions used in that part of the bill will lead to significant disruption to both recreational and commercial fishing in New South Wales and could lead to a litigious situation. For instance, schedule 1 to the bill states:

A reference in this Part to fish or marine vegetation indigenous to New South Wales is a reference to fish or marine vegetation of a species that was established in New South Wales before European settlement.

How can this be determined and who can determine it? There is no scientific base to determine this aspect and certainly no person can determine it. Under proposed new section 220B, Definitions, the description of "harm" is:

(a) in the case of fish - take, injure or otherwise harm the fish,

Every fisherperson, commercial or recreational, will be liable to be guilty under that terminology. It will not be known whether the fish on the end of the line, which would naturally have a hook on it, or the fish in the net under the water, will be an endangered, threatened or vulnerable fish until it is brought to the surface. A hook in the mouth of a fish is sure to injure it and certainly if it is dangling from the end of a line or in the bottom of a net it has been taken. It would be relatively easy for the zealots to take action under this definition to curtail an innocent pastime. It might be said that there are defences under section 36 of the Act, and that may be the case for the taking of fish. But that section is silent on the definition of harm. Likewise, in relation to marine vegetation the definition of harm is:

(b) in the case of marine vegetation - gather, cut, pull up, destroy, poison, dig up, remove, injure or otherwise harm the marine vegetation, or any part of it.

Again, and perhaps I am being pedantic, in a litigious world the mere anchoring innocently on a threatened marine vegetation may be interpreted to
Page 1799
come within the provisions relating to harming vegetation. Under part 7A, Threatened species conservation, proposed new section 220A(f), Objects of Part, states that the objective is:

(f) to encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation by the adoption of measures involving co-operative management.

I will be speaking in more detail about the proposed changes to the commercial fishing sector and the abysmal manner in which the Minister has treated the Management Advisory Committees - MACs. There is no way that the Minister is going to be able to comply with proposed new section 220A(f) of the Act as he has effectively ruined, and will ruin whilst his stewardship of the fisheries portfolio continues, any possibility of co-operative management between the fishing sector and himself. There is a poisonous relationship between the Minister and the commercial fishing sector because of the manner in which the Minister has contemptuously treated the industry leading up to and including the introduction of this bill. As I said, I will deal further with that aspect later in this speech.

In regard to the procedure for nominations to schedules 4, 5 and 6, clauses 220I and 220J provide that a person must not deliberately and wilfully make a vexatious nomination and that the Fisheries Scientific Committee may reject a nomination if it is vexatious. The Opposition will seek to amend that clause by adding the words "mischievous" and "frivolous", so that it will read "frivolous, mischievous or vexatious nomination". I use the words frivolous and mischievous in the legal sense as it is obvious that the scientific committee could be tied up by not only vexatious nominations but also by frivolous or mischievous nominations which ensure that a reasonably common species such as mullet or flathead is nominated under the threatened process. Further in relation to the nominating process, proposed new section 220M, Decision by Minister, states:

(1) The Minister must, within 2 months after receiving a recommendation by the Fisheries Scientific Committee for the amendment of Schedule 4, 5 or 6 accept or reject the recommendation.

(2) The Minister may refer a recommendation back to the Committee for further consideration.

And it has to report back within six months. Whilst the Opposition agrees with the process of nomination and determination as set out in the bill, I have concern that the Minister would return the matter for further consideration over a period of six months. Effectively it would mean that it could take up to a year or a year and a half for a matter to be determined, bearing in mind that the scientific committee has six months to consider the matter and the Minister has a further two months to consider it. The matter could then possibly go back to the scientific committee for another six months and I presume that the Minister then would have another two months to consider it after it comes back. I believe that leadership and certainty are needed in these areas, not procrastination. I suggest that the Minister, within the two months that he is considering the matter, should be able to make further inquiry if there is anything that he believes he needs to acquaint himself with before he makes the final decision - not effectively delay the decision for what could be up to eight months after his initial two months of consideration.

One thing that disturbs me in relation to the decision-making process of nominations by the Minister under proposed section 220 is that when - and it is obviously going to be when, not if - this Minister for Fisheries is rolled and fisheries ends up under the portfolio of the Minister for the Environment it will give enormous power to the Minister for the Environment. That is incredibly frightening, as she will no doubt use her influence to effectively march towards the restriction of fishing in New South Wales. Nevertheless, at this stage that has not occurred, but the Opposition serves notice that it is quite obvious that the threatened species legislation will ultimately fall under the hand of the Minister for the Environment in the ghastly eventuality that Labor is re-elected at the next election. If so, we will see a vastly different determination process, I would suggest, than is presently envisaged by this bill.

One of the broadest clauses in the bill concerning the threatened species is proposed section 220ZC. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Coffs Harbour will have something to say in relation to that new section; I simply mention it in my other capacity as shadow minister for mineral resources and highlight that there are any number of activities that can damage a critical habitat. The particular proposed section says:

A person must not, by an act or omission, do anything that causes damage to any critical habitat.

Lawyers could have a field day with the broadness of that provision. For instance, I submit that according to that statement the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, amongst others, may be liable under that proposed section for many day-to-day decisions they make. Whilst not
Page 1800
flagging my opposition or otherwise to the Timbarra mine, I note that in the Northern Star on 17 October 1997, under the headline "Minister neutral on Timbarra Mine", the following comments appeared:

NSW Minerals Resources and Fisheries Minister declared he would not be taking side on issues connected with the Timbarra Goldmine near Tenterfield.

The Minister cannot sit on the fence on these issues; he is supposed to be giving leadership to the mining industry of New South Wales. I wonder whether he became neutral because he was concerned that he may be liable under proposed section 220ZC, because if he did give whatever undertakings and permissions were required for this mine to proceed, as his planning colleague and possibly his environment colleague would also need to do, he could be liable if the scenario further set out in the press article occurred. It continued:

In an interview with the Northern Star yesterday Mr Martin said the Clarence River Fishing industry had raised concerns about pollution with him and standards had to be in place to guarantee no contamination of downstream waters from the mine.

The paper went on to say:

Mr Martin said he intended relying on legislation and advice from Government Departments; I’m not going to weigh in on either side.

This mine, vital to the economy of Tenterfield, could clearly be caught under the new section. I will be interested to see, if the mine is not allowed to proceed, on just what grounds it will not be allowed to proceed. The Timbarra mine is but one narrow example. There are many other traditional activities that could be caught by the section. The ramifications are far too wide. It would be commonsense to curtail the provision. The Opposition will move an amendment to insert the following wording:

A person must not by a negligent act or omission do anything that causes damage to a critical habitat.

I now turn to the part of the bill that deals with amendments relating to commercial fisheries management. Relentlessly the Minister pushes for his restricted fisheries. He can cloak it in any name he likes - commercial managed fishery - it is still a restricted fishery. I simply cannot believe the arrogance of the Minister’s refusal to acknowledge and accept that the commercial fishing sector in New South Wales by and large does not want to be forced into restricted fisheries. The Minister has done everything in his power to put the fishing fraternity offside: this is yet another step in that process. The fishing family is not silly. People in the industry know that the Minister is virtually holding a sword above their necks and forcing them down the road to restricted fishery. The Minister can use semantics and refer to an inland access fishing licence fee, but it is a tax, and the commercial managed fishery is still a restricted fishery.

It is clearly still the stated intention of the Minister and the department to pursue a restricted fishery policy, even though the Act provides for a share managed fishery. Even though the Premier extolled the virtues of share managed fisheries being an example of the best possible regulation in New South Wales, even though an upper House inquiry showed the way to go, the Minister still wishes to go to restricted fisheries. Some of the methods which he has employed in an attempt to coerce fishermen into that area are contemptible.

To say that the community contribution is not payable where it is payable under share managed fisheries, to say that the Government will phase in cost recovery for restricted fisheries but it will be up-front for share management, is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail the commercial fishing sector to accede to his desire for a restricted fishery. The proposed cost-recovery process has been an abysmal example of failure to work with the industry. The Minister is about to oversee the collapse of the management advisory committee system less than six months after the committees were established, because of his refusal and that of his department to consult and to include the fishermen in the decision-making process.

Fishermen have been asking me, "What is the use of being involved with the MACs? It is just the same as it was before - no consultation. We are being told what has to happen." The same has occurred in relation to the commercial fisheries management proposal. The change is being pushed on the fishermen with little consultation. Supposedly, the only consultation that occurred was a very brief meeting in Sydney the day before the Minister’s second reading speech. As per usual, a fait accompli was thrust at the fishermen. The Opposition accepts that restricted fisheries do not provide for a management plan, and it is possible that we will agree that is necessary, if the Minister is going to continue his dogged determination to have restricted fisheries. At least we would like to see the protection of the fishermen in that limited way. We believe that this can be achieved in a different manner than that proposed.

What the Government is seeking, however, is a commercial managed fishery, a share managed
Page 1801
fishery and a restricted fishery. The Minister is simply making a dog’s breakfast of what was a very simple and very transparent piece of legislation in the Fisheries Management Act concerning the establishment of share managed fisheries. Why does the Minister not make a cosmetic change and call the changes a managed commercial fishery instead of a commercial managed fishery? The present wording of the bill certainly sends out the wrong message. The philosophy that the Government has been espousing from the start has been locked in clearly and concisely in the legislation: no compensation payable. Proposed section 101D states:

Compensation is not payable by or on behalf of the State because a fishery ceases to be a commercial managed fishery at the end of the period for which it was declared to be a commercial managed fishery or at any time during that period.

There it is again, the clear enunciation of no compensation being payable. That is what this is all about. Coupled with the huge, arbitrary cost-recovery basis that the Minister is seeking to impose, he is seeking to drive the fishermen out of the industry, without allowing them the dignity to get out through a compensation or buy-back scheme. Under proposed section 101C the Minister will take away the fishermen’s ability to get out with dignity in that licences in the commercial managed fishery are not transferable, although the bill says that management plans may authorise transferability. The Minister could quite easily not endorse that part of the management plan which allowed transferability, meaning fishermen cannot sell, they cannot get out, they cannot get any value. That takes away their right to compensation. What the Minister is really hoping is that they will walk away. When they do they will walk away in disgust - disgust at the Minister and the Labor Government over the manner in which they treated people who are, effectively, the workers of the seas.

The Opposition will move an amendment to delete proposed section 101D to bring the compensation provisions into line with those for share managed fisheries. Turning now to that part of the bill that refers to a recreational freshwater fishing fee, I note that is a subtle change from the Minister’s previously warm and fuzzy term "access fee". However it does not matter which name he uses, it is a tax he intends to impose upon the inland fishermen of New South Wales. The Opposition opposes totally the proposal to introduce an inland fishing fee and will move an amendment to remove that part of the bill that refers to that proposal.

There is no doubt that this is clearly a tax, not a fee, as sought to be used in division 4 of the bill. It is not an access fee, but a tax on inland fishing, a tax on country people, a tax on recreational fishing, and a tax on country tourism. Yes, it is another new Carr tax on the people of New South Wales, particularly the country people. The Minister can dress it up however he likes and call it an access fee or whatever warm and fuzzy name he wishes to give to it. The fact is that the people of New South Wales will pay money to the Government to go fishing. That is a tax. This is yet another example of the Carr Government introducing a tax burden and a charge on country New South Wales without the promised country impact statement on the socioeconomic effects that such a piece of legislation will have in the country, both on tourism and recreational activities.

The abolition of this tax by the coalition Government in 1988 immediately saved the taxpayers eight fishery inspector positions - inspectors who simply issued licences, checked licences and instituted enforcement proceedings against people fishing without a licence or with an expired licence - effectively freeing them up to crack down on illegal fishing and illegal fishing methods, rather than checking whether a rubber stamp or a date was valid. The $600,000 spent on the checking and issuing of licences will no doubt increase considerably under these proposals. The coalition wants fisheries inspectors to police breaches such as illegal netting, black marketing of fish, excessive lines, illegal nets, pollution and habitat destruction, and possession of endangered species. The fee structure proposed for this tax is $10 for a 28-day period, $25 for a 12-month period and $70 for a three-year period.

Is the $10 for any 28-day period or is it that if people go fishing for one day they get a 28-day licence, but they still have to pay the $10 fee? Is it $25 if people want to fish for one month and one day, or is it $25 for 12 months and likewise for three years? It has not been properly spelt out in the bill. The Minister cannot even quantify the amount of money that will be collected under this tax, nor can he detail how many people will be affected by the tax, but I will come to that later. What is clear is that a significant amount of money will be paid for the administration and enforcement of the tax, including the issuing of licenses, the payment of commission, the checking of licences and the enforcement of licences. Little will be left for any of the esoteric reasons for the collection of the tax.

So that the people of New South Wales can have an adequate understanding of how much money will be collected under this tax, just how many people will be liable to pay the fee? Under-18-year-olds will be exempt, commercial fishermen will be exempt, aquaculture permit fishing will be
Page 1802
exempt, Aborigines will be exempt, and, quaintly, if the fisher is a fisher of a class exempt by the regulations then he or she will be exempt. The Minister said in his second reading speech that regulations will be drawn up to exempt aged pensioners. I wonder why they are not specified in the Act along with others who will be exempt? I suggest that by the time the Government takes in those exemptions and by the time people thumb their nose at this tax, very few people will pay this fee.

People will be turned off fishing because of the imposition of this fee. The Minister will collect only the amount of money it will cost to hand out the licences, rubber-stamp them and check them, or even less. No real money will be available for re-stocking or research and, indeed, if one considers what the proposed freshwater trust fund pays out of the money collected, only two out of six headings are applicable to the real return of money to the fishermen, that is "restocking of fish" and "research". The other headings include payment for management and administration, ensuring compliance, and providing insurance and consultative arrangements with freshwater recreational fishermen.

I also note that the Minister has cleverly hidden in proposed section 34E the power to hit inland fishermen for an increase in tax at any time by belting out a regulation that "may prescribe a different amount for any such period and may prescribe the amount for any other period for which a fishing fee may be paid" - and again I stress it is a tax. Proposed section 34H provides for commission agents, yet another erosion of public money during the issue-of-licence phase. The Government will take money off members of the public and pay commission to the private sector, which will collect the money on behalf of the Government. Then the bureaucrats will have to account for and administer that money, which will have to go through a supposed trust account and be administered and accounted for. It will then go into a common pool for investment at the Treasurer’s direction. How much of the, say, $10 will be left after all that has occurred? Not very much. It will be a sad day for country New South Wales when the Minister’s fisheries officers sneak around the gum trees and weeping willows of our inland waterway system in an attempt to knock off someone who has not paid his $10, particularly when the inspector may have used $10 worth of fuel to get to the place to catch this poor unfortunate person who has committed such a terrible crime.

Will those inspectors be required to interpret the definition of "freshwater" contained in section 4 definitions? For instance, what does "intermittently open to tidal influence" mean? What is "Narrabeen Lakes"? Will people have to seek a licence to fish in those lakes? What about changes in river tidal systems because of extraneous circumstances? Will fishing inspectors sit on the side of the river measuring tidal influence to determine whether a person is fishing in fresh water? Will that person have to pay a fee of $10 or $25 or $70 or, if they are on the other side of the tidal influence, will they be able to fish for nothing? We will have the ludicrous situation of people casting up or down the river, depending on which way the tide is running. Before I leave the matter of inland fishing licences I want to comment on the discussion paper released by the Minister at the death knell before Parliament was prorogued. Without insulting the bureaucrats - and I mean this genuinely - it is one of the most biased discussion papers I have seen for some time. Only two paragraphs argued against the scheme and the rest of the six-page discussion paper virtually presented a fait accompli.

The front page of the discussion paper has the words "This Government is prepared to guarantee that the fees collected will be placed in an inland angling trust fund and these funds will be spent on inland recreational fishery management." It is clear from proposed new section 234 that the Minister may meet certain costs from the Recreational Fishing (Freshwater) Trust Fund. I emphasise the word "may", and that the Minister may spend the money the way he wants. There is no guarantee he will spend it in the manner mentioned in the discussion paper. I also emphasise that if the Minister wishes to expend money from the trust, he has to consult any relevant advisory council, but he does not have to accept its advice. The Minister is trying to hoodwink the public by saying in the discussion paper that a guarantee is given to spend the money on inland recreational fishery management. That simply is not true under this bill. The Recreational Fishing (Freshwater) Trust Fund provides for third-party insurance coverage for landowners.

I suggest that the Minister take that idea to his colleague the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. I and my colleagues have been writing to him for some years seeking blanket policies for landowners in relation to work carried out on Landcare and Rivercare projects. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s explanation of this insurance proposal, exactly how it will work, what it
Page 1803
will cost, who will underwrite it and who will receive any commission on the policies. The discussion paper also highlights a breakdown in communication between the Minister and his department in relation to the number of people who fish inland. On 27 June and 21 October the Minister was obviously exaggerating, as he does, and trying to grandstand, as he normally does, by saying in this House, "It is estimated that about half a million interstate and overseas tourists fish in New South Wales, and many more travel from metropolitan areas to regional areas to fish." The Minister is saying that half a million interstate and overseas tourists travel to New South Wales to fish. This obviously does not include the intrastate and metropolitan fishermen, as the Minister acknowledges.

How many more fisherman are there in addition to the half million from outside the State? It is reasonable to believe that the number of intrastate and metropolitan fishermen would exceed the number of interstate and overseas fishermen. The Minister is talking up the numbers to justify his position. This is like the Minister’s previous speech in which he spoke about tens of thousands of boats invading New South Wales if the restricted fisheries regulations were disallowed. It is a gross exaggeration. If he is talking about half a million interstate and overseas tourists fishing in inland New South Wales, he also has to add the Sydney metropolitan fishermen. I have no idea how many of them there are, and neither does the Minister or his department, but let us be generous and say there are a few hundred thousand. We are then talking 500,000, 600,000, 700,000 supposed fishermen, yet the Minister bases this tax provision on country New South Wales on 69% of respondents to his 1996 discussion paper, to which he received 6,804 replies. On the Minister’s figures, 4,694 of 6,804 responses he received from the 50,000 discussion papers he allegedly distributed were in favour of it.

I also note that the Minister has carefully cloaked the analysis of the responses. Were there multiple responses that would have influenced that percentage? I also note that it was a 1996 review and that only about half the number of people actually responded to the 1997 discussion paper, namely 3,840 respondents, of whom 75 per cent, or 2,880, out of 500,000, 600,000 or 700,000 people thought it was a good idea to have an inland fishing tax. Let us just say for a moment that the total number of inland fishers is 750,000, bearing in mind that the Minister sticks by his figure of 500,000 overseas and interstate fishers. It is reasonable to expect that more people from New South Wales than from overseas and interstate fish inland, but let us err on the side of caution and say that there are about 250,000 of them, making, allegedly, about 750,000 inland fishers. I do not agree with those figures, that that number of people fish in New South Wales, but they are the figures that have been put up by the Government.

In the Minister’s 1997 survey there were 3,840 responses, of which 75 per cent, namely 2,880, supported the proposal for an inland fishing fee. That means that 0.38 per cent of the people who fish agree with the proposal. I thought the Minister said he would not introduce a licence fee unless there was overwhelming support for it. The views of the Government and the Minister on consultation in this matter are a sham. This is a tax and revenue raiser for a broke Government and a broke Minister. Even his own department disagrees with the Minister on the number of inland fishermen. The discussion paper says that there is no accurate estimate of the number that go fishing in freshwater, but that the number is likely to be in the order of 250,000.

The Minister is again deliberately inflating the figures in an attempt to force through a bill that has been forced on him by the Premier and the Treasurer to impose a tax on the country people and the inland fishing people of New South Wales. By his own admission and his own figures, not mine, half a million interstate and overseas tourists will fish in New South Wales. This is the bed tax of the bush; he is going to tax - in his own words, not mine - half a million interstate and overseas tourists as well as intrastate tourists to fish in country New South Wales. I reiterate that this is the bed tax of the bush.

In country New South Wales a motel room would probably cost $40, so if people want to go fishing for a week, six nights accommodation will cost them $240. A 28-day licence will cost $100. That is an 8.3 per cent surcharge on going out to the bush to catch a few fish. That percentage is a lot more if people stay in a camping area for the week. That is a tax on tourism, no different from the bed tax in Sydney, except Sydney is in a single defined CBD area, whereas this tax covers all parts of New South Wales that have water in a river or creek that is not subject to tidal influence, including any body of freshwater that is naturally or artificially stored, such as a freshwater lake, lagoon, dam, reservoir, pond, canal, channel or waterway - pretty well the whole land mass of New South Wales. The Minister might also clarify whether a farmer who has stocked a dam with fish for his and his family’s fishing enjoyment, not for aquaculture purposes, will have to take out a licence to fish in his dam.

Page 1804

The discussion paper said also that the Minister would fulfil the Government’s commitment to consult by allowing a period of informed public input on the issue; that to facilitate consultation a discussion paper has been prepared and will accompany the bill. In a letter to the Leader of the Opposition dated 13 July Ms Lorna Warwick of the Tatts Hotel Fishing Club had this to say about the level of consultation:

Mr Collins, the Department of Fisheries tabled a new discussion paper in Parliament around the 27th of June 1997 and a press release. We read about it in the Inverell Times newspaper and went looking for it. The press release was found along with the discussion paper in a tackle shop in Inverell - and only one of. Mr Martin in this press release stated that the papers would be distributed widely through his fishery offices that week but all attempts to gain access to one through our local officer has been unsuccessful as he is away and does not answer his message machine.

However, returning to the tourism aspect, the Minister, in his own convoluted way, acknowledged in his ministerial statement that inland fishing and tourism go together. He said:

As a result, angling tourism is an increasingly important part of many rural economies, it is easy to recognise that towns near major fisheries such as Jindabyne, Cooma, Yass, Wellington, Scone, Orange and Tumut, gain significantly from angling. However it is likely that there a few areas that would not derive some benefit.

Again I go back to the argument that this tax is the bed tax of the bush and in that regard let me refer to Jindabyne, which the Minister mentioned. I have a letter courtesy of my colleague Peter Cochran, the honourable member for Monaro, from the Jindabyne Chamber of Commerce dated 7 August under the hand of Taras Polochacz. In that letter, a copy of which was forwarded to the Minister, the Jindabyne Chamber of Commerce said:

Concern was expressed about the possibility that inland angling licences are soon to be re-introduced.

It went on:

Fears were expressed that this would be detrimental to tourism.

How true. It said further:

It resolved that the Chamber should call on you -

that is me -

to ask Mr Bob Martin, Minister for Fisheries, to reject recent pressures to introduce the NSW fishing licence in NSW.

Then the letter went on to make some very valid points in relation to the tourism argument and why this tax should not be reintroduced. It said:

The reasons for the opposition to the re-introduction of licences are based on the following points: one, the general public is still very sensitive as to how it spends leisure dollars and the cost of trying a few hours fishing could easily be doubled by the cost of a licence. Any unnecessary price pressure will often result in lost customers. If a customer is lost from an activity that may cause them to spend an extended time away from an activity, the flow on losses to the wider community can be very large in comparison to the loss to the activity concerned.

That, in a nutshell, is a country impact statement. It is succinct, it is clear and it is concise that country New South Wales will be taxed, and that the price of that tax will cause flow-on losses to the wider community. The Jindabyne Chamber of Commerce said further:

There is little guarantee that the money will be used for the purposes for which it is intended for any meaningful length of time.

So true. The chamber also said that a large percentage of any new revenue raised by the proposed fishing licence fee will disappear in maintaining the required fee collection structure. That is quite obvious. The chamber said further that the responsibility of fishing inspectors should be to manage the fisheries and to ensure that correct fishing methods are employed, rather than to collect licence revenue. These are the people that are out in the field. These people know. The Minister should get out and talk to them. They say that the purchase of a licence is a strong disincentive for people wishing to try the sport for a first time. In a real telling statement, they say that placing unfair burdens such as licence fees on fishers will only serve to reduce the sport’s popularity and will be counterproductive to the important world fly fishing championships, which are only two years away. The chamber concluded by saying:

The ramifications of the re-introduction of fishing licences to the tourist industry has been underestimated. To implement this initiative will be in the long term counter-productive to the intended outcomes.

That is a concise, clear and telling letter. The Minister tried to argue in his ministerial statement that freshwater fishermen should pay a tax on a user pays system because, inter alia, the fee is used for fish stocking. Why should there be a fee for freshwater restocking and not for saltwater? I refer the Minister to his own department’s magazine, NSW Fishermen, Volume 3 No. 5, September-October. In passing, might I ask with great respect that the
Page 1805
editor make sure that Wallis Lake is spelt "Wallis" rather than "Wallace", being the name that was attributed to the wonderful Wallis Lake that I represent and which was mentioned alongside a photograph of the Minister in that magazine.

On the back page of that magazine there is a colourful and worthy display which provides an excellent example of what New South Wales Fisheries does concerning the restocking of 72,000 juvenile mulloways - now that we are politically correct and cannot call them jewfish - into intermittently opening lagoons; in other words, not freshwater, which naturally they would not be. Inside the back page there is another colourful section on snapper and mulloway brood stock management, and the article says that New South Wales Fisheries is conducting research into production of endemic marine fin fish species to allow the development of restocking projects.

If the Minister believes that a fee should be paid for fish restocking in freshwater, what are the projects that concern saltwater fish and how are they being funded, or is this a code for a general recreational tax on fishing by the Government? As far as restocking goes, the fishing clubs that are dependent on inland fishing for tourism do an excellent job in maintaining stocking programs in conjunction with councils and the Department of Fisheries. That should be permitted to continue; they should be encouraged. The Minister’s claims about restocking ring hollow when one remembers the problems that occurred after the Minister decided that he would not assist the Booma hatchery with the 45,000 endangered eastern freshwater cod fingerlings. Despite that, he is now trying to sing a song about being interested in raising taxes for restocking purposes. That song is very much out of key. In regard to the current restocking programs, I again return to Ms Warwick’s letter in which she said:

The clubs, with the help of the shire councils, restock our rivers and now we have such an abundant supply of fish in the McIntyre River, Inverell Shire are going to stage a huge fishing festival in January next year and plans are in progress. Now the fish are plentiful, the Department wants to tax us to catch our own fish.

In relation to the social concepts of inland fishing, Ms Warwick made another telling comment in her letter when she said:

Another thing is that a fee will stop a lot of people from fishing. We have heard club members and public alike say that they will not buy a licence, they will give up this recreation first, so what terrible repercussions would develop from that when it is one of the main pastimes of the country family, to go picnicking, camping and fishing, whereas in the city there are many amusements without too far to travel.

The Minister tried to dress up his ministerial statement by claiming that this tax will provide money for improved habitat. After the enormous amount to be paid for administration, maintenance and enforcement of the licence is taken out, there will simply be nothing left for habitat rehabilitation. The problems with inland waterway systems were not caused by inland fishermen. Why should they have to pay for them? There are far more complicated reasons why the habitat has become degraded. It is a whole-of-government problem. The Premier can find enough money to fund the $400 million sewerage tunnel along the northern side of Sydney Harbour to make sure the harbour looks pretty for the Olympic Games, $30 million to do up George Street, and $21.5 million for a canopy over the Eastern Distributor to shield the Art Gallery from noise and the terrible sight of motor cars on the distributor. Why can he not find some funds to get the magnificent inland waterway system of New South Wales up and running again? He simply has no interest in country New South Wales; and it is a joke to claim that this ridiculous tax will go anywhere near helping the inland waterway systems. The tax is clearly a consolidated revenue raiser by the Minister.

I invite the Minister and the Premier to join with the Opposition in seeking real funds to fix up the waterway systems. We will approach it on a whole-of-government basis, not in this narrow, silly way the Government has sought to do. The obvious way to do that is by means of a national river health program under the Natural Heritage Trust that is to be established after the sale of one-third of Telstra. If the Premier, the Minister and his ministerial colleagues involved in land and water conservation and the environment were worth their salt they would join with the Opposition in seeking funds for that project, rather than impose a tax on country New South Wales. In 1988 the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, withdrew the inland licence fee. In a press statement at that time he said:

This move will benefit country people whose opportunity for fishing is limited and whose major recreational pastime is wetting a line in the local rivers.

Saltwater anglers do not have to pay this licence fee and it is my desire to make sure country people have the same freedom to fish without government costs being imposed on them.

The Opposition has not moved from that position in relation to inland fishing licences. I now turn to the proposals for fisheries trust funds. The Government
Page 1806
intends to create a number of trust funds: a Recreational Fishing (Freshwater) Trust Fund, a Recreational Fishing (Estuarine Marine) Trust Fund, a Commercial Fishing Trust Fund, a Fish Conservation Trust Fund and an Aquaculture Trust Fund. There is something sadly lacking in the explanation as to why those trust funds have to be set up. The Opposition remains to be convinced that those trust funds will be effective and will ensure that the funds of fishermen are adequately protected.

If this legislation is passed, the Opposition will monitor the trust fund concept closely and will seek certain assurances and undertakings concerning the funds which I will mention shortly. In line with our amendment noted earlier, the Opposition will seek to amend the trust fund provision to delete all reference to an inland fishing fee so far as it refers to the Recreational Fishing (Freshwater) Trust Fund. I repeat, however, that the Opposition has significant reservations in relation to this whole matter. We believe that there is already provision for all the matters referred to in the trust funds to be paid out by fisheries in their normal accounting procedures.

The Opposition believes that trust funds are an attempt by a bullying, inefficient and inept Treasurer, who is driving this State to the verge of bankruptcy and a $1 billion budget blow-out, to get the funds back into Treasury accounts. If the Minister looks at the fine print he will see that that is where these funds will end up. In his mining portfolio, the Minister has already succumbed to the Treasurer with the Coal Acquisition Amendment Bill. The Minister did not introduce that bill into this House. It was introduced as a money bill in the upper House. That in itself is illegal and is a sign of the total dominance of this Minister by the Treasurer. This is a further example of the Treasurer’s dominance and it is evidenced in proposed section 239A, which refers to the investment of money in trust funds. The proposed section states:

The Minister is to invest money in a trust fund:

(a) in the manner authorised by the Public Authorities (Financial Arrangements) Act 1987, or

(b) if that Act does not confer power on the Minister to invest the money - in any manner authorised for the investment of trust funds or approved by the Treasurer.

The wording is "is to invest", not "may invest". I am not convinced that the Minister for Fisheries has the strength or the capacity to stand up to this bullying Treasurer and the masters of Treasury. There is something sadly amiss and astray in this part of the legislation. The Minister in his reply must spell out clearly the deal he has done with Treasury in setting up these trust funds to capture the industry money before it goes into consolidated revenue. The Opposition is not satisfied that this process has been as transparent as the Minister would have us believe in his second reading speech. Something is going on behind the scenes, because I do not believe that this Minister has the capacity or the ability to stand up to the Treasurer.

It may be that the Minister has not even realised that he is being rolled by the Treasurer in this whole exercise. But one thing is certain: this will give Treasury an ideal opportunity to say to the Minister that if he is short of money in his portfolio areas he can make it up from the collection of funds and the money that he wants to put into his trust account. He will not be able to go cap in hand to Treasury for funding. That simply means that both the recreational and the commercial fishing sectors of New South Wales will be plundered for funds by the Minister when his access to consolidated revenue funding is cut by the Treasurer. That means that he will also have to reduce research, assistance to aquaculture - which is now virtually nil - work on habitat preservation and all the other work that is carried out by New South Wales Fisheries.

The fee base for fisheries is small and is basically carried by the commercial fishing sector. If this legislation is implemented the fee base will be carried by the singled-out inland fishermen. The Minister has been hoodwinked by the Treasurer. The continual blow-out of the fisheries budget through the inept management of the Minister and the low fee base will have a cataclysmic result in the not-too-distant future. Proposed section 233 is headed "Establishment of trust funds" and states that the types of funds that I have mentioned are under the control of the Minister and "can be expended by the Minister only for the purposes authorised by this Division".

That is totally contradictory, because in each instance of a determination of what may be paid out of the trust fund there is, as I mentioned when talking about the Freshwater Trust Fund, a precursor that there may - and I emphasise "may" - be paid out of the fund the various items that are then set out in the bill. That obviously leaves an opportunity for the Minister to pay out other money. In each instance there is a statement that the Minister is to consult any relevant advisory council and recreational fishing established under section 229 about policies and priorities for expenditure from the fund. The Minister’s idea of consultation is entirely different from that of the fishing industry.

Page 1807

The Minister simply has to say, as he often does, "I have consulted." He does not have to act on the determination of any relevant advisory council. He does not have to be guided by them. He does not have to be directed by them. He does not have to take heed of them. He merely has to turn up in the room and say, "I am going to do this or that", call that consultation, walk out of the room and thumb his nose at that committee, as he has done with many of the fishermen in this State time and again over the past two years. He can do what he wants to do or, more likely, he will do what he is directed to do by his masters, the Premier and the Treasurer.

The Minister is simply imposing his will on the fishermen and the management advisory committees that he has established in New South Wales. He is telling the fishermen they will pay the shortfall of $7 million in the Department of Fisheries. The department has set massive arbitrary figures for fishermen to pay for cost recovery. I am told by fishermen, not merely by one but by many, and by many members of the management advisory committees that they are totally disgusted with the way in which it is being forced upon them under the pretext of consultation. The Minister claimed in his second reading speech that the transparency of the system was demonstrated by the tabling of annual reports, et cetera. What about the transparency of this massive grab for money by the Department of Fisheries and the Minister?

If that is how trust funds and accounting procedures operate in the Department of Fisheries, obviously the words of consultation used in the bill and the Minister’s speech are hollow rhetoric. The Opposition wants the Minister to clearly spell out in his reply the meaning of proposed section 235, which is headed "Recreational Fishing (Estuarine and Marine) Trust Fund" and states that all fees paid for the registration of fishing gear used for recreational estuarine and marine fishing will be included in the trust fund. The Opposition, and indeed the recreational fishing fraternity of New South Wales, would like the Minister to spell out the full ramifications of that amendment. Is that another tax, in addition to the inland fishing tax that is imposed by the bill? Is this the start of a saltwater recreation fee to help prop up this near-bankrupt Government?

As I have already mentioned, the Minister claimed that the transparency of this procedure would be demonstrated by the tabling of annual reports. That is provided for in proposed section 239. It is all very well to have an annual report on the application of moneys in the trust funds that certain committees of the Parliament can look at, but I hope that will not affect the Minister’s responsibility to answer questions in the estimates committees hearings should this bill pass. I turn now to charter boat fishing amendments. These are clayton’s amendments. They are amendments when the Act is not being amended. Why has the Minister again not consulted with the industry? Why did he have to introduce deficient and inefficient legislation in the manner set out in these amendments. He should talk with the industry, get it right and then introduce meaningful legislation that has the backing of the industry at large. I have written to all charter boat operators in New South Wales. If I can do it in opposition with little or no resources, why can the Government not do the same? I received one letter that sums up the Minister’s consultation with the charter boat operators. Phoenix Charters faxed me on 4 November and said:

The comments from the Minister regarding extensive discussion with the Charter Boat Industry and the Industry’s lack of objection to the regulation of the Industry are blatant lies - The proposal for a freshwater fishing licence has only been discussed with a limited number of interested parties and has not been publicised to the general public.

I also received a letter from charter boat operators named Bianca Deep Sea and Game Fishing Charters. I understand the Minister has also received the same letter. It said:

The NSW Fisheries have undertaken a review of charter boats in NSW over the past few months and I fear that you have been misinformed with the feelings and nature of the industry.

Firstly, Fisheries management has done an appalling job of involving the industry in consultation and failing to match the names of the operators with their right addresses. This mistake was made on the initial contact and has never been corrected. Less than 40% of the operators were contacted.

Port meetings were established by persons within the industry and an informal vote was taken to elect port representatives.

The port delegates meetings with NSW Fisheries have been farcical to the point that when we disputed what had been said at previous meetings and asked for a stenographer to be present to take accurate minutes of each meeting it was refused.

NSW Fisheries then continued to select part statements and use them to their own means. NSW Fisheries also continued to contact those people that may have been in favour of a licence outside of meetings in order to muster support.

I was elected as a port representative for Port Hacking and have held meetings in the port. A show of hands at our first meeting revealed 80% objection to a licence. After a further meeting and discussion with NSW Fisheries a show of hands revealed a 100% objection to a licence.

I find it most disturbing that at what seems to have been some form of public meeting the department refused a request to have a stenographer present to
Page 1808
take minutes to ensure an accurate record of the meeting was kept. I now turn to a letter from the New South Wales Charter Boat Operators Association of 4 October 1997 which is signed by Mr Bert Elswyk, the secretary of the association. Mr Elswyk said:

Mr Turner we would like to inform you that, although the Minister for Fisheries Bob Martin stated in his address to Parliament the proposed amendments had been discussed extensively with the industry and that the industry has raised no objection to amending the Act to provide for industry management, we strongly disagree.

Despite attending two meetings with fisheries on the charter boat industry review group, it wasn’t until we received your information that we had any idea of the content of the pending changes that were being proposed let alone agreeing to any of it. The proposed changes to the amendment were not discussed with the industry extensively - in fact, it was not discussed at all. Had it been discussed with us in detail we would most assuredly have objected in the strongest terms.

We don’t know where the Minister got his misleading information from but it certainly did not come from us.

I received another telling letter from Kiama Charter Services of 6 November, in which Mr and Mrs Garard said:

We have not seen anything like you sent us until now. When the Minister says the industry has raised no objection to amending the Act, that is because we were not aware of what the amendments were and how soon they were being put to Parliament.

The Minister is fortunate that I did his work for him and contacted the charter boat operators. Mr Russell Kennedy, a port delegate for the New South Wales Charter Boat Operators Association, wrote to the Minister on 6 November 1997 and, inter alia, said:

It has been brought to my attention by John Turner MP, Shadow Minister for Fisheries, that your Government introduced the Fisheries Management (Amendment) Bill on October 27 1997 affecting the charter boat industry.

Mr Kennedy went on to state:

I have recently received a copy of your speech as read in Parliament and make reference to the section on Recreational Charter Boats -

he means the Minister’s speech. He went on to say:

In review, I was amazed to discover that your views and the views of the Government did not reflect correctly the views of the members of the NSW Charter Boat Operators Association Incorporated and the Industry Review Group delegates. I would at this point wish to convey to you the unfortunate discrepancies and inaccuracies of its content.

Mr Kennedy also said in his letter to the Minister:

Importantly, there is a repetitious undertone relayed in your speech of your desire to consult and work with the Industry, with emphasis placed on the open and accountable process in working with us on these matters. We oppose this view and believe there has been insufficient information consultation, a reluctance of your department to co-operate with requests for information and a devious and cunning manipulative withholding of the facts.

Regrettably, I hear stories time and time again that are similar to this one. The consultation is "We will tell you what is going to happen and you will wear it". That is simply not good enough. I received another letter from Arthur’s Fishing Charters, which said:

Thank you for contacting us and expressing your concern about the proposed legislation regarding the Charter Boat Industry in New South Wales. In locating my business and contacting me it appears that your staff has displayed more competence and initiative than the staff attached to the NSW Fisheries, who despite my advert in the Sydney Yellow Pages under the heading ‘FISHING TRIPS’ have to date failed to contact myself or the majority of operators in the Port Hacking Area.

It further stated:

In conclusion, Mr Martin’s speech is full of inaccuracies and half truths. Consulting does not mean forcing legislation on a minority group, and then threatening legal operators with draconian punishments such as prison, to force us to supply research that Fisheries have plainly not accurately undertaken. The amendments have NOT been presented to us as an association, and I have been informed that 90% of operators DO NOT WANT licensing and suggest that either Mr Martin is being misinformed by Fisheries or has some other hidden agenda behind his address to Parliament.

I refer now to other disenchanted charter operators, Ken Sharp and John Lamb from Broken Bay Blue Water Charters, who wrote on 5 November and said:

Firstly, thank you for your letter dated 30th October, 1997 without which we would have been ignorant of proposed changes in the ACT. As much as we are members of the South Coast Charter Boat Operators Association at the time of your letter we hadn’t seen a copy of the new ACT.

They finished their letter by saying:

Finally, one of the reasons we have written to you is because the current Minister has a reputation of not being willing to talk to or discuss matters under his Portfolio with the people it is most likely to affect.

This bill is cloaked with all sorts of vagaries and refers to implementing regulations in almost every aspect of the fishing industry. Proposed section 127B(1) states:

(1) The regulations may declare that all or any specified class of charter fishing boats are required to be licensed under this Part.

Page 1809

The industry wants to know what is going on. It does not want to know whether the regulations may be declared. The industry wants leadership, which is sadly lacking from this Minister and from this Government. Any industry needs certainty and this Government is not providing that certainty. Proposed section 127C(3) is as vague as any provision I have ever read. It basically says that the Minister is required to issue a licence if an application is made, unless the Minister is authorised by the regulation to refuse the application. Then it says the Minister may refuse the application because of any applicable restriction on any charter boat under a management plan prescribed by the regulation for the charter fishing industry. That means that he can issue the licence, then he might not issue it, then he might issue it, and then he might not issue it again.

The Government should withdraw this fanciful legislation, reconsider it, consult properly with the industry and reintroduce it to the Parliament as a separate piece of defining legislation if necessary. By doing that the Government should, under proposed section 127E(1) as part of the record keeping, ask the master of the boat to include the number of people on the boat and the number of fish caught so that meaningful statistics can be taken. The Opposition will move an amendment to delete this entire schedule from the bill on the basis of the Minister’s lack of consultation with the industry. We give an undertaking that we will reconsider the matter once we are convinced that the Minister has consulted properly, fully, openly and transparently with the industry.

The letters and the phone calls that I have received and the quotes I have referred to in this speech indicate that the Government has not consulted with the industry but has yet again sought to impose its will to alienate yet another sector of the community. This portion of the amending bill is so vague and subject to so many proposed regulations that the Opposition has no present knowledge of it and it really serves no purpose. The bill should be taken away and appropriate consultation should take place, and the legislation that is intended to be imposed on this industry should be put on the table for discussion. Only then should it be reintroduced to the House.

If the Minister intends to proceed with this proposed section of the bill, obviously the Opposition will be unsuccessful in the vote. If the sentiments I have expressed are not carried in the upper House, I assure the Minister that the Opposition and the industry will look closely at the many regulations brought in through the provisions of this amendment to prop up and give body to this otherwise hollow piece of legislation. The Minister might consider also the application of the national competition policy in relation to his proposals in the charter boat industry.

In summary, the Opposition will oppose the matters pertaining to a freshwater fishing licence and all ancillary clauses affected therein and will require the Government to take into account the various matters that I have mentioned as anomalies in this bill, particularly in relation to some definitions in the threatened species conservation section of the bill in relation to determination of indigenous fish, definitions of harm and the like. As I said, failure to agree to these amendments will see the Opposition opposing this bill at the third reading.

Our final plea to the Minister is that if he is to continue to bring in constant change to New South Wales fishermen, he must do two things: consult and draw a line in the sand to say no more after this. With constant upheaval, after constant change and constant attack, the commercial fishing sector particularly has reached the end of its tether. If it is the Minister’s desired result to expunge fishermen by a war of attrition, then sadly he is succeeding. It is astounding that a Minister of Fisheries should want his portfolio to wither and die on the vine.

Mr THOMPSON (Rockdale) [8.33 p.m.]: The Fisheries Management Amendment Bill is a tremendously important matter that is certain to have far-reaching consequences for the fishing industry in all its forms. The objects of the bill are: first, to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation along similar lines to the provisions applying to other animals and plants under the Threatened Species Conservation Act; second, to make further provisions with respect to commercial fisheries management, including the extension of fisheries management planning to certain restricted fisheries that are not share management fisheries, which will be called commercial managed fisheries; third, to provide for the payment of a fishing fee by recreational freshwater fishers; fourth, to establish special fisheries trust funds with respect to fishing fees and other fees and charges collected by New South Wales Fisheries; fifth, to regulate charter boat fishing; and, sixth, to make certain other changes to the Act and other consequential Acts.

I shall particularly address those aspects relating to the introduction of a recreational freshwater fishing fee. This amendment could substantially enhance our inland recreational fisheries and provide improved fishing opportunities for New South Wales anglers. The amendment
Page 1810
proposing the fee results from intensive lobbying of the Government by major inland angling organisations and associations. That puts paid to the Opposition lie. The Carr Government has undertaken extensive consultation on this issue over a considerable period of time. The whole process has been predicated on the widest possible consultation, involving the tabling and releasing of the draft bill and the distribution of a discussion paper.

The discussion paper sought input from the community either supporting or opposing the concept of the bill. Community input was also sought on the detail of the bill, such as length of access given by the fee, for example, 28 days, one year or three years, and the costs of any such fee. The community was asked also to give its priorities for funding from revenue raised from the fee, such as for the expansion of this Government’s excellent stocking and breeding program, carp reduction program, further research or compliance activity.

With the widespread publicity surrounding the issue, few freshwater anglers could argue that they have not had the opportunity to have their say. As I said earlier, that flies in the face of the ridiculous stance of the Opposition on this matter. It is apparent that considerable effort went into making sure that the broad spectrum of freshwater fishers were included in the discussion. The process has been highly worthwhile. Recreational fishing is a tremendously popular sport and this Government does not underestimate its social and economic importance. Recreational fishing is practised by approximately 30 per cent of the New South Wales population and generates significant economic activity in the State.

It is estimated that anglers spend over $1.5 billion per year on capital and current per trip expenditure. Clearly, all proposals that have the potential to impact on this sport need careful evaluation. The introduction of this fee is supported by all major angling associations and many other sectors of the industry. A significant proportion of individuals have been involved in the debate. Widespread support for the introduction of a freshwater fishing fee has been well and truly demonstrated. After three months of consultation 75 per cent of the 3,800-odd discussion paper questionnaires that were received registered support for the proposal.

The outcome is consistent with two previous surveys, the first of which was carried out independently by the Australian Fishing Tackle Association and registered 64 per cent support for the reintroduction of the licence without qualification and 84 per cent support for the reintroduction if funds were used to enhance recreational fishing - which, of course, is what the Government proposes to do.

The second survey was carried out by New South Wales Fisheries in 1996 as part of a general review of angling laws for freshwater native fish. An analysis of the 3,800-plus responses showed that 69 per cent of freshwater anglers supported an inland angling licence. In the electorate of Coffs Harbour, 87 per cent of the respondents to the survey supported the introduction of a licence fee. In the electorate of Myall Lakes, 100 per cent of the respondents supported the introduction of a licence fee. In the electorate of Oxley, 77 per cent of respondents supported the introduction of a licence fee. It is heartening that a significant number of people are effectively volunteering to make a direct financial contribution to assist the sustainable management of our inland fisheries. This level of support allows the Government to promote the bill with confidence. Such a strong statement is evidence of the growing recognition of the high value and fragile nature of our freshwater fisheries sources. Item [1] to schedule 3 states:

freshwater means water in a river or creek that is not subject to tidal influence:

(a) including any body of freshwater that is naturally or artificially stored (such as a freshwater lake, lagoon, dam, reservoir, pond, canal, channel or waterway) but,

(b) not including any coastal lake that is intermittently open to tidal influence.

The regulations may, for the purpose of avoiding doubt about the application of this definition, specify the point at which any river, creek or other body of water becomes subject to tidal influence.

recreational freshwater fisher means a fisher who takes fish from freshwater by any method, otherwise than for sale.

Mr Fraser: Did you have to read the bill to find that out?

Mr THOMPSON: It is important that we understand the specific definitions contained in the bill. I refer to the recreational freshwater fishers who are required to pay the fishing fee. Proposed section 34C states:

(1) A fishing fee is payable by all recreational freshwater fishers, unless exempted under this section.

It is important for honourable members to note the exemptions. [Quorum formed.]

Page 1811

Proposed section 34C continues:

(2) A fisher is exempt from paying a fishing fee:

(a) if the fisher is under 18 years of age, or

(b) if the fisher holds a licence, permit or other authority under this Act or the regulation and is taking fish in accordance with that licence, permit or other authority, or

(c) if the fisher is taking fish from water subject to an aquaculture permit and is taking fish to which the permit relates, or

(d) or if the fisher is an Aboriginal within the meaning of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983, or

(e) if the fisher is taking fish from an aquarium, or from a body of water of a class exempted by the regulations, or

(f) if the fisher is a fisher of a class exempted by the regulations.

The activities that anglers are keen to fund are evidence that many understand the future needs of our inland waterways, including controlling pests, such as carp, and increased management of other environmental problems; increased habitat protection and restoration; increased stocking of native fish, including threatened species; improved regulation and policing of freshwater fisheries; and increased research into ways of improving and sustaining our freshwater fisheries. The high rate of approval for the fee is a good indication that there will be a high level of voluntary compliance. The fee will allow the number of New South Wales Fisheries officers to be increased and will enhance their work of checking compliance with gear restrictions and bag and size regulations. Officers will also check that anglers have paid the fishing fee.

However, I stress that the work of New South Wales Fisheries officers will continue to be well targeted and their highest target is and will remain the protection of fisheries resources. They will continue to target high-priority areas; the focus will not simply be on checking that the fees have been paid. Angling is an integral part of life in regional areas of New South Wales, with more than 30 per cent of the population involved each year. Many of the services and recreational opportunities that people in the metropolitan areas take for granted are not widely available elsewhere. Therefore, any enhancement of the popular pastime of angling will be a boon to New South Wales, particularly in inland areas.

It is estimated that half a million interstate and overseas tourists fish in New South Wales, and that many more travel from metropolitan areas to regional areas to fish. The increased mobility of anglers, the success of New South Wales stocking programs and an increasing interest in freshwater fishing all result in the growing importance of angling tourism to many rural economies. Towns near major fisheries gain significantly from angling. However, there are few areas that do not derive some benefit. The comment has been made that it is inequitable for inland people to pay a fee for fishing in freshwater while those on the coast do not have to pay. This ignores the fact that freshwater fishing licences are a common and well-accepted user-pays system. The fees collected provide services that are unique to freshwater fishing, such as fish stocking in the many thousands of kilometres of rivers and impoundments.

It has been said that this proposal will be a tax on rural communities, but experience shows that nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, the fee will act greatly to the benefit of regional New South Wales. The vast majority of additional services will be provided by expending funds in regional areas, while the bulk of those paying the fee will live in metropolitan areas or areas outside New South Wales. In summary, current freshwater anglers will enjoy additional services and those living in regional areas will gain from increased economic activity. However, we should not forget that future generations will be the main winners of the bill. Future generations will enjoy healthier rivers and fish populations that inevitably result from the additional research, resource management and environmental work that will be funded by today’s freshwater anglers. This is yet another step in the Carr Government’s commitment to providing the best possible angling opportunities for the fishers of New South Wales and to improving our fisheries. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [8.50 p.m.]: The Minister and the Government must be criticised for this complex legislation.

Mr Martin: It is complex only to those who cannot read.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister is very complex, but he will not be around after the next election -

Mr Martin: Neither will you.

Mr JEFFERY: I am going voluntarily but the Minister will go involuntarily. The Minister knows that charter boat operators are very angry that they have not been properly consulted by the Government. The relentless push for restricted fisheries, under the guise of another name, has
Page 1812
rightly upset the industry. Allowance must be made for compensation. I shall not go into detail in speaking about the outstanding contribution made by the honourable member for Myall Lakes, because all honourable members should read his speech. The Minister should read the speech over and over again so that he might learn something, even though he is a slow learner. Compensation is a must. Overwhelmingly, share managed fisheries are the preferred option. The special fisheries trust funds, about which we have heard a great deal, will be so minuscule as to be useless. The New South Wales fishery is in disarray. Simple tasks such as the subdivision of oyster leases take years - I know of a case in point in my electorate at present.

Mr Martin: Tell us what is happening.

Mr JEFFERY: If I were to tell the Minister all about that case, we would be here until midnight. There are a great many faults within the Minister’s portfolio. The honourable member for Coffs Harbour will speak at length on the object of the bill to conserve threatened species. The bill is designed to conserve designated threatened species of marine life and marine vegetation. I have no problem with that provision, so long as everyone knows exactly what it is that is being protected. How is any fisher to know that he has a threatened species at the end of his line? I am a keen fisherman but there are fish that even I do not recognise.

Mr McManus: Like what?

Mr JEFFERY: The honourable member for Bulli is a stunned mullet. How long is it since he went fishing?

Mr McManus: It’s a couple of weeks.

Mr JEFFERY: Really? What did you catch?

Mr McManus: Nothing.

Mr Martin: But we heard that you had a grouper up your way.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister has been scaled down a fair amount himself lately, so he should not make interjections like that.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Oxley should not bait the Minister.

Mr JEFFERY: I would not bait the Minister. What would I use for berley? As the Minister has the final say on what is scheduled, he must be a real expert in this area. What is the point of establishing a threatened species conservation protection program only for fish and marine vegetation that was indigenous to New South Wales before European settlement? Biodiversity is not necessarily enhanced by ancient species. Provision must be made to protect against prosecution people who unwittingly injure protected species. I recognise that the protection of fish stocks is important, and I support heads of government consensus on the issue. Towns reliant upon tourism, such as Urunga, Nambucca Heads, South West Rocks, Stuarts Point, Scotts Head, Crescent Head and Grassy Head, thrive on the added attraction of good fishing for recreational anglers.

Mr Martin: What about Seal Rocks?

Mr JEFFERY: Seal Rocks is out of my area. I have wonderful fishing areas in my electorate. Most anglers are very responsible people. I am a keen fisherman myself. There are those who are not responsible. Of course I support penalties for those who deliberately harm threatened species or damage the habitat of threatened species. The provision on commercial fishery management extends fisheries management planning to restricted fisheries. Existing restricted fisheries become commercial managed fisheries under this bill; the bill in effect changes the name of what is really restricted fisheries to commercial managed fisheries. Until now there has been no provision for such fisheries to have management plans. This is another way of forcing a restricted fishery concept on the industry.

This provision differentiates between restricted fisheries and share managed fisheries in the fees payable by each fishery. The bill specifically provides that no compensation will be payable should government policy close a commercial fishery. That is wrong, it is outrageous. Compensation is essential if the livelihood of fishers is taken away. The preference of the current Government for a restricted fishery concept is evident in this bill and, again, the Government has failed to consult. Professional fishermen have a right to be angry. Surely it is their right to at least have a say in the management of their industry. Professional fishers ask what is the point of meeting the Minister when he will not consult. As was evidenced at Camden Haven, when fishers do attend a meeting they express their disagreement with the Minister’s policies.

Mr Martin: They were happy. They didn’t treat me in the same way as they treated Causley.

Mr JEFFERY: I should send the Minister a copy of the Port Macquarie News, then he would know how happy the fishers were. The Minister
Page 1813
does not know what is going on. The Minister is to be condemned for his relentless pursuit of restricted fisheries, with no consultation. The Minister does not support compensation.

Mr Martin: I want good management.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister does not know what good management means. The Minister wants a new tax, he wants to introduce a licence to fish in fresh water. That would not be a fee; it would be a tax on country people and on rural tourism. The recreational freshwater fee is discriminatory, and the small amount of money collected after all the administration costs were taken out would not be enough to stock a bath tub. The Government will introduce a licence fee, then it will increase the fee. I know what the Minister is up to: the next step will be to introduce a licence to fish in salt water. The Minister may try to deny that, but I know his secret agenda. The introduction of these fees will be the death knell of this Government. I fish and I vote, but I will not vote for this Government. The majority of the electorate will never again vote for this Government, which cannot be trusted. The honourable member for Rockdale said that 40,000 discussion papers on the matter had been circulated. Where is the feedback on those discussion papers? The Minister claims to have support for an inland fishing fee. I admit that some clubs, and I think of some of the bass clubs, have indicated support. However, that does not apply to 98 per cent of the general population.

Mr McManus: What about the 77 per cent in your electorate?

Mr JEFFERY: The honourable member for Bulli is referring to a restricted poll. If I were to ask 40,000 voters in my electorate whether they supported an inland fishing fee, 39,000 of them would say no. After I had told them that the Government intended to introduce a saltwater fishing fee, 40,000 of them would say no. The honourable member is wrong. People have come to me concerned that there is no guarantee that such a fee would not be eaten up in administration costs. Who would collect that fee, anyway, if fisheries offices such as those in my electorate continue to be closed? It is not acceptable to have an office that is open only one day a week and expect people to travel great distances. That is the situation in my area now.

Special fisheries trust funds to preserve fees collected for fishing licences and other revenue raising will be a waste of time and money. The honourable member for Myall Lakes hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Treasury might have something to say about revenue and expenditure. I question the efficacy of a trust fund in those circumstances. Will the Minister for Fisheries increase fees and charges merely to justify the establishment of trust funds? Will this be just another example of self-perpetuating bureaucracy, or is this just the tip of the iceberg - the start of plans to license saltwater anglers? I believe that to be the case. We also heard about the charter boat operators. After meeting with the shadow minister I understand that they saw the Minister.

Mr Martin: We did consult.

Mr JEFFERY: After it was all over. The Minister did not consult before that. They were angry when they came here. The Minister only consulted when the shadow minister sent the information to charter boat operators. Before that, they knew nothing about it. Obviously the section of the bill which relates to charter boats paves the way for extensive regulations being set up for the licensing of operators and management of the charter boat catch. I guarantee it will not go down well with the operators. We must wait for the regulations to see the full extent of these proposals, but the Government has virtually said that these people are taking fish irresponsibly and running unlicensed businesses.

Charter boat operators already have to comply with a swag of regulations to take passengers to sea, for example. Responsible charter boat operators do not take fish unnecessarily. Many are tagged and released. Some might be kissed - if caught by Rex Hunt. To regulate a self-regulating industry without consultation is typical of this big-brother-is-watching-you Government. The Minister, or the Treasurer, can see a previously untapped source of revenue. The Minister has not adequately consulted, so he should withdraw the legislation to enable further consultation to take place.

In regard to interstate bans and miscellaneous sections of the bill, I agree with the Minister that it is important to monitor black-market sales and prevent exploitation of protected fish. Undoubtedly not many would object under these circumstances. Beach netting by interstate fishermen during the annual fish migration has long been a contentious issue on the mid-north coast. That results in many representations being made, as the Minister is aware. I hope that the poaching of fish stocks by interstate fishermen can be arrested. I have outlined the areas of the bill that I believe are unsatisfactory. This is a major piece of legislation, but the Minister has definitely not consulted properly. He is trying to pick up the threads; he knows he was wrong.

Page 1814

The shadow minister for fisheries does not have the funds or the staff that the Minister has, yet members of the Opposition were at least able to provide their electorates with information. The Minister should give me the opportunity to conduct a poll in my electorate on whether my constituents support inland fishing fees. Is someone going to sit on one side of the bridge over the Macleay River at Kempsey? Will people who fish downstream be all right?

Mr Martin: I have been there; I have done it.

Mr JEFFERY: I have not seen you on the bridge for years.

Mr McManus: Seventy-seven per cent of your constituents want it.

Mr JEFFERY: It is a loaded questionnaire. I understand that some clubs would say yes to it.

Mr Martin: Do you say they are wrong?

Mr JEFFERY: I am saying there is a difference of opinion.

Mr McManus: So we do not have an overwhelming majority against it?

Mr JEFFERY: No, because you have misled them. There will be no funds after administration costs have been taken out. Many people will be upset. People who want to fish only once a year will have to pay $10 to throw in a line at the Copeton Dam. My wife will not fish if she has to get a licence.

Mr Martin: You will have a good day out.

Mr JEFFERY: I will fish in the sea - until you bring in a licence on saltwater fishing.

Mr Martin: Your wife would probably be pleased if you went fishing and left her at home.

Mr JEFFERY: I take my wife, she does a good job; we work together. There are some major problems, and the Minister should rethink the legislation. [Time expired.]

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [9.05 p.m.]: I support the bill. Previous speakers have berated the Minister over what they refer to as his lack of consultation. I will refer to the other side of his portfolio. He consulted with mining unions and with miners who were going to lose their jobs only a couple of years ago -

Mr Jeffery: On a point of order. We are debating the Fisheries Management Amendment Bill, not the mining management amendment bill. I ask you to bring the member back to the leave of the bill.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! It is the practice in this House to allow members to make passing reference to other issues. The Minister has a joint portfolio, and I am sure the member will quickly conclude his remarks.

Mr McMANUS: This Minister was able to achieve $1.2 million for mines in my electorate alone and another $3 million for the Burragorang Valley by consultation. If that is not a Minister who consults, I do not know what is. I sincerely congratulate him. It is interesting that members of the National Party complain that they and their constituents are hard done by. I would like to reflect on the survey that was carried out in their electorates. The members representing the electorates of Coffs Harbour and Oxley are in the Chamber, and we will soon hear from the honourable member for Murray.

In the seat of Oxley there was a 77 per cent response to the questionnaire, and in Coffs Harbour an 87 per cent response. I am sure the honourable member for Murray will also complain about the Government’s stance on this matter. In his electorate there was a 96 per cent response. It is disgraceful that the Opposition has the audacity to complain. The bill contains provisions which confirm that the Carr Government’s reforms of fisheries management in New South Wales are the most far-sighted and far-reaching ever undertaken in the history of the State. The reforms ensure that our fisheries are sustainable; that our recreational fishers, over two million of them, can continue to enjoy the most popular sport in Australia; and that our hard-working and productive commercial fishers have job security and a viable industry. These are genuine reforms, not political point scoring.

I now refer to three of the proposals in the bill: the regulation of charter boat fishing; the extension of fisheries management planning to restricted fisheries, which will be identified in future as commercial managed fisheries; and the making of miscellaneous, and in some cases long overdue, changes to the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and certain other Acts. Schedule 5 to the bill provides for the regulation of recreational fishing charter boats. The proposed amendments provide for licensing and management of charter boats, reporting of valuable catch and effort information, identification of legitimate operators in the industry
Page 1815
and the formal recognition of their stakeholding in the fishery, proper allocation of limited fisheries resources, and the contribution by operators towards the costs of management of the very fish stocks on which the charter boat industry relies.

The fishing charter boat industry has grown dramatically in the past five years. The number of charter boats operating in the Solitary Islands area off Coffs Harbour are a prime example of that growth. In some parts of New South Wales there has been a threefold increase in the number of operators, with a resultant impact on fish stocks. It is clear that established operators in the industry are concerned about the rapid increase in fishing effort. They and the community look to the Carr Government for some action. Typically, the National Party complains about what needs to be done, but when the coalition is in office it does nothing. As soon as the Labor Government does something constructive members of the National Party whinge and complain.

The concentration of passenger fishing effort, coupled with the expertise of charter boat skippers and crews, results in the boats becoming efficient fishing platforms. They have the potential to have a significant impact on local fish populations. New South Wales is lucky to have diverse fisheries resources. It is interesting to note those members who are seriously concerned about and interested in this bill. The inane interjections flooding across the Chamber at the moment are disgraceful. I hope that the commercial fishermen and charter boat fishermen that the Opposition is supposed to be protecting read my speech in Hansard. They will learn just how ignorant Opposition members are in respect of the issue. As I said before, New South Wales is lucky to have diverse fisheries resources. However, we must be cautious in the management of their harvesting because scientific research shows that our fish stocks are limited. That is why the Carr Government will continue to make decisions that ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the State’s fisheries.

I was pleased to hear that fisheries managers and the charter boat industry agree that the time has arrived to recognise this industry as a fishery in its own right. It is something that should have been done under the former coalition Government and was not done, but will be done under this Minister. It is a legitimate third sector, alongside recreational and commercial fishing, and provision must now be made for its proper management. Such recognition is in line with other States and Territories that have either implemented management programs for charter boats, or are in the process of doing so. I am also pleased to hear that proposals to manage the charter boat industry have been developed after full consultation with the operators - not the handful of people whose letters honourable members opposite quoted; letters from their Liberal mates. The Minister has consulted with the fishing industry, just as he did with the mining industry, and is arriving at sustainable growth rates and proper management of the industry.

Following an extensive round of port meetings, a charter boat industry management review group was established comprising industry, research and fisheries management. The industry has also formed its own statewide association - a further positive step. This Government is encouraged by the support shown by the industry for the proposed amendments to the Act. The Government will honour its commitment that no mandatory licensing will occur without further consultation and industry support. Not only has the Government consulted, but there will be further consultation and the Government will gain industry support. The charter boat industry is a legitimate industry which actively seeks this Government’s assistance for sound and proper management. These proposals will bring the industry into the circle of sound fisheries management for the continuing sustainable use of our limited fisheries resources.

I turn now to schedule 2 to the bill, which allows for the designation of commercial managed fisheries and for the development of management plans to underpin the sustainable management of those fisheries. At present only share managed fisheries benefit from the statutory provisions of management plans. That is clearly not in the interests of our fisheries or the viability of the commercial fishing industry. The Government proposes therefore to extend the benefit of management plans to fisheries that the fishery Management Advisory Committees, or MACs, recommend for management other than by share management. The six existing restricted fisheries will be known as commercial managed fisheries under the proposed amendment. The proposals for commercial managed fisheries differ from share managed fisheries in two ways. Firstly, statutory compensation is not payable. I note here that fishers in share management are only entitled to compensation if a share managed fishery ceases to be such after the commencement of its management plan. Secondly, fishers in a commercial managed fishery will not be obliged to pay a community contribution.

If a fishery is declared a commercial managed fishery, the Minister must arrange for a draft
Page 1816
management plan to be prepared as soon as practicable. The management plans must be made in consultation with the community and industry. The plans are the principal statutory rules for management of a fishery and they take precedence over the regulations or closures that apply to the fishery. At this point I should add that the reason all fishers do not wish to proceed along the share management path are many and varied. Some fisheries are high-value, single-species fisheries with a comparatively small number of participants and are ideally suited to quota management. These fisheries are, in general, the most suitable for share management. Exploratory fisheries, developing fisheries, and multispecies fisheries with high numbers of participants are less suited to share management and may be more properly managed as commercial managed fisheries. This allows for greater flexibility in their development and management, together with lower costs.

Mr Hartcher: Written by the department, read by Ian Mcmanus.

Mr McMANUS: You should keep quiet, you goose. In accordance with this Government’s commitment to full consultation, these proposals have been discussed at length with industry representatives on the Advisory Council on Commercial Fisheries, and the MACs. They have recognised and acknowledged the benefits to be gained from providing for management plans for these fisheries. They, the peer representative bodies in commercial fishing, have given their support to the amendments and I urge honourable members to do the same. The miscellaneous amendments contained in schedule 6 to the bill are designed to improve further the management of the fisheries of New South Wales. With regard to agreements with other States, at present the Government may enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth for the co-operative management of fish stocks common to both. It is proposed to extend this co-operative approach so that the Minister for Fisheries may enter into agreements with his ministerial colleagues in other States to better manage contiguous fisheries.

Such agreements will provide for uniform management rules for common fish stocks. Extensive co-operation has already taken place to work towards uniform management of the native inland fisheries in Lake Hume and Lake Mulwala on the New South Wales-Victorian border. Victorian legislation has provision for State-to-State agreements and this amendment will allow for a historic fisheries agreement for the conservation and sustainable management of our limited inland native fish stocks. Indeed, that is already taking place. Only a few months ago I attended a communication workshop with fisheries inspectors in Merimbula. It was organised by the Minister and there was agreement between all States and a co-operative working liaison between all of those involved. To provide for protection against threats to our vulnerable aquatic habitats it is proposed to allow for the declaration of noxious marine vegetation. The Fisheries Management Act presently allows for declaration of noxious fish, and measures are in place to diminish the threat that such fish may pose.

In a similar fashion, the same contingencies are now required to diminish threats posed by noxious plants. The bill also contains a number of amendments to support the establishment of a national docketing system to counter quota evasion and black marketing of fish. The Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture has committed fisheries agencies throughout Australia to a legislative reform process to arrive at a uniform national fish docketing system. Fisheries officers’ efforts to address major quota evasion and black marketing throughout the country are continually thwarted by thieves taking the product over State borders. By moving between States, these criminals take advantage of different documentation rules, and of the fact that officers cannot act on fish taken illegally in another State. The amendments proposed provide for uniform documentation and make it an offence to be in possession of fish taken or possessed illegally in another State.

Amendments are included to stop the threat to our protected fish. At present unscrupulous fishers use the defence that protected fish in their possession, or which they are selling, were taken in States or Territories where different management rules apply. It is a defence which encourages the trade in protected fish taken illegally in New South Wales. This amendment will make it an offence to possess or sell these special fish, irrespective of where they are taken. An amendment is included in the bill to allow fisheries officers to seize vehicles used in major crimes under the Fisheries Management Act. I encourage all members of this House to support the legislation and I congratulate the Minister on implementing the bill. I commend the bill. [Time expired.]

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Fraser.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr KERR (Cronulla) [9.20 p.m.]: There could be no more important motion than censure. Mr Deputy-Speaker, you will recall that when the previous Government formulated these standing orders they were set out in understandable English and everybody had access to them. At that time
Page 1817
Standing Order 120 was the subject of considerable discussion in the Speaker’s office. I think Mr Hatton -

Mr Hartcher: The excellent former member for South Coast.

Mr KERR: Mr Hatton represented the Independents at that time when discussions were being held concerning the charter of reform.

Mr Hartcher: A superb crossbencher.

Mr KERR: As has been said, Mr Hatton was a crossbench member. The former member for South Coast created something of a dilemma. He understood the requirements of the Parliament, the manner in which question time had to be observed and the way in which the government should conduct the business of the House. Nevertheless, it was important that all honourable members, whether they be government or opposition members, be able to raise matters and convince their fellow members of the urgency of those matters. It was a delicate balance to ensure the rights of each and every member of Parliament. A formula was struck which is embodied in Standing Order 120. That standing order states:

The procedure for consideration of urgent motions shall be as follows:

(1) Prior to calling on Questions without Notice the Speaker shall ask for written notices of motions for urgent consideration.

(2) No more than two notices shall be accepted at any one sitting of the House.

(3) The notices shall be set down for consideration immediately after Questions without Notice with precedence of all other business.

Paragraph (4) subparagraphs (a) to (d) set out additional requirements. Mr Speaker, you will recall, as you hosted each of those discussions, the non-partisan debate that took place. It was a debate about competing interests and it was accepted that the majority of members would vote for the Government motion on each occasion, because that is the nature of this House. However, regardless of whether an Opposition member or an Independent is giving notice of a motion, it is a requirement - it is a necessity in the view of those people who formulated this standing order - that they be given a fair go. Each speaker is given five minutes within which to establish the urgency of his or her motion. The purpose of this standing order is to give precedence to the most urgent of the motions being moved, but that can be established only by argument. The nature of the motion is such that unless those arguments are conveyed to members of the House, urgency cannot be established. On a number of occasions Opposition members have moved motions of urgency and they have been accepted by the Government. To my knowledge, that has happened on only one or two occasions, but it shows the justification for Standing Order 120. Although the Government had a vested interest in ensuring that its motion was the one that was debated, such was the urgency that was established that the Government yielded. A consistent pattern of behaviour has developed and there is a consistent instigator of that behaviour.

Mr Hartcher: The member for Londonderry.

Mr KERR: The honourable member for Londonderry. Let us name members!

[Interruption]

The honourable member for Bankstown laughs!

Mr Hartcher: Not while he was in Switzerland.

Mr KERR: I acknowledge that there was an outbreak of peace when he was in France investigating Princess Di’s death. It is probably no coincidence, but the British papers did a survey and the majority of respondents thought that she had been murdered. There was a total change in the decorum of the House during that period. As I said, there has been a consistent pattern of behaviour aimed at ensuring that an Opposition member speaking in debate on an urgency motion is not heard. Spurious and lengthy points of order have been taken for no purpose other than to silence the member seeking to establish urgency. No matter what the nature of the motion before the House, that is what has happened. Five minutes is not a long time within which to establish urgency.

Quite strong rules are capable of being enforced by the Chair - and they are enforced by the Chair - to prevent abuse of Standing Order 120. But that standing order has been consistently abused, not by the mover of the motion or by anyone seeking to abuse the standing orders, but by one member in particular - sometimes he receives assistance - to ensure that members of the House are not fully informed when they consider these urgency motions. I recall that on one occasion the honourable member for The Entrance said, "Mr Speaker, in the absence of the honourable member for Londonderry, I regret that I have to take a point of order." We know the
Page 1818
standard formula. It does not reflect well on the House as a whole.

Standing Order 120 is a safeguard for members, to ensure that matters of vital importance can be brought before the House and the member who seeks to do so is the advocate for them. That is all that is allowed to happen. That member then has to establish why his motion is more urgent than the motion of another member. I remember that the former member for Gordon was always at pains to recite clauses from the Bill of Rights. However, he was reciting the rights and privileges that had been brought about by the blood of those men and women who have been prepared to fight for the freedom of the Parliament over the centuries. Mr Speaker, in your Chambers we sought to refine the procedures to bring back order into the House to ensure that the five-minute limit to establish urgency is observed. That five minutes is vital to the running of this House and to honourable members’ rights and privileges, which are abused when spurious points of order are taken. For that reason I support the motion.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield - Minister for Police) [9.30 p.m.]: It is important to consider what occurred on 14 October. The Deputy Premier made a statement in support of his motion for urgent consideration, which, for the purpose of this debate on dissent, is not important. Then the Leader of the Opposition made a statement in support of his motion for urgent consideration. In view of the short time frame it is important that honourable members consider the essence of today’s motion, which states:

(a) notes the Premier’s humiliating and historic defeat at this month’s A.L.P. State Conference;

(b) notes that the Premier said in May, [that is May 1997] "We won’t let this drag on to October . . .

As the honourable member for Cronulla said, and as has been the case, during these procedures the honourable member for Londonderry has been taking points of order under Standing Order 120 for some time. I have not known him to be wrong in any respect As the honourable member for Londonderry, I and others have pointed out, the former Government established those standing orders, and in the past members have taken the same objections to them. The standing orders of this House have to be upheld. I diverge for the moment and say that members on both sides of the House have abused the standing orders. Not a day goes past that two notices for consideration of urgent motions are considered and that abuse does not occur - on both sides of the House. This motion relates to the point of order that the honourable member for Londonderry took on 14 October, which is recorded at page 693 of Hansard as follows:

On a point of order. My point of order is the same that I have taken many times in this Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition must prove to the Chamber why his motion is more urgent. He has no right to move into its substance.

When on 14 October the Leader of the Opposition spoke to his notice he began by saying:

In May 1995 the Premier said, "Let me say very firmly that there will not be privatisation of electricity under a Labor Government.

He went straight into the argument, straight to the substance of his motion, rather than speak to its urgency. The motion of dissent states:

(a) notes the Premier’s humiliating and historic defeat at this month’s A.L.P. State Conference;

(b) notes the Premier said in May, [that is 1997] "We won’t let this drag on to October . . .

(c) calls on the Premier to outline, for the benefit of his colleagues, how he now plans to proceed with his privatisation plan.

On 14 October the honourable member for Londonderry said that the Leader of the Opposition had no right to move into the substance of the debate. That cannot be done, no matter how quickly it is done. Mr Speaker, you and Speaker Rozzoli have upheld that ruling, and that is what the standing orders provide. There is no demur about that. When the honourable member for Gosford spoke on this motion he omitted to tell the House that very shortly after the honourable member for Londonderry took that point of order, he took another point of order. The Leader of the Opposition commenced his statement at 3.32 p.m. and the honourable member for Londonderry took his second point of order within less than three minutes - 10 paragraphs of Hansard. You, Mr Speaker, ruled:

Order! The Leader of the Opposition was observing the spirit of the standing orders, although he was straying from the subject when the point of order was taken.

Mr Hartcher: That is right, after time had expired.

Mr WHELAN: That is not correct. I table page 693 of Hansard of 14 October, which clearly shows the contrary. The Leader of the Opposition continued his statement, and then the honourable member for Londonderry took another point of order.

Page 1819

Ms Moore: As he does every day.

Mr WHELAN: Yes. At the end of the debate the honourable member for Bathurst took a point of order and he was ruled out of order. Two members took points of order. The first point by the honourable member for Londonderry was upheld but his second was not; and the honourable member for Bathurst was ruled out of order. Nothing could be fairer. That shows that the Opposition is in error. This is another frivolous attempt by the Opposition on a very serious issue, namely a motion of dissent against the Speaker, to try to embarrass you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, your rulings have been consistent with those of Speaker Rozzoli. The precedence that applies in the Parliament has not been departed from at any time when you have ruled in accordance with the standing orders that were introduced and adopted by the Opposition when it was in Government. There is no way that the Leader of the Opposition was in order when he started his speech and talked about an event that happened in 1995. He was clearly speaking to the substance of his motion, and in accordance with Standing Order 120 he was clearly out of order.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [9.39 p.m.]: I have been caught a little flat-footed on this matter but I welcome the opportunity to speak because this matter goes to the core of a concern that I have had for some time. The consideration of urgent motions debate, in particular the application of Standing Order 120, which provides an opportunity to determine priority of usually two notices of motions, is an absolute farce. I have been so concerned about this that approximately 12 months ago I wrote to the standing orders committee and suggested that the matter be dealt with properly and definitively to give some guidance on the determination of precedence between two notices of urgent motion.

Standing Order 120 is not clear. It seems to me that it is impossible to determine priority unless a member goes to the substance of the motion to some extent. It has become laughable that as soon as a member seeks to give some details of the nature of the motion a point of order is taken. I have waited patiently either for a decent response from the standing order committee, which has not come, or a clear ruling from you, Mr Speaker. I suggest that you should have taken the opportunity to tell members like the honourable member for Londonderry that you would not entertain these points of order. It is about time that you sorted out this mess. Members should have a totally unfettered right in their five minutes to say whatever they like to establish the priority of their motion. But it has become an absolute farce, and now the other side of the House has adopted the practice of taking endless points of order.

This problem has now resulted in a motion of dissent against your ruling on Tuesday, 14 October. I have no option but to support the dissent motion, even though I am reluctant to challenge your chairmanship of this Chamber. The application of Standing Order 120 has smouldered and festered for at least two years now. The consideration of urgent motions procedure is a key component of the day’s program. Invariably two notices are presented for consideration, and as a crossbench member who has to vote on the two notices I am keen to hear about them. How can I make an informed judgment if the Chair allows members to take points of order when the speaker moves even generally to the substance of the motion?

When the Leader of the National Party was speaking to the priority of his motion today he repeatedly said, "This is urgent because". It was pathetic and it is not the way to conduct the House. I raised this matter 12 months ago because I was concerned about that practice. I suggest that the Chair should rule that this nonsense will not be tolerated; that points of order may not be taken during the time taken for a member to establish priority. Members will then have five minutes to establish the priority of their motion, and the House can decide which motion should proceed.

If this dissent motion does nothing else, it should prompt you, Mr Speaker, to give the matter deep thought and make a ruling on it at an early time, perhaps in conjunction with the standing orders committee. I am very frustrated with what has been happening and I am concerned that you, Mr Speaker, have not shown leadership in clarifying the situation.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [9.44 p.m.]: The consideration of urgent motions is one of the most important procedures in the House. It allows both sides of the House to present pressing issues on behalf of the people of New South Wales. It is provided for in Standing Order 120, but perhaps that standing order is not clear. When laws are not clear in the broader community, a judicial officer or other person who arbitrates on such matters will be asked to give them sense, depth and credibility. Regrettably, Mr Speaker, that task falls to you. I appreciate that you are under pressure from the
Page 1820
Government side to follow a path that is not necessarily the fairest for all members.

Mr Whelan: Rubbish.

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister for Police, who is an expert at twisting the rules, says that is rubbish. It is not rubbish, and he knows that.

Mr Whelan: You are reflecting on the Chair.

Mr HAZZARD: I am. The Minister and the honourable member for Londonderry are the main culprits. They ignore the standing orders and bring this place into disrepute. As I said, this is a significant procedure. If the public were to listen to the silliness that goes on in here for those two important periods of five minutes -

Mr Gibson: The points of order that you take are inane.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Londonderry will cease inciting the honourable member for Wakehurst, and the honourable member for Wakehurst will ignore the interjections.

Mr HAZZARD: It is opportune that the word "inane" is raised by the honourable member for Londonderry because that word is descriptive of what we see from him day after day. Today was a typical example. Two important notices were handed to the Speaker, one of which was from his colleague the honourable member for Keira on Aboriginal reconciliation, which is very important to the people of Australia, let alone New South Wales. The honourable member for Keira was unable to touch on the details of his motion because everyone in this place knew that unless specific undertakings were given by the honourable member for Londonderry, which were not forthcoming -

Mr Whelan: On a point of order. The motion relates to dissent from your decision on Tuesday, 14 October, and only to that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst will return to the motion.

Mr HAZZARD: I was responding to an interjection, which you have ruled we are entitled to do. During the priority procedure both sides of the House should be treated fairly. On the contrary, the inane situation has developed whereby every sentence has to be prefaced by "This is urgent because". That reflects the fact that the honourable member for Londonderry and some of his colleagues have made an art form of taking incessant points of order. They leap up and down taking points of order and get more exercise here in five minutes than they probably get during the rest of the week.

Mr Kerr: The honourable member for Londonderry always says that he is reluctant to take a point of order.

Mr HAZZARD: He is always reluctant.

Ms Moore: He manages to take up the whole of the five minutes.

Mr HAZZARD: He always takes up to four or five minutes, as the honourable member for Bligh says. Some members of the House seem to find that practice amusing, but it is not amusing and it is not in the interests of democracy. It is certainly not in the interests of the people of New South Wales. During my first term in this place, between 1991 and 1995, I do not recall that there was this problem. There was no high level of spurious points of order taken on urgency motions, as is now the accepted pattern. As soon as Opposition members begin to speak to the priority of a matter that they consider urgent on behalf of the people of New South Wales, it is absolutely certain that the jack-in-the-box member for Londonderry will be on his feet, bouncing up and down like a cuckoo. He starts all the stupidity about establishing urgency and not talking about the substantive motion. What a lot of hullabaloo! Honourable members must be able to talk about some of the substantive aspects. If they cannot, how can they justify the urgency of their motions? This debate is an opportunity for members on the Government side of the House to think seriously about this matter. I believe a number of members opposite -

Mr Clough: You are a bunch of hypocrites. That is exactly what you are.

Mr HAZZARD: Mr Speaker, may I respond to that interjection?

Mr SPEAKER: If the honourable member responds to injections he uses his speaking time to do so.

[Interruption]

Page 1821

Mr HAZZARD: This is what we call the Labor Party post red wine club. They have all had their bottles; they are charged for the night and in they come. The bottom line is that this debate is about returning some democracy into the Parliament. It is about telling Mr Speaker that it is only fair and reasonable that he should determine that a fair level of substance -

Mr Clough: On a point of order. I object to the remarks of the honourable member for Wakehurst.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the objection?

Mr Clough: My point of order is that the honourable member has been insulting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! What does the honourable member find insulting?

Mr Clough: The honourable member suggested that I had been drinking red wine. The fact is that I am a teetotaller and have been for 26 years. I ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member may make a personal explanation at the appropriate time.

Mr Whelan: Whatever you are on is working!

Mr HAZZARD: The Minister should keep quiet. He has done quite enough damage. He knows exactly what I am talking about. We do not need that sort of rot in the House. If we do not have leadership and direction we will have a circus in the House every afternoon when urgency motions are debated. Mr Speaker, regrettably, that leadership and direction is thrust upon your shoulders because your colleagues on that side of the House will not provide the fairness or the decency to allow urgency motions to be properly debated by a consideration of a reasonable level of the substance of the matter.

Mr Speaker, you must lay down for the House a clear guideline that a reasonable level of the substance of the matter may be introduced into debate so that honourable members can decide what is urgent and what is not urgent. I know it is hard for Government members to say anything of substance in debate but that is what is necessary. I defy the honourable member for Londonderry and the honourable member for Bathurst, who seems so excitable tonight, to go back through Hansard from 1991 to 1995 and find any examples of the persistent, stupid, juvenile interruptions that currently occur as a result of Labor members sitting on the Treasury benches.

The honourable member for Manly pointed out that this debate is about fairness and getting to the substance of a motion to establish urgency. The honourable member for Bligh pointed out that it is all about time wasting. That is exactly what it is; it is about members opposite talking out the five minutes allocated to members and interrupting coalition members who are trying to establish the urgency of their motions. I am sure Government members work out how many seconds in five minutes coalition members should be allowed to speak. Perhaps that is how they get credit points towards becoming Ministers these days. I would not be surprised if that were how the Government does it, bearing in mind the quality of the Ministers.

If we do not want the Parliament to become the laughing-stock of New South Wales and, indeed, Australia, the Government must get serious about the standing orders. Standing Order 120 is there for a valid reason: to allow honourable members to establish the urgency of motions. However, to do that we must be able to consider a reasonable level of the substance of the motion, and the House can then make its decision. If tomorrow, the next day and the day after that the honourable member for Londonderry bounces up and down like a jack-in-the-box we will know that democracy in New South Wales is dead under the Carr Government.

Mr CLOUGH (Bathurst) [9.54 p.m.]: I listened to the honourable member for Wakehurst. I repeat the remark I made earlier from the Government benches: members opposite are a bunch of hypocrites. They are hypocrites because they use urgency motions as a de facto method of entering into debate on something that they know they cannot win. I have seen it happen time and time again. I suggest to the honourable member for Wakehurst that if he perhaps laid off the red wine, debate on this matter might have been more sensible. The method used by members opposite to introduce extraneous matters into debate is obvious.

The honourable member for Londonderry is within his rights when he suggests that members opposite are not speaking to the reason for urgency but are debating the real issue. When I came into this place in 1976 it used to be known as the bear pit. Today it is a teddy bear pit. If a member opposite is slightly upset by a remark he rises to his feet on a point of order. Members opposite would
Page 1822
not have survived in the old days, under Speaker Kelly and Speaker Rozzoli. Mr Speaker, you have been fairer than most would expect under the circumstances. As I said earlier, members opposite are a bunch of hypocrites.

Ms MOORE (Bligh) [9.56 p.m.]: I should like to make a brief contribution to what I consider to be an important debate. I remind honourable members that Standing Order 120 was introduced during the Fiftieth Parliament, when the Parliament was much more democratic, at the urging of the Leader of the House, who was then only the honourable member for Ashfield. He insisted that non-government members be given an opportunity to put important matters before the House. I remember him speaking to me about the importance of that. Indeed, the Independents promoted it in their discussions with the Government and the Opposition in the development of the charter of reform.

The standing order relating to consideration of urgent motions, which allowed non-government members to put important matters before the House, was introduced at the urging of the honourable member for Ashfield, who is now the Leader of the House. It is impossible for the standing order to be effective unless honourable members are given five minutes uninterrupted in which to develop their argument and to put important matters before the House. Honourable members who have been given instructions beforehand may not need that five minutes but it is important for members of the crossbench to assess the substance of the argument and to make an informed choice about how they will vote.

That has been impossible over the past year, particularly because of the disgraceful behaviour of the honourable member for Londonderry, who mischievously interjects whenever a member tries to establish his or her case so the House can make an informed choice. Mr Speaker, I call upon you to ensure that this important standing order is respected by you and by the House, that there is an opportunity for non-government members to put important matters before the House and for honourable members to make an informed choice about how they will vote. I hope that the outcome of this debate, whether or not the motion is passed by the House, is that you will take a stand and respect the aim and intention of the standing order, and that it will not continue to be the farce it has been over the past two years.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members representing the electorates of Cronulla, Manly, Wakehurst and Bligh for their contributions to this important debate. The honourable member for Bligh summarised the position very well when she described the honourable member for Londonderry as mischievous. In a way this is not a debate about the rulings of Mr Speaker. The real thrust of the debate is the very poor behaviour of the honourable member for Londonderry, aided and abetted by the Leader of the House, to ensure that Opposition members do not get any part of the five minutes available to them to properly present their argument that their motions should have priority. Standing Order 120 is designed to enable each member, if notice has been given of more than one urgent motion, to make a statement of up to five minutes to establish why his motion should have priority.

As other speakers have said, that is the only way that members can discuss what their motions are about. The significance of the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition on the day in question is that it was raised on the day before electricity privatisation was to be debated at the Australian Labor Party annual conference and Government members were extremely anxious that the matter not be discussed in the Parliament - for even a few brief sentences. Accordingly, the honourable member for Londonderry was at his best - or, from a parliamentary standard, at his worst - in ensuring that there were the maximum number of interruptions. He was aided and abetted by the honourable member for Bathurst, who raised points of order even after the speaking time of the Leader of the Opposition had expired.

If those members had a sense of responsibility they would hang their heads in shame, but they do not. The difficulty that the House is presented with is that on two occasions Mr Speaker upheld the points of order - spurious as we submit they were - raised by the honourable member for Londonderry. The honourable member takes no interest in what the standing orders contain. He plays no part in debates in this Chamber. His primary role every afternoon at 3.30 is to recite parrot fashion, in a ritualistic and almost liturgical way, a formula of words that he has memorised. He believes that it is a contribution to Parliament. It is not. It may earn him brownie points to climb the rungs of the Australian Labor Party right-wing faction, entitling him to more Staysafe trips overseas. He wants to be able to stand up in caucus and say, "I am doing my bit for the party. I am making sure that nobody gets five minutes of speaking time on motions of urgency." That is what it is all about.

Page 1823

The House now has the opportunity to say that enough is enough. The time has come for Standing Order 120 to be ruled upon as it was intended to be ruled upon: each person giving notice of an urgent motion should have five minutes to state what the motion is about, and why it should be debated by the House. Members should not be so narrowly confined, as the honourable member for Londonderry would have it, that they can say only, "My motion should have priority. My motion should have priority. My motion should have priority," without daring to give a reason why the motion should have priority.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House in reiterating the arguments, which I think have been very eloquently put by other members and which I put in my opening speech. The views expressed by Opposition members and the three Independent members demonstrate that non-government members believe that Standing Order 120 has a purpose. It was proposed for a purpose and that purpose has been totally subverted by the mischievous actions of the honourable member for Londonderry. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, you have been involved because you have upheld his points of order.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

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

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

Mr Collins Mr Carr