Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 17 October 1995, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [2.37]: It gives me little pleasure to inform the House that soon after I became the Minister a number of allegations were made to my office regarding certain financial management practices in the Department of Juvenile Justice. Some of the allegations were of such a serious nature that I felt compelled to draw them to the attention of the Auditor-General and to seek his advice. As a result, the Audit Office undertook special investigations in the department's head office, and I have now received a report which substantiates these concerns. These findings reveal a most disturbing lack of accountability and, in some cases, a quite blatant flouting of government financial control procedures.

I find it incredible to believe that my predecessors in the former Liberal Government presided over such an unprofessional administration which apparently had little regard for the important legal and ethical obligations associated with responsible expenditure of the taxpayers' money with which they were entrusted. I point out that these matters have quickly come to light and been acted upon under a new Labor Government. Now that the extent of the problem has emerged, I feel that it is my duty to reveal the serious nature of the Auditor-General's findings and to take urgent steps to rectify the situation as a matter of public interest. I also wish to place on public record the abysmal state of the administration which I inherited from the former Government. The Auditor-General has identified a litany of problems involving financial management practices, the use of corporate credit cards, the purchase of computing services, the use of consultants and contractors, workers compensation claims management, payroll processing and property transactions.

It is difficult to decide where to begin. Honourable members will no doubt recall that the Department of Juvenile Justice was established as a separate agency in 1991, after the former Government decided to remove juvenile justice operations from the Department of Community Services. It is my belief that this separation has been successful in a policy and operational sense, and since becoming Minister I have frequently reiterated my firm commitment to maintaining juvenile justice as a separate department. However, the separation necessitated the creation of a new head office bureaucracy to provide administrative support to the detention centres and community-based services for juvenile offenders. It appears that many of the problems identified by the Auditor-General are attributable to a failure to implement adequate management systems from the outset and essentially stem from the manner in which the new head office was established.

For instance, in relation to the purchase of computers and computing services, the Auditor-General has documented problems which go back several years. The director-general of the department has a financial delegation of $250,000, and ministerial approval must be sought for expenditure in excess of this amount. The department has made several large computer purchases in recent years involving both hardware and software and related support and maintenance. The Audit Office has documented 36 transactions between June 1993 and June 1995 where it appears that the orders have been deliberately split into smaller amounts in order to avoid seeking ministerial approval for the expenditure of millions of dollars. It has been identified that in particular 14 transactions, involving more than $1.8 million, all took place on 18 May 1994. The report also highlights similar examples on other dates involving the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on each occasion.

In view of the very large sums of money involved, I consider this to be a very serious matter indeed, as it represents a significant breakdown in procedures designed to ensure public accountability under a democratic system of government. There are a number of other issues relating to the purchase of computers and related services, and the outsourcing of the department's information technology operations. The Audit Office has suggested that these outsourcing arrangements should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the department is receiving value for money. For example, in May 1994 the department signed agreements for the supply of full local area network support on a 24-hour basis at an annual cost of $65,000 per site, although the site networks were not actually installed at that time. The site networks were subsequently installed from June to September 1994 but until August 1995 most field sites had only two or three computer terminals and therefore required only a low level of support. Under these arrangements, I am informed that it has been costing $65,000 per annum to support only three computers in the northern division of the department.

The department has further advised me that the northern division was also recently charged about $6,000 for the installation of three computer points in their Lismore office by the same private contractor. I am further advised that there are several similar examples of local area networks involving only a very
Page 1756
small number of computers. There is also one site which has three local area networks at the one location. The department is currently paying for support to a total of 18 local area networks, although two of these have not even been connected as yet, at a total annual cost of $1.185 million.

The Audit Office report also notes that no competitive quotations were obtained for local area network cabling of regional centres and that the amounts actually paid not only exceeded the only indicative original quotation but also seem to be quite excessive. Subsequently no quotation at all was obtained for the local area network cabling installed on one floor in head office on the basis that the request for approval was late, the job needed to be started immediately and the company in question was the same one which had been used before for cabling the regional centres. In addition to questioning the cost of these computing services, the report also notes that the supplier in question had been making numerous errors in invoicing its many and varied charges, with invoices being regularly under or overstated.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Are they incompetent or dishonest?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: We will find that out. A senior departmental officer had been personally adjusting the invoices, sometimes quite extensively, and then proceeding to approve them for payment. This was reportedly done on the basis of telephone discussions with the supplier, without requiring the submission of a new corrected invoice to substantiate the alterations. Serious problems were also documented in relation to payroll processing procedures. The payroll software system used by the department does not have the capacity to restrict users to defined functions. Many payroll and personnel staff have unlimited access to update the master file, which means that they are able to make unauthorised changes to the payroll information.

The Audit Office notes that most staff were well aware of this deficiency and suggests that in view of such a major problem with the software control system, it could be expected that departmental management would have made significant efforts to check for unauthorised changes. However, the Audit Office reports that no independent checks on payroll processing, or production of exception reporting procedures to alert management to any changes to the master file were implemented and, indeed, the software itself is actually incapable of providing a print-out of changes made to the master files. A review of the payroll system operations by the Audit Office confirmed that unauthorised changes to the employee salary rate master file can be processed as payments without any independent checks being applied.

Further problems were identified in relation to payroll procedures, including the use of unauthorised paperwork as the basis for the payment of wages and the failure to check computer payroll data against source documentation to ensure that the amounts paid are correct. The extent to which this lack of adequate checks and balances has resulted in exploitation and fraud in terms of unauthorised payments made to employees is unclear to date. An extensive manual investigation will be required to establish the extent of any past abuse. Clearly, however, there is a very serious potential for abuse of the process as a result of inadequate management systems, which must be rectified immediately.

Similar problems were documented concerning inadequate accountability and a failure to properly authorise various payments in a number of areas. For instance, in relation to accounts payable the security access to the accounts payable system was so lax as to allow staff members to process payments and print cheques without any independent checks. Also it was noted that data entry clerks made additions, amendments and deletions of information concerning vendors without any authorisation or management review process. Problems were also identified in relation to expense claims submitted to departmental officers. It was found that on many instances senior staff had approved their own travel and entertainment expenses, contrary to the Treasurer's directions. Misuse of corporate credit cards was also documented, with two officers apparently using them to provide themselves with temporary cash advances for personal purposes.

These irregular practices were detected by audit as occurring for over six months before the finance branch took action to investigate. The Audit Office is of the opinion that late detection of these problems is the result of poor accounting and financial control practices in this area. With proper systems controls and staffing these irregularities should have been discovered within one month of their occurrence. Other unsatisfactory financial practices concern a general lack of control over cash advances and travel approvals and related expenditure. It was noted that staff advance accounts had not been reconciled for over 12 months and the operating account monthly bank reconciliations did not appear to have been reviewed for the months of August, November and December 1994.

The Audit Office report also highlights a series of problems in relation to personnel matters which have implications for financial management practices within the department. These concern the extensive use of temporary staff, the management of a contracted employee counselling program and the management of workers compensation claims. In relation to the use of temporary staff, the Audit Office recognises that while there may be legitimate reasons for employing temporaries, the Department of Juvenile Justice appears to have had a practice of employing an exceptionally high proportion of such staff. It is noted that the appointment of permanent staff in some areas had been put on hold for a period of up to 18 months, ostensibly due to delays in implementing a staffing restructure. This practice has had a particularly detrimental effect in the finance branch, with only three permanent staff out of a total of 10 staff. This has resulted in staff training being
Page 1757
put on hold, with adverse implications for the quality of accounting and financial control procedures, as most of the temporary staff have had very limited government experience.

Both permanent and long-term temporary staff expressed a desire for basic training and guidance in relation to government accounting procedures and improved departmental management practices. The report notes that there is a clear need for training in basic rules, as covered in the Treasurer's directions and the Public Finance and Audit Act. The Audit Office also highlighted problems in relation to the use of particular agencies to provide temporary staff, including one agency which is not on the approved contractor list for the provision of temporary staff to New South Wales government organisations. For one period of almost nine months, three accounting staff were supplied by the agency at a cost $70 an hour. The total cost to the department amounted to $339,000 over this period. The Audit Office notes that this rate of payment is extraordinary, since staff which was engaged recently to do similar work are now costing less than $25 an hour. In another incident involving the same agency, two other staff were engaged at a cost of $90 and $75 an hour. These people worked for up to five months, but were unable to complete the work allocated. Their projects were eventually terminated due to the high cost and lack of progress, despite their long tenure.

Somewhat ironically, the apparent purpose of this project was to design systems and to write up procedures for motor vehicle management and general financial controls. The Auditor-General considers that the failure to produce guidelines in these areas is a very serious deficiency. The report notes that a more suitable and cost-effective interim solution would have been achieved by simply approaching another government department to provide copies of its basic procedures manual. The management of an employee counselling program, with counselling services provided by way of contract with a psychological consulting firm, has also been criticised by the Audit Office. The original contract with the firm expired in 1992, but the arrangements have continued informally. Staff have been able to contact the firm direct and obtain counselling services without specific departmental approval in each case.

The monthly invoices submitted to the department have not specified employees' names, and these bills have not been queried by the department for more than three years, although the average monthly invoice has increased to around $11,000. When Audit Office staff questioned these arrangements it became apparent that non-employees - mainly relatives of employees - were also being counselled, with the department being charged on the basis that a personal problem was affecting the departmental employee's work. Problems have also been documented in relation to the management of workers compensation claims. The cost of premiums has increased from $875,000 in 1994 to $1.6 million in 1995, a rate of increase which is well in excess of overall staff growth. It is acknowledged that the workers compensation area needs close management in any organisation, as the system is designed so that payments of claims directly affect subsequent premiums in an adverse manner. This is presumably to act as an incentive to improve claims management and aspects of the working environment which are contributing towards claims being made.

Under the Workers' Compensation Act a claim must be advised to the fund manager within 14 days. The fund manager then has seven days in which to decide whether to reject or accept the claim. If a claim is not rejected within 21 days of the accident, then the claim must be accepted regardless of the facts. However, the department's average time for advice to the funds manager has apparently been running at 60 days. The end result is that approximately 50 per cent of all the department's claims end up in court, compared to approximately 5 to 10 per cent for other employees. It is known that claims heard in court cost more and are mostly found in favour of the worker, therefore increasing the department's costs unnecessarily.

The Audit Office report also documents a number of other problem areas, many of which will warrant further investigation. These included a failure to manage building projects with a lack of adequate control and recording of project expenditure, and a practice of commissioning extremely detailed and advanced studies of desirable projects without any idea whether the projects could ever proceed. I have immediately taken steps to rectify the problems outlined by the Auditor-General. These problems clearly relate to inadequate management practices and controls, and a recovery plan is being developed as a matter of urgency, which will improve the operation of the system as a whole. Nevertheless, the report documents serious omissions, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that mismanagement on a major and serious scale has occurred in this department.

Whether this will amount to fraud or corruption by individual officers is difficult to ascertain, but it would seem that at the very minimum significant negligence, or even sheer incompetence, on the part of senior officers is involved. While my focus will be on addressing the systemic problems identified in the department to avoid future abuse and mismanagement, I have also taken steps to investigate whether individual officers can and should be held liable for these serious defects in the department's financial management practices. The report has been referred to the Commissioner for Public Employment, who is considering the potential for disciplinary action against the individual officers responsible for the matters raised by the Auditor-General.

I understand that the Public Employment Office will also be advising on any further action which may be warranted, including further investigations and a comprehensive recovery plan for the department. Under the provisions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 the departmental head has a legal duty to notify the commission of any matter which may reasonably be suspected of
Page 1758
involving corrupt conduct. I understand that in accordance with this requirement action has been taken to refer the report to the ICAC, although it is not known at this stage whether the ICAC will investigate further. This is a matter for the ICAC commissioner to determine, and it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt or speculate about any potential future action by the ICAC at this stage.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It never stopped Carl Scully.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am acting responsibly in this matter. I have drawn attention to the statutory requirements, and I will allow the commission to investigate whether any action is appropriate. As honourable members may be aware, the former director-general of the department was placed on the senior executive service unattached list some weeks ago. An acting director-general from an external agency has been appointed pending permanent recruitment action by the Public Employment Office. My acting director-general is now consulting with the Auditor-General, the Commissioner for Public Employment and the Internal Audit Bureau to determine the most effective measures to comprehensively address the matters identified in terms of improving management systems to ensure that there can be no recurrence of these problems.

These measures will obviously also include a thorough review of all contractual arrangements with private sector agencies, involving the Department of Juvenile Justice, to prevent any further irresponsible waste of taxpayers' money. It gives me little pleasure to inform the House that these findings do, in fact, vindicate concerns that I have held for some time about an inappropriate concentration of resources in the department's head office. I have previously indicated that I intended to redirect administrative savings from the department's head office into upgrading direct services to clients, and especially into enhancing community-based services to rehabilitate young offenders.

On the basis of this report it should be possible to make some considerable savings in the cost of administrative services, probably far in excess of what was previously anticipated, although those savings may not be realised immediately. I hasten to add that any future savings will be quickly absorbed by direct services to clients as they have been suffering for some time from this manifestly inefficient allocation of resources in the department. Coincidentally, I am also expecting to receive another major report in the coming week from the Office of the Council on the Cost of Government following a review of the department's staffing structures, administrative support services and allocation of resources. This is particularly well-timed as it will provide considerable guidance in the introduction of new management systems and structures to address the systemic problems identified by the Auditor-General.

While I believe it is important to place the Auditor-General's findings on the public record, I do not consider it to be appropriate to table a copy of the report. The Auditor-General has advised me that it was not drafted as a public document as it names three private sector organisations which have commercial arrangements with the department. I am informed that the Auditor-General would normally omit references to the names of non-government organisations from documents destined for public release. I am mindful that the professional reputation and commercial interests of these private sector organisations may be unfairly prejudiced through being associated with criticism of the department's financial management practices.

Similarly, the report names several departmental officers. I do not wish to cause unnecessary anxiety or irreversible damage to the professional reputations of the individuals concerned. As I have already indicated, the potential for disciplinary proceedings against individual officers is being assessed. I do not intend to compromise or prejudge the outcome of any future action in this regard. However, I wish to assure the House that, where appropriate, individuals will be held accountable for their actions, although I believe that this will mainly involve senior officers; it is unlikely to include more junior staff who have merely followed directions.

I am aware that there are many competent and dedicated officers employed in the department who will be just as horrified as I am to hear of these matters. I do not wish to cause them any undue distress. In my view, the very senior officers, who are charged with establishing and maintaining the department's financial management systems, should be held responsible, along with the former Liberal Government for allowing such a regime to flourish. My overriding concern, however, is to ensure that the situation is rectified as quickly and effectively as possible to prevent any further waste of taxpayers' money through failed Liberal Party policies.

The Auditor-General's findings clearly demonstrate the abject failure of the former Liberal Government's policy of letting the managers manage and encouraging the use of consultants and contractors without adequate systems of accountability. It may be concluded that the former Government had little regard for the responsible expenditure of public money. Instead, it was more concerned about subsidising the growth of private sector consultancy firms. The people of New South Wales can now rest assured that the Carr Labor Government is putting an immediate stop to these abuses and rorts in the public sector, which are the legacies of the former Liberal Government's defective management practices.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.04]: I congratulate the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services on bringing these matters to the attention of the public. It is appropriate for the types of issues that have been highlighted by the Minister to be brought to the attention of the public. We cannot tolerate these sorts of practices. However, it was inappropriate for the Minister to make the comments he made in the last few sentences
Page 1759
of his ministerial statement as he would be aware of the accountability practices that were in place. His report identifies that the managers in this department were not following those practices. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the inquiries, to which he adverted, have been pursued and that an appropriate level of accountability has been borne by the officers responsible.

I assure the Minister that if the allegations that have been made to his office were made to my office this same sort of inquiry would have been pursued by me. That raises a question which the Minister might also want to pursue, that is, what practices in this office discouraged employees from bringing these matters to my attention or the attention of other appropriate officers? I do not believe the matters outlined by the Minister would have occurred without the knowledge of other officers. My initial reaction is to ask: what prevented other officers from disclosing what was occurring in that agency? I recollect receiving in 1993-94 a qualified Auditor-General's report. I took steps to ensure that the matters that had been brought to my attention were corrected.

The issues identified by the Minister occurred before 30 June last year. I recollect receiving last year an unqualified Auditor-General's report. One has to ask: what is occurring within government agencies that results in an unqualified Auditor-General's report though these types of practices were occurring? I know that for a while we did not have in place within the department an internal audit system, for whatever reason. Having heard the Minister's report I want to know what is the responsibility of internal auditors. If these practices were occurring - which is clearly the case - why were they not identified through internal audit procedures? Why were they not brought to the attention of either the auditor or the relevant Minister? If that did not occur it would be intolerable. As I have said, other people within these government agencies would have known about the types of practices that were outlined by the Minister. Was there some form of collusion? If these matters had been brought to my attention those are the sorts of questions that would have been in my mind, and I have no doubt that they would be in the mind of the Minister. To what extent at senior management levels was there -

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: That question has been asked.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It is appropriate for such a question to be asked. I commend the Minister for highlighting these issues. It was appropriate for him to do so. I commend him for pursuing the issues. I note that the Minister said that he has been concerned about these issues for some time. If when he was the shadow minister he had been aware of these matters and had brought them to my attention I assure him that I would have triggered investigations.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I certainly was not aware of them then.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: I am pleased that the Minister was not aware of them then. I have little doubt that the Minister would hold the view, as I do, that if these sorts of practices come to the attention of a shadow minister they should immediately be brought to the attention of the responsible Minister to ensure an appropriate level of investigation.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.08]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I, too, congratulate the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services on bringing these matters to the attention of the House by way of ministerial statement. There is no doubt that the matters raised by the Minister are very serious. They certainly reveal a total lack of organisation within the Office of Juvenile Justice. I am not sure whether this is yet another example of a department getting into a muddle when there are many changes of Ministers. Under the previous administration there were no fewer than four different Ministers in the Department of Community Services over a period of three years. It is extremely disturbing and disruptive for staff morale to have such a rapid changeover of ministerial positions.

My concern is about three specific matters referred to by the Minister in his statement. The first is that 14 transactions involving more than $1.8 million all took place on 18 May. That shows a total disregard for proper procedures. Technically it was possible for those transactions to take place in one day. However, the person concerned carried out those transactions because he or she believed that if ministerial approval had been sought it would not have been granted and therefore looked for a technical solution to the problem to achieve his or her purpose, whether or not it was the wish of the Minister.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: It raises the question of how often that might happen elsewhere.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Absolutely. The Leader of the Opposition raises the question of how often this may be happening in other departments. That is the serious aspect of the matters the Minister has raised: that this may not be an isolated incident and may be happening in other departments. The second matter I am concerned with is the 24-hour local area network support at a cost of $65,000 per site, although site networks had not been installed. Those site networks were installed only in September 1994 but by August 1995 - only about six weeks ago - most field sites had only two or three computer terminals. Large sums of public money had been expended for a facility that did not exist, a matter that should give all honourable members cause for concern. Similarly, as the Minister said, the payroll software system did not have the capacity to restrict users to defined functions. Many payroll personnel had unlimited access to update the master file, which meant they were able to make unauthorised changes to payroll information. That is absolutely astounding! How can any department operate like that? Certainly no private sector business could operate under those circumstances.

Page 1760

Another concern is the cost for accounting staff supplied by an agency. At $70 per hour this cost the taxpayer $339,000 for a period of nine months. Apparently this was a gross overpayment; the job could have been done by staff who need to be paid a rate of only $25 per hour. The terrifying result is that though the agency staff were paid this extremely high rate, after five months they were unable to complete the work. They certainly were not superefficient; it appears they were less than efficient. The final matter of concern deals with workers compensation claims. Changes to the Workers Compensation Act will be brought before this House during this session of Parliament. No doubt workers compensation payments are a matter of concern for employers and the Government. Premiums have increased from $875,000 in 1994 to $1.6 million in 1995, and if the system is to be misused in the way the Minister suggested in his statement we should all be deeply concerned.

If workers compensation premiums were to jump to that extent in a period of 12 months, no private business could operate. The way workers compensation claims were handled was grossly inefficient. The Minister made clear towards the end of his statement that he did not consider it appropriate to table a copy of the Auditor-General's report. He explained that the Auditor-General advised that the report was not drafted as a public document. That is supported by the fact that it names three private sector organisations that have commercial arrangements with the department. The Minister explained that the Auditor-General would normally omit references to the names of non-government organisations in any documents destined for public release. Of course, the Minister is worried about the professional reputation and commercial interests of the private sector organisations and obviously does not want them to be unfairly prejudiced.

However, as the Government's intention is to report this matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and to the Office of the Council on the Cost of Government it would be proper, if the Minister were to agree, to table the report with the names that might reflect on the private sector interests involved and the names of officers whited out. In that way the full report would be available to the public and the interests of natural justice would be served because people would not be named and commercial confidentiality would be preserved. I earnestly request that the Minister consider that procedure. It is not an unreasonable request to make. In the interests of long-term justice it is proper that such appalling procedures are not just mentioned under privilege in this Chamber but are part of a document that would be publicly available if tabled in the House. Perhaps the Minister might comment on my suggestion.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.17]: Call to Australia thanks the Minister for Community Services for presenting this ministerial statement on the Auditor-General's review of financial management practices in the Office of Juvenile Justice. I am sure all honourable members congratulate the Minister on his prompt action in dealing with the allegations. Bearing in mind that this is a new Government, the new Minister has acted promptly by referring these serious allegations to the Auditor-General for advice. The Minister is to be commended for his supervision of his areas of responsibility. He indicated that the Auditor-General had identified a litany of problems involving financial management practices, use of corporate credit cards, purchase of computing services, use of consultants and contractors, workers compensation claims, management, payroll processing and property transactions.

I am sure it is a shock to the Government, the Opposition and members of the crossbenches to be made aware of a serious breakdown in financial controls. As people not directly involved in running a government department, we always assume the activities of departments are buried in checks and crosschecks, controls over payments, invoices and so on. It seems that the procedure one understands normally takes place in the public service did not occur in this instance. What happened is shocking and disgraceful. The Leader of the Opposition asked about the auditing processes within the department that should have picked up these abuses. That question occurred to me. I suggest that there should be an improvement in the internal auditing processes to prevent these types of abuses from occurring. Similarly, the role of the Auditor-General should allow him to conduct inquiries without the Minister having to call for them.

I assume that the almost automatic checking and monitoring of government departments is an ongoing operation. This did not happen overnight; it seems to have been going on for some time. If the Auditor-General needs encouragement or further powers to gain access to check departmental financial operations, I am sure this House would agree to meeting his needs. The Auditor-General, with whom I have had meetings, is a very competent person who is deeply concerned to carry out his duties to the full. Any breakdown, if it has occurred, needs to be rectified. Internal audit checks are necessary. The Auditor-General should have an overview of what is happening in government departments, distinct from the Minister's personal supervision and control through his own staff and reporting arrangements.

We congratulate the Minister on presenting this report. It is not a happy report, but perhaps is a good starting point for progressively cleaning up abuses that may occur. I hope that no other abuses have occurred in his or in any other department. Outside consultants or temporary staff agencies seem to have seized on an opportunity to rip off the Government - that is, to rip off the taxpayer. Given the high rates paid - up to $70 an hour for staff from one temporary agency when $25 an hour could have been paid to staff from another agency - what happened was extortion. Some companies felt they could exploit the staff needs of departments. What happened is tragic. Money was paid out but the extra staff did not produce more. Exorbitant payment was made for no result. It is vital
Page 1761
that departments ensure staff perform and produce, and complete the tasks allocated to them. We commend the Minister for his prompt action.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby agreed to:

That General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to Estimates Committees be called on forthwith.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I seek leave to amend General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name on the Notice Paper for today by omitting all words after "1." and inserting instead the words as circulated to members.

Leave granted.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.25]: I move:

1. That during the present session and unless otherwise ordered, three Legislative Council Estimates Committees reflecting the distribution of Government Ministers' portfolio responsibilities be appointed, as indicated below:

(a) Estimates Committee No. 1

Premiers, Arts and Ethnic Affairs
Attorney General, Industrial Relations

Corrective Services, Emergency Services

Local Government

Police

The Legislature
Treasury, Energy and State Development

(b) Estimates Committee No. 2

Community Services, Aged Services, Disability Services
Consumer Affairs and Women
Gaming and Racing, Hunter Development
Health and Aboriginal Affairs
Sport and Recreation
Urban Affairs and Planning, Housing

(c) Estimates Committee No. 3

Agriculture
Education and Training, Youth Affairs
Environment
Land and Water Conservation
Mineral Resources, Fisheries
Public Works and Services, Olympics, Roads
Small Business and Regional Development, Ports
Transport and Tourism

2. The estimates of payments by program in the Budget Estimates and related documents presenting the amounts to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund be referred to the Committees for inquiry and report.

3. (1) That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Standing Orders, each Committee is to consist of 8 Members, comprising:

(a) 4 Government Members nominated by the Leader of the Government;

(b) 2 Opposition Members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; and

(c) 2 Cross Bench Members nominated by the Cross Bench Members.

(2) That nominations for membership be made to the President in writing within 7 days of the passing of this Resolution.

4. That in the absence of an agreement notified to the President under paragraph 3 (1), the question of the representation on a Committee is to be determined separately for the representatives specified in paragraphs 3 (1) (a), (b) or (c), by ballots in accordance with Standing Order 236.

5. (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Chair of a Committee be nominated in writing to the President by the Leader of the Government.

(2) That the Chair of a Committee have a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of votes a casting vote.

6. (1) That the Leader of the Government and Leader of the Opposition may nominate in writing to the Chair of a Committee prior to any meeting of a Committee an alternative Member to represent an appointed Government or Opposition Member, as applicable, of a Committee, if a Member is unavailable to attend a meeting of a Committee.

(2) That a Cross Bench Member of a Committee may nominate in writing to the Chair of a Committee prior to any meeting of the Committee an alternative Cross Bench Member to represent an appointed Member, if that Member is unavailable to attend a meeting of a Committee.

7. (1) A Chair may from time to time appoint another Government Member to act as Deputy Chair and the Member so appointed is to act as Chair when the Chair is not present at a meeting of a Committee.

(2) In the event of absence of both Chair and the Deputy Chair, a Government Member of the Committee is to be elected by the Members present to act as Chair for that meeting.

8. Unless a Committee otherwise decides, a Member of the House who is not a Member of the relevant Committee may take part in the public proceedings of a Committee and, subject to the discretion of the Chair, question witnesses; but may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of any quorum or division.

9. The Committees have power to send for and examine persons, papers, records and things.

10. The proceedings of the Committees are open to the public unless otherwise ordered by a Committee.

11. The Clerk of the Parliaments is to arrange the places for the meeting of each Committee and notify, formally, the Members of the Committees of the place of each meeting.

12. (1) The times and dates for meetings of the each Committee are to be set out in a Schedule provided by the Clerk of the Parliaments to each Chair of a Committee and Members of a Committee, within 7 days of the passing of this Resolution.

(2) A Committee may hold meetings supplementary to those set out in the Schedule.

13. In an Estimates Committee:

(a) the Committees may ask for explanations from Ministers in the House, or officers of any department of Government, relating to an item in each program area, or where possible, an item of proposed income or expenditure or other relevant matter in each program area;

(b) the Chair is to call over each program area and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination; and

(c) the question is to be proposed for each program area "That the amount be recommended".

14. An Estimates Committee is to take all evidence in public, unless a Committee decides to take evidence in camera.

15. A daily record of the proceedings of a Committee is to be published by Hansard.

Page 1762

16. (1) Prior to a hearing of an Estimates Committee, Members of a Committee may supply written questions to the Clerk of the Committee who will then distribute them to the relevant Department and to Members of the Committee. Answers to these written questions are to be supplied in writing to the Committee Clerk prior to the hearing or orally at a hearing.

(2) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Member from asking questions at an Estimates Committee hearing.

17. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Standing or Sessional Orders, Ministers or departmental officers may indicate to Estimates Committees that information supplementary to a response given to an Estimates Committee in reply to a question asked by a Member of that Committee will be lodged with the Clerk of the House.

(2) The Clerk is to publish in an Estimates Committee Questions and Answers Paper the information requested and the reply. A reply must be lodged with the Clerk within 14 days.

18. The Committees have power to sit during the sittings or any adjournment of the House.

19. (1) The report of each Estimates Committee is to state whether the amounts of each program area in the Estimates are recommended.

(2) One or more Members of a Committee may append to a report of the Committee made to the House a statement of dissent in relation to any part of the report.

20. The reports from the Committees will be received by the House without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bill and Cognate Bills and Appropriation (Parliament) Bill.

21. In Committee of the Whole House when considering the amounts for each program area in the estimates and the corresponding clauses and schedules in the Appropriation Bill and Cognate Bills and Appropriation (Parliament) Bill:

(a) the Chair is to put the Question in respect of each corresponding Committee Report, "That the Report of the (name of the Committee) be adopted"; and

(b) any remaining clauses and schedules of the Appropriation Bill and Cognate Bills and Appropriation (Parliament) Bill are to be considered as one Question, "That the remaining clauses and schedules of the Bills be agreed to".

22. At the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole, the Chair is to report to the President that the Committee has or has not adopted the Reports from the Estimates Committees.

23. The Estimates Committees are to report to the House within 28 days from the passing of this Resolution, after which time the Committees will expire.

24. (1) If the House is not sitting when a Committee wishes to report to the House, the Committee is to present its report to the Clerk of the House.

(2) A report presented to the Clerk is:

(a) on presentation, and for all purposes, deemed to have been laid before the House;

(b) to be printed by authority of the Clerk;

(c) for all purposes, deemed to be a document published by order or under the authority of the House; and

(d) to be recorded in the Minutes of the Proceedings of the House.

All members of the crossbenches wish to thank the Government for working with us over the past week so that we could negotiate a reasonable way to establish estimates committees of the Legislative Council of the New South Wales Parliament. There were obvious flaws in the motion I first put on notice, and there were things in it that the Government was not able to accept. But through a careful and lengthy negotiation process the Democrats and other members of the crossbenches are happy with the result. These estimates committees will be the first the Legislative Council has ever had. The committees will be in existence for only one month, and only for this year's estimates. It is possible, as this is the first time the procedure has been followed, that we may find hitches and glitches along the way. We are prepared to work through those glitches, so that following the 1996-97 budget, which the Leader of the Government has informed us will be brought down next May because of changes in budget procedure, we will be in a position to renegotiate any problems that have arisen and refine the processes we have set in train for considering this year's estimates.

I thank the Government and especially Virginia Knox, who has been carrying the brunt of negotiation on behalf of the Leader of the Government. I thank also the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments, which has done much redrafting, some of it at very short notice indeed. The staff of that office also attended to the copying of the motion and ensured that the redrafting was done speedily so that honourable members had time at least to look at the motion before having to consider it. I must apologise for the fact that today this motion was received by the Opposition very late, for logistical reasons. I speak on behalf of all those on the crossbenches in saying that we will endeavour to ensure that does not happen in future. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.29]: The Government supports the motion. As the honourable member pointed out, this matter has been the subject of negotiations between the Government and the crossbenchers for some time. I thank those on the crossbenches for their comments and approach to the matter.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.29]: On behalf of the Opposition, I support the motion as amended. After I became a member of this House, in my maiden speech I addressed the need to make this House more meaningful through the adoption of the committee process. In 1988 that occurred through the establishment of a series of standing committees. This is the next significant step forward. I commend the House for its support of this proposal. I acknowledge that there will be a learning curve in relation to the operation of the committees. The procedures under which the committees operate will have to be reviewed next year to make certain that the committees are meaningful. Only through a sensible system of estimates committees, under which all arms of government are accountable to the public through the questioning of departmental representatives, will this House remain relevant to the people of New South Wales.

Page 1763

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You could have done this for the last three years.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Minister knows about the operations of government. Ministers often want to fulfil objectives, but they do not have the support of their colleagues. Negotiations have taken place between members of the crossbenches and the Opposition about this proposal. I was able to obtain the unanimous support of my party room for these reforms. That is a significant step forward. If the House does not object, I shall comment now on the second motion to be moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, so that that motion will be passed pro forma. I congratulate the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby on that motion. The purpose of that motion is to extend the operation of the estimates committees to agencies of government that are not within the budget sector. The system in the Senate allows for an analysis of budgets of such agencies at estimates committees. The second motion makes it clear that the budgets of those agencies will be reviewed. That will be an interesting process. At present no mechanism is available for the budgets of government agencies to be examined by the Parliament and by estimates committees. No doubt the committees will require the production of papers in sufficient time to allow their examination by committee members before witnesses are questioned. As I have said, there will be a learning phase in relation to the operation of these estimates committees, but it is one that is welcomed by all honourable members.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.32]: The Call to Australia group is pleased to support this motion. We have been able to share in the discussions and in the formulation of the motion in its final form as moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. The proposal will improve on the procedures under which joint estimates committees are presently conducted. I am not being critical of those committees; their establishment was a step forward. However, some improvement in the procedures was needed and this development is a step in that direction. The motion helps to reinforce the value of the Legislative Council as the House of review by adopting a policy parallel with that of the Senate. The three estimates committees will consist of four Government members, two Opposition members, and two crossbench members. The estimates committees will deal with the operation of various government departments and statutory bodies. The establishment of these committees is an historic event in the life of this Chamber.

The Government supports the motion and I believe that all honourable members will do everything possible to ensure that the estimates committees are a search for truth. In the past attempts have been made to use them to damage the government that was in office. That is a danger we should seek to avoid. The emphasis should be on the search for truth rather than the use of the committees for political purposes. Call to Australia and, I am sure, the Australian Democrats will do all they can to make certain that the estimates committees function on a high ethical plane. If they do not, they will fall into disrepute, have no value, and, perhaps, have no part in future parliaments. It is important to have this open form of government and to allow members of this House to represent the people of New South Wales fairly and objectively.

The ministerial statement delivered by the Minister for Community Services a few moments ago justified the need for examination by estimates committees. Hopefully the three estimates committees will help improve the operations of the Government. If there are weaknesses they will discovered and rectified. The Government's position will then be re-enforced and it will be re-elected at the next election because it will have a reputation for good government. Estimates committees are not designed to damage the Government but to improve and assist the Government in carrying out its important duties. Various speakers, including myself, have referred to the Senate. It should be remembered that this House and the South Australian Legislative Council are the most democratically elected Houses of Parliament in Australia

However, no other House of Parliament in Australia is as democratically elected as this House. Obviously the Senate is not democratically elected, because it has a fixed representation from each State, and Tasmania has as many voting senators as New South Wales. To that extent, the Senate is not representative, whereas this House is. Call to Australia commends the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for the hard work she and members of her staff have done. I commend also the Treasurer and his staff for the work they have spent on this project. It has taken place over a short period of time but has involved intensive discussions. I also commend the Opposition for its support, because that has resulted in unanimous support for the motion. That is a mark of maturity of the Legislative Council. Call to Australia is pleased to support the motion.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.37]: This is indeed a historic occasion. The House of review will now become even more important as a House of review. I am sure honourable members will find out during the next few weeks how well we can work together by running the estimates committees. I thank members of the Opposition, in particular the Leader of the Opposition, for their cooperation. I thank the crossbenchers and also Aldis Ozols, who is a staff member of the Hon. A. G. Corbett. I have heard that Ministers may not wish to attend the estimates committees. I have received legal advice that Ministers are constitutionally required to attend estimates committees. I advise the Treasurer to seek advice from the Crown Solicitor about whether Ministers are obliged to attend estimates committees. I believe he will find that they are required to attend. If Ministers notify their intention of not attending estimates committees I will seek to take action in the Supreme Court to ensure that they do attend. This will be an interesting time for the upper House. Honourable members will find out a great deal about how the Government allocates its public resources and
Page 1764
receives income, and how that income can be increased. I advise the Treasurer to ensure that Ministers attend the estimates committees, as they are constitutionally required to do so.

Motion agreed to.


Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby agreed to:

That General Business Notice of Motion No. 2 relating to Estimates Committees on Statutory Bodies be called on forthwith.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I seek leave to amend General Business Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name on the Notice Paper for today by inserting words in paragraph No. 1, by deleting words in paragraph No. 2 and by adding new paragraphs Nos 3 and 4.

Leave granted.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: [3.40]: I move:

1. That the Estimates Committees of the House may examine and report on the expenditure or income for 1995/96 of any statutory body or corporation appointed, constituted or regulated under an Act of Parliament:

(a) which a Minister for the time being administers the Act under which the statutory body or corporation is appointed, constituted or regulated; or

(b) which is required to submit an annual report to the Parliament, either under the Act appointing, constituting or regulating the statutory body or corporation or under the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984.

2. That the Estimates Committees may examine those statutory bodies or corporations administered by Ministers under an Act of Parliament as indicated below:

(a) Estimates Committee No. 1

Premiers, Arts and Ethnics Affairs
Attorney General, Industrial Relations
Corrective Services, Emergency Services
Local Government
Police
Treasury, Energy and State Development

(b) Estimates Committee No. 2

Community Services, Aged Services, Disability Services
Consumer Affairs and Women
Gaming and Racing, Hunter Development
Health and Aboriginal Affairs
Sport and Recreation
Urban Affairs and Planning, Housing

(c) Estimates Committee No. 3

Agriculture
Education and Training, Youth Affairs
Environment
Land and Water Conservation
Mineral Resources, Fisheries
Public Works and Services, Olympics, Roads
Small Business and Regional Development, Ports
Transport and Tourism

3. The examination of the expenditure or income of any statutory body or corporation is to be made at the same time as the Budget Estimates of the relevant Minister, Agency or Program under examination.

4. (1) Prior to a hearing of an Estimates Committee, Members of a Committee may supply written questions in relation to statutory bodies or corporations to the Clerk of the Committee who will then distribute them to the relevant Department and to Members of the Committee. Nothing in this sub-paragraph prevents a Member from asking questions as an Estimates Committees hearing.

(2) In the absence of any written questions to a statutory body or corporation, or any indication that questions will be asked in relation to a particular body or corporation, a representative from that body or corporation is not required to be present at an Estimates Committee hearing. If a representative of a statutory body or corporation is not present at a hearing, Questions to those statutory bodies or corporations will be taken on notice and a reply lodged with the Clerk of the House.

(3) The Clerk is to publish in an Estimates Committee Questions and Answers Paper the questions taken on notice and the reply. A reply must be lodged with the Clerk within 14 days.

The giving of power to the estimates committees to question and investigate statutory authorities and government bodies required a great deal of negotiation with the Government. I am well aware that there are more than 130 statutory authorities. It goes without saying that no estimates committee will ever call on each of those 130 authorities, but this year possibly three or four important statutory authorities, which no estimates committee previously had the power to question or to investigate, will be examined. This is particularly important when honourable members are considering legislation put forward by the new Government. If we are to assist the Government to carry forward its program, particularly in relation to environmental matters, it is essential that we have the power to ask questions of these statutory authorities.

I realise that the operations of statutory authorities have never been examined before. The proposal must have caused many hours of thought and discussion within Cabinet and within caucus. The Government finally agreed that statutory authorities would not be off budget and that the estimates committees would be allowed to ask questions of statutory authorities and government bodies. That will not lengthen the sittings of the estimates committees because the power to ask questions will rest with the members of the estimates committees that have already been established. The inclusion of this power will not cost the Government more; it will not take longer than the seven days already allotted by the Government for the investigation and consideration of estimates.

The Australian Democrats are particularly grateful that statutory authorities will now be included. Once again I thank all honourable members on the crossbenches, the Leader of the Government and his staff and, of course, those Opposition members who have been involved in part in these important negotiations. As Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, these negotiations with the Government have been landmark negotiations. I have every reason to believe that this year's estimates
Page 1765
committees will be relevant, and useful and valuable information will be elicited. If information is elicited that will prevent situations similar to the appalling situation made public today by the Minister for Community Services by way of ministerial statement, honourable members will certainly have served the people of New South Wales well. I commend the motion to the House.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.44]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the second motion, which, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has said, brings statutory authorities into the ambit of the estimates committees. I am sure that I speak on behalf of other honourable members when I say that we realise that the subject of statutory authorities is sensitive because of the development in recent years of statutory authorities and corporations being encouraged to act efficiently and to use the best possible procedures to compete with the private sector. The subject needs to be handled carefully and astutely by the estimates committees so that statutory bodies and corporations are not disadvantaged by the revelation of information that may impair their competitiveness but which may not be relevant to the estimates committees. New South Wales statutory authorities want to beat similar bodies in Victoria and Queensland, and we do not want to do anything that makes it more difficult for them to compete effectively. We must keep the happy balance of obtaining information while not moving into the realm of confidential business information, quotations and so on. We want to ensure that New South Wales has the advantage and that it maintains that advantage in the future.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.45]: The Government supports the motion.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [3.45]: The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the motion including statutory authorities in the estimates committees, and commends the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby for its introduction. The new powers will certainly give a great deal of strength to the estimates committees to scrutinise authorities that honourable members have not been able to question previously. I concur that there may be a few problems. However, we will undoubtedly learn as we go, and this House will again become a true House of review. The Opposition certainly has much pleasure in supporting the motion.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.46]: I join my colleagues in enthusiastically supporting the motion of my colleague the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. The examination of statutory authorities will be an interesting exercise. I flag to State Forests that it should get its computers ready because it will be asked a lot of questions about royalties from every compartment in New South Wales, about the cost of every road, and about the value of all trees logged. State Forests will finally be made accountable to the people of New South Wales.

Motion agreed to.
Debate resumed from 11 October.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.47]: When I was speaking previously on this bill and the debate was adjourned because of question time, I was dealing with correspondence I received from the division of radiation oncology at Westmead Hospital. Nearly 12 months ago various concerns were raised with me by that department when a previous version of this bill was introduced by the previous administration. At the time the debate was interrupted I was asking how the New South Wales Cancer Council could be responsible for collecting, processing and disseminating information with respect to cancer and its causes and incidence if its board need contain only one source of medical advice, and that source need not necessarily be expert in cancer. The Minister might like to answer that question in reply. The letter I received stated:

If this means an increasing demand for specialists like myself -

that is a specialist in radiation oncology -

to provide advice from an expanded infrastructure of advisory committees, then I am not at all certain that I, for one, am willing to assume that additional responsibility. In an era of escalating legislation one has to ask where ultimate responsibility lies for the accuracy of any information that is disseminated in the name of the Council. Is it with the Board as constituted or with an advising Committee?

The writer of the letter went on to point out for my information that the thought that only one member of the board should be a medical practitioner was for him a frightening prospect. He explained that although a research scientist might be medically qualified, cancer specialists will be a dominant category for appointment to the board and representatives of the Clinical Oncological Society and the National Health and Medical Research Council may also be medically qualified. He explains that the complexity and diversity of cancer-related issues could leave the board vulnerable to bias or less than expert advice if it so happens that only one medical practitioner becomes a member of the board. Unless careful selection occurs, he predicted that the board could be regarded as irrelevant by many involved in the field of cancer. He said:

Lastly, I believe that in 1994, there should be a consumer (patient) representative.

The Government has met those conditions. There will be a consumer representative on the board. I will move an amendment to that effect at the Committee stage, and the Government has assured me that my amendments have the support of the Minister for Health. The other point I want to raise was also brought to my attention by the division of radiation oncology. If the rationale for the new bill includes the ethos that the change better reflects the organisations independent status, then there is a forceful argument that the inclusion of the Minister or
Page 1766
his representative and four other members to be selected by the Minister could be a major political bloc and the independence of the board may be less real than imagined. The letter ends with a personal view, and it is proper to place that view on the public record. The letter stated:

I believe that the Cancer Council has obtained credibility with many involved with cancer due to the directions taken by Mrs Elaine Henry, its Executive Director, compared to the ineffective body which existed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Then, the Council was remote from clinicians like myself working in the field of cancer and was perceived by us to be an irrelevant organisation. There is danger that that credibility will be lost unless great care is taken to ensure that the image of the Council does not degenerate into that of a fundraising charity.

I made that point in the earlier part of my remarks. The letter continued:

Cancer is a problem which lies in the medical field in its broadest sense. This includes a wide spectrum from epidemiology through clinical services, clinical and basic research, psychosocial issues and education, both lay and professional. I would not like to see the significant role that the Cancer Council has played in all these areas be distanced by this new bill and the image of the Council become that of a fundraising charity. The bill persuades me that that could happen.

The bill as amended will perhaps allay some of those fears. This letter, in fact, was signed by the director of the division of radiation oncology at Westmead Hospital. Today, I and all other honourable members received the 1994-95 annual report from the Cancer Council. Mrs Elaine Henry, who was mentioned in the letter I have just read, is the Executive Director of the Cancer Council. She made this statement in a letter to me:

. . . that the Cancer Council really has not changed any of the activities with which it has been involved over the last 10 years but added additional responsibilities. This has resulted in the need to regularise our Objects to reflect the fact that we took over the management of the Central Cancer Registry in 1986 just after transferring the management of our research laboratories to the Prince of Wales Hospital and to the University of New South Wales whilst the hospital assumed the direct patient management which had previously been our responsibility. We still do research but not laboratory-based research and, of course, we continue to be the largest funder of cancer researchers in the state after the NHMRC.

. . . we relinquished the laboratory-based research effort because of concern voiced by researchers in hospitals and universities that researchers were getting preferential treatment. When the Council first started there were no cancer clinics as there are nowadays and the Special Unit for Investigation and Research paved the way for today's multidisciplinary treatment centres.

The letter continued:

. . . we continue to need research funds which are allocated through a competitive peer-review system to the leading researchers in our institutes. $3.4 million were awarded last year and even more is required for this year. We have a system whereby funds earmarked for cancer research go to cancer research and we have specific foundations within the general cancer research fund to ensure if it is requested that dollars go to colorectal cancer, for example, that is where they are allocated.

I have enclosed a copy of our last Research Report which was launched earlier this year by Professor Judith Whitworth, the Chairman of the Medical Research Council of Australia. This was done during a day-long seminar at which a number of the researchers presented to their peers and to the public progress they had achieved in the preceding year.

She then extended an invitation to me to attend this annual event, if I would find it of interest. She also invited me to visit the Cancer Council at some stage to see at first-hand the work that is being done. She further stated:

The last issue that you raised in the House the other day -

I was aware that Mrs Henry was in the House when I spoke previously in the debate -

which I think needs a comment, is in relation to the fundraising which the Parliamentary Committee for Breast Cancer engaged in during the previous year; the Cancer Council has not received any of these funds. My understanding, though I have not seen this in writing, is that the donations were directed to the NSW Breast Cancer Institute at Westmead.

That information may need confirmation by the Minister in reply. The New South Wales parliamentary breast cancer committee raised funds with great difficulty, and with a great deal of effort. Much of that effort was made by the secretary of that committee, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, and, of course, the chairperson of that committee, the Hon. Beryl Evans, as she then was. The members of the committee were very anxious to have an absolute assurance that the money raised by the committee did in fact go to the New South Wales Breast Cancer Institute. I am delighted to have at least some assurance that that has occurred, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this in his reply. I thank honourable members for listening to my remarks on this bill. In particular, I wish to thank the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, for accepting my amendments. I hope that the amendments that I shall move will make the Council able to reflect more closely the needs of patients, the consumers of health care services. That is why one of my amendments seeks to ensure that one member of the board is a person nominated by the Consumers Health Forum in New South Wales. I acknowledge the support of honourable members for this legislation.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [3.59]: Call to Australia supports the New South Wales Cancer Council Bill. It is a bill for an Act relating to the constitution, objects and functions of the New South Wales Cancer Council to repeal the New South Wales State Cancer Council Act 1955 and for related purposes. This bill is close to the heart of many people. Seven members of my mother's family have died from cancer. Clause 4 constitutes a body corporate to be known as the New South Wales Cancer Council. The council is a continuation of, and the same legal entity as, the New South Wales State Cancer Council constituted under the New South Wales State Cancer Council Act 1955. The objects of the council are important. They are:

(a) to assist and foster research and investigation into the causation, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer,

Page 1767

(b) to assist and foster postgraduate and undergraduate education and training, and education of the public, in relation to cancer.

Such public education has been assisted by the recent screening of a television program about prostate cancer. The objects continue:

(c) to assist in providing training and instruction in technical matters relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer,

(d) to co-ordinate, so far as is practicable, the activities of all institutions, hospitals and other bodies engaged in research and investigation into the causation, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer,

(e) to collect, process, maintain and disseminate information relating to cancer and its causes, incidence, and treatment . . .

I was interested to hear the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby on breast cancer. An Australian Bureau of Statistics document gives figures for 1993 of 2,641 deaths from female breast cancer and 2,544 deaths from prostate cancer. The document states:

Males are more likely to die from cancer than females. In 1993, the cancer death rate for males was 236 per 100,000 population, while for women it was 141. In the past men were more likely than women to smoke, consume alcohol and experience other health risk factors such as occupational stress. These factors have contributed to the higher cancer death rates for men compared to women.

There is a committee for breast cancer, but maybe there should be something -

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.



The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Will the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations give an assurance that his industrial relations reform proposals will be made available for consultation before they are considered by Parliament? If there is to be such consultation, what form will that consultation take? For how long will the legislation be available for public examination before it is considered by Parliament?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The answer to the primary question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is yes, the proposals will be available for public consultation. I propose that the working party representing employer and union interests will consider the matter in detail on Friday of this week. The bill will then be made available to the public as an exposure draft for approximately two weeks before it is debated in this Parliament.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: For only two weeks?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: For approximately two weeks. The bill will no doubt be debated thoroughly in this Parliament. All submissions and views will be taken into account when it is made available. Key employer interests and other interests in the community have had access to the ideas and concepts in the bill. We have now reached the stage of looking at the detailed drafting. The Leader of the Opposition may be assured that the consultation process will be not only adequate; it will be fulsome.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question without notice. I am sure that the Minister shares the concern of members of this House about today's reports that a New South Wales teaching hospital is breaking national guidelines and laws by testing patients for HIV without telling them and allegedly using AIDS funding for other services. Will the Minister inform the House what truth there is in the above allegation. If it is true, what will the Government do about it?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member's question relates to a study about the care and treatment of HIV-AIDS patients in a New South Wales teaching hospital. I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr. Andrew Refshauge, that the study, conducted in 1993, reflected the hospital's willingness to be examined. The hospital acknowledged the need for change when problems were identified. The study's methodology involved anecdotal reports from anonymous sources, which reflect different perceptions and different levels of knowledge. The Department of Health is supportive of this study and its methodology, which allows both full and frank discussions. The health system as a whole benefits from the results of such discussions.

Mandatory HIV testing of patients is not supported by NSW Health. The department's policy clearly states that HIV testing of patients should be undertaken only when clinically necessary, voluntarily and with appropriate pre-test and post-test counselling. The Department of Health advises that HIV-AIDS funding is allocated within New South Wales according to identified needs. Funds are allocated for approved purposes only and are subject to audit and annual review. It should be noted that much work has been done on HIV-AIDS policy since 1993 when this study was undertaken. The New South Wales Department of Health has revised comprehensively its 1992 infection control policy. The revised policy accords with international best practice and sets out a framework to enable health-care facilities to provide and maintain a safe environment for patients and health-care workers.

The policy is based on universal precautions, which require health-care workers to treat all patients the same, regardless of known or unknown infections. The specific infection control responsibilities of individual health-care workers are now clearly set out in infection control regulations under professional
Page 1768
registration Acts. In 1994 an amendment was made to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to address discrimination against people with HIV on the grounds of disability. NSW Health has issued guidelines on the legal responsibilities of health-care workers regarding HIV confidentiality. A number of health-care worker education initiatives include the provision of information on HIV-related discrimination and infection control practices in the workplace.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council whether it is a fact that a Coopers and Lybrand cost-benefit analysis conducted in 1991 estimated that the relocation of the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere would incur a net cost to the New South Wales taxpayers of between $2.2 million and $19 million? If so, what quantitative economic analysis has the New South Wales Treasury conducted to refute the policy implications of the previous study?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: this is clearly a matter related to the budget. It was referred to specifically, not only in the budget papers but, indeed, in my Budget Speech. The budget debate will come before this House this afternoon. Honourable members are waiting with great anxiety to hear the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I think the time to canvass this issue is in the budget debate or before the estimates committees.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I rule the question in order.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Was there no consultation with either industry groups or New South Wales Agriculture prior to making the decision to close Rydalmere? What is the net cost to the New South Wales taxpayer of this ill-informed decision?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This Government believes in regional development. It will decentralise the Rydalmere facility to a number of key research centres in country and regional areas. I thought that members of the National Party, who for years have been claiming that they believe in regional development, would support such an initiative to assist regional development.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Serratore? If so, what action does he propose to take in response to this decision?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal, which concerns the operation of the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act. On 20 September 1995 John Serratore was arrested and charged with the murder of Ms Frances Tizzone. He was refused bail by the police and the Local Court and subsequently applied for bail from the Supreme Court. The matter was then removed to the Court of Appeal to determine whether material intercepted pursuant to a warrant issued under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act could be admitted in evidence in a bail application hearing.

On 11 October this year the Court of Appeal decided that the record of a telephone intercept could not be admitted in evidence on the hearing of a bail application as it is not an exempted proceeding as prescribed under section 5B(a) of the Act. The effect of the Court of Appeal decision is that it limits the circumstances in which evidence may be admitted to matters which are strictly criminal prosecutions. Mr Serratore's bail application was eventually refused by the Supreme Court. However, the proceedings raised more general concerns that persons facing serious charges against whom the principal evidence is contained in telephone intercepts may be released on bail through the inability of the prosecution to demonstrate the severity of the offence and the true strength of the prosecution case.

It appears incongruous to me, as it did to the Court of Appeal, that such information can be made available in a criminal prosecution but not in related bail proceedings. Accordingly, I have today written to the Federal Attorney-General asking him to give urgent consideration to this matter with a view to amending section 5B of the Act at the earliest possible opportunity to include hearings for bail applications. Apart from bail application hearings this decision may affect the proper conduct of other proceedings, such as applications for judicial inquiries into convictions under section 474D of the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900 and applications for stays on criminal proceedings. I have asked the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, to consider these matters as well.


Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Health. Has a recent research survey funded by the New South Wales Department of Health found that 80 per cent of the shops surveyed were caught selling cigarettes to 14-year-old and 16-year-old children? Were the majority of sales staff, who were under 20 years of age and who sold cigarettes to children, unaware of the current legal position? Do 70,000 children in Australia start smoking every year? What further action will the Government take to prevent shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children? Will the Government conduct an education campaign aimed specifically at youthful staff to assist them in understanding current laws regarding the sale of cigarettes to children?

Page 1769

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have a general awareness of the matter alluded to by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile in his question as I have read press reports of the survey to which he referred. Clearly, if the law is being flouted in the manner revealed by the survey, it is a serious matter. However, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile asked for the Government's response and what educational campaigns or other steps could be taken to inhibit or, one would hope, to bring to an end the abuse to which he referred. I shall be delighted to refer his question to my colleague the Minister for Health for a full and considered reply.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism. In view of the failure of the State budget to allocate any funds for the construction of the $8.5 million Manly wharf bus-ferry interchange, which was promised by the Australian Labor Party candidate, Brian Green, in his election brochure and which has allegedly been promised by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism to the honourable member for Manly, when will the Government honour this commitment?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: for as long as anyone can remember Presiding Officers have ruled that when the budget is being debated questions relating to it are not permitted. This was one of the difficulties that the Labor Party put up with in seven long years of opposition. The former Opposition stuck by the rules. I believe that the rules should be applied as they always were applied. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to the budget in her question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I rule the question out of order.


The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council inform the House what the Government is doing to give rural people better access to financial services?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: This matter is important to people in country areas. I was glad that the Hon. E. M. Obeid, the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. Elaine Nile and, I think, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe attended the international credit union week dinner held at Parliament House yesterday. The fact that 41 members from both Houses and from all political parties attended the dinner indicates the importance that the Government and the Parliament place on credit unions.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Did you pay full price for the food?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I believe so.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: It is a question on the budget.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was not my function; I was a guest at the function, as were the other honourable members. They might have been asked to pay, but I was not asked to pay.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You were the guest speaker.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is right; I was the guest speaker, and I had some good news to deliver. Over the past few years banks have closed many of their rural branches and have concentrated resources in regional centres. This has had a marked impact on rural businesses and household consumers. Small businesses struggling to survive in country towns have found life just that little bit tougher. Many rural people have had to travel long distances to do their banking. To address this situation the Commonwealth Government and the credit union industry have been working together to find ways to help credit unions expand into rural areas and fill a void left by bank branch closures. However, a big part of the problem in New South Wales is that a range of outdated laws discriminate against credit unions and make it harder for them to trade in country towns. One of the first things that I set in train upon becoming Minister was a review of legislation, which revealed that 96 separate Acts, in some way or another, unfairly constrain the operations of credit unions.

Problems include quite outdated bans on local councils banking with credit unions, rural solicitors lodging family trust deeds with credit unions for safekeeping, credit unions lending money to rural universities, and small businesses offering a credit union guarantee as a security deposit in some circumstances. Credit unions, which have more than 1.5 million customers in New South Wales alone and which are growing at the rate of 13 per cent a year - double the growth rate of the banking sector - have achieved this incredible performance in recent years with one arm tied behind their backs. The real losers are people in rural New South Wales who are being denied full competition in financial services. Credit unions cannot offer a full range of services to some of the largest rural employers and, naturally, other customers get the wrong impression and message about doing business with credit unions.

With the cooperation of my ministerial colleagues, I shall shortly propose to the Cabinet amendments to the various Acts that discriminate against credit unions. Those amendments will establish competitive neutrality in the provision of finance and related services to people and organisations regulated by State legislation. The result will be the removal of barriers to competition that have excluded credit unions from competing and
Page 1770
have created an impression that they are second-class institutions. This will make it far easier for credit unions to provide much needed financial services in country areas. I fervently hope that that legislation will be introduced into the autumn session of Parliament so that both Houses can debate and deal with it before the end of the session to enable the changes to be enacted into law. The Hon. E. M. Obeid asked a most intelligent question. It is a pity that such intelligent questions are not asked by Opposition members.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Treasurer is waiting for intelligent questions, and I have one. Does the Treasurer recall my question to him last Wednesday about toll credit cards when he said he would give me an answer the next day? Six days have now passed. Does the Treasurer have an answer, or has he forgotten my question as he has forgotten the many people he retrenched? Will the Treasurer inform the House which Ministers have motorway toll cards and which Ministers use other schemes and what those schemes are? Will the Treasurer name the Ministers, if any, who actually pay the toll themselves? Further, do personal political staff of any Minister possess these toll cards, fuel cards, other cards and cars and/or have their mobile phone accounts paid for by the taxpayer? How many of these staff are former Sussex Street Australian Labor Party staff who, because of the Labor Party's inability to manage its own finances, continue their political work with their salaries and other costs paid for by New South Wales taxpayers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I recall the Hon. D. J. Gay asking this question last week. I did not provide an answer the following day because I did not want to embarrass the honourable member. The truth is that under the previous Government my driver informs me that he was given a credit card for use on the M4 and M5 tollways, but I do not have one under this Government! Apparently the credit card issued to my driver under the previous Government expired soon after the Labor Government came to office. My secretary told me that somebody from somewhere inquired whether we wanted a credit card reissued. The answer was no.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Who pays your tolls?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Hon. D. J. Gay might tell honourable members whether when he is Acting-President his driver has one of these credit cards. Indeed, I see a wry smile on the face of the President. The only reason the Hon. D. J. Gay does not have such a card when he is not Acting-President is that his colleagues did not make him the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber. That is why he is cranky. In relation to the last part of the honourable member's question -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: What about the other Ministers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I understand that some ministerial drivers have cards, but they are for the use of the drivers only. One would expect that the toll would be paid for any employee of the Government on government business. It is a normal expense of one's employment. I do not know whether Ministers in the previous Government adopted this rule - I can find out - but Ministers in this Government have to pay their own toll. It is as simple as that.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Your Ministers have to pay the toll?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Ministers have to pay their own toll. That is the rule. I assure the honourable member that staff entitlement practices would be exactly the same as those that applied to staff members under the previous Government.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Treasurer telling the House that on each occasion that a Minister is driven in his ministerial car he puts his hand in his pocket to pay the toll?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The answer I gave clearly covers the question the honourable member has asked.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Did the Minister for Community Services announce yesterday that the Carynia Oaks hostel near Cooranbong was to be closed? Did the Minister also say that 83 inmates would be found other accommodation? Is the Minister aware and will he confirm that about 60 inmates at Carynia Oaks had already been found new accommodation by the previous administration? How many inmates now have to be rehoused? As the Minister has suggested that they will be rehoused in small supported accommodation with 24-hour care, can he still guarantee that the needs will be met for supported accommodation for other people with intellectual disabilities, particularly those who have been living at home with elderly parents?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I readily recognise the long-term interest that the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby has taken in the Carynia Oaks centre and the concern she has for people with intellectual and other disabilities. I should state initially that although this privately operated centre was formerly known as Carynia Oaks, it is now known and has been known in more recent times as the Watagan Centre, largely due to the notoriety attached to the previous name. I believe I am the only member of Parliament, apart from the local member, the honourable member for Lake Macquarie, Mr Jeff Hunter, who visited the former Carynia Oaks.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Not true.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If it is not true, I am unaware of who else has visited. Any other member of Parliament who visited Carynia Oaks, now known as the Watagan Centre, would have been truly
Page 1771
shocked by the conditions that obtained in that facility: it was understaffed, the standard of meals was appalling, the standard of physical accommodation was appalling and there was an almost complete absence of day activities. The place was an absolute disgrace! From memory, when I visited Carynia Oaks while in Opposition, in excess of 150 people with intellectual disabilities were housed at that facility. The Watagan Centre has been a commercially operated boarding house for people with disabilities. It has been licensed by the Ageing and Disability Department, formerly the Department of Community Services, under the provisions of the Youth and Community Services Act 1973. In 1994 the management of the centre advised the Department of Community Services that due to financial difficulties it could not operate at the standards required and would seek to close by December this year.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: Because the numbers had gone down.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. Virginia Chadwick says it was because the numbers had gone down. The numbers were significantly high still, but a difficulty arose between the private operators and their banker regarding the financial operation of this facility. In any event, the Department of Community Services and the Ageing and Disability Department have worked closely with the management of the centre to ensure the safety and care of residents at the centre. However, the management of the Watagan Centre, as it is now known, advised in April this year that the centre was to close by 30 September. It became apparent that the management of the centre could not ensure that the safety and care of residents would be maintained until closure, and therefore the department made arrangements for the Hunter Mission to extend its existing services for people with disabilities to provide support for the residents.

The process of relocating residents from the Watagan Centre has proceeded smoothly, with alternative accommodation options currently being developed in the community. Indeed, more than 40 residents have already been found suitable, long-term alternative accommodation. The department has made these arrangements in conjunction with the residents, their families and carers to ensure that the required support services are available. To the best of my knowledge, occupants of the centre were not placed by the previous Government. The placements have been made, to the best of my knowledge, since the present Government came to office, but a remaining residual core of clients, about 80 of them, have not been voluntarily placed in the community to the present time.

The time frame for the completion of the relocation of the residents is 8 December 1995. The Hunter Mission has continued its operations at the centre and is willing to extend its involvement at the Watagan Centre until closure has been effected. I authorised the Ageing and Disability Department to continue negotiations with Watagan Proprietary Limited and National Australia Bank, the banker of the private operator, to ensure that the remaining residents of the Watagan Centre could remain at the site until alternative services were developed for them, that is, by 8 December 1995. Those negotiations were unsuccessful, with neither the National Bank nor Watagan Proprietary Limited being able to guarantee the tenancy of residents up until 8 December this year. Consequently, the Ageing and Disability Department, in conjunction with the Hunter Mission, arranged to leave the site on 16 October 1995 - yesterday.

Prior to yesterday a number of residents had moved to houses in the community that had been identified and staffed. Other residents will be going on holiday in two groups. The first group will go with the Hunter Mission on a supervised holiday to a venue at Coffs Harbour. The second group will be having a holiday period at a venue near Newcastle. Both groups will then be moved to houses identified and staffed in the community after their holiday has concluded. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked about the effect that placement of these clients would have on the Government's commitments to ageing parents and carers of people with disabilities. I must inform the House that the relocation of Watagan residents - and this is known to bodies such as the Council for Intellectual Disability and indeed to the media - will use up 80 of the 383 new places agreed to by this Government after it took office, until such time as these clients move on into other placements, which will inevitably happen, however remote in time that might be.

Those 80-odd places will be allocated at this stage to former residents of the Watagan Centre, that is, other than the ones already placed in the community. These people are very disabled. Their level of functioning is much lower than it would otherwise have been, as a result of the appalling lack of care these people had in the Watagan Centre, previously named Carynia Oaks. Their level of functioning, due to the absence of day activities and the like, is very poor. I will not have it on my conscience that this place will close its doors and that these people will be turned out into the streets. That is why I have given them access to these 80 places otherwise intended for ageing parents and carers. The remaining 303 places created by this Government, and a slight carryover from the former Government, will be devoted to those people, that is, to the sons and daughters of ageing parents and carers of people with predominantly - but not exclusively - intellectual disability. The earlier than expected move from Watagan will not delay the final date for completion of community placement, which remains 8 December this year.


The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Further to the
Page 1772
Government's signing of the expanded national child-care agreement immediately after the election, will the Minister advise the House how close we are to the establishment of child-care places both through the national strategy and the State-only funded places?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I know the Hon. Jan Burnswoods takes a close interest in the provision of child-care places. The provision of quality and affordable child care is a priority for this Government. I am pleased to be able to tell the House, as the honourable member mentioned, that one of the very first acts of this Government was to sign the expanded national child-care strategy which had been left sitting bereft of attention in the too-hard basket for five years since 1989, leaving many families in this State without access to child care.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: They were getting it right.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member says they were getting it right. They were very slow learners if they took five years to get it right. I took a few weeks to get it right. I had the privilege of signing this agreement in the electorate of Gladesville, a very appropriate place for that to occur. My colleague the Treasurer reminds me that I signed this agreement within weeks of becoming the Minister, and the Premier was present when I did so. The signing of that strategy will see the establishment of some 1,988 long-day care places and 5,723 outside school hours care places over the next three years. An important part of the agreement was the establishment of 502 places for children from disadvantaged or at-risk families - a most important part of the agreement which impacts on and dovetails well with my child-care responsibilities. This initiative forms part of the Government's commitment to social justice and the principle of access and equity, and provides another preventive measure in working with families with family support needs.

The New South Wales Government has made another significant commitment over and above the signing of the expanded national child-care strategy by providing $3.85 million for preschool, occasional care, vacation care and mobile services. One of the legacies of the previous Government has been that the provision of child care has been devoid of planning. Over the years there has been a proliferation of different service types, oversupply in some areas and undersupply in others. In short, I inherited a program which had no clear strategic policy direction. I am pleased to assure the House that significant work has commenced to rectify these problems and to establish clear and strategic policy directions for the children's services program in New South Wales based on sound planning data. The significant injection of funds due to occur over the next three years will see the number of child-care places in this State almost double. It is essential that services are put where parents need them most, and that innovative and responsive models of care are established. In recognition of the immediate needs of families, however, I have insisted that 20 per cent of all child-care places be established before the end of this year.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You have emptied the gallery.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: They are convinced of the argument that 20 per cent of places will be established by the end of this year. Expressions of interest were called for in high-need areas established by the Commonwealth and the State. I have recently approved the establishment of 90 State-only preschool places. Of those 90 places 60 are in the high-demand area of western and south-western Sydney, 20 in Gosford and 10 in Newcastle. I am currently negotiating with my Federal colleague, the Hon. Rosemary Crowley, Minister for Family Services, in regard to the announcement of further places under the expanded national child-care agreement. The remaining places will be established after careful consideration of the data currently being gathered, to ensure that child-care places are available to families in the areas of greatest need.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, and in his capacity representing the Minister for Health. I refer the Minister to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 October which reported that a clinical psychologist described the lack of independent inquiry into publicly funded residential child psychiatry centres in New South Wales, and the desperate need for such an inquiry. Is the Minister aware of inappropriate admission policies, children being prematurely discharged, and inadequate treatment in those centres? How does the Government justify the lack of independent inquiry in this area considering that juvenile justice is being reviewed for the sixth time in four years? Will the Government make a commitment to an independent inquiry into the problems in publicly funded residential child psychiatry centres in New South Wales?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that the question is based on an article by a Dr Michael Gliksman that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last week. I read that article with interest. To a substantial extent it involves matters falling within the administration of the Department of Health and, of course, the Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Andrew Refshauge. I was concerned at some of the matters referred to in that article, and I noted that on occasions officers of the Department of Community Services appeared to have been active in trying to gain placements for some young people referred to in the article. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health so that I can obtain a considered response.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing
Page 1773
the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing whether he is aware of a proposal by the St Ives bus company to build a new bus depot at the headwaters of Middle Harbour Creek, on the edge of the Garigal National Park? Was this site recently rezoned despite strong objections by local councils, the local community and the National Parks and Wildlife Service? Did the original master plan of the local councils proscribe any industrial development along the Mona Vale corridor? Is there considerable controversy about the way the plan was changed to allow this environmentally hazardous development to proceed? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to seek an urgent commission of inquiry into this serious matter?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of the issue which the Hon. R. S. L. Jones has raised. I will certainly raise it with my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing and will try to obtain an answer as soon as possible.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney aware of the extreme frustration being experienced by residents of Bourke, which culminated in a march in the streets six weeks ago, and that the frustration arises from sporadic outbreaks of lawlessness in the town, which the citizens believe it is his responsibility to address? Is he aware of the letter that was sent to him six weeks ago asking for his response to this matter? Has there been any response to date about which he can inform the House?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am sure the honourable member raises a matter of genuine concern for the citizens of Bourke. I have no recollection of the letter to which he refers. I would have thought the problem is substantially one for the police to enforce the laws and to make sure that orderly behaviour occurs in that town. If there are suggestions that the law is inadequate, I will entertain any such submissions, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would have done when he was Attorney General and he had the opportunity to revise the laws. I will take on board the observations of the honourable member and chase up the answer to that letter. He has performed the useful function of telling me in this House the concerns of people in Bourke about the enforcement of our criminal laws.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Is the Minister aware of a damning report issued yesterday by the Network of Community Activities, the peak organisation, which indicated that primary school children with disabilities are being denied access to out-of-school-hours services. Indeed, one in five of the services surveyed had turned away children with disabilities, mainly because the standard staff-student ratio of 1:15 was totally inadequate, and because of extraordinarily poor facilities. What action has the Minister taken to ensure that adequate facilities and staffing levels are made available?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I saw the press item in question and I am very much aware of the difficulties experienced by parents in gaining access to outside-school-hours care places for their school-age children with disabilities. The Hon. J. H. Jobling no doubt will recognise that this problem has not manifested itself only in the last six months; the problem would have presented itself over the previous seven years, when he and his colleagues were in office. In fact, for the last four years the Department of Community Services has provided funding to nine outside-school-hours care pilot programs, five of which have specifically explored strategies for assisting school-age children with disabilities to access such services. I have directed the Department of Community Services, in collaboration with the new Ageing and Disability Department, to review projects developed by these services in order to determine future funding options for them.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: When will you do that? The budget has come and gone; you did not get any money. The Treasurer will not give you any money.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It so happens that the Treasurer was extremely generous to me in the budget. The report referred to in the honourable member's question, entitled We Need Care Too, released on 16 October by the Network of Community Activities - the New South Wales peak organisation for outside-school-hours care services - clearly identifies the complexity of the issues involved in providing the services referred to. The recommendations in the report impact on both Commonwealth and State governments and capture issues as diverse as building regulations, transport, national standards and regulations for children's services, funding levels and support provided by the Commonwealth and State governments and the requirements of State and Commonwealth disabilities legislation. These issues will be considered in the context of a children's services strategic plan to be finalised by January 1996. It is particularly interesting that the Hon. J. H. Jobling is motivated to deal with such matters after leaving office. If Opposition members had been so motivated when they were in office, they would have got off their backsides and signed the national child-care strategy five years ago.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I address my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Has a report in the Medical Journal of Australia revealed that two-thirds
Page 1774
of unborn babies are aborted in New South Wales because of economic reasons given by the mother? Is it a fact that such abortions are illegal in New South Wales under sections 82, 83 and 84 of the Crimes Act 1900? Will the Government give an assurance that relevant sections of the Crimes Act will be enforced to close illegal abortion clinics to protect unborn children in New South Wales and to protect the health of pregnant women?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am unaware of the specific article in the Medical Journal of Australia to which the Hon. Elaine Nile refers, but I will be happy to have a look at it if she can give me a precise reference. Accordingly, I am unaware of the statistic which she included in her question. The legal position with respect to abortion has been settled for a long time in New South Wales. The relevant test is that adopted by His Honour Judge Levine of the District Court in the Wald case in 1971. His Honour held that an abortion is lawful when the doctor performing the operation honestly believes on reasonable grounds that the termination is necessary to preserve the woman from serious danger to her life or to her physical or mental health. That test has endured for many years in this State, and it still applies.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, and Director of Caringbah Couture, representing the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing. Is the Minister aware that the Department of Housing purchased eight luxury units in Russell Lea at a cost of $375,000 to $400,000 each when the value of a unit next door was only $245,000? Can the Minister explain why so much money was spent to house 24 people when 88,000 people are currently on the public housing waiting list?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am glad that the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith extended my portfolio title to include Director of Caringbah Couture. I have been a director of that company since I was 21 years old. It is my mother's company. My mother used to be in the rag trade, as the name indicates. She now runs a superb coffee lounge in the Otis building in Bridge Street, Hurstville, very close to the corner of Forest Road and Stoney Creek Road.

The Hon. Franca Arena: She makes a fine cappuccino.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: She makes a fabulous cappuccino, the likes of which one will find only at Bill and Toni's Italian Restaurant and at Coluzzi's Restaurant in Darlinghurst. I do not have a clue about the answer to the honourable member's question, but I shall certainly get an answer from my colleague the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Does the Minister agree that consultation with the community and presentation to Parliament is an important part of the process of developing legislation in a democratic society, as outlined in Mr Carr's election promises? If so, why did the Carr-Egan-Scully Government issue 1,692 pages of regulations in August and September this year, compared with 69 pages issued by the coalition Government in the same two months of last year? Is this not government by stealth and deceit?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: When the Labor Government came to office only six months ago it had an incredible mess to clean up, and it has wasted no time at all in cleaning it up. This Government is prepared to make decisions. We do not tread water, as the Fahey Government did. We do not muddle around. When we see something wrong, we fix it up.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Minister aware of an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald today headed "Showground legal battle", which refers to the creation of a huge film studio and cinema complex on the entire 27-hectare site at the Sydney Showground? Is he aware that the editorial states that it is not necessarily what most people in Sydney would consider the best use of this important tract of public land? Is he further aware that the editorial states that wholesale redevelopment by a private company for private purposes and in a way that will generate noise and traffic not generally experienced now requires community consultation and consensus and should not be foisted on the community by the State Government? What does the State Government propose to do to ensure that there is adequate community consultation and that environmental impact studies are done in relation to the project?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have not read the editorial in today's Sydney Morning Herald. I usually read my copy of the Sydney Morning Herald when I get home in the evening so undoubtedly I will read it tonight. I assure the House that negotiations with Fox Film Studio are proceeding and, as soon as they are completed, we will be able to announce the final details to the House. Certainly, the proposal for the establishment of film studios at the showground is great and will benefit New South Wales. It not only will add significantly to the cultural activities of the city and the State but will give the State a valuable new industry. The fact that the showground will be the site of the studios will mean that New South Wales will have a movie-making industry which could
Page 1775
very well have gone to Queensland or Victoria. Indeed, both Queensland and Victoria were bidding for it. As the Hon. J. M. Samios would know, the previous Government was also keen on using the showground as a film studio site.

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. M. Samios might say that, but the commercial reality is that for the studios to be attracted to the showground it was necessary for more than the initial seven hectares that were envisaged to be made available. It is correct to say that all of the concerns who expressed interest in that site made that point: seven hectares was simply not a commercial goer. Certainly the establishment of the studios on the showground site will entrench New South Wales as the capital of Australia's entertainment industry. It is a strategic gain for the State's economic development strategy. The Government anticipates that when the facility is at full operation it could generate as many as 750 jobs directly, 865 jobs indirectly and $85 million in production expenditure annually. After only five years the direct benefit to the New South Wales economy is expected to be some $212 million per annum. Given the fact that New South Wales has a gross State product of around $150 billion a year, an addition of $212 million is a substantial addition.

As Treasurer and Minister for State Development I sometimes tend to look at matters purely from a dollar and cents perspective but, much more importantly than that, the industry will not only employ the talents of skilled people in New South Wales; it will be a magnet for people who have filmmaking skills. The proposal should be applauded. As I indicated, the previous Government was keen to have the showground used as the location for film studios. However, I believe the previous Government was about to miss the bus. Indeed, what the present Government has done -

[Interruption]

No. The previous Government called for expressions of interest, and we continued that process. I am sure that the Hon. J. M. Samios, as the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for the arts, would be aware that well before the election the interdepartmental committee advising the previous Government recommended that as a result of the expressions of interest the Government should then proceed to negotiate one to one with Foxtel, which was the only world player that expressed interest during the expressions of interest process. That was the advice the Government received after it took up the reins of office.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You promised it before you got into government.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I said we would do what the advice to the previous Government required.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: No, you did not. You said you would give it to Fox.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No. I said we would negotiate with Foxtel because that was the advice that the previous Government had been given by the interdepartmental committee.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How do you know that?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Because it was leaked on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. If only the honourable member paid attention more often and knew what he was talking about before he opened his mouth! The advice given to the previous Government by its advisers is the advice taken by the present Government. Those negotiations are still proceeding. I am very confident that New South Wales will get that facility. It will not go to Geoff Kennett's Victoria or to Wayne Goss's Queensland.

In view of the time I suggest that further questions be placed on notice.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 20 September a question was asked by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, relating to prayers at preschool. The question falls within my portfolio responsibilities, and I am now in a position to provide the following answer:

The decision to say grace before meals in child care centres is a matter for consultation between parents, management and staff. Parents, staff and management need to be involved in development of policies and practices at a child care service.

Officers of the Department of Community Services have been in contact with the National Child Care Accreditation Council. The Quality Improvement and Accreditation Scheme is a Federal issue. It applies to all child care centres receiving Commonwealth funds under the Child Care Assistance Scheme.

I am informed that the saying of grace at this centre was not the issue which resulted in the accreditation outcome of this service.

Under the Commonwealth Quality Improvement and Accreditation Scheme, services which have achieved a satisfactory standard across 52 quality principles are accredited at a "Basic", "Good" or "High" quality standard. All accredited services receive the same level of Commonwealth Child Care Assistance funding.

Services with a Basic or Good quality standard have an opportunity to continue developing the quality of their services toward achievement of a higher quality standard.

Services which have achieved Basic or Good standards will be re-assessed for accreditation at the end of one or two years. Services which already have achieved a High standard accreditation are re-assessed at the end of three years.

I have been informed that a recent independent evaluation of the system after the first year by Coopers and Lybrand found that the overwhelming majority of services have regarded the Quality Improvement and Accreditation Scheme a positive experience for parents, staff and management resulting in increased quality in child care centres.

The Quality Improvement and Accreditation Scheme is about choice and about partnership between parents and child care centres.

Page 1776

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 1 June the Hon. Elaine Nile asked a question concerning tobacco sponsorship of sport. I am advised by my colleague the Minister for Health as follows:

Under the Commonwealth Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 and the NSW Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1991, tobacco sponsorship of the Sydney 2000 Olympics would only be possible if an exemption was granted by both the Commonwealth Minister for Health and the NSW Minister for Health.

There is no intention to grant an exemption for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 12 October 1995 the Hon. Elaine Nile asked me, representing the Minister for Environment, a question concerning nude bathing at Reef Beach. I now provide the following response:

The new Mayor of Manly, Ms Sue Sacker has certainly expressed the view that Manly Council is opposed to the designation of Reef Beach as a nude bathing beach.

While the Manly Council was elected to serve the interests of the Manly area the State Government was democratically elected to serve the interests of both Manly and the broader NSW electorate. The State Government's policy expressed prior to the election was to declare Reef Beach as a beach for nude bathing because of its long history as a beach designated for this purpose.

It is interesting to note that a recent report in the Sun Herald quoted Ms Sacker as using a police report which referred to eight (8) alleged incidents of offensive behaviour in the Manly area as an argument in support of the beach as a clad bathing beach. The article failed to point out, however, that five (a majority) of these offences actually occurred while the beach was a clad beach.

The Government recognises that individuals in the community have a right to commune with nature in a natural state. The Minister for the Environment has received numerous items of correspondence from ordinary members of the community who represent the views of families, including mothers and children, who support nude bathing in certain areas.

Most beaches in NSW would tend to attract a voyeuristic element by the mere fact that people are either unclad or wear swimwear. The people that have made representations to the Minister for the Environment, in support of nude bathing, are opposed to voyeurism in any form and are keen to pursue their legitimate pastime in a responsible manner.

Rather than support nude bathing on every NSW beach the Government is moving to restrict these passive recreational activities to certain designated beaches. Cabinet will deliberate on the issue in the near future.

I thank the Honourable Member for her question.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 12 October 1995 the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question in my capacity as Attorney General regarding a bench warrant in relation to Peter Hilton James Newman. In response to the question of the Leader of the Opposition I caused inquiries to be made relating to the matters raised in the question. I am able to confirm that Peter Hilton James Newman failed to appear in the Supreme Court at Griffith on 19 July to answer a charge of murder, and that His Honour Justice Grove ordered that a bench warrant issue for the arrest of Newman on that charge. There is no record on the court papers or with the central warrant index of that bench warrant ever having been issued. I am informed that Justice Grove has no recollection of signing such a warrant. I am unable to specify precisely why the warrant was not issued other than to suggest that an administrative oversight occurred by those responsible for doing so.

Justice Grove has now signed the bench warrant for Mr Newman and it has been forwarded to the central warrant index. However, on 19 July a warrant was already in existence for the apprehension of Mr Newman for breach of his bail conditions. That warrant had been taken out by the detective senior constable in charge of this matter on 11 July. Inquiries also reveal that Mr Newman did not appear at Griffith court on 19 July as he was already in custody in Queensland on that date, and this was known to the police and to the officer from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions who was handling this matter. Inquiries with Rockhampton gaol indicate that Mr Newman is facing serious charges in both the District Court and the Magistrates Court. He has not been convicted of an offence and is being held on remand only. He was due to appear in the District Court at Emerald on 16 October 1995 and is due in Rockhampton Magistrates Court on 6 November 1995. Finally I am able advise the House that I have written to the Minister for Police, the Hon. Paul Whelan, MP, and asked him to raise with the Commissioner of Police Mr Newman's extradition to New South Wales to face this serious charge.

Questions without notice concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [5.08]: Before question time I was referring to figures in relation to breast cancer and prostate cancer. The figures show that in 1993 breast cancer caused the deaths of 2,641 females and that prostate cancer caused the deaths of 2,544 males. The treatment of breast cancer has been emphasised whereas the treatment of prostate cancer seems to have been neglected. Men should receive more advice than that contained in recent television advertisements on how to be tested for prostate cancer. As I said earlier, males are more likely to die from cancer than females. In 1993 the death rate for males from cancer was 236 per 100,000 population, while for women the figure was 141. Clause 5(1)(e) provides that one of the objects of the council is to collect, process, maintain and disseminate information relating to cancer and its causes, incidence and treatment. That provision should cause more attention to be paid to prostate cancer.

Page 1777

Clause 5(1)(f) states that another of the council's objects is to provide relief for cancer patients and their families, including palliative care, rehabilitation and support and advocacy services, and to engage in other benevolent activities relating to cancer. That provision is important. I recently visited someone who was having radiotherapy. It was interesting to look at the faces of the people who came in for treatment and the faces of those who brought them for treatment in buses and so on. The patients were saying, "How do I smell today?" They were trying to make a joke of the treatment and keep up their spirits at the same time. Those undergoing radiotherapy treatment need that support. Clause 5(1)(g) provides that another object of the council is to engage in fundraising activities, including public appeals or the sale of articles to the public et cetera. I do not believe, as the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby does, that this will overtake other activities. I believe that the Cancer Council is extremely serious about what it does. In relation to the board of the council the bill provides:

(1) The Council is to have a Board consisting of 9 part-time members appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Minister.

(2) The members of the Board are to be appointed from among persons in all or any of the following categories, but at least one of the members must be appointed from the category in paragraph (d) and at least 4 of the members must be women:

(a) scientists with experience in conducting medical research,

(b) the legal profession,

(c) the business community,

(d) medical practitioners with experience in cancer therapies or treatment,

I assume the women will be appointed on merit. One of the objects of the council is the provision of palliative care. Yesterday in the theatrette Professor Narelle Lickiss, Director of Palliative Care at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, the Central Sydney Area Health Service, and the Prince of Wales Hospital, said that she was not attending the function to speak about euthanasia but because she was concerned about palliative care. She spoke about people dying from cancer. She would certainly be a suitable person for appointment to the board. The clause relating to the appointment of members of the board continues:

(e) persons with expertise or experience in education, advertising or communications,

That provision is also important to get the message across to the general public. The clause continues:

(f) persons with expertise or experience in disease prevention, health promotion or patient advocacy,

(g) the rural community,

(h) consumers,

The consumer representative should be chosen by the Cancer Council because it is aware of the most appropriate people for appointment. The board should not be politicised. The clause continues:

(i) the trade unions.

(3) The Board has the control of the affairs of the Council and has such other functions as may be conferred or imposed on the Board by or under this or any other Act.

The bill then deals with committees, the staff of the council, the property of the council, the property to be held in trust, the power to accept gifts, the seal of the council, personal liability of members of the board and certain other persons, and proceedings for offences. The bill deals comprehensively with the operation of the Cancer Council. In his second reading speech the Minister said:

However, to better reflect the non-government status of the council and bring the Act in line with the organisation's current practices, the name of the New South Wales State Cancer Council is to be changed to the New South Wales Cancer Council.

When the New South Wales State Cancer Council was established in 1955, it was predominantly a scientific organisation created to provide medical services and to conduct research. This is reflected in the current provisions relating to the objects and membership of the council.

It is pleasing that the bill focuses on those who are ill, those who are suffering from cancer. The Minister continued:

Although the council has continued to extend itself further in this new role, the Act has retained a medico-scientific bias in both its objectives and management structure until it has now become anachronistic to the point of hindering the proper operation and current purposes of the organisation. This situation is now being rectified by repealing the New South Wales State Cancer Council Act 1955 and replacing it with the New South Wales Cancer Council Bill 1995. The provisions of the 1955 Act are essentially re-enacted in the bill. The bill does not alter the status of the council or its position in relation to New South Wales health administration. The council will continue to operate as a statutory body and will continue to provide an annual report to Parliament through the Minister for Health. The council will also continue to be subject to existing review and audit requirements.

However, Clause 5 expands and makes certain revisions . . . to clarify the council's role in providing relief for cancer patients and their families by means of advocacy and support services and to engage in other benevolent activities with respect to cancer . . .

As I said earlier, it is important that the focus is now on the people. The Minister continued:

Clause 6 of the bill provides for the new board consisting of nine part-time members to be appointed or removed by the Governor on the advice of the Minister.

Section 10A of the 1955 Act, which provided for the establishment of a cancer investigation committee with royal commission powers, no longer applies. Comprehensive Commonwealth and New South Wales legislation now regulates the manufacture and sale of therapeutic goods, while the New South Wales Medical Practice Act 1992 includes offence provisions relating to persons who claim to be able to cure or to diagnose cancer. I have visited someone in the health sphere who was treating a cancer sufferer with apricots.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: He was a quack.

Page 1778

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: That person was not a chiropractor or a regular medical professional. The person suffering from cancer eventually died. The legislation will enable any investigation being carried out by a cancer investigation committee under section 10A of the 1955 Act immediately before its repeal to be continued and completed as if that section had not been repealed. People must be protected. As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has said, there are many quacks around. Some people become so desperate that they will try anything if their regular general practitioners or specialists are not producing results. Clause 7 of the bill provides for the establishment of internal working committees. The Government considers that the appointment of suitable persons to such committees and the consideration of matters related to these committees are best left to the Cancer Council. The Cancer Council knows what is best for its operation, who should be on the board, and so on. The provisions of the bill have the support of the medical services committee, which includes representatives of medical services organisations. It also has the support of the Cancer Council. The bill modernises and updates the Cancer Council legislation in line with the council's contemporary and important role of assisting in the prevention of cancer, saving lives and, most importantly, enhancing the quality of life for cancer patients and their families. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.20], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the New South Wales Cancer Council Bill. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti noted that the responsibility of the New South Wales Cancer Council to report to Parliament is not referred to explicitly in the bill. The requirement that statutory bodies furnish their annual reports to Parliament arises under the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984, which defines a statutory body as one to which the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 applies. The New South Wales Cancer Council is currently listed in schedule 2 to the Public Finance and Audit Act. The bill makes no changes to the status of the Cancer Council as a statutory body, providing only in clause 19 for the amendment of schedule 2 to the Public Finance and Audit Act to reflect its proposed change of name to the New South Wales Cancer Council.

In regard to the selection of board members, the intermediate step of first establishing an appointments committee to make recommendations on the appointment of board members introduces an additional layer to the selection process and does not add to the scope and flexibility required for the selection and appointment of board members capable of meeting the current and future management requirements of the Cancer Council. When the Cancer Council was established in 1955 it was predominantly a scientific organisation created to provide medical services and to conduct cancer research. The bill's proposed mechanism for the selection and appointment of board members reflects the major administrative and managerial reorganisation by the Cancer Council which has resulted in a shift away from direct participation in medical and research activities to the promotion of cancer research, health education, fundraising and patient welfare.

As I indicated in my second reading speech, it is not appropriate that the bill make provision for the establishment of a cancer investigation committee with royal commission powers. The State and Commonwealth therapeutic goods Acts regulate the manufacture, advertising and sale of therapeutic goods. The Medical Practice Act 1992 prohibits persons from holding themselves out as being entitled, qualified, able or willing to cure or offer any service in the nature of a cure for cancer. Further, in the absence of an express authorisation by a registered medical practitioner to take or use a substance or article, the Medical Practice Act prohibits its sale or supply in circumstances where the manufacturer, seller, supplier or giver represents expressly or impliedly to have curative or alleviating powers when taken or used in the treatment or prevention of cancer.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred to an obvious imbalance in the five-person committee which will make recommendations to the Governor on the selection and removal of board members. Such a committee is not featured in this bill. In regard to consumer representation, the Government is happy to support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby to the effect that the council comprise 10 members, two of whom must be medical practitioners and one of whom must be a resident of New South Wales nominated by the Consumers Health Forum. In relation to donations, I reassure the House that the Cancer Council will continue to be a major funder of cancer research in New South Wales. This bill recognises that the council is no longer directly involved in the treatment of cancer patients and in laboratory research. In the 1980s the council relinquished those roles and its former hospital beds were incorporated into the Prince of Wales Hospital.

In 1986 the council's former oncology research centre was transferred to the Prince of Wales Hospital and, at the same time, the University of New South Wales assumed responsibility for the council's former carcinogenesis research unit. However, the council continues to be involved in non-laboratory cancer research and each year increases its funding to research carried out in the State's universities, hospitals and other institutions. Such funding is restricted to researchers allocated on a competitive and peer review basis which ensures that the public's donations to cancer research are directed to the most meritorious and potentially successful research projects. The public can be reassured that donations designated for cancer research go to cancer research. Furthermore, the public can stipulate which type of cancer research donations should be directed towards - whether it is for breast, bowel, prostate or any other specific type of cancer.

Page 1779

More than $3.4 million was committed to cancer research by the Cancer Council last financial year. Each year the council publishes its annual research report which receives a wide circulation and contains reports from each researcher who has been sponsored by the council. In addition, an annual day-long seminar is organised where various researchers inform their peers and members of the public about their work. I am advised that the Cancer Council has never received any donation from the parliamentary committee on breast cancer, which was referred to by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. However, I assure the honourable member that the Government will take all steps within its power to ensure that the funds raised by that committee are spent on research in that field.

The bill reflects the expansion in the council's activities over the past decade which was undertaken to ensure that comprehensive programs were in place in research, education and support for the control of cancer in New South Wales. Throughout its history the council has raised the funds it needed to carry out these programs from the people of New South Wales. In setting out the council's objects the bill expressly includes public appeals or the sale of articles to the public in the fundraising activities which the council either engages in directly or coordinates. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Part 2

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.28], by leave: I move the following amendments in globo:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 6, line 21. Omit "9". Insert instead "10".

No. 2 Page 4, clause 6, line 24. Omit "The". Insert instead "Nine".

No. 3 Page 4, clause 6, line 25. Omit "one". Insert instead "2".

The intention of these amendments is to increase the size of the board from nine part-time members appointed by the Governor to 10 part-time members. The amendments will ensure that nine members of the board are appointed from among the persons delineated in the bill in clause 6. This will allow for two medical practitioners to sit as members of the board. As honourable members may be aware, during my contribution to the second reading debate I referred to correspondence I received from the department of radiation oncology at Westmead, connected with the University of Sydney, and I detailed the need to have two medical practitioners, particularly those with experience in cancer therapies or treatment, as board members. I am delighted that the Government accepts the amendments. I trust there will be no opposition from any honourable member.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.31]: As I stated during my reply to the second reading debate, the Government has no objection and, indeed, accepts and supports the amendments moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.31]: The Opposition supports the amendments moved by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and commends them to the Committee.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.31]: I move:

No. 4 Page 5, clause 6. After line 5 insert:

(3) One member of the Board is to be a resident of New South Wales nominated by the Consumers Health Forum. If the Consumers Health Forum does not nominate a person within such time or in such manner as may be specified by the Minister by notice in writing to the Forum, the Minister may instead recommend for appointment as a member any person chosen by the Minister.

This amendment is in line with my remarks in the second reading debate. It is important that there should be patient representation on the board. The Consumers Health Forum is a responsible national body that has representation in all States of Australia. Obviously, it was not intended that a representative from the Western Australian Consumers Health Forum should be appointed to the New South Wales board. For that reason my amendment states that the person selected by the Consumers Health Forum should be a resident of New South Wales. If the Consumers Health Forum does not nominate a person, it is open to the Minister to make his own recommendation. If at any time the Consumers Health Forum does not wish to take advantage of the opportunity to appoint a person to the board, it rests in the hands of the Minister. I understand the Minister has agreed to my amendment. I commend it to the Committee.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.33]: Could the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby clarify whether the Consumers Health Forum has a branch in New South Wales?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.33]: The Consumers Health Forum has divisions in all States. I have documents in my file about the Consumers Health Forum, and I am happy to pass them on to the honourable member if he wishes to study them in more detail.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.34]: Is the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby able to tell the Committee how the forum group relates to the New South Wales Cancer Council, the people directly involved with cancer patients?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.34]: All of the details I have about the Consumers Health Forum have gone to Hansard, otherwise I could quote directly from the mission statement and other information. The forum has information and
Page 1780
knowledge of all health matters because it is a health forum that represents consumers. It is a very reputable but by no means an extreme body. When I discussed this matter with the Minister for Health, he was very happy and believed that the Consumers Health Forum would be a suitable organisation from which to nominate a patient representative.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [5.35]: The amendment to clause 6 will mean that if the nominee of the Consumers Health Forum is not acceptable to the Minister, the Minister may recommend a second choice.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.35]: The amendment proposed by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby is accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Part as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.37]: I move:

No. 5 Page 15, Schedule 2, clause 3, line 14. Omit "5", insert instead "6".

This amendment deals with the quorum for a meeting of the board. As the number of board members has increased from nine to 10, it will be necessary to increase the number for the quorum from five to six.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.37]: The Government accepts and supports this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.40]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of the Co-operatives Amendment Bill is to amend the Co-Operatives Act 1992 in several respects and to clarify certain provisions. As honourable members will be aware, the Co-operatives Act adopts a number of provisions of the Corporations Law, but modified so as to apply to cooperatives. As the Commonwealth amends the Corporations Law from time to time, a review is needed for any consequences for cooperatives. Such a review has provided the impetus for a number of the amendments provided for in the bill. The Co-operatives Council, which is the statutory body established under the Act to advise on the operation of the Act, has also made a number of recommendations and these are embodied in the bill. The bill is substantially the same as a bill introduced into the House in 1994 by the previous Government but not proceeded with. However, it has been redrafted and there are some additional items.

Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Co-operatives Act, and I will now outline the principal features of those amendments. Item 6 deals with the registration of cooperatives. This is one of the additional items. Section 12 has been redrafted so that it is clear that the registrar can refuse to register a proposed cooperative where the requirements in the Act for registration have not been met or where the proposed body would not operate in accordance with cooperative principles. In cases of doubt, the registrar will be able to refer the matter to the Co-operatives Council for advice. Such advice will be binding on the registrar. Item 10 amends section 44 of the principal Act. This amendment is intended to make it clear that the prospectus provisions contained in part 7.12 of the Corporations Law and the penalties for breach of those provisions contained in part 7.11 will apply of their own force in situations where cooperatives issue prescribed interests.

As honourable members will know, the prescribed interests provisions are a fairly complex area of the Corporations Law, but in essence prescribed interests can be described as collective investment schemes that are not shares, debenture issues or, in the case of cooperatives, the issue of cooperative capital units. The policy intention of section 44 is that the Corporations Law should apply of its own force to prescribed interests and that the Australian Securities Commission is the regulatory authority for prescribed interests issued by cooperatives. This is consistent with the heads of agreement signed by all the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth in relation to the Corporations Law generally and in particular to its application to cooperatives.

Item 13 will amend section 202 of the Act, so that 20 per cent rather than 5 per cent of the members of a cooperative who are entitled to vote may requisition a general meeting of the cooperative. The alternative of 50 members being able to convene a general meeting is retained in section 202. This amendment strikes a balance between the rights of members to call a general meeting and the right of the elected board of directors to get on with the job of managing the cooperative. This removes the possibility of a very small minority of members of a cooperative forcing the cooperative to the inconvenience and expense of a succession of general meetings. This amendment is the result of a recommendation made by the Co-operatives Council.

The existing requirement in section 218 of the principal Act that a director's resignation does not take effect until one month after notice of that resignation is altered so that a resignation may take effect immediately. This is contained in item 16. This amendment will place cooperatives in the same position as companies. This change has also been recommended by the Co-operatives Council. The standard of care and diligence required by section 222 of an officer of a cooperative in the exercise of his or her duties will be amended to conform to the same standard required for officers of companies. Item 18 adopts the objective standard from the Corporations Law, that is, the standard expected is that of a reasonable person in a like cooperative in similar circumstances. This amendment is one that did not appear in the 1994 bill introduced into this House.

Section 263 of the principal Act prevents a cooperative from obtaining financial accommodation, or giving security in connection with obtaining financial accommodation, unless it is authorised by its rules to do so. This restriction is removed by item 21 of the schedule to the bill. The 1992 Co-operatives Act abolished the doctrine of ultra vires for cooperatives in the same way that it had been abolished

Page 1781
some years earlier for companies. This enabled third parties to deal with cooperatives without having to examine the cooperatives rules to ascertain whether the proposed contract or dealing was authorised by the rules. There had been some suggestion that the effect of section 263 was to reintroduce the concept of ultra vires in the case of cooperatives obtaining financial accommodation. This amendment will remove that doubt. This should place cooperatives on the same footing as companies in obtaining financial accommodation or giving security.

Section 268 of the principal Act allows a cooperative to raise money by requiring members to lend money to the cooperatives. This is achieved by the members passing a special resolution approving a proposal for such fundraising. This section is amended by item 26 of the schedule so that the proposal must be accompanied by a disclosure statement approved by the Registrar of Co-operatives. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the members of a cooperative are properly informed before making a decision on the proposal. This brings section 268 into line with section 155 of the Act, which has similar provisions concerning compulsory share issues.

Items 27, 28 and 29 amend the principal Act in relation to cooperative capital units, or CCUs. Currently, the principal Act requires that the terms of issue of a CCU must state the priority of the CCU in relation to shares should the cooperative be wound up, but the Act is silent as to the position of the CCU in relation to creditors of the cooperative. A new section 269A is to be inserted to make it clear that the terms of issue of a CCU must state the priority of the CCU in relation to creditors as well as in relation to shareholders. Also, section 273(2) has been redrafted to make it clear that the terms of issue of a CCU are not restricted to the four matters dealt with in that subsection.

Item 37 provides for a new section 408A. This new section will enable the Registrar of Co-operatives to intervene in any court proceedings relating to matters arising under the Co-operatives Act. It is based on section 1330 of the Corporations Law which permits the Australian Securities Commission, or ASC, to intervene in matters concerning the Corporations Law. The purpose is to enable the registrar to have an input where the court may be involved in the interpretation of key provisions in the Act. This, too, is a new matter not included in the 1994 bill. As honourable members would be aware, the principal Act adopts a number of provisions of the Corporations Law as applying to cooperatives. These provisions, in effect, become part of the text of the Co-operatives Act, as if the cooperative were a company, but with suitable modifications. In particular, references to the ASC are read as references to the registrar.

Changes to the Corporations Law by the Commonwealth have necessitated a number of the changes to the principal Act that are contained in the bill. These are as follows: part 5.3A of the Corporations Law deals with voluntary administration of companies and replaces part 5.3, official management, which is currently adopted by the Co-operatives Act. Item 33 of the schedule adopts the new part 5.3A of the Corporations Law to apply to cooperatives. Effectively, these provisions will allow a board of a cooperative to call in an administrator in the same way as a company can. These provisions are designed to provide for expert assistance in attempting to deal with potential insolvency at an early stage. Modifications will allow the registrar to appoint an administrator under these provisions. The principal Act, in section 229, adopts sections of the Corporations Law which, inter alia, deal with liabilities and duties of officers of a company when a company is trading whilst insolvent. For companies, these provisions, particularly section 592, have been amended and substantially replaced by part 5.7B of the Corporations Law.

Item 34 provides for the adoption of parts 5.7A and 5.7B of the Corporations Law into the principal Act. These are new parts of the Corporations Law enacted by the Commonwealth since the enactment of the Co-operatives Act. Part 5.7B contains the new provisions covering the liability of directors and others managing companies that trade whilst insolvent. Part 5.7A deals with reciprocity with other jurisdictions and is largely machinery in nature. It is essential that these provisions are adopted for cooperatives so that third parties dealing with cooperatives can be confident that the same insolvency regime that applies to companies will apply also to cooperatives. Consequential savings and transitional provisions are included to save the operation of the old provisions of the Corporations Law until these new provisions are commenced. Item 23 deals with debentures issued by cooperatives.

Section 266 of the principal Act has been redrafted to make it clear that the prospectus provisions of part 7.12 of the Corporations Law are applied to debentures issued by cooperatives. The provisions that references to the ASC are to be read as references to the registrar are retained. The provisions of part 7.11 of the Corporations Law dealing with conduct in relation to securities are applied in conjunction with this application of part 7.12 of the Corporations Law. The regularity regime applying to receivers and managers of cooperatives and their conduct in carrying out their duties is contained in schedule 4 to the principal Act. These are essentially the same provisions as apply to receivers and managers of companies. Amendments to the Corporations Law have ensured that this regularity regime will also apply to mortgagees in possession and their agents.

This has meant that secured creditors can no longer avoid the receiver and manager provisions by appointing an agent to take possession of the mortgaged property of the company. Similar amendments will now be adopted for cooperatives. These are contained in items 52 to 60 of the bill. Honourable members will note that the generic term "controller" will cover receivers, receivers and managers, and mortgagees in possession or their agents. These are additional amendments not contained in the previous Government's 1994 bill. Items 39 and 40 of the schedule contain enhanced provisions with respect to the interpretation and application of provisions of the Corporations Law adopted by the principal Act. For example, definitions in relation to adopted provisions are to be read as if they form part of the Act and regulations, and penalties made under an adopted provision are to be read as forming part of the Act. The new section 436B will make it clear that applied provisions of the Corporations Law are applied as in force from time to time. Item 38 expands an existing provision in section 421 of the Act to allow the registrar to give a certificate that a requirement of the principal Act has or has not been complied with. The schedule to the bill contains a number of consequential savings and transitional provisions. An additional transitional provision is added to the original transitional provision of the Act so that the registrar can exercise functions in relation to the cooperative that was struck off the register under the Co-operation Act 1923. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.41]: I have the pleasure of leading for the Opposition in supporting the Co-operatives Amendment Bill. The bill is fundamentally the same bill as that introduced into the House in 1994, and it is a credit to the work of the two former Ministers for Consumer Affairs in the coalition Government. The bill is necessary for two reasons. As the Co-operatives Act 1992 adopts quite a number of the provisions of the Corporations Law, the Co-operatives Act needs to be reviewed as a consequence of change by the Commonwealth to the Corporations Act. For example, in the bill, the amendment that allows cooperatives to call on an administrator to be placed in charge of the cooperative, in the same way that companies have been allowed, is an example of the Co-operatives Act
Page 1782
coming in line with the Corporations Act. This particular change is an excellent way of ensuring that any cooperative that may be facing potential insolvency is allowed to call on expert assistance so as to avoid insolvency. Secondly, the bill increases the jurisdiction and power of the Registrar of Co-operatives and the Co-operatives Council. Both these moves are to be supported.

Under the bill introduced into the other place by the Minister of Consumer Affairs it is possible for the Registrar of Co-operatives to refer the proposed registration of a cooperative to the Co-operatives Council for its advice. This can occur when the registrar has doubts about whether a proposed cooperative has met the requirements of the Act or where the proposed body may not operate in accordance with cooperative principles. Under the bill the advice of the council will be binding on the registrar. Concerns from the industry were raised over this amendment. It was felt that it would give the registrar too much power as he could refuse to register a cooperative based on his or her interpretation of cooperative principles.

I am pleased that the shadow minister for consumer affairs, the honourable member for Port Macquarie, Ms Wendy Machin, moved an amendment to schedule 1(6) to curb the arbitrary power of the registrar. Under the amendment, cooperatives that are denied registration by the Registrar of Co-operatives will be able to seek redress by appealing directly to the Co-operatives Council. The Minister for Consumer Affairs agreed that this amendment was important and moved that it be incorporated into the legislation currently before the House. I am pleased that many of the recommendations of the Co-operatives Council, which is the statutory body established under the Co-operatives Act 1992, have been embodied in this bill. The Co-operative Council made several recommendations to place cooperatives in the same position as companies. The first of these is an alteration to the existing requirement, in section 218 of the principal Act, which states that one month must elapse before the resignation of a director takes effect.

Under this bill the resignation can take immediate effect. This is in line with current company practice. Secondly, under the new amendments, 50 members of the cooperative, or 20 per cent of the total cooperative membership, may convene a general meeting of the cooperative. The previous requirement was 5 per cent. Under the principal Act it was possible for a very small minority of cooperative members to be able to force the cooperative to hold a succession of general meetings. This traditionally could involve considerable expense and inconvenience to the working of the co-operative. I agree with the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who said in the other place that this amendment strikes a balance between the right of members to call a general meeting and the right of the elected board of directors to get on with the job of managing the cooperative. I also strongly support the amendment that this bill will make to section 268 of the principal Act. Under this amendment the cooperatives will still be able to raise money by requiring members to lend money to the cooperative. This is achieved by the member passing a special resolution approving such fundraising. However, under the bill, such proposals must be accompanied by a disclosure statement ensuring that all members of the cooperative are properly informed before making a final decision. The disclosure must be approved by the Registrar of Co-operatives. This amendment will ensure full openness in any procedures involving the cooperative's use of members' funds.

The Government has added several more amendments to the bill that was before the House in 1994. Most importantly, it has introduced an amendment to enable the Registrar of Co-operatives to have an input into any decision by the courts that may involve the interpretation of key provisions of the Act. The registrar, under these amendments, can intervene in any court proceedings in which matters relating to the Co-operatives Act are under question. This brings the Co-operatives Act into line with the Corporations Law, which allows the Australian Securities Commission to intervene in matters relating to Corporations Law. This amendment should be supported as it will give extra power to the registrar. The Government has also moved several other amendments to bring the bill further into line with the Corporations Act of the Federal Government. The Government should be congratulated on that.

There are, however, two matters of concern to the Opposition in relation to the bill. Firstly, under section 120(1)(c) of the taxation Act, agricultural cooperatives are able to deduct the repayment of principal and interest from their tax if the loan is from the State Government. The Queensland Government uses this aspect of the taxation Act to promote agricultural cooperatives in that State. The Co-operative Federation of New South Wales has made several submissions to the Government for facilities that would enable New South Wales agricultural co-operatives to qualify for section 120(1)(c) treatment of principal repayment of loans.

So far they have been unsuccessful in their submission and New South Wales cooperatives remain at a disadvantage to cooperatives in Queensland. In the future, given the number of expected mergers between cooperatives, New South Wales risks losing a number of its cooperatives, which may choose to settle in Queensland in order to receive the tax advantage. I call on the Government to look at this issue as a matter of urgency. Secondly, I am concerned that the New South Wales Government has brought the cooperative legislation under the umbrella of the Ministry for Consumer Affairs. The previous coalition Government gave prominence to cooperatives by assigning them their own ministry. The absence of a specific ministry of cooperatives is a great disappointment. I hope that it does not signal a diminution of the importance of cooperatives in the eyes of the Government. The Opposition supports the bill.

Page 1783

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.48]: Call to Australia supports the Co-operatives Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Co-operatives Act 1992 to make further provision in relation to the application of various provisions of the Corporations Law to cooperatives, the obtaining of financial accommodation by cooperatives, the management and administration of cooperatives, the functions of the registrar, and for other purposes. We note that the amendment that the bill will insert in the Act, which will help to clarify the operations of the registrar, spells out clearly what is probably the basic requirement for registration of a cooperative in the future. That amendment, in clause 12, provides that the cooperative must be designed and intended to operate in accordance with cooperative principles, that the cooperative must be designed and intended to operate on the basis of equality of its members and self-help, for the purpose of promoting the socioeconomic wellbeing of its members in a democratic manner.

The proposed rules of the cooperative must not be inconsistent with the Act and must be such as may reasonably be approved, the requirements of the Act and regulations must be complied with in respect of the proposed cooperative, and compliance must be likely to continue. Finally, there must be no reasonable cause for refusing registration of the cooperative. This legislation will help the operation of cooperatives in this State and will, I hope, lead to the formation of new cooperatives. It is important to have self-help organisations in our society. Citizens should be encouraged to become involved in society rather than to be spectators or people with a welfare mentality. If this legislation helps them to become involved and to take part in controlling their own lives, it will benefit them and their families and contribute to the functioning of this State. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.50], in reply: I thank the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile for their support for the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.52]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992 and replace it with a new Conveyancers Licensing Act which will:

•Transfer all administrative functions relating to the licensing and regulation of conveyancers from the Conveyancers Licensing Committee, the Association of Property Conveyancers and the Law Society Council to the General Manager of the Property Services Council (formerly the Real Estate Services Council);

•establish representation for conveyancers on the Property Services Council by the appointment of an additional part-time member representing licensed conveyancers;

•enable conveyancers to contribute to the Property Services Council Compensation Fund in lieu of present fidelity insurance arrangements;

•define "conveyancing work" to allow conveyancers to undertake work in relation to commercial and rural (as well as residential) property and the transfer of goodwill, stock-in-trade and other personal property (whether or not connected to a land transaction);

•permit conveyancers to establish multi-disciplinary partnerships (except with real estate agents), subject to council approval and any requirements under regulations; and

•make the necessary cognate amendments to the Real Estate Services Council Act 1990, the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 1941 and the Legal Profession Act 1987.

These are the main changes of substance. The remaining provisions of the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992 will be re-enacted with appropriate variations.

BACKGROUND

When the government of the time brought in the current system of conveyancers licensing a couple of years ago, they acknowledged that there was a role for non-lawyer conveyancing of real estate. They adopted the view that there should be involvement by the Law Society in the regulation of conveyancers because the work was the same as that done by solicitors and because there were not enough conveyancers to regulate themselves. It was considered that the system already in place for the legal profession should be adapted because it was long-established and supported by adequate numbers and well-funded.

The licensing Act was promoted as being intended to encourage a wider market for conveyancing through the statutory recognition of conveyancers. It was to provide greater consumer choice. It was supposed to introduce competition by breaking the monopoly that solicitors had on conveyancing.

It would appear, however, that the consequences so far have been the opposite. The statutory scheme has had the effect of reducing the number of conveyancing businesses by preventing a number of previously existing conveyancers from being in business because they ostensibly cannot meet the criteria for licensing.

Following intense lobbying, the scope of conveyancers' work was restricted, and regulation of their conduct was left to the peak organisation representing solicitors. The scheme that resulted was one where the legal profession has significant control, and is perceived to have inordinate influence, over the conveyancing profession or industry.

Nothing I say is to impugn the integrity of any representative on the existing regulatory bodies. The problem is with the basic structure of the system which regulates conveyancers.

TRANSFER OF REGULATION

While this Government accepts that it is primarily legal work that links the two professions of solicitors and conveyancers, that of itself does not require common regulation at all levels. In light of this it was decided to transfer the licensing and associated functions to a body independent of both the legal profession and the conveyancing industry. These functions will be exercised by the General Manager of the Property Services Council.

Page 1784

The Property Services Council is the new name for the Real Estate Services Council. Changing the name to the Property Services Council will indicate to the public the new functions of the regulatory body and its broader scope and representation. I will outline these changes shortly.

The proposed reforms will integrate the licensing scheme with an existing system, will minimise the number of agencies involved by abolishing the Conveyancers Licensing Committee, and will simplify administration.

The General Manager of the Property Services Council will be responsible for granting a licence (with or without conditions) on grounds similar to those current. These include that the applicant has the appropriate educational qualifications and experience, has paid the relevant fund contributions, has the required insurance coverage, and is not for other reasons disqualified.

The bill generally retains the existing grounds under which the licensing authority may suspend or cancel a licence. The bill makes provision for appeals against decisions of the licensing authority to the Commercial Tribunal.

Apart from dealing with licence applications, the general manager, as licensing authority, may also take whatever steps are necessary or proper in respect to the investigation of any question as to the conduct of a licensee.

The general manager will be responsible for inspecting trust accounts, undertaking relevant investigations to assist the Legal Services Commissioner in any disciplinary enquiries, appointing a manager of a licensee's conveyancing business if necessary to protect the interests of other persons (as in the current scheme) and applying to the Supreme Court to appoint a receiver in case of any defalcation of trust accounts.

The licensing authority will also be responsible for approving any departure from the general requirements that a licensee cannot share the receipts of a conveyancing business with an unlicensed person.

The bill retains existing provisions whose contravention constitutes professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct. The current licensing Act links complaints and discipline to the Legal Profession Act by providing that disciplinary provisions on matters of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct apply to conveyancers in the same way as they apply to solicitors.

The bill retains this link because the professional conduct of conveyancers is the same as that expected of solicitors. Licensed conveyancers must maintain the high ethical standards which their clients and the community expect.

There should be no problem with maintaining this link considering that the complaints and investigation scheme is subject to the supervision of an independent Legal Services Commissioner. The commissioner will be able to refer matters to the General Manager of the Property Services Council as can currently be done in respect of the Law Society and Bar Council. There is provision for serious matters to be dealt with by a disciplinary tribunal constituted in a manner similarly under the current scheme, with one solicitor member, one licensed conveyancer member and one lay member. There is also provision to prescribe the payment of a portion of conveyancers' licence application fees to the statutory interest account maintained by the Law Society, for the purposes of meeting the costs of disciplinary proceedings.

The provisions of the existing regulatory scheme in relation to fees charged by a conveyancer will be carried forward. These are the same as apply to solicitors. They require the provision of information to consumers so they can make informed decisions about the acquisition of services. Mechanisms for the resolution of disputes over fees are also established.

CONVEYANCER REPRESENTATION ON COUNCIL

The bill provides for representation of conveyancers on the council. The Real Estate Services Council (to be re-named the Property Services Council) functions mainly as an advisory body. The main role of the council in relation to the regulation of conveyancers will be the making of recommendations for the approval of the Minister on the educational qualifications, experience and practical training for conveyancers. The conveyancer on the council will be appointed by the Governor on the Minister's recommendation. Provision has been made for the Minister to select from a number of persons nominated by recognised conveyancing industry associations.

It is anticipated that a representative or representatives from the Law Society will be invited to participate in council's formulation of advice to the Minister.

CONVEYANCER CONTRIBUTION TO COMPENSATION FUND

Conveyancers will be required to contribute to the Property Services Compensation Fund in lieu of the present fidelity insurance arrangements. The fund will be used to compensate any person who suffers financial loss by reason of the failure to account by a licensee or a licensee's employee or agent.

The existing fidelity insurance for conveyancers is paid for by licensee contributions to the Association of Property Conveyancers. It is underwritten by the insurance company approved by the Conveyancers Licensing Committee after consultation with the Law Society Council. The insurance is in the form of a master policy held by, and indemnifying, the Association of Property Conveyancers. The association can charge licensees an administrative fee as approved by the committee

Some conveyancers are questioning whether they are getting value for money. It is anticipated that the new arrangements will minimise disputation by placing conveyancers in a similar position to that of real estate agents and others as members of the compensation fund.

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE

The bill retains the requirement for professional indemnity insurance for licensed conveyancers. A complaint about the current system is that conveyancers could obtain professional indemnity insurance more cheaply than under the existing master policy.

Conveyancers should be given the choice to negotiate their own policies either individually or as a group. The bill permits this. Such policies would have to comply with requirements set by the general manager of the council as to the nature of the insurance and the content and extent of coverage. Proper consumer protection is essential.

EXPANSION OF SCOPE OF CONVEYANCING WORK

The current definition of "conveyancing work" confines licensed conveyancers to work relating to residential property up to 10 hectares. Conveyancers are not permitted to conduct conveyancing transactions relating to commercial property or rural property.

The proposal to expand the role of conveyancers takes account of the Government's commitment to permit conveyancers to undertake transactions for small businesses, including the transfer of "goodwill" and "stock-in-trade".

The expanded role will permit conveyancers to carry out a broad range of commercial property transfers, whether it be the sale or purchase of factory units or vacant shops in a shopping centre or the whole shopping centre itself. They could also act on the sale of farms and other rural property, regardless of whether the property is zoned or used wholly or partly as commercial or residential. The scope of work would also extend to properties such as city apartment blocks which are still under "company title", which apparently is not covered by the current definition of conveyancing work.

Page 1785

The new definition of conveyancing work will also permit the transfer of goodwill, stock-in-trade and other personal property without there being a related sale of land. This will cater for transactions which may be simpler to undertake than the conveyancing of larger properties, premises and businesses. Examples are: a lawn-mowing business or that of a mobile mechanic, working from home and/or from a truck or van. That person will be able to use a conveyancer to sell that business (usually the name, goodwill and stock-in-trade) without having to sell land with it.

As these transactions would be permitted to be undertaken by licensed conveyancers in connection with the transfer of land, there should be no reason to prevent conveyancers from undertaking the same types of transactions separately from transferring real property.

The proposed legislation will not impose restrictions on the nature of conveyancing work that can be undertaken. It is anticipated that the marketplace will sort itself out as to what types of dealings will be undertaken by conveyancers in practice. Businesses or persons wishing to deal in properties which are high in cost or involve commercially complex matters will probably either retain a legal practitioner or ensure that the conveyancer selected has experience and skill in that type of transaction.

The expansion of the scope of work for conveyancers will, of course, have implications for education and training. While the principles of conveyancing may be the same for many transactions, the expanded scope of work will also highlight variations and complexities which will call for additional training or ongoing education.

As already mentioned, the bill provides for conveyancer representation on the Property Services Council, which will be charged with the task of setting up an education subcommittee to assess what additional training may be required for the existing licensed conveyancers, and what type of educational courses and practical experience would be necessary for new licensees. This subcommittee will have the benefit of representation by conveyancers and legal practitioners to ensure that appropriate competency standards are maintained.

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PARTNERSHIPS

The bill permits multi-disciplinary partnerships involving conveyancers. Multi-disciplinary partnerships must have the consent of the licensing authority and be subject to any regulation that may be made restricting multi-disciplinary partnerships. The provision prohibits a partnership between a licensed conveyancer and a real estate agent or any other licensee under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. This is because such partnerships are seen to involve a potential conflict of interest. For example, a conveyancer might not be, or might be perceived not to be, providing service and advice independently of the real estate agent partner if they are working on the same property. Conveyancers will be permitted to partner with solicitors, and it is expected that the licensing authority will permit partnerships with other property-related consultants such as building/engineering inspectors. The provision is consistent with equivalent provisions in the Legal Profession Act 1987, and is consistent with the general idea of removing unnecessary restrictions on business.

I NOW COME TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Part 1 (clauses 1-5) contains the preliminary provisions, provides for certain words and expressions to be defined in the dictionary at the end of the Act and defines the expression "conveyancing work". The dictionary defines "council" as the Property Services Council constituted by the Property Services Council Act 1990.

Part 2 (clauses 6-14) covers the licensing provisions, which are similar to the existing provisions in respect of the effect of a licence, the qualifications for a licence, the procedures for making an application, the determination of applications by the council and grounds for suspension or cancellation. Appeals against decisions of the general manager of the council may be made to the Commercial Tribunal. The current scheme allows appeals to the Supreme Court, but the new provision aims at simplifying and speeding up these types of processes.

Part 3 (clauses 15-36) - division 1 makes general provisions regarding conveyancing practice, providing that contravention of the certain provisions of division 1 may constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. This covers matters related to fees, sharing of receipt, partnerships, and employment of disqualified persons. These provisions are similar to those under the existing Act, except that the proposed new law will permit conveyancers to set up multi-disciplinary partnerships.

Part 3, division 2 deals with trust money and controlled money. Division 3 provides for the inspection of trust accounts and investigations generally. The provisions are the same as current provisions except that inspections and investigations will be carried out by the new independent licensing authority.

Part 4 (clauses 37-39) provides for contributions by conveyancers to the Property Services Compensation Fund and allows clients to make claims against the fund in respect of a failure to account by a licensee or his/her employee or agent. These provisions replace the current requirement for fidelity insurance.

Part 5 (clauses 40-81) makes provision for management and receivership. These provisions are generally the same as the current ones except with adjustments which acknowledge the Property Services Council as the licensing authority responsible for undertaking appropriate measures.

Part 6 (clauses 82-83) provides for disciplinary proceedings. It applies part 10 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 to licensees in the same way as it applies to solicitors. (Part 10 deals with professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct.) This part also provides for the composition of the Legal Services Tribunal when conducting a hearing into a complaint against a licensee. I have explained previously the rationale for retaining these provisions.

Part 7 (clauses 84-95) covers miscellaneous provisions, setting out the powers of the council in relation to the exercise of its functions (for example, inspections and investigations), providing for auditors, providing for a public register of licensees, and providing for a general regulation-making power. Again, the provisions are similar to those current, except in relation to the new council. This part also repeals the Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992, which in effect abolishes the conveyancers licensing committee.

Schedule 1 makes consequential amendments to other Acts and to the regulations under the existing Act.

Schedule 2 contains savings and transitional provisions. These provisions will ensure that existing licensees can continue in business carrying out the current scope of licensed conveyancing work (residential conveyancing). Persons holding current certificates of eligibility for a licence will still be eligible for a licence to undertake the current scope of work. There is also provision to look after the interests of persons who started an educational course in conveyancing under current rules, so that, when they graduate, their qualifications will be taken into account for a licence to carry out the current scope of work.

Although commencement of the new Act will be on a day or days to be set by proclamation, probably early in the new year, it will be some time before the marketplace will benefit from the expanded range of work conveyancers can undertake. The public must be assured that conveyancers possess the competencies to perform this wider range of work.

BENEFITS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

In conclusion, this bill creates a regulatory scheme which is more streamlined than the present one and is better designed to serve the public interest. The conveyancing industry is

Page 1786
too small and immature to perform regulatory functions in its own right. It is important, however, that it be involved, together with consumers, in necessary regulation. The bill provides this. It also maintains comparability with certain features of the regulatory scheme for solicitors. This is important in light of the expanded role of conveyancers.

The main benefits of the proposal to expand the scope of licensed conveyancing activity are consumer choice and business competition. Having a broader scope of work, conveyancers will be more competitive with each other and with those members of the legal profession who specialise in conveyancing. The availability of a wider range of work should attract more entrants to the industry and provide greater opportunities for those completing educational programs. All this will foster a more viable industry and benefit consumers, including small business, especially through reduced costs.

I commend the bill.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [5.53]: The Opposition opposes this bill and will seek to divide the House in relation to it. The first issue is whether there is any demonstrable need for the legislation at this time. The Opposition says there is not. It is a development advocated by the small group of people involved in the conveyancing industry who wish to expand their activities. Debate has raged for many years on the need to remove what was once described as a conveyancing monopoly held by the legal profession. Conveyancing monopoly is an incorrect and totally unjustified expression in relation to this trade.

About 12,000 solicitors in New South Wales compete actively in the conveyancing market. For a period there were price controls on delivery of conveyancing services. That is not to say there was no competition in the field. However, scales of fees existed which, to a large extent, were followed by members of the profession. Therefore, it could be said that whilst there was an ability for members of the legal profession to compete, there was the element of price control. As a consequence the competitive market forces were not freely being applied.

The former Government addressed this issue in 1991. As a result of discussions between the Government and the legal profession, on 29 November 1991 a new regulation was passed that allowed solicitors to advertise their practices. The removal of advertising restrictions had a significant impact on conveyancing services. Although there were price controls, there was still competition within the industry. It is interesting to look at some of the advertisements in newspapers following the 1991 removal of advertising restrictions.

On 18 March in the Highlands Post newspaper flat-fee conveyancing was advertised at a fixed rate of $500. In April 1992 in a Sydney newspaper cut-price conveyancing was advertised by solicitors. Again the fee was about $500 for houses or units under $250,000. In another newspaper within the metropolitan area a firm of solicitors indicated in an advertisement that the recommended fee was $1,600 for a home purchase of $200,000 with a $150,000 mortgage but it was charging a fee of $600. There was a significant level of competition within the market in 1992. Advertisements in that period showed that some of the rates decreased to $450; others said they were prepared to negotiate fees, and another was prepared to go as low as $300, if my recollection is correct.

In an advertisement in the Homes Pictorial of 31 July 1992 an Eastwood solicitor, P. J. Norris, was prepared to act for as low as $300. At that time the impact of the decision to allow advertising brought about significant competition. In 1993-94 debate took place on legal profession reforms, and significant deregulation of the legal profession followed. All scale fees were effectively abolished together with indicative fees and price controls. Further competition within the legal profession resulted. In the last few days I again referred to my local newspapers to ascertain the level of competition. The same solicitor I referred to earlier, P. J. Norris, was advertising that he is prepared to act for $280.

The Hon. Franca Arena: He is going down.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: He is going down, because of deregulation. As a consequence of competition in 1992 conveyancing costs decreased dramatically. Conveyancers have said costs decreased because conveyancers were legalised and legal conveyancers could act in the marketplace, but there were no legal conveyancers in New South Wales until 1993, two years later. The number of legal conveyancers now practising is less than the number who were operating illegally at that time. So how can anyone draw the conclusion that legalising conveyancers has had a remarkable impact on conveyancing prices? The evidence does not exist. Indeed, one could say that if legalising conveyancers will have a marked competitive effect, one would expect people to go into conveyancing; there would be more legal conveyancers, the numbers would be increasing, and a lot more people would be chasing the business. However, that is not so.

The number of legal conveyancers has fallen. But, more importantly, the cost of conveyancing fell before conveyancers legally entered the market - and it had nothing to do with the decision in 1992 to pass legislation to allow legal conveyancers to operate. I hazard a guess that if the former Government had been able to pursue its legal profession reforms in this Parliament and had completely deregulated the legal profession in 1991, rather than simply remove advertising, the impact on prices and competition would have been such that this Parliament would not have entertained the need for legalising conveyancers at that time; sobeit, we have legal conveyancers.

Is there a need for legal conveyancers? Where is the great screaming community demand for more conveyancers? Firstly, the demand is not there. Secondly, the argument for conveyancers that has been pursued by the Premier is based on deceit of the community. All of us recall that during the election campaign the Premier visited a small shop in Westmead or Northmead. The Premier said that it was an outrage that the conveyancing fees on the sale of that business, worth $12,000, were $3,000 and that
Page 1787
he would introduce legal conveyancers to cover all that sort of commercial work. He said that would drive down conveyancing costs for that transaction to about $1,200. The fact is that the legal fees were not $3,000; they were about $1,400. As is consistent with all commercial deals of this nature within New South Wales, those who lease premises require that the lessee pay the costs of the lessor.

The total costs paid were $3,000 but that was not the businessman's private legal costs. The businessman contractually agreed to pay the legal costs of the other party. In addition, he had to pay stamp duty and other fees. The call by the Premier for this legislation emanated from a press conference that was based on deceit. Not only was the whole debate initiated by deceit, but the way the Government has dealt with it has continued to be based on deceit. The way Ministers dealt with the issue was outrageous. On 8 June 1995 representatives of the Law Society met with the Minister, The Hon. Faye Lo Po' to discuss the Government's agenda in relation to this legislation. On 22 July the Minister wrote to the Law Society stating that it was important for her to know the views of the Law Society and that she would be in touch with the society regarding any developments concerning the regulation of conveyancers.

One assumed from that response that the Minister would consult on the issue; she would seek views and form a reasoned decision as to whether the legislation should proceed, and in what form. Honourable members might be interested to know that two weeks previously, on 11 July, Cabinet had already made its decision to go ahead with the legislation. The Minister's deceitful response to a key organisation was that it was important to know the views of the organisation, and that she would be in touch with the organisation regarding any developments with the regulation of conveyancers. That is one level of deceit.

The deceit of the Premier in this regard is more outrageous because on 2 August 1995 representatives of the Law Society met with the Premier on this issue. At that meeting the Premier invited the Law Society to make submissions in relation to any legislative framework. He did not tell the representatives that Cabinet had already made a decision on the matter some two or three weeks beforehand. He deliberately misled the representatives of the Law Society by not telling them that a decision had been made to go ahead with the legislation. Honourable members might be interested to know that at the time the legislation was brought into the Parliament the Law Society still had not been consulted. The legislation was drafted and brought into the Parliament and the Government had not even bothered to write to the organisation to seek any further views.

As I said, this proposal was bred from deceit and it has been nurtured on deceit. And members of the Government wonder why the Law Society is so outraged with the Government! The Law Society was approached by two Ministers with regard to this legislation, and the Government deliberately misled the society. The Government did not tell the organisation that a decision had been made. It led the organisation to believe that submissions could be made. And Government members wonder why more than 2,000 solicitors attended a protest meeting. They wonder why there is outrage against them out in the country. The Government cannot deal with reputable organisations in that way and expect those organisations to continue to trust the Government or hold the Government in high regard. Government members wonder why their credibility with one key organisation in this State is being destroyed.

Having been on the receiving end, I can tell the Government that when this organisation mobilises, it mobilises to the detriment of the Government. Ministers and senior members of the previous Labor Government should remember the way the organisation mobilised against that Government. Some honourable members might recall that the Unsworth Government treated the Law Society and the Bar Association with the same level of deceit with which the Government has treated the Law Society on this occasion. I leave those few words for honourable members to think about. They should consider whether they will be able to recover their position on this matter. Was the proposed legislation necessary? I was interested to note some of the arguments used by John Laws in a newspaper article. He argued that there was a monopoly that needed to be broken, an argument that is maintained by many who want to support the legislation. I quote:

So solicitors had the monopoly. And they charged what they liked.

That is totally untrue. As I said, there was no monopoly but there was price control. How could solicitors charge what they liked when there was price control? Overcharging on what might be described as indicative prices is a basis for misconduct for which professional disciplinary charges could be laid. Solicitors did not charge what they liked. Indeed, it could be said that if they charged what they liked costs would have come down, and that is exactly what occurred when they were able to advertise and to compete properly.

The commentaries in the public arena referred to $3,000 that was allegedly charged for conveyancing fees on a $12,000 business. Mr Laws said that was excessive. I agree with him: it was excessive if it was true, but it is plainly not true and the Premier would have had the documents to know that it was not true. One might have well asked, if this were true, would this client have been upset with his solicitor? Would this client have complained about the behaviour of the solicitor or, quite possibly, would the client have abandoned the solicitor because he overcharged? Neither of those things happened, because he continued to be the client of that same solicitor. He knew the truth of the matter. He knew what had occurred. He did not hold in high regard the sort of deception that was occurring. As I said, there has been this argument in the public arena, and I quote further from what Mr Laws had to say:

When qualified conveyancers were allowed into the residential market . . . the cost of conveyancing was slashed

Page 1788
by almost half.
That is the populist argument but, as I indicated, it is simply wrong. Conveyancers had no impact on the costs; it was the decision to allow advertising and competition. The Government is pursuing this legislation based upon a brief which was created on untruths. What is it that the bill seeks to do? It seeks to create another education structure. No doubt members on the Government side have received lobbying from conveyancers which outlined that Southern Cross University and others have set up an education program. The program will be of three years duration. To become a fully qualified lawyer one does a four-year program and then training. The provisions of the legislation will duplicate the whole of the legal framework in this State in order to deal with the needs of some 40 conveyancers.

Then the proposal is to put in place another administrative structure, an administrative structure that will involve inspectors. The Law Society already has trust account inspectors. But no: for the sake of 40-odd people, the Government will put in place a whole new set of trust account inspectors, a disciplinary structure to deal with all of these matters, and a whole duplicative administrative arrangement. Why? For the benefit of 40 people. The current structure deals with 12,000 to 13,000 solicitors. But is there competition amongst them? The reforms that the former coalition Government introduced enabled barristers to do conveyancing; they are now allowed to maintain trust accounts because that it is a clear distinction that we made. The field of those available to do conveyancing now includes 2,000 barristers.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: How much will it cost?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The honourable member asks how much it will cost. Conveyancers have to compete. Will it cost $280? In last week's paper the cost is advertised as being $280. Is there competition? Adjacent to that advertisement is another advertisement in which a person says he will do it for $500. That is a clear example of competition: two advertisements on the same page, one next to the other, the first quoting $500 and the other $280. The choice is there, the competition is there. It is interesting to consider the question of community protection. All honourable members will be aware that some solicitors have inappropriately dealt with trust accounts. They have defaulted on their trust accounts and ripped off their clients by taking money out of those trust accounts. Mr Kandy is one who was dealt with in respect of an amount of $20 million. Where do solicitors get that sort of money? Do they get it from dealing with the little conveyancer down the street, or from dealing with major business investments, the sort of major business investments that the Government is seeking to give to conveyancers?

What happens if there has been that level of defalcation by a solicitor? The Law Society on every occasion has picked up the full amount of defalcations and the clients have not lost money. The Government is proposing to impose a trust account scheme that will limit the total payout to $1 million. So much for providing comparative protection for the consumer! The Government is opening up the piggy bank but it will not provide protection from those who will want to run away with the piggy bank.

The other mechanisms that were put in place under the former Government's legal profession reform were aimed at opening up the profession to greater competition, trying to encourage multidisciplinary partnerships, and trying to restructure the service provided by that part of the profession. Where in this legislation is there any similar provision? There is none. The sort of multidisciplinary programs that one would expect in an open, competitive market are not there. In one sense the Government is creating a market of conveyancers that have all of the protections that existed in the old days of the legal profession. So much for the much vaunted proposals the Government is pursuing, the Hilmer-type reforms!

In summary, the Opposition will not support this legislation for two reasons. First, at this time there is no demonstrated public need for the legislation or for the expansion of the role of conveyancers outside of that for which they were established, that is, domestic conveyancing. As for the argument that this legislation will open up competition and therefore bring down prices, the clear evidence is that there is open competition and prices are already competitively driven down. On that point I draw the attention of the House to a comment of the advocate of conveyancers, Mr Dale Turner. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 3 October states:

NSW Property Conveyancers Association president, Mr Dale Turner, said he could not put a proper estimate on the likely reduction in fees for commercial conveyancing.

He could not put a proper estimate on the likely reduction in fees. Of course he could not, because he could not show that there would be any reduction. He knows that will not happen; he knows that it is illusory to suggest that there would be any reduction. So much for an element of competition that will drive down prices! Is there a monopoly? There is not, and there has not been at any time. There was price control, but that has gone. To the extent that there were restrictions within the legal profession, they also have gone. More importantly, why should we create another duplicated structure to deal with an issue that is already being dealt with adequately in the market today? There is no demonstrated need for that structure.

Finally, will this structure if introduced provide a level of community protection that is equal to that which is already in place for other conveyancers? The answer to that is it will not. If it will not provide that level of consumer protection then even on that ground alone it should be rejected, and the bill should be rejected by this House.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [6.20]: I was concerned when conveyancer licensing was allowed in 1992. At the time the Hon. Peter Collins
Page 1789
made the clear statement that the extension of the ability for properly set up licensed conveyancers to operate in respect of residential property was the right step to take. Interestingly, he also commented that he was yet to come across conveyancers who sought to deal with other than residential properties. I suggested to the Attorney General at the time that such legislation was the thin edge of the wedge; that it would be a return to the old days, which many honourable members remember, when conveyancers dealt with property, then they dealt with all sorts of businesses, then they all became lawyers, then they all disappeared.

This legislation will lead to a repeat of the cycle. We never seem to learn from history. The Premier, who says he is a great student of history, has yet to learn the lessons of history. I am reminded by the Leader of the Opposition of the deceitful way in which the Government has dealt with a group of people who are not only intimately involved in this area but are given the responsibility of helping to regulate conveyancers and who have expertise in the area of regulation and accountability - the Law Society. The Minister for Consumer Affairs, and Minister for Women, as the Leader of the Opposition said, was deceitful in dealing with the Law Society whose members are intimately involved in the operations of the Act and would be involved with the operations of the proposed legislation. I am concerned that the scope of regulation and accountability that may flow from the legislation is not specifically addressed in the bill.

The Leader of the Opposition has already mentioned our concerns about producing creatures who would have, apart from a full law degree, an adequate level of training and expertise to deal with the very complex issues involved in major commercial property sales; persons with skills that exceed the requirements set out and approved by the council of a university at Lismore of whose board I used to be a member. A three-year part-time course goes well beyond those requirements. Yet the mechanism of the training program is not established. More importantly, rather than conveyancers being required to abide by similar rules and regulations as those that apply to solicitors in the marketplace, that issue is not addressed in the bill. Instead, we have this new shonky deal whereby the investigation of complaints and their prosecution before the Legal Services Tribunal will be the responsibility of the General Manager of the Property Services Council, an organisation that deals with, amongst other people, real estate agents.

The Property Services Council does not have a great track record for investigating and prosecuting matters before the Legal Services Tribunal. What will happen if the council conducts a shonky investigation? Is the tribunal to take the shonky investigation at face value? Is it to throw it out and ask for the investigation to be done again? The bill does not specify who might conduct the investigation if it has to be undertaken a second time. The legislation does not for provide adequate levels of scrutiny or inspection. It does not set out adequate standards of education, training and expertise. It does not set out, as the Legal Profession Act does, proper mechanisms for updating education and training. The Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out to the House the shortfalls that will occur in professional indemnity insurance, which again is not referred to in detail in the legislation.

The management of a proper professional liability arrangement has not been addressed in the legislation; in other words, if a conveyancer defaults, what arrangements have been made for establishing a fidelity fund? Who will manage the fund for the protection of those in the marketplace who go to a conveyancer thinking he or she is properly trained, properly supervised and properly regulated as guaranteed by an Act of Parliament of the Carr-Scully-Egan Government? What do people do when they find that the organisation is no longer functioning? What will they do when they are caught in the middle of a major commercial transaction that gets too hard and the conveyancer dips out? Who will look after the consumers? It is absolutely outrageous that the Property Services Council, which does not have expertise in this area, has been put in charge of such an important regulatory function.

I am amazed that honourable members opposite would even entertain such an extension of the legislation without having some knowledge of the track record of the operation of the Conveyancers Licensing Act. Competition and public interest were adequately dealt with by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition, and I was impressed by his clear arguments. The cost of transferring property has always been of great interest to me, and I am thankful for a briefing paper I received from the Law Society which gave me the following information. On a property sale of $202,000 the stamp duty paid to the State Treasurer is $5,563. More turnover like that and he would be a much happier man than he is now. The commission charged by the vendor's agent is $6,006. The usual fee paid to a solicitor for such a transaction is between $500 and $900. I am now told that legal firms advertise in newspapers flat fee conveyancing for as low as $400 or even $328.

One cannot say that the emergence of 50 conveyancers has driven down that fee. That has resulted from the fact that 12,000 legal professionals in this State now act in conveyancing. Recently over lunch I spoke to a couple of members of the legal profession who said that they do not do conveyancing anymore because they cannot manage their costs by charging such a low fee. Many large legal firms no longer deal with small property transactions because they cannot compete with smaller firms, which conduct their business in a professional manner. For some niche marketing firms it is possible for them to carry out such transactions professionally and at a reasonable cost. I am equally concerned about this legislation because it is another attack by the Carr Government and Mrs Lo Po' on consumerism in an attempt to reduce the ability of members of a professional organisation to make a living.

Page 1790

If such professionals cannot make a living, do they start to cut corners? If they drive the price down too much, so that it is not possible to make a profit while providing the service, what happens to the service? It begs the question about the attitude of the Government to having professionals and a professional class of services in this State with the inherent accountability and standards. Or does the Government want a service in which the service providers do only what they have to do in case they get caught and end up in gaol? It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could consider this legislation to be in any way reasonable. I will oppose it with every bit of force I can muster. I condemn the Government for bringing to this House such poorly considered legislation.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [6.30]: I join my colleagues in strongly opposing the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. This bill has been initiated to replace the current Conveyancers Licensing Act. The bill is full of inconsistencies, displays an improper understanding of the requirements of conveyancing work and is evidence of the prominent lack of thought in the policies of the present Labor Government. I do not doubt that the Government's intention in introducing this bill is to benefit consumers of conveyancing work. However, this will clearly not be the outcome of this bill. The problems within the Conveyancers Licensing Bill stem from the fact that it is yet another example of the Labor Government's ill-considered, whimsical policies. As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, this legislation was formulated after the Premier visited a Northmead coffee shop.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Policy on the run.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Exactly. The Hon. D. J. Gay made the point very well. The legislation was conceived by the Premier upon hearing the solicitor's fee paid by a couple when purchasing their business. I do not know whether the Premier was aware of the full facts. It seems that he was shocked at the amount that had been paid and promised to take some action. I am not sure why the Premier decided to honour this promise when he has turned his back on so many of the other promises he has made to the New South Wales electorate. The Premier and his Labor Government have definitely not honoured their pre-election promise to consult with relevant facets of the community when formulating policies. This bill is a prime example of that. In issue 158 of its bulletin, Caveat, the Law Society reminded its members of the failure of the Government to consult. The bulletin stated, "The Carr Government failed to engage in effective consultation with the Law Society on proposals which could radically affect the legal profession in this State and which are of vital interest to the public." As I have said, that is a prime example of the failure of the Government to consult.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to a letter sent by the Minister for Consumer Affairs on 26 July to the Law Society promising that the Government would consult with the Law Society on the current licensing authority. The Leader of the Opposition referred also to the deceit of the Government because Cabinet had already obtained approval for the bill on 11 July. The Government has simply reneged on another of its promises. Consumers will inevitably suffer because of the bill. Because of the measures introduced by the former Liberal-National coalition Government the legal profession, including those members undertaking conveyancing work, has become highly competitive. In 1992, when the Conveyancers Licensing Bill was canvassed, total deregulation of conveyancing was discussed but was not proceeded with because of genuine concern for consumers.

Competition in a free market does not always bring about a favourable result for consumers. The former coalition Government decided that a degree of regulation should exist so that the consumer was protected. In 1991 the former coalition Government removed former restraints on the advertising of solicitors' fees. The result was that solicitors were able to engage extensively in discount fee advertising, particularly in relation to conveyancing. That matter was referred to earlier. The market is now fiercely competitive with 12,000 solicitors, a further 9,000 due to graduate and 50 licensed conveyancers. Costs charged by solicitors comprise a relatively small proportion of expenses associated with property transactions. On an average $200,000 property purchase, stamp duty is approximately $5,500, and the vendor's agent's commission is about 3 per cent. On an average priced property, solicitors' conveyancing fees start as low as $500. If the Premier is serious about cutting costs to consumers he should consider cutting the cost of stamp duty, the most significant expense in a property transaction and a charge that flows directly into the coffers of the Labor Government. My colleagues will remember how, a few months ago, the Premier halved stamp duty on shares, a matter to which the Treasurer has referred in this House.

No evidence is available to suggest that there is a need to extend the work of licensed conveyancers. I am not here to defend solicitors, but not only solicitors will suffer from a suffocated market, a matter to which the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti referred. Solicitors in small towns, for example, carry out a wide range of services, usually at a low cost. If they are forced out through competition the entire community will suffer. Clearly, this bill is unnecessary. The inconsistencies and undesirable elements in the bill force me, the other members of the Opposition and, I am sure, some members of the crossbenches to oppose it. Clause 4 in the bill defines conveyancing work to include all real and personal property transactions, the sale or lease of land and the sale of a business, including goodwill and stock-in-trade. At present conveyancers are wisely restricted to residential land transactions. As a former practising solicitor I understand the complexities of conveyancing work. Although I have not done any such work, I believe that this is especially true of conveyancing related to rural and commercial property transactions.

Page 1791

Residential properties usually have a single title and a single stream of mortgages. There is no concern for employees with superannuation entitlements and long service leave. Agricultural land, which is included in this legislation, commonly involves multiple titles. The purchase of a business must include consideration of the title of the land on which the building sits and the zoning regulations. Goodwill, plant, stock, perishables and customer relationships all enter into the equation, thus increasing the complexity of the transaction. With all due respect, I do not believe that conveyancers possess the skills and the knowledge necessary to carry out the intricate legal processes associated with commercial and rural transactions.

I am concerned also about the unclear nature of education and training for conveyancers in the bill. The bill does not adequately deal with whether conveyancers will be sufficiently equipped to cope with their proposed expanded duties. Nothing in the bill deals with that important aspect. At present a person must complete a two-year course and continue education in conveyancing if he or she is to work as a conveyancer. The bill states that a conveyancer's course will run for three years. It proposes a one-year upgrading course for existing conveyancers who wish to participate in non-residential work. However, it does not outline educational requirements or the level of education required. Presumably this will be determined by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, but I would like to know what education conveyancers will be required to undertake.

Clause 4 of the bill removes the current restriction and proposes that conveyancers may prepare mortgages and documents for the subdivision or development of land. However, clause 4(3)(e) prevents a conveyancer from giving investment or financial advice. That is clear evidence of the Government's thoughtless approach to the bill. A conflict exists between the broad definition of conveyancing work and the restraint on providing investment or financial advice. In simple terms, a conveyancer may be instrumental in all parts of a property or business transaction, but may not advise the client on the best way to go about it. The bill highlights the Government's lack of understanding of the skills required in those sorts of transactions. As a result, the consumer will be the one to suffer.

A purchaser often needs financial advice when buying a property, particularly a commercial property. This bill does not make an adequate attempt to protect the consumer through protective mechanisms such as the Law Society fidelity fund. The proposed fidelity insurance arrangements for conveyancers are inequitable and unsatisfactory. Currently, solicitors pay an amount of $475 towards the fidelity fund. On the other hand, conveyancers are only required to contribute $135. Surely, if this bill aims at deregulation, the contributions to the fund should be equal. Obviously the Government is not concerned with equity or adequate compensation for the consumer.

The cap for the proposed Property Services Council Compensation Fund, which will replace the fidelity fund for conveyancers, will be $1 million. Under the previous arrangement no cap existed. Clearly, for some residential, many rural and most commercial properties a cap of $1 million is simply not adequate. Under this system the consumer will not be compensated sufficiently. Transactions in relation to many commercial properties will result in losses of much more than $1 million. The bill also provides that the consumer may not be compensated at all if a claim is not lodged within two years of the cause of action, whether or not that person has knowledge of the failure to account. On the other hand, solicitors may be sued six years after the event and are, therefore, discriminated against by the two-year limitation period. However, they are not the only ones discriminated against by this provision.

The Government has not sufficiently considered the protection of consumers. A two-year period is simply not enough time to allow a consumer to lodge a claim; it is not sufficient to allow adequate information to be obtained to prepare a court case. The consumer also may not be in a position within that time to know that he or she has a cause of action. Consumers may also not be able to lodge a claim until investigations have been conducted. Evidently the Government did not allow adequate time to think this point through. The same applies to many other shortcomings of the bill. Other concerns within the bill are discipline and the investigation of complaints. Part 6 will maintain the application of part 10 of the Legal Profession Act for the discipline of licensees.

The investigation and prosecution of complaints before the Legal Services Tribunal, which was established by the former coalition Government, will become the responsibility of the General Manager of the Property Services Council. The administrative functions relating to the licensing and regulation of conveyancers will also be handed over to the general manager. It is not clear whether the general manager will be required to possess the skills necessary to handle the intensely complex legal issues inherent in the investigation of complaints. In conflict with an apparent move away from ties with the legal profession, the bill provides that the cost of operating the discipline system will be paid from the statutory interest account established under the Legal Profession Act. The Government should have taken the time to decide in which direction it wanted to take this bill. Instead of doing so, it has produced a rushed and inconsistent excuse for proposed legislation.

Yet another example of that is the bill's specification of who may hold a licence. Clause 5 defines "disqualified persons" as holders of a barrister's or solicitor's practising certificate. Clause 19 limits the formation of partnerships by a licensee. Once again a contradiction comes to light in clause 22 of the bill, which relates to provision for partnerships between a licensee and a solicitor or barrister. By definition, both solicitor and barrister
Page 1792
are disqualified from becoming licensed conveyancers. Those provisions will lead to much uncertainty and confusion in the formation of partnerships and practices. In a truly competitive deregulated market and with a government sincerely concerned with equity, solicitors and barristers should not be disqualified from becoming licence holders. In 1992 the coalition Government reviewed the need for this proposed legislation and after careful consideration and consultation decided against it, opting for the more consumer conscious Conveyancers Licensing Act 1992. In the then Attorney General's second reading speech he stated:

It must be questioned whether the additional training and qualifications which would be required to undertake non-residential conveyancing would, for the volume of matters which may be concerned, be of any benefit to the consumer.

After examination of the current Conveyancers Licensing Bill the former Attorney General's point has been proven: there will be no benefit to the consumer from broadening the scope of licensed conveyancers. That is especially so with the rushed and ill-considered effort provided by the Labor Government in this bill. Consumer protection is evidently not the Government's focus. Before concluding I should like to highlight to the Government and all honourable members that a resolution was passed by the Town Hall protest meeting that has already mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The resolution is important because honourable members should respect the resolution of an organisation as large as the Law Society. The resolution stated:

That this meeting

Resolves to inform the Premier and the Attorney General of New South Wales that it

1. Condemns

(a) the Government's failure to consult with the legal profession on major legislative changes, in breach of its commitment;

and

(b) those actions of the Government it intended to:

(i) diminish substantially the rights of innocent victims of crime, motor accidents and work related accidents;

and

(ii) reduce consumer safeguards in relation to the delivery of legal services, by expanding radically the area of work open to licensed conveyancers.

2. Deplores the Government's denial of the value of the legal profession and legal representation to the community, implicit in its proposed changes to the current law;

and

3. Calls on the Government to halt the implementation of its proposals and engage urgently in genuine consultation with the legal profession and other interested parties.

Finally, as refreshing as it is to learn that the Premier has managed to keep one of his many promises, he should consider more than the opinion of one coffee shop owner and 50 conveyancers before concluding what is best for the community. The community needs careful, conscientious and well-considered legislation entailing sufficient consultation. I emphasise the use of the word "consultation". This bill is most definitely not an example of such legislation. Therefore, I strongly oppose the Conveyancers Licensing Bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. D. J. Gay.

[The Deputy-President (Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile) left the chair at 6.49 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]


Debate resumed from 10 October.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [8.15]: I first wish to take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation for the magnificent contribution that the Hon. E. P. Pickering made as a member of this Chamber. I have a vague recollection of having first met Ted Pickering at a branch meeting about 15 or 16 years ago. I was impressed by his contribution at that stage. To the best of my recollection, I did not again have any dealings with him, despite popular belief to the contrary, until I became a member of this House. During the period 1984 to 1988 I worked extensively with Ted Pickering, together with a number of other people, in developing the election strategy that resulted in the election of Nick Greiner. Ted's greatest desire always was to be Minister for Police. He had a desire to do his best to ensure that the professionalism of the police force was increased, that the perception of the police force was changed, and that corruption in the force was minimised. As we heard in his speech on his departure, he achieved much in the reform of the Police Service. In my view his fight to deal with corruption in the Police Service contributed significantly to his downfall as Minister. That was to the detriment of the Parliament and the people of this State, and also to the detriment of the police, as they will eventually realise.

Ted dedicated himself totally to the Liberal Party and to its ideals. At State level, apart from John Maddison, to the best of my recollection no other person dedicated his all to the party in the same manner as Ted Pickering. In his belief in the parliamentary system and in this Chamber Ted had only one equal in my time, and that was the late Sir Adrian Solomons. Ted was instrumental in driving significant reform in this House. I worked with him in drafting the terms which introduced the system of standing committees into this Chamber, a system which has developed since that time. I know that he wanted to achieve more. But all who have been in government and in Cabinet know that politics is the art of the achievable. He achieved as much as could be expected of one person.

His wife Elaine gave him total support, almost more than could be expected of any spouse. She was dedicated to the political cause of the Liberal Party. She even ran as a local government candidate for that
Page 1793
party in Wollongong. Her commitment, which is continuing - she is still a preselector for Legislative Council candidates - is to be admired. I wish both of them the very best. In politics it is hard to make friends, but one makes many acquaintances. I have found that, having made a friend in politics, it is very easy to lose a friend. I was proud to have had Ted's friendship and to have been part of the history which he represented in this House. I hope that he is able to achieve everything in retirement that he wants, both for himself and, especially, for his family.

The budget before the Parliament is a budget of betrayal. It highlights the extent to which Labor lied its way into office. It breaks promises it said it would keep, and it cuts programs which it assured the public were safe. This budget hits those who cannot hit back - it hits children, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, injured workers, farmers, public servants, and the State's youth. Like a schoolyard bully, this Government knows how to kick those who are already down. Most of all, the budget hits the people of western Sydney who voted for Labor in good faith and have been persistently betrayed by the Government since 25 March.

It is a budget that brings no gain for all the pain it inflicts. The Government has resorted to raids on government businesses to arrive at a phoney deficit figure. The budget does absolutely nothing to improve the State's underlying financial position. It is a fraudulent budget, as fraudulent as the Government that has produced it. The ink was hardly dry on the Executive Council minutes appointing the members of this Government before they began to renege on their election promises. The Carr Labor Government has broken 150 promises in its first 150 days. Many more are broken in this budget.

The key elements of the budget are more broken promises and more deceit, more increases in taxes and charges, a phoney deficit figure, dividend raids on government trading enterprises, cuts in services, a slowdown in capital works, and unexplained asset sales as well as a loss of over 4,500 jobs. It is important when assessing the first budget of the Carr Labor Government to look at the financial and economic conditions it inherited from the previous outstanding Greiner and Fahey coalition governments. The previous Government left New South Wales in a robust financial position. After seven years of a coalition government, New South Wales had the lowest tax growth of any State or Territory in Australia. It was 14 per cent lower than that of other States. No government contained taxes better than the previous Government did. It left New South Wales in an enviable debt position, with the second lowest debt of any State as a proportion of the gross State product.

The level of budget receipts required to service this State's debt was cut from the 12 per cent under the last Labor Government to 8 per cent under the coalition Government. The coalition Government slashed the deficit from a peak of $1.25 billion to $324 million in only three years. It was progressively reducing that deficit to a sustainable balanced budget position by 1997-98, without recourse to tax increases or service cuts, as has now occurred under this Labor Government. The coalition Government cut payroll tax for the benefit of small business by $50 million a year and government charges by 13 per cent in real terms in the seven years of its administration as a result of the massive reform of government trading enterprises.

The previous Government took steps to phase in full funding of the State's superannuation liabilities. Honourable members will remember the opposition of the Labor Party to those proposals. The coalition Government addressed a liability that would have blown out to $20,000 million in 10 years if it had merely copied the inaction of the previous Labor Government. Economically, New South Wales led the way under coalition administration. At the change of office New South Wales outperformed the other States in eight of the 11 key economic indicators. It led the nation in employment growth, with the creation of 90,000 jobs in the seven months leading up to the 25 March State election. It outperformed the other States in private business investment, building approvals for both residential and commercial properties and in retail trade and motor vehicle registrations, which are two key consumer indicators.

Under the coalition Government, New South Wales weathered Paul Keating's recession better than any other State and emerged in a stronger shape and with more confidence amongst its residents and businesses. That is the legacy of the coalition Government. It is no wonder that the Premier, in a press conference on 3 May this year, remarked, "We've got a decent economic inheritance in this State." Well may he use those words, because it was a decent economic inheritance given by a coalition government.

Let us take a closer look at what the Labor Party has done with that inheritance. The Treasurer has foreshadowed a budget deficit for 1995-96 of $238 million. That deficit is on track with the $266 million that the previous coalition Government was aiming for this financial year. The key difference is that Labor made a mountain of rash promises, in excess of the $300 million a year at which it costed its election platform, while the coalition's election commitments were fully funded within the budget, as confirmed by New South Wales Treasury during the election campaign. While the previous Government would have reached its deficit target without tax increases or without wholesale service cuts, Labor has had to take this budget's draconian route to achieve its objectives.

The deception of the budget goes beyond merely finding money to pay for election commitments that Labor claimed were fully funded before the election. It must not be forgotten that Labor has broken more promises than it has kept. I will elaborate later on those. On both accounts of assessing a deficit target, whether it is a real or a sustainable target, in this budget Labor has failed. The deficit figure proposed
Page 1794
by Labor is illusory, because it can be achieved only after plundering government trading enterprises of an extra $441 million in dividends. The Government will take $1.1 billion from the State's electricity distributors and saddle those same distributors with untenable levels of debt. The Government is raiding the Treasurer's advance, a contingency fund for unforeseen funding requirements. The Treasurer has spoken about that advance in this Chamber. The Government is inflating the economic forecasts in the budget and including significant unexplained asset sales. Honourable members will remember that the Labor Party in Opposition attacked the coalition over the level of dividends obtained from government trading enterprises. The Labor Party's economic development policy statement in March this year described dividends as "a new form of tax on business". The Opposition acknowledges that $1,050 million was received in dividends from government trading enterprises and State-owned corporations by the coalition Government. In last year's budget the figure fell to $441 million. Under Labor the figure has increased to $1.25 billion in its raid on government trading enterprises, an increase of 18.7 per cent, or $197 million over what the Government received last year.

Pacific Power, for example, is now required to provide a 25 per cent increase in dividends. In other words, electricity savings that should have been passed on to consumers will now be used to prop up the Labor Government's budget. One of the most efficient government businesses, Hunter Water Corporation Limited, has also been hit with an increase of $5 million. That means that there will be more sackings and higher water charges for residents of the Hunter. In addition to general increases in dividends, the Labor Government has embarked on a wholesale raid on cash reserves of government businesses. This breaks yet another election promise, because in its economic development statement Labor promised to "curb the use of special dividends". However, in this budget the Carr Government imposes $245 million in special dividends on government trading enterprises under the guise of what it calls "equity restructure payments".

The Government has also raided the capital reserves of Treasury Corporation. It has ripped out $25 million from the Treasury. It has plundered $120 million from a scheme that was intended to provide long service payments to building industry employers. It has also ripped out $35 million from the Public Trustee, an organisation that is meant to look after the battlers in this State. The Government has ripped out $30 million from Darling Harbour Authority cash reserves.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: What about the Public Trustee?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The honourable member interjects and asks about the Public Trustee. I can recall receiving a letter from the Public Service Association and also from Peter Sams totally opposing corporatisation of the Public Trustee. I did not go ahead with corporatisation but I notice that the Labor Government will go ahead with it. I look forward to seeing whether the Labor Council maintains its same opposition to that proposal. If I were left with members such as the Hon. I. M. Macdonald I would be embarrassed about the Government's actions. The Government is taking $20 million from New South Wales Lotteries and $15 million from the Sydney Market Authority. All up, dividends have increased by $441 million on last year's figures, threatening the ability of government trading enterprises to pass on lower prices to consumers and signalling further losses in those businesses. So much for Labor's promise to curb the use of special dividends.

By far the major piece of creative accounting in the budget that has been used to arrive at this phoney deficit is the so-called electricity industry capital restructure, which is proposed to net the Government $1,100 million this financial year. Essentially, the program is a debt reshuffling exercise that will do absolutely nothing to improve the State's underlying financial position. It is a straight copy from that great economic maestro, the one who is idolised by the Labor Party, Joan Kirner. As Glenda Korporaal wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald,

Government business enterprises will have to find a one-off payment for the Government totalling $1,500 million in what is euphemistically called a "commercial equity restructure". The Government is forcing these enterprises . . . such as electricity councils to increase their debt by $1.5 billion so it can repay some of its debt and reduce interest costs.

The $1,100 million being raised from electricity distributors will not be channelled into debt reduction but under this budget will feed straight through to the bottom-line deficit. The bottom line for consumers in this State as a result of this fiddle will be higher prices as electricity distributors battle to meet debt bills. Essentially, consumers have already paid for all the assets of electricity industry distributors. This Government is saying, "Borrow again and consumers will pay for it a second time", but it can do that only through higher electricity bills. Built into every budget is a Treasurer's advance. It is a responsible and prudent measure to enable the Government of the day to meet any unexpected bills such as wage increases and costs arising from such unforeseen events as drought, bushfires, floods and events such as the Queensland stamp duty cuts - the House heard a detailed explanation of that from the Treasurer in response to a question from the Hon. D. J. Gay.

It is prudent to allocate about 1 per cent of the budget as a Treasurer's advance. The coalition had budgeted for a $250 million Treasurer's advance this financial year, but the Labor Government has cut the advance back to $75 million purely to enhance its deficit position. A Treasurer's advance of $75 million does not provide enough flexibility for contingencies in a $20 billion budget. This inadequate provision means that when unforeseen events inevitably arise there can only be a blow-out in the deficit or, more
Page 1795
likely, an increase in taxes. It is worth remembering that this Government, when faced with Queensland's cut in stamp duty, resorted to tax increases.

Backbench members of the Government should be worried about the way in which this deficit is being manipulated because they will wear the failure of the Treasurer to be able to deal properly with budget issues. There are further problems in relation to the optimistic forecasts of this Government. The budget is based on New South Wales achieving an economic growth rate of 3.7 per cent this year, when most economic commentators are anticipating a national growth rate of only 3.2 per cent. The Government is facing strong growth on the questionable premise of recovery in the rural sector. Anyone knows that that is unlikely to occur. The Government has also assumed an inflation growth rate of 4.3 per cent, which takes into account some increase in public sector wages. However, the New South Wales Treasury has warned the Government that a wages surge will result in a deficit of at least $421 million for 1995-96.

The Government has been warned that it will not be able to achieve its deficit figures. There are already signs that wages are rising in excess of inflation forecasts, and New South Wales public servants have already received a 6 per cent increase backdated to 1 July. New South Wales Treasury estimates that a 1 per cent increase in budget rates will produce an increase of $80 million in wage costs for the budget. The Government's optimistic economic forecasts have translated into optimistic revenue projections for this year. Payroll tax receipts are forecast to grow by $245 million. The Government expects revenue from taxes, fees, fines and dividends to increase by $1,000 million, excluding any equity restructure payments. On the basis of these economic projections, that represents an 8 per cent increase in the Government's revenue. It is clear that if the State's economic growth stalls at any stage, the revenue increase will not materialise and the deficit will increase dramatically. The former New South Wales Treasury Secretary, Percy Allan, in his analysis of the budget in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 October said:

Experience suggests that even with a soft economic landing . . . the State's finances may take a battering. I think insufficient allowance for this has been made in this budget. The downturn in the dwellings real estate market in the 1995/96 does not appear to be fully reflected in stamp duty receipts. The budget forecasts for GDP growth beyond 1995/96 look optimistic. As a result, the projections for tax revenue -

and he says it nicely -

could be on the high side.

Mr Allan warned further, "Payroll tax receipts will falter as employment slows."

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: This is the first time the Leader of the Opposition has quoted Percy Allan. He must be getting desperate.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Is the honourable member getting worried? If I were the honourable member I would be. Percy Allan says "Payroll tax receipts - "

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: Do I look worried?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The honourable member would not be worried because the Left would be more than happy to see the Treasurer falter. The honourable member would be more than happy to see him hang out and fall over the cliff, and in caucus the honourable member would be the first to stand and cheer. Mr Allan further warned:

Payroll tax receipts will falter as employment slows. Accelerating wages growth, which is particularly likely in the public section, will put pressure on the expenditure side. Higher interest rates could also be a problem. A general slowdown in business conditions will reduce dividends from Government businesses.

I interpret him to be saying that if all the eggs are put in one basket they stand a likely chance of being scrambled. What about asset sales? The budget receipts are further inflated by $180 million in unidentified property asset sales. This is a 119 per cent jump on last year's figure of $84 million. It is also interesting to note that next year the figure will drop to $16 million and to $23 million in 1997-98. The only reference to this item in the budget papers is a passing mention of the State Office Block. I recall that the Labor Party in opposition promised that the State Office Block would be sold unrefurbished for $100 million. That appeared in a document that was meant to identify the savings and how the Labor Party would fund its budget. Presumably this is where the leap in asset sales revenue occurs. Not one property expert in Sydney believes the Government will receive $100 million for the State Office Block. In fact, in March the Property Services Group assessed that unrefurbished the State Office Block would fetch $40 million.

There is yet another line item that fraudulently props up the bottom line deficit target of $238 million. All these figures combine to tell one compelling story, and that is that Labor's deficit is not real. With so many one-off revenue grabs one thing is unbelievably clear, and that is that the budget is not sustainable. I now want to comment on some of the savings the Government is hoping to achieve. Before the 25 March election the Labor Party said it could reach its deficit target by identifying $800 million in savings in so-called waste and mismanagement in its first year. That was supposed to pay for the Labor Party's election commitments and leave $300 million to pay off the State debt. Those savings have failed to materialise in this budget. This year the Government projects that it will save just $200 million which will not even cover the cost of Labor's election commitments, let alone address the issue of debt.

The coalition parties in government argued that these savings could not be achieved and they have been proven right. As I said, Labor promised to sell off the State Office Block for $100 million, a figure
Page 1796
that will prove completely fictitious; it promised to slash $37 million from the cost of government advertising and $65 million from the cost of consultants. Instead the budget shows that the Government will cut just $17 million from those two areas, falling $85 million short of its target. It promised also to abolish the Darling Harbour Authority for a saving of $5 million. Instead, it has appointed a new board on which it has put a number of its Labor mates. It promised to save $50 million a year by cutting the senior executive service by one-third. However, it failed to acknowledge that its plans would cost money, not save it, in the initial years. When Labor came to office the Premier promised to save $70 million through across-the-board administrative savings, but those savings will bring just $20 million this financial year - nowhere near the announced target.

There were clear and early signs that this Government was in financial difficulty. The date for the budget was put back from the usual first week in September to late September, and finally until 10 October. The holes began appearing in Labor's $800 million savings strategy as soon as it came to office. But nothing illustrates more clearly the deep trouble the Government was in with its finances than the bungling of the promise to lift the tolls on the M4 and M5 motorways. Honourable members know now that the Government never intended to deliver this promise; that even at $73 million a year, Labor could not afford it. It simply waited for an excuse to break the promise and it found one in the damages the tollway companies were seeking for lost taxation advantages.

The Premier said he first became aware of the additional costs when negotiations began on 31 May this year. If that was the case, why was he backing away from the promise at least one week earlier in the Legislative Assembly? Quite simply because he could not afford to keep the one promise that won him government, that won him the seats of Penrith and Parramatta in 1991 and Blue Mountains and Badgerys Creek in 1995. There was a mountain of material to warn Labor that its promises would involve taxation implications and subsequent damages, and Labor was, in fact, fully aware of it.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Why didn't you raise it before the election?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: It was clearly identified in a number of reports. I can inform the honourable member that it was raised by the Labor Party in its own economic statement. In the economic statement the Labor Party adopted the report of the Public Accounts Committee on private sector involvement in public infrastructure. That report identified the tax implications. The coalition Government said that the minimum cost would be around $70 million. Those projections were right. In the lead-up to this budget Labor tried to create a picture of a State left in disarray by the coalition. I have already demonstrated the fallacy of that argument. Labor tried to blame falling property revenue for what was going to be a tough budget despite a virtually corresponding increase in payroll tax receipts. It tried to use an imaginary blow-out in the cost of the Olympics as an excuse to cut services to the point where Olympic officials warned that Sydney could lose the games if the Government kept publicly undermining them. The coalition's handling of the Olympics has received nothing but praise from the International Olympic Committee. The former coalition Government completed facilities ahead of schedule and within budget, yet honourable members have heard nothing about those facilities under the administration of this Government.

Moody's Investor Service Proprietary Limited noted in its latest review that in the context of a $20 billion budget, the cost of preparations for the Olympics should not prove to be a substantial problem. I also note with interest that the Treasurer finally conceded in his Budget Speech that "these projects are within our means". There is only one reason Labor has resorted to the draconian measures that have been set out in its first budget and that is because its pre-election strategy was flawed, the cost of its promises blew out and its savings were illusory. In summary, this Government was elected on deceit. That is why services are now being cut. That is why 4,500 public servants stand to lose their jobs. That is why capital works spending is being pared. This Government was elected on deceit and it is living on deceit.

In 1988 in his first budget reply the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, quoted from George Bernard Shaw and said, "We are all liars to people we don't care for." That will be the epitaph of this Premier. The Premier has used the people of New South Wales, and has forgotten them in this budget. He went on a drought tour in April and used farmers Jim Davey and his son Chris at Ariah Park for a media opportunity. He pledged full support for the Daveys, then promptly forgot them. The Daveys are still waiting for the assistance promised to them by the Premier, but they will not find it in this budget. While drought continues to ravage this State, the Government has cut the agricultural budget by 25 per cent. It has raided $2.5 million from the Cattle Compensation Fund, which was to assist farmers with cattle affected by the chemical helix, and closed the Biological and Chemical Research Institute at Rydalmere, which developed environmentally sustainable plant varieties.

The Rural Assistance Authority is to receive $79 million in drought assistance, but the Treasurer forgot to say that the overwhelming bulk of it - $56 million - comes from the Commonwealth Government. This is at a time when farmers have been kicked in the teeth by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation and his draconian restrictions on land clearing and increases in rural water charges. The Premier also spent a night with the Sydney City Mission. All honourable members will remember the front page media coverage he received on that occasion. The Premier said that the Sydney City Mission deserved all the support it could get. But
Page 1797
what support has it received from this Government? He said, "I was moved by the experience." So moved was he that he cut $3 million from the funding of the same Sydney City Mission - another one of those Carr broken promises. The Premier is quite prepared to use people for media opportunities, but then he will walk away from them. But the people who have suffered the most by far at the hands of this Government are those from Labor's heartland, the people of western Sydney. They are in fact Labor's forgotten people; the people who were promised so much, but were given so little.

The people were promised a toll-free journey on the M4 and the M5, but they were simply taken for a ride. The people were denied a $1 billion promise to lift the tolls, then they were insulted with so-called compensation packages to which the Government does not contribute a cent. The people have been denied a new maternity block at Nepean Hospital, thanks to a $50 million cut in the health budget by the Labor Government. The people who face cuts to bus services in the west as a result of Labor's cuts to the free school transport scheme will not forget this Government. The people who benefit most from the ethnic grants, which this Government has slashed, come from the western part of Sydney. The hundreds of disadvantaged of Sydney's west, abandoned by Labor's cuts to employment and training programs, in particular the Mamre project run by the Sisters of Mercy at St Marys, will not forget it. Commuters who were told by the Premier that they would get a rail link between Parramatta and Hornsby, but who now will not get one, will not forget him. The 250,000 people living on the Hawkesbury flood plain, whose flood risk is substantially increased by the Government's refusal to adequately fund the Warragamba Dam flood mitigation scheme will not forget him.

For its treatment of Sydney's west alone, the Government stands condemned. But Labor's trail of broken promises and betrayal does not stop at the tollgates: it extends right across the State. It is clear that the health budget is focused entirely on saving the political skins of the Premier and the Minister for Health. The focus of their health system has been skewed towards hospital waiting lists and elective surgery at the expense of other areas. The health capital works budget, for example, is $22.6 million less than expenditure for last year. So-called new works announced by the Government are primarily re-announcements of coalition initiatives, but they have been given less funding. Apart from the dumping of the proposed new maternity block at Nepean Hospital, the redevelopment of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, which included a new emergency department, has also been dropped by the Government.

Those projects have suffered at the hands of the narrow-minded socialism of the Minister for Health who has decided to fund entirely from the public purse projects that would have been completed in partnership with the private sector. Lithgow hospital will now cost $22 million instead of $7 million. The Prince of Wales ambulatory care clinic will now cost taxpayers $89 million and will take a year longer to come into operation. Those actions have correspondingly reduced the funds available for other health projects. Obviously, the Hon. Patricia Staunton is mortified by such changes. A responsible and balanced approach to private sector involvement in health care is crucial if the people of New South Wales are to get the hospitals and the health facilities they need. The coalition Government took the view that tremendous benefits could be gained from such an approach based on best practice.

The betrayal continues with education and training. It is interesting that not one of the 339 additional teachers announced in this budget will end up in front of a classroom. They will all be allocated to training positions and relief days. As a result no class, not one single class in New South Wales, will have its size reduced. There will be no reduction in composite classes. This from the man who calls himself the education Premier. The 5,000 TAFE places announced by the Government are all Commonwealth funded; not one cent of State money is involved. But Labor does not let down just the children and the youth of this State; it washes its hands of them when they leave school as well. At a time when youth unemployment stands at nearly 30 per cent in this State, Labor has cut all State-funded youth employment programs. What price to abandon the State's youth? A figure of $21 million, or only 0.1 per cent of the budget, is the price that the Government is prepared to pay.

The Minister for Community Services knows full well the pain he has suffered. In community services the Premier has misled the Parliament. He claimed that Labor had increased funding for community services by 20 per cent. He even said the same thing to the Labor Party's State conference. However, the budget summary puts the increase in current payments for social and community services at just 5 per cent. That figure compares with the coalition spending increases of 11 per cent in each of the two previous years. The Government's increases do not even match the coalition's increases in the past two years. What is more, the Government is trying to claim credit for coalition initiatives in community services. The funding for supported accommodation for people with disabilities outlined in the budget was approved by the coalition Government.

The extra child-care places arising from the Commonwealth-State child-care agreement would have been a coalition initiative, except that the Commonwealth refused to sign the agreement for political reasons. While the Government is taking credit for our programs, it is failing to deliver on promises it made before the election. At some stage I would like the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services to justify this. The Government promised to extend the benefits of the Seniors Card to people over the age of 55. That promise has not been honoured in this budget. It is another of this Government's broken promises.

Page 1798

The transport portfolio has obviously suffered at the hands of a Minister whose primary focus has been one of resignation. By far the greatest travesty in the transport budget is the Government's decision to make pupils walk to school by cutting the free school transport scheme. This parent tax of $960 a year for a family with two children will imperil the safety of school students and remove the freedom of parents to choose where they send their children to school. Where was this in the list of election cuts announced by the Government? As a result of this decision more than 150,000 students will lose their free travel. From 1997, when a $450 cap will be placed on free school transport, all students in urban areas will have to pay for school travel. On several occasions the former coalition Government considered and rejected moves to cut the free school transport scheme but, at the end of the day, issues of safety and choice were always considered paramount.

This Labor Government, faced with its self-made financial problems, pushed this issue aside in its grab for cash from kids. It rushed into this decision without considering all the options, because it was desperate for funds. The former coalition Government consulted with parents and teachers to determine the best way of addressing the issues of safety and access. One would think that the cuts to this scheme would result in improved transport programs elsewhere in the budget. Sadly, that is not the case. Instead, 1,089 State Rail Authority jobs will go this year - a cut which can only reduce services and result in inefficiencies. The State Rail Authority budget has been cut by $174 million, or 20 per cent, and $133 million of that will be in capital works. This year only four Tangara carriages, which is only half a train, will be purchased. Let us not forget the broken promise to amalgamate CityRail and the State Transit Authority into a unified public transport authority. For all this we can make only one comment: the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Tourism should again resign.

Labor, when in opposition, constantly criticised the former coalition Government's law and order priorities, but it has endorsed our policies in the budget papers. It has maintained all our recurrent and capital programs and, in a $950 million law and order budget, allocated only $16 million for its own programs. Even the extra 650 police, for which Labor takes credit, was a former coalition Government budget commitment. Alarm bells should be ringing. The budget papers clearly identify that, during the administration of the former coalition Government, court delays and backlogs were significantly reduced. The budget papers state that local court waiting times are the lowest ever. The former coalition Government achieved that by making certain it had acting judges and magistrates. There is no money in this budget for an acting judge program. In fact, it is interesting to note that the Chief Judge of the District Court, when announcing a strategic plan, said:

It also involves abandoning the traditional system of fixed vacations which can be achieved by the introduction of an acting judge programme.

He went on to say that he needed additional funds and that the detailed submissions that had been put forward were receiving favourable consideration. They have not received favourable consideration from this Government. Under this Government court delays will increase. Under the previous Labor Government the State's road program was effectively put on hold, with freeways often ending in mid-air. The previous Labor Government could not handle freeways and this Labor Government cannot handle tollways. Gone is the $6 billion Pacific motorway project which would have provided a divided Pacific Highway between Newcastle and Queensland over the next 10 years. Instead, Labor has allocated a paltry $300 million over three years for Pacific Highway upgrading. Labor's failure to address this issue will mean that lives will continue to be lost on Australia's worst stretch of road. In addition, the Government is siphoning funds away from the roads construction program. An amount of $170 million of dedicated 3 x 3 funds, which the previous coalition Government always spent on roads, will now be spent on public transport projects such as car parking facilities and bicycle lockers - another broken promise.

The greatest betrayal lies in the roads compensation package for Sydney's west. After breaking its initial tolls promise, which cost more than $1 billion, Labor was only prepared to compensate motorists in that area with a $73 million package over a four-year period, which in no way matches the money supposedly allocated in its original promise. It gets worse. Not one cent of that money is coming from the State Government. An amount of $30 million a year will be pulled from existing road projects and the remainder will come from the Commonwealth Government. The State Government has extracted itself from that promise without spending any money. This Government will pay in the only way that matters to it. Motorists will pay at the tolls and the Labor Party will pay at the polls.

The Government will make much of budgeting for its promise to create 24 new national parks. Let us not forget that last year the former coalition Government gave the National Parks and Wildlife Service the biggest single recurrent funding boost in its history, specifically to allow better management of our park system for fire, management of pest species and protection of rare and endangered species. If the Government's 24 national parks become a reality it can rest assured that we will demand that the high levels of management stipulated in last year's budget are maintained in these new parks. We do not want to see a return to the practices of the former Labor Government. The former Labor Minister for Planning and Environment - the present Premier - simply drew a line on maps, declared the areas national parks, gave them miserable levels of funding and then walked away enabling noxious weeds and feral animals to flourish.

It must also be remembered that this Government's forestry restructuring package will be funded by an unprecedented raid on environmental trusts set up by the former coalition Government.
Page 1799
The losers in this plan will be the hundreds of small community groups with grassroots environmental projects. They will not now be funded by this Government. The coalition parties will do everything they can to ensure that the environmental trusts continue in some form. In addition, no money has been allocated for the $7 billion clean waterways program. That is incredible! It is another of this Government's broken promises. Landcom funds have been cut by 40 per cent, which means a 40 per cent reduction in homes for low income earners. The crisis unit accommodation scheme has been severely cut.

In the last year of the Fahey Government 136 units were built under that program but only 42 are budgeted for this financial year. Despite a housing waiting list of over 86,000, only 3,377 units are planned for construction this year. The litany of the betrayal of the people of this State continues. Not one cent has been allocated for the Potters Point sewage treatment works at Cronulla, despite a $100 million promise made before the election - another of this Government's broken promises. The Government has squibbed on the Warragamba Dam capital works program. Urgently needed sewerage works have been rescheduled after a cut of $30 million. The Government has shown a questionable commitment in the area of women's affairs, despite making many promises in this area before the election. Its promise to ensure equal representation on government boards is not being translated into deeds. Its promise to introduce safety kits for women has been cut from this budget.

The Government's procrastination over funding for the ambulatory clinic at Prince of Wales means that the Royal Hospital for Women will not be able to operate at full strength for six months after it moves to Randwick in June next year. The cut to employment and training programs will particularly impact on women. An analysis of the target groups of those programs shows that women who have been out of the work force for an extended period and women from non-English speaking backgrounds have been particularly assisted by the coalition's programs in the past. Of particular concern is the axing of the Women at Work program. This was the only program of its kind in Australia and was targeting women who were leaving the prison system with skills and vocational training program services. These budget betrayals reflect what has been constantly demonstrated over the past six months - that is, that there is no commitment to women from this Government.

In the Premier's portfolio he has demonstrated a complete disregard for the interest groups he is supposed to represent in ethnic affairs. The ethnic community, so ardently pursued before the election, has now been abandoned by this Government. The ethnic grants program has been cut by more than half. The coalition's commitment to provide $750,000 for Carnivale has been slashed to $300,000. A promise to provide free access by ethnic schools to public school facilities after hours has still not been honoured by the Government. Funding for sport and recreation has also been cut in this budget by $3.1 million. Only $2.4 million has been allocated to the Institute of Sport, which is $1.6 million less than the allocation by the coalition Government. So much for a commitment to the Olympic sport program!

The capital assistance program for sporting clubs has been cut by $1.9 million. Honourable members opposite can be assured that the sporting clubs of this State will remember this Government! This budget is seriously flawed. It massively increases expenditure, but does not deliver corresponding benefits for the people of New South Wales. It cuts programs, but it does not deliver any lasting financial benefits. It makes a mockery of the Government's reformist aspirations. As Des Moore of the Institute of Public Affairs rightly noted:

If the Carr Government were truly reformist it would be aiming for best practice among the States, which on 1993/94 Commonwealth grants commission assessments would invite a reduction in current budgetary spending of around $2 billion, and allow a commensurate reduction in the tax burden borne by NSW residents.

This comment was echoed by Moody's when it said:

In the case of NSW, where debt growth is under control at a reasonable level of indebtedness, it might be argued that the fiscal effort needed to eliminate net debt -

and I emphasise the following words -

would be better used to provide tax relief or to maintain essential spending.

The Premier promised that he would govern as an old-style Labor Government. Indeed, he will, because this budget takes New South Wales back to the very worst practices of the Wran and Unsworth eras. That is only what one would expect from a Treasurer who was a key adviser to Premier Unsworth and a Premier who was a Minister in that failed administration. I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until a later hour of the sitting.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [9.15]: The Government strenuously opposes the procedural motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Prior to the dinner adjournment this House was debating the Conveyancers Licensing Bill. It has now commenced debate on the budget estimates and related papers. The Government does not have a majority in this House. However, it is a well-understood and long-practised convention that whatever the position regarding substantive measures being debated - that is, the House may choose to amend Government measures, reject them entirely or delay them - the fact is that the Government is in charge and is seen to be in charge of the listing, ordering and disposal of Government business.

The Leader of the Opposition has just spoken in the budget debate and the Government desires that the debate continue. When the coalition was in office the order of Government business was altered at will.
Page 1800
Invariably the then Opposition went along with the wishes of the coalition Government. The present Opposition is attempting to take the disposal of business out of the hands of the Government. The Government wants to proceed with the budget debate. For that reason I express trenchant opposition to the trick and stunt the Leader of the Opposition is now seeking to pull.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.17]: The Government is trying to resurrect a very unusual situation. When the House adjourned for dinner there was no doubt on this side of the House that the conveyancing legislation being debated at that time - and the adjournment of that debate was moved by you, Mr Deputy-President - would resume after the Leader of the Opposition had completed his speech on the budget. The Government gave no indication that it was trying to fiddle the arrangements on the agenda by taking the conveyancing debate off the agenda and continuing the budget debate. Members on this side of the House were under no illusion that the adjournment of the conveyancing legislation was moved so that the Leader of the Opposition could deliver his speech on the budget at 8.15 p.m. At the conclusion of his contribution the debate on the Conveyancers Licensing Bill was to be resumed.

I urge honourable members to consider the situation the House has been placed in. The Government is trying to reorder the program contrary to the information made available by the Leader of the Government in this House and the Government Whip. Certainly there was no illusion on this side of the House that we would continue with the conveyancing debate at the conclusion of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the budget. The Government is clearly trying to fiddle the order of the business of the House. I urge honourable members to support the adjournment of this debate to enable us to conclude the debate on the Conveyancers Licensing Bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.20]: Since 1981, when I became a member of this Chamber, it has always been the prerogative of the government of the day to order business. However, today - or more precisely in the last three hours - honourable members have been subjected to at least four changes of program. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, the House started off with the conveyancing bill scheduled to be dealt with, the Leader of the Opposition was to be given his opportunity to make his contribution to the budget debate when the House returned after the dinner adjournment, and then the House was to return to the conveyancing bill. I was told later that was not going to happen. Then the House was told that after the Leader of the Opposition had made his contribution to the budget debate, that debate would continue. That did not worry me much as it would have given me the opportunity to return to my rooms and work on my contribution to the budget debate, instead of waiting in this Chamber to make a speech on conveyancing, which apparently I was not to be given the opportunity to do tonight.

I was also given two contradictory messages about what would be on the notice paper tomorrow. At 6 o'clock this evening I was told that tomorrow the House would be considering the Oaths and Crowns References Bill; about 20 minutes ago I was told the House would not be considering that bill. I am happy to accommodate the Government; I realise it is under great pressure. The Treasurer has a dual responsibility, being also Leader of the House. That makes things very difficult for him. It is about time the Government got its act together. Members cannot continue to debate the order of business. That is a waste of time for members who have many bills to speak on, as I do, and need time to consider their contributions before a debate. We are preparing daily to ready ourselves to debate legislation. It is extremely frustrating to work at top speed to prepare for debate, and then to be told suddenly it does not matter because a particular bill will not be dealt with on a given day.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: Do you not remember that the previous Government used to change the order of business?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: The Minister asks whether I remember what the previous Government used to do. Indeed, I do remember what the previous Government did. But unfortunately for the Government I also remember what the administration before that did. I remember very well how business was run by the Hon. Paul Landa. I remember how the House was run when the Hon. Barrie Unsworth was in office. The events of the past week have not been satisfactory for members of the Government, the Opposition, or the crossbenches. But the principle still remains that the Government should be in charge of Government business except in the most extreme circumstances. So if there is to be a division on this issue, the Australian Democrats will vote with the Government.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [9.24]: It is with great sadness that I speak in this debate. I have always understood that some people viewed their word as their bond. I accept the argument that the Government sets the order of business, and for that reason the Governments produces a statement about what the House is expected to do. Equally, that is also the reason that bills on the notice paper may be changed without notice. The truth of the matter is that this evening I spoke with both my counterpart, the Government Whip, and the Leader of the Government and put a proposition to them that would be of assistance to both the Government and the Opposition: that at a certain point in debate on the conveyancing bill one of our members would move that it be adjourned to a later hour of the sitting, and by doing that we would enable the Leader of the Opposition to deliver the Opposition's response to the Budget. That is the correct procedure.

The agreement was that after the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition the budget debate would be adjourned to a later hour of the sitting and the House return to the conveyancing bill. My colleague
Page 1801
the Hon. D. J. Gay moved that debate on the conveyancing bill be adjourned to a later hour of the sitting. There is no way we would have done that if I had not had the word of two people whom I consider to be most honourable. If the Leader of the Government in this House wishes to be declared a non-honourable person, I will accommodate him. He said to me - and he cannot resile from this because witnesses were present - that this course was acceptable. The only variation was the time - that is, whether the House adjourned at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.00 p.m., or whether the House adjourned at 6.45 p.m. and returned at 8.30 p.m. The Opposition was happy to agree with the requirements of the Leader of the House.

The Leader of the House cannot have it both ways. He cannot trifle with the Opposition, he cannot lie to the Opposition, and he cannot change his mind without telling anyone what he has done. The Leader of the House does not tell the truth and is without honour. He does not honour his pledges. He left the Opposition in a most unenviable position. I am disappointed. I did not seriously think he would do that because of the understanding reached this evening - and it was an understanding because we had discussed this on a number of occasions. Despite the comments of the rather cute person who is sitting next to the Leader of the Government, the Hon. Jan Burnswoods - who does not know, was not spoken to and is irrelevant - the agreement was that a member of the Opposition would move the adjournment of debate on the conveyancing bill to a later hour of the sitting, that the Leader of the Opposition would deliver his response to the budget, and the House would return to the debate on the conveyancing bill.

That course seems to have been totally reasonable. The Government Whip agreed to this course. I accept that the final decision rests in the hands of members of this House. But if the House is to seriously attempt to deal with Government business, I would hope that I could rely on the word of the Leader of the Government. Clearly I cannot. For whatever reason, he has changed his mind. I will leave it for the House to decide whether he perceived an advantage because the Opposition's numbers are down by one, or whether he is trying to take a cute political point. I ask the Leader of the Government most sincerely to honour the undertaking he gave me, and that he agree to the arrangement. Is he or is he not a man of honour? If he is a man of honour, where lies his word from here on? The Minister for Community Services, who is sitting at the table, was horrified. The Leader of the Government placed him in a most invidious position. I understand his problems. I put to the Leader of the Government that the undertaking was as I have outlined it, and I ask him to honour it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.29]: It has always been the accepted tradition of this House that the conduct of the business of the House is in the hands of the government of the day. Any suggestion of an undertaking in relation to a certain course of business is absolute poppycock. To say that we planned to proceed with a course of business is one thing. To suggest that there needs to be an agreement between the Government and the Opposition about the course of business is absolute nonsense, and the Opposition Whip knows it. Time and time again in the eight years I have been a member of this House, seven of which the Opposition was in office, the government of the day suddenly decided to change the order of business. More significantly, the government of the day would decide to adjourn a particular debate, and that was always regarded as the prerogative of the government.

No-one can claim to have been hijacked. It has always been the Government's intention that the House would debate the budget this week, and honourable members are prepared for it. Two Government members are prepared to make their maiden speeches on the budget, and many other honourable members are prepared to speak on the budget. The Opposition Whip is completely and absolutely hypocritical. Government members and most Opposition members have been in this Chamber not once, not twice, not 10 times, not even 20 times, but many more times when the government of the day has decided not to proceed with a particular order of business. That is what the Government is doing tonight.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [9.31]: I have heard some pompous nonsense from the Opposition Whip in the last seven or eight years. To complain tonight because there has been a change in the order of business is absolute hypocrisy. What warning was the Hon. R. S. L. Jones given when the South East Forests Protection Bill was brought on at 1.30 a.m? No warning whatsoever was given to members. The Hon. J. H. Jobling thought it was the smartest trick that had ever been pulled, and when honourable members complained he rolled right over the top. A few years ago the former Government was in a bit of trouble about what to do to help Westpac, so at 2.00 a.m. he pulled out the credit bill and the House dealt with it until 4.00 a.m. He is the greatest hypocrite this Parliament has seen in many years. The only charming and redeeming feature about the Opposition Whip is his old-fashioned pomposity.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The debate will continue in an orderly manner or there might be one or two fewer members in the House.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order: the honourable member is not addressing the issue before the House. Mr President, I ask you to draw his attention to the point before the Chamber and to stop making personal attacks on another member.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Had the Hon. I. M. Macdonald finished, or did he merely resume his seat to listen to the point of order?

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: I was encouraged to come back to the lectern.

Page 1802

The PRESIDENT: Order! Do not be.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.32]: I do not know all the details of the discussions that took place, but before the House divides I will put on the record the approach of the Call to Australia group. Even though this may be a sudden change of tactics - which has occurred in the past on both sides of the House - Call to Australia accepts that the Government has the right to order the business of the House. A similar conflict arose in the period 1988-91 when, on a number of occasions, attempts were made to take control of business out of the hands of the coalition Government. Call to Australia opposed those moves on that occasion. We also opposed moves to adjourn the House against the wishes of the Government. We support that principle.

Question - That this debate be now adjourned to a later hour of the sitting - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Kersten
Mrs Chadwick Mr Moppett
Mrs Forsythe Mr Mutch
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Dr Goldsmith Tellers,
Mr Hannaford Mr Ryan
Mr Jobling Mrs Sham-Ho

Mrs Arena Mrs Nile
Ms Burnswoods Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Mr Obeid
Mr Corbett Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Staunton
Mrs Isaksen Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Tingle
Mr Jones Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Dr Burgmann
Mr Manson Mr Macdonald

Dr Pezzutti Mr O'Grady

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD [9.41]: In my contribution to this budget debate I propose to deal in some detail with a number of important issues that have arisen over the past year.

[Interruption]

These particular issues are not laughing matters, as the Hon. J. F. Ryan would seem to suggest. They are matters that go to the heart of governance in this State, particularly under the previous Government. I shall commence with a matter of deep concern to a number of honourable members. Miss Vivien Olson, who was a dear friend of mine and a friend of a number of my colleagues over the past few years, passed away earlier this year following problems with asbestosis. Vivien was known to the current Opposition for her forthright campaign on the swimming pool issue, in particular the enclosure of swimming pools. During the period 1988 to 1993, when the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti was active on the issue of safety in swimming pools, Vivien provided him with a great deal of information to assist his endeavours to tighten safety laws. One of Vivien's children had suffered a near-death experience in a pool, and Vivien had been keen to have the issue amplified so that there was greater pool safety regulation in this State.

For many years Vivien Olson was an officer in the Department of Youth and Community Services. Vivien's legal action in 1994 was a landmark asbestosis case in New South Wales. She won a major award of damages following long and extensive proceedings. The judge found that her case had merit and that Vivien should receive an award of damages. In a sense Vivien Olson's only sin was living in Wittenoom for the first two or three years of her life. At that stage her father was a draughtsman with Australian Blue Asbestos, which ran the Wittenoom mine. The evidence in her case showed clearly that housing was arranged for the family by the company. The house that the family occupied in Wittenoom was surrounded by tailings from the defendants' blue asbestos mining and milling operations and that the tailings contained asbestos fibre. The defendants were the ABA company and, later, CSR. The case put forward by Vivien Margaret Olson against CSR alleged that the defendant company, CSR, should have known, and actually knew, that exposure at Wittenoom was such that the company should have appreciated that Vivien fell into a class of persons to whom there was a foreseeable risk of injury from exposure to asbestos tailings.

Wittenoom was primarily a mining town, a company town. The influence of the company in the town was such that the company should have taken steps to ensure that contamination from asbestos was limited. The evidence in the case showed that as early as 1950 the company or its antecedents knew that asbestos was a dangerous fibre and could lead to severe medical problems later in life for people who worked or were associated with it. Death struck Vivien Olson at a very young age. The judge who presided over her case said that the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that by 1950 it was known that asbestos fibre was toxic, that it caused asbestosis, that it was linked to lung cancer, that it was carcinogenic, and that it was dangerous. All these facts were known to the company at that stage. Yet for almost another 20 years the blue asbestos mine at Wittenoom continued to operate and hundreds of employees worked in the mines.

The companies knew the danger of asbestos and took no steps to limit the danger. I contend that the level of evidence demonstrated that the companies
Page 1803
knew as far back as 45 years ago that the mine should have been closed. As I have said, the evidence in Vivien's case established that during the time she was one to three years old she was exposed to the tailings of blue asbestos that were around the home. The evidence also established that there was a haze around the house from gorge to gorge due to the amount of asbestos in the air. The judge, after considering all these matters, found that CSR controlled Australian Blue Asbestos; that Australian Blue Asbestos controlled the township of Wittenoom; that the injury suffered by Vivien Olson was of the same class, type and character as known injuries at the relevant time; that the defendant owed Vivien Olson a duty of care; and that the company, by virtue of its control over the township of Wittenoom, placed Vivien Olson and others in the position of living in the town and therefore increased the chances of long-term illness.

The judge found also that the company had failed in its duty of care. In a landmark decision the judge awarded Vivien Olson $823,594 in compensation for her experiences as a child at Wittenoom. The case is under appeal. It is very sad that CSR has chosen to take that course. I believe the case was so strong that the company was culpable and that it has undermined the human values involved. I am sure that people who read about this case will be shocked at the extent of the damage done to Vivien Olson and the hundreds of other workers who had the misfortune to work in the blue asbestos mine. I call upon CSR to cease its constant harassment over the past few years of asbestosis sufferers.

I attended as a witness in Vivien Olson's case by virtue of knowing her during her employment. I spoke about her circumstances. I felt that counsel for the defendant was aggressive, antagonistic and eager to score cheap points. He went too far in defending the indefensible. I hope CSR will realise that pursuing such a course in the courts is not only fruitless but antithetical to proper human standards and behaviour. I know that many members of the community are concerned about corporate ethics. I hope that CSR will cease its pursuit of the hundreds of unfortunate blue asbestos miners and meet their legitimate claims for just compensation.

In Vivien Olson's case I hope the company will desist from its useless and destructive course of action and that the December 1994 damages award will stand. Subsequently Vivien died, leaving two children. Her father died of asbestosis in his early thirties and her sister and mother obviously are under great threat through their misfortune of living in this hideous town which the company knew would lead to death. It is about time the community told CSR to stop its harassment of people who have suffered greatly from asbestosis.

I reside in the south of the State, and recently an issue has concerned me greatly. In recent times the Sydney Morning Herald has run a series of articles relating to environmental degradation in the Murray-Darling basin. The series has covered the Murrumbidgee River, the overuse of its resources, the salinisation of its lower reaches around Hay and the overclearing and soil erosion problems. Three months ago I had the opportunity to have a good look at the Murrumbidgee flood plain in the upper reaches around Gundagai. I was horrified at what I believe to be one of the great environmental disasters looming in this State that is totally and utterly sanctioned by government departments, particularly under the previous Government.

By way of background, a number of Acts regulate the nature and use of extractive industries in the Murrumbidgee flood plain. First, the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 deals mainly with non-tidal areas and is administered by the Department of Water Resources. The extraction or removal of material from protected lands under the Act or the undertaking of any activity likely to obstruct stream flow of protected waters is covered by section 22. Protected land and waters are the channel bed and banks of the area within 40 metres of the top of the bank of any stream. In practice, streams are defined as those with banks and some flood plain of their own formation. To perform any activity one must receive a permit from the Department of Water Resources.

Where the proposed extraction is from Crown land rather than freehold land a lease or licence is required by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. A land assessment for the site must be publicly exhibited prior to the granting of the lease or licence. That is the first Act that governs extractive industries involved in gravel extraction. Second is the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Local environment plans are planning instruments prepared by local government to control new development. They provide for protecting, improving and utilising the environment to the best advantage. Under this Act uniform criteria for the extractive industry and their preparation of development applications and supporting documentations are agreed to. Where an LEP is in place extractive industries are nominated as designated developments under part 4 of the Act and require development consent. It is also mandatory for an environmental impact statement to be submitted with the development application.

Part 4 applies to all local council areas in the State except those local council areas that do not have an LEP. This is the core of and the key to what I want to say tonight. Three councils in this State - Gundagai, right in the centre of the Murrumbidgee flood plain, Cobar and Tenterfield - do not have to apply a local environmental plan. The other exception to this rule in part 4 is development applications where the proponent is a government authority. When preparing an EIS the proponent is directed by the Department of Planning to contact nominated government authorities to establish the issues each of those authorities require addressed by the EIS. Councils are not required to prepare a local environmental plan. Section 54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 states that a council may decide to prepare a draft local environmental plan.

Page 1804

The Minister may direct a council to prepare an LEP by using section 55 of the Act. In local council areas where an LEP does not exist the environmental impacts of the proposed development are assessed under part 5 of the Act. Part 5 applies primarily for the control of developments by a government authority and other development activities that do not require consent under the local planning instrument. Under part 5 the determining authority is not the local council. The local council is not required to consider the environmental issues but only whether it wishes the development to proceed or not. Other government authorities that must approve the development, such as the Department of Water Resources under the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act, are required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposal before issuing a licence, permit or approval. Normally this would require the completion of a statement of environmental effects such as a review of environmental factors, an REF, to determine if the activity is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

If significant environmental impacts are predicted, an environmental impact statement must be prepared for the proposed activity under the procedures specified in the Act and its regulations. Importantly, under part 5 it is not mandatory for the extractive industry to prepare an EIS as required under part 4 of the Act. There is also no requirement for the determining authority or the proponent to contact any other government authority to seek assistance in the process of identifying and evaluating the likely environmental issues or their control. The authority must decide whether the proposed extractive industry is "likely to significantly affect the environment" and is obliged "to consider to the fullest extent possible the factors that are set out in clause 82 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act." I have taken some time to go through these points because they are crucial to what I want to say about what I think is a very serious situation in the Gundagai local government area.

This type of assessment under part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has been found to be adequate by the Land and Environment Court in the case of Jugiong Quarries Pty Limited v Water Administration Ministerial Corporation et al. The court found in this case that the environmental issues were suitably identified and assessed simply by a departmental officer placing ticks on a standard form without any supporting documentation or formal investigation. This was a very important case conducted late last year in relation to the extractive industries on the Murrumbidgee flood plain. This matter involves the operation of State environmental planning policy No. 37. Briefly, there are situations whereby current or continuing extraction rights exist and the operation does not have development consent. State environmental planning policy No. 37 was introduced on 18 June 1993 to address the question of existing use rights for extractive industries. It requires all mines and extractive industries that are operating under existing use rights without development consent to register under SEPP 37 within three months of registration.

A number of other Acts come into play in relation to the environment regime affecting the extractive industries, including pollution control legislation, soil conservation and a policy in relation to sand and gravel extraction policies for non-tidal rivers. This policy was introduced by the previous Government in 1992 and is administered by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. It has three objectives: firstly, to ensure that the extraction of sand and gravel is undertaken on a sustainable basis; secondly, to minimise environmental affects of extraction; and, thirdly, to ensure that extraction is consistent with other policies and initiatives. I want to demonstrate that that policy for the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act has been ripped up in relation to these particular matters in the Murrumbidgee flood plain.

I deal firstly with what I regard as a rather shocking situation with the Jugiong quarry approval process and requirements. I had the opportunity to visit the Jugiong quarry. Leaving aside extractive issues in general in the Murrumbidgee flood plain, this particular sand and gravel mine has spent about $2 million on protecting the environment from the effects of floods. It has built large levee banks, developed a number of small lakes and revegetated the area after extraction. These important steps have been taken to protect this part of the Murrumbidgee River. It is interesting to note that the Jugiong quarry is subject to the EIS because it is in the Harden shire on one side of the river. As a consequence, it has to run the gauntlet of a rather massive EIS process. That led, after a gamut of departments investigated the quarry, to the establishment of a regime of care that has ensured that the mine site is protected from floods.

The Jugiong quarry operation has existed since 1965 and has operated under existing use rights until the recent introduction of SEPP 37. The current operators, Jugiong Quarries Proprietary Limited, now Tegra, have controlled the site since 1980 and employ a number of people on the site. The quarry land is located in the shire of Harden. Harden Council has a local environmental plan in place and all proposed extractive industry developments are required to support their development applications with an EIS. In relation to the mine site there has been an extensive response to SEPP 37, which has been issued in the form of about $250,000 worth of environmental protection. Under SEPP 37 various details of the continuing operation have been outlined. Numerous guidelines are in place.

Representatives of the quarry have had to consult with the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, the Department of Land and Water Conservation, the Environment Protection Authority, New South Wales Fisheries, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Mineral Resources, and the Roads and Traffic Authority. All these
Page 1805
departments have been consulted on the EIS procedures relating to the site of the Jugiong quarry in the shire of Harden. This has led to a very detailed environmental protection regime, which has involved mine management, surveying, geology, geotechnic, water and silt management, ground water assessment, air and noise, traffic access, geomorphic, hydraulic modelling, flora and fauna, archaeological land use and project justification. All of these are covered within a very detailed system on the mine site. The EIS prepared for the Harden Council was on display for 28 days as required under the legislation. It is proper that this extractive industry had to go through such a regime, particularly in a very sensitive flood plain.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [10.07]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON [10.07]: On Tuesday, 10 October 1995, in the Daily Telegraph Mirror Piers Akerman made a claim that no politician has had the courage to call into question the evil propositions of Professor Peter Singer, inter alia. Professor Singer of Monash University has, for some time, been proposing that children could be killed up to one month after their birth. With due respect to Piers Akerman, I have raised my voice at numerous meetings and elsewhere about these evil, repugnant proposals of Professor Singer, as I oppose his views and those of his fellow of like mind, Helga Kuhse, on euthanasia. Professor Singer was prevented from lecturing in Germany as a result of outcries in that country. This has not happened since Hitler's days. His ideas are evil. However, this does not prevent him from being the new darling of a few presenters on the ABC who seem to hang on his every death-encouraging word.

Professor Singer gives pigs equal - or greater - worth to humans. This same man held protests within sight of the piggery in which the Prime Minister had a stake. This man, who is on the public purse, is presenting his evil views to young, impressionable students. I ask again: where is our sense of values? Professor Singer is the number one candidate for the Greens in Victoria at the next Senate elections. I urge the Prime Minister, all other party leaders, my party colleagues in Victoria and the national executive of the Australian Labor Party not to sell their souls to him for preferences under any circumstances. I urge my companions in the Australian Labor Party and other party leaders to relegate party preferences to him to the lowest level. If this man is elected to the Senate he would have the added status of being a member of the national Senate where he could continue to propagate his evil philosophies. This type of person is not needed in any parliament or in any position of influence anywhere in Australia. This man is dangerous. I for one, Mr Akerman, am not prepared to be silent.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE [10.10]: Tonight I would like to speak about the United Nations women's conference and refer to a paper presented by Dr Kevin Hume, Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Festival of Light. He said:

As a participant in the recent N.G.O. Forum and an observer at the 4th Women's World Conference at Haiorou and Beijing I would like to endorse the article contributed by the Rev Fred Nile M.L.C. to the October 1995 issue of Family World News.

As leader of the five member team of accredited representatives of the World Organization of the Ovulation Method Billings I helped to man our booth at Haiorou, a so-called tourist city about 40 kilometres and a one hour bus ride north of Beijing. The city itself had been swept clean of beggars and other "undesirables" for this great occasion. An elaborate opening ceremony for the Forum at the Olympic Centre was in the best Chinese tradition of spectacular mass gatherings.

He went on to state:

We were not sorry to say goodbye to Haiorou and transferred our operations to the International Conference Centre on the northern fringe of the city for the official UN Women's Conference.

As the Conference developed it became obvious that the women organizers, with the assistance particularly of the European Union, were determined to push through their agenda with scant regard for justice or the democratic process. Apart from the main conference halls where participating nations presented their government positions at plenary sessions there were little or no translation facilities. The main work in achieving a consensus on the draft document was done in committees, chaired by women who were determined to achieve their objective.

A sample of the mindset was an astonishing outburst by the European Union spokeswoman.

"There is no room for ethics in medicine", she said. "No type of religion or culture should have any influence on medicine which is purely a service". An appropriate reply came from Professor Philip Ney, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia who was at the Conference. He said: "Doctors are being reduced to the level of technicians, to kill or cure on request".

Right at the end of the Conference discussion on an important proposal took place late at night between 1 and 5 A.M. when so-called "reproductive health" which includes "access to abortion" was being included in a section which called on governments to implement action. In spite of vigorous protests by the Holy See the proposal was bulldozed through by the UN Committee Chair.

Complaints by non-English speaking delegates were ignored. The chair only had eyes for those who spoke in favour of the radical agenda, supporters being allowed to speak again and again while the upheld flags of those wishing to offer a contrary opinion were ignored. Australia's delegation leader, Cathy Townsend, offered warm endorsement.

Many delegates from developing Central and Eastern European countries really had no idea what was being agreed on various sections of the draft document on women's rights, since in one Working Group after another translation facilities were either inadequate or completely absent.

Page 1806

The Holy See took the unprecedented step of issuing a statement which blamed the European Union for blocking efforts to bring the Beijing draft Declaration into line with universally adopted human rights.

The statement read:

"At Beijing an active coalition has aggressively sought to remove all references to religion, morals, ethics and spirituality. The European Union figures prominently in this group."

"Beijing negotiators have quashed references to motherhood except where it appears in a negative light . . . (They) are attempting to eliminate all recognition of parental rights and responsibilities from key sections of the draft".

Bullying tactics were a feature of Western countries against the poorer nations. As was shown at the Cairo ICPD Conference last year and the UN Social Summit in Copenhagen last March, the poorer countries have the numbers but, as Beijing in particular showed, the west have the power.

"Why won't you speak up about female feticide and the need to call for an end to the deliberate killing of girl babies in the womb?" an Australian pro-life lobbyist asked one of the Guyanan delegates who was appalled at the manner in which the European Union was blocking the Holy See's plea for this to be included in the final document. "Aid" was the Guyanan's simple reply.

Daily meetings of a pro-life coalition made up of Catholic and evangelical groups and representing 50 million women world wide, took place in an effort to stiffen the resistance of developing and Muslim countries to the bulldozing tactics by active lobbying and the frequent issue of informative documents . . .

John Smeaton, General Secretary of the English Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, in answering criticism of the apparent failure of the Holy See which, as in previous UN conferences, led the fight against objectionable clauses in the final document, to prevent the passage of anti-life, anti-parent and anti-Christian recommendations - [Time expired.]

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.16]: The New South Wales medical retrieval service is the medical arm of the charity NRMA CareFlight. The charity raises funds in its own right, and a significant proportion of those funds are used to support the medical retrieval service. The New South Wales Department of Health currently contributes $460,000 per annum to CareFlight via the New South Wales Ambulance Service for five registrar equivalents with no on-costs, indemnity, personal injury insurance or clerical support. It also funds $50,000 per annum towards the cost of medical equipment and consumables. The medical retrieval service, the charity, funds three staff specialist physicians, three full-time registrars and eight visiting doctors. Included in the positions to which I have referred are 15 anaesthetists. This Government recently announced $20.2 million worth of spending on ambulance and emergency services and has embarked upon a program of substantial restructuring of health services.

I want an assurance from the Government that it will not seek to destroy what it apparently does not understand with regard to medical helicopter services
in New South Wales. The CareFlight service, which is based at Westmead Hospital, appears to be at risk of closure. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the provision of medical helicopter services will be opened to tender, despite the fact that CareFlight services the people of Sydney and beyond to a radius of 300 kilometres and provides specialist care to hundreds of critically ill patients every year. CareFlight doctors also travel on air ambulance aircraft to treat patients in more distant parts of New South Wales.

I call on the Government to seek public input on the likely impact CareFlight's closure would have on essential medical services to the people of western Sydney and the rural regions CareFlight can quickly reach should the service cease. It must be pointed out that simply whisking people off to a hospital by helicopter is not the most valuable role aeromedical services play, no matter what influence the old television series M*A*S*H may have had on decision makers in the Department of Health. The real benefit lies in rapidly taking specialist medical help to a patient in order to stabilise the patient and later conveying that patient to a hospital so that appropriate ongoing care can be facilitated.

For almost a decade CareFlight has successfully achieved this with its integrated medical and helicopter service. It has achieved this for patients of all ages. In the past 12 months alone it has helped 694 critically ill and injured patients in New South Wales. Minutes are vital in serious trauma cases. Brain damage starts to occur just four minutes after a patient ceases to receive oxygen. It may appear on paper that rapid stabilisation and care are expensive, but I wonder whether a true costing has been factored in when calculating the total cost to society of providing lifetime care to a person who requires 24-hour nursing simply because those vital minutes when assistance could have been provided were denied to the patient because of the meddling and interfering of a handful of overzealous bureaucrats trying to save a few dollars in this year's budget.

Detailed research proves that if CareFlight is able to prevent just one person a year from becoming a quadriplegic or severely brain injured, the saving in the patient's ongoing care for life would more than cover the Government's contribution of just 26 per cent to CareFlight's annual costs. Surely this is good insurance for the taxpayers of this State. I would expect this Government, which has decided to demonstrate its concern for the taxpayers of this State in the recent budget, to take this into account. How can health department bureaucrats hope to replace CareFlight's highly experienced 20 specialist retrieval doctors' work when the department is unable to fill existing specialist positions in the critical care fields in western Sydney hospitals? [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:14:41   :   Update this page