LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday, 5th March, 1992
______
The Chairman of Committees (The Hon. Duncan John Gay) took the chair as Acting-President at 10.30 a.m.
The Acting-President offered the Prayers.
CRIMINAL LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Precedence of Business
Motion by the Hon. E. P. Pickering agreed to:
That on Thursday, 5th March, Government business notice of motion No. 1, relating to the take note debate on the Government's legislative program, shall take precedence of general business up to the conclusion of the speech of the mover.
PETITIONS
Beverage Containers
Petition praying that because of the detrimental effect of throw-away packaging on the environment, legislation be introduced imposing a mandatory deposit on all beverage containers sold in New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
Bingara Central School
Petition praying that the House will reverse the decision of the Department of School Education to reduce the number of teaching positions at Bingara Central School, which has disadvantaged staffing arrangements and forced students into unacceptably large classes, received from the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.
Abortion
Petition praying that because of community support for the continued availability of abortions and a woman's right to choose abortion and the continued availability of counselling services for abortion clinics, the House not support any restriction of existing abortion services, received from the Hon. Ann Symonds.
Forestry Commission
Petition praying that the Forestry Commission of New South Wales be reformed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee and that the House urge the Government to act immediately for the good of our environmental heritage and the health of the plantation timber industry, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
Page 462
Duck Shooting
Petition praying that because duck shooting is extremely cruel and environmentally damaging, the sport should be abolished immediately and permanently, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
Stray Dogs
Petition praying that the Premier fulfil his promise to ban the sending of stray dogs to laboratories within New South Wales, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
Cat Desexing
Petition praying that because wildlife is threatened by predatory feral cats, and because unrestricted breeding of cats results in their destruction, starvation, injury and disease, there should be compulsory desexing of all domestic cats other than those with registered breeders, received from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.
GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING (Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [10.42]: I move:
That this House take note of the legislative program of the Government for the Second Session of the Fiftieth Parliament.
We have been privileged by the presence of Her Majesty last month and by her Speech to open the Second Session of the Fiftieth Parliament. It was a momentous occasion for this Parliament and for the people of New South Wales to have the Sovereign take part personally in the proceedings of government in this State for only the second time, as Her Majesty begins her forty-first year as our Queen. I am sure all honourable members will join me in extending to Her Majesty our earnest wishes for her continuing good health and well being. In her speech Her Majesty indicated that the Government would later submit to you its legislative proposals. It is customary for the Governor, when opening a session of Parliament, to outline the Government's legislative program for the year ahead. Her Majesty had indicated, however, that she preferred to give a short opening speech without any reference to the Government's policies or legislative program.
I believe it is appropriate that some statement of the Government's legislative intent be made and I propose to use this opportunity of moving the Address in Reply to the Queen's Speech to identify for the benefit of honourable members the major legislative proposals that the Government will place before you for your consideration. Her Majesty also referred to this Parliament - as she did in 1954 - as the mother of parliaments of Australia. The New South Wales Parliament is almost 170 years old and not only is it the foundation of responsible government in Australia but also it is setting the lead in reform of this process. The historic shift begun last session in the balance of responsibility between executive government and the Parliament will continue. This shift will lead to greater accountability for government and real opportunities for Parliament to debate the proposals for change. The Government is committed to introducing legislation in this session to bring about major parliamentary and constitutional reform. In line with the charter of reform signed by the Government and the non-aligned Independent members, legislation has been introduced to provide for permanently fixed four-year terms for the future. It is intended that this legislation will be submitted to referendum at the next general election.
Page 463
Other constitutional reforms to be brought forward during the current session include the entrenchment of the independence of the judiciary, reform of the methods of election of the Speaker in another place, and provision for the establishment of a management board or a parliamentary commission to run the Parliament. The establishment of a board or a commission will provide the opportunity for greater participation by members of Parliament in the administration and management of the Parliament, and will ensure proper accountability. More important than this, it will give to the Parliament some measure of the independence which was intended for the Parliament under the doctrine of the separation of powers. In that sense it is a distinct movement away from the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy and closer to the stricter separation that was built into the Constitution in the United States of America more than 200 years ago.
Many of the historic initiatives in parliamentary reform instituted during the last session will continue in this session and will be improved upon. It is proposed, for example, to further refine the conduct of the estimates committees that were established last session. By the end of this year all these reforms will be reflected in new, plain English parliamentary standing orders in another place. This Government is thoroughly committed to ensuring that these proposed reforms come to fruition, reforms that will enhance the workings of the Parliament and promote an even better system of democratic government for the people of New South Wales, reforms that will not be able to be reversed as the culture of our Parliament changes.
Her Majesty also said that we assemble at a time of continuing economic uncertainty throughout the world. Sadly, this is an experience from which Australians are certainly not immune. The Government is gravely concerned that so many people in Australia are suffering as a result of Labor's induced recession. We remain unconvinced as to the financial and economic wisdom of the extensive borrowing program outlined by the Prime Minister in his economic statement last week, but we welcome the Federal Government's commitment to accelerating structural reform of the economy, which can only assist in the creation of real jobs - productive jobs - in the private sector. The Federal Labor Government has at last grasped what is not understood by the Labor Opposition in New South Wales - that Australia's economic future lies in the creation of real, wealth-generating jobs and not in the protection of make-work jobs - pretend jobs - which fritter away the nation's savings.
This Government remains committed to positioning the New South Wales economy so as to alleviate, so far as is possible, the effects of the recession on the people of this State. The New South Wales Government welcomes the Commonwealth Government's offer to fund growth in vocational education and training on a triennial, calendar year basis. The Prime Minister's proposal that the Commonwealth assume responsibility for all government funding for vocational education and training, including technical and further education, is also a constructive suggestion, and one that will be considered within a broad debate about the policy interests of both levels of government and about the best ways of achieving national goals in this area. The Government's priorities include the development of a training system that is responsive to industry needs and which emphasises competence in the workplace, in line with national developments in curriculum and accreditation reform. Additional Commonwealth funding will help the State achieve such reforms. It will also help to provide skills training for those unemployed young people who currently enter the labour market without adequate preparation, whilst continuing the State's commitment to mature age students seeking a second chance through technical and further education.
Page 464
If proper consideration is given to the State's capital needs, new arrangements with the Commonwealth could also help fund the state-of-the-art technology required for training the "high tech" work force New South Wales will need to maintain its competitive edge. The Government will give highest priority to training for manufacturing, tourism, hospitality and business services. Notwithstanding the potential for a positive partnership between the Commonwealth and the State in this area, a number of questions are yet to be clarified. The New South Wales technical and further education system is the largest in Australia. The State Government has made considerable and substantial investments in the system over time, to a greater extent than any other State has done. We will be concerned to ensure that New South Wales receives a fair share of Commonwealth funds, and that new allocations are not used to finance the deficits of other States. New South Wales will be seeking an agreement that does not bind the State with detailed considerations. We must retain the capacity to make important policy and management decisions so that the training system remains responsive to the needs of the people who use it.
The Government intends to take maximum advantage of the economic statement to create real long-term job opportunities in New South Wales. Unlike the governments of Victoria and Western Australia, the New South Wales Government does not intend to deploy the taxpayers' dollars in seeking to pick winners in the private sector. Prior to election to office in 1988 it was made clear that a coalition government would not be pursuing the kind of Massachusetts experiments that were attempted in Victoria and Western Australia. Recent history attests that those sorts of experiments are extremely risky. I state again that the Government of New South Wales will not be using the taxpayers of this State to underwrite risky private sector investments. For the past four years the entire thrust of our policy agenda has been to stick to the knitting, to put the best of our efforts into making the New South Wales public sector more efficient than our competitors, thereby reducing import costs and attracting productivity investments and, with them, long-term wealth creating jobs for the people of this State.
The unemployment record of New South Wales throughout the heart of the recession is testament to the soundness of this strategy. Though our unemployment record at 9.8 per cent is totally unacceptable, at all times New South Wales has made a positive contribution to business and consumer confidence in the nation as a whole. A prime example of this Government's efforts to underpin our local economy, and thereby save jobs, can be seen in the housing sector. The Government's unwavering commitment to home ownership and to carrying out a range of public and private sector housing initiatives has seen the important home building sector survive in the best shape possible during a major recession. This has meant preserving tens of thousands of jobs. The Government intends to proceed with its program of structural reform which it initiated four years ago when it came to office. In the present economic circumstances we believe that this is the greatest contribution the State Government can make to creating productive jobs and delivering essential social services to the people of this State.
The 1991-92 Budget was based on a three-year financial strategy aimed at capping in real terms the debt of the public sector. The strategy behind this Budget involved containment of budget expenditure through improved efficiency, restraint on the taxation side to avoid the imposition of additional costs on the community during a difficult financial time, continuing microeconomic reform, especially of the Government's trading enterprises, privatisation of appropriate enterprises such as the GIO and the State Bank and the application of proceeds of sales to reduce debt and lower interest costs. Though the Budget outlook for 1992 is completely on track, the expenditure-side revenues have collapsed further than projected because of the severity of the recession. The
Page 465
revenue in 1991-92 is about $300 million to $400 million less than projected. A significant part of this deterioration is one-off, but there will still be some reduction in the forward years relative to the initial projections.
This is the most severe recession that Australia has faced in more than 60 years. It has occurred against a background of historically low commodity prices and several unfavourable growing seasons in the farming sector. Her Majesty specifically referred to the tough times being experienced on the land, both through economic conditions and natural disasters such as recent floods and droughts. The Government has responded to these challenges with immediate assistance measures to ensure, so far as possible, the survival of this vital sector of our economy. As we enter this new session of Parliament, honourable members should be conscious of the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves and the brute fact that the State's Budget is more than $1 billion in deficit. That is a level of debt which this Government finds unacceptable. Since the Government was first elected in 1988 it has held firm to the view that it should be governing so as to add to the State's accumulated wealth, rather than borrowing and living at the expense of our children. However, the narrow taxation base which the States have inherited, combined with this recession, has had a severe impact on the revenues of all Australian States, New South Wales included.
In these challenging circumstances I remind honourable members of the need for restraint in the demands that they place upon the people of this State through legislative initiatives involving additional expenditure - direct or indirect - or which divert resources away from the delivery of basic services. Two international credit ratings agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poors, have recently confirmed the State's triple-A rating - one of the few such ratings achieved anywhere in the world by governments or commercial bodies. They did so in spite of the deterioration in our budgetary position, because the State had a viable medium-term strategy to contain debt and debt-servicing costs. New South Wales cannot afford the luxury of squandering its high reputation in the international finance community through improvident spending. If New South Wales were to lose its present credit rating and fall to, say, Victoria's level, the immediate cost to the people of this State in higher interest charges would be between $60 million and $80 million a year. That is $60 million to $80 million in social services - nurses, teachers, police officers - which would be unavailable for the people of New South Wales.
More significantly, a serious fall in our credit rating could puncture the confidence of consumers and investors in the State's long-term economic prospects. Because of the finely-balanced nature of this Parliament, it is incumbent upon all members - Government, Opposition and those who sit on the crossbenches - to be conscious of the impact that the recession is having on the State's revenues. The Government will continue with a responsible program of privatisation and contracting out, with a view to cutting infrastructure costs to industry, reducing the State debt, and delivering high quality, cost-effective services to consumers. As the Premier has stated and restated on numerous occasions in the past decade, the coalition does not have an ideological commitment to privatisation. However, unlike the Opposition, we are not obsessive about continuing government ownership when the reasons for State equity have long since disappeared. Four Labor governments in Australia - Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, as well as the Federal Government - have acted to divest themselves of their banks or insurances businesses. However, the New South Wales Labor Party continues to express doubts about the privatisation of the State Bank and the GIO.
Page 466
It should be clear to all honourable members that their opposition does not rise from a philosophical difficulty with privatisation. Their concern is merely to score a few political points along the way. At a time when the Victorian Labor Government is selling its prime real estate, privatising its newest power station, and contracting out the operation of one of its public hospitals, the New South Wales Labor Party, which prides itself on being more economically rational than its counterpart south of the border, is opposed to similar reforms in New South Wales. The Government will press on with a conservative program of privatisation and contracting out. It is by concentrating on our core functions as a government and delivering those services at the lowest practicable cost, that New South Wales is continuing to lead the Australian economy through this economic downturn.
Her Majesty made reference in her Speech to New South Wales being a willing partner in recent efforts by all governments in Australia directed towards developing a more efficient and competitive economy. Premiers and chief Ministers, when they met last November, signed an intergovernmental agreement to implement from 1st January, 1993, mutual recognition of standards for goods and occupations. Draft State and Commonwealth legislation was endorsed, subject to any fine-tuning required following a period of public exposure. Commonwealth signature of the agreement and enactment of the legislation has been sought. This is a historic measure which will eliminate regulatory impediments to a national market in goods and services. It will dramatically expand the concept of free trade between the States, which the Australian Constitution was intended to guarantee.
Goods that can be sold lawfully in one State or Territory will, with some very limited exceptions, be able to be sold elsewhere in Australia. Similarly, a person registered to carry out an occupation in one State or Territory will be automatically registered and be able to carry out the equivalent occupation in another State or Territory. Once the Commonwealth has signalled its willingness to participate, State and Territory legislators will enact legislation enabling the Commonwealth to introduce global legislation. The use of Commonwealth legislation will overcome any problems caused by subsequent State or Territory laws which may not be fully consistent with the principle of mutual recognition and will ensure a national approach to implementation. The State and Territory Acts under the agreement are expected to be in place by 1st July, 1992. A new scheme for State-based prudent supervision of permanent building societies and credit unions is to be introduced in all States and Territories. This scheme involves national co-ordination of high uniform standards and practices and will enhance the prudential standing of the industry. It will also provide a framework for a stronger and more competitive industry to develop in the future.
The Queensland Government has introduced into its Parliament template legislation incorporating the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill and the Financial Institutions Bill to give effect to the scheme, and New South Wales, along with the other States and Territories, will introduce complementary legislation to enable the scheme to commence on 1st July, 1992. The Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill will establish the national co-ordination body to oversee the operation of the scheme. The Financial Institutions Bill will rationalise the current fragmented administration and regulation of building societies and credit unions by replacing diverse arrangements across the State and Territories with uniform legislation applying to all building societies and credit unions across Australia.
Page 467
The Government is immensely proud of the New South Wales public service as it is now structured. In terms of efficiency, we believe it compares favourably with the private sector. The Government makes no apologies for the initiative it has taken since coming to office to streamline the public service and to rid the public service of corrupt practices. The undoubted success of the Independent Commission Against Corruption since it was established in 1988 to tackle official corruption will be followed by a series of proposals designed to further the objectives embodied within the Independent Commission Against Corruption. These objectives include legislation to protect public sector whistle blowers and to disentitle corrupt officials from government funded superannuation benefits. Another significant proposal which will reinforce the accountability of the public sector is a bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act to improve access to government documents and to reduce the number of agencies that are exempt from the provisions of the Act.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: The Freedom of Information Act was introduced through the initiative of the Independents.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: We are doing it. The Government has recently introduced into Parliament legislation that will substantially reform the law of defamation. The existing law is unduly complicated and uncertain. It can be too restrictive and the remedies offered are limited and are sometimes inappropriate to the harm caused. This legislative proposal is consistent with the Government's commitment to open government and accountability. The media have often complained that the existing law inhibits fair reporting and proper media scrutiny of public affairs. The legislation will address these issues. In keeping with the importance of these reforms and the Government's commitment to the parliamentary process, the new Defamation Bill has been referred for consideration to a legislative committee representative of all parties as well as Independent members.
It was not only the New South Wales public sector that was in need of substantial reform. The Government's determined action in introducing an industrial relations framework suited to the competitive realities of the 1990s has set the pace for reform across the nation. New South Wales now leads the way in releasing employers and employees from the rigidities of the industrial award system through enterprise bargaining. The Prime Minister, in his recent economic statement, tacitly recognised the advantages achieved by New South Wales by his new-found enthusiasm for workplace bargaining. But, beyond our concerns for productivity improvements and for a robust job market in this State, the Government's reforms radically depart from the closed shop of the old New South Wales industrial relations club. Individual rights have been enshrined and employees are now protected from victimisation on the job. The number of unions operating in any one workplace will be reduced and wasteful demarcation disputes will gradually be eliminated. The Government's new industrial relations legislation will come into effect later this month, and extensive education is already under way to inform workers of their rights under the new law. In addition, there will be a strengthening of the industrial inspectorate to ensure that the law is enforced and to guarantee that the rights of workers and small business employers are enforced. At a time when our primary concern is to give Australia - and, in particular, New South Wales - a competitive edge in the international market-place, these industrial relations reforms will, in time, have a major impact on improving our efficiency and attracting investment to the State.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: We can guarantee that we will amend it and put it back.
Page 468
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: That will be when the Opposition is in government in 50 years' time. Before leaving the topic of the workplace initiatives being taken by my Government, I am pleased to inform the House of a joint initiative to be undertaken by technical and further education colleges and the Building Services Corporation, which will see the creation of more than 1,000 home-building pre-apprenticeship positions within TAFE. This program will be funded by the Building Services Corporation at a cost of $4 million. This boost to apprenticeship training will complement a further initiative being undertaken as a joint venture between the two organisations. It will expand the role of skills training to provide increased skills and management expertise in the building industry.
In accordance with a commitment made during the last election, the Government will shortly be introducing legislation to establish an independent pricing tribunal which will ensure that prices for government monopoly services are set independently and fairly. The tribunal will have a standing reference to investigate and the maximum price increase which may be charged for key government services such as water, electricity and transport. In determining these price caps, the tribunal will look at a range of factors, including the capital and recurrent costs involved in providing these services, the protection of consumers from the abuse of monopoly power, the effect on inflation, the need for greater efficiency in government business enterprises and the protection of the environment. This is a complex issue which will require detailed assessment by all honourable members of the House. At a time when we are trying to contain the burden of government on families, to create jobs by reducing input costs to business and to introduce measures which will assist us in protecting the natural environment, this is not a time for legislation which merely seeks to impose a crude consumer price index price cap on government business enterprises.
In the area of law and justice, the Government will continue to provide a high standard of protection for the citizens of the State. Last year the community voiced considerable anger at a series of violent crimes involving firearms. The Government is committed to the implementation of tough, fair and practical laws, as agreed to by this Parliament, to protect the community from the misuse of firearms. Indeed, New South Wales has been instrumental in efforts to bring about such laws Australia-wide. Accordingly, legislation has been introduced to amend the Firearms Act, the Prohibited Weapons Act and the Crimes Act consistent with the recommendation made by the Joint Parliamentary Committee upon Gun Law Reform and the appropriate resolutions of the Australian Police Ministers Council.
The Government's commitment to assisting victims of crime has been well illustrated by the establishment of a Victims Advisory Council to assist in co-ordinating the Government's response to the needs of victims. Amendments to the Victims Compensation Act will be introduced to make procedures under the Act more efficient and to ensure the continuation of the very successful delay reduction programs in the tribunal. In accordance with the Government's concern to ensure that the legal profession is more accountable and more competitive, the restrictions on solicitors advertising have been relaxed to allow solicitors to advertise their fees and services, thus prompting competition for the benefit of the public. The Government will also deregulate fees, subject to appropriate safeguards designed to ensure the protection of the public. As a result of action that the Premier has taken, the monopoly enjoyed by the legal profession in relation to conveyancing services is coming to an end. The Government is currently finalising proposals with a view to introducing legislation to implement reform in this area. It is, of course, essential that any reforms which we undertake are adequate to protect consumers. In buying a home, consumers are making a major investment
Page 469
decision which involves their life's savings. At the same time, however, these consumer safeguards must not be used, as they have been in the past, to preserve a lucrative monopoly for one profession. We will be introducing a reform package which protects the interests of consumers whilst ensuring that they obtain the full benefits of competition in the market-place.
As part of the Government's commitment to update legislation relating to registered health professional groups, we will be introducing a new Medical Practice Bill covering the operation of the New South Wales Medical Board and the registration and discipline of medical practitioners and medical students. The Government intends to introduce further reforms to ensure appropriate high standards of medical practice and adequate safeguards for consumers. Legislative proposals in the roads and transport areas will include measures introduced last week to reform the driving instruction industry, flowing from recommendations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and depending on the enactment of Commonwealth legislation it is proposed to introduce complementary State legislation to implement uniform national registration, charging, licensing and road rules for heavy vehicles. This legislation will give effect to the agreement reached by heads of government in July 1991.
The reform of the local government sector will be a major Government priority for the coming year. The Government urges the legislation committee to report promptly on the draft Local Government Bill which was developed following wide public consultation. The reforms which the Government proposes in this area are, to say the least, long overdue. Ratepayers will benefit from the legislation because of the increased autonomy which it will give to councils while at the same time making them more accountable to their local communities. Governments throughout Australia acknowledge the urgent need to improve mechanisms for determining issues relating to the management of our natural resources. No longer can we, as a society, tolerate the existing situation which results in piecemeal decisions, unresolved conflict between interest groups and uncertainty for those whose livelihoods are at stake. In accordance with the undertaking given by the Premier before the last election, the Government will bring forward legislation this year to establish a natural resources management council which will allow decisions to be made with full acknowledgment of environmental, social and economic considerations.
The functions of the council will include the making of systematic plans on a regional basis about the best use of natural resources owned or controlled by the Government and the resolution of specific land use - natural resources management conflicts. This will be of particular significance to the forestry industry. The council will assist greatly in dispelling uncertainty over the status of the State's forestry sources in terms of timber and conservation values, which is essential if investment in forest industries is to be facilitated and permanent job opportunities created. This legislation will be accompanied by measures to provide long-term mechanisms for the protection of endangered species of flora and fauna and legislation to amend the planning system to end the existing arrangements which permit Government agencies to approve their own development proposals. The Government has consistently given a strong commitment to the protection of our environment and we will not waver in that commitment. The Environment Protection Authority was established on 1st March, 1992, and during the year we will bring forward legislation to consolidate the existing pollution control statutes. Public consultation will be allowed for these proposals before the terms of the legislation are finalised. Following a lengthy period of consultation we have reintroduced the bill to vest title to dedicated national parks to Aborigines in instances where the areas are of cultural significance to the Aboriginal people. Legislation will be put to the Parliament to integrate the Mining Act and the Coalmining Act. The new Mining Act will simplify and rationalise the regulation of mining and exploration for minerals.
Page 470
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Make sure the superannuation and long service leave clauses in that Mining Act are right.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I will do that. It will replace the existing 10 forms of title with five. Such streamlining will remove unnecessary bureaucratic impediments imposed upon the mining industry. More than 24,000 people - good people - are directly employed in the mining industry in New South Wales.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Every one of them a unionist.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: No, not all of them. There are expanding prospects for growth, particularly in the coal industry where exports are now valued at $2.7 billion per year. Within this decade those exports are forecast to grow by at least a third. This morning the Government has introduced legislation to provide for legal casino gaming in the State. Honourable members will be aware that the Government commissioned Sir Laurence Street to examine and report on the social impact of casinos, the economic impact of casinos and, last but by no means least, the adequacy of the Government's exposure draft bill to ensure that legal casino gaming is conducted honestly and in the absence of influence from corrupt elements. Sir Laurence concluded that legal casinos would create thousands of jobs and be a much needed boost to the State economy. He said that the bill would create a fabric in which the casinos can be protected from criminal influence and exploitation. The Government would also be moving to ensure that any adverse social impact of casinos will be addressed and, importantly, revenue from casino gaming will be devoted solely to improving the health system in this State. In addition to these measures and others that have been introduced by the Government during the past fortnight, we will be putting forward for Parliament's consideration a range of proposals including the following: amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act to outlaw discrimination on the ground of age; amendments to the Retirement Villages Act to protect the investments of residents -
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Will it discriminate against young people being able to vote?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: No, of course not - amendments to various court acts to permit certain proceedings to be conducted when the accused or a witness is before the court by means of an electronic audio-visual link; the reintroduction of the bill for the regulation of co-operatives, other than financial institutions, following a review of this legislation; the modernisation of legislation relating to the use of surface and ground water and the control of structures on flood plains; amendments to superannuation legislation in order to comply with Commonwealth laws. The legislative program which the Premier has outlined this morning shows the breadth of the Government's ongoing agenda for reform. Whilst the finely balanced nature of the Parliament may have demanded that the Government adopt a different strategy for achieving its reforms, the scope and nature of the program which I have just described reveals the extent to which this Government is still setting the lead with its reformist agenda. Once again I thank Her Majesty for her glorious speech and for her participation in the opening proceedings for this session in this Chamber. I take this opportunity to assure Her Majesty that we on this side of the House stand ready to bear the burden of our responsibilities for the benefit of the people of New South Wales.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer.
Page 471
SELECT COMMITTEE UPON WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.21]: I move:
(1) That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the management of waste in New South Wales and in particular the following matters:
(a) future statewide strategies for waste management in New South Wales concentrating on options for waste minimisation and recycling;
(b) proposals to transfer waste management to local government, the level of expertise of local government to manage waste effectively and the financing of such management;
(c) plans by the proposed Waste Recycling and Processing Service (the current Waste Management Authority of New South Wales) in relation to:
(i) expansion of the Lucas Heights tip in the Sutherland Shire;
(ii) covering of the Castlereagh toxic waste dump at Londonderry with landfill; and
(iii) proposals to transfer landfill waste to coal mines in the Hunter region.
(2) That such Committee consist of the following Members: Mrs Evans, Miss Gardiner, Ms Kirkby, Mr Moppet, Mr Mutch, Mrs Nile and the mover.
(3) That the Committee have leave to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to make visits of inspection within New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia; and have power to take evidence and to send for persons, papers, records and things; and to report from time to time.
(4) That should the House stand adjourned and the Committee agree to any report before the House resumes sitting;
(a) the Committee have leave to send any such report, minutes of proceedings and evidence taken before it to the Clerk of the House;
(b) the documents shall be printed and published and the Clerk shall forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and
(c) the documents shall be laid upon the table of the House at its next sitting.
(5) That, upon receipt of a request from the Committee for funding, the Government immediately provide the Legislative Council with such additional funds that the Committee considers necessary for the conduct of its inquiry.
Obviously, such a committee could focus in detail on many other areas but the points mentioned summarise the areas to be looked at by the committee. The Opposition has been forced to move this motion today to redress the Government's total inability to deal with waste management issues in New South Wales. The Greiner Government's recipe for waste handling in this State - I deliberately call it handling because it cannot be called management - is to create megatips around Sydney. The most horrifying example of this was the Greiner Government's proposal to create Australia's largest rubbish dump on native bushland at Londonderry. This proposal would have polluted the entire Nepean-Hawkesbury river system and would have created immense noise pollution for local residents. The Government decided against that only because the then local member for Penrith was a Liberal approaching the May 1991 election. Although the community had a victory on that occasion the Greiner Government's response was to throw up its hands and spit out the dummy. More than a year after the overturning of the Londonderry tip decision, New South Wales still does not have a comprehensive waste minimisation plan.
Page 472
We are now facing a waste crisis which will eat up all the remaining native bushland in Sydney unless we take immediate action. A select committee is required to give this lame Greiner Government direction to cope with waste management. This is an issue which was not mentioned in the speech this morning by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. We have not been able to obtain copies of it. Perhaps it is feared that we will notice how bare the program is. Since the dumping of the Londonderry idea the Government has continued with megadump proposals. It is now reviving the plan to create a megadump at Londonderry by overtopping the Castlereagh toxic waste depot with household garbage. It is also extending the life of the Lucas Heights dump in the Sutherland shire, an issue that is of great concern to many people. Honourable members would have received recently material from Sutherland council. They would have heard from the next member for Sutherland, Geniveve Rankin, a fine candidate and a very old friend of mine. She will take the fight on this and many other issues right up to the Government in however long or short a time we have before the next election. The issue is of great concern to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile because many of the Christians in the area have expressed concern at the proposed extension of the life of the Lucas Heights dump.
The other bandaid solution we are hearing about at the moment is the plan, proposal or rough idea to transfer Sydney's landfill waste to disused mine shafts in the Hunter region, yet another hastily conceived and ill-conceived idea which does little to address problems of transport. Garbage cannot be just picked up and carted to mines in the Hunter region. The Government is bankrupt of properly conceived ideas. It now seems to have two suggestions for the long term. One is to opt out altogether by giving responsibility to local councils: it cannot cope so it will ask all the local government councils, which do not have resources to manage waste or the ability, to form a statewide co-ordinated plan. Waste, particularly toxic waste, is not something that can be disposed of in every local government area; it needs to be carefully managed, bearing in mind the effect on our river systems. The Government's bright idea now is privatisation. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services told us a few minutes ago that the Government does not have an ideological commitment to privatisation. I do not know what he thinks privatisation of waste management in this State would be. If it is not an ideological commitment, it is an indication of the Minister's sheer inability to cope with the entire problem.
Information about the proposed privatisation was leaked; the Government did not tell us about it. After the leak in early December last year the Minister admitted that privatisation was being considered. He said - surprise, surprise - that consultants, yet another lot of consultants, had been appointed by the Government to examine options for Waste Management Authority facilities. Mr Moore has sent a letter to this effect to the Cabinet office pointing out that if the Waste Management Authority succeeds with an extension to Lucas Heights, which appears to be a key factor in determining what the Waste Management Authority is worth - $300 million was the figure suggested - it would make the privatisation of the authority more attractive. He said that the consultants were expected to report their findings by early 1992. As I said, we heard nothing in the Government's legislative program about what it plans to do about waste management.
The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Where is the ideology in what you have just said?
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The honourable member is not convinced that that is an example of an ideological commitment for a government that cannot cope with hard issues. Prior to the last election the Labor Party adopted a comprehensive policy on waste minimisation and recycling. I repeat that it was not on waste management; our
Page 473
emphasis is on waste minimisation and recycling. That is the way to look at this problem, which all the community and environmental groups and all those with an interest in it know is one of the major problems facing this country, particularly in large cities. Minimisation and recycling are the issues we should be addressing. When we put out this comprehensive proposal last year, among other things we dealt with a plan to target reusable materials before they entered the waste stream and ended up in landfills. We pointed out that Sydney is currently producing 3½ million tonnes of waste a year and it is estimated that this will double to more than 7 million tonnes by the year 2011.
We committed ourselves to spending $70 million of the Waste Management Authority's budget on establishing materials recovery facilities, encouraging and requiring householders to use kerbside recycling to cut the amount of waste being transported to landfill dumps. We targeted in particular western and eastern Sydney and Newcastle to have recovery facilities. As Pam Allan said then, it was expected that these material recovery facilities would become profitable because of the expected revenue from the sale of the recycled goods industry. As I said, we have to go in the direction of waste minimisation and recycling. We can no longer talk about simply managing our waste, or dumping our waste. This Government has proposed handing waste management to local government and privatisation. I would advise the honourable members who interjected earlier to look at a "Four Corners" program on the practices of the Pacific Waste Management company in Queensland and in the United States. It gives a very good guide to how not to manage the waste problem.
Since the election last year the Government has limped along, offering one bandaid solution after another. It has floated the options of privatisation or simply dumping the whole problem on local government. It has promised a report from consultants in the near future, a report we have not yet seen. In all the communities being threatened by waste dumps, just as there is throughout the environmental movement, a far more earnest approach is being taken to the problem. Most people are willing to admit that the problem exists. Most of the local government areas that have weekly recycling programs along with the garbage collection are finding that householders are co-operating. The councils are finding that recycling collections cut their costs, and the cost to the government of disposing of fill is also cut. That should leave the Government time to devote more attention to wider recycling programs, setting up reuse programs, and dealing with toxic products. The Government has failed lamentably to do all of these things and that is why I have moved that a select committee be established to generally investigate the whole problem. I pay tribute to the honourable member for Blacktown in another place for her work in developing these proposals last year. I pay tribute also to those thoughtful Independents, particularly the honourable member for Manly, who have asked for a public inquiry into the whole problem. I would certainly be happy to support a public inquiry. As Bob Carr said last week, the problem needs to be addressed now. I commend my motion to the House and ask for the support of honourable members.
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH [11.31]: Undoubtedly waste management is one of the major environmental issues of the 1990s and beyond. Indeed, the effectiveness with which we manage our waste in the future will be an intrinsic factor in dictating the liveability of our communities, especially our cities. Until recently we relied mainly on the traditional method of waste disposal: burying our waste in massive land fills. We must continue to use that method of disposal, as we should embrace all environmentally compatible disposal methods. However, as all honourable members are aware, the land fill sites around Sydney are fast being exhausted by the 3.4 million tonnes of waste the Sydney region generates annually. To compound the problem, it is now becoming more
Page 474
and more difficult to secure suitable new land fill sites which are not subject to conservation or other planning instruments. It has been estimated that if waste reduction measures such as recycling are not encouraged, Sydney's waste will more than double, to more than 7.1 million tonnes, by the year 2011. The Waste Management Authority has been renamed the Waste Recycling and Processing Service. As all honourable members know, the name of an organisation is significant, and by adopting the new name the Government is flagging its intention of ensuring that that particular service regards recycling as its major objective.
That service has a waste management strategy for the Sydney region until the year 2011. That strategy has been outlined in the Sydney solid waste management strategy of 1990, which recognised fully the increasing importance of waste minimisation, recycling and waste processing to reduce the amount of wastes needing disposal. Unlike some overseas communities, the service has wisely pursued a strategy which does not rely on expensive incineration systems to reduce the amount of land fill consumption. The Government is seeking a better approach than that. The subject-matter of the motion is extremely important. I do not agree that the timing of the motion is particularly applicable. It is a shame that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods could only speak for about 10 minutes in support of the motion, which has been on the notice paper for some time. Though I am not one who promotes long-winded speeches in this House, I expected a better effort than the one she made. Members should be able to get to the point fairly quickly, but the Hon. Jan Burnswoods could only speak for 10 minutes on this important topic. She obviously did not want to waste time, and in that short time she spoke a lot of garbage.
The motion should be considered carefully before a decision is made about whether to proceed further with what is proposed. In no way do I doubt the seriousness of the waste disposal problem in Sydney. However, the Government - through the Minister for the Environment, Tim Moore - is the first New South Wales Government to try to seriously address the problem. For 12 years New South Wales had a do-nothing Government which did not get around to even talk about this issue. I suppose part of the reason for that was that it may not have been fashionable to talk about waste during the 12 years of the previous Labor Government. These days the subject of waste is on our lips continually. Even at a dinner party the topic of conversation is likely to be garbage in its various forms. It is important that all honourable members know that the Government needs community support to combat the problem of waste disposal. Sadly, community support to some extent depends upon trends and fashion. The mounting piles of garbage surrounding us are a constant reminder that people in our community must be more constructive in disposal of waste products generated by human beings.
Although we must make sure we address this problem - and it is probably one of the most important issues that any government can face in a modern society - the truth is that the present motion is another typical example of the Opposition trying to score cheap political points. After 12 years in government, the Labor Party did basically nothing. It had no strategies. I suppose it inherited the old Australian adage that garbage should be chucked out the back on to evergrowing piles. The motion is premature. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods, obviously acting under the starting orders of the Leader of the Opposition, has jumped the gun because the Government is continually addressing this complex and important issue. For some time the Government Trading Enterprises Review Committee has been undertaking a wide-ranging study, which has been directed particularly to the structure of the waste industry and will be included in a waste minimisation and litter discussion paper to be released by the Minister for the Environment early in April. No one could seriously accuse the Minister for the
Page 475
Environment of not taking a dedicated, keen and absolutely sincere interest in this issue. Sometimes I wonder about how the Opposition gets its information. On this occasion it probably realised that the Minister was about to release a discussion paper on the matter. Of course, it wanted to do its usual political trick and jump the gun and say, "We need another parliamentary committee to look into this matter". It does not matter -
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: If that is what has happened why did the Leader of the Government in this House not mention it?
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: Because I am mentioning it. Do not be ridiculous. I am leading for the Government in this debate, and I am very proud of the fact that I have been chosen to do so. It shows what trust the Government has in me. I have taken a deep interest in garbage over a long period. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods had plenty of time before I rose in this Chamber to present her case, but she spoke for less than 10 minutes on this important and major topic. That just amazes me. The fact is that the Government is playing an integrated role in the strategy for garbage disposal. The Australian and New Zealand Environment Council has a goal of reducing waste volume by 50 per cent per capita by the year 2000. This Government endorses that objective. I believe we will go a long way towards achieving that objective. Is the honourable member aware of the terms of reference for a study of the economics of the waste management industry in Sydney? It has been investigated by people whom I consider to be better qualified than members of Parliament. I have taken a great interest in the disposal of domestic as well as commercial garbage. It is well known that I have been involved in a caravan park at Heathcote. My father has taken on the task there of disposing of waste from that particular site. He has been commended for the good job that he does in that regard. He is an environmentalist.
Unfortunately, the truth is that many people do not seem to care. There are differently marked bins for the disposal of waste - glass in one bin, papers in another, et cetera. The Government has distributed a number of pamphlets basically setting out how people should dispose of garbage. There are compost bins for use in the backyard. The Government promotes the use of these forms of disposal of refuse. In the past, people have been ignorant about ways to properly dispose of personal waste. However, they are gradually becoming better educated in this regard. It is important that we approach this issue from an individual point of view. It is all a matter of education. The Government is looking at the overall strategy, the broad objectives, and has not been backward in coming forward to fully investigate and take action to deal with the problem - unlike the previous Government, which was a do-nothing government. After 12 years of Labor we ended up with garbage piled up around our ears.
The terms of reference for the study of the economics of the waste management industry in Sydney are quite comprehensive. Presumably the honourable member has not had access to this information nor knowledge of the extent of the terms of reference. For her edification, the terms of reference contain a definition of waste management. The term waste management covers waste minimisation, recycling, materials energy recovery, landfill disposal, and incineration. The study relates to solid waste management - that is domestic, commercial and industrial - and excludes liquid, hospital, toxic and high temperature incinerator wastes. The object of the study was to review the available information about the organisation of the waste management industry in Sydney, including the extent of government involvement, and the available information about productive and allocative efficiency of the waste management industry; to assess the relevance to and the importance to the waste management industry of the arguments advanced to support government involvement in industry generally; to propose arrangements for the planning,
Page 476
regulation, ownership and operation of waste management facilities which best meet the Government's fundamental objectives of equity and efficiency, and its environmental objectives; and to describe and assess the importance of the transitional problems which may be involved in implementing these proposals.
Before I refer to some of the supporting information and references in more detail, I want to compare that activity with the harebrained motion of the Opposition. Apart from the fact that the subject-matter of the motion is extremely important, the motion is designed merely to make political capital. The Opposition is endeavouring to make political capital out of issues raised from time to time - and some issues which do not seem to go away, such as landfill deposits. The Opposition does not offer any alternatives. It is devoid of good ideas, so far as I can see. I assure honourable members that the Opposition is part of the community - not that it represents too many members of the community. I would say to members of the Opposition -
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Did you work in The Entrance?
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: I certainly did work in The Entrance. I certainly did. And having done so, I would say that the Dog Act is in need of serious review. I just cannot understand it. I cannot understand why the Hon. Jan Burnswoods spoke for less than 10 minutes on this subject. It is just amazing to me. The Opposition is referring to particular sites and endeavouring to raise as much heat as it can in respect of this particular issue to achieve as much political milage as possible. The Opposition would do better to present a considered report in response to the discussion paper. The discussion paper is predicated on a lot of research. It is to be distributed by the Minister for the Environment and no one would doubt the Minister's qualifications and integrity with regard to waste management. I suggest it might be appropriate that instead of wasting funds unnecessarily, the honourable member put together some information which might be given to the Government by way of a response to the discussion paper. The motion calls for additional funds for the committee. Honourable members should consider the funding which has gone into the public sector already in the process of investigating this issue - with, of course, a considerable amount of private and company involvement. It is premature to propose another committee. It is interesting to note that the honourable member also suggests that inspections be carried out in New South Wales and other States and Territories of Australia. She may have forgotten about New Zealand. The integrated approach which the Government is considering -
[Interruption]
Easy to forget? That is a slight on our cousins across the Tasman. I am sure they would not appreciate that slight. I certainly do not think that way about New Zealand. New Zealand is an integral part of the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council - ANZEC. I do not know whether the honourable member knows of the existence of the Australian and New Zealand Environment Council, she should. The council, comprising Commonwealth, State and Territory, and New Zealand Ministers responsible for environmental matters, is the nation's major mechanism for intergovernmental co-operation and consultation on a wide range of environmental matters. The council was established in 1972, which should ring a bell with the honourable member. Perhaps there was something worth while that Gough Whitlam achieved. The Australian Environment Council was altered in July 1989 to reflect New Zealand's newly assumed status as a full member of the council. The council is supported by a standing committee of senior Commonwealth, State, Territory and New Zealand officials, which in turn is advised by specialist committees on air quality,
Page 477
chemicals in the environment, environmental resources, environmental noise control, vehicle emissions and noise, marine and inland waters, and waste and resources. A number of ad hoc committees have been formed under this council. An integrated approach must be taken to this matter. I support the council's aim to reduce by 50 per cent individual per capita outflows of garbage by the year 2000.
Though the Opposition may say it is dissatisfied with the discussion paper and community consultation, no one could say that this is not a genuine attempt by the Minister. Opposition members should take a more bipartisan approach to a matter that affects everyone. We all create garbage and it is important that a bipartisan approach is taken to its disposal. A number of specific issues were referred to in the motion. I, too, am concerned about further possible landfill projects. I lived most of my life in the Sutherland shire. Recently I received a package from the Don't Spoil Sutherland Shire group. It was sent out on council letterhead by Councillor N. Swords, the shire president. People have a number of misconceptions about what will happen at Lucas Heights, and as a former long-term resident of the shire I am most concerned to ensure that all of Sydney's rubbish is not dumped at Lucas Heights. Personally I believe garbage should be diversified. Different methods of treating garbage for landfill should be investigated. We should not put all our eggs in the one basket. I am concerned about the material that was sent to me from the Don't Spoil Sutherland Shire group. Some of the A4 leaflets that have been distributed are misleading. One of the pamphlets in the package states:
The State Government is committed to building a high temperature incinerator somewhere in New South Wales. Although the Government has said there is no plan to build the incinerator at Lucas Heights, Sutherland council is concerned that it will be the obvious choice, once the recycling and processing centre is built.
I believe that is basically a red herring - a total fabrication by the group. In all probability the committee is being influenced politically to beat up the issue as much as possible. The honourable member for Sutherland was raised in the Sutherland shire. I knew him when he was at school. In his student days he took a keen and genuine interest in the environment. He has already taken the concerns of his electorate to the Minister. I assure honourable members that the honourable member for Sutherland will ensure that the concerns of his electorate are addressed. Some of the concerns relate to noise from trucks, the type of waste, and other important operational matters. The Minister for the Environment has assured residents that these issues will be examined and he has directed the managing director of Waste Recycling and Processing Services to advise him of a schedule within which the operating hours can be curtailed. This would reduce truck movements in the early hours of the morning when there is a real problem with noise. Obviously no one would want dozens of noisy trucks running up and down their streets. A number of other issues of concern to the Sutherland residents are being investigated. The honourable member for Sutherland is well informed on this issue and knows what he is talking about. He has taken a great interest in the concerns of residents of the Sutherland shire relating to the Lucas Heights tip. In speaking about NIMBY issues - that is, not in my backyard - as a former long-standing resident of the Sutherland shire I do not want up to 95 per cent of Sydney's garbage dumped at one tip.
[Interruption]
The Hon. Franca Arena has been paying attention. I hope that the honourable member speaks in this debate, because I should like to hear something of substance from the Opposition on this motion. To the present we have heard less than 10 minutes of debate from the mover of the motion. Obviously no one wants to be burdened with other
Page 478
people's garbage in their backyard. It is not selfish to speak about NIMBY issues. Equity issues are involved here and that is why politics should not enter into the debate. I am sure that many people would appreciate having a waste recycling operation. In my view smaller scale projects are probably the best way to go but I am sure that all of these issues will be addressed in the discussion paper. I was a resident of the Sutherland shire but I am now a resident of the South Coast. The South Coast is also taking this waste disposal issue very seriously. An article in the Bay and Basin Review - one of my local newspapers - reported:
Shoalhaven Council reports that the recycling centres that have been established at our tips are proving successful and residents are responding well to them.
The recycling 'buy back centres' have been located at Berry, Callala, Huskisson, Sussex Inlet and Kioloa tips with a further planned for the West Nowra tip by the end of April.
The centres recycle anything that may be of value including furniture, white goods such as washing machines, electrical goods, toys, bikes, garden tools, car parts and building materials.
It is pleasing to note that local newspapers are promoting this recycling issue. They also recycle the more common recyclable items, such as paper, cardboard, magazines, glass, plastic polyethylene terephthalate or PET, aluminium cans, automotive oil and household paint. It is reported that the purpose of the centres is to minimise - "minimise" is a very important word in the debate of garbage-related issues - the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of in land fill. It is interesting to note that the Shoalhaven Shire Council has engaged contractors to operate the recycling centres. This is a good use of private enterprise practices. These contractors have been given exclusive rights to recover potential re-usable items from the waste stream. Anything that is of value is then resold to the public. What is carried out by the Shoalhaven Council is a classic and interesting case of far-sighted recycling efforts on a local basis. The council should be very much commended for its efforts.
The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! Pursuant to sessional orders, business is interrupted for the taking of questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
MEDICALLY ACQUIRED HIV-AIDS SUFFERERS ASSISTANCE
The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I refer to a recent statement of the Minister for Health and Community Services regarding money which will be made available to people with medically acquired human immunodeficiency virus-acquired immune deficiency syndrome and which is allegedly to be federally administered by the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. Can he inform the House whether the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust has accepted the responsibility to administer this money? If it declines, as I believe it will if the Government asks it to include payments to people who have acquired HIV-AIDS other than medically, as this would be contrary to its own rules, who will administer the money? Why did the Minister make such an announcement without previously receiving confirmation from the trust? Finally, when will the full details of the package for financial assistance be available?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am pleased that the honourable member has raised this question because I intend to make a statement in the House on all issues that arose -
Page 479
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It will be a ministerial statement.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yes, it will be a ministerial statement. It will be in response to the Standing Committee on Social Issues report. I am now in a position to be able to respond on behalf of the Government and, in accordance with the rules of the House, to all of the recommendations. I will be making that statement fairly shortly. In relation to the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust, I am able to indicate that, prior to the departure of Sir Ninian Stephens overseas, I spoke with him - he is the chairman of the trust - on the operation of the trust. I indicated to him the direction in which the Government may be proceeding in providing financial assistance. The preliminary indication was that the direction in which we were moving was consistent with the role of the Fitzpatrick trust and that it was one which the trust would be pleased to entertain. As a consequence, I have written to Sir Ninian Stephens indicating the direction of the Government and asking for further discussions to take place on how the use of the trust could proceed. The honourable member is right in drawing a distinction between medical and non-medical acquisition of HIV, but the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust, under its trust document, is only able to provide assistance to medically-acquired HIV sufferers.
Because we are providing moneys to people who have acquired the disease in New South Wales, there is some concern as to how the trust could target its money purely to New South Wales yet still have regard to the aims of the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. Sir Ninian Stephens and I have had discussions, but we are yet to get legal advice. It is possible that this will be done by having a separate New South Wales trustee and attaching that trustee to the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. The funds would go into an addendum deed, if I can use that terminology. The objective of all of this is to minimise administrative duplication of activities. In that area we are looking at virtually the same clients. As I have indicated, about 180 people from New South Wales have already been given support by the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. It may well be that we need a separate trustee, but we will seek to use the administrative services of the existing trust and to fund the additional work in providing administrative services. I do not think any purpose is to be served by requiring people to put in duplicate documentation to deal with duplicate organisations. That is not in their interest.
The honourable member is right to the extent that the trust may well feel that it is not in a position to look after a patient with non-medically acquired HIV. The trust, as it is at the moment, could not direct its activities towards that area. It would require our trustee to direct specifically such activities. That is what we are looking at in terms of the expansion of the legal requirements. Until the Government was in a position to make an announcement, the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust was probably not acknowledging any information on this. I was not wanting to pursue directly discussion with the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust without the public being informed of what was the State's decision in this regard. Having made a decision, the Government will announce the decision and proceed with discussion with the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. It is the desire of Sir Ninian and the Government that this relationship with the trust be established. If for legal reasons this cannot be achieved, we would have to set up our own trust. I think everybody would agree that it would be undesirable to have two separate administrative organisations dealing with the same group of people. If this cannot be so for legal reasons, we will move appropriately to make certain that our objective is achieved. I think I have covered all issues raised. If there are issues that I have not properly addressed, I am happy to pursue them following a supplementary question.
Page 480
HERITAGE CONSERVATION
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning and Minister for Energy. What steps has this Government taken - and what steps is the Minister taking - to conserve the heritage sites in New South Wales, particularly those important ones on the North Coast of New South Wales?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I thank the honourable member for what is a timely question as we hear the rousing noise coming from outside this place. For those honourable members opposite whose hearing is impaired today, I remind them that there are several hundred timber workers outside who are threatened by a piece of legislation introduced by the Labor Party in the other House. It once and for all tells the people of this State that the Labor Party is anti-jobs. I know that there are some internal struggles within the Labor Party about that legislation. A lot of Labor Party members are not too happy about it. It was very interesting that at a briefing held the other night on the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Bill a few little spats occurred between people who purport to support the same side. I understand, for example, that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, who is now entering the Chamber, received some very uncomplimentary remarks from some trade unionists at the meeting. They did not like her anti-jobs attitude. I understand also that there was quite a fiery exchange between the shadow minister for agriculture -
The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! I ask honourable members who are not in the Chamber not to enter into the debate.
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I understand that there was quite a fiery exchange between the shadow minister for agriculture, the honourable member for Port Stephens, and the shadow minister for the environment, the honourable member for Blacktown. It is very good for members on this side of the House to see those creative tensions between the troglodytes and the progressive reactionaries now coming from that side of the House.
[Interruption]
The Hon. P. F. O'Grady would not know a timber worker even if he was bitten on the toe by one. Most members opposite, with a couple of exceptions, would not know where to find the North Coast without getting onboard a plane. The most notable exception is the Hon. J. R. Johnson, a native of the region, who probably does have an appreciation of the needs of timber workers, but the rest of the rabble opposite would not have a clue. It is to the everlasting shame of most members opposite that they ever considered supporting that legislation, which will progressively throw thousands of people out of work in this State unless something is done about it. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, a resident of the North Coast, a descendant of one of the original settlers, like me takes a balanced view towards balanced development and is committed to the protection of the environment and our heritage as well as to the principle of providing employment. I need hardly emphasise the commitment of the Government in assisting heritage conservation in this State through good management of our resources. In recognition of the importance of our State heritage the Government will assist an estimated 250 heritage conservation projects in New South Wales this year.
I just heard a chant drifting the door of this Chamber - "We want Bob, we want Bob". I do not think that is a call for me or the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith but for Bob Carr, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. Perhaps he should go out and talk
Page 481
to them. Under the heritage assistance program, which is administered by the Department of Planning, the New South Wales Government will make available $2.7 million during 1992. This $2.7 million allocation for New South Wales is Australia's largest State heritage program and is making a significant impact on heritage conservation throughout the State. Community interest in the State's heritage is increasing and the Government is committed to assisting, wherever possible, projects that preserve our heritage. I shall now outline some initiatives that I recently announced in relation to the North Coast that will conserve native fauna areas and areas of historic and heritage significance on our coastline.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: What is the National Party doing about preserving our heritage?
The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: I will come to that and I know that the Hon. J. R. Johnson will be most interested in my answer. Coastal projects have featured prominently in this year's funding allocations for heritage projects. They include a project to assess the numbers, range and breeding habits of native fauna in parts of the North Coast and Northern Tablelands regions and a scheme to set up a coastal geographical information system at a cost of $20,000. This grant will be spent on the establishment of a computer data base covering vegetation types along the North Coast. A further $8,000 has been allocated to help conserve flying fox camps located in various areas of northern New South Wales. Other grants include $35,000 for a marine conservation study of New South Wales coastal waters and $2,200 to establish a significant trees register in the lower Hunter region.
Many of the projects being administered under the program will benefit Aboriginal heritage. The Government has made available $15,000 to undertake an Aboriginal project management workshop and a further $31,000 to carry out a survey of historical Aboriginal women's sites. Industrial heritage has not been overlooked. A grant of $20,000 will carry out assessment of historic railway stations and other structures in country areas of New South Wales. A separate grant of $20,000 will examine the heritage significance of the railway system from South Maitland collieries. An interesting Sydney-based allocation involves a grant of $27,000 for a conservation study of World War II fortifications and defence installations in the Sydney Harbour and Ku-ring-gai national parks. The projects I have outlined today are just some of the steps being taken by the Government to preserve our State's heritage and demonstrate our commitment to conservation throughout the State.
PRIVATE SECTOR HEALTH SERVICES
The Hon. BERYL EVANS: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Is the Minister aware of recent statements by Labor members of Parliament supporting the Government's position on non-government sector involvement in the advanced health service?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Yesterday in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition I referred to the obvious division which exists within the Labor Party on private investment in health services and in particular the division which exists between Dr Refshauge and the leadership team within the Labor Party. It is interesting to note that split has now gone down through the ranks of the Labor Party. I have received approaches from organisations who want to be involved in the provision of health services in a manner similar to that which is under consideration in Port Macquarie, who want to provide such a facility in Lithgow, in the Bathurst electorate, which is held by the Labor Party. Those organisations want a private organisation to build a private hospital facility which will provide both public and private health services.
Page 482
The Hon. Judith Walker: Is Dr Refshauge opposed to that?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: We know that Dr Refshauge is opposed to that type of investment. I note with interest that the honourable member for Bathurst is now coming out and calling on me to provide such a facility in Lithgow. On 29th February the Lithgow Mercury reported as follows:
He said that the Labor Party was not opposed to such private hospital development and he believed it was important for the Lithgow district.
My recollection is that the honourable member for Bathurst is from the right of the Labor Party.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He is a progressive reactionary.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is right in describing him as a progressive reactionary: that is an apt description within the Labor Party because it does not know how to react to these issues. The Lithgow Mercury further reported:
Mr Clough was commenting on delays by the State Government in reaching any decision on a proposal for a joint venture on public - private hospital facilities for Lithgow despite a Federal commitment for its share of the funding . . .
"The ALP supports a private hospital for Lithgow", he said.
"It has to be bad, for the Lithgow economy to have patients constantly going out of town to the Dudley (at Orange), the Jamieson (at Penrith) or to Sydney".
The Dudley hospital at Orange is a hospital run by Health Care of Australia, which is the tenderer at Port Macquarie. The Jamieson hospital is run by the Markalinga group, which was one of the unsuccessful tenderers for the Port Macquarie project. The Lithgow Mercury also reported as follows:
It was most important for shared private-public facilities to exist as he did not believe it possible for a private hospital to function adequately on its own.
It is about time the Labor Party got its act straight. I welcome the honourable member for Bathurst now calling on me to pursue such a private investment, and I assure him I will give consideration to that. I agree with what the honourable member for Bathurst is reported to have said on behalf of the Labor Party:
Mr Clough said he rejected the submission by ALP Shadow Health Minister Dr Andrew Refshauge that $8 million should be spent on upgrading the present hospital.
As I said yesterday and on other occasions, when the documentation on the Port Macquarie hospital is completed I will make that documentation publicly available, and it should be available to communities such as Lithgow so as they may know about the guarantee of service. The public is interested in gaining access to health care. That is what they want. They want expanded health services and guaranteed access to health services.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: They want service they can afford.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Free service is something that everybody can afford and that is exactly what we are providing - guaranteed access to free health care. That is exactly what the people of Port Macquarie will get. At present we provide 31,700-odd free hospital bed days a year.
Page 483
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: High quality.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: High quality service. In two years' time, under this proposal, the number of free bed days will go from 31,000 to 41,000 a year.
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: Paid by Medicare levy.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Paid for by Medicare and the State Government. If the honourable member is interested in Medicare, she should apply more pressure in Canberra. If New South Wales were now getting the same share of Medicare funds as it was getting five years ago, I would have an additional $250 million this year to be able to provide access to free health care services. But at the same time that New South Wales is not getting that money, that sort of money is being give by the Federal Government to Queensland and Victoria. One has to ask what the Labor Party is doing in relation to health care. It is prepared to look after its mates in other States but in the State which has the largest population -
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: We are all Australians.
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is right, and it is about time Canberra realised that. If it had continued to give New South Wales a proper share of Medicare funds we would have an extra $250 million this year to be able to provide an expansion of care. So much for the one nation policy. I am concerned that Port Macquarie has one of the worst hospital waiting lists in the State. Under this proposal waiting lists in Port Macquarie will be brought down to the State average of three weeks. If we can achieve that by this sort of approach to investment in health care, the State will benefit. I am pleased that Mick Clough is recognising the benefits to be gained from this State Government's approach to health services. I hope that the rest of the Labor Party starts to recognise it and does what Bob Carr as leader is prepared to do - that is, shut up.
CHILD BLOOD LEAD LEVELS
The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question is directed to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Did the Minister's colleague the Minister for the Environment indicate last November that he did not believe that high blood lead levels in children at South Broken Hill could be attributed to the nearby open-cut lead mine? Will the Minister be supporting the calls of the Broken Hill environmental steering committee for $250,000 for additional testing, particularly in view of the fact that the survey carried out in the Boolaroo area of Newcastle has shown unacceptably high blood levels in children living near the Pasminco works?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: One of the greatest public health concerns in the State at present should be high blood lead levels amongst children. I can assure the honourable member that it is one of the high profile health issues on the agenda of the Department of Health. I am not aware of the comments made by my colleague Minister for the Environment. I shall convey the question to him for a response. In relation to the position of the Department of Health, I can recall that shortly after this matter became an issue the Department of Health allocated staff to address the issue. The resources necessary for this are being allocated. I am not in a position to comment specifically on the $250,000 mentioned in the question. I shall seek advice on that. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby can be assured that the department recognises this as an important public health issue and it is addressing it.
Page 484
PARLIAMENT HOUSE FIRE ESCAPE
The Hon. DELCIA KITE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council, in his own capacity and representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Further Education, Training and Employment. Is the Minister aware that the President of the Legislative Council has had an office built across the corridor leading to the fire escape, which prevents direct access to the fire escape serving members, staff and visitors within and in the vicinity of the Legislative Council? Notwithstanding the fact that there are two doors on either side of the executive officer's office, the door to the fire escape is always locked. The blocking of direct access to the fire escape is totally unsatisfactory and a danger to life. Does this contravene the safety requirements of the Sydney County Council, the Department of Industrial Relations and police and emergency services? Will the Minister ensure that an urgent investigation by Mr Roger Bucholdt of the fire brigade investigations section will be arranged and that this House will be provided with a report of his findings?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I am vaguely aware of the construction that the honourable member referred to. I had not appreciated that it might form some sort of a barrier to access to the fire emergency services. Obviously it would be a matter of concern if that were true. With regard to the suggestion that the matter be investigated by fire brigade officers, I think that probably is not statutorily possible. I shall certainly have the suggestion examined. However, it will be obvious that the safety of honourable members is of paramount concern to me both as Leader of the House and Minister for Police and Emergency Services -
The Hon. Delcia Kite: And staff.
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Of course. I will have the matter looked into urgently.
POLICE-ABORIGINES RELATIONS
The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Did the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council see the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program on police at Redfern last night? Does he condone the hypocritical and racist behaviour of the police? Does he believe action should be taken against the police officers concerned? Does he believe that the racist police culture as evidenced in the film is responsible for the 80 per cent increase in Aboriginal imprisonment in New South Wales over the past five years?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: At the outset let me say that like the Commissioner of Police, Mr Lauer, and senior members of the New South Wales Police Service I am concerned and disappointed at certain behaviour exhibited by numbers of police appearing in the program that the honourable member referred to. Mr Lauer has asked the Regional Commander South, Assistant Commissioner Bruce Gibson, to view a tape of the program and to advise on what action should be taken with regard to the officers involved in it. Late last week I was briefed about this program by the commissioner. Apparently the Australian Broadcasting Corporation made the program over a six-week period in July and August of last year. Prior to filming the Australian Broadcasting Corporation crew spent some time observing and speaking to police in the Redfern patrol about policing in that area. The producer of the program, Miss Jennie Brockie, then nominated the police officers she wanted to feature in the documentary.
Page 485
I share the commissioner's belief that the offensive behaviour and actions of three or four police officers selected for the program are no reflection on the prevailing attitudes of the 140 police officers in the Redfern patrol. It goes without saying that they are not representative of the 13,000 men and women in the New South Wales Police Service. Every person in this House will appreciate the enormous social and economic problems that exist in some parts of Redfern and the tremendous difficulties faced by both police and Aborigines in that environment. However, many positive policing initiatives have been introduced in the Redfern area to improve the relationship between police and the local community. They have included the establishment of community consultative committees comprising police and members of the Redfern community, including the Aboriginal community, which meet regularly to discuss and address issues of social concern; the establishment of beat police in the area; and the placement of three Aboriginal community liaison officers to assist police in their dealings with members of the Aboriginal community.
In addition, the commissioner has informed me that the New South Wales Police Service, the Ombudsman and Koori leaders had recently agreed to mount a joint research program in three locations to discover if there are common aspects of conflict between the parties concerned. Like the commissioner, I am disappointed that the actions of a few have again tarnished the image of the New South Wales Police Service at a time when independent survey material shows overwhelming community satisfaction with and support for the police service. Every honourable member in this House would understand how disappointed I feel about that particular program. I have the strong, honest and genuinely held view that for some years the New South Wales Police Service has done a splendid job in addressing many problems which had confronted the service in the past. I believe it has achieved a remarkable result and in New South Wales today the 13,000 men and women who are members of the Police Service are serving the community with distinction. It is clear that a mere handful of people have, through that television program, done a great disservice to the worthy and well-earned image of the Police Service of New South Wales.
POLICE-ABORIGINES RELATIONS
The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Given the Minister's belief that the police have done a marvellous job in their relations with Aborigines, how does he explain the 80 per cent increase in Aboriginal imprisonment during the past five years?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Something that never fails to amaze me is that some members - and I say "some" because I take the view that most members opposite have a good understanding of the problem - seem to completely miss the point that in New South Wales, indeed in this country as a whole and in many other countries around the world, there are Aboriginal communities which are greatly disadvantaged. The streetscape that was portrayed in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program shown last night was not created by police. It was something of which no one in this Chamber can be especially proud. The fact is that this State and this nation has had a continuing inability to properly address the special problems of the Aboriginal community and the breakdown that results from the failure of society generally and the Aboriginal community itself to deal with those problems. It is a total failure on everyone's part. We as a society then expect our police officers, those men and women dedicated to the preservation of law and order in this community, to pick up the pieces. When they attempt to pick up the pieces, acting within the law as laid down by this Parliament, we ought not be critical of the result which has essentially been generated by a total community inability to cope with the problem.
Page 486
SOCIAL VALUES EDUCATION
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Will the Minister advise the House of the results of research into teaching social values in schools? Do the results enhance the Government's commitment to teaching values in schools?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It is indeed true that since 1988 the Greiner Government has been doing everything possible to redress what it regards as a most unfortunate tendency in public education during recent decades to act in such a way so as to perpetuate the myth that our schools could be value free and therefore that the public school system and those working in it had no responsibility for values held by young people. I recognise that given the great diversity within the Australian community, which of course is reflected within our school population, it is a sensitive matter to try to identify those values which are important to our community and values which could be commonly held by all people within the community. Last year, after a long period of revision of documents that had been in existence many years ago -
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Will the Minister make those available to members?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Absolutely. I thought they had been sent to members last year but I will be delighted to make them available again. After consultation not only with a number of parent organisations but with different religious and racial groups within our community, a document entitled "The Values We Teach" was published. That document is now in all public schools in New South Wales. That was a significant achievement. Following that, a most interesting research project was conducted by Dr Neville Schofield and Dr Terry Lovett from the University of Newcastle. Both of those people, particularly Neville Schofield, would be known to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.
The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Will the Minister make those documents available also?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, I am more than happy to do that. Those people worked with a fine local school in the Newcastle area, Thornton Public School. They took classes in years 4 and 6 and worked with them in discussions about values. Those values included respect for one another, respect for people's property, respect for family, respect for another's religious views and various other matters. Their interesting findings should give all of us heart. Following that research project it was found that the teaching of values made a significant difference to feelings of self-worth and self-identity of the young people who were involved in the research project. Differences were noted in young people's behaviour towards one another and their general behaviour within the school framework. This more positive and supportive approach is believed to have given students a much better application to their school work. It is interesting and important work. I am certainly appreciative of the work done by the University of Newcastle and the co-operation of Thornton Public School. It seems to me that when the findings and some of the approaches that were adopted are made generally available to public schools across New South Wales, some of the beneficial results that have been achieved at Thornton Public School will be repeated at other schools.
Page 487
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY STUDENT HANDBOOK
Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I wish to ask the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council a question without notice. What is the Government's current situation concerning the irresponsible orientation handbook produced by the Students Association of the University of Technology which encouraged students to use illegal drugs and incited students to break the laws of New South Wales? Have any students been charged as a result of the recent police confiscation of materials from the Students Association office?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I thank the honourable member for his question. I believe that most honourable members in this House would support me when I say that the Government is appalled at what was contained within the particular brochure to which Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile referred. The brochure was made available to me. It was no more than an incitement to young people to try drugs. It is absolutely outrageous, considering the millions of dollars expended by the community to combat the use of illegal drugs in this State and considering the number of young lives destroyed by those drugs. Any honourable member who would come with me to Canterbury Road and talk to a girl selling her body in order to pump $1,000 worth of heroin per day into her arm could only be appalled by the effect of drugs upon our society. Were any member not to agree with that statement, one would almost wonder as to his or her right to sit in this House.
The issue was raised publicly with me as the appropriate Minister and, in a responsible way, I drew it to the attention of the police department. Honourable members would be aware that the department is investigating the matter. I understand from media reports that some documentation has been obtained by police, obviously as part of an ongoing investigative process. Clearly, it would be improper for me, first of all, to be involved in that process and, as it is an ongoing investigation, it would be totally improper for me to make comments about it in this Chamber. The Drug Enforcement Agency has done a splendid, if not fantastic, job in this State in destroying organisations distributing illegal drugs. The $7 million of illicitly gained assets frozen last year under the Government's new assets seizure legislation is one measure of the success in that regard. I know that the head of the agency, Assistant Commissioner Ray Donaldson, will ensure that this particular matter is dealt with in an appropriate way under the law. It is for the department to release details in respect of whether or not people are subsequently charged.
POLICE-ABORIGINES RELATIONS
The Hon. P. F. O'GRADY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. In light of last night's television program relating to the Redfern police station, can the Minister tell the House what departmental action has been taken against the police officers involved in the Redfern raid known as Operation Sue, and the officers involved in the Gundy and Brennan shootings? Does the Minister agree that the fact that no action has been taken against police for such misconduct is part of the cause for the appalling attitude we witnessed last night? Why does the Minister continue to fail? Why does he not show leadership on this matter?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: It is well known to honourable members in this House that the Hon. Paul O'Grady holds the service generally in low esteem. I find that difficult to comprehend because, of all honourable members in this Chamber who
Page 488
regularly approach me for assistance from the New South Wales Police Service, it is the Hon. Paul O'Grady who does so regularly. He does so quite legitimately, honestly and properly and I believe the honourable member would be the first to concede that I respond to every request and I believe he has been satisfied on every occasion. The honourable member well knows that the Police Service, as a government department, is scrutinised more than any other government department in this State. The fact is that there are very stringent procedures laid down to deal with complaints laid against police. If the honourable member were obliged to operate under those constrictions, I suggest he would leave the House. I do not believe he would be able to operate under the type of scrutiny under which police in this State are expected to operate, with any criminal able to make anonymous complaints against them, just because they are doing their job.
Honourable members should appreciate that any complaint laid against police officers, particularly in relation to the matters referred to by the honourable member, are referred to the Ombudsman of New South Wales. The Police Service is obliged to investigate such complaints. If the investigation does not prove satisfactory, the Ombudsman can require a re-investigation. If that in turn is not satisfactory to the Ombudsman, he can investigate the matter with his own police officers and civilian staff and make recommendations as to what ought to be done. Legal advice would then be obtained from the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not an officer should be charged. That process is laid down by law - enacted, I might add, by a Labor Government - and to suggest that I, as a Minister of the Crown, should in some way or another show leadership by interfering to decide whether or not charges should be laid -
The Hon. P. F. O'Grady: Why were no police charged after the Gundy and Brennan matters?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: Is that what the honourable member means by leadership? Does he want me to fiddle with the system? His party when in office created very tough system which provides all the protection for the community and very little protection for the individual police officer; it is all on the side of the community. Having created that very tough system - and I am not suggesting it ought not be tough - police officers should operate in this tough environment - there ought be proper discipline, and there is. Honourable members should not endeavour to give the impression to the community of New South Wales that there is not an appropriate mechanism; that somehow police officers are not dealt with properly under the law of this State. That is a scurrilous assertion made by way of a question in this House by a person who has more to thank the New South Wales police force for - in terms of support for the honourable member and his community - than any other honourable member in this Chamber.
AGED PERSON ASSAULTS
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Further to my question yesterday concerning increased penalties for those who attack elderly people, will the Minister inform the House whether he can shed any more light on the Government's intention to introduce legislation to put into effect these penalties?
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: I thank the honourable member for raising the matter again. I have taken the opportunity in the last 24 hours to discuss the matter informally with the Attorney General, whose advice again confirms that one should not allow engineers to become involved in the development of the law. The Attorney General has quite properly pointed out to me that the present penalties available to the
Page 489
court are quite wide ranging. The Attorney General explained that the maximum penalty for this type of crime is 25 years in gaol. In other words, this Parliament has provided for a very appropriate penalty for those who would attack the aged. It is for the judges and the courts to determine an appropriate penalty, given the circumstances involved. I believe the Attorney General has got that right. It is not a matter that I, as a humble engineer, appreciated yesterday during question time. I provide that informal advice for the benefit of another non-lawyer from the crossbench.
SCHOOL CLEANERS RETRENCHMENT
The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is directed to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs, representing the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Minister for Administrative Services considering retrenching approximately 7,000 school cleaners and replacing them with private contractors, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, in spite of the Government's stated aim of lowering unemployment? If so, did this proposal come from the Department of School Education, or from herself as Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs? Does this proposal indicate that the Government is preparing to dishonour its 1989 agreement with the Miscellaneous Workers Union not to retrench these workers, in return for restructuring of the service?
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for his question. As requested I will forward the details to my colleague, but there are one or two matters upon which I would comment as Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. It is true that a contract exists with the Government Cleaning Service. That contract is worth approximately $160 million per annum. That comes out of the school education budget and is for the cleaning of schools. The suggestion that the Government has not honoured the agreement with the union, in respect of the fulfilment of that contract, is unfounded. I believe there is a very good relationship between the Government Cleaning Service and myself, my department and those involved at school level.
It has been my personal observation that when local complaints are made about various aspects of school cleaning, the cleaning service has addressed these issues in a most co-operative and productive way, so I have no cause for complaint there. The period of the contract will expire in June. Given the enormity of the annual cost of the contract to the school education budget and the potential for disruption to schools and the need to ensure that schools are cleaned in a proper and non-disruptive manner, I would be astonished if the Hon. A. B. Manson were to suggest that it was improper not to look at whether the contract had been successful and whether there are other ways of ensuring that our schools are cleaned properly and regularly. It may well be that the existing arrangements will be renegotiated and continued. No decision has been made as to what should happen with the contract. If it is decided to renegotiate the existing arrangements, so be it. However, in view of the cost of about $160 million a year I feel a sense of responsibility to ensure that we get the best value for the school dollar.
READING RECOVERY PROGRAM
The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is to the Minister for School Education and Youth Affairs. Has there been a recent assessment of the reading recovery program in New South Wales? Will the Minister advise the House what progress has been made in this program?
Page 490
The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the honourable member for his interest in the reading recovery program, which has been one of the great education success stories. Honourable members should realise that New South Wales would not have a reading recovery program if it were not for the $80 million special education program that was introduced by the Government in recognition of the many years, indeed decades, of neglect of special education. Despite the groan that I heard from the Hon. Franca Arena, I know that she is most concerned about children with special needs. The honourable member takes an interest in this area and I hope that she welcomes the success of the reading recovery program. Our people involved with the program were trained by those who have worked extensively with the program in New Zealand. Not only is the program operating here, it is also operating in Canada and the United States of America. Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory now have reading recovery programs and I understand that a reading recovery program is about to be introduced into the United Kingdom.
This successful program has achieved recognition in Australia and internationally. The program was started in New South Wales in 1990. The budget for the pilot program in 1990 was only $263,000. This year the reading recovery program is being expanded to all educational regions of the State with a budget of $1.165 million. The program has grown amazingly in a very short time. It began as a pilot project which could be monitored and evaluated by external researchers. The great challenge has been to maintain the integrity of the initial three pilot programs as well as trying to meet the demand from schools in other regions for the program's expansion. It is being evaluated over a three-year period. If the enthusiasm for the program elsewhere in the State, interstate and overseas is any indication, I have no doubt about the results of that external evaluation. As a result of this Government's action the reading recovery program has benefited children with special needs.
FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION PUBLICATION
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Health and Community Services. Has the Department of Health approved the distribution of the offensive fact and fantasy sex diaries and or the operation of the family planning teenage hotline? Is it a fact that the controversial teenage sex diary produced by the Family Planning Association was distributed to Vietnamese teenagers attending the Sydney Indo-Chinese Refugee Support Group residential program on 20th to 24th January, which was organised by the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital? Will the department conduct a public inquiry into the health policies and health material being distributed by the Family Planning Association to hospitals, schools and community health centres in view of the New South Wales Government funding of $983,558 - almost $1 million - which the Family Planning Association received in 1991?
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: In relation to the first part of the question I am not aware of the approval or distribution of the diaries or of the involvement of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. As that hospital is under the administration of the Minister for Health Services Management I will forward the question to him for a response. The funding of non-government organisations has proceeded on a traditional basis, with those organisations virtually having their funding renewed each year. This year, however, I have reviewed the funding and some organisations have been defunded, though those organisations have made representations to me to reconsider that action. A review of the funding to all organisations is being undertaken in order to achieve a more targeted approach. The strategic plan to enhance health services will no doubt include the Family Planning Association.
Page 491
The Hon. E. P. PICKERING: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Beryl Evans) left the chair at 1 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The Acting-President, in accordance with section 78(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act, announced receipt of copies of the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption into the New South Wales Film Corporation and Pepper Distribution dated March 1992.
SELECT COMMITTEE UPON WASTE MANAGEMENT
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH [2.32]: We should nickname the Hon. Jan Burnswoods "the member who has very little to say". She had very little to say on the motion despite the importance of the subject-matter. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will have more to say and will make more sense. I wish to inform honourable members of one of the initiatives of the State Government of which I am particularly proud, namely, the recycling rebate scheme. The Minister also is particularly proud of it. It was announced by the Government in October 1990 to provide councils with a rebate of $17.50 for every tonne of household waste they managed to recycle. The rebate is funded from the proceeds of a levy charged for every tonne of waste taken to a tip or transfer station. It was $2 at that stage. I think it is now about $2.80. Since the scheme began in January 1992, councils have received $1,193,000 from the former Waste Management Authority for recycling 700,000 tonnes of material. The rebate makes good economic sense and is a great incentive for councils. It will encourage them to have good recycling projects.
It should be noted that many councils are introducing weekly kerbside recycling services. A weekly service is preferable because, if it were a monthly service, local residents would tend to forget the night on which collections would be made. The date would have to be advertised continually to remind people which night is recycling night. Ideally councils should make sure that the recycling night is on the same night as other garbage is collected. Numerous studies have shown that that is a far more effective method of collecting recycleables than the monthly service which was offered in the past. It is expected that by June 1992 only about five councils in the metropolitan area will not be operating a weekly kerbside service. It is a very promising situation.
Recently provided information shows that Sydney councils have further increased their recycling tonnages by an average of 19 per cent during the fourth quarter of the council recycling rebate scheme. Cheques totally over $530,000 will be given to councils as a reward for their recycling efforts. The scheme has been operating for a year. In that time almost 100,000 tonnes of recycleables have been collected and councils have received rebates totalling more than $1.74 million. The latest results are extremely encouraging. About 30,000 tonnes of domestic recycleables, such as paper, cardboard, glass, polyethylene teraphthalate and aluminium, were collected from 1st October to 31st December, almost 5,000 tonnes more than was collected for the third quarter. This represents an increase of 19 per cent form the third quarter and nearly 40 per cent from
Page 492
the first quarter, clearly demonstrating an increased commitment to recycling by councils and residents. The response in the press and in Kerbside Quarterly - a very effective newsletter published by the former Waste Management Authority - to the results of the first three quarters has been very pleasing. Residents and council staff have been able to compare the performance of their councils with that of other councils. Undoubtedly, this has led to the improved performance of many councils. No council wants to be at the bottom of the list. That in itself is good incentive for the collection of recycleables.
The performances of councils have been ranked on the basis of recycleables collected per person per year. The councils that receive the biggest cheques are not necessarily the best performers. A council with fewer residents could recycle more waste per person than a larger council. On the basis of the latest results, congratulations can go to Mosman - and I suppose the honourable member for North Shore has had a lot to do with that - Manly and Woollahra councils, the top three performers during the fourth quarter. Congratulations go also to those councils which have greatly improved their recycling performances, that is Hawkesbury, Warringah, Marrickville and Liverpool councils. That all 41 councils in the scheme have improved their performance during the fourth quarter is very pleasing. We can also look at council performances on a regional basis. Six regional groupings have been drawn up by the Local Government Recycling Co-operative, which was set up initially to help councils with the collection, distribution and marketing of used paper. The top regional councils are as follows: in the northern region, Mosman; in the inner west, Burwood; in the east, Woollahra; in the south, Rockdale; in the outer metropolitan north, Ku-ring-gai; and in the outer metropolitan west, Hawkesbury. These councils should all be congratulated on their efforts.
Having spent most of my early days in the Sutherland shire, I noted with interest the figures for that area. Sutherland Shire Council ranks twenty-second, having dropped a couple of places from its nineteenth ranking for the third quarter. Though Sutherland council is holding its own, I would like to see an improved performance. That council is getting a rebate of $33,258.16 - cause for gratitude in the people of the Sutherland shire - but that performance could be improved. In Sutherland shire 40.01 kilograms per person per year of material were recycled. Fairfield council, which is at the bottom of the list, recorded 11.35 kilograms. Mosman council recorded 102.06 kilograms and should be congratulated on that fantastic result. Recycling is the way of the future and we should be examining it closely. Councils in other areas will have to match Mosman council's effort if the target of a 50 per cent reduction in individual waste disposal is to be achieved by the year 2000. Manly council also did well. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, who lives in the Manly area, should be pleased about the result in Manly, where 100.54 kilograms of material per person per year were recycled. That council and the residents of Manly should be congratulated on that effort.
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How much did they not recycle?
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: I do not know how much they did not recycle but the results are most impressive. A fair comparison can be made on the basis of kilograms recycled per person. The previous Labor Government did not bother to address these problems. On behalf of the New South Wales Government I can boast that we are blessed with an excellent Minister. Initiatives have been taken to encourage business and private enterprise as well as councils to recycle. The Government wants these measures to apply to private enterprise and to companies also and not be restricted to local government areas. Earlier this year an announcement was made that businesses which do not recycle office waste paper could pay up to twice the current fee for the collection and disposal of the material. That is a big incentive for commercial entities can take
Page 493
advantage of savings to be gained from recycling material. Commercial mixed waste containing more than 50 per cent of paper by volume is charged at the rate of $50 per tonne at the authority's land fill depots and $69.55 per tonne at transfer stations. After 10th July, those charges will apply to loads with more than 25 per cent paper content, and by 10th January, 1993, mixed waste loads with more than 25 per cent paper content will not be accepted.
I could give further examples of initiatives taken in respect of commercial industrial waste but my colleagues on the backbench are keen to speak in this debate, and will use more than 10 minutes to make their views known. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods is supplying her leader with more material. She is obviously propping him up for a major effort. I am sure we can expect fireworks from the Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition - which has little knowledge of history - claims that the Government is not addressing the problem. The Government will appoint an environmental auditor to carry out a series of independent audits at the three major waste disposal facilities owned and operated by the Waste Management Authority and which will be licensed by the Environment Protection Authority. The facilities on which audits will be conducted are a secure land fill at Castlereagh, a solid waste land fill at Lucas Heights - in which the Leader of the Opposition would be keenly interested - and an aqueous waste plant at Lidcombe.
Each audit will comprise two stages. Stage one will encompass a comprehensive review of all existing literature, data, reports and other documentation relevant to the facility and its operation as well as on-site inspections in order to provide an environmental status and risk assessment of the facility; an assessment of compliance of the facility with Federal, State and local environmental regulatory provisions; identification of community-based concerns, both local and generalised, in relation to facilities and appropriate responses thereto; and an assessment of management and operational processes and procedures in place at the facility. The final report for stage one will include the auditor's perspective on the adequacy of available data and recommendations for remedial measures to identified problems, and improvements to management and operational processes, procedures and systems. The report will also include the auditor's recommendations for additional sampling and testing considered necessary to meet identified gaps which are considered to be fundamental to decision making in relation to the facility, along with the requisite outline testing and sampling program and estimated costs thereof.
Stage two will be conditional upon the satisfactory completion of stage one and may require a separate tendering process. This stage will be subject to the submission of a detailed program for testing and cost estimate and will be conducted subject to the review by and approval of the Ministry for the Environment of the stage one final report at the discretion of the Ministry of the Environment. The Government is always concerned about the effectiveness of existing operations. Given the amount of garbage that should be recycled but which is still being put into the ground, auditing procedures are needed to ensure that our facilities can be improved. The less garbage that is put into the ground, the better for us all. We must examine all proposals that are advanced for the effective disposal and, in particular, recycling and reprocessing of rubbish.
I am interested in what is called the Stockrington rail waste project, which has attracted significant support. Those who have promoted this idea have said that in time the equivalent of 400 truckloads of material could be received by that project. Given the problems that might arise from putting 400 trucks per day on any road and and the benefits of rail transportation, the proposal should be examined closely. Rail transport
Page 494
of some of our rubbish to a convenient site is a good idea, but not everything can be dumped in one place. All options must be considered carefully by experts in the relevant fields. One problem, apart from the Opposition jumping the gun with its motion, is that this is probably not an appropriate forum -
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What do you mean by "jumping the gun"?
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: We are bringing out a discussion paper and views can be expressed on it.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: When will the discussion paper be out?
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: I am advised it will be out in April, which is not too far off. I thought the honourable member might know that and that is why she moved the motion - to try to pre-empt the Minister. It is probably more appropriate to have a community consultation process. Parliamentary committee inquiries attract privilege. With an investigation into corruption or other serious matters people give evidence on oath and witnesses are provided with protection. With regard to waste management we are really looking for community consultation and discussion.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: The discussion paper has been prepared by consultants.
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: It is coming from the Minister's office.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: It is from consultants, not the community.
The Hon. S. B. MUTCH: The community will have a role to play when the discussion paper is released. If the honourable member wishes to raise something that is not covered in the discussion paper, she has only to write a letter to the Minister about it. After the discussion paper is released the community will be able to consider the matter rationally. Scientists and academics will have an input. Interest groups will have their say in a reasoned debate on the question. This is an important subject area but the motion is untimely. The Opposition is probably trying to gain political capital. Speaking of political capital, we have only to look at the record of the previous Labor Government of this State. Frankly, its record is built on a pile of garbage.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.52]: When the Hon. Jan Burnswoods moved the motion, for a fleeting moment I was flattered by the thought of my being held in such high esteem by her that she included me on the proposed committee. Having heard her speech, which was advanced with little support from her colleagues, I feel like many people do when they arrive home to find that the neighbour's dog has got into their plastic bags and tipped the garbage tin over: a sense of total outrage and disappointment at the thought of the cleaning job ahead. Instead of this serious problem being dealt with in a serious way we were entertained to a farrago of falsehoods, misleading insinuations -
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What, in 10 minutes?
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Yes, jammed into 10 minutes. We heard vacuous imprecations, specious accusations, and lurid and blatantly political assertions which were without foundation or evidence. The arguments put forward lacked any depth or substance. They were just wet and sloppy. I think I could be forgiven a Freudian slip on this occasion in describing the debate so far as a load of rubbish. I shall try to bring the debate back to a serious basis. As I said, the subject is far too serious to be
Page 495
trivialised and made the subject of an insincere debate with doubtful objectives. I shall go through the status quo as I see it - where we are up to after an historical survey - and suggest the very antithesis of what was suggested by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods when she accused the Government of failing to manage the waste disposal issue. One accusation was that the Government was seeking to push the issue back onto local government. In fact 39 of the 40 councils constituting the metropolitan waste disposal region are involved actively in the waste management plan for the metropolitan area. This shows what can be done with close liaison and co-operation with local government to achieve an objective which is in the interests of the broader community. I reject entirely the suggestion that the initiative taken by a former Liberal-National government in 1970 has run out of direction on this important issue. It is important to understand the scope of waste disposal in New South Wales and to analyse it in the global context. The relevance of this issue varies according to where people live. People living on their own properties in rural areas are entirely responsible for the disposal of all their waste. There is no co-operation or assistance from government. No facility is provided by local government for the disposal, treatment, or any other process of the waste generated by the household or business operation on the farm.
Another dimension of the problem is small to medium urbanisation, which is clearly distinguished from the subsequent category which most of the debate will centre on. Rural municipalities and shires are moving ahead as best they can within their economic resources to use modern technology in the disposal of waste of all sorts with the common objective of causing minimum disturbance to the environment. The third area is the one which concerns us most in discharging our responsibilities as community leaders: waste generated in the areas of dense urbanisation, in metropolises such as Sydney. I point out with regret that very few members opposite are present in the Chamber to listen to my address. Given the quality of my contribution I am sure they will stop listening in their rooms and scuttle down to the Chamber to hear me directly making most interesting points. A horrifying incident which brought home to us that we have to act responsibly and circumspectly in this country, and in New South Wales in particular, was the spectacle of a garbage barge despatched from New York City, where the problem of waste disposal has become almost insoluble, and certainly not dissolvable. Having sought outside contracts for the disposal of landfill material, the authorities found that the garbage scow was embarked on the high seas with no friendly port of entry to accept it. It was forced to wander the oceans. It illustrated that for many of us there is a belief that the nuisance material is disposed of in the garbage bin or receptacle in the home and little thought is given to the impact on other communities and the environment generally.
I reiterate that not only the Greiner-Murray Government but previous Liberal Party and National Party governments have been the leaders in introducing new technology to enable the community to cope with this ever increasing problem. I am sure my colleagues will make further substantial contributions to this debate but I wish to point out, as is the case with all new technology, that we need to familiarise ourselves with a whole new glossary of nomenclature and acronyms such as PCBs and PETs that bewilder most of us. Every now and again we need to return to the basic issues. There is always the argot of the practitioners, the cliches and euphemisms. We talk about diverting something in the waste stream, about hard garbage and soft garbage. I suppose those terms, although they often serve a useful purpose to those engaged in wrestling daily with these problems, tend to make the wider community think waste disposal is someone else's problem rather than one which involves the community. It will become obvious from what I say subsequently that waste disposal is the responsibility of the individual as well as the community. The outcomes will depend largely on changing the attitudes and practices of individuals so that there will be a better response by the community as a whole.
Page 496
I wish to broaden this debate because it was regrettable that in the brief introduction of her motion, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods seemed to narrow its scope from waste disposal in the widest context to waste disposal and land fills, particularly those in some politically sensitive areas. I want to re-open the field of vision and hope that others will follow and expand on this subject. We should remind ourselves that the first thing the Government has addressed at perhaps the lowest level, which is obvious but in a distinct category, is what I would call dispersed waste material. That is the smoke type of effluent and the dust type of nuisance. Such effluent, of course, is everywhere but it creates particular nuisance levels where there is a large urban congregation such as the city of Sydney. Recently there has been much concentration on the prognosis for motor vehicle emissions. I briefly remind honourable members that the subject of smog over Sydney was a big issue about 20 years ago and since then - and again I believe the National Party and the Liberal Party can claim the lion's share of the credit for this - a great deal has been done to mitigate the effects of smog and control emissions from motor vehicles. As technology improves, the anxieties that have been expressed about the western and southwestern suburbs will disperse as the noxious substances are disbursed not merely in the air but because they will be minimised or eliminated to a large extent.
There is the major issue of domestic and commercial garbage - good old fashioned, plain, call a spade a spade garbage. In the whole waste context, that probably creates the greatest problem because of its volume and its latent tendency to putrefy and create a further nuisance and threat to health and sanitation generally. Domestic garbage must be a significant part of our considerations. There is also the less noxious problem in the larger metropolitan areas of disposing of garden and other organic matter which is biodegradable, albeit rather slowly - far too slowly to provide a practical solution to the general production in a city such as Sydney but nevertheless of a much lower order of noxiousness than the domestic and commercial garbage to which I have just referred. There is also the hard garbage, the metallic products which are discarded by society in this consumer age; rubber products such as the tyres and so forth that are formed into huge stacks; the ever growing mountain of plastics, glass and other products.
Another issue worthy of consideration is the ever increasing industrial and chemical waste which could be described as being generally inert and non-toxic. I will refer later to another category which is small but significant in this whole debate because of the area which has received special treatment up to date and which was referred to by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods when she referred to the site at Castlereagh where industrial wastes have been collected, isolated and treated in the most enlightened way that today's technology can provide. A city such as Sydney has a tremendous problem in disposing of rubble which results from construction work. Because of its sheer volume and weight, the disposal of such material imposes a terrific cost on the community. Sometimes we must wonder why the economic forces have propelled our society at almost giddy pace to pull down everything in sight almost as quickly as it has matured and settled in the urban landscape.
Another important issue which was not referred to by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, although she has certainly indicated her concern about it, is the efficient and safe disposal of sewage both in the Sydney area and other communities. That is an important element of the waste disposal debate. I was interested to hear a member speak earlier about a special category. We know from recent publicity that in the western area of New South Wales hospital remains or refuse were not disposed of in the prescribed way. Members of the community were quite shocked when they went down to the tip to dispose of their refuse and found some rather disturbing items of waste that had been disposed of from the local hospital and were left there to be viewed by the ordinary eye.
Page 497
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The honourable member forgot to mention the dead sheep.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: There was also offal, dead animals and so on. Another element which has been of perhaps greater interest historically than at the present time - but which nevertheless is a problem for us all at some stage - is the ultimate disposal of our mortal remains. I do not want to dwell on that aspect today, except to say that, with regard to previous civilisations, it is incredible to think of the manhours spent on the disposal of mortal remains - for instance, in Egypt - not only of the pharaohs but of many others of the society of the day. It is worth taking a little time to consider the development of technology and the significance of this issue in historical terms. I suppose if, over the centuries, there had been a perfect waste disposal system, the discipline of archaeology would simply not exist. Archaeology has enabled us to look back into the past, to our forebears. It is really the science of reading history through nature's landfill wastes of previous civilisations. In centuries to come it will, apparently, be only those who fossick around in the rural tips who will be able to see any evidence of what today's civilisation was like. However, that is not to be regretted because the record will be kept in another way for future generations.
During the Christmas break I was interested to read in Colleen McCullough's novel First Man in Rome of the significance to that society of waste disposal and the lengths to which they went to ensure that at least the major public areas of Rome were hygienic, and conformed to relatively modern concepts of sanitation. Sadly, for the lesser citizens - those who did not enjoy Roman citizenship - their suburbs and dwelling places were the disposal sites for some of the refuse. Interestingly weaved into that story was reference to a whole suburb which basically grew out of scavenging in what were the refuse tips of Rome. As civilisation has developed historically through these periods of rapid growth and concentration, the tremendous importance of sanitation and disposal of waste has become apparent. Honourable members need only recollect the incidence of the Great Plague throughout Europe which is believed to have killed off between one-third and one-half of the civilised world in Europe with its very savage impact. There probably never will be another visitation upon humanity as serious as that plague. It had its basic roots simply in this subject to which we have devoted today's discussion, the issue of the correct disposal of garbage.
Coming forward to more modern times, we have moved through various levels of organisation of our urban communities to the present time where, basically, municipal corporations get together and provide a service to dispose of various wastes, and endeavour to do so in conformity with health standards laid down by the government of the day. It has only been since 1970 that New South Wales has had this overriding authority. Its inauguration has been of immense significance in the development of the disposal of waste in a modern civilisation. The first task of the Waste Management Authority was to determine a plan to cope with the immediate problems which Sydney had generated, and to develop a master plan for the future which would, firstly, minimise the projected growth in waste that appeared likely; and, second, plan for the disposal of the residual waste and look to various technologies and sites suitable to develop those technologies and get on with the job.
That is entirely where the weakness of the motion introduced by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods lies. Rather than requiring a parliamentary committee to investigate this subject, it is simply a matter of noting the excellent work done since 1970. The need is to read not only the blueprint of the plan which has been laid down, but to realise that it is a plan that is evolving and is one in respect of which various groups and authorities can be involved and contribute to the solutions necessary to meet the crisis which has
Page 498
identified. A very commendable plan has been developed, which bears some further elaboration. In that second phase plan, which has been published and which is still the subject of development, a clear blueprint, a clear methodology has been laid down for the way in which we should go about regulating waste disposal in our society. This began with the realisation that there had been circumscription of the disposal of garbage principally, and industrial waste; whereas with the global issue there is another layer. Rather than just starting with minimisation, which is the point at which they started with their strategy, with their hierarchy of measures to cope with waste pollution, the first line of attack should be waste prevention because that has a specific relationship with the intractable wastes which are the subject of great concern to this Government and to honourable members on this side of the Parliament. That is certainly part of the overall responsibility of this Government and the most significant way - which has been adopted with many chemicals whose toxicity has been discovered after their introduction and use - is simply to ban their further use. That is a useful contribution to environmental control and needs to be highlighted in the debate today. It may very well form part of the domestic cycle, as well, to endeavour to eliminate the use of particularly difficult and relatively intractable and noxious elements in this general waste stream.
Minimisation is very important. I concede that in the contribution made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods she referred to the need for the community to consider very carefully the usage of materials which eventually finish up in our garbage - our wrappings and so forth, the items that are used to prevent damage in transit to goods that we regularly buy - and to ensure that we do not excessively consume articles which ultimately must be disposed of in some manner. The third plank of this program is recycling. It has had a catchy ring to it. It is important that we concentrate our efforts on trying to expand areas of recycling because that is not only relevant to the disposal of waste but also very relevant to the inordinate uses of the finite resources of our society and of the whole human population. It is something which, in the next century, will become very important. We need to remind ourselves that the immediate scope for recycling to reduce this work disposal problem is limited. I may refer to that later in the debate. One of the problems - one that confronts us as politicians most often - is the use of recycled paper. That has been a sad story. Great efforts were made in Australia - and in New South Wales particularly - to recover paper that had been used, and to recycle it.
After a propitious start, techniques for recovery of paper were developed in America and Canada, which we could not afford. The market for recycled paper became swamped. Those engaged in the industry of collecting and recycling paper either went broke or found it uneconomic to collect the paper. I am pleased to note that the industry is recyclic and is picking up once again. There is continuing interest in the community to try to separate waste into various categories so that bottles and paper can be recycled. A further step which is envisaged, but again perhaps a more elusive solution to the overall problem, is materials and energy recovery from the quantity of waste that is disposed of annually. The problem is the lack of development of efficient and economic technology to separate and reroute the material into metals, or the combining of paper and other garbage with an energy rich component for furnace fuel. In all those steps there is a cost factor and the community generally has expressed concern about the impact on the environment. When it comes to finding the money to pay for more expensive waste disposal the problem is that the resources are not available. This results in a residual amount of material which can either be processed to reduce its volume or be used as land fill. Honourable members are aware of the rapid growth of waste which, in some studies, has resulted from the growth of the gross domestic product. Irrespective of the growth of population, as society becomes affluent it tends to produce more waste. The problem has grown almost logarithmically over several decades and only recently have we been able to level off that rate of growth of the emergent of land fill material.
Page 499
It is to trivialise the subject to say at present that the Lucas Heights and Londonderry facilities can be closed down. The inescapable dimension of the problem is that Sydney's society will need far more land fill sites. There is a long lead time to identify, secure and establish the development of these sites. There is little room for political point-scoring in trying to delay the debate or to generate local hysterical reaction to projects which could be reasonably sited with a minimum of environmental impact, and with virtually no impact on the lifestyles of people living some distance from any such facility. This matter needs to be viewed more seriously than the Opposition has been prepared to view it to date. We should stick to our long-term plan, albeit that it will be adapted as technology dictates. The Waste Management Authority has established transfer depots so that the garbage collected in highly specialised vehicles is transferred to larger trucks bulking the material out to the ultimate point of disposal. That has been a significant development and I think we will see considerably more development in that area. This will alleviate at least some of the problems described by the Hon. S. B. Mutch in the perception by the householder of garbage disposal.
Garbage compaction has been a field in which the Waste Management Authority has achieved a great deal. I did not hear any acknowledgment of that from members on the Opposition benches. Faced with the onslaught of my logic this afternoon they have retreated to their bunkers. Waste compaction ultimately determines the final volume of this material. It has been marvellous that the Waste Management Authority has been able to reduce the volume of disposed material from about four cubic metres per tonne to a little more than one cubic metre per tonne. It is important to remember that when the land fill is completed the site will not be subject to subsidence, as has happened in the past. Waste compaction has the excellent effect of limiting or avoiding the old nuisance factors associated with tips in the past, factors such as flying debris, smell and the leaching of soluble materials. All that has been eliminated by modern technology. There is no better example than the facility operated at Lucas Heights where the control of that material is monitored and technology is in place to ensure that the soluble material does not translate itself laterally into areas where it would create a nuisance in the environment.
Honourable members should acknowledge the benefits that have accrued from these land fill sites. Areas that were former garbage tips have been reclaimed and are now sporting areas, providing for active recreation. There is a perception that reclaimed areas can be used only for football, cricket and other physical sports. It is equally possible that they will be landscaped for passive recreation. The proposition was put that in some way the Government was derelict in its duty, confused about its objectives and that the subject of waste disposal was getting out of hand. I believe I have clearly established that the Government's strategy is comprehensive. It covers all aspects of the problem. It is geared to meet the challenges of the future quantity and disposal of waste. Its strategy and current responses are measured and responsible. It equates community expectations with costs, which is a vital factor. It is all very well to talk of pie in the sky ideas, for example, saying that waste of residents in the south may be put on a train and dumped in the Hunter Valley. So far as I can see, that is a pie in the sky idea.
The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: What about Quambone?
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition puts the railway there, we will think about it.
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: I do not think that pie in the sky is a disposal option.
Page 500
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Pie in the sky went out of fashion when Compass came down. The Government is to be congratulated that its response to this challenge has been flexible and adaptable. It was not, as was suggested, ideological or rooted in privatisation or government control. It takes cognisance of the fact that historically there have always been people from the private sector operating in commercial waste disposal or being contracted by councils. The Government's objective has never been to rub anyone out, but it has wisely concluded that, because of the potential damage to the environment, when we get to the bottom of the heap, to the residual material at the end of the process that I have been talking about, the Government must have some control over its final disposal because the community demands that level of regulation and would not accept hit or miss measures which may emerge from councils totally vacating their responsibility. The Government's response has been flexible and adaptable. It has always embraced the latest technology in terms of what is being done currently in places such as Lucas Heights. It has evaluated the technology which is over the horizon and which is at an experimental stage in places such as Germany, the United States of America and Great Britain.
It would be very informative to speak of the development of technology dealing with the disposal of intractable wastes. It is very important that this Government has embraced the latest technology. The way it has handled the toxic waste incinerator, responding to public feeling and going back to make further evaluations of technology, once again endorses the fact that on this issue the Government has been totally commendable and cannot be criticised for the steps that it has taken. It has been extremely sensitive to community standards, not only in the broad sense, but at the level of the householder, taking into account his expectations of his neighbourhood and how he will be able to run his own household. The Government has responded to the desire for cleaner beaches and higher standards for ocean outfalls - not through the Waste Management Authority. If one is to be quite dispassionate about this, despite the fact that the debate has been totally exaggerated in an irresponsible way and that insinuations have been made in the public arena which bear no relationship to the facts, one could say that the Government has come to grips with community expectations and delivered, within economic constraints, a wonderful package to the people of New South Wales since 1988. It has not just preserved the environment but improved it for all citizens of New South Wales and particularly those in urban conglomerations. I emphasise that there is no complacency or smugness either in what I have said or in the Government, particularly on the part of the Minister for the Environment.
The Hon. J. F. Ryan: A fine fellow.
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I concur with the remark of the honourable member and add my admiration for the work that the Minister for the Environment has done. He has to balance very strident competing elements in our society in trying to come up with a policy. It is quite obvious that he will never be able to relax with current standards. He is always seeking to improve on the performance not only of his department and of the Government but of the community. The point I made earlier is worth stressing again. The Opposition's interest in this subject is superficial. One could forgive the Hon. Jan Burnswoods wanting to adopt as her title the Hon. and Phlegmatic Jan Burnswoods. Surely if the role of the principal speaker was simply to enunciate the debate it would have been for the rest of her colleagues to expand their debate into the whole area of waste disposal and environmental protection, as I have done. Her colleagues are not here. Obviously, when it comes to waste disposal they are only interested in the political point scoring process. It is simply a matter of a couple of electorates trying to whip up a frenzy and not trying to address the longer term issues. That is very regrettable.
Page 501
On the intractable waste debate, I am very gratified that the work of the committee which brought down its considerations to seven proposed sites has been suspended. It seems that the committee was on the wrong track and was reaching a point of no return in terms of developing community support and understanding of what they were trying to do. I recognise that that will be a difficult job. Somehow or other, the imagery is not right. Despite the fact that hight temperature incineration plants have been set up overseas and that there has been a great deal of experience in the incineration of intractable wastes, somehow the imagery of those who want to bring this project down inevitably fell back to some constantly fired, demonic, Satanic picture of belching smoke, almost with connotations of experiences in World War II. The committee did not look at the actual quantities or face the reality that all we decided to face in the 1970s which was to set the problem aside, store the material and await the development of technology which will allow us to dispose of such waste. A great deal of that material is not toxic. Certainly, its disposal, although difficult using current technology, is not such as to excite anxiety about the final products of high temperature incineration. For the bulk of those products which are in storage and which are a threat to our environment and community, we have to come up with a solution. If it is not high temperature incineration, it must be something else.
I remind honourable members of how distorted this debate has become. Inevitably, there are those who wish to create a condition of alarm in the community and - I will be generous - those who believe that it is worth bringing to the attention of people any risk. I refer to concerns that have been expressed about the chemicals known as dioxins and the lesser known fluorines associated with them. It has been revealed in research that stack emission from modern high temperature incinerators is likely to be around 0.8 parts per trillion by mass. I have heard people, some of them living within driving range of where I live, protesting about sites not far from my home and saying that sort of risk is intolerable no matter what figures are quoted. Many elements of civilisation are associated with wood fire smoke and the simple pleasure of sitting beside a log fire in winter. The Romans had no coal and did all their heating with wood fires. The relevant level of dioxin emission in wood fire smoke is 1,200 parts per trillion compared with 0.8 parts per trillion.
To live in Roman society was, by modern standards, very hazardous and dangerous. Those sorts of distortions have been put forward by those who wish somehow or other to delay the disposal of intractable wastes, the vast bulk of which is not toxic and the disposal of which has no toxic outcome but poses an alarming threat to the communities in which it is stored. Some of that waste is stored in the country, some of it at Bankstown. This society must settle on what methods it will use to dispose of wastes that have accumulated and which, despite our best practices in the future, will continue to accumulate. I restate that it is my dispassionate view that the Government has a commendable record in the waste management process. The exercise of authority has been judicious, well directed and effective in overcoming problems. Because of that, though I was flattered that my name was mentioned in the motion, I believe that the proposal to set up a parliamentary inquiry to investigate this subject would be superfluous and a waste of money.
The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: Were many Labor members nominated on that committee?
The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I do not think so. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods was nominated, but I do not think any other member opposite has any expertise, knowledge of or interest in the subject. I regret that for I had assumed that her interest in the
Page 502
subject was genuine. I have endeavoured to respond to the challenge she threw out by undertaking research on the subject. I regret to say that the extent of her research appears to be the reading of a few month-old regional newspapers and clippings that might have been supplied from her party or other sources. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods apparently has no desire to involve herself in the mainstream debate. We on this side of the House accept that occasionally we will be confronted with that situation. I am sure that the honourable member's overall purpose is sincere in her contribution to parliamentary life, but I think that on this subject she has been seriously misguided. I hope that honourable members will not agree to the motion proposed by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods as it would be a complete waste of time and a serious misuse of funds.
The Hon. J. F. RYAN [3.44]: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the motion as it is an opportunity to deal with some matters that in part are ancient history but are of great interest and concern to the people who reside in the western suburbs of Sydney where I live. There is more humbug in members opposite about this subject than in the Wizard of Oz. They have told many lies about this issue and aroused much public interest on a matter of deep public concern which deserves sober and reasonable consideration and which could well do without being ridiculously politicked and stirred up for political gain. The essence of the motion is to hijack a competent and reasonable process which the Government has commenced to deal with waste management, and to drag it into the political arena without considering the resources the proposed parliamentary committee would utilise and expend. Those resources would be far better used in dealing with the problem than rehashing politics.
It is not appropriate that politicians should become involved in a matter that has become hopelessly politicised, to the detriment of those we should be serving. We should be guarding the interests of people by showing that we are endeavouring to find a solution to a most serious problem. Solid waste is a problem of great concern not only for the world but for Sydney in particular. It is a sobering thought that the Sydney region currently produces 3.4 million tonnes of waste per year. If present trends continued unabated, and if the Government had not taken the action that it has, that figure would double to 7.1 million tonnes by the year 2011. That would mean that by the time my son and daughter are ready to take over as adults in this society more than 100 million tonnes of waste will have to be disposed of during the next 22 years, which could create a pile of garbage big enough to fill Sydney Harbour. As the generator of waste, the entire community must recognise and accept its responsibility to reduce waste and to minimise the environmental and economic consequences of its disposal. That matter hardly deserves being dealt with in the shameless political manner in which it has been treated in recent times.
Some overseas communities have reacted to the need to reduce land fill consumption by simply replacing land fills with incineration. This matter has been considered in New South Wales. To the benefit of everyone in New South Wales, the Minister for the Environment has indicated that he is opposed to the use of incineration to deal with solid waste matter. I agree with him because that simply puts off the dreadful day when the problem must be dealt with in a suitable manner. That narrow waste management approach does not address the real issues of the evergrowing waste stream and the impact of its disposal, by whatever means, on the environment. In contrast, the Waste Management Authority has endeavoured to produce a balanced approach to our region's waste management into the next century. It has provided an excellent strategic framework for minimising waste generation, encouraging recycling and reducing the quantity of waste requiring disposal to realistically achievable levels. I shall comment on the spectacular success that the Waste Management Authority has achieved in reducing solid waste, at relatively inexpensive cost.
Page 503
The Waste Management Authority has attempted to provide a responsible mix of waste treatment and disposal options which take due account of the associated financial and environmental impact on the region. Importantly, those options have reflected the growing constraints on the availability of suitable land fill in the region. Although we have yet to see the strategy paper to which my colleagues have referred, which has been produced for release in less than a month and will set forth a futuristic and reasonable approach to the disposal of waste, it is fair to say that the Waste Management Authority has probably given us a clue as to the strategies it means to use to deal with this problem. The hierarchy of means formed by the authority to deal with waste are: first, to seek to find a number of options which cause people to reduce the waste produced at source; second, the well-known option of recycling waste that is produced; third, the option of finding materials in that waste which can be used; fourth, depositing what is left in land fill. I have dealt with some of the problems inherent in land fill but it remains an option which has to be utilised. Some land fill sites have been harvested for recovery and re-use of gas.
This hierarchy of approach to the disposal of waste is likely to characterise whatever future strategy the Waste Management Authority seeks to put before the people of New South Wales. These corporate objectives have been developed as a logical hierarchy of waste management techniques to enable the most effective management of the waste stream. The hierarchy is a sequential integrated mechanism by which the authority best manages the community's wastes. As such, the effectiveness and efficiency of our waste treatment and disposal programs and of the organisation of the Waste Management Authority itself cannot be optimised without first minimising and reducing the quantities of waste requiring treatment and disposal.
I turn now to the sorry manner in which this issue has been politicised in the western suburbs, the area where I live. The overall characteristic of the approach by the Australian Labor Party to this matter has been that it is very good at outlining the problem and protesting at the off sides of waste disposal but absolutely hopeless in providing any answers to the problem. I am not exactly sure what this motion seeks to achieve by having members of that party participate in a committee to deal with the issue of waste disposal. I fear that the issue will be politicised in the same manner as it has been politicised in the western suburbs of Sydney. We have already seen examples of the inability of the Australian Labor Party to deal with this issue. It has spent all of 10 minutes addressing the subject and not a single member of the Australian Labor Party has been in this Chamber since the matter was raised. I suspect there are two possible reasons why such a serious matter received such short shrift.
The Australian Labor Party may have been tactically outmanoeuvred, after having intended to deal with other matters but not being able to get its act together in order to have another matter of public importance dealt with for the second day running or, alternatively, it has absolutely no commitment to this matter other than the level of political votes it can generate for its cause. I am not sure which of those two possible reasons best explains the behaviour of the Australian Labor Party in this Chamber today. As I intend to demonstrate, there is no doubt that it has little real commitment to this issue at all. Let me start by referring to the Londonderry tip, which was allegedly raised by the member for Londonderry and the present member for Penrith, who was previously the mayor of the City of Penrith. Those two people have collected thousands of signatures and letters protesting against the dump and putting pressure on the Government to abandon a waste management facility which they started. The waste management facility was not initiated by the Government. The Government simply continued with an option that was put forward initially by the present Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, when he was the Minister for Environment and Planning.
Page 504
The person who is now the member for Penrith and who prides herself on having the tip finally stopped was in fact a long-time former member of the Waste Management Authority. She was a member of the Waste Management Authority board from 1981 to 1989, so she had plenty of time to acquaint herself with the issues involved and to speak out if the matter had concerned her. She was a member of the board which initiated the proposal in the first place and it continued, obviously with her approval, until it became politically expedient for her to hit the streets and start declaring that she was against the tip while she was in the process of trying to win the position that she holds today. When confronted with the fact that she had previously supported the Londonderry tip and was now opposed to what she had been part of starting, she said she had been attempting to lobby for the western suburbs from the inside. What a cop out! What a wimp out! Obviously she sought to protest against something with which she previously agreed when it became politically expedient to do so.
That is not the only time the issue of waste disposal has been raised in the western suburbs and it certainly was not the end of the attempts by Mr Gibson, the member for Londonderry in another place, to use political stunts and scaremongering as a means of exploiting this issue for every vote possible. In a newspaper article he was quoted as claiming that children were being burnt as a result of a toxic dump in his electorate. He claimed that the toxic waste dump he referred to in Sydney's west was so dangerous that animals were dying and children were scalded if they ran barefoot in the area whenever it rained. He labelled it as Australia's greatest environmental disaster. He was, of course, referring to the Castlereagh liquid waste dump which is located in his electorate and which has, to my understanding, been operating in that area almost without complaint since the 1970s.
The member for Londonderry sought to make political capital out of this but that attempt was somewhat exposed by the fact that he sought to bring it to prominence by referring to an allegedly secret report that the Government had tried to cover up and keep from the public as to how dangerous this facility was alleged to be. This report was so secret that in fact it had been distributed 12 months earlier to the very environmental action groups which were beginning to generate opposition to the dump. It had been in the public domain for in excess of 12 months. It is probably true to say that the level of their commitment had been raised as a result of having seen this report in the first place. There was nothing secret about it; it had been in the public domain for 12 months and had been well circulated. The report made a number of recommendations. The Government has been cognisant of those recommendations and has taken notice of the fact that there were questions about the dump. To his credit the Minister for the Environment has ordered a full independent environmental audit of that facility and will do nothing further to expand it or deal with it in any other manner until that audit has been completed and discussed in full by the public.
Honourable members can see the different ways in which this matter has been dealt with. The Government has dealt with it in an open, proper and competent manner, as opposed to the deliberate politicisation of the issue by the local Labor member. It could be said that he has done nothing more than create a public mischief by advancing the outrageous propositions that he has put forward. He was rather embarrassed when he gave a press conference in tandem with the then president of the Residents Action Group for the Environment, RAGE, Stephen Dacey. At that press conference, during which the member for Londonderry claimed the report was secret, Mr Dacey admitted that he had been in possession of the report for in excess of a year. The member for Londonderry was embarrassed, as he has been frequently by many of the remarks that he races into the Parliament and makes, and races to the press with, and then simply
Page 505
finds that he has not paid due regard to the facts. His next attempt to exploit this issue arose when he became aware of a scientist named Scott Markich who found an amount of toxic soil near this waste dump, which he tested and found to be dangerously contaminated.
The member for Londonderry at that time suggested that, as a result of this soil which had been found in close proximity to the Castlereagh liquid waste dump, children were once again suffering from burning feet. He said also that livestock were going loco and dying. However, the scientist who discovered this pocket of soil said it was just that and that its condition could well have had nothing whatever to do with the tip. Although there is anecdotal evidence about the possible ill effects of the liquid dump - which existed long before this Government came to office but which is being taken seriously in the environmental audit, to which due regard should be had - there is other evidence of which notice ought be taken that suggests it is highly likely that this soil deposit had absolutely nothing to do with the liquid waste disposal unit. For example, the soil is found uphill from where the clay unit containing the liquid waste is located. If the clay container is allowing waste to leech, it is more likely to leech downhill than uphill. It is highly unlikely that the soil which was tested and found to be only a pocket of soil has anything whatever to do with the operation of this dump. The more likely and logical explanation for this contaminated soil is that on another occasion somebody broke the law and dumped contaminated soil in close proximity to the dump, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the operation of that particular facility. But that has not stopped the honourable member for Londonderry from leeching every possible vote from the issue for his own political ends.
With regard to the Castlereagh liquid waste dump, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods said that the Government had revived a proposal to overtop the Castlereagh facility with another layer of solid waste. The Government has not revived it at all. It has been operating since Bob Carr approved it in 1986. Once again the Labor Party has raced into this Chamber and then to the media to protest against something which it had agreed to in the first place - and not so long ago. Its own leader initiated this proposal. To show the bona fides and the commitment of the Labor Party on this issue, not only was it Bob Carr who initiated it, but such was the confidence of the local branch of the Labor Party in the Penrith area that the Labor Party council, of which the present member for Penrith was a member, actually gave development consent for this proposal, back in 1986, without setting any conditions on its consent. That is how worried the Labor Party was about it then. But, of course, as the election came nearer and because Labor thought it might have a chance to unseat our former colleague Guy Matheson, the Opposition used every option available, even to the point of protesting against something to which it had formerly agreed.
I should also like to place on record the current status of this particular project, because the Labor Party in the Penrith area - and elsewhere - has suggested that the Government is pushing this issue. As I said earlier, the Minister for the Environment has ordered a full environmental audit on this facility. He guaranteed, as recently as a few days ago in answer to a question on the Questions and Answers paper in another place by the member for Londonderry, that nothing is to happen with this facility until the audit is completed. Such is the concern of the Greiner Government for the people who live in the area from which I come; the Government will not permit anything to happen until a full, independent, and non-political audit has been conducted. The Labor Party can stop its scare campaign. The issue is in good hands. Nothing is happening which has not occurred since the 1970s. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods in her motion and during her short address also referred to a proposal to fill mines in the Hunter Valley with solid waste.
Page 506
Again, she was inaccurate in suggesting the Government had anything to do with this issue. Honourable members were told that the Government was pushing this proposal also. My understanding is that the Minister for the Environment has been standing peacefully aside - and quite properly - awaiting the outcome of a study which is to be released in a few weeks. The study will outline a strategy for waste management in New South Wales. It may appear politically opportune to suggest that we propose to support something which appears at first glance to be a reasonable means of disposing of waste in a proper manner, but the Minister for the Environment does not work that way. He is prepared to await the outcome of a study into the matter.
Even if the proposal were to go ahead, I believe that - following the sound management practice of the Greiner Government - the matter would go to public tender and be dealt with openly. It certainly would not be given to the private company which is dealing with this issue. The matter has been dealt with appropriately. The Government is not pushing the issue; it is a private matter which has been raised in the public domain. It is inaccurate for the Hon. Jan Burnswoods to suggest that it has been the initiative of the Government. The matter may be worthy of consideration down the track, but at the moment the Government is waiting - as members opposite should wait - for the production of the waste management strategy which is to be released in the near future. Having dealt with the fairy tales which the Labor Party likes to tell in respect of this matter, I want to examine whether or not the Greiner Government can be trusted on the issue of waste management by reviewing its record in that regard. The member opposite could not lay a single glove on a policy of the Greiner Government to date - other than the matters with which I have dealt, I believe, to the satisfaction of the House.
I turn now to announcements by the Minister for the Environment in the budget debate with regard to the manner in which he proposed to fund the Waste Management Authority. The Government has allocated $7.9 million to develop during 1991-92 the Belrose transfer station, to replace the present landfill depot - a proposal which will cost the Government a not unsubstantial amount of money in order to reduce the level of landfill. The Government has allocated $5.9 million to develop, also in 1991-92, the Seven Hills transfer station, to replace the Grange Avenue landfill depot. Progress is being made in that area. The Government has hardly been standing still on the issue of finding alternatives to the management of landfill. The sum of $7 million has been allocated in the 1991-92 Budget to develop the aqueous waste plant at Lidcombe, including a biological treatment plant to improve the quality of effluent. The only criticism I could offer of the Minister for the Environment when I hear his addresses and hear what he is initiating within his department is that he does not blow his own trumpet often enough in respect of the substantial achievements he has been solidly working towards with regard to the environment generally and the disposal of waste in particular.
In 1991-92 the authority will spend $3.7 million on waste minimisation and recycling and waste treatment projects. Funding will include $750,000 to promote the establishment of two material recovery facilities, likely to be located in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I note, with great pleasure, that $50,000 of that money has been allocated for the development of a feasibility study for the possible location of one of those facilities in the western suburbs of Sydney, where I reside. A further $400,000 has been allocated to promote the development of wood waste recycling facilities. The Minister has arranged for the continuation of the council recycling rebate scheme to improve the financial climate for recycling, which is estimated to cost $1.8 million this year. My colleague, the Hon. S. B. Mutch, dealt earlier with the effectiveness of that particular scheme. I want to advert to one particular issue which I believe the Government should rightly have put on record in its favour. That scheme has been enormously successful in terms of its ability to reduce waste.
Page 507
The best way to assess the value of this program is to examine the level of the State's annual waste and deal with it as a component of gross domestic product. The Government's achievements in this area have been spectacular. In the past three years since this Government came to office the level of waste produced by the community has been reduced by about 28 per cent largely as a result of the council recycling rebate scheme. As I understand it, in 1989-90, 3.8 million tonnes of waste was produced annually in New South Wales; that has now reduced to 3 million tonnes annually. That is indeed a great achievement for the Minister and the Government. When examining the effectiveness of the council recycling rebate scheme I note that the councils lagging behind with regard to the effective use of the scheme are those that are, to a large extent, Labor controlled and service the western suburbs of Sydney. The worst performers are Fairfield, Blacktown, Auburn, Liverpool, Bankstown, Holroyd and Penrith councils. When given the opportunity to deal with this matter as opposed to talking about it, the Labor Party has demonstrated very little commitment. It is only after those councils were shamed into making use of this generous scheme that they got their act together. There is little doubt that the Labor Party does no more than talk about this matter.
I do not believe that the motion is worthy of support. It seeks to politicise an issue which ought not to be dragged into the political arena. As I have demonstrated, the Government has an enviable record in the management of the environment and waste in New South Wales, a record for which it deserves commendation. It does not need a select committee of this Parliament to stick its nose into an issue which is being dealt with competently - certainly not before the Government's proposed strategy, which was developed by competent people and at some expense to be placed before the community of New South Wales for public discussion. It is not proper to discuss this matter in the Parliament until that document has been released and the community has had a chance to read it, discuss it and make submissions to the Government in relation to it. It may not even be appropriate to set up such a committee until the Government has determined its response to that strategy. I have no doubt that the Minister for the Environment will be diligent, as he always has been in these matters, and will ensure that this issue is successfully concluded to the benefit of the people of New South Wales.
I, together with my colleagues, do not support the politicisation of this issue, which unfortunately is subject to the NIMBY - not in my backyard - syndrome: people who produce waste do not want it disposed of in close proximity to where it is produced. The issue has been dramatised with inaccuracies and lies. It is easy to grab a few headlines and distort the issue. Once that happens it is difficult to have sober and proper consideration. I am a great supporter of the theory that we should protect our environment so that it is fit for my children, and, I hope, my grandchildren to inhabit. Just as the Government looks after the financial environment of this State, we should care for the environment we live in and ensure that it is properly protected for future generations. I believe the Government has made great steps towards doing that. Environmental concern is not solely the consideration of members opposite. Green issues are fairly and responsibly shared by members on the Government benches. Therefore, I do not support this motion and neither should anyone else.
[Debate interrupted.]
The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! It being 4.15 p.m., pursuant to sessional orders debate is interrupted to permit the Minister to move the adjournment of the House should he so desire.
Page 508
DRIVING INSTRUCTORS BILL
Bill received and read a first time.
Suspension of certain standing orders agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Minister for Health and Community Services) [4.16]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
MEDICALLY ACQUIRED AIDS SUFFERERS COMPENSATION
The Hon. ELAINE NILE [4.16]: I wish to place on record the feelings and remarks of some of the innocent victims of medically acquired AIDS in relation to the Government's response to their cries for compensation. Mrs Lorraine Cibilic who contracted AIDS through the blood transfusion service wrote:
It is wrong for Mr Hannaford to say that all families affected by medically acquired AIDS will receive payment up to $80,000, when there have been no decisions made yet with the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust. The package is everything the homosexual community requested. The package has given lawyers a huge lottery win as people will now go through the courts. If the package was similar to that offered in other countries, or other Australian States, huge legal costs could be avoided. We will win court cases in New South Wales. Slater and Gordon have already done so in other States. Does Mr Hannaford prefer to see many millions of dollars spent in legal battle? Little Holly Johnson's case was thrown out of court; no help was given, though lawyers made hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Lindell said:
Mr Hannaford's car would cost $50,000 a year to the taxpayer. Our lives are worth more than cars. Insurance companies pay up to $50,000 if you lose the sum, what is a life worth? People should be protected in the hospital and the workplace. We do have a legal right to a claim, we did not contract AIDS through sex activity or drug use. Why should we be discriminated against - is it because we live in New South Wales?
The lives in Western Australia, Melbourne, South Australia, Northern Territory are worth between $100,000 and $875,000. Why is it that in New South Wales life is only worth between $5,000 to $50,000?
Doug asked:
How can Mr Hannaford sleep straight in bed offering me $10,000 for my deceased wife Dannallee and nothing for my beautiful daughter Holly?
Jimmy said:
I am very angry with this package. If homosexuals contracted AIDS through medical procedures as we did, compensation would have been paid out long ago. Their perverted pleasure has turned out to be our death sentence. Haven't they caused enough human pain and suffering without lobbying the Government against giving us some financial assistance?
Mary stated:
The Government has given in to homosexuals. We were not listened to. Who is the Government of New South Wales, the homosexual community or the people we have elected in Government?
Page 509
George remarked:
I would like to see how Mr Hannaford would feel if his family was affected by medically acquired AIDS; a disease which prevents one from having children or from having a normal sex life for ever.
Luigi of the Italian community is completely devastated. Lyn and Robert Hatch, whose 16-year-old son Martin died whilst in the middle of a court case, are utterly devastated, as they sold their home to pay the court costs. They believe that, if they receive anything, it will be next to nothing. Mary Loker, the widow of Bruce Loker, who was the first known innocent victim to die of AIDS in New South Wales - he died in 1986 - says that she finds the decision of the New South Wales Government hard to accept in the light of the Western Australian Government payout to innocent victims. Another caller was Kevin of Melbourne, who has no dependants and received $300,000 from the Victorian Government. Mr Paul Bedbrook, the spokesman for the Haemophilia Society of New South Wales, said:
People with Haemophilia and HIV infection are devastated that no lump sum compensation has been offered by the NSW Government.
The nature and structure of this decision shows the New South Wales Government's anxiety to appease other, more politically powerful lobby groups to the detriment of the small and sadly diminishing minority of those with medically acquired HIV
Why is a life in NSW worth less than in WA . . . SA . . . NT . . . Vic . . . given in a lump sum by those State Governments?
Small regular payments will do little to relieve the financial burden of HIV infection and certainly does not allow these victims of the New South Wales Health Service to maintain quality of lifestyle. Many people will be dead before they receive the full amount offered.
This decision forces people to take legal action which is ridiculously costly to all involved, not only in terms of money but also in terms of emotional stress and damage to reputation of Health Services.
For those concerned time is obviously of the essence. We urge that payments are made without delay.
I will close with a quote from the Book of Isiah:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Maintain justice and do what is right.
These people say that this Government has not maintained justice and has not done what is right.
QUOTA VIAL OF LIFE PROGRAM
The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [4.20]: I bring to the attention of honourable members the Quota Vial of Life program. I was most fortunate to have this program brought to my attention by my colleague in another place, the honourable member for Camden, who informed me of the display on this program in Martin Place and of the people involved in it. I was most impressed with the vial of life program. It needs to be widely promoted. It is a free community service provided by the Quota clubs
Page 510
in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, and it is endorsed by police, and fire and ambulance services. This container holds a personalised information sheet readily available in cases of emergency. The honourable member for Camden was most interested in this because she is a long-standing member of Quota; she has a personal interest in it. The vial of life is a small container which can go in a glove box or on a fridge door. It is most important because this vial will contain information about medical conditions, allergies and details of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of family or friends to be contacted. If there is an emergency, particularly involving people who live alone, this will ensure that contact information is readily available for people who wish to come to the rescue of those people. It provides personalised information that can be used to gain immediate and specialised attention in cases of disaster or medical emergency, whether it be an injury, severe pain, unconsciousness, or whatever.
The vial will also be very useful to such emergency services as police, fire brigades and ambulance services, which are aware of the program and endorse the concept. It is most likely that one of these services would be the first to use the information stored in the vial. The details of the program are included in the training of such officers. Increasingly, Neighbourhood Watch groups in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are supporting Quota's Vial of Life program. The vial is recommended not only for people who live alone but also for those who are apart from family or next of kin, even if only for a brief period of the day. If people travelling in a private car have an accident, such information can be most useful - indeed, necessary and life saving in the case of personal medical information. It is also recommended for the person who travels by public transport; the person who is young and lives away from home, even if sharing accommodation; the athlete who trains alone; or perhaps a cyclist riding a pushbike or motorbike. The vial of life provides added security and peace of mind. I commend Quota for its tremendous initiative in this area. I know how much volunteer labour has gone into the production and promotion of the vial of life. I commend all concerned and wish them well. I thank them for their contribution to the community.
KENAF PAPER INDUSTRY
The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.25]: One of Australia's greatest natural resources, her forests, are being sacrificed to feed the world's growing appetite for paper. Shipped overseas as woodchips, our forests are filling the rubbish dumps of such voracious consumers as Japan. Why are we doing this when a non-wood source of paper fibre called kenaf holds the potential to revolutionise both Australia's woodchip export and paper manufacturing industry? A kenaf industry would relieve the imminent threat of destruction to Australia's old growth native forests and provide much-needed employment in rural areas with local economies that are already severely depressed. A very fast-growing plant - it grows up to seven metres in eight months - kenaf not only produces high quality paper but also yields twice as much pulp per hectare as southern pine. Capable of two crops per year in tropical areas, kenaf is a drought-tolerant plant well adapted to Australian conditions. Kenaf can also be mechanically harvested, does not require extensive bleaching and, according to David Paul, Environment Director of the Resource Recycling Group, would require less than half the catchment area of a conventional pulp mill to process. Kenaf is environmentally sound.
In a trial of 500 plant species 30 years ago the United States Department of
Page 511
Agriculture found that kenaf was the ultimate non-wood paper source, producing paper that was stronger, more durable and naturally whiter than that made from trees. As a result of newsprint trials in 1987, the United States Government is now backing construction of America's first kenaf-based pulp mill in southern Texas, which will begin production next year using fibre separation technology patented by an Australian consulting and development company, Ankal Pty Ltd. What is being done in Australia, a country suffering from an annual trade deficit in timber and paper of $1.9 billion, to profit from this plant? Apart from research undertaken over a period of almost 20 years by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, not much it seems. According to Dr Ian Wood, a senior principal research scientist at the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures at the CSIRO, only 500,000 hectares under kenaf production in Queensland would supply as much paper pulp as is presently produced annually by Australia's pulp mills. Total national wheat production averages 10.4 million hectares. The New South Wales average of wheat sown was 2.4 million hectares. The kenaf industry will be a major industry if we act swiftly to introduce it. The technology to separate the fibre from the kenaf plant is Australian and at real risk of being lost to the Americans. Not only would the kenaf industry provide a new crop source of income for northern farmers, but also the introduction of a kenaf-based pulp and paper industry would reduce the need to harvest Australia's forest resources and the consequent destruction of natural habitat.
In addition, the CSIRO sees the potential for establishing a large scale export industry based on a combination of kenaf with bagasse, the residue left after sugar is extracted from cane. With 30 sugar mills on Queensland's northern coast, an infrastructure of roads and railways already in place, and bulk loading facilities at ports such as Gladstone, the export of kenaf pellets from the north should clearly be seen as a viable alternative to exporting our precious native forests as woodchips. A significant advantage in transporting the kenaf equivalent to the woodchip is that its water content is 4 per cent as opposed to the 50 per cent water content of woodchips. Why in the world, with the atmosphere struggling to survive, our fauna being endangered because of habitat destruction, and with the possibility of a major world shortage of fibre for pulp and paper, are we not, as a nation, welcoming the renewable resource potential of kenaf?
Australia has the potential climate to grow kenaf and has farmers who would be only too happy to do so in the light of a burgeoning demand for paper products. There is already the infrastructure in place to transport and export the end product and a growing mass market of environmentally aware consumers who would welcome a paper alternative that does not threaten this country's forests and fauna. Let us stop chopping down the lungs of our country to fill the waste dumps of Japan. With the introduction of kenaf as an alternative paper crop, Australia would see both her farmers and forests prosper instead of seeing both sacrificed in the name of disposable progress. It is worth remembering that it was only last century that we started to use trees as a source of fibre for paper manufacturing. Kenaf is the key to saving our remaining old growth native forests.
CHILD PROTECTION COUNCIL
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.30]: I wish to continue the discussion I began on the adjournment motion last night regarding the annual report of the New South Wales Child Protection Council. I was discussing the basic tertiary requirements considered essential for new caseworkers. Over the past four years those requirements have changed. Workers now are required to have a degree or equivalent in social work, psychology or other human service delivery to carry out the complex difficult work that
Page 512
is the real issue of child protection. Every day fieldworkers confront the horror of child abuse and the difficult tasks of supporting children who have been abused, counselling families in crisis and working with people who abuse children. This is difficult, stressful and challenging work which leads to the need for the workers to move on from direct work. This form of burnout that people talk about is to be expected and has always occurred. However, many people who have gained child protection experience are equipped to move into other jobs that build on their experience to provide services to children and families. The Department of Community Services assists this by providing direct career paths for child protection specialists, ensuring that appropriate expertise is kept within the department.
Ongoing training is available through the department's training and development branch. In addition a total of 19 staff development officers are located in divisional offices of the department to provide training which is targeted at workers' needs. Further, the Child Protection Council reported that some child protection cases are closed prematurely by the Department of Community Services while in other cases children are placed in foster care or are returned to abusive families. That charge is made by the Child Protection Council. This vague statement is not reflective of any form of analysis of decisions made by the department. The department does not make arbitrary decisions in such cases. When children are assessed as being abused, decision-making occurs with the involvement of all relevant parties, including the families, the professional workers involved and various agencies. When long-term care is recommended for a child, it is the Children's Court that decides what is in the child's best interests.
The ACTING-PRESIDENT: Order! The time for the adjournment debate has expired.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 4.32 p.m.