Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 25 October 1995, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Max Frederick Willis) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.


Petition praying that the rights of parents to freedom of choice in education be supported, and that any attempts to remove the exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act for Christian, religious and other non-government schools, churches and religious organisations be opposed, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.

Petition praying that the Parliament support the Sexual Offence Damages Bill, received from the Hon. Elaine Nile.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [11.13]: I move:

That the following important matter of public interest should be discussed forthwith:

Reclaim the Night March.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.14]: The Government has no objection to this debate proceeding.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [11.14]: I am delighted that the House supports the moving of this important motion. On this coming Friday night the annual Reclaim the Night march will take place through the streets of Sydney. The march on Friday will continue a 17-year tradition. Reclaim the Night marches were initiated on 23 November 1977 by women in Leeds in the United Kingdom as a result of the Ripper murders occurring at that time. In response to advice by police to stay indoors after the latest ripper killing, hundreds of angry women marched with torches through the town to protest against the curfew mentality that placed restrictions on the behaviour of women as a way of dealing with violence. In other words, the victims were made prisoners.

As I have mentioned, the marches have now taken place on the last Friday of October each year for the past 17 years. The marches continue to grow larger each year. To my knowledge they take place in Europe, North America and Australia. Marches may take place on other continents as well. In 1994 thousands of women and children marched in Sydney. Marches were held in other capital cities and various country locations, including Wollongong, Nowra, Lismore, Dubbo, Newcastle, Parramatta, Mackay, Townsville, Cairns, Geelong, and Launceston. This year more than 10,000 women and children are expected to march. I am informed by the Reclaim the Night committee that the marches are solely the result of a voluntary collective re-formed each year by committed and hardworking women from all walks of life.

The aims of the Reclaim the Night collective are not only to hold the march each year, but also to educate the general public about sexual violence against women and children. The main aim is to keep the issue of sexual violence in the public eye and to prevent it from being swept under the carpet or misrepresented by the media. The aims of the collective's education campaign include telling as many women as possible of their rights, showing support and letting women and children know what other support is available, as well as challenging current views on gender and violence. Another aim of the collective is to present demands each year to politicians at all levels of government. That is the rationale behind the moving of this motion as a matter of public interest. This year, for the first time, the demands of the Reclaim the Night collective will be placed on the parliamentary record. I am delighted to report that I have the support of a number of female parliamentarians in that process. This is not only my motion; it belongs to all my female colleagues, regardless of the political parties they represent. I thank them for their support and for their participation in this important process. I will not read out the aims of the Reclaim the Night collective. I will leave that to my female colleagues. At this stage, my remarks are merely introductory.

A consideration of the issues raised by the motion is particularly important. The motion is important also for this Chamber because I have a distressing matter to report. Yesterday a document containing the information about the Reclaim the Night march had been placed on the noticeboard on the twelfth floor of Parliament House. Stickers with the word "Sexist" on them had been placed all over the notice, thus covering up the text. I was stunned and appalled. The document states clearly that the Reclaim the Night march is not anti-men, and that the Reclaim the Night committee is not against the idea that men should become involved in the issue of sexual violence. In fact, the committee is quoted in the document as stating that it actively supports men trying to promote change. However, there is an important symbolic reason for women marching alone in the Reclaim the Night march. The march
Page 2236
is about the right of women to walk on the streets after dark in safety without masculine protection. That is a particularly powerful and symbolic statement in our society. I will explain why it is such a powerful statement. I have some facts for the information of the ignorant person who put those stickers on the document on the twelfth floor noticeboard. Violence in our society is overwhelmingly a male phenomenon. That is not a sexist statement; it is a fact. The report, "Violence: Directions for Australia", which was published in 1990 by the National Committee on Violence, stated:

One of the most striking aspects of violence in Australia is that the vast majority of those who commit acts of violence are males. Over 80 per cent of all homicide offenders, and well in excess of 90 per cent of those charged with serious assault, robbery and sexual assault, are men.

Although other forms of violence have both male and female victims - indeed, the information I have received suggests such victims are predominantly male - the victims of sexual violence are overwhelmingly female. As the Standing Committee on Social Issues found in its examination of sexual violence, it is difficult to determine the level of sexual violence in Australia because our reported crime statistics are inadequate and victims studies show contradictory information. At the time of the committee's report, "Sexual Violence: The Hidden Crime", I was chair of the committee, and I should like to quote briefly from my foreword:

NSW crime statistics tell us that there were 1,880 cases of sexual assault in 1992. ABS victims' surveys tell us that, for every case that becomes a crime statistic, there are at least three other cases that do not, because victims do not report. From these figures, one might be tempted to conclude that the level of sexual violence in NSW in 1992 was four times the official figure, suggesting that there were at least 7,520 occurrences of sexual assault in the state that year. Given the limitations of official data, however, such a figure would still not convey the full extent of the crime. If there is a bottom line from all the statistical information in this Report, it is that there is more sexual violence in our society than is measured by any of the studies reviewed.

Looking at overseas information to make a comparison, a major victim study in Canada involving many thousands of people, which was reported upon in the report of the Standing Committee on Social Issues to which I have referred, reported that 39 per cent of Canadian women had experienced sexual violence. A major victim survey in the United States of America titled "Rape in America: A Report to the Nation" was published in April 1992 by the National Victims Centre. I am holding only the executive summary as the report is of a considerable size. That study found that for women in America the lifetime risk of rape for women was one in eight. Overwhelmingly, of course, those victims are young women. The report stated that rape is a tragedy of youth. There is no reason to assume that the situation in Australia would be very different. Indeed, extrapolating from crime statistics several years ago to obtain some idea, as far as was possible, of the level of sexual violence in this country, I also came up with figures suggesting a lifetime average of one in eight women. Some experts rushed to deny the validity of that figure. I never stated that I had undertaken a statistically detailed survey; it was a general overview undertaken simply to obtain some idea of the level of sexual violence in our society. The fact that the American victim survey found precisely the same figure using far more detailed and comprehensive methodology gives me no reason for relief; it provides only reason for more concern. The problem with lifetime surveys is that the predominant time of risk is during youth. Sadly, the younger the female, the more likely the risk of rape. That risk includes children. I am sure that surprises honourable members.

I do not believe I need to speak in any detail about the appalling effects of sexual violence on its victims. It is a uniquely destructive crime, as the social issues committee found during its inquiry. The damage caused by sexual violence to the lives of individuals, the pain and suffering it causes, is incomprehensible to any who have not been through the experience. It is significant that a number of the people involved in organising the Reclaim the Night march are also on the front lines of the sexual battlefield, so to speak - and it is a battlefield; it is a war against women. The number of people who work with victims of sexual violence and who then feel motivated to spend their free time participating in and organising the Reclaim the Night march gives honourable members an idea of the importance of this issue. I am sure that some of my female colleagues will address this issue later in the debate.

The Reclaim the Night march is about tackling sexual violence and confronting it openly. The tragedy for females in our society is that they, the victims of sexual violence, are imprisoned for the crime. They dare not go out at night alone, they dare not use public transport, they live in constant awareness of the possibility of attack in lonely public places, and they feel the need to turn their homes into fortresses. I had an interesting meeting with Lynn Hecht Schafran, the director of the national judicial education program to promote equality for women and men in the courts of the United States. As a lawyer and university lecturer she told me of her experiences in mixed classes of law students when dealing with this issue. When she raised the fact that women's lives are restricted as a result of their fear of sexual violence - and that fear is not irrational, bearing in mind the level of sexual violence - the male law students laughed. She then asked the female law students to outline how they restrict their lifestyles because of their concerns about sexual violence.

As the women listed all the things they would not do, the precautions they took, their constant concerns and awareness of this threat in lonely places, the males' jaws dropped. They simply had no idea of the effect of this crime on not only the victims of sexual violence, but on every woman in
Page 2237
society. We are the prisoners as a result of the level of sexual violence in our society. The unthinking attitudes that led to the Reclaim the Night march - that women should be prisoners, should not go out and should not have equal access to public space - are very much the attitudes that Reclaim the Night is about attacking. The Reclaim the Night march is about two matters: first, the basic human right of women to have equal access to public places in our society, and, second, the basic human right of women to be able to expect physical safety generally in the same way as men. Sexual violence is a serious issue. I commend the organisers of the Reclaim the Night march for bringing the issue to the attention of the community.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [11.28]: I am pleased to support the motion. I and a number of other women from the Government benches had intended to read out the demands of the Reclaim the Night collective last night. However, when we were approached at the last minute by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, we agreed to participate in this debate today in a bipartisan manner. I have marched in the Reclaim the Night march for many years. For the last few years I have marched under a banner indicating that Labor Party women supported the claims of the Reclaim the Night collective. Before reading the demands of the Reclaim the Night collective into the record, I draw attention to a matter raised by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith that I view with great concern. That is the culture of fear that has been engendered in our society by tabloid newspapers and, to some extent, by irresponsible politicians. Women are told of figures that mislead them into believing that if they walk on the streets they will be sexually attacked.

This cult of fear has brought about a sad situation that women and elderly people feel frightened to walk the streets; they stay at home rather than go out on the streets at night. In fact, the streets of Australian towns and cities are relatively safe, even for women. We must make the point that most sexual violence, in fact most violence against women, occurs in the home at the hands of people whom the victims know. The Reclaim the Night collective is making the point that not only do women want the streets to be safe but they are declaring that the streets are safe. The collective is demanding that the Government pays adequate attention to women who have encountered sexual violence. The Reclaim the Night collective has put forward the following demands:

In order to ensure that all women and children survivors of sexual assault receive the counselling support they require we demand that the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, make available:

a minimum funding increase of 20% to all appropriate organisations which currently provide services to survivors of sexual assault, to ensure that all survivors can access appropriate support within one month.

In order to ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated by the police according to their guidelines and procedures, we demand that the Minister for Police, Paul Whelan:

establish an independent committee (with at least 60% community representatives) to hear complaints made by the public about the police handling of issues related to sexual violence. The committee is to make recommendations on each complaint to the Minister for Police and the NSW Parliament.

In order to ensure that the legal system is more accessible and equitable for all women and children who are survivors of sexual assault we need judicial officers (judges, magistrates, etc.) who understand what sexual violence means, how it can affect women and children, and who operate from the basis that women and children are never responsible for causing sexual violence. We demand that the Attorney General, Geoff Shaw, Q.C.:

Make comprehensive gender education on all the points above compulsory for all judicial officers.

In order to ensure that public transport is made safer and more accessible for all women and children we demand that the Minister for Transport, Brian Langton:

set up consultation processes between women and children from the local community, and representatives of the relevant public transport authority, whenever plans are being made to increase or improve public transport services.

In light of the fact that there is not one state wide organisation lobbying and advocating for women and children who are survivors of sexual violence we demand that the Minister for Women, Faye Lo Po', the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, and the Minister for Community Services, Ronald Dyer:

make available sufficient funds to establish and operate a peak community organisation with the aim to lobby and advocate for all women and children who are survivors of sexual violence, and provide education and information for these women and children, and the community at large.

Those are reasonable demands, some of which have already been put into place. I believe that our socially progressive Labor Government will comply with those demands. I am happy to say that a number of honourable members, including the Minister for Women, Faye Lo Po', will march on Friday.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.34]: I am pleased to join my colleagues in acknowledging the importance of this debate. No society can ever be proud of violence, especially sexual violence against women, and must do everything to eliminate it. I acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith in raising this issue today and the work she has done in the past few years, certainly within the Liberal Party, to raise awareness about violence. I acknowledge also that members on the other side have taken positive action in that regard. That is why I think we can all contribute to this important debate in a bipartisan spirit.

I am pleased to highlight the demands of the organisers of the Reclaim the Night march. I do so not to be partisan but to call on the Government to hear the demands and to respond to them, to ensure that all women, regardless of their age and status in life, can have hope that they can live free of fear of violence. I know that the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann listed all the demands, but in the context of what I want to say I should like to repeat one of those demands as well as the preamble to it:

Page 2238

In light of the fact that there is not one state wide organisation lobbying and advocating for women and children who are survivors of sexual violence we demand that the Minister for Women, Faye Lo Po', the Minister for Health, Dr Andrew Refshauge, and the Minister for Community Services, Ronald Dyer:

make available sufficient funds to establish and operate a peak community organisation with the aim to lobby and advocate for all women and children who are survivors of sexual violence, and provide education and information for these women and children, and the community at large.

If statistics about the extent of sexual violence and abuse are accurate, then up to one in three girls under the age of 18 years will experience some form of sexual abuse. This is an appalling statistic and shows why the Reclaim the Night march deserves support and publicity. Many of us take so much for granted, including our personal freedom and our personal safety. Yet women who live in households where violence is part of the pattern of life can take nothing for granted. The children who live in violent households lose their childhood innocence and can take nothing for granted. Their capacity to trust is shattered.

This demand is about giving them a voice, giving them access to a body specifically charged with assisting victims and educating the community on violence. It seeks the support of the Government across a range of portfolios. In New South Wales in the 1990s up to 80 per cent of attacks on women were made by people known to the victim. I acknowledge the statement of my colleague the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann that the majority of attacks on women occur in their own homes. Yet a study conducted by the Hunter Centre for Health Advancement, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in July, highlights the alarming fact that only 13 per cent of the women interviewed for the study feared they might be physically hurt by a person close to them. The contrast between those two statistics shows the need to improve education and underpins the demand that I have highlighted.

Myths about violence in the home clearly abound in Australian society. The focus of debate so often is on women, but the demand highlights the Reclaim the Night rally focus on children, who are an integral part of the issue - children who live in violent households and/or children who are themselves victims of attack. In the survey "Without Consent", conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology and reported in a speech by Dr Patricia Easteal to the 1993 National Liberal Women's Conference, well over half of the respondents, 61.8 per cent, had experienced sexual assault prior to their twenties. Other family members, either living with the survivor or apart, were the perpetrators in 13.5 per cent of the total number of cases, young children under 11 years being at most risk from someone in the family with whom they had lived.

Everyone should be sickened by those statistics. But it is not enough to feel anger and shame. Each of us, using every resource available to us, must demand change - change so that victims of assault have the courage to speak up every time; change so that, through the community, whether it is by teachers or doctors, or within the justice system, violence against women and children is better identified and people at risk are given adequate support. Every government must do more. I do not want to be partisan, but this Government - because it is the Government - must respond. Society has to become intolerant to the use of violence against women and children. Violence is essentially a violation of fundamental human rights.

The two most significant issues facing women in our society are, on the one hand, violence against women, and, at the other end of the scale, increasing the proportion of women decision-makers, whether that be in Parliament or in management. That is why, in noting this demand, I particularly note the role sought from the Minister for Women. I acknowledge that she has a deep concern about violence in society. As a leader with a voice in Cabinet, I hope she uses her position to give more women hope of a better life. As my colleague the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith noted earlier, Reclaim the Night marches began in 1977 in Leeds in the United Kingdom as a result of the chilling Ripper murders.

Women rather than responding to police advice to stay indoors challenged the mental curfew with an angry torchlight rally. It must have been a powerful image. While that was a powerful response to appalling crimes, Australian women have responded to their own situation and will respond strongly in the coming march in towns across New South Wales and Australia. Briefly stated, the aims of the march and rally are to raise awareness about sexual violence against women and children, to demand women's basic right to be safe from such violence, to demand that the community acknowledge sexual violence and start to deal with it appropriately, and to demand that men take responsibility for their violent behaviour.

The House through this debate is, as the slogan of Reclaim the Night states, working for positive change. Women speaking for themselves and speaking out about violence are changing attitudes. Statistics from a Federal study by the Office of the Status of Women show that today 93 per cent of Australians regard domestic violence as an offence, compared with a figure of 79 per cent in 1987. These statistics highlight a positive change in community outlook, which has arisen in part because of community action by groups such as those sponsoring the Reclaim the Night march and rally. I wish the organisers of the rally well. I have been pleased to raise one of their demands. I hope that by raising the issue today this House will be acknowledged as helping to increase community awareness and understanding of this complex issue. I support the motion.

Page 2239

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA [11.42]: I am happy to participate in the debate and I congratulate the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith on moving the motion. Last year the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and I were speakers at a rally organised by the women of Reclaim the Night. A lot of work went into that rally, yet the rally received not one line of news media coverage. People are bored with violence against women - all these women always talking about the same thing. But it happens all the time, and people should remember that. Last year I met many of the women involved in the Reclaim the Night organisation and I found them to be clever, intelligent and dedicated women. Many of them were also victims of sexual violence. I support their demands wholeheartedly. I wish to reflect on what was said by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith about the leaflet she left upstairs, which had sexist notes written on it.

The list of speakers in this debate comprises the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the Hon. Franca Arena, the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. Ann Symonds, the Hon. Patricia Staunton and the Hon. Janelle Saffin. Where are the men? Is sexual violence against women a women's issue only? The men are quick to talk about ducks and guns - that is what they are interested in. When it comes to violence against women, the men disappear. Few of our male colleagues from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the crossbenches are in the Chamber. They will talk about ducks and guns, but never enter the Chamber to talk about an issue as important as violence against women. They should be ashamed of themselves. I can imagine what the men are thinking: "Leave it to the sheilas, this is a women's issue and they can talk about it." The men do the deeds yet the women suffer the further offence of our male colleagues not even talking about the issue. That happens in the Labor Party, in the coalition parties and in all other parties, I am sure. When it comes to issues such as violence against women it is always the women who put up a defence.

I congratulate the women of Reclaim the Night on their efforts to point out the devastating effects of sexual violence, which do not receive sufficient attention in the community. Nor is there an understanding of the need for survivors to heal adequately. I well recall a victim of sexual violence telling me that she was bleeding inside all the time, that she had never got over the trauma of a violent assault and it would take her a long time to forget it. Sexual violence thrives in silence and secrecy. Reclaim the Night gives women the space to break the silence, to show how they feel about sexual violence and to demand that the whole community take collective responsibility for the problem. I know that many of my women colleagues wish to speak in the debate so I shall conclude my speech by once more congratulating the women of Reclaim the Night, wishing them the best and assuring them of my wholehearted support.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.44]: I also wish to congratulate the organisers of the Reclaim the Night march, which for several years now has been held at this time of the year to draw attention to the need to end sexual violence around the world and here in New South Wales. It is important that women and children gather together to make a peaceful but forceful statement about their rights as human beings to live free, safe, and autonomous lives. When women and children band together to make this kind of statement it helps to reduce society's fear of the danger of sexual assault. It is comforting for victims or potential victims of sexual assault to know that they are not on their own; that they are not isolated in the face of fear for their safety and sometimes for their very lives. As the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann has said, the rallies also help to put the issue into perspective in Australian towns and cities and the streets thereof.

Speakers at Friday's rally in Hyde Park will cover a range of subjects. They will demonstrate why such awareness-raising activities are important. There has already been a demonstration of that importance in this building. For a number of reasons it is important to raise awareness. First, sexual violence, rape, incest, domestic violence, child sexual assault and harassment occur relatively frequently and should be accorded greater recognition as a problem in our society. Second, there are attitudes of denial within the community. Third, as other speakers have pointed out, most women and especially most children who are subjected to sexual assault are more likely to be assaulted in their home by somebody they know. Until sexual violence is recognised as a serious crime, assaults may continue at the same rate. A healthy educational development in recent years has been the apparent better understanding that most sexual attacks occur in the victim's homes and the assailant is known to the victim's family.

Violence against women is a subtle form of sexual harassment. The devastating effect of sexual violence on victims must be better understood. The Reclaim the Night rally and the work of the collective help to raise the profile of this problem. Along with the Deputy Premier, Dr Refshauge, I had the pleasure the year before last of addressing a men's organisation that met in this Parliament and had its own rally to raise the consciousness of sexual assault against women. Many men in our society recognise that sexual assault is not solely a problem for women but a society problem and that men also need to band together to raise awareness and try to make people's lives safer all round. One of the features of this year's rally will be the demand that the New South Wales Government ensure that public transport is made safer and more accessible to all women and children. Whenever plans are being made to increase or improve public transport services the Minister for Transport will be asked to set up consultation processes between women and children from local communities and representatives of the relevant public transport authority.

Page 2240

The Labor Party has a commendable policy on women's safety, which is designed to prevent violence against women in their homes, on the streets, on public transport and in the workplace, and has made commitments in government to improve safety at railway stations and to introduce a safety accreditation scheme for public facilities such as shopping centres, transport terminals, entertainment complexes and parks that will rate the safety of the facilities on the basis of the provision of lighting in car parks, supervision and security services, and crime-resistant building designs. The Government has said that it would encourage local government to adopt planning criteria that provide for low crime designs for public spaces, for example, car spaces, parks and malls. The Government also undertook to review development guidelines to favour building projects that provide crime prevention facilities such as shopfront police stations.

The demand of the Reclaim the Night collective on which I focus is the safety of women on public transport. The Government said it is committed to ensuring that distress alarms on trains are in working order and that improvements are made to the public transport radio system to link crews at stations and terminals direct to the police so as to speed up reporting and investigation of incidents. The Government is committed also to improving security on late night trains by providing more effective guards and police patrols; to establishing safe stations on each major train line; to ensuring that police and railway staff exchange information on the time and place of gang activity; to increasing video surveillance, floodlighting and signposting on platforms, walkways and parking areas; to increasing supervision of unpatrolled areas thereby making it more difficult for gangs to congregate around rail and bus stations; to providing safe, well-lit areas at rail and bus stations where passengers can call and wait for a lift; and to consulting with the taxi industry on ways of improving safety for women who use taxis, for example, by providing safe ranks staffed by taxi inspectors at high risk times.

All those policies, which the Government has said it supports, are worthwhile. With organisations like Reclaim the Night I will be more than happy to monitor progress in the coming 12 months towards implementing such policies to help make public transport a more comfortable, fearless mode of transport, especially for women and children travelling after dark. Again, I join with other speakers in congratulating the organisers of the rally and for bringing to the attention of this House the demands of the Reclaim the Night collective.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.52]: I have been stung into action by my colleague the Hon. Franca Arena. I assure my colleague that I do not have a preoccupation with either ducks or guns, or matters of that sort. I was mistakenly given advice that if I entered into this debate my intentions might be misinterpreted. After hearing the remarks of the Hon. Franca Arena I formed the conclusion that I ought to say something. Sydney Reclaim the Night is a non-government, non-funded volunteer collective that organises a yearly rally and march for women and children to protest against sexual violence in the community and to celebrate the strength and endurance of women. Traditionally, the march has attracted bipartisan support from the women in this Parliament. Last year, my colleagues Sandra Nori and the Hon. Franca Arena supported the list of demands issued by the collective. I understand the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby also spoke in support of the march, the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski marched and the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith spoke at the march on behalf of the Fahey Government. The collective sent my colleague the Minister for Women, the Hon. Faye Lo Po', a letter by fax on 19 October inviting her to participate in the march. I am advised that on 20 October the Minister indicated that she was delighted to accept the invitation. The letter also said:

Let me first congratulate you on the statement you made some months ago in relation to women feeling unsafe on public transport at night. You may be aware that the Sydney Reclaim the Night (RTN) Collective, publicly support your statement.

As requested by the collective, the Minister for Women sent the following statement of endorsement for the march:

Sexual Violence against women and children, in the home and on the streets, must be of concern to the whole community and across the whole of government. The NSW Government considers prevention of this crime of violence to be a high priority. I congratulate all of you who have come here tonight to demonstrate that the women of NSW will not tolerate sexual assault.

The Department for Women has provided funding of $2,000 to assist in making the Reclaim the Night march a reality. The department's view is that this provides an ideal opportunity to reinforce the message to the wider community that violence against women and children, particularly rape, is a crime that is abhorrent. The march also challenges the stereotype that women are somehow to blame if they are raped because they have put themselves in vulnerable situations by what they wear, or by being out at night, or by travelling alone. Women should not be expected to change their lifestyle, to confine their activities to certain places and particularly to daylight hours, so as not to put themselves at risk of being sexually molested or raped. It is like the other hoary chestnuts women have to deal with: she got herself pregnant, or she got herself raped, and so on. Women should be able to go about their normal everyday lives without the fear of being raped.

The collective estimates that the costs associated with organising the march and making it a successful event amount to approximately $10,000, most of which is self-raised by the collective, whose enthusiasm, energy, dedication
Page 2241
and sheer tenacity of purpose is remarkable to say the least. This year, as in the past, the collective has put together a list of five demands addressing issues of safety, education and freedom from sexual violence for all women and children. The letter faxed to the Minister for Women last Thursday requested a meeting before the march to discuss these demands. At such short notice it was not possible to arrange a meeting and the collective was immediately advised. Most of the Reclaim the Night demands for this year are directed at other Ministers.

As a matter of courtesy the Attorney General, the Minister for Police, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Transport and I, as Minister for Community Services, needed to be made aware of these demands as the collective did not write directly to the Ministers. The demands, paraphrased, are as follows: first, that the Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge, make available a minimum funding increase of 20 per cent to all appropriate organisations which currently provide services to survivors of sexual assault. In the budget just handed down, the Government met its commitment to increase funding for sexual assault services with an additional allocation of $250,000, and the Sydney Rape Crisis Centre received top-up funding of $100,000. In 1995-96 the Department of Health will provide the Sydney Rape Crisis Centre with total funding of $394,000 and Dymphna House with $258,900.

Second, that the Minister for Police establish an independent committee - with at least 60 per cent community representation - to hear complaints made by the public about police handling of issues related to sexual violence. The Government has established the Council for Crime Prevention, which has strong community representation, including Ken Marslew and Barbara Holborrow. The council will report to the Minister for Police and is equipped to deal with concerns about police handling of sexual assault matters. Third, in order to ensure that the legal system is more accessible and equitable to all women and children who are survivors of sexual assault, judicial officers must understand what sexual violence means. The Reclaim the Night collective demands that the Attorney General make comprehensive gender education compulsory for all judicial officers.

The Department for Women, in cooperation with the New South Wales Attorney General's Department and the Police Service, is undertaking unique research into the way women victims of sexual assault have been dealt with in the criminal justice system as part of its gender bias and the law project. The research was prompted by the public perception and the views of women's groups that there is gender bias in the legal system, not only in New South Wales but Australiawide. The purpose of the research is to determine whether the New South Wales legal system operates fairly in its treatment of women as litigants in the civil justice system as victims of sexual assault, as offenders in the criminal justice system and as women working in the legal system.

I want to emphasise that the purpose of the research is to determine whether the New South Wales legal system operates fairly in its treatment of women as litigants in the civil justice system, as victims of sexual assault and as offenders in the criminal justice system. Before reforms can be introduced we have to know the scope of the problem and have proof that there is a problem. I have no doubt that there is a problem with the way in which women who have been raped experience the criminal justice court system. However, anecdotal evidence is not enough. What has been needed for a long time is hard evidence of gender bias in the justice system to convince those who need to be convinced that reform is required.

I support this research as it will provide the evidence and culminate in recommendations for law reform and changes to policy and practice in the application of the law. I have no doubt that if those recommendations include the need for education for the judiciary, the Attorney General would do all in his power to make sure that it happens. On Tuesday, 31 October, at a breakfast organised by the Women Lawyers Association of New South Wales, the Attorney General and the Minister for Women will jointly launch the "Response of Key Stakeholders to Gender Bias and the Law: Women Working in the Legal Profession in New South Wales". The responses will address various actions to be considered, including practical suggestions for reform designed to focus discussion on the issues and lead to the development of strategies to eliminate gender barriers within the legal profession.

I have no doubt that within the term of this Government the issue of gender bias will be vigorously addressed and that in the course of that there will be bipartisan support for reform, given that the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski, the predecessor of the current Minister for Women, supported the need for research into gender bias in the legal system. The fourth demand made by the collective was that the Minister for Transport set up consultation processes between women and children from the local community and representatives of the relevant public transport authority whenever plans are being made to increase public transport services. There is already a best practice model which meets this recommendation, in the work being done by the Liverpool safe women's project. This group has been working with State Rail, local police, planning authorities, local government and women's groups to improve women's safety in urban areas and on public transport, by taking preventive measures that address women's concerns.

The Department for Women has funded the production of a video by the Liverpool safe womens' project under the women's grant program, which the Minister for Women will launch in early December. It is a unique project because it first and foremost takes into account women's perceptions of what constitutes a safe environment, particularly in relation to trains and railway stations
Page 2242
and the areas in which they are located. The Minister for Women has commended this approach to her colleagues the Hon. Brian Langton and the Hon. Craig Knowles. The fifth and last demand called on the Minister for Women and the Minister for Health, and on me as Minister for Community Services, to make available sufficient funds to establish and operate a peak organisation to lobby and advocate for all women and children who are survivors of sexual assault.

The Minister for Women has indicated that she is happy to discuss the merits of such a proposal with her colleagues, but I am also conscious of reforms proposed to the victims compensation scheme which should deliver some tangible financial benefits to the victims of sexual violence. The Reclaim the Night march is an event that I would urge all members of the House to support, through either active participation or statements of endorsements, as that would send a strong message to the community that sexual violence will not be tolerated. I hope that I have satisfied the concerns of my colleague the Hon. Franca Arena, who castigated the male members of this House for not participating in this debate. I have done so and next time I will be less cautious about intervening in a debate that is perhaps perceived as being within the domain of women. In future I shall feel quite unconstrained and will charge in and say whatever I want to say in a debate concerning women's issues.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [12.04]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I, too, am pleased to support the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith. This is not a partisan or political matter. The Reclaim the Night march is supported all over the world by parties of every political persuasion. In this Chamber it is supported by members of the Australian Labor Party, by members of the Liberal Party - the mover is a member of the Liberal Party - by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner on behalf of the National Party, and it has my support as leader of the Australian Democrats in the New South Wales Parliament. I am also told that the Hon. Elaine Nile will speak in the debate.

Last year, as the Hon. Franca Arena has already pointed out, a function was held on the verandah of Parliament House in which several speakers took part, again representing all political parties. I believe that one of the most touching statements made at last year's event was by a victim. It was very moving, and I believe it was very courageous of that woman to stand there in public, in front of the television cameras, and explain the trauma, distress and agony that she had experienced as a victim of sexual assault. I support the remarks of the Hon. Franca Arena about some, though not all, of our male colleagues being interested only in guns and ducks. That certainly may be the case this week, but I do not believe it is always the case.

It is sad that, so far, the only male member of this House to have spoken in the debate is the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. I hope that, if time permits, other male members of the House who may be in their offices listening to this debate will realise that they would set a good example for their colleagues if they came into the Chamber and endorsed the motion, however briefly, and the demands of the Reclaim the Night organisation. I believe it is proper to put on the record why Reclaim the Night is so important. There are many myths about violence against women and children that give the strong, clear message that women ask for sexual assault. Some comments are, "They did not fight back hard enough", or, "They have lied about being assaulted."

The Reclaim the Night movement gives all women an opportunity to tell the truth and to point out to the rest of the community that no-one deserves or asks to be raped, and that sexual assault against women and children does happen and on an alarmingly huge scale. I did not need to be told that by the Reclaim the Night committee because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Social Issues which is inquiring into sexual violence, and the evidence that that committee has collected makes it abundantly clear that this is the hidden crime; this is the crime that is perpetrated upon women. In many instances women are too afraid to come forward because there is always the residual shame that they will not be believed or that they will be told it is their fault. In many cases - and this is particularly so for women from non-English speaking backgrounds -they do not know how to make a complaint. They do not know whether they will have an interpreter if they go to the police or to a chamber magistrate, and they do not know how to put the complaint in a form that will reach the authorities in a suitable time frame that makes it possible for the police to follow-up the complaint.

I stress the demand that the legal system be more accessible and equitable to all women and children who are survivors of sexual assault. As the organisers of the march point out, we need judicial officers - judges, magistrates - who understand what sexual violence means and how it can affect women and children. They should operate from the base that women and children are never responsible for causing sexual violence. I also support the demand of the Attorney General that comprehensive gender education on all the points I have mentioned be compulsory for all judicial officers.

We have heard far too many stories - there have been many reports in the media - of judges who make disparaging comments when passing judgment on women who have been sexually assaulted. One appalling suggestion was that as the person committing the assault had already knocked the woman unconscious before the assault, she was not likely to have suffered much psychological harm. More recently there was a suggestion that because a woman was drunk at the time of the assault it was possible that the man believed she had given her consent. Again, it was claimed that
Page 2243
because she was drunk the assault would be less damaging to her. There is also the famous comment - I will admit that it was not made by a member of the New South Wales bench but in South Australia by a judge in relation to sexual assault in marriage - that a man had the right to use more than ordinary force against his wife.

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann: Rougher than usual handling.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: More than usual force. I believe that is the most appalling statement of all because it is demeaning of women. It goes back to the old-fashioned attitude that a woman is the man's possession and therefore he has a right to use her body as and when he pleases and she must be a compliant partner. I fully support the Reclaim the Night march. I hope there will be a big contingent of Australian Democrat women marching. The contingent has been organised by my assistant, Brenda Padgett, who has been working very hard on this matter over the past few weeks ever since we became aware of the date, time and place and the material from the organisers of the Reclaim the Night march started coming into our office. Finally, I place on record that the theme for 1995 is that freedom from sexual violence is a basic human right. That cannot be stressed strongly enough. In the debate the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services referred to the Government's funding of the Sydney Rape Crisis Centre and other bodies. I hope that greater funding is given to women's refuges and counselling services.

Wherever I go in the State, whichever country town I visit, I am met by women who say, "We have funding for the refuge but for only 12 months and we are very much afraid that we are going to have to close, yet the demand for our services is increasing." Funding for refuges, particularly in country towns, has to be ongoing. Otherwise, too many women will be trapped in stressful and criminal domestic situations from which they cannot escape because they have nowhere to go. If they feel that they will receive sympathy, anonymity and privacy by going to a refuge they will have greater strength to escape from the intolerable situation of being abused in their own home by the one person they should be able to trust above all others - their partner. I fully support the Reclaim the Night march. I wish it every success this year, as I have in previous years. I hope that sentiment is echoed by all members of this Chamber, whether male or female.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [12.14]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith and I wish to add my support to the Sydney Reclaim the Night collective's demands for 1995, which my colleagues have already put on record. I further support all the women and children who will march this Friday night across New South Wales and indeed across Australia. I will march in Lismore with women who come together once a year to tell the truth about rape - and in my case to further the needs of rural women who are victims of sexual assault and rape. The truth of rape is that it is a common assault perpetrated upon women and children, that it really does happen, and that no-one deserves to be raped. Even though we march under the theme of Reclaim the Night to demand our right to walk freely in our society without risk from male violence, statistics show that most violence against women and children takes place in our homes.

The Sydney Reclaim the Night collective makes the point that most women - and most children especially - are more likely to be sexually assaulted by someone they know, and in their own homes. Until this is recognised in the community and until sexual violence is seen as a serious crime this will continue to happen unchallenged. There is still an attitude in our society that even though it is a crime, it is not thought of or treated collectively as a crime. However, women are subject to male violence in both the public and private spheres. It takes many forms, from sexual harassment to the most extreme physical violence and intimidation. So women carry around a certain degree of fear, sometimes out of proportion to the street crime that happens. As the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann said, there is a climate of fear around this issue.

Sexual violence is an all too common occurrence and it is surrounded by shame, secrecy and silence. It is by the actions of women in the community who speak out, advocate for women and march, and by members of Parliament showing political courage in a non-partisan way that women can truly have the freedom to change our society into one in which women are afforded the basic human right to be free of male violence. I wish the organisers well and congratulate them on their commitment and on bringing their reasonable demands - and they are reasonable - to the attention of Parliament so we can pursue them with our Government. Historically, Labor in government has a good record of reform in this area and I hope that record of reform is continued.

The Hon. ANN SYMONDS [12.18]: I am also pleased to participate in this debate and congratulate the mover of the motion and the organisers of the march. I endorse all that has been said by my male and female colleagues in the debate so far. I shall refer only to the second demand of this year's march, which I believe is critical in pursuing service and justice for women who have been victims of assault. It is:

In order to ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated by police according to their guidelines and procedures, we demand that the Minister for Police, Paul Whelan:

establish an independent committee (with at least 60% community representatives) to hear complaints made by the public about the police handling of issues related to sexual violence. The committee is to make recommendations on each complaint to the Minister for Police and the NSW Parliament.

Page 2244

The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services said that an inquiry into gender bias in the operation of the judicial system is under way. He also referred to the recent establishment of the Crime Prevention Council. I endorse those initiatives, established by both the previous Government and the present Government. I am also strongly in favour of this separate demand by women. It is an absolutely crucial element in delivering services to victims of sexual assault. How often have we heard that when women who are victims of sexual assault have approached the police for assistance they are unsatisfied with the way in which their trauma and the crime against them was managed?

If the Government and society generally want to reform the system it needs to be constantly monitored and adjusted. An independent committee with 60 per cent community representation hearing complaints is an ideal way to monitor the system. After each individual complaint is made, advice could be given to the Government and to government and community agencies on how to improve the standard and sensitivity of the service to victims. Not all sexual assault crimes are the same. Indeed, the variety of suffering which is inflicted on people is quite extensive. Therefore, we need to make those adjustments to the way in which government agencies, particularly the police, manage matters brought to their attention.

The cooperation of female members of Parliament from every party is critical to improving the services and laws relating to sexual assault. I remind all honourable members that the major changes to services and to laws relating to sexual assault were introduced in New South Wales at a time when there were only two female members in the lower House. That law reform was introduced into the lower House by the then Labor Party Attorney General. I acknowledge the response of men who are interested in the protection of the human rights of all people in society, and are particularly sensitive to the manner in which women and children have suffered sexual assault over the years. The services to women which accompanied the changes to the laws were also expanded greatly in a parliament that did not have the level of female representation we enjoy at the moment. The Government and ministry of that time should be congratulated.

We must remind ourselves that we have made great progress in this area. In 1975, the International Year of Women, there was one refuge in Sydney to encourage women to escape from violent situations in which they found themselves. Today there are over 100 refuges and many more services to support women who are suffering from violence in our society. I conclude by saying that in a truly civilised society women and children should live without being subjected to sexual assault. Strangers do not pose the greatest risk to women and children - fathers, husbands and partners perpetrate acts of sexual assault on their wives and children. It is a matter of priority for governments to provide health and education services, to change the underlying attitude which allows women and children to be violated in their homes by their relatives. I hope this will be the first occasion on which the women of the Parliament, no matter what their political persuasion, will combine in order to demand further improvements to the safety and security of women in our society.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [12.25]: Call to Australia supports the motion moved by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, who I believe has a genuine concern for women and children who have been sexually abused. For the past 25 years my leader, when he first started in the work of the Festival of Light, has fought for women who have been sexually assaulted, mainly through the abuse of video pornography and written pornography. In 1973 we were campaigning against the late Lionel Murphy's Family Law Act and I was travelling with a busload of women to Canberra. The President of Women for the Family showed me a book which she had bought from a well-known bookstore in Sydney. It was entitled How to Rape a Woman. I had never seen a book like it before. It was graphically illustrated.

The book said that women wanted to be raped, that they enjoyed it and even when they said no they really meant yes. I believe such material encourages men to go out and do their thing. I do not believe that all men are like that, but I believe that the Government has to get to the cause of why men become incited to rape and violate women and children - just as doctors have to get to the cause of an illness. Until the Government does something in this regard these attacks will not stop. We can bandage the situation and open homes for women, but we have to get to the cause. That is a government responsibility.

I remember a woman from Port Macquarie who came to see me in tears and who was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She said that her husband had been watching pornographic videos. She said that she had never believed that that type of thing could be done to a woman. He then took her, in front of the children, and did the same things to her. The young children were affected. They were forced to watch the video, and then forced to watch their father enact the same activities on their mother. She did not know what to do with her children. Some of the people she knew said that she should forget about it. But it is different when it is done to you; it leaves you scarred, feeling dirty and humiliated. This is where the Government has to step in.

I would have thought that the feminist movement - as it did in America - would have come into this debate and said, "We can see that pornography, films and videos are having an effect on men." To say that it does not have an effect is false. The Hon. J. S. Tingle recently spoke about a home invasion against a mother who had her head
Page 2245
covered with a bag and was sexually assaulted in front of her husband and children. We are most concerned about the sentence that the perpetrator of that crime received. We also remember women such as Anita Cobby, Janine Balding and little Ebony Simpson. They did not survive their sexual attacks. Some people know what happened to Anita Cobby and what was done to her body. It was unbelievable. Her parents have survived the ordeal through the grace of God - they are Christian people. When one is the survivor of someone who has been mutilated, murdered and sexually assaulted it is very hard to get over.

I refer also to elderly women - in their seventies and their eighties - who have been sexually assaulted over the last few years. These women have been sexually assaulted by younger men. I find it hard to accept that young men can do these things to older women in their homes. It is hard to imagine what such a sexual assault does to an elderly woman and her husband. Women should do whatever they can to bring the causes of the exploitation and sexual abuse of women and children to the forefront. As I said earlier, the main cause of the problem must be attacked; the problem should not be covered up with bandaid measures. We must deal with what is inciting men to act in this way. The majority of male members of this House are good men. As the Hon. Franca Arena indicated, they are not speaking in this debate, although men are the perpetrators of these crimes.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: I have spoken in the debate.

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: That is right, the Minister has spoken in the debate. I accept that it is not necessary for a great number of male members to speak in this debate, because the male members of this House are good men. However, the government of the day must attack the causes of this problem.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [12.31]: The brevity of the contributions of some of the previous speakers have provided me with an opportunity to speak in this debate, for which I am grateful. I did not anticipate that I would be afforded such an opportunity. I congratulate the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith and the other women members of this Chamber who have spoken in support of the Reclaim the Night march. I also congratulate those who initiated this movement. The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith has given the House a description of the time at which the marches commenced and the women decided to make a stand. The women had been advised by local police that it was unsafe for them to go about the streets and that they should confine their perambulations to diurnal times. That advice stimulated the women to say "Enough is enough", and they decided to make a protest to secure the safety of the streets.

Although the cases referred to by the Hon. Elaine Nile are abhorrent to all honourable members, in the whole spectrum of violence this debate is about safety on the streets rather than in the home. I would have been content to have allowed the National Party view to be presented by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. She was well prepared and spoke with great compassion for those who are part of the movement. Indeed, she could be said to be part of the sorority of women involved in this movement, and I would have been happy to have left the carriage of this debate to her. However, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the availability of time to raise some other aspects. The sisters who have banded together in the city, and who are so ably supported by members in this Chamber, need to be reminded that they have country cousins. It is important to remember that this issue does not relate only to urban transport and to public places in the metropolitan area that have been identified in the debate. Men and women in country areas share great concerns about the safety of women in public places. Without attenuating in any way the support I have offered to the Reclaim the Night movement, it has manifested itself much more widely in rural transgender community-wide marches.

I am delighted that the Attorney General is at the table. I have previously referred in this Chamber to one such march in Bourke. Another march was held recently in Gilgandra, of which the Attorney General would be aware. The citizens who took to the streets of Bourke and Gilgandra shared the objectives of those who take part in the march in Sydney. The citizens of Bourke and Gilgandra marched under the banner of law and order generally, but they were primarily concerned with safety in public places for both women and men. The citizens of Bourke and Gilgandra and the citizens of Sydney could almost be translocated. As many speakers have mentioned, most sexually violent incidents are perpetrated by men against women.

However, in many cases in country areas it is not merely the risk of sexual assault which concerns women moving around rural towns; they are concerned about the broad range of physical violence, physical assault and robbery. Because of those concerns they are afraid to move about rural cities and towns. I join other members in expressing support for the Reclaim the Night march. I will not be present at the march, but the participants will have my support in spirit. I hope that this march will be supported by all elements in our society to ensure that in future we live in a more peaceful society, one in which respect for everyone is maintained without exception, and in which, particularly, the role of women in our society is honoured and cherished.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.36]: As a Green and a man, I totally support the Reclaim the Night march and recognise the brave pioneering work of women over the years who have taken to the street to reclaim the night. This movement has been strong in Sydney, but the region of Lismore, where I live, has participated annually in this type of
Page 2246
event. It is a sad indictment of the values of our society that this type of activity is necessary in this day and age. However, it is a reality. I stand behind the women in both the Parliament and on the street in their pursuit of equal human rights and the freedom to move around in safety and security under any circumstances. As a man, I strongly object to the statement made so often in the media, in the justice system, and by police and reactionary men that, somehow or other, women deserve the treatment they receive. A culture of domination, bullying and cowardice exists, and such comments are still heard in the system. Men need to recognise the dominant role we have in society and the fact that sexual violence emanates from men. We must look at ourselves and work towards listening to the claims of women, and work towards improving the way we interact with them in the Parliament, in the street, and in our families.

I listened to the remarks of the Hon. Elaine Nile. It is a never ending surprise to me to hear of the types of activities taking place behind the doors and locked gates of suburban homes. This sexual abuse has been hidden for too long, but I do not believe its incidence in increasing. As a result of events such as Reclaim the Night, people are talking about this subject more freely. It is important that women in society should be able to make justifiable complaints about these types of devastating issues without fear of vilification. Men need to examine their motives and not hide behind brave, macho stereotypes. Men should understand that women can teach men a great deal. Men need to be able to show compassion and be strong in a male way, but they also need to be able to cry and to empathise with the problems experienced by women who are so often bullied and dominated in our society. I totally support the aims of this march and the aims of the women's movement. These women have bravely stood up against the mores of society. The Greens have attempted to address these problems, and recognise that these problems can be resolved by communication. The motion has my full support.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.40]: I support fully the motion moved by Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith. Women should be able to walk freely and safely anywhere in any city at any time of the night or day without fear. I hope that other male members of this House will also support the motion.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH [12.41], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate and for their support of the motion. This debate will send a strong message to the women of New South Wales, indeed to all people in New South Wales, that sexual violence is not to be tolerated. It will also send a message to the organisers of the Reclaim the Night march - indeed, to the thousands of women involved in the march - that they are engaging in a worthwhile exercise to raise community consciousness about the issue of sexual violence. I would like to mention briefly some of the contributions made by honourable members. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann mentioned that she had had very short notice of this debate. If that is the case, I apologise, but I understood that she was aware of the proposal. Whether the proposal was to be debated has always been in the hands of the House. Until the House had voted on the motion, I could not be certain that the matter would be discussed today. That gave rise to some uncertainty, and if there was some misunderstanding, that was entirely unintentional.

I have been delighted by the multipartisan support for the motion. The members of the Standing Committee on Social Issues have worked together on a number of important social issues. I have a personal interest in ensuring that in future the Parliament may move towards dealing with important issues in a bipartisan way rather than settling, almost automatically, into an adversarial pattern of dealing with subjects as they arise. The structure of the Westminster system, however long and hallowed it is, simply encourages conflict rather than consensus. The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann spoke of the cult of fear in the media. I support those remarks. People in our society are being made unnecessarily afraid of violence; they are being led to believe that there is far more general violence than there actually is. In the case of sexual violence fear is not always unjustified, certainly not for young women. Statistics seem to suggest that in a general sense older women probably are more in fear than they need to be. But in any one case sexual violence can never be justified. With so much sexual violence in our society women cannot take their safety for granted.

I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her kind words, as indeed I thank a number of other members who also made generous references to me. However, as I said earlier, I do not regard this motion as only my motion; it is a motion of all honourable members. It relates to an issue that we worked on together, and it is something of which we are all part. I acknowledge particularly the contribution of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, the shadow spokesperson on women's affairs, to this debate because the idea of moving this motion originated with her. She does deserve credit for that. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe generously suggested that I should move the motion because of my long experience and involvement with Reclaim the Night, but the credit is indeed due to her.

The motion is a much more powerful and permanent way of putting the concerns of Reclaim the Night on the record than other strategies might have been. Last year, for example, the method used, as the Hon. Franca Arena has said, was to stand on the front steps of Parliament and read out the demands of the collective. As the honourable member said, those of us who participated found that to be a powerful experience because we shared the platform with survivors of sexual assault who had the courage to speak about their own
Page 2247
experiences. The Hon. Franca Arena was critical of the fact that, at least to that stage, male members of this House had not contributed to the debate. Other speakers have also alluded to that matter. In defence of my male colleagues, I feel obliged to point out that that was a matter of courtesy, given that this debate has a limited time frame and it was likely that the time for debate would expire. It was important that all female members of the House who wished to speak in the debate had an opportunity to do so. That was the case. I thank all of them, particularly our male colleagues who participated. In the result, we did not run out of time.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner spoke about transport. That is a particular interest of hers, so I am not surprised she took up that demand of the Reclaim the Night committee. She also mentioned the men's organisations working in this area. I briefly mention Men Against Sexual Assault, MASA, with which I also have had a number of dealings in the past. That is a group of committed people who organise every year white ribbon day as a way of men dealing with the issue of sexual assault and taking it on board. They are indeed a trailblazing group of men who are setting out to change some of the traditional attitudes to masculinity in our society that help to create the culture of domination and bullying to which the Hon. I. Cohen referred.

I listened with interest to the contribution of the Minister for Community Services. I am delighted that $2,000 will be made available by the Department for Women for the rally this year. It should be noted that that funding is a continuation of the policy begun last year by the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski when she was Minister for the Status of Women. The continuation of this funding indicates a bipartisan, indeed multipartisan, commitment to Reclaim the Night and to women's issues generally. I am delighted that the funding will continue. The Minister for Community Services was concerned that the demands of Reclaim the Night committee were not forwarded in advance.

My understanding is that the demands are part of the march and that the responses of the Minister and his colleagues to the demands will be reported at next year's march. It is also my understanding that the demands will be ratified at the march. However, the committee may wish to take on board the Minister's suggestion that in future demands be forwarded in advance of the march and that ministerial responses be reported on at the rally. That might be a further encouragement to producing positive responses to the needs of women in New South Wales. I thank the Minister for his support in this debate and for these types of issues generally.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby spoke very powerfully, as she always does, particularly when she referred to the statement made last year by a survivor of sexual violence. I am not surprised that she spoke on the demand that the legal system be made more accessible and equitable. I found the contribution of the Hon. Janelle Saffin most interesting, especially her point that sexual violence is predominantly the result of a crime committed by someone known to the female victim of the violence. That is a point well worth remembering, and one that has been made by several other members.

The Hon. Janelle Saffin spoke of the record of the Labor Party. I should like to remind honourable members that the coalition has a very good record also. I have before me an outline of the measures designed to assist victims of sexual assault announced by Premier Fahey in 1993 - at least 12 or 13 separate programs introduced on that one occasion alone. The Labor Government is following important foundation footsteps in this regard. The Hon. Ann Symonds spoke to demand No. 2 regarding police, and I thank her very much for that. My time is running short, so I shall have to be brief. I thank the Hon. Elaine Nile for her contribution, and also the Hon. D. F. Moppett, the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I note that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho would have liked to speak in support of the motion but because she was at a committee hearing she was prevented from coming to the Chamber in time. It is my regret that for the first time in many years I will not be at the Reclaim the Night march on Friday. It is my great disappointment that I have a prior engagement, which I must attend, but I commend the organisers - [Time expired.]

Discussion concluded.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [12.51]: I move:

That the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to Order for Papers - Twentieth Century Fox be called on forthwith.

[The President left the chair at 12.51 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.15]: The approach I commend to the House is support for the bringing on for debate motions of this nature. The purpose of the motion is to allow the House to determine whether the members of the House, and therefore the public, should have access to information held within the agencies of government. The role of the House should be to ensure open and frank discussion on such matters, and the House should be prepared to encourage access to public material. As a matter of good practice, when such motions are put on the paper they should be dealt with expeditiously so that the community knows at the earliest possible date whether it will gain access to such information. When the standing and sessional orders are
Page 2248
examined at a future time perhaps the program will be adjusted to ensure that when motions of this nature are brought forward they are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Question - That standing and sessional orders be suspended - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Mr Corbett Mrs Nile
Mrs Forsythe Rev. Nile
Miss Gardiner Mr Ryan
Mr Gay Mr Samios
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Jobling
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Cohen
Mr Moppett Mrs Sham-Ho

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Shaw
Ms Burnswoods Ms Staunton
Mr Dyer Mrs Symonds
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Obeid
Mr Macdonald Ms Saffin

Mrs Chadwick Mrs Isaksen
Mr Lynn Mr Johnson
Dr Pezzutti Mr O'Grady

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.35]: I move:

That General Business Notice of Motion No. 1 relating to Order for Papers - Twentieth Century Fox be called on forthwith.

Question put.

The House divided.

[In Division]

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was in error in calling a division.

Division called off.

Question restated.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [2.36]: I move:

That under Standing Order 18, there be laid upon the Table of this House and made public without restricted access by 5.00 pm Thursday 26 October 1995, all documents relevant to the Government's negotiations with Twentieth Century Fox relating to the conversion of the Sydney Showground into a film complex, including but not limited to:

(a) all documents, correspondence, notes, advices and submissions including briefing papers in relation to the in-principle agreement with Twentieth Century Fox;

(b) all documents relating to the Sydney Showground site at Moore Park and the transfer of planning powers from South Sydney Council to the New South Wales State Government; and

(c) all documents relating to the Twentieth Century Fox involvement on the Sydney Showground site beyond the use of the site for a film studio.

The motion seeks an order from the House that there be laid before the House and made public without restricted access by 5 p.m. on Thursday, 26 October 1995, all documents relevant to the Government's negotiations with Twentieth Century Fox relating to the conversion of the Sydney showground into a film complex. Certain other documents are further identified. The motion does not relate to the question of whether the showground be used as a site for a film studio. As far back as April 1990, the Minister for the Arts - the current Leader of the Opposition - wrote to the Premier, Nick Greiner, proposing that the showground be used as a site for a film studio. In February 1994, KPMG Peat Marwick completed a review of a strategy for the New South Wales film and television production industry. The strategy highlighted Sydney's need for a major studio facility if it were to maintain its position as an international film centre.

[Debate interrupted.]


The PRESIDENT: I draw the attention of members to the distinguished presence in my gallery of Mr Montri Danphaiboon, the Deputy Minister of Commerce in the Government of Thailand.


[Debate resumed.]

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: A feasibility study was completed by the Kinhill group in June 1994, which found that a three-sound stage facility would boost the State's economy by almost $250 million a year and create almost 6,900 jobs. On 10 December 1994 the coalition Government called for expressions of interest from parties
Page 2249
wishing to use the showground as a site for a film studio, again reaffirming the Government's view that there was an avenue for that site to be used. On 10 February 1995 the former Minister for the Arts announced the receipt of 17 expressions of interest for use of the facility. On 5 March he announced that three companies had been short-listed - Crawford Productions Proprietary Limited, Fox Film Entertainment and Global Television Proprietary Limited.

The reason this matter comes before the House and the reason for the need to look at what is going on arises from the way in which the Government and the Leader of the Government in this House, the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development, have dealt with the matter. The Government's handling of the matter gives rise to concern about what is happening on this site of significance to the people of New South Wales. The Hon. M. R. Egan announced on 20 March that a Labor Government would negotiate directly with Fox, that is, it would abandon negotiations with the three short-listed companies and abandon the tender approach negotiated by the former Government. He said, "You would have to be crazy not to let them walk in with open arms". This House should be concerned about just how open the arms of the Government are. Is the Government to lie down with open arms and allow a major conglomerate, a multinational corporation, to walk all over it, contrary to the interests of the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. Bob Carr said on 30 March that he would be prepared to move heaven and earth to stop Victoria from securing the studio proposal. This House should ask what is meant by moving heaven and earth. In its negotiations with this organisation, is the Government prepared to give away the heritage of this State in order to secure this deal for New South Wales? It is interesting to note that on 9 April 1994 the Sunday Telegraph quoted the Minister as saying in the House, "We are anxious to get Fox to Sydney". How anxious is the Government in its negotiations to secure this deal? The Government said on 9 April that it was hoping to clinch the deal within a week from that date. On 20 April the Minister said he was prepared to suspend the process of assessing expressions of interest while he sought clarification of the Fox proposals. The Sydney Morning Herald of 16 June quoted the Minister's spokesman as saying:

The parties will have agreed on all the major issues, qualified the risks and the costs, and in broad terms allocated those between the Government and Fox.

The major issues upon which agreement was reached have still not been made public. We do not know how the Government has quantified the risks and the costs, and we do not know what the broad terms were of the allocation between the parties. It is not a question of competition between two organisations tendering for a proposal and it is not as though commercial confidentiality were involved. The Government has identified the one party it will deal with. The Parliament should be aware that the Government is negotiating to give away that which honourable members were elected to be custodians of - the heritage of the people of New South Wales. The Minister is reported as having said on 3 July, "The Government will sign the heads of agreement with Fox". A spokesman in the office of the Minister for State Development is quoted as having said, "The finer details are expected to take just a few weeks. He is also quoted as having said, "The heads of agreement is 90 per cent of the way there". The Opposition would like to know what that 90 per cent is.

On 20 July the Premier was reported as having said that the lease will be for 50 years and will cover almost 80 per cent of the showground. That step in the chronology is important because, at the time when the tenders were being considered, the agreement was to be for only 20 years. The Government is now prepared to grant a lease for up to 50 years, and the proposal will cover almost 80 per cent of the showground, almost three times the area initially canvassed as being available. On 21 July the President of Twentieth Century Fox International said, "A theme park at the studio, these are discussions that are taking place." The deal is not just for a movie studio; a representative of the interested party that is negotiating directly with the Government has said that the Government is now considering a theme park. Only a few days later on 30 July the Sun-Herald reported that the Government had approached three construction companies about building an underground car park at Moore Park to hold up to 5,000 cars. The development proposals have been broadened to take in Moore Park as well as the showground.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That has nothing to do with Fox.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Treasurer interjects that it has nothing to do with Twentieth Century Fox. One might well ask if it has nothing to do with it, why does the Government not put all the facilities on the showground site? If the Government needs car parking for this operation, why not put it on the showground site? Neither the Opposition nor the public knows why. This matter is being handled by a Government that has shown its inherent nature for secrecy.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You have not asked a question about the showground-Moore Park car park. If you had asked a question you would have got an answer.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Opposition intends to find out the answers by gaining access to the documents. Then the Opposition will know what the Government is up to. Why is the Government fighting the production of the documents if it has nothing to hide? The public is saying that this Government is all about inherent secrecy. It is not a matter of the Opposition wanting to stop the construction of a studio, because it has already supported the concept of a studio.
Page 2250
The Opposition wants to know what the Government is doing before the Minister for State Development says at a press conference, "We have completed a deal. We have signed away the showground. We have signed away our heritage." That is all the Opposition expects of this Government.

I can say in this House what is being said out in the community: we do not trust this Government. This House is entitled to know what is going on. Why is construction spreading out into Moore Park to provide car parking facilities? On 26 August the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Fox chief executive, Kim Williams, confirmed that the studio proposal will include a cinema complex, restaurants and surface parking for 1,500 cars. What is the proposal? On 22 September, just a few weeks later, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the members' stand at the showground and the 1920s clock tower would be demolished to make way for the movie back lot but that the Federation Suttor stand would be moved to Homebush Bay, and that a high-tech theme park was envisaged. On that day, in response to that statement the Government gave an assurance that the clock tower will stand but it gave no assurance as to the members' stand. The Government also said nothing on that day about the high-tech theme park.

It took five days before we read another statement from the Minister. He was quoted in the Wentworth Courier as saying that the Hordern Pavilion, the Royal Hall of Industries and the stables will stay in community hands. What does that mean? Does it mean that they are not included within the lease proposal or does it mean that they will be included in the lease proposals but there will be a requirement that the lessee make them available to the community? The Minister was also quoted as saying that there will not be a theme park on the site, but then he said that there would be a number of entertainment facilities, including a cinema and studio tours. Anyone who has visited overseas studio tours will know that they include the use of facilities within the studio. That is exactly how most of the theme parks have developed around the world.

Are we talking about a rose of a different colour? We do not know; the community does not know; and I suspect the Minister does not know. I submit that the House should support the motion. The Government can continue to negotiate with the one agency that it is negotiating with. We encourage it to do so - in fact we support the continued negotiations - but we want to know what is going on. We want to make certain that the interests of the State are being addressed by the Government and that there is open and transparent accountability. The Government stopped the tender process; we advocated it. Had the coalition been back in government I believe it would have continued the tender process and Fox would have been the successful tenderer. But the Government has changed the rules. It has set new parameters, which should include accountability to the Parliament. If the Government is opposing the Opposition's motion, what is it trying to hide?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.42]: The Government opposes the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I was fascinated to hear him say at the conclusion of his remarks that the Opposition supported continued negotiations with Fox. He also said that if there had not been a change of government, Fox no doubt would have been the successful tenderer. So it is difficult to understand the basis of his concern. If the Opposition supports continued negotiations, it is hypocritical of it to insist that all the documentation in relation to the negotiations should become public property. What negotiations are conducted in full glare before the whole world? The motion by the Leader of the Opposition is essentially asking that the negotiations be conducted in that way. He will not even look at me, he is so embarrassed by the pathetic case he has put forward.

The negotiations with Fox will continue until they reach a satisfactory conclusion. We are in no hurry; we have taken our time in order to get things right. This is a great opportunity for New South Wales to have a fabulous new industry located in Sydney. Indeed, the film studios at the showground will be the second largest - smaller only than Hollywood - in the English-speaking world. It is a great use of the showground site. We have been in no hurry to finalise the negotiations. Certainly we want them to proceed as expeditiously as possible but they will not conclude until we are absolutely satisfied that the result is in the best interests of the people of New South Wales and is the best possible set of arrangements that we can achieve for the people of New South Wales.

As it happens, I believe we are fairly close to finalising negotiations with Fox, but if for some reason it emerges that negotiations cannot be quickly finalised, the Government will not sign its name to an agreement simply for the sake of finalising it quickly. We want the showground to be the location of film studios; we want it to be the location of a great new industry for Sydney, New South Wales and Australia; and we want the negotiations to be finalised as expeditiously as possible. But we will not finalise any negotiations until we are satisfied that we have the best possible arrangement.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to a proposed car park at Moore Park. That has absolutely nothing to do with Fox and it is not a goer anyway. Some time ago I indicated that the Government was looking at very preliminary proposals concerning the possibility of constructing a car park under Moore Park. Honourable members who have been to the Easter show, the football or the cricket will know what a mess is
Page 2251
made of Moore Park by the use of that park - at the moment one has to say that the word "park" should be in inverted commas - as a car park. It is cut up and damaged every time it is used. It would be ideal if it were financially feasible to put a car park under Moore Park so that it could return to being a proper park. I indicated that we were investigating a preliminary proposal. From the information the Government has received it seems that it is not a commercial goer. Development of the showground site by the Fox studio held out the prospect of day-to-day patronage of an underground car park that would not simply have to rely on the 50 days a year that major sporting events were held in that area; there would be some patronage through the week.

That is why it was worth examining the feasibility of a commercial car park under Moore Park. Our preliminary advice is that it is not a commercial goer, and that puts an end to that question. It had nothing to do with Fox: the car park was not being proposed for Fox. There was no suggestion of that. All the companies that expressed interest in the showground as a full-time studio site indicated that the original seven hectares was simply insufficient to make the proposition a commercial goer. Of all the short-listed applicants, Fox was the only concern that was a world player. Before the election I did make the statements attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. He gave the date but he did not emphasise that those statements were made prior to the election. We told the people of Sydney precisely what we believed the Government should be doing. This was done on the basis of information received from the coalition Government's advisers.

Having called for expressions of interest, the Government was advised to proceed to negotiate one on one with Fox, the only world player amongst those that had indicated any interest in developing studios at the showground. Prior to the election the Labor Party said that this is what it would do. True to the mandate it received and true to the commitment it gave the people, one of the first things the Labor Party did when it came to government was to get that stalled process under way. The Labor Party has nothing to hide in this regard. It has nothing to hide about the continuing negotiations with Fox.

I am confident that in the near future the Government will be in a position to finalise and announce the agreement. However, we will not have the Leader of the Opposition sitting in on all of these negotiations. That is not the way business negotiations are conducted. No-one would suggest it is. That is not the way that this Government is going to work. I indicated last week that the Government had clear legal advice from the Solicitor General that the application of Standing Order 18 is simply invalid. Section 15(1) of the Constitution Act sets out matters with respect to which the Legislative Council may make standing orders and rules. There is nothing in that section which supports Standing Order 18, especially in its application to call for the production of documents held by the Executive. Section 15(1)(a) of the Constitution Act provides that standing orders can be made for the orderly conduct of the Legislative Council; and that relates to the orderly way in which business is conducted in the Legislative Council. It is simply not a source of power to impose obligations on third parties merely to assist in the more effective functioning of the House. Quite some time ago the Opposition lodged an application under the Freedom of Information Act for documents relating to the Fox negotiations.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Are you going to tell the House that you did not comply with the FOI request?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Government has in fact made every effort to comply with the FOI request. The Leader of the National Party in the other place, who made the FOI application, was asked to indicate precisely what documents he wanted, but there has been no response. Only today or yesterday has the Leader of the National Party finally told the Government which documents he wants. So the delays have been entirely the responsibility of the Leader of the National Party in another place, who made the FOI application. The Opposition cannot say that the Government has failed to respond to that application. It has been doing everything it can to respond to it, but there has been no response from the Opposition.

The Government will oppose the motion, and, of course, it is quite clear what it is all about: the Opposition wants to spike any arrangement for Fox to go to the showground. The coalition resents the fact that under the Labor Government this State will get a fabulous new industry, which even the Leader of the Opposition indicated will provide 6,900 additional jobs and a $250 million benefit to the New South Wales economy each and every year. The Opposition wants to spike that happening, and it will do everything it can to do so. We will continue businesslike, proper negotiations with Fox until a satisfactory agreement is reached. We are not going to jeopardise negotiations by doing what no previous government has done - that is, conduct the negotiations in some sort of public forum. When the negotiations are completed, the Government will announce the arrangements that have been agreed to by Fox and the Government on behalf of the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [2.54]: The Australian Democrats support the motion. Frankly, I find it very strange that there is resistance to the Opposition's request for the tabling of certain documents. I am sure I do not have to tell the Treasurer that when the Labor Party was in opposition and it demanded that the previous Government table documents, that procedure was readily agreed to. In fact, I am informed by the honourable member for Bligh in another place that when the Labor Party Opposition demanded documents to be tabled with respect to the Neil
Page 2252
Pickard affair, they were wheeled into the Legislative Assembly on trolleys within 24 hours. The Labor Party demanded documents and the previous administration gave it those documents. Why is the Labor Government now objecting to documents being demanded by the coalition Opposition?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Amongst other reasons, these are commercial in-confidence negotiations that have not been finalised.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: The Treasurer referred to commercial in-confidence documents. There is only one tenderer, Fox, so far as the showground is concerned. Why is there commercial in confidence? If two or three organisations were tendering I could understand the sensitivity of the Government. What is the sensitivity of the Government when only one person is tendering? I agree that there is the possibility of commercial in-confidence problems, but there is nothing to prevent those documents being tabled in this Parliament, to be viewed only by members of this Parliament. Privilege would be attributed to those documents and if any member abuses that privilege, if anything in the documents is revealed, he or she would be liable for expulsion from the Parliament. If those documents are tendered under such conditions the Treasurer, who has been very closely involved in the negotiations with Fox, could not possibly disagree. It would not be possible to leak those documents without grave penalty being imposed on the member responsible.

I bring two matters to the attention of the House. The Australian Democrats support the establishment of a healthy motion picture industry in Sydney. The climate is well suited and a great deal of talent in the industry has drifted overseas. There is also a huge market for commercials to be made for South-East Asia. Australia should be striving to be at the forefront of production and postproduction in the Asia-Pacific region before we lose our edge. It is historical fact that Australia had one of the earliest motion picture industries, and it is vital that we re-establish a strong local industry as a matter of urgency. I do not wish to see my grandchildren watching reruns of I Dream of Jeannie or M*A*S*H. A strong local industry will have to stem the tide of cultural imperialism from the United States of America. This is something I have been involved in for 25 years.

For five years I was the President of the International Association of Women in Radio and Television, an organisation very much concerned about a total United States of America broadcasting takeover of the rest of the English speaking world. I am still a member of the World View International Foundation, which is centred in Sri Lanka - where the Hon. Franca Arena visited only two weeks ago, although on different business - and the president of that foundation is the Sri Lankan Minister for Foreign Affairs. This organisation was established to prevent the globalisation of American television and radio, particularly in the Pacific region and northern Europe. I am very well aware of the dangers which can arise when an industry is taken over by a multinational American company that squeezes local companies out of the industry.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Don't you want Fox to come in? Is that what you're saying?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: In response to the interjection, I have had discussions with members of the industry on this matter - and I remind honourable members that at one time I was Vice-President of Actors Equity, as it was then known - and I have spoken to my son, who is not only an actor but also a film producer. For many years he was in partnership with Paul Cox, a leading film maker responsible for important films such as Man of Flowers, My First Wife, and Van Gogh. I asked my son what this proposal would mean to the industry. I also spoke to his wife, who is a film director, and to both my daughter and son-in-law, who are involved in the industry and are currently making a film in Perth. Their answers were simple: it will create jobs on the production side of the industry, but we have no guarantee that it will create jobs for actors. We have first-rate cameramen here -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: The Democrats do not want Fox here!

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That is not true, I deny that. We will not be able to control the situation if a multinational company moves into the industry; therefore, how many of our actors will be employed? That is the crucial problem when considering the Minister's claims about the number of jobs that will be created by this proposal. I do not understand the volte-face by the Labor Party now it is in government. I now refer to Hansard of 27 November 1992 and a statement made in the Legislative Assembly by the honourable member for Blacktown, the present Minister for the Environment. In a speech objecting to changes proposed for the Sydney showground she said:

As early as 24th July, 1988, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council was proposing a "save the showground association" not only to keep the Royal Agricultural Society on its historic site but to ensure that the showground was not sold.

That referred to a statement made by the then Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber in 1988. The Minister for the Environment continued:

There was tremendous community support at the time for the survival of the showground. At that time the National Trust said: "We have not completed all of the exhaustive conservation studies in this area because we never thought for one moment that the Government would be so ambitious as to sell this particular site; we took it for granted that it would not. We are now going to start looking at those conservation values".

She later said:

There are many good reasons why this site should be protected. Not only is it a historic site but it has grown to be a recreational centre for all Sydney. Last month the Labor Party released a very comprehensive urban renewal

Page 2253
plan for the South Sydney area. We determined that because increasing densities in the inner suburbs of South Sydney will be part of our ambitious urban consolidation plan over the next two decades, we will need the regional open space that would be provided by this bill once carried.

That referred to the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust (Macquarie Sydney Common) Amendment Bill introduced by the honourable member for Bligh, Ms Clover Moore. The Hon. Pam Allan continued:

We do not want to see heavy urban development on that site. The site will be an important compensatory regional open space for those who will be compelled to move into high density areas within South Sydney.

The Minister for the Environment made those comments in November 1992. She is now a senior member of Cabinet. In fact, it is believed that the Carr Cabinet is run by the troika of the Premier, the Hon. Pam Allan and the Hon. Michael Knight. I do not know whether that is true, but that is the popular public perception. The problem is that since the first negotiations on this proposal were started - by the previous administration, I am well aware - an enormous change has occurred. That is, the proposal is not just to give Fox the old showground site to be used for film studios - which is totally supported by the Australian Democrats - but also to provide the opportunity, possibly in collaboration with Disney, for a "Disneyland Downunder". I am informed that this negotiation will involve the Government in a $500 million deal to provide a car park. That is the problem.

This is why the honourable member for Bligh has requested further investigation into this matter, and she has referred many matters to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. She has been firmly opposed to the extension of the showground site proposal. There is a great deal of documentation on this matter. In order for the Government to prove that it has not done anything untoward, and so that the people of New South Wales, particularly those in eastern Sydney, may believe that everything the Government is doing is above board, the Government should table the documents. If those documents, when tabled, prove to the Opposition that everything done has been kosher, the Government has no fear or worry - it will be totally vindicated.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Are you suggesting that it is not?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I am only suggesting that as long as the Government refuses to table these documents, it will be under suspicion. If there is nothing wrong with the documents, why will the Government not allow honourable members of this House to look at them?

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Because that is not the way you conduct business negotiations.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: These are not private negotiations. The negotiations relate to land that has been in the public domain of this State for more than a century. There is an apparent conflict of interest, because Mr Ken Cowley, the Chairman and Chief Executive of News Limited, is now involved in this deal, but Mr Cowley is also a member of the executive committee of the Royal Agricultural Society. That matter needs to be clarified. When in opposition the Treasurer's colleagues in another place claimed that it would cost between $250 million and $300 million to relocate the showground, but now that they are in government apparently the cost of that relocation is meaningless. Honourable members must know why.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Don't you remember that we told you before the election that we were supporting the studios at the showground? It was before the election, not after the election.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: May I point out that in another place the Labor Government has a majority of one seat. It does not have a majority of votes in this State -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: We have a lot more than the Australian Democrats.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That is self-evident. I would not dispute that claim because there is no way that any minor party would ever get a parity vote with either the coalition or the Labor Party. But the Government does not have a majority of votes, however much it may wish it had. I am sure that causes great distress particularly to people such as the Hon. J. R. Johnson, who has worked faithfully and hard for his party for more than 50 years. But there is now a forced substantial public commitment to building a new showground, with an accelerated timetable, and perhaps with only temporary facilities. To achieve that, the Government is willing to hand over 27 hectares of inner-city public land, in the most expensive city in Australia, to a private overseas-based company for 50 years. The Government not only intends to give that company establishment subsidies and tax concessions, but it also intends to give the company supporting facilities such as a customer car park, which will be paid for by the Government.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What nonsense! Where did you get that nonsense from? Where did you get that from?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: If the Minister produces the documents he will be able to prove it is nonsense. Unless honourable members see the documents they cannot know that it is nonsense.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Don't be so silly! You are getting sillier by the day.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: About two weeks ago I took part in a radio interview. I was asked by the interviewer, "What do you do when you are attacked in the House, either by the Government or the Opposition, in very personal terms?" I have just been attacked in very personal
Page 2254
terms by the Leader of the Government in this House. He stated that I am getting sillier by the day. My reply to that radio interviewer was, "If I am under personal attack by anybody in this House, that only proves to me that they are feeling very insecure." I believe that the Leader of the Government is feeling very insecure at the moment. If he is not, he would not attack me so personally. I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.15], in reply: The words of the Leader of the Government serve only to generate more concern in this House. He has confirmed that we are talking about what will be the second largest film studio in the world. If that is what is proposed for this site, the public is entitled to know what is going on in the negotiations for the development of such a project. The Minister had denied that there is any connection between the showground proposal and the 5,000-space car park under Moore Park. I remind him of his own words when he said that the Government was looking at the commercial feasibility of this project because the facility provided an opportunity for additional patronage during the week. Why would additional patronage be needed unless the film studio site is to be used for some other purpose? That almost suggests that the Leader of the Government knows that proposals are on foot for the use of this site which will attract more people than could be expected of a traditional film studio. The Minister has denied that a theme park will be constructed, but he then says that all these other uses will be made of the site.

As I said in my leading contribution to this debate, that suggests to me that the Government is proposing some form of intensive use for the site, and that proposal is being cloaked in other clothes. It is almost like another version of the emperor's new clothes. That is why the people are saying that they do not trust Government. The only way to make the Government accountable is to make it accountable to the Parliament. For that reason, the documents should be made available. The Minister claims that he is in no hurry to finalise negotiations. If he is in no hurry, he should make the documents available to the Parliament, and not hide them. He claims that the Government is near to finalising the negotiations. Indeed, he went further and said the negotiations were very near to completion. He then said the Government would announce the agreement.

The Opposition is concerned that the Government will make the announcement when the agreement has been signed off. The Minister has given no undertaking that a draft agreement will be made available for scrutiny by the public before it is signed or that the Parliament will be given an explanation of what is to be signed off by this Government. That alone will ring alarm bells, particularly for the eastern suburbs community. The Leader of the Government claimed that the Opposition wants to spike any arrangements for Twentieth Century Fox to use the showground. Several times during my opening contribution I said that the Opposition supports the use of the showground by the studios and the completion by the Government of these negotiations. Any suggestion that the Opposition wants to spike the agreement or any arrangement is totally without foundation.

The Leader of the Government raised the question of dealing with commercial in-confidence documents. Honourable members know from what has happened in the past in the lower House that if the Government is concerned about certain documents it has produced, it can seek to amend the motion to exclude such documents. Honourable members can be spoken to privately about such documents. That happened in the other place in relation to the production of documents relating to the Water Board papers and the Police Service. If the Government produces genuine commercial in-confidence documents, the Parliament will act responsibly in relation to them.

I draw the attention of the House to the argument advanced by the Minister that the motion should not go ahead because of an outstanding freedom of information matter. It was suggested that the freedom of information request was being stalled by the Opposition. The House should be aware of the true position. On 25 July an application was lodged with the Department of State Development requesting all documentation relating to the Government's negotiations with Twentieth Century Fox in relation to the establishment of a film studio on the showground site. Under the relevant legislation the department had 21 days to respond to that request. The department could have asked for an extra 14 days, which would have taken the date to 7 September. However, that date passed. On 4 August the department acknowledged the request. On 28 August, in order to proceed, the department indicated that it may need to modify the application and indicated that a request could be refused on the ground of unreasonable diversion of departmental resources to process the application.

The Minister did not inform the House - and I challenged him to do so by way of interjection - that on 20 September the Leader of the National Party, Mr Armstrong, met the head of the Premier's Department, Mr Baxter, and a meeting was called at Mr Baxter's request to discuss the request under the Freedom of Information Act. At the meeting it was agreed that the request would proceed. Mr Baxter advised that he would communicate that decision to the Department of State Development. On 6 October Mr Baxter acknowledged by letter that the freedom of information request was proceeding. So much for suggesting that the Opposition had not pursued the request! As at 20 September the Government knew the documents that were required, which were the documents outlined in the original request. Today, 25 October, the Opposition is still waiting for those documents. So much for the diligence of the Government in dealing
Page 2255
with freedom of information matters! The Opposition will wait to find out whether the Government complies with the freedom of information request. I submit that the House should receive the documentation requested, because it can then ensure that the appropriate diligence is pursued by the Government in protecting the heritage of the State.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Mr Moppett
Mrs Chadwick Mr Mutch
Mr Cohen Mrs Nile
Mr Corbett Rev. Nile
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Kersten Dr Goldsmith
Miss Kirkby Mr Ryan

Mrs Arena Ms Saffin
Ms Burnswoods Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Staunton
Mr Egan Mrs Symonds
Mr Kaldis Mr Vaughan
Mr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr Manson Dr Burgmann
Mr Obeid Mr O'Grady

Mr Lynn Mrs Isaksen
Dr Pezzutti Mr Johnson

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.31]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill is to repeal the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1973 and replace it with an Act that provides a simplified administrative procedure for the registration of births, deaths, marriages, adoption information and changes of name, and for obtaining access to the register. The bill will also promote consistency in registration practice across Australia. In recent years there have been two reports produced relating to the registration and certification of births, deaths and marriages and the availability of information on the New South Wales register of births, deaths and marriages. In 1988 the New South Wales Law Reform Commission published its report entitled "Registration and Certification of Births and Deaths". The commission made a number of recommendations including that both parents should be required to register their child's birth, provide a name for the child and that the register should be made available to the public.

The issue of whether the register should be made open to the public was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues, comprised of members of this House. In its 1993 report "Births, Deaths and Marriages: An Open Register?" that committee unanimously recommended that the register should not be open to the public to the extent recommended by the commission. However, the committee did make a number of recommendations aimed at ensuring the development of a public access policy and clarification of the registrar's discretion regarding the release of data held on the registry. The committee agreed that the current criteria used to grant access to certificates, namely, age of the record, the relationship of an applicant to the subject of a record, and the exercise of the registrar's discretion, should continue to be the basis for access provisions.

Apart from differences in approach to access, the recommendations of the commission were mostly adopted in a model bill which was subsequently developed by State and Territory registrars of births, deaths and marriages and drafted in South Australia. The model bill also incorporates the committee's recommendations regarding access to registry information. At this time I extend my thanks to those members who participated on that committee. The result of their work now forms the basis of the objects of the bill, and also the access and review provisions contained in it. The model bill was later referred to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General at its meeting held in February 1995, and all jurisdictions subsequently approved it. The bill reflects the provisions of the model bill, apart from certain specific changes which are designed to accommodate the particular needs of New South Wales. The bill departs from the existing registration Act in a number of ways.

For the first time an objects clause has been included to specifically define the registry's functions. It recognises the invaluable and varied work performed by the registry and provides a focus upon the registry's operations. For example, one of the objects as described in clause 3 is the collection and dissemination of statistical information. This information, the importance of which was acknowledged by the Standing
Page 2256
Committee on Social Issues, is used for government and community planning purposes, grants from the Commonwealth, electoral distribution, medical and academic research and so on. The insertion of an objects clause recognises the invaluable data collected and maintained by the registry.

The bill redefines the meaning of stillbirth. The current definition of "a stillborn child" in section 4 of the Act was drawn from the commission's report, but has caused some difficulties. Under the existing definition a child is required to weigh at least 400 grams at delivery or to be of 20 weeks' gestation. This emphasis on weight in the present Act has caused problems with the registration of multiple births. For example, one twin, being 420 grams, might have been classified as a stillbirth, but the second twin was expressly excluded from the stillbirth definition by being 390 grams, although clearly both were of the same gestation. This has resulted in distress to parents, confusion for health professionals and skewed stillbirth statistics for this State. Legislative change is required to remedy this situation. Clause 4 of the bill provides that a stillborn child means a child that exhibits no sign of respiration or heartbeat, or other sign of life after birth, and that is of at least 20 weeks gestation or, if it cannot be reliably established whether the period of gestation is more or less than 20 weeks, with a body mass of at least 400 grams at birth. This definition is currently applied in most jurisdictions.

The concept of a prohibited name, also defined in clause 4, has been introduced in the bill. At present a number of jurisdictions, not including New South Wales, have restrictive naming practices requiring that the surname registered for the child be the same as that used by its parents, or only the father's surname for nuptial births, or only the mother's surname for ex-nuptial births. Such requirements are inflexible in dealing with changing community values and the naming traditions of some ethnic groups, which may, for example, use the parent's forename as the child's surname. The inclusion of this provision will enable those jurisdictions to remove their current restrictive requirements. In New South Wales, where freedom of choice in naming practices is already allowed, the provision will codify those limited cases where a name may be prohibited because it would be offensive or impractical in everyday use.

Clause 11 provides for interstate agreements to allow the New South Wales registry to issue registry information from other States and Territories. This clause will enhance the provision of registry services in this State, particularly in respect of those Australians who total in excess of two million and who were neither born nor married in their State of residence. Clause 12 provides for the notification of births to the registry by the hospital of birth, or the midwife or doctor at a home birth. Similar requirements have been in place in all other jurisdictions for some time. The ability to confirm a birth's occurrence is vital to prevent fraud and ensure every birth is registered. At present the process is only accomplished by informal arrangements with hospitals and the exercise of the registrar's power of inquiry.

Clause 18 provides for the recording of parentage information including marriage details where parents of ex-nuptial children subsequently marry, without any reference to the concept of legitimacy, as is found in the existing legislation. This is an important change reflecting the removal of the concept of illegitimacy by the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976 and equivalent legislation enacted throughout Australia. Clause 20 of the bill provides for greater scope in the recording of additional details of parentage after the registration of a birth. Existing sections 42A and 42B of the Act are unnecessarily restrictive in the range of orders which are acceptable and do not enable effect to be given to other valid orders made regarding children, for example, orders made under the Family Law Act 1975. Clause 22 provides for the resolution of a dispute over a child's name by court order. If there is a dispute between parents about the child's name then either parent may now apply to the District Court for a resolution of the dispute.

Part 5 of the bill relates to the registration of a change of name and codifies the parental authority required to change a child's name. This will provide a streamlined method of recognising a change of name for all New South Wales residents. Currently in New South Wales, the official registration of a change of name involves two separate processes. First, a deed poll or an instrument evidencing change of name is lodged with the Land Titles Office to register the intended new name. Second, only after the new name has been established over time, can it be recorded on the birth record at the registry.

Provisions in part 5 of the bill establish a simple, one-stop statutory scheme for change of name by registration without the need to establish use prior to registration. It will also bring New South Wales administratively into line with other jurisdictions in having the change of name function attached exclusively to the registration of births, deaths and marriages. Clauses 46 to 48 of the bill relate to access to the register and information contained on the register and are a major departure from the current broadly discretionary legislation. The proposed provisions provide a codification of the underlying policy applied in registry operations and are consistent with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues. This is complemented by a requirement for a publicly available access policy.

Part 10 of the bill expands the range of penalties which are necessary in light of increasing fraud and provides for specific offences such as the improper disclosure of information obtained in connection with the administration of the proposed Act, rather than relying on general criminal law
Page 2257
offences, which have been difficult to establish in the past. Clause 56 provides for a general power of review of a decision of the registrar by a court. The lack of such express power of review of registry decisions was a central concern of the commission's report. The Standing Committee on Social Issues also recommended that there needed to be an express review mechanism for the registrar's access decisions. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [3.41]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to allow the courts to modify the operation of the rule of public policy called the forfeiture rule. The effect of the forfeiture rule is that a person responsible for the unlawful killing of another is deprived of rights to inherit or administer the victim's estate. A slayer is also deprived of any interest passing by survivorship on the death of the victim. For example, the title to a house in joint names would normally pass to the survivor on the death of one of the parties. The rule prevents the title from passing to the killer. The forfeiture rule is an aspect of the principle that a person should not be permitted to profit from his or her own wrong. The motive of the slayer is irrelevant and the rule applies, prima facie, to every case of unlawful homicide, but may be displaced by the features of the crime.

The application of the rule is determined by the court in its civil jurisdiction, usually when determining the distribution of the estate of the deceased person, following the conclusion of criminal proceedings. While it is clear as a matter of principle that a killer should not profit from his or her crime, the operation of the rule may be unduly harsh in some cases of unlawful killing, because the rule may operate regardless of the killer's motive or degree of moral guilt. The bill enables the Supreme Court to modify the operation of the rule provided it is satisfied that the justice of the case requires the rule to be modified. The proposed legislation recognises that there are varying degrees of moral culpability in unlawful killings, and legislation is necessary to give judges sufficient discretion to make orders in deserving cases in the interests of justice.

This has been recognised in the United Kingdom and in the Australian Capital Territory, which have enacted legislation in similar terms to that proposed for this State. To illustrate this point it may assist if I set out some examples of cases in which it is envisaged that the proposed legislation might operate to mitigate the effect of the rule. The first example is that of a woman who is found to have killed her partner while suffering from battered woman syndrome. In cases where such women kill their partners, the outcome of criminal proceedings may be acquittal or conviction of manslaughter, although no sentence may be imposed. If the forfeiture rule applied, such a woman would forfeit her interest in her former partner's estate if the killing was premeditated. Even a person who had been acquitted by the criminal courts could forfeit his or her interest in the estate at present because the civil court determines on the balance of probabilities whether he or she committed an unlawful homicide. This is a lower standard than that applied by the criminal courts.

A further example is the case of a suicide pact, where two people agree that one will assist the suicide of the other. The rule might operate to prevent the estate of the first person from taking any interest in the other's estate. A similar result might follow for a person who assisted suicide. Other cases in which the rule may cause injustice are the applications of the rule to involuntary homicide, or causing death by culpable driving. A further objection to the rule is the illogical effect it may have on the interests of persons claiming through the killer. For example, in a case of manslaughter-suicide, the children of the killer might be disentitled although they had no part in the killing of the testator. A person convicted of unlawful killing, such as a spouse, may have made a significant contribution to the assets of the deceased person's estate, and in some circumstances provision should be made by the Supreme Court to recognise such a contribution.

The proposed legislation does not abrogate the forfeiture rule. In particular, it does not enable the court to mitigate the effect of the forfeiture rule for a person who has been convicted of murder. It does not compel the court to make provision out of the estate of a deceased person to his or her killer. The legislation does not interfere with the right of the family of the victim to make submissions to the court as to the distribution of the estate. Indeed, in considering whether the rule should apply, the court must consider the conduct of the offender and of the deceased person, the effect of the application of the rule on the offender and any other person, and any other circumstances which appear to the court to be material. The bill empowers the court to mould orders to fit the circumstances of the case; for example, in some circumstances it may be appropriate to permit a former wife acquitted of manslaughter while suffering battered woman syndrome to inherit the family home but not personal assets of the deceased person.

After an order has been made, the court will be able to revoke or vary it to take account of, for example, the discovery of new information not available at the time of the order or assets not previously thought to be part of the deceased person's estate. The court will also be able to consider the making of an order for the modification
Page 2258
of the rule if a conviction of a person is quashed or the convicted person is pardoned by the Governor. This will ensure that justice is done to persons who are found to have been wrongly convicted of a homicide. The proposals have the support of the Chief Justice, the Law Society, the Public Trustee and the Trustee Corporations Association. The forfeiture rule often affects family members, such as spouses, who may be unable to claim the property of the deceased person even though they may have made a substantial contribution to the estate. The relaxation of the rule will enable family members to inherit such property, provided the court considers it just, and both they and their children will benefit from the reforms. I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.


Debate resumed from 24 October.

The Hon. I. COHEN [3.50]: As a Green member of Parliament, I strongly support the bill. As I stand here I take in the Chamber and I see the lectern that I stand before, the apparel of this Chamber, and the woodwork that so artfully reflects the sensitivities of civilisation and our culture. Wood is a forgiving medium and a thing of beauty. Working with wood has accompanied the development of civilisation and it gives a great depth of feeling. I can understand the attachment of people to the lifestyle of working with wood. As we move towards the end of the twentieth century use of this seemingly endless resource for housing, shelter, comfortable furniture, decoration and art is being questioned for the first time. The recent forest wars throughout the world have shown another set of values: things are not as simple as they did seem. Forestry continues throughout the world, particularly in the tropical areas and in many countries on the Pacific rim, but people in Australia, as part of a pioneering ethos, are questioning the destruction of forests for the provision of a material that has been so vital to the survival of our civilisation.

I stand before the Parliament as a Green who has been working on forest issues for many years. I am very committed to the preservation of forests. My involvement goes back to the time of the rainforest issues in the late 1970s and early 1980s and has continued to include the recent old-growth issues. However, the bill also involves social justice issues, which are also of primary importance. As well as standing for the environment, the Greens stand for social justice, and I think this bill, like few that have come before this House in the short time that I have been here, represents these two strands that are often seen as somewhat in conflict. I hope to put to rest the impression that the Greens are just about hugging trees or wanting to save the environment. Certainly we are concerned with those issues but the social justice implications of our actions are deeply felt.

The Labor Government is in office in part because of the perceived position before the last State election of the Labor Opposition compared with the position of the coalition Government. The National Party position during the last seven years of coalition government contributed to the immeasurable suffering caused by the forests issue boiling during that period. I stood in front of thousands of people and made forests a major issue at the election. I think the Greens can take credit for convincing the majority of people of New South Wales that something had to be done quickly to resolve the problems in the forest industry as this was the last chance for the old-growth and high-conservation-value forests. The alternative is a simplified environment in which those special forests, those special places, and the special animals that live in them disappear for ever. We would have nothing but vague memories of the wonderful multiplicity of fauna and flora in this State.

All members should keep in mind that the Parliament is of its present composition in great part because of the forest issue. Other honourable members and I shall propose amendments, but the bill has bipartisan support. That is interesting in view of the vociferous and heated debate that has raged over many years. Only a matter of weeks ago - perhaps a month or so - another issue in this House received similar bipartisan support. I refer to French nuclear testing at Mururoa and in other parts of the south Pacific. I understand the combative nature of parliamentary life but it is gratifying that such an important matter is again receiving bipartisan support. I just hope that in some small way the crossbenchers, supported by the Green movement, move Australian parliaments beyond the politics of the day to look at the important issues.

In this historic time we have an opportunity to resolve the dispute over native forests in this State and show leadership to the rest of Australia. We are setting up a blueprint for the future that I hope will ensure the survival of our native forests and our wonderful species, and also the survival of the timber industry and associated industries and those communities that depend upon them. We should also preserve the special quality of life that characterises Australia - mateship, cooperation and the ability to come to agreement beyond the conflicts so much seen around the world at present. However this forest issue has been -

Pursuant to sessional order business interrupted.



The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Does the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council face a
Page 2259
severe reprimand from caucus tomorrow over his lack of consultation in supporting the private member's bill of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to ban duck hunting? In the Australian today the honourable member for Cessnock in another place, Mr Stan Neilly, said that the Labor leadership must consult caucus more. He said, "But how far they can go without cutting our own throats I don't know." Is it a fact that the Government approaches legislative change in what Labor members are calling a crash or crash-through attitude?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The short answer is no.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the response of the New South Wales Government to the decision handed down by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 9 October 1995 in relation to the third safety net adjustment and section 150A review case?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The New South Wales Government welcomes the confirmation by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of the third $8 a week safety net adjustment to workers unable to achieve wage increases as a result of enterprise bargaining. I am particularly gratified that the decision, in large part, reflects the submissions made to the Federal commission by the New South Wales Government. In written and oral submissions made during August, New South Wales proposed that payment of the third safety net adjustment at the award level should be only subject to satisfactory progress being made in award reviews required under section 150A of the Commonwealth Industrial Relations Act 1988.

I consider that the proposals of New South Wales and, subsequently, the tests determined by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission achieve an appropriate balance between the need to maintain momentum for award reform and the need to ensure that the third safety net adjustment of $8 a week is properly accessible to employees with no undue delay. Before the third safety net adjustment is available at the award level, parties will have to show that they are making positive progress in reviewing the relevance and flexibility of their individual award, as is required under the Federal legislation. In addition, consistent with submissions of the New South Wales Government, the AIRC will take a proactive approach to the review of awards should the parties not be able to reach agreement as to the scope of award changes required.

The commission will conciliate and, where necessary, arbitrate. The commission will also provide assistance to parties undertaking award reviews through the provision of a resource book, which will provide information drawing on the experience of a pilot award review and include the agreed position of central working parties on various issues, for example model anti-discrimination and majority clauses. Again, this approach was strongly supported by the New South Wales Government in its submissions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. I expect the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission will shortly consider the application of the Federal decision to the New South Wales industrial jurisdiction. Whilst awards under the current State legislation are not required to undertake a section 150A-type review, I hope that the relevant provisions from the Federal decision will quickly be made available to workers under New South Wales awards. It is good to see a New South Wales government supporting a wage increase rather than opposing it.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: Will the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, explain to the House why the Government voted with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on his private member's bill to ban duck hunting when six weeks before the 25 March election the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier, Bob Carr, said in a letter to the Sporting Shooters Association:

The claim by [animal liberationist] Sally Wilson that the State Opposition has committed itself to banning the duck shooting season if we win the next election is wrong. The Opposition has no plans to ban the duck shooting season.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: surely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on a recent vote of the House. This matter has been before the House and is again before the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: On the point of order: the matter has gone from this House. It is no longer on the agenda of the Legislative Council. It has nothing to do with a bill that was before the House.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: On the point of order: Mr President, whilst I fully realise that you do not need advice, the standing orders are quite clear that this matter can only be discussed in moving for the bill's repeal.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in order. It does not reflect on a decision of the House and it is not seeking to debate an issue which is on the notice paper. It seeks an explanation as to why members voted in a particular way. I am sure the Attorney General is perfectly capable of answering the question.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: On a point of order: whilst the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations is responsible to this House for
Page 2260
the matters that come within his portfolio and those he represents, surely the way members of this House vote on legislation is not something for which the Attorney General is responsible. Members of this House are free to vote as they choose.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the House has not raised a point of order. He is in fact answering the question.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: My question concludes: is the behaviour of the Minister just another example of Labor lies, Labor backflips and broken promises?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: This matter was fully debated in the House. Honourable members voted according to their views. The House reached its decision. It is not for me to inquire into the motivations of honourable members or otherwise disclose what might have led them to vote in a particular way.


The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: Will the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council inform the House about the progress of the Olympics Business Roundtable?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am continually amazed that the only sensible questions the Government receives in question time are from crossbenchers and Government members. We do not get sensible questions from coalition members. As honourable members may recall, on 1 June 1995 I announced the creation of the Olympics Business Roundtable. The roundtable was established to provide a forum for an effective partnership between business and the Government to create jobs and new investment in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympic Games and beyond. It is chaired by Mr Dick Warburton of DuPont (Australia) Limited, and comprises representatives of a range of industries as well as senior public servants. The group has met six times during the past five months and has established subsidiary task forces to address certain issues.

One of these task forces, chaired by Mr Ian Kiernan of Clean Up Australia, will look at how best to showcase local world-leading technologies. Another task force, under advertiser Mr Philip Asche, is looking at marketing issues. Mr Asche's group convened a special forum today on the international marketing of Australia's Olympic business image, and the forum was attended by representatives of the governments of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Commonwealth. The New South Wales Government has absolutely no objection to governments of other States cashing in on the benefits to be provided to Australia by the Olympics; indeed, we encourage them to do so.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Was Western Australia not involved?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, Western Australia did not attend, which is a pity. We will see whether we can involve that State in the future. The meeting was called to see whether national consensus could be reached on the need to develop a single theme or brand with which to promote Australia to international business. The Government is convinced there is such a need and I am informed that the participants in today's meeting agreed. Australia has done an excellent job in recent years in promoting itself as a tourist destination, but, very often, the right message for tourists is not the right message for would-be investors and business partners. Although governments cooperate to a degree on tourism marketing, there is little or no coordination in the messages sent to business people around the world. I now give some examples of the slogans currently directed to business audiences: the South Australian slogan is "Going all the way"; Victoria offers "On the Move"; Queensland, "Opportunity Unlimited"; and the Commonwealth has "Inventive Australia - Market Australia" and "Australia - Your strategic location in Asia". Those are only a few of the slogans being used.

It is clear that in the lead-up to the Olympics we need a single message about the benefits of doing business in and with Australia. A quick look at commercial television - which I am sure that you, Mr President, only have the opportunity to view briefly - indicates that creating and repeating a simple message about the benefits of a product or service is fundamental to successful marketing. The Olympics present an unprecedented opportunity to bring new business and jobs to New South Wales and Australia. We must grasp the opportunity. A brand that signifies the benefits of doing business here, and gets our message through to international investors, will help us achieve this aim. The participants in today's forum will develop this idea further in consultation with businesses in their home States. Officers of the Department of State Development will work to encourage this process and look to create a brand which can be promoted in the coming years with the financial support of other States and the Commonwealth. I look forward to reporting to the House on further developments. I thank the Hon. Franca Arena for her pertinent question.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Did the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Michael Knight, yesterday launch an unprecedented attack upon one of the most senior independent public servants of this State, namely, the Auditor-General, Mr Tony Harris? Will the Treasurer, as the Leader of the Government, assure the House that the Auditor-General has the full support of the Government and will not be censured
Page 2261
for voicing his opinion on legislation? What will the Treasurer do to ensure that the independence of the Auditor-General is upheld at all times?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Auditor-General is by statute independent of the Executive Government, and I have no doubt that Mr Harris by inclination and temperament will remain independent from the Executive Government of the day. I find it astonishing that the Hon. J. M. Samios should ask such a question. Unlike his Opposition colleagues, the honourable member is intelligent and usually asks intelligent and pertinent questions. It is strange that he should have asked this question. I think he has been set up by someone from the other place. To refer to an "unprecedented attack" upon the Auditor-General means that the Hon. J. M. Samios has forgotten the premiership of the Mr John Fahey, who seemed to attack the Auditor-General every week. From time to time disputes will arise between the Auditor-General and members of the Executive Government or government departments and agencies, but this is par for the course because intelligent people of good will can and do differ.


The Hon. ANN SYMONDS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. On this International Children's Day, will the Minister inform the House of the Government's commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am pleased to inform the House that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

Children have the right to express their views freely in matters affecting them and shall have the opportunity to be heard either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body.

This United Nations principle is consistent with this Government's broader social justice platform. International days, such as today, can be used to consider how well we are promoting the wellbeing and rights of children and to identify the critical challenges and issues for the future. However, children's rights are not without complexities. In achieving the goal of freedom of expression for children, adults must not place on a child's shoulders the onus of making decisions which adults find too difficult to make. On the other hand, we should not silence or disregard the views of children because they are young.

In the context of the delivery of State-funded services to children and families, I state my strong belief that seeking the views of children must be a priority. Seeking the views of children may well involve changing the way we do things and our taking on the task of advocating for the child. As a result of the importance of this issue, and because of our desire to get our approach just right, I have referred the matter of children's advocacy to the Standing Committee on Social Issues. This committee, under the able chairmanship of the Hon. Ann Symonds, has already advertised for submissions and I look forward to receiving its report.

Since my party came to government, I have moved quickly and in a number of significant directions to promote children's interests. I have brought forward the review of the children's care and protection legislation, a process which will provide the opportunity to ensure the legislative framework for community services meets the needs of children. My recently flagged amendments to the Adoption Information Act also provide an opportunity to ensure that the interests of children are put first. The impact of adoption does not end with the adoption of the child. We must also pay attention to the rights of the adopted child as he or she grows into adulthood.

Four main values underpin our commitment to the rights of the child: first, to value the rights and needs of children ahead of those of institutions; second, to value services which flexibly meet the needs of children; third, to value planning and practices which provide better results for children; and, fourth, to value the voice and opinions of children. These values are in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and they are in line with the Government's commitment to children's rights.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: My important question is directed 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 reports in today's press of the Hon. Pam Allan's comments that the Labor Party may intend to amend the Labor-Jones duck bill, that is, pluck the duck bill? Does this mean that the Government has broken its promises not only on credit cards and tollways, and those given to the shooters of New South Wales, but also the promises given to the Hon. J. S. Tingle and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones? From Thursday, will the agenda be that of the Carr-Egan-Clough Government? Will the unseemly urgency applied to the duck bill be removed now that the Government's conveyancing bill is lost?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Regarding the first part of the question, no, I am not aware of any such media reports.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Don't you read the papers?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It may come as a surprise to the Hon. D. J. Gay to learn that I have work to do. I actually run some of the departments of state in New South Wales. Today I have been to a policy and priorities meeting of Cabinet, I have been to meetings of my own caucus committee, I have probably signed about 300 important files, and I have probably made about 70 phone calls.

Page 2262

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Seventy?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is just so far. Quite frankly, I have got a job to do. I do not sit around or lay about all day reading the papers.


The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct a question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs. Is it a fact that teachers have been banned by the New South Wales Teachers Federation from taking part in the quality assurance review of the Department of School Education, effectively killing the program? Is it a fact that the Teachers Federation has voted to withdraw its vital support for the program, which puts visiting teams of specialists into schools to review the quality of teaching and learning? What is the Government's response to this action? Who has responsibility for education in New South Wales, the Teachers Federation or the New South Wales Australian Labor Party Government?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I believe there is some controversy about the quality assurance review in our schools. The answer to the final question asked by the honourable member is that it is the Government that has responsibility for the State's education system. But, as to the details of the honourable member's question, I shall refer them to the Minister for Education and Training for a reply.


The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Government making any use of the Internet to disseminate legal information to the community? If so, would it be of any assistance in increasing access to justice?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I thank the honourable member for the important point that she has raised. I note the honourable member's involvement in the Law Foundation of New South Wales as a member of the board of that foundation. I know she has an active interest in technological developments in the law in order to make the law more accessible and more relevant in the mid-1990s. I am pleased to be able to announce that free access to all New South Wales legislation is now available on the Internet. Only a few jurisdictions in the world have made their legislation available on the Internet.

I am advised by the service provider, Austlii, that New South Wales is believed to be the first in the world to do so properly, that is, in a fully consolidated and regularly updated form so that people can rely on the information provided because they will know it is the existing and up-to-date law. New South Wales is the first government in Australia to provide its legislation via the Internet on an ongoing basis. Under the Austlii system, people can browse through Acts of Parliament or, if they prefer, research legislation by using simple word combinations such as "police" and "speed" or "nuisance" and "dog". Court cases on a particular topic can be found simply by using the mouse to point and click. Legislation can be printed or saved to disk.

This new system is expected to provide substantial savings to businesses, government agencies, community groups, students and other individuals. People will be able to look up not only legislation but also cases on the topic or question in which they are interested. Increasing access to justice is a major commitment of this Government. Informing people of their rights and obligations is an important part of that aim. Putting this information in the Internet allows anyone with access to a computer to obtain this information free of charge. The service provider will be supplied with amendments to the legislation as they occur. The Austlii service is operated jointly by the law faculties of the University of New South Wales and the University of Technology. Internet-friendly members might be interested to know the Internet address for the service. It is http://www.austlii.edu.au.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: My question is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney undertake to find out why in a 1990 sentence hearing at Liverpool, before His Honour Judge Hosking, for two criminals convicted of manufacturing large quantities of amphetamines, the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to disclose to the sentencing judge the knowledge that one of the defendants, a Peter Cool, had stashed away what he called a "nest egg" of more than $325,000, which was likely to have been the profits of his crimes?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I assume that the honourable member is aware of the need for caution in matters of this kind. Honourable members need to be very precise about allegations made about particular court cases, particularly court cases as long ago as 1990. I can only assume, in favour of the honourable member, that he has carefully considered and researched the particular matter. In short, the answer to his question is, yes, I will be glad to explore the question that he raises and provide an answer to what might or might not have occurred in a particular criminal case in 1990.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. The
Page 2263
Government has foreshadowed changes to the victims compensation scheme in a series of media releases since it has come to office. However, no bill has to date been released. As such, community and other interested groups have had no opportunity to comment on the particulars of those proposed changes. Ongoing speculation is causing widespread uncertainty about the future of the scheme. Could the Minister advise when the bill will become available and when it will be introduced in the Parliament? Could the Attorney further advise as to the likely content of the bill and the opportunities that would be available for amendment in response to comment from interested parties and community groups?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Prior to any bill to amend the victims compensation scheme being introduced to this Parliament there will be relevant and appropriate consultation with interest groups. I am unable to say with any precision when a bill might be introduced, because that will be dependent upon the consultation process as well as the drafting process by Parliamentary Counsel. I reiterate, there will be consultation, there will then be a draft bill, and it will be introduced into this House in due course. Of course, all honourable members will have full opportunity to debate the merits or otherwise of the bill when it is introduced.


The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister inform the House of recent initiatives he has taken to improve the community's knowledge of people with a disability?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I acknowledge the honourable member's personal involvement and interest in the area of disability. Last Monday I launched the booklet Facts on Disability in New South Wales. This publication has been produced for the New South Wales Department of Aged and Disability by the Directorate on Disability of that department, in conjunction with the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Facts on Disability in New South Wales makes information about important disability issues widely available to the government and non-government sector alike. This Government is committed to developing good, useful disability data - data that can be used for planning services and for placing us in a better position to meet the needs of people with disability in New South Wales. This publication indicates the range and diversity of disability issues. Disability affects almost one in every six people in the State. This incorporates people who are working, studying, caring for families, playing sport and going to cultural events, or volunteering their help in community services.

In short, the bill affects all of us. Bringing together data-producing agencies at both a Commonwealth and a State level is a first step in sharing with the community what we know about disability at a statewide level. It is a way of identifying the gaps in our knowledge and beginning the process of working together to identify the best ways of overcoming the deficiencies that exist. No single agency can provide all of our information needs. Information about the way in which disability impacts on our particular area of responsibility is often hard to find, which could easily lead to a failure to address important policy issues. It is therefore important for the new department to develop information and a sound information-sharing capacity. The booklet Facts on Disability in New South Wales, which is easy to read, is merely a start in this process.

Some of the sobering facts mentioned in the booklet include: 13.4 per cent of the population of New South Wales has a disability; people with disabilities experience difficulties mainly in mobility, employment, self-care, verbal communication and schooling; 65,200 people in this State with a disability do not use English as their main language at home; half the people in our State who need help with tasks associated with daily living are under 65 years of age; there are 86,400 school-age children who have some form of disability in New South Wales; most people with a disability attending post-school education are doing so through technical and further education; the unemployment rate for people in our State with a disability is 21.6 per cent; half the people between 15 and 59 who have a disability receive a government pension or benefit as their main source of income; of the people in this State with a disability who are in the work force 75 per cent work full-time. This booklet is the beginning of what I hope will be a significant improvement in the knowledge and understanding of New South Wales citizens about the whole issue of disability.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I direct my question without notice 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. Does the Minister recall his assurance that the State Government will provide a train service to Broken Hill in addition to the Indian Pacific, and will he assure the House that this service will not be compensated by a reduction in coach services provided by CountryLink?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I recall the previous question of the Hon. D. F. Moppett, in answer to which I indicated that the Government would reintroduce passenger train services to Broken Hill. I am not aware of any impact that may or may not have on coach services. I am not aware of the coach services that are available to Broken Hill. I certainly would not think that the provision of passenger train services would be compensated by a reduction in coach services, but I would be happy to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Transport.

Page 2264

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Will the Premier negotiate with the Prime Minister to switch funds allocated for the removal of the Cahill Expressway to the acquisition of the land at east Circular Quay which is about to be developed? Would not the acquisition of that land open up the magnificent vista of the Royal Botanic Gardens for all Sydneysiders?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I shall refer that question to the Premier.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that attempts to induce people not to give evidence to a committee of the Parliament constitute contempt of Parliament? Has the Attorney General given advice to the Government concerning such contempt of the Parliament? If so, what is the nature of the advice?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I have not given the advice, or any advice, specified by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I respectfully put the view that it would be out of order and otherwise inappropriate for me to give legal advice at question time to the House.


The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Will the Attorney General assure the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions, as the independent senior law officer of this State, has the full support of the Government and will not be censured for voicing his opinion of legislation? What will the Attorney General do to ensure that the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Nick Cowdery, is upheld at all times?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Director of Public Prosecutions is appointed under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 as an independent statutory officer. Under that Act the officer is given certain statutory functions that he or she is to exercise independently of the Executive. The DPP has the confidence generally of the Government in the performance of those statutory functions. However, like the courts, the DPP is not immune from criticism. When the DPP makes a decision which the Government thinks inappropriate or out of tune with community thinking the Government will not hesitate to say so. While the Attorney General cannot interfere with decisions made by the DPP, I can express my concern and I can ask the DPP to provide reasons for his or her decision. When the DPP intervenes in political debate or public controversy then obviously his or her views can be answered as part of that controversy. The DPP has security of tenure in a similar way to the judiciary, and once appointed the DPP is entitled to hold the office subject to certain very confined and limited circumstances. There is some legitimate concern that if the DPP enters partisan political debate he or she might, at least as a matter of perception in the community, undermine the objectivity and impartiality of the office. Any incumbent of that office has to be cautious in entering the political fray. Subject to that, as I said earlier, the Government retains confidence in the DPP in the performance of his or her statutory functions.


The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, what progress has been made in relation to the Government's proposed Dharawal National Park near Campbelltown. Will the proposed park include the land previously identified as a rifle range?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I regret that I am not able to give a detailed response to that question. I shall certainly refer it to the Minister for the Environment so that an appropriate response may be provided to the Hon. I. Cohen.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council whether there are currently 67 departmental and agency public servants seconded to work in ministerial offices. Are about a dozen of these people liaison officers funded by their home agency or department? Is it fair to assume that this would represent a conservative cost to departments of somewhere between $750,000 and $1 million per annum? Apart from those liaison officers, why do Ministers have the need to second an additional 55 public servants to their personal staff?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am aware of the situation in my private office only. So far as I am aware, I do not have any staff seconded from any department.

The Hon. Virginia Chadwick: As Treasurer?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As Treasurer, as Minister for State Development and as Minister for Energy. When I say seconded, there is one member of the staff who comes from Treasury but she is funded from my ministerial budget, not from Treasury - so it is not as though the Government is borrowing additional staff from Treasury. I am amazed that this question would come from a member of the former Government. My
Page 2265
predecessor is Mr Collins, who is, for the time being, Leader of the Opposition in the lower House - although I am sure that will not be for long, until Andrew Tink makes his challenge. It seems that Ron Phillips has stumbled, he does not seem to have the support of the neanderthals when he proposes that women should be given a fair go in the Liberal Party. It is amazing that the Hon. Virginia Chadwick has asked such a question. She would have been aware that the former Treasurer supplemented his staff and the budget for his private office with another $500,000 a year for private public relations consultants. I am proud to say that when the Government brought down the budget - and I might say it was well received; even the Opposition could hardly think of anything to say in criticism of it - it did so without Cosway Creative Communications at a cost of $500,000. The Government did it all in house, and did a pretty good job.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Minister confirm an undertaking that the split up of Pacific Power will create as many as 400 administrative jobs in the Hunter region, as was reported in today's Newcastle Herald, at a cost of some $16 million? Will the Minister also confirm that the union predictions denied this and suggested that 2,000 jobs will be lost and that industrial action will take place? Will the Minister confirm a Treasury report which claims that a split of Pacific Power will create between 1,000 and 1,250 jobs in the Hunter region, adding over $50 million to generation costs? In view of the great differences between these competing claims, will the Minister tell the House which claim is correct? Will the Minister confirm that no jobs will be lost, that there will be no forced redundancies, and that no relocation of staff will take place without their agreement?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I can hardly remember such a confused question, even from the Hon. J. H. Jobling. It seemed to me that in the one breath he was talking about 400 extra jobs in the Hunter and then 2,000 lost jobs. It simply does not make sense for the Hon. J. H. Jobling to be claiming on the one hand that one course of action will mean an extra 400 jobs and, on the other hand, that there will be a loss of 2,000 jobs. It simply does not make sense. I have not seen the article in the Newcastle Herald, but I gather from the honourable member's question that the article has something to do with the possibility of a head office of some disaggregated form of Pacific Power being established in the Hunter region. In the longer term, if the Government were to proceed with disaggregation of Pacific Power, the disaggregated bodies would have their head offices close to the site of their operations. After all, the Government believes in regional development. I am proud to say that this afternoon I am meeting with country mayors. One of the issues they will raise with me is the need to decentralise government offices to country and regional areas. When the Hon. J. H. Jobling works out what he wants to ask, I will be happy to consider the question.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is addressed 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. If, as claimed by the Minister for Transport, private bus operators have legally binding contracts to provide agreed minimum levels of service to customers, what is the Government's obligation under these contracts?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I believe the Hon. Patricia Forsythe has asked me for a legal opinion. The seeking of legal opinions in this House is contrary to the standing orders. In any event, if she wants a legal opinion I am the wrong person to ask.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: 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. Does he recall that yesterday I twice asked him a question regarding the Australian Labor Party charging $20,000 to meet the Prime Minister? Now that the Treasurer has had time to think about it overnight and come up with what I hope will be a sensible answer, will he assure the House that the Premier and the Labor Ministers of New South Wales will not pursue this form of fundraising?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I informed the honourable member yesterday that any party political fundraising undertaken by the Australian Labor Party, my colleagues and myself is always appropriate and proper.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. It refers to regional development about which he has already been asked two questions, and is couched in the following terms. Will the Treasurer explain to the House why market milk processors are confused about a government backdown? Why is the Government refusing to honour a price formula already agreed to between government and industry after a long and extensive review and refusing to offer any explanation? With the so-called year of regional development looming in 1996, why does the New South Wales Government not realise that
Page 2266
the lost potential to our regional communities at such a crucial stage in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations will never be recoverable? Why has the Government decided to derail over $50 million of export infrastructure to the dairy industry program already planned for regional New South Wales? Will the Government answer these questions, which were supplied to me by Australian Co-Operative Foods Limited and Cox Inall Communications?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am not aware of any such undertaking. I will certainly raise the issue with my colleagues who have the carriage of this matter. They would be the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Consumer Affairs. At a recent function I was approached on the issue of milk pricing, I believe by the same organisation that has written to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. When I was approached it was certainly not put to me that there had been any agreement between the Government and the industry or any undertaking given by the Government. I will certainly be happy to pursue the issue and obtain an answer for the honourable member.


The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that employees of the Department of Industrial Relations at Goulburn and Armidale are not providing industrial and vocational guidance services today? Is the Minister aware that employees are not providing these services in protest at the Labor Government's threat of reducing the number of regional industrial relations offices? Will the Minister inform the House if there is a document indicating these reductions being distributed internally throughout the department? Will the Minister assure this House and the employees of the Department of Industrial Relations that no regional offices of the department will be closed in the near or distant future, and that employees will have continued employment, or is this the breaking of a promise to provide services to New South Wales?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I am not aware of the controversy to which the Leader of the Opposition refers. I am sure that if there is some controversy it can amicably be settled. I will use my best endeavours to do so.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of an article in today's Australian by Cameron Stewart claiming that the current Australian Security Intelligence Organisation annual report stated that Australia will need to give consideration to the possibility of extremist groups, similar to those involved in nerve gas attacks in Japan, posing potential dangers to Australia as host for the Olympic Games. Will the Minister assure the members of this House that the necessary safeguards for the lead-up to, and the holding of, the Olympic Games are being taken to ensure that such events do not occur?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I saw the article in today's Australian.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Did you read the papers?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: The Attorney can read; the Treasurer cannot.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Despite the levity on the Opposition benches, the Hon. J. M. Samios has asked a significant and serious question and it should not be the subject of such lightheartedness. When members of the Opposition ask serious questions, I treat them seriously. I will raise the matter urgently with the Minister for Police and make sure that I receive an appropriate response.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs, whether the environmental education unit in the Department of School Education is to be disbanded and the position of chief education officer downgraded to a senior education officer 2. Does this mean that environmental education will no longer have a cross-curriculum focus? What will happen to the field study centres? Why is environmental education being downgraded?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer the honourable member's question to the Minister for Education and Training for an answer.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training, if it is the intention of the Government to close Broderick school for special purposes, which caters for approximately 70 students with disabilities. If the school is to be closed, what alternative arrangements have been made for the students with special needs?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The honourable member has asked a specific question relating to the education portfolio and I will obtain an answer to that question.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for
Page 2267
Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. In yesterday's Daily Telegraph Mirror Jeff Collerson stated that it would be financially irresponsible for the Government to build a new dog track to replace Wentworth Park. Given that the general manager of the principle greyhound club has stated that he sees no merit in a new track, with whom did the Government consult prior to making this decision?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I shall be delighted to refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Minister for Gaming and Racing in another place to furnish a considered reply to the undoubtedly important question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.


The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Minister for Consumer Affairs. Does the Minister recall an amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party in the Legislative Assembly on 14 September 1994 to the Building Services Corporation (Amendment) Bill which increased to six the number of consumer representatives on the advisory council? Is it a fact that additional consumer representatives still have not been appointed? Will the Minister explain why these appointments have not been made and when, if ever, they will be made?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have no specific recollection of the particular aspect of the legislation to which the honourable member referred in his question. I note with some interest, however, that the date mentioned was in 1994. That being the case, the previous Government was in office for six months of the period in question; the present Government has been in office for the remaining six months of the period in question. That being the case, the previous Government clearly did not see fit to act on the amendment. However, I shall be delighted to refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who will undoubtedly produce a considered and full reply to the question asked by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: 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, representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that earlier this week the Minister for Transport announced to the media that he had given an extra grant to the bus proprietors and, in a joint press statement with the Bus and Coach Association, announced that extra money would go to the Bus and Coach Association to compensate for lost revenue? Will the Minister inform the House why extra funding is to be provided to the Bus and Coach Association when no extra children will be transported? How can the Treasurer justify saving money when the Government has spent this extra money and children are walking to school?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am sure the House will not be surprised if I do not regard the honourable member's version of what my colleague the Minister for Transport might have said as an authority. Rather than take the honourable gentleman at his word, I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Transport.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Mr President, I ask if you are aware of the health warnings issued about the dangers of kangaroo meat? Is it not a fact that Parliament will risk legal action for damages if anyone contracts toxoplasmosis or any other disease from kangaroo meat sold in the parliamentary dining room? Will you take advice to determine the level of risk from legal action and disease caused by the serving of this meat in the parliamentary dining room?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have cautioned honourable members before about using question time to raise issues on the domestic operation of the Parliament. However, since the honourable member has raised this matter I will look into it and provide him with information in due course.


The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Roads, whether he is aware that, before the election on 25 March 1995, Brian Langton, the former shadow minister for transport, in a press release promised that the 60:40 rural-city splits would be maintained under a Carr Labor Government, but in an article in the Daily Telegraph Mirror on 18 July the Premier confirmed that his Government would scrap the funding split. Will the Treasurer explain to this Chamber the reasoning behind the broken promise regarding the 3 x 3 60:40 rural-city splits? As this is one more broken promise in the litany of broken electoral promises, how can the rural community of New South Wales feel assured that their roads will be regarded as a priority? How can the Treasurer justify the confidence with which he approaches his forthcoming meeting with country mayors this afternoon after breaking the promise to which I have referred?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I am pleased to advise the House as to how the people of country New South Wales can be confident that their roads will receive proper attention from the Government. The reason is simply that the Government will
Page 2268
spend all of the Commonwealth untied road funds this year on roads, which the previous Government seldom did. Those funds amount to more than $100 million, which the previous Government used for other purposes but which this Government has allocated to the purpose for which the funds were intended, that is, to build roads. The Government has a record road-building program in this State. The value of the capital and maintenance program for roads this year is more than $1,900 million. The previous Government never got anywhere near that expenditure. That is why the people of country New South Wales can be confident that a Carr Labor Government will not only look after their roads but will look after all their other needs as well.

In view of the time I would suggest that if the Hon. D. J. Gay has any more questions he might put them on notice. It seems that other members opposite have run out of questions.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I never get any answers.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: You do not like the answers, that is the problem.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: You are right: we do not like the answers.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: What you have got to do is form a questions committee. Ted Pickering always used to say that to be good in opposition you have to have a questions committee.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Minister has deferred answers, I ask him to produce them.


The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 18 October the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked me a question about the Manly Ferry Interchange. The Minister for Transport has provided the following response:

The Manly Wharf Interchange Committee, chaired by the Department of Transport, has been reconvened. It will examine options for the redevelopment of the Manly bus/ferry interchange. The Committee will report to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Tourism by June 1996 with a proposal within the $8.5 million that has been committed to this project.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: On 21 September 1995 the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me a question regarding Agfacts and "New South Wales Agriculture Today". The Minister for Agriculture has provided the following reply:

The publication "New South Wales Agriculture Today" will continue to be distributed to more than 50,000 primary producers free of charge and will continue to supply technical, but easily read, information on all matters relating to primary producers.

The Department of Agriculture, as part of its core business, will continue to supply to clients information in printed form, both on a charge basis and in some circumstances free of charge. Publications will continue to be supplied on the basis of contributing to meeting departmental objectives and client demands.

In order to stay abreast of changing technology the Department of Agriculture will complement existing information products by vastly improving information delivery to clients through increased development and implementation of electronic delivery systems.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 20 September the Hon. Elaine Nile asked a question regarding a paedophile network. The Minister for Police has provided the following answer:

The Police Service is not in possession of any information or intelligence to support these allegations, and there is no current investigation concerning the allegations. Should intelligence be forthcoming, at any time, the Police Service will conduct a full and proper investigation.

The Police Service is committed to the detection and investigation of child abuse. There are currently 14 Child Protection Investigation teams and two Joint Investigation teams working in partnership with the Department of Community services as a unified front against child abuse. Other initiatives include an extensive intelligence network throughout the State and community awareness programs such as "Operation Paradox".

The Minister for Police has recently announced the formation of a Child Protection Enforcement Agency. An implementation team has commenced work to establish the Agency by the 1st January, 1996. That Agency will have the capacity to aggressively and proactively target paedophile activity, and will establish direct liaison with Federal child protection investigators.

It might be noted that a newly formed task force has commenced to investigate particular paedophile activity, although not related to this issue.

Finally, it should be remembered that the Royal Commission will be investigating alleged links between police and paedophiles. It was the Labor Party who voted to establish the Royal Commission and we will await the findings on this matter with interest.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 20 September the Hon. I. Cohen asked a question concerning timber working training companies. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has advised me as follows:

The Honourable Pam Allan, the Minister for the Environment, has asked the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to respond to the question, as the matter falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

The Government's Forestry Structural Package which is central to the implementation of the Government's forestry reforms will assist forestry workers to be relocated and retrained so that they may be integrated into a revitalised, value-adding hardwood industry based primarily on regrowth and plantation forest resources or into the rapidly expanding softwood plantation processing industry.

These training arrangements will be assisted through the establishment of TRAIN, an industry group training company which will provide properly structured retraining and accreditation for the workers in the industry. In the

Page 2269
current year the Federal Government will be providing $260,000 to assist in the funding of this training initiative in the south east forests. A further $811,930 will be sought during the term of the project which continues up to and includes the 1997/98 financial year.

This funding is made available under the South East Forests Agreement signed by the former NSW Minister for Land and Water Conservation and the Federal Minister for Resources on 21 December 1993 which established the South East Regional Advisory Committee. The South East Regional Forest Advisory Committee recommended the implementation of the Group Training approach for the industry in the south-east of the state. This funding is limited to the south east and does not operate elsewhere in the State.

Up to $1 million of Working Nation Funding has also been committed by the Federal Government to assist with NSW Government's reform agenda on the South East.

Additional funding, including some funding from Environmental Trusts and from the Commonwealth Government subject to negotiation, is sought for structural adjustment of the forest industry under the Government's forestry and conservation reforms including relocation, retraining, and where needed redundancy.

TRAIN is a scheme in which participating companies act as employers for trainees who are hired to host companies where they will be provided with practical employment focused training. TRAIN will mean that properly structured training and retraining, and accreditation of workers in the future industry will occur. The lack of such a structured, forward-looking training scheme has been identified as one of the factors which has inhibited the development of a high technology value-added forestry industry.

The Commonwealth has provided financial assistance to assist this particular venture to minimise the impact of forest industry restructuring on employees.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 21 September the Hon. J. S. Tingle asked a question concerning firearms misuse. The Minister for Police, the Hon. Paul Whelan, has advised me that he has been advised that Mr Steve Palmer, the owner of the firearm responsible for the death of Dali Handmer-Pleshet was breached for offences under section 7(2) and 12(1) of the Firearms Act 1989, shortly after the tragic incident. Mr Palmer was a crucial witness in the manslaughter proceedings against Mr Shane Evans and therefore all matters against Mr Palmer were adjourned to a date to be fixed after the trial of Shane Evans for manslaughter. The two firearms offences against Mr Palmer are now in the process of being relisted before the Mudgee Local Court and the Minister for Police has been advised that the matter will be finalised in the next few months.


The PRESIDENT: Before the House proceeds to other business I should like to make again a statement in relation to questions addressed to the Chair. On 11 October, as recorded at page 1541 of Hansard, I thought I made it quite clear that questions addressed to the Chair regarding the administration and domestic affairs of the Parliament were not in order under Standing Order 29, nor were they in order according to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. As a matter of courtesy, and on no other basis, I will provide a private response to the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on the matter he raised today. But I make it clear to all honourable members that henceforth I will rule out of order any questions directed to the Chair relating to the domestic affairs or administration of the Parliament.

Questions without notice concluded.


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.03]: The situation in the timber industry has reached a terrible state: groups supporting silviculture and groups supporting conservation have reached an impasse and have almost come to blows. I regard the bill as an opportunity to break the impasse and to create a win-win situation for country communities and the conservation movement. I have referred to the traditional values of wood but the rising values of conservation must not be forgotten. Australia's native forests cover only one-twentieth of the continent's land mass but contain half the continent's plant and animal species. As I have said before in this Chamber, Australia's biodiversity is such that this nation is the only first world megadiverse country on the planet. In short, it is a veritable wonderland of species that needs to be preserved. Australians, because of their cultural cringe, have not appreciated this in the past. They have not considered the value of ecosystems beyond their use for industry or human consumption.

Australians should value our environment and its position in the world. Australia is a virtual museum described by many scientists as unsurpassed. The bill will enable in the future community consultation as opposed to the confrontation that previously existed. The position of the Greens has not been easily determined. There has been extensive consultation with the New South Wales conservation movement, to which I am indebted and thankful. I refer to groups such as the Nature Conservation Council, the National Parks Association of New South Wales, the North East Forest Alliance, the Total Environment Centre, the Conservation Council of the South East Region in Canberra and the Southern Conservation Council. National groups have included the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society.

The conservation movement has been working towards a unified approach for many years. A significant section of the population has worked for no financial benefit but for a higher cause - to save old-growth and high-conservation-value forests. I thank people on the front lines, the so-called green extremists called watermelons by Reverend the Hon.
Page 2270
F. J. Nile in his dissertation on the matter a day or so ago. I proudly say: watermelons we may be. I belong to that group of green extremists and I will continue to belong, in Parliament or outside Parliament. We are green on the outside and pink on the inside. We are green for the environment and ecological sustainability and not the old -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: You give a lot of people the pip.

The Hon. I. COHEN: There are a few pips around this Parliament, I must admit. We are pink on the inside, as we should be, holding high the flag of social justice espoused by the Labor Party and any thinking member of this House.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: And the National Party.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I should hope so. Perhaps the honourable member would like to say that to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. He says that because we hold social justice and the environment as the highest of our aims in this House and outside we are clashing with his displaced sense of history. He says that anyone with a pink hue is some sort of deviate or Communist under the bed, old-world thinking that does not belong in the present day. I remind all members that we are moving to another millennium, beyond the prejudices of the past and towards an age when our values are more appropriate. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: That is a cliché.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Of course it is a cliché. Watermelons will become one in the future. All the people who have been out on the blockades in the last 15 years have risked their lives. As I have said in the House before, they came to the blockades with no investment in life except their ideals and they acted out of ideals. Without such people this world would be a poorer place: there would not be the forests we have today. Those people are true pioneers of a new age and setting a direction for a cultural milieu which will recognise the importance of preserving our old-growth and high-conservation-value forests and the need for social justice of people in the forestry industry. That is what the green movement has been saying for decades and that is what it will continue to say, not the claptrap that has come from the vested interests of the major political parties, which make superficial statements about benefit to the community when in reality they are interested only in maintaining their political power.

The community is hurting and is reacting against major political parties. As a result, if one scratches a farmer one finds a green underneath. Those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, those who have an interest in maintaining the divide between the so-called green movement and the farming movement in Australia, have distributed propaganda. Prior to the election I travelled to the central west to look at land degradation caused by the drought. At that time I was not a member of Parliament; I was just another greenie on tour. Farmers said that they were dissatisfied with the land-use policies of the major parties. They recognised that land degradation was a result of farming practices.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Rubbish!

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is not rubbish. Farmers recognise that there is a need for change. This bill is just one aspect of that desperate need for change on the land. When farmers receive an onslaught of propaganda - from the local media which has a vested interest and from large landowners who are connected with the political machines - they do not speak out because they are scared of being different. The Greens believe that difference and diversity are appropriate and important to move society along. This debate has been painful for many members of the community: the farming community, the logging community and ordinary people. People in the environment movement have died for their beliefs. A friend of mine hanged himself because he was distraught about what was happening in the forests in the north-east of New South Wales.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: A lot of farmers have also died.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I agree; that is my point. The Greens are often vilified. They do not want to take everything. The farming community suffers, as do people with ideals. A woman in a state of despair over the attitude of the Queensland Government hanged herself on the Daintree Road not so many years ago. As a Green I am trying not to take a one-eyed position on the debate. I salute the green movement - the people and organisations I have already mentioned and the so-called green extremists, those wonderful people who are on the front-line, those brave people who have stood up to the value systems of society and many a burly logger with peace in their hearts and great fear for their safety.

The Greens have always looked to a workable solution. Many years ago we cried out in the wilderness, so to speak, about plantations. We did not just ask for the locking up of an entire forestry system. In the 1970s we said that plantations equal forests plus jobs. We have said that over and over again; I do not know how long we have to repeat that simple formula. Unfortunately, the previous Government did not take heed. It fuelled the fires of the forestry debate and confrontation for its own political ends. Fortunately, the Labor Government has taken one step our way. It is obviously looking at the electorate, which is firmly convinced of the Green argument. The Greens were once an extremist minority; they are now a majority in this society.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: How many votes did you get at the last election?

Page 2271

The Hon. I. COHEN: At the last election 125,000 people voted for the Greens. The National Party can only wish that it had a growing constituency such as that of the Greens.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: You did not make public what your policies are underneath.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Our real policies underneath, in this respect, are ecological sustainability and social justice. I will repeat that constantly.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: What about lowering the age of consent for drugs and sodomy?

The Hon. I. COHEN: I do not understand what that can possibly have to do with this issue. It is a tragedy that some members of this House do not have the political maturity to look at other issues. We are looking to the Government to establish a consultation process. This has been extremely difficult from both sides; it has been a long and arduous task. I salute the Government, particularly the staff of the forestry ministry, some of whom are present in the gallery. I commend the Minister for Land and Water Conservation for his work. I also thank Penny Wong for the work she has done in this process. It is a little different coming from the Greens - it is a little more confused, partly because of our newness to the Parliament and partly because of our strong commitment to grassroots consultation and activity. I thank the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union which, under Gavin Hillier, has shown vision. I also thank the staff in my office, particularly Jan Barham, who has been instrumental in keeping organised environment groups as one through much communication and effort over a period of many months. I would not be standing here without that type of effort.

A new paradigm is emerging. It is beyond the small-minded concepts of what goes on in this House and outside. That paradigm brings us to a future age of ethics, education and environment. The 1990s is the first truly socially responsible decade. There is an attempt to look towards peace in our forests, an attempt to achieve ecological sustainability, and a possibility for workers in the industry, communities and families to have a positive rather than a negative future. This bill is divided into the three areas of forestry, restructuring and expenditure. Workers and their families must receive support. To that end, I commend the CFMEU for its vision to look at retraining programs. I shall move an amendment during the Committee stage in an attempt to balance the expenditure so that it mainly goes to workers in need, those who have worked in extremely poor conditions in the timber industry for generations. They deserve a better deal and a future.

I refer to nature conservation. I need to say little more than that we look forward to the establishment of the 24 new parks and the comprehensive adequate reserve systems. We will challenge the Minister. This bill is just the beginning, as is this set-up and the use of environment trusts to work towards the future. We shall look at the conditions to be negotiated with the Commonwealth Government. We are aiming towards a 15 per cent reserve system in New South Wales and across Australia. We have to be flexible along the way. We will be pushing. I serve notice on the Government, on the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, that we will not stop at this point.

I hope that through communication and participation we will continue to watch over forests and to place people in the field to ensure that the job is done properly. This process is rather like buying a used car; that is, it is a battered model which is almost worn out because only 3 per cent of the high-conservation, old-growth forests remain in New South Wales. We must create a system that will survive in perpetuity. We cannot be satisfied by simply making statements, as this issue goes far beyond politics and the concept of what will deliver a good run for the Federal or State government at the next elections. This proposal is a way to proceed for the future. It is through respect for future generations that we must preserve the old-growth, high-conservation forests now.

We have agreed to support the additional environmental commitments in schedule 1 to the bill, which will have a number of important environmental and social outcomes. We respect the Labor Party constituency that is earmarking those funds for use at Lake Macquarie and for lead remediation. Concern is also held about the continuation of the grants. The Greens do not wish the environmental grants to run dry through a one-off supply, as we fear could well be the case. Certainly there has been a drain on those funds, set up with good intentions. I hope we will receive cooperation from the Government and the Opposition in developing alternative fundraising methods. The approach has worked well with the Sydney Water Board in the past, and the Hunter Water Board should set up a similar trust. I hope that a great deal of communication occurs on this matter in the future.

Although we recognise this one-off opportunity to save the old-growth and high-conservation forests in areas of wonderful diversity, as well as the opportunity to provide retraining for the workers in the industry in true need, we must ensure that the environmental trusts are maintained. Many areas in the community generally and the environment community rely on those trusts to do their voluntary work. The proposed legislation does not represent the conclusion of the battle of the forests, though it will provide a respite and an opportunity to step off on another foot, but this can be achieved only with cooperation and a positive outlook. In conclusion, I wish to refer to some words of Manning Clark that are in keeping with the growing awareness of the direction in which the green movement and society in general are moving. We are using forest
Page 2272
confrontation as a grist in the development of a social conscience, and everyone can learn from this painful period. Manning Clark said:

This generation has a chance to be wiser than previous generations. They can make their own history. With the end of the domination of the straighteners, the enlargers of life now have their chance.

The forest issue can develop in the right direction. I hope that the enlargers of life from all areas of government, opposition, industry and the conservation movement will have an opportunity to participate in the process and that the wonderful forests survive.

Debate adjourned on motion by Hon. R. S. L. Jones.


Debate resumed from 18 October.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! Before giving the call to the Hon. M. R. Kersten, I remind honourable members that he is about to make his maiden speech in this House and the normal courtesies should be extended to him.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN [5.26]: Bernard Shaw is quoted as having once said, "We are made wise, not by the recollections of our past, but by the responsibilities of our future". As I pass across this traditional threshold of my future political career, I want to share with honourable members some of my recollections of our past and provide an insight into the things that have shaped my attitudes and my approach to life; and to indicate a few of the experiences and events which, if they have not made me wise, at least have given me the knowledge with which I come to this Parliament. I want to talk also about the responsibilities which I see facing me in the future, and to express the hope that the carriage of these responsibilities will make me at least a little wiser.

This rite of passage - formalising my transition from candidate to member-elect, and through this maiden speech to full participating status - is indeed an exhilarating experience. I have spoken to mass meetings of thousands of workers in my former occupation as a trade union leader, but I do not think I have ever felt quite the thrill of excitement or the sense of awe that I feel tonight in speaking for the first time in this Parliament, and I am very grateful for the convention by which members extend a courteous and uninterrupted hearing.

Before proceeding I would like to acknowledge that I would not be standing here exercising this unique privilege if it were not for the retirement of the Hon. Robert Webster, whose place I have been elected to take. I would like to take this opportunity to pay a humble but very sincere tribute to Robert Webster's illustrious contribution to politics. I would particularly salute the role he played in representing the Government of New South Wales to the people of the west and especially the citizens of Broken Hill. Since I have been here I have observed that all his former colleagues from across the political spectrum hold Robert Webster in the same high esteem in which I have come to hold him. Robert is an exceptional individual endowed with keen political acumen and great personal skills. He came to western New South Wales and won the respect, and even affection, of all the people with whom he came into contact, whether his political allies or foes.

Robert Webster has an engaging personality and demonstrates a very strong character. A natural leader amongst men and women, Robert never lost his easy, personable manner that always charmed and won over those who came to take issue with him. It could be characterised as benevolent authority. His towering stature was matched only by his prodigious achievements, and I do not think there has been anyone in the political parade who has visited western New South Wales who has left such strong ties of friendships with all those who had the pleasure and the privilege of meeting him. The most notable of his achievements which will be long remembered was the effective way in which he took up the former Government's commitment to extend rural electricity to the furthest corner of western New South Wales. It was Robert's determination and energy that brought it to a successful conclusion, despite the vexations and difficulties that were encountered as a result of the economic recession that suddenly engulfed land-holders who were being asked to subscribe substantial sums of capital to the project as many individuals were drawn into a vortex of economic disaster.

It appeared as if the overall scheme might fail through faltering participation, rendering the provision of services to continuing potential consumers quite uneconomical. Robert's practical mind and his sympathetic appreciation of the pastoralists' difficulties quickly formulated concessions and provided financial relief, thus ensuring the ultimate conclusion of the project and the provision of this wonderful amenity, taken for granted by most but extending a real breakthrough in living standards for isolated families. Robert has left a very big pair of boots for me to fill, which reminds me of the first pair of clodhoppers that were issued to me at the mine safety store. Unfortunately, I do not have any neatsfoot oil to help break these new boots in, but I will do my best. It is quite obvious that I cannot bring to bear Robert's physical dimensions to the job, but I hope that I can serve the people out there as faithfully and as effectively as he did.

For many years now I have had a burning ambition to be elected to represent the people of Broken Hill and western New South Wales, and to bring their voice into the Parliament so that it might be heard in clear and unequivocal terms. It is a
Page 2273
wonderful thrill to stand here tonight having at least partly achieved my ambitions. I am not claiming that the people of western New South Wales have not had effective representatives in the past. I would like to pay a tribute tonight to some other former members of the Legislative Council. Mr President, I commend to your present recollection the Hon. Jack Doohan and Mrs Judy Jakins, formerly the Hon. Judy Jakins, both of whom are still talked about with deep affection and considerable reverence because of the job they did. I am sure many honourable members here tonight will now be thinking about their close association with one of nature's gentlemen and also with that indomitable but gentle lady of the west. I am sure that honourable members will be remembering their collaboration with them with great pride and deep respect for the contribution they made.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett, who is in the Chamber tonight, also took up this role to which I aspire. The Hon. D. F. Moppett I suppose had the advantage over his predecessors in that he was a member of the Government of the day. But, notwithstanding that fact, I think the long list of achievements over the last four years by the coalition Government in western New South Wales is a very fitting tribute to the work of the Hon. D. F. Moppett. I would also like to thank him for his support and encouragement through a difficult campaign leading up to the last State election, for his patience and perseverance in welcoming me to the National Party, my new political home, and for his unswerving support for my bid to be preselected by the National Party to fill the casual vacancy to which I have previously referred.

I mentioned that I have had, over the last two years, a growing ambition to represent the people of Broken Hill and western New South Wales. I recognise this ambition as a vocation, something that almost seems to be in my blood. In those few spare moments when I can look back and contemplate what is happening to me, I have to concede that these developments in my life should come as no surprise. Born into an activist family coloured with strong political views, cradled in the city of Broken Hill - and where better to nurture the instincts of the political soul - I now think it was inevitable that I should meet the challenge of politics and embark on a journey, no matter how long, seeking the honour of representing the people of my very special community.

Since the discovery of a major ore body in the Barrier Range a little over 110 years ago, the community of miners that assembled in the city of Broken Hill has made a major contribution to the economy of Australia and an almost unique contribution to our culture and political history. It was the explorer Charles Sturt who gave the city its name when, in 1844, he noted in his diary the appearance of a "broken hill" situated in what he described as "some of the most desolate country" he had ever seen. Sturt encountered the Barrier Range on his journey northward from Menindee on his expedition to explore the inland of Australia. Honourable members would know that, because of severe drought conditions, Charles Sturt got no further than the famous Depot Glen in the Tibooburra district, where he was forced to camp for some considerable time, and eventually abandoned his journey after the death of his second-in-command, James Poole, on 16 July 1845.

Understandably I suppose, because of his European background, Charles Sturt had a very jaundiced view of that part of Australia. He described the Gibber Plains at Tibooburra as "the gates of hell", and also noted in his diary that he had no doubt that no other white man would ever again venture into that desolate land. Despite his pessimism, over the next couple of decades pastoralists came into the area and established stations throughout the West Darling district, reaching Tibooburra in 1870. Of particular note, of course, was the Mount Gipps station, where the ore body was found, and Kinchega station, now a well-known national park, whose boundary fence at that time actually ran down the middle of the broken hill.

Following close behind them, journeying up from Burra and other established mining centres in South Australia, came the procession of mineral prospectors that characterised Australia from the 1850s. By the late 1870s prospecting was very active in the area, based on the established silver mines in the Thackaringa field and a number of related mineral deposits scattered around the Barrier Range. None of these proved, however, to be of major significance. That is, of course, until the chance discovery by Charles Rasp in 1883 of the enormous ore body which has been the foundation of the colourful and rich history of Broken Hill.

The story is, of course, that Charles Rasp persuaded two Welsh tank sinkers who were camped on Mount Gipps station, in the vicinity of Broken Hill, to accompany him and to peg out a claim on the broken hill. The 40 acres - or 16 hectares - that they pegged out on that day became the famous block 12, the centre of the original mining operation of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and the foundation of this great story of human endeavour. If time permitted, it would be interesting to go into the fascinating and capricious fortunes of the seven people who ultimately decided to subscribe their capital contribution of £70 each to form the Broken Hill Proprietary Company later in 1883. It almost has the flavour of a good western when you hear about the way in which various members traded out their interests in the next few years.

George McCullogh, who was the manager of Mount Gipps station and perhaps the most significant person in convincing the syndicate to form the Broken Hill company, is sadly reputed to have determined the fate of his investment in the infant BHP on the result of a game of euchre. As he lost the hand, he sold his shares for $240 - a
Page 2274
share which, even by the turn of the century, would have been valued at millions of dollars. One of the other colourful traders in the shares of BHP in the early days was a young man named Sidney Kidman. Strangely enough, he also failed to recognise the value of his shares, but nevertheless went on to great success in trading in livestock and in the purchase and accumulation of station properties.

It seems surprising that early investors had such little confidence in the outcome of this mining venture, because Department of Mines inspectors from South Australia had reported by 1885 that the ore body at Broken Hill was of world-class significance. It has since proved to be the richest single ore body ever discovered in the world. Gradually, as the significance of this ore body unfolded and its vast treasure was revealed, the city of Broken Hill grew and expanded, defying the extreme difficulties encountered because of the harsh climate and lack of water. Other mining companies were formed and a number of shafts were sunk in different localities. Smelters sprang up with their blazing industry. By 1907 employment in the mining industry had reached its peak at a total of 8,820 miners. Today there are considerably fewer than 800 people working in the mines. Whilst it is a tribute to modern technology that these men are now producing almost double the amount of ore extracted at the time of peak employment, it is a sad reflection on the march of progress that employment opportunities have sunk to this small measure.

Broken Hill being a hard-rock mining area, the expertise of the Cornish miners who had come to South Australia to exploit the deposits at Burra and other South Australian mining areas were needed to develop the underground operations in Broken Hill. The "Cousin Jacks", as they were known, brought not only their mining expertise but also their culture to Broken Hill. One of their indelible stamps on our culture was Cornish pasties, the traditional miner's dinner, which was wrapped in pastry to keep it hot and taken down the pit in the crib tin - you people would call that a lunch box. Because of Broken Hill's isolation and the harshness of the environment, it developed a fierce, almost defiant, independence; an all-embracing distrust and even contempt for the capital cities, whether Sydney or Adelaide; and an all-embracing distrust of all people who had come from "away". Visitors are excepted from this general rule, and they are universally greeted with a unique, warm and genuine hospitality. People from "away", I should explain, is a description applied to politicians, public servants, persons in authority, prophets and smooth-talking eastern go-getters.

Broken Hill has what I believe is an undeserved reputation as a lawless place that makes its own rules. A good illustration of this overblown reputation is that of the occasion when a deputation of Broken Hill mine managers went to meet the Premier of New South Wales, John Storey, to discuss health problems associated with the mining industry. The Premier was sympathetic to the petition of the delegation and certainly recognised the importance of Broken Hill and its influence on the politics of New South Wales. He acknowledged to the delegation, however, that his colleagues and Sydney people generally had a somewhat unflattering view of Broken Hill and added, "As Broken Hill is on the edge of sundown nobody seems to care what you do out there."

As well as the enormous wealth that has been extracted from Broken Hill and benefited the State of New South Wales, and indeed all the citizens of Australia, Broken Hill has made a substantial contribution through its people and their endeavours in many fields. June Bronhill, Pro Hart, Chips Rafferty and John Ralph, the head of CRA Limited, provide just a random sample of the distinguished people who have grown up in Broken Hill and made a rich and diverse contribution to the achievements of the Australian nation. Broken Hill has been a crucible for the union movement in Australia, and the history of Broken Hill could not be told without reference to the long, protracted and bitter strikes of 1909, 1919 and 1920. The leaders of the union movement at that time, Tom Mann in 1909 and Percy Brookfield in the early 1920s, have become legends whose reputations are still revered.

Because the main product of the mines was silver, which has always commanded a high price in world markets, Broken Hill did not suffer the severe ups and downs which many other mining fields such as Cobar suffered over the years. Many of the disputes were about working conditions and the health and safety of mineworkers and their families in Broken Hill, and these were often far greater issues than rates of pay. I doubt if anyone today would argue with the objects of those heroic struggles in the early days. And the union movement of Broken Hill can be justifiably proud of the achievements that it has made for the health, safety and wellbeing of workers not only in Broken Hill but throughout the industrial scene in Australia. No-one can say where the final chapter in the long and colourful history of the trade unions of Broken Hill will be written, but it is certain that the roaring days are over.

Just as one may express surprise at the generational distance travelled by the grandson of a Barrier Industrial Council president to the National Party benches of the Legislative Council, so one can only marvel at the changes which have allowed the industrial wall around the county of Yancowinna which excluded Broken Hill from the writ of industrial law in New South Wales to simply dissolve. A reputation for union confrontation and local rules imposed with unbending authority has survived almost to the present day, but a new era in industrial relations dawned as early as 1923. At that time the newly elected president of the Barrier Industrial Council, Paddy O'Neill, and a new representative for the Mine Managers Association, Andrew Fairweather, set out to develop a period of cooperation.

Page 2275

It is worth noting that there is a completely different side to the myths and legends of confrontation and bloody-mindedness on both sides of industrial relations in Broken Hill. As a result of collaboration, often involving the skill and expertise of the lowliest employee, great strides were made in the development of mining technology. These innovations left the mines on the great line of lode in the forefront of productivity. Unique processes of extraction and refinement of the products of those mines were also developed in Broken Hill and have had significance to other mining operations in Australia and to the mining industry throughout the world.

It may come as a surprise to the casual observer of this speech by a National Party member of the Legislative Council that my origins are from the trade union side of the social contact in Broken Hill. The Kersten family came to Broken Hill seeking work in the burgeoning mining industry. My grandfather Albert Kersten was essentially a miner and was accepted in the industry all of his life. But his leadership qualities were quickly recognised and in due course he was elected Secretary of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association in Broken Hill. He eventually rose through the ranks of that union to become President of the Barrier Industrial Council, a position he held for 10 years. Albert Kersten was regarded as one of Broken Hill's great union leaders, and followed in the mould of Paddy O'Neill in seeking to pursue the best interests of his members through cooperative discussions with the mines management of the day whenever that was possible. Albert Kersten, as visitors to Broken Hill will recognise, has been commemorated by the geocentre museum being named the Albert Kersten Centre.

I suppose I would have to concede that if my grandfather had the gift of foresight back in those days when he was President of the BIC he would have expressed considerable surprise at my election to the Legislative Council of New South Wales, let alone as a member of the National Party team. My father, Max Kersten, was also a miner, as were all of his brothers. Max Kersten held many senior positions in the trade union movement throughout his 30 years of working underground and he was steeped in the traditions of the trade union movement and the mining fraternity. Max Kersten knew the meaning of hard work and valued the rewards that he and his colleagues were able to gain from their efforts. Although seriously ill and unable to be with me today I am grateful that my father is still alive. I am pleased to say that he still enjoys a high reputation and is regarded by all who know him as an honest and honourable man and a trustworthy friend. I do not expect to be able to convince him to join the Nationals but I hope with all my heart that this occasion will give him both pride and pleasure in the achievements of a devoted son.

Pride in their own work and their independence did not prevent my father and his mates from having a deep sympathy for those less fortunate than themselves. However, his work ethnic and his religious background did not extend that sympathy to those simply motivated by greed or indulging in laziness. As a result, his standards of honesty and respect for the law are very high indeed. I suppose it is inevitable for someone coming from a boisterous city with patriarchal traditions like Broken Hill that I initially referred to the influences of my grandfather and my father. I now hasten to acknowledge that while their influence on me was very strong, the influence of my grandmother and my mother as well as the other women of the Kersten family has always been profound. Their sense of loyalty, their devotion to their families, their deep compassion and sympathy for human frailties and their strong moral character were all major influences in my early life.

I grew up knowing that the world did not owe me a living. But I was taught that if I was successful in my endeavours I certainly owed something to my fellow workers and to the other members of the community in which we lived. My career also started off in the mining industry and I am proud to say that I was also an active member of the trade union movement and held a number of senior positions during my 15 years working in the mines. As I mentioned earlier, I was at one time President of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. The experiences that I had as leader of that union will serve me well in my future political career.

Another paradox that may perplex the casual observer is that I was once elected to the Broken Hill City Council as an endorsed Labor Party candidate. I do not suppose there have been many National Party members in this place, or any other Parliament, who have had that background. My journey from membership of the Australian Labor Party to my current status as a parliamentary member of the National Party has been a long one. There was no instant transformation, no road to Damascus experience, but a very slow realisation that I no longer believed that the fundamental objectives which I wanted to pursue could be secured by my further membership of the Australian Labor Party. This transition was completed over the period I spent as an Independent member of the Broken Hill City Council.

Growing up in Broken Hill with my family background, it was natural that I would be drawn towards the ALP. At that time most young people did not know that there was another party in existence. I believed that I had joined a party that gave effect to the needs and expectations of the ordinary workingman. I was proud that we were concerned about the welfare of the smallest and most vulnerable economic and social unit: the family household. The Labor Party in Broken Hill based its policies on a Christian ethic and as individuals we respected the law and had no time
Page 2276
for crime and violence. It is interesting to note in terms of current debate that the people I knew and admired in the ALP not only believed in conservative family values and standards but were proud of our historical roots, our national flag and our heritage.

In Broken Hill the ALP, together with the union movement, offered what could only be called a cradle-to-grave deal. Sadly, as my judgment matured and my experiences extended beyond the industrial field I found that this was a suffocating concept which allowed for no independence from its own imperatives, no individualism and no freedom. In the light of personal and related family experiences, I became dismayed that the party and the cause was seen to be greater than the individual. In circumstances in which the welfare of individual families was at stake the rule was more important than the welfare of those individuals. It was a philosophy that I could not accept and have rejected in favour of the more open policies of the National Party. I still cherish the same ideals which initially drew me to Labor but the Labor Party does not have a monopoly on compassion.

I now know that the National Party embraces those principles: giving a fair go for all, supporting family and traditional values, sticking up for the individual, and looking after country and remote communities against the domination of the cities. It could be said in a narrow literal sense that I have been elected a member of Parliament on the votes of less than 150 people, albeit a unanimous vote. But in a true sense I am on the field, from the reserve bench if you like, to join the team elected by the largest section of votes cast for the Legislative Council. I listened with interest to the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby proudly proclaim the other day in the debate on ticks and crosses voting that she was elected with a quota in her own right. I have been intrigued to witness over the last few weeks the utterly disproportionate influence of a number of honourable members who were elected on a meandering flow of preferences, having initially polled far short of a quota.

On each occasion when their vote is crucial, crossbench members bear a heavy responsibility. They should bear in mind not only those who voted for them but the other people, up to 99 per cent of them, who did not. As that was my immediate past status I am not against Independents but I must say, and I do so in honesty, that some present and future possible crossbench members will owe their election to a faulty system, and that I shall be studying examples of proportional voting elsewhere to see if a better system can be introduced. I now offer a view into the future through my eyes, to acknowledge new responsibilities which I have undertaken on behalf of all the people who live scattered throughout the region I love so dearly.

Before I do that I wish to acknowledge two excellent speeches made a day or two ago by new members whose experience I share this evening. I warmly congratulate the Hon. Patricia Staunton for what was undoubtedly an excellent speech. It was very strong in content and was delivered with great confidence. By any standard it could be judged masterful. I am certain that honourable members can look forward to substantial contributions in the future not only on the subject of health but on a wide range of issues of social importance and concerning other aspects of government administration. I also congratulate the Hon. Janelle Saffin, whose determined stance and the timbre of her voice proclaimed the depth of her feelings and conviction on subjects which obviously were dear to her heart. However, I must say that I was intrigued to listen to her idea of a remote area around leafy Lismore. She also mentioned that one of her axioms of politics was that no matter who wins elections, Sydney wins. It almost sounded like fundamental National Party philosophy and, as her speech was sited in the north coast area of New South Wales, it sounded to me like echoes from Earle Page, that famous patriarch of the Australian Country Party. Also, I listened with interest to her generous and sincere praise of the former member for Cobar, Mark "Charlie" Davidson. I have no doubt that during his terms from 1918 to 1949, he gave of his very best to represent the people of the west.

I suppose that it is just a reflection on the difficulties which those vast, remote electorates impose that even today there appears to be an immense amount of work to do to give real equality to the people of the outback. In an ironic way, the views that John Storey expressed about Sydney's perception of Broken Hill are mirrored by so many of the people in western New South Wales and Broken Hill who think that somehow or other the people in Sydney just have not got a clue what is going on out there. I will be very well satisfied if, when I resume my seat, I feel that I have been able to indicate to the House my aims and aspirations in matters that concern me as clearly and as forthrightly, and with the same degree of obvious commitment, as did the Hon. Patricia Staunton and the Hon. Janelle Saffin.

I want to share with honourable members my deep concern for the future of Broken Hill. I have spoken this evening about the wonderful history of mining and the wealth that has been extracted from that deposit. However, like all good things, this deposit is gradually coming to an end. It is public knowledge that after the year 2000 mining operations will rapidly wind down unless a major new ore deposit is found. At present there are only small prospects which have been identified and are progressing towards commercial exploitation. Honourable members will be aware of the long delay that is involved today in the development of mining operations, and how markedly that compares with those brief historical recollections that I have offered when operations such as those at Broken Hill or Silverton developed from prospecting and discovery to major production in a matter of a
Page 2277
couple of years. Today, the process of evaluation - of forward planning and financing - literally takes decades.

In the public arena environmental issues, and in western New South Wales cultural concerns over acceptability, take many, many years to assess and determine. At the present time one of the important secondary deposits at Broken Hill is in a state of paralysis while the significance of Aboriginal legends are assessed and the impact of the proposed mining operations on these subjective considerations are weighed and negotiated with local Aboriginal leaders. A positive resolution is possible for all parties and I urge the Minister for Mineral Resources, the Hon. Bob Martin, to put his best endeavours into achieving a successful outcome of these negotiations. Beyond that, if Broken Hill is to have a future in the mining industry, it certainly will need to identify a major deposit in the near future.

It caused me great concern to see in this year's budget a truncation of the mineral exploration program known as Discovery 2000. It was originally a $50 million program over five years but the budget papers show that it has been pruned back to $35 million and that the rate of expenditure is now trimmed from $10 million a year to $8 million for the coming year. I urge the Government to reinstate funding for this vital program of high-tech exploration. This is certainly not an example of the Government having to take over the role that private enterprise should be carrying out. The concept is an excellent example of partnership and cooperation between the two sectors, and the mining industry has hailed the program as extremely significant, not only for the base data that will be provided but also for the confidence it provides for potential investors in mining development in New South Wales.

Honourable members must realise that mining is not a static industry and that deposits that were once regarded as uneconomic are being brought into production today because of improved technology, better methods of extraction and more efficient means of processing. This new technology offers the hope of a major extension of life for the Broken Hill fields. The advance of technology has enabled us to look beneath the earth's surface in a way that could not have been dreamed of back in the days of Charles Rasp and prospectors with their G picks in their hands and all their worldly possessions strapped to their backs. I am proud to say that Broken Hill is not waiting for new discoveries as if that were its only option. The people of Broken Hill are not just sitting around waiting like children around a Christmas tree with little but hope in their stockings, or like people searching for a pot of gold at the end of an ever-receding rainbow.

I am proud to say that the community of Broken Hill has adapted itself to what may be a completely different future. Through many and varied initiatives, some of which I have been associated with, the community has been relatively successful in finding replacement industry and new areas of employment. Only 20 years ago that would have been laughed at. There was so much prosperity emanating from the mining industry that no-one considered it was even worth thinking about the inevitable future and alternative employment. Honourable members will know that until recently I was Chairman of the Far West Regional Development Board. I am not going to claim the credit for all of the board's achievements to which I am about to refer, but I am proud to have been associated with an organisation which has provided leadership to the community in business development and creating employment opportunities.

Decentralisation and regional development have been at the focus of National Party policies since Sir John Fuller, a former member of the council, became the first full-time Minister. In recent years former Minister Ray Chappell has rejuvenated the movement, and he left a valuable legacy in redefining the ways and means of activating this often proclaimed ideal, the result of which has been a great diversification in the economy of our region and a broadening of the economic base, which has given a much greater degree of resilience to the fabric of our community. In a recent survey on regional leadership conducted for the Federal Government by McKinsey and Company, a table was prepared which showed that from 1976 to 1993 there had been a 32 per cent reduction in jobs in the mining sector.

But, as a result of growth in tourism, horticulture and farming, and to a lesser extent new horizon industries, the net reduction in jobs was less than half that, only 13 per cent. Although these figures are encouraging, one needs to be reminded that at the end of the day the figure was a net reduction and it will be extremely difficult to replace the jobs and the prosperity which the mines have provided to Broken Hill for over a century. Broken Hill has special needs in many areas and I accept the responsibility to address them. In discharging that responsibility I seek the assistance of all the elected representatives who are concerned for this great city.

Broken Hill has a very large population of retired people, many with one form of disability or another. It is a community that therefore has a high need for health and community services. Fortunately, Broken Hill still lives up to its reputation of looking after its own. It is also a wonderful place to see examples of self-help and I would like to illustrate that self-reliance and determination to overcome community problems that characterises Broken Hill with the inspiring example of Miss Kath Bonnes. This wonderful woman has devoted her life to providing help and service to those who suffer from varying degrees of hearing disability. Kath has been the driving force in founding the Broken Hill branch of Better Hearing Australia, and establishing almost single-handedly the Broken Hill Hearing Resource Centre. Her selfless work has always been a matter of great
Page 2278
admiration to the people of Broken Hill. On her behalf, I shall be seeking a very small annual grant which would make the world of difference in maintaining this wonderful service.

I mentioned earlier how much improved health conditions featured in the struggles of the trade union movement in the early days. The Broken Hill hospital was paid for by a compulsory levy on the workers of Broken Hill. I am very sad that the hospital, which was built with such a lot of community involvement and participation and which to many represents one of the icons of Broken Hill's culture, has in a few decades been superseded by the march of technology. The hospital building was completed in 1941 and was hailed at the time as the first airconditioned hospital in New South Wales and the first building in Broken Hill in which a lift was installed. However, for a variety of reasons the hospital building has reached its use-by date. As the National Party candidate for the electorate of Broken Hill, I committed myself to the building of a completely new hospital. I believe it is the only way we are going to overcome some of the structural problems in delivering health services in an economical way to the people of Broken Hill and the outer regions that are served by the Royal Flying Doctor Service.

It appears that the present Government does not share my view, and it appears that the extensive refurbishment that was promised as an alternative solution at the time of the election has not been funded in this present budget. I hope that it is hidden away somewhere and I can be proved wrong. Notwithstanding that, I reiterate my commitment to the building of the hospital. The Hon. Patricia Staunton mentioned the difficulties with which health care providers are confronted when she said the demands on health services are infinite but, unfortunately, as she put it, the money available is very finite. I do not know whether I would say the demands are infinite, but they are certainly ever-expanding. I believe that the only way we can look to the future with confidence out there is to build a new, modern and efficient hospital. All the problems that manifest themselves in a host of different ways, such as the difficulty in securing medical practitioners, eventually relate back to the diseconomies which were are suffering now as a result of the hospital's obsolete design.

My wife, Margaret, was also brought up in Broken Hill and we have raised our three children in its environment. As local residents we were very grateful to the coalition Government for the sensitive but nevertheless urgent way it tackled the problem of environmental lead pollution. Everyone in Broken Hill was aware of the danger of lead poisoning but to the everlasting shame of people who should have known better it was treated as a taboo subject. My family has a particular reason to be concerned. My wife's brother was one of the first diagnosed cases of lead poisoning in Broken Hill and he eventually died from the condition. I will be extremely vigilant to ensure the lead remediation program continues to receive adequate financial support under this Government. There can be no compromise because now that the problem has been fully exposed, confidence in Broken Hill's future is utterly dependent on the vigorous pursuit of this program to its conclusion.

The hospital also provides an example of the extraordinary time warp that until recently was present in Broken Hill, but as I pointed out earlier this seems to have quietly passed away in very recent years. The Hon. Patricia Staunton acknowledged the demands for efficiency in the delivery of hospital services and acknowledged that there needed to be a cooperative approach between unions and management. I mentioned earlier the work of the Royal Flying Doctor Service as it relates to the Broken Hill Hospital. I want to pause for a moment to pay tribute to the organisation of the Royal Flying Doctor Service for the years of dedicated service that it has given, and the unique contribution it has made to overcoming the problems of isolation by providing modern medical services and health care in remote areas. Honourable members will know that at the moment the New South Wales board and the chief executive are the objects of a campaign of public criticism by former doctors. As a result the operation is currently being reviewed by the Federal President of that organisation.

I want to say that the service has my complete confidence until it is clearly demonstrated that there is some real cause for concern, and I also want to say that it can continue to rely on my full support. As I see it, the difficulties which the Royal Flying Doctor Service is experiencing, and which have become a matter of very subjective reporting by the television medium, are the same difficulties which are being experienced by many communities. A crisis is developing throughout rural New South Wales with communities trying to attract medical practitioners to their townships with little success. It is a very complex problem. Remuneration is, of course, a very important factor, but not the only one or even the most significant obstacle.

I think we have got to accept that the expectations of the graduates of today's medical schools are very different to those of half a century ago when the reputation of the rural general practitioner was established. To overcome this problem a very careful and patient examination of all the factors will be required. A determined effort is needed by all who are involved - community leaders, administrators, medical practitioners, and those who have the governance of their profession - to resolve the inhibiting factors so that essential medical services are provided as far as is practicable to country communities throughout New South Wales.

I want to refer in the general area of health to another very important government initiative that is of immense value to people in remote communities. I refer to the isolated patients treatment and
Page 2279
accommodation subsidy scheme. Like so many areas of health administration, funding is not keeping pace with demand. As financial hardship bites deeper and deeper I plead with the Government to be more generous in funding this scheme, and to review the eligibility criteria. The nature of health services has changed and the need to travel to specialist centres for complex medical procedures becomes ever more frequent. For many patients in remote areas treatment simply cannot be contemplated unless they can recoup some of the costs which are incurred in travel and accommodation. When I was speaking earlier about the contribution the Hon. Robert Webster made to the DECA scheme for extending rural electricity I pointed out what a tremendous breakthrough mains electricity has been in breaking down the burden of isolation experienced by remote rural families.

Isolation can be geographic. It can also be generated from financial circumstances. Many people in metropolitan areas - even in Sydney, where there are literally millions of people - live lonely lives of deprivation and extreme isolation because of lack of disposable income. Over the last few years I have travelled extensively throughout rural New South Wales. I have been impressed and deeply saddened by the extent to which both of these factors compound upon each other in many of the homesteads in the pastoral areas and on farms in the more settled areas. A great deal of publicity has brought home the severity of the drought which has affected north-west New South Wales and Queensland over the last five or six years.

For many pastoralists drought was only a contributing factor in the terrible predicament which imposed unrelenting financial isolation on them. The major factors were the catastrophic fall in the wool market, the collapse in the value of sheep and the devaluation of the investment after the abandonment of the floor price scheme in 1989. These disastrous events left a trail of disillusionment and, in many cases, despair. My meeting with these families left me with a feeling of great sadness. These quiet, gentle and dignified people were, as Henry David Thoreau so pathetically put it, leading "lives of quiet desperation". I am determined to do what I can to help them through the current crisis. I join with them in fervently hoping that conditions of greater economic prosperity return as certainly as the better seasons do.

Tonight I call on the Leader of the Government in this place, the Hon. M. R. Egan, to give me his assistance. I hope that I might be joined by the honourable member for Broken Hill in another place, Mr Bill Beckroge, in petitioning the Minister for Agriculture so that areas now not qualifying under the exceptional circumstances financial assistance provisions may, in the near future, be accorded that unenviable but realistic status. They might then access financial help, which they richly deserve. I refer in particular to an area which I have come to term the Bermuda Triangle. I refer to the area from Wilcannia North to White Cliffs, across to Wanaaring and back to Louth and Tilpa. That seems to me to be the very epicentre of this catastrophe of drought and economic hardship.

I would specifically urge the Minister to give consideration to adopting the Queensland pattern of drought assessment for areas in the Western Division. In Queensland the declaration of drought is not done on the basis of artificial Rural Lands Protection Board boundaries. Because of the larger areas of properties, each individual holding is assessed on its own merits. I believe this is an appropriate approach for the pastoral properties of western New South Wales. It is regrettable that, in addition to the difficulties which I have outlined, many of the pastoralists feel under threat from an aggressive minority in the environmental group that always seem prejudiced against land-holders in any assessment they make in their role as custodians of the natural resources and the environment in which they live.

Recently a group of people describing themselves as the Arid Lands Coalition spent a couple of days touring around the Western Division. They then came to Sydney to deliver their pronouncements on the basis of their brief encounter with the real circumstances out there. The Arid Lands Coalition is a rum lot indeed. Some of its spokesmen are insufferably self-orientated, if not arrogant, in their approach and bloated with the sense of their own importance. They exude an unctuous and patronising attitude to pastoralists, who cannot help but be infuriated by their sheer impudence. They attempt to clothe themselves with academic clichés which suggest good memory and poor understanding, but appear naked of any underlying practical knowledge or commonsense. Unfortunately their statements have become sloganistic and platitudinous. Their arguments are advanced by blind assumptions and they use tendentious words such as "land degradation" without establishing what they mean.

The environment is described as fragile, without any consideration for the real meaning of the word, and their extreme antihuman conservation objectives are pursued with vague references to utopian concepts of endless biodiversity. I would also recommend that the Arid Lands Coalition confines its activities to national parks and nature reserves in New South Wales, and to areas in other States and Territories which are more appropriately set aside to conserve the ecosystems of arid and desert lands and built out of the lives of families acting responsibly in our western pastoral districts. All manner of evil is attributed to those who have dared to tread on the surface of those challenging lands in the hope of sustaining themselves and their families and contributing to the welfare of mankind. The zealots in the environmental cause seem to have lost sight of the essential needs of the human species.

Page 2280

It is interesting to note how reluctant they were to answer the challenge of one of the land-holders who was asked to address their conference in Parliament House. The challenge to the environmental movement, particularly to the Arid Lands Coalition, was to define its objectives, to nominate the species and explain the arguments as to why it thought those particular animals or plants should be preserved as an essential part of our common ecosystem. The environment movement was challenged to name precisely the areas of these special habitats and to indicate the sort of conservation strategy that is necessary, if it can be sustained, and that those particular projects were important objectives and had real significance. He called for preciseness and recognisable aims, rather than abstract goals using an arbitrary percentage, such as this goal of 10 per cent of the land area that we should have locked up in national parks or conservation areas.

It cannot simply be argued that we should preserve the maximum biodiversity and thereby refuse to indicate in any way where a balance will be struck between the pristine condition which one may imagine this land was in before any member of the species homo sapiens arrived in this country and the state of land modification which has been reached today and which is vital to accommodate the population which lives here today. I am reluctant to claim that there are no exceptions, but certainly with very few exceptions I believe that all the land-holders of western New South Wales are dedicated to sustainable pastoral and agricultural activities on their properties and that economic prosperity and their continued occupation is the most important single factor necessary to achieve the broader community's conservation aspirations.

I imagine that some members here tonight would, but for the convention of hearing maiden speeches without interruption, like to enter into this debate and try to counter my assertion. Perhaps their first concern would be to assert that the western lands are fragile. In my view a fragile thing is something like a china cup, which, if it is dropped and broken, never regains its original form. This is manifestly not the case when one is talking about the land resources of the Western Division. One Sunday morning I remember hearing someone ring Macca on the Australia All Over radio program claiming that he had been travelling up and down the Silver City Highway during the height of the drought in 1992. This self-proclaimed oracle was lamenting the number of dead kangaroos that he saw on the roadside. Interspersed with the usual Australian struths and other expletives, he claimed that the land would take 50 years to recover. He certainly picked his time well to show what a mug he was because the rain fell shortly afterwards, and within a couple of months there was a better cover of feed and other useful vegetation throughout that country than had been seen for years.

Another utterly misleading term in common usage is the word degraded. One should confine the use of that word to land which is permanently and substantially changed and has lost the capacity to regenerate its form. Although this term is claimed to apply to a huge area of land, in my view it should be restricted to very few areas where, for example, very substantial erosion has taken place. In fact, the Western Division is perhaps the last place to look for examples of the proper use of this word. Without exception, the most important resource that we can provide for every child in the west to break the shackles of isolation is education. The education of children in remote areas has been used as an example of the characteristics of resourcefulness, self-reliance and innovation that life in the west demanded.

The role of women as mothers and governesses civilising the pioneering world and attending to the education and refinement of the next generation is properly recognised and celebrated as a worthy icon of our rural heritage and our distinctive nationality. In addition to coping with extraordinary household demands, these women pursued this vocation through correspondence lessons and School of the Air facilities. The daily timetable of these brave students had to be flexible to meet the emergencies of a snakebite on the station, a breakdown of the homestead windmill or, on a very rare occasion, the interruption of someone like me in one of my former occupations as a painting contractor.

Times have changed and things are at least a little more convenient, and I recognise the tremendous progress made in distance education by the previous Government. I congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. R. T. M. Bull, particularly and the Hon. Virginia Chadwick for their part in these great achievements. Education in the west is not only about isolated children, of course. I will also be making myself available to the school communities surrounding the network of primary and high schools throughout the region varying from the 10-pupil, one-teacher schools like Nymagee, to large prestigious institutions such as Broken Hill High School, which once had the largest enrolment of any school in New South Wales. Specifically, I will be right on the Government's hammer to ensure the completion of the extensive renovations and refurbishment of Willyama High School. I will be badgering the Minister to implement the promise made to Cobar to build a multipurpose centre at the school for school assembly, recreational use, and other community purposes.

Another very significant element of the economic as well as the ecological system of western New South Wales is, of course, the Darling River. I have a great regard for the Darling River and its vast tributary system. I felt greatly honoured when as a representative of Broken Hill City Council on the Murray Darling Association, I was elected to be New South Wales representative on its executive. I would have to say that I deplore the way in which a symptom of the very difficult circumstances which have been experienced throughout the Darling and its tributary valleys due
Page 2281
to the prolonged and severe droughts has been used as an example to criticise land-holders in arguments over water usage that ignore the major underlying factors. As an individual I am determined to ensure that the Darling River remains a major water resource along its whole length, and that its physical and biological welfare is maintained so that the whole system can be passed on to future generations with its integrity intact.

However, I do not believe that we should be trying to create some mythical situation that never existed in the past. The Darling River was never a permanent stream. The water, which appears muddy and discoloured, suggests to people who visit the region for the first time that the river is grossly polluted. But it was ever thus. The turbidity of the river is a natural result of the soil types of the catchment and the flood plain, and I do not think the impact of agriculture has been as severe as many people would like us to believe. Alarm has been expressed over the spread of blue-green algae and the occurrence of extensive toxic blooms along the length of the river during hot weather and when flows are at minimum levels. I suggest that the most significant contribution to this problem for which man is responsible is not the cotton grower or the phosphate levels, for which some people blame farmers and their agricultural fertilisers. Others blame the situation on poorly designed town effluent disposal systems for discharging phosphate with detergents.

In fact, the introduction of the European carp has brought about a dramatic change in the balance of the ecosystem of the river. No doubt in its destructive potential the European carp is the aquatic version of the rabbit. It has created great changes in the ecology of the riverbeds as a result of its voracious feeding habits. European carp were introduced to clean the irrigation channels of invasive weeds, but in the case of natural streams and rivers, carp have a devastating effect on the native vegetation, which not only protects the banks but has a stabilising effect on the sediments in the river. These destructive creatures, in the course of their breeding cycle, go through a period of intense activity and stir up the mud at the bottom bringing to the surface silt deposits which contain high levels of phosphate that would otherwise lie inert in the colder water at the bottom of the stream.

On another subject, I want to express my very grave concerns about the breakdown of community relationships being experienced in many western townships. These communities are under severe strain and their social cohesion is being put to the test. Honourable members, being well informed and active political people as I know they are, will be aware that one of the major issues of concern identified in public opinion polls in New South Wales is law and order.

I ask honourable members who live in metropolitan areas of Sydney, or maybe adjacent to Lismore, if they and their neighbours have reason to be concerned about law and order, how they would react if they lived in a community where in one particular year 20,000 charges were preferred against various citizens, out of a population of only 1,000. I do not propose to name individual towns, but I have promised these communities that they will have my untiring support in their efforts to normalise their lives and to restore a sense of respect for the person, property and reasonable authority. I also assure the House that I will cooperate with the Ministers responsible, and particularly Ministers in this House - the Attorney General, and the Minister for Community Services, who have critical roles to play. I assure them that I will cooperate in their efforts to come to grips with the underlying causes of this social disruption. Rebuilding peaceful communities is not simply about apprehending offenders and handing down punishment. More than anything else, it is about removing the causes of crime which arise from alienation, despondency and rejection.

The most significant element, the common thread, in any strategy to overcome the effects of geographic isolation is the provision of modern and efficient transport infrastructure. Although I will watch with interest to see the fulfilment of the Government's commitment to restore rail services to Broken Hill and to the Riverina, I think we need to recognise that by far and away the most important element of transport infrastructure is the road system. I will certainly be on guard to ensure that the rail service is not financed by cuts in the CountryLink coach services to Broken Hill, Cobar and Wilcannia. There is still a tremendous way to go to complete a modern road network in the west. State Government funds are urgently needed just to finish sealing the highways. At present, extensive sections of the Silver City Highway and Cobb Highway, and also the Kidman Way, cannot be negotiated in wet weather, and are closed after rainfall of as little as 10 millimetres.

Roads are the interconnecting arteries and the veins of our society. They sustain commercial activity, provide for social interaction, and give access for the delivery of services, whether they be medical, psychological, or simply cultural. There can be no substitute for that improved road system. I say this without any apology to the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones, who seem to have a pronounced aversion to motor cars, that it is just impossible to imagine life in the Western Division of New South Wales being in any way comparable with the commonly accepted standards of living and the reasonable expectations of other Australians without good roads and good motor cars.

The career which is about to unfold before me is quite unlike any other position I have ever had before. In all of the many situations which I have had, no matter how much latitude I was given to use my own initiative, there was always someone who set the goals and, in effect, told me what to do. I suppose one can say electors tell us what to do; but, just for a moment tonight, I thought perhaps
Page 2282
the roles were reversed. I have had the opportunity to explain to the House the things I want other people to do, and I know I have come along with a very long shopping list.

I hope that by responding to honourable members in the same way that they have received me - even when at times our points of view appear to be diametrically opposed - with their help and assistance I may be able to achieve at least some of the goals that I have set myself. Then, at some future time when the transitory lines which divide us have become indistinguishable and our differences of opinion have mellowed, I also hope that we may look back on all of our collective achievements and say that we worked together in the name of the people who are the focus of our parliamentary democracy, and that we will all be proud of the part we have played in that great system of order and civilisation which has been our priceless legacy from our forefathers.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

[The President left the chair at 6.46 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]


Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [8.15]: This bill represents the most significant conservation commitment by any New South Wales government to date. The legislation will enable the Carr Government to simultaneously deliver its promises on a comprehensive, adequate, representative reserve system and an ecologically sustainable forest industry. Interestingly, it would not have been possible to use the money from the environmental trusts had a previous minister for the environment, Tim Moore, not set up the trusts some years ago. In a strange sort of way, Tim Moore should take some credit for the money being available for this restructuring. Tim Moore, honourable members may remember, was constantly rolled by the rednecks in the National Party. He would have been a very good environment minister had it not been for the National Party.

We are all aware that Australia's forests have been the subject of widespread clearing, fragmentation and degradation over the past 200 years. We are also aware that a large part of this violence towards our natural heritage has been mandated by governments. I have long been dedicated to fighting the culture of ignorance that has dominated forest management in this State, a culture of ignorance that shows no regard for the value of our forest wildlife or the ecosystems that support our very existence. I have been extremely concerned about the standard of forest management and, in particular, the continuing violation by State Forests of conservation prescriptions that are directed at saving endangered species and protecting other environmental values.

State Forests has for far too long demonstrated a lack of environmental sensitivity and has consistently breached conditions of protected fauna licences issued by the National Parks and Wildlife Service under section 120 and pollution control licences issued by the Environment Protection Authority. When State Forests has been caught out there has been a lack of accountability, and no real attempt by the Government to discipline the organisations so that such offences do not recur. After discussion with the Government on this bill, I am confident that it is the first step towards reversing the degradation of our forest resources and ensuring that our rich biodiversity is preserved for future generations.

Crossbench members, in particular the Hon. I. Cohen, the Hon. A. G. Corbett and I - but not the Hon. Elaine Nile or Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile - have had long and extensive consultation with Minister Kim Yeadon and Minister Pam Allan, and I wish to congratulate them on giving so much of their time to enable us to iron out the problems we perceived in both the legislation and the management of our forests. I should like to pay special thanks to Penny Wong, Kim Yeadon's adviser, who was in the gallery earlier this evening and has been extremely patient over many hours of negotiation; and to Madi Maclean, from Pam Allan's office, for her hard work and dedication in progressing this important legislation. It has been a long and tortuous progress, but we have finally reached agreement.

In addition to appropriating capital from the environmental trusts funds, consultation surrounding the bill has resulted in a number of important agreements confirming the Government's commitment to forest management and conservation. They include agreements on fauna licensing improvements. The Minister for the Environment has agreed to address the current inadequacies of the section 120 fauna licensing process. As I stated previously, I continue to have little confidence in the ability of State Forests to manage the conservation values of our native forests, particularly endangered fauna values. The blatant breaches of licensing provisions and the complete disregard for our forest wildlife have run unfettered for far too long.

I went with my fellow crossbenchers the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. A. G. Corbett to visit some of the forests in northern New South Wales. We saw gross breaches of licence conditions. We found the body of a dead koala next to what was clearly a habitat tree. We have seen photographic examples, and I believe that the Hon. I. Cohen may have seen actual examples, of Pine Creek State Forest, which is one of the key koala habitats in this State, with huge areas clear-felled. We have also just received information on compartment 323 in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest. The National Parks and Wildlife Service officers have been there, together with State foresters John Ball and Justin Williams, and have found once again that there has been a gross breach of licence conditions.

Page 2283

State Forests insisted that no habitat or recruitment trees were found in any part of the compartment which had been clear-felled. A National Parks and Wildlife Service officer found a de-rooted habitat tree with an "H" clearly marked at its base. From a brief inspection of the rows of trees that have been knocked down, the majority of the piles of timber that were to be burnt consisted of suitable habitat and recruitment trees. This breach was photographed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service for future reference. John Ball, the district forester, inspected the habitat tree and admitted that its felling was a clear breach. He said that he would have words with the bulldozer driver. This is unfair to the operator, and shows a clear lack of supervision by State Forests.

Mr Ball made no attempt to hide the fact that the area is to be converted into plantation. When asked how re-growth forests could be clear-felled and a plantation created in direct contradiction of the Premier's statement that no native forest would be sacrificed for the establishment of plantation, John Ball made an interesting comment. He said that approval for the harvesting plan was given by the former Government and therefore the new Government's policy did not affect that operation. At present, only about 10 per cent of what the foresters want to remove and replant has been cleared. The party also travelled to another compartment where it inspected blatant breaches involving the schedule 12 glossy black cockatoo feed trees. Yesterday we received information from Wild Cattle Creek and we know that John Ball and other people in the district will attempt to clear-fell and log other high-conservation-value compartments.

Clearly, people like John Ball and other foresters on the ground have no idea that there has been a change of government and are still abiding by the gross mismanagement practices that were the hallmark of the previous Government. The current fauna licensing system was intended as a temporary arrangement which would later be replaced by a more permanent instrument. Given that the system is still in place and has not been reviewed since its inception, a comprehensive review is surely in order. It is time to address the outstanding need for compliance auditing of section 120 licences and to insist on accountability by State Forests, at last. One of the conditions of the Democrats' support of the legislation is that a principal forest regulator should be appointed. That office should act as an independent watchdog and adjudicator of State Forests compliance with environmental conditions and forest management plans.

This request is consistent with the intention of the Government's forest policy. On page six of the March 1995 document the Government is committed to the appointment of a principal forest regulator to monitor the performance of State Forests. The principal forest regulator will be independent of forestry vested interests and regulatory licensing portfolios. A logical portfolio for the office of the principal forest regulator would be the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and it would appear that the Government agrees with this. Such an office should have the freedom to independently assess State Forests adherence to statutory licence conditions and their compliance with environment impact assessment conditions and forest management plans. We must ensure that this office has adequate independence from the Government and reports separately to Parliament.

I also refer to what is euphemistically called gap enhancement by the State Forest local foresters. Gap enhancement is a pseudo-scientific method of totally clearing areas of two and three hectares of native forest. Every single shred of vegetation, every tree, every shrub, every blade of grass and every fungus is cleared and burnt so that all that is left is a totally ruined environment. This has been done progressively through State forests with the intention of converting them to plantations. Clearly this is in violation of the Government's policy but it was clearly acceptable to the previous Government. As a result of our representations there will be an immediate moratorium on gap and cluster felling techniques in existing harvesting plans and an assurance that this technique will not be used in any future harvesting plans.

I have been concerned about the recent initiative by State Forests to reintroduce clear-felling in native forests under the guise of this gaps and clusters management. This practice is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to flaunt sensible environmental requirements to maximise timber production. Such a practice is yet another example of State Forests' lack of willingness to meet the environmental standards which the Parliament and the community believe are necessary. I commend the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, Kim Yeadon, for his quick and decisive action in this regard. Another condition of our support for the legislation was the total deregulation of the log market. That is an economic and environmental tragedy which currently sees native hardwood timbers of renowned international quality being sacrificed for utilitarian purposes. The use of hardwood timbers in this way is a consequence of their undervalued and underpriced status. The situation arises from the longstanding cosy arrangements between former governments and sawmill companies.

These arrangements have seen quantities of logs allocated to sawmills at prices well below those that could be realised on the open market. This collusion over the years has been a scandal and has resulted in native timber being undervalued and used for unworthy purposes. I recently visited a mill where very fine timber was being used for fence posts, tomato stakes, cross members for electricity poles, sleepers and bridge timbers. This fine timber could have been used to make furniture. Prior to this Government coming to office the log allocation system had been extremely rigid and open
Page 2284
to abuse. It has been openly acknowledged that our valuable timber has been underpriced for many years, and there is an urgent need to introduce market-based pricing to ensure that the price paid reflects its real worth. These issues were raised in the 1990 Public Accounts Committee Report On the Forestry Commission. I remind members that the committee's chairman at that time was Phillip Smiles. Report No. 52, which was published in December 1990, is thorough and worthwhile. Page 25 of the report stated:

The entire timber industry in New South Wales revolves around a system of substantial public subsidies . . . The Committee perceives that what subsidies the Commission does not consume in its inefficient bureaucracy it passes on to its customers in the form of lower timber prices . . . However, the way in which these subsidies are recorded . . . in the Commission's financial accounts does not work in the interests of public accountability . . . the Commission's internal lack of awareness of these subsidies has led, in the Committee's view, to a consistent pattern of questionable management decisions which work for the short-term advantage of industry, but may have extremely detrimental long-term effects . . .

Native timber is free of charge to the Forestry Commission. For this reason primarily, the Commission can charge extremely low royalties and still cover their costs. Industry has successfully used this low cost argument to press the Commission for inappropriately low prices on native logs. Therefore the nonpayment of any rental on Crown Lands by the Commission is a net transfer of public equity to the timber processing industry . . . the Committee feels that this subsidy is unjustifiable.

For many years I have been saying that the timber industry should be planting its own resource. Macadamia farmers plant their own resource, citrus farmers plant their own resource, avocado farmers plant their own resource, and other farmers plant their own resource; but not the timber industry. The timber industry has been bludging off public forests for far too long. It believes it has a right to the forests which belong to all the people of New South Wales and which we hold in custody for future generations. Page 27 of the report stated:

The main new subsidy granted by the Forestry Amendment Bill was relief from the Commission's interest burden (interest had been payable on debts in excess of $100 M). The intention had been to swap debt for equity, thereby making dividends payable to Treasury in place of interest to commercial creditors.

Page 28 stated:

The Committee finds it astonishing that a state forestry service could have generated a debt burden in excess of $100 M which was not related to forest management.

From the former Commissioner's statement, the Committee has concluded that this debt burden must have arisen, at least partly, from the acquisition of non-forestry assets. A case in point is the Commission's regional office at Coffs Harbour. The Commission's informal valuation of this prime commercial office site is $3 million. The Commission has provided no rationale for the ownership of an expensive urban office which oversees rural operations. The Committee believes that the interest relief granted the Commission in 1988 has removed the incentive for the Commission to take the economically rational step of selling this and other non-productive assets.

Recommendation 12 of the report stated among other things:

It is recommended that the Forestry Commission draw up a list of non-productive assets for disposal, including office buildings, other real-estate holdings, and under-utilized non-essential plant and equipment, which are not actively used for timber production.

The report recommends the disposal of surplus assets and suggests that asset sales be employed to fund the commission's future capital works program. The report stated at page 31:

The State's timber processing industry is heavily subsidised by the public sector. Chief among the subsidies are under priced raw materials (in the case of Eucalypt logs), and failure to bear the full costs of road construction and maintenance which are attributable to the industry's operations. As a result of these subsidies, sawmilling businesses which would be marginal or non-viable in their present form are able to continue operating and to continue resisting the pressures to change their inefficient methods of operation.

The report refers to transport infrastructure for logging operations. The roads built and maintained by the Forestry Commission were a very significant cost item. In 1988-89 the cost of construction of roads and bridges was $6.35 million and maintenance costs were $6.26 million. The report noted that the commission does not apply a user-pays system to road costs. Because the commission's quota system rigidly allocates timber from specific forests to specific customers, it would be possible to charge individual customers more if they require expensive roading. Instead, the commission has adopted the unacceptable notion that customers whose mills are remote from the forests which supply them should be compensated for the higher haulage expenses which they incur. This compensation takes the form of reduced royalty, the aim of which is to level the combined costs of royalty and haulage to the mill door between all customers. These inefficient practices have continued for many years but now, of course, we are approaching crunch time and these practices will cease. As a result of the passage of this legislation inefficient sawmillers in New South Wales will no longer be subsidised, but will pay the full and proper price for taking timber out of public forests. Recommendation 16 of the report is as follows:

It is recommended that the Forestry Commission phase in a system which specifies the log price "at the log dump" which depends upon the quality and type of timber, without reference to transportation costs.

Of course, that should have happened many years ago. There is no doubt that these changes will be implemented shortly. Finally, in respect of subsidies the report noted:

Additionally, the subsidies have introduced many strands of economic irrationality into the Commission's decision-making . . . the subsidies are either consumed by the Commission's inefficient bureaucracy or passed on to the timber processing industry, which benefits from a substantial public subsidy package.

Page 2285
Page 66 of the report refers to the pricing of native timber and stated, in part:

Pricing of native timber is perceived to be well above the Forestry Commission's direct costs in making it available for milling and woodchipping. However, if loss of non-wood values in the forest estate due to logging (such as wildlife habitat, genetic diversity, recreational potential, and others) are explicitly included in the costing, pricing may not be above society's costs.

While the previous Government considered freeing up the log allocation system to reflect the true value of resource, it refused to act, bound by fear of a backlash from the National Party power base. Instead, it persisted with the cosy deals scheme. For example, long-term wood supply agreements were entered into by previous Ministers which did not require value-adding to lock subsequent governments into supply arrangements for years to come. Presumably it was just a case of paying off loyal supporters of the National Party. Long-term arrangements to supply logs for up to 15 years were negotiated between the coalition and Boral without any reference to this Parliament, without any requirement to value-add and without going through an open tender process.

Could the previous Minister possibly explain why such a process occurred with public resources. Why were other sawmilling companies not given the same treatment? This is a clear example of the former Government's incestuous relationship with sections of the timber industry. This is all going to end. Finally, these cosy little National Party deals with their mates are to come to an end under this Government. It is deplorable that long-term agreements were entered into without conditions requiring better use of the resource, for example, value-adding requirements. If companies are going to be given long-term rights to precious public resources, they should to be required to value-add to the resource. Otherwise, we will be simply giving away our forests, as we have done for years under conservative governments. The current Government has already begun to address these abominations. The first step towards realising the true value of our resources was the 15 per cent increase in the price of timber during 1995 to more accurately reflect market-based prices. The Government will, with the full support of the Australian Democrats, now refer the timber allocation and pricing regime to the Government Pricing Tribunal. The tribunal must report on what system is appropriate for low pricing allocation. This will occur without political interference from members of the National Party, to ensure that an unbiased, open, market-based system of allocation and pricing is established.

New South Wales will finally get the world price for timber in a system not corrupted by the previous regime. There is no doubt that the system under the previous Government was very seriously corrupt. I have a number of friends in the timber industry who have observed these wonderful logs being wasted, both in the chip mills and by being sold at very low value. Some people are buying their own forests and the resource they are pulling out after the forests have been logged by Boral is more valuable than the resource ripped out by Boral. They are making a large amount of money, I am very pleased to say, for very high quality value timber to which they are value-adding. In some instances they are increasing by 1,000 per cent the value of timber from the forest floor to the final product.

This is what should have been done, but the former Government did not do it and had no interest in doing it. There was a very tentative attempt by the Deputy Leader of the National Party to do it at one time but he caved in because suddenly he found out that he was ruffling too many feathers in the National Party. Another condition of our support for the legislation was the use of the Commonwealth criteria. The Government has agreed to use the Commonwealth criteria for national forest conservation reserves in its deferred forest area - DFA - and interim assessment process. These criteria form the basis of the Commonwealth's commitment to developing a comprehensive, adequate and representative - CAR - reserve system. Under the national forest policy statement governments, including the New South Wales Government, agreed to establish a CAR reserve system for protecting old-growth and wilderness attributes on public land by the end of 1995 and on any acquired private land by 1998.

Given the pressure extended by such short time frames, there is a temptation for governments to target easily acquired forest areas to the detriment of long-term conservation goals. As a result, the protected areas may not contain the most valuable forests. In fact, many areas listed as DFA have already been cleared, but this process is continuing and many high-conservation-value compartments will be included in the DFA process. Some magnificent areas of land have been cleared quite recently as a result of the former Government's activities, including the Pine Creek forest that I spoke about earlier, and areas in Wild Cattle Creek, which has a high value koala habitat, are still on the logging hit list. Hopefully these will be removed under the DFA process. I believe that the adoption of the Commonwealth criteria and the nationwide approach that they embody is the only way to ensure the protection of our most valuable remaining forest.

I should remind honourable members of the key criteria. I will refer only to the headlines because it would take too long to cover the full criteria. The criteria are contained in a discussion paper dated March 1994 and titled "National Forest Conservation Reserves, Commonwealth Proposed Criteria". They include the following: Criteria to protect biodiversity attributes; the approach should be regional; the assessment should cover all regional forest tenures in a region; appropriate broad categories of forest biodiversity should be identified on a scale of 1:100,000; and as a broad benchmark,
Page 2286
15 per cent of the pre-1788 distribution of each forest community should be represented in statutory conservation reserves. Thus the proportion of the existing distribution of forest communities in reserves would vary according to the depletion from past clearing. The proportion should be varied further according to natural rarity of the forest community and levels of threats to its existence. All known elements of biodiversity should be represented in reserves.

In applying criterion 4, relating to the 15 per cent, the areas of reserved forest amenities should include a broad range of successional stages and a range of environmental variations typical of the community's distribution wherever possible. Some of the criteria are as follows:

(7) The habitat requirements for vulnerable and endangered forest species should be identified and the reserve system modified where necessary

(8) Reserve design should, where possible, incorporate ecologically meaningful boundaries

(9) The conservation reserve system should integrate with off reserve forest management

I commend the Government for utilising the Commonwealth criteria in the interim assessment process and urge it to adhere to these principles in the longer term, especially when they have been ironed out further. In the meantime I remind the Government that under the national forest policy statement, which amazingly was signed by a Premier of the previous Government, the conservation goals are as follows:

The conservation objectives of the NFPS are the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia and the protection of conservation values of forests. Under the NFPS, signatory governments agree to manage the conservation of all species of Australia's forest flora and fauna throughout those species ranges by means of three major strategies:

•establishing a dedicated conservation reserve system to protect native forest communities based on the principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness;

•complementary management outside reserves in public native forests managed for wood production and other commercial uses and in forests on allocated or leased Crown land;

•promoting the management of private forests in sympathy with biodiversity conservation (NFPS pp8-9).

Therefore the development of the CAR reserve system sits in the context of the overall strategy for biodiversity conservation in the Australian forest estate. Dedicated CAR reserves contribute to the biodiversity conservation aims for forests, which are:

•to maintain viable populations of known native forest species throughout their natural ranges in Australia;

•to maintain the known genetic diversity of native forest species in Australia;

•to maintain viable examples of recognised forest types/communities throughout their natural ranges in Australia; and

•to maximise the chances of maintaining unknown elements of native biological diversity in Australia.

The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill, in conjunction with the recently negotiated agreement, strengthened the Government's policy objectives of saving remaining areas of old-growth forest and other forests with high conservation values. We are redirecting the forest industry, which will now be restructured, into plantations and lesser conservation value regrowth forest, and we hope the forest industry will finally start planting its own resource. We congratulate the previous Government on becoming involved in eucalypt plantations. We also congratulate the present Government on speeding up the program of eucalypt plantations on cleared land.

Before closing I state my support for the amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. I. Cohen regarding lorry owner-drivers. It is imperative that the social impact of the restructuring be kept to an absolute minimum. The $60 million appropriated through the bill must find its way to the frontline employees and their families - the people whose lives will be directly affected by the removal of unsustainable logging operations. We must ensure that the employees are not undercut by the larger lorry owner-drivers. Every measure must be taken to ensure the future of these workers. We were concerned that the smaller and more vulnerable people and their families would be left to the wolves, and we had to make sure that they would get the bulk of the money from the restructuring process. I am pleased that we have managed to persuade the Government to accept the proposed amendment - after long argument. I congratulate the Government on its commitment to preserving our natural heritage for future generations and commend the bill to the House. I thank everybody involved. As a result of the negotiations New South Wales will have some wonderful new national parks. This Government will save some of the very best areas. Those areas would never have been saved by the previous Government, which had the rotting albatross of the National Party hanging around its neck.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [8.44]: I welcome the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, who recently joined us in the House of review. I also congratulate the Hon. Janelle Saffin, the Hon. Patricia Staunton and the Hon. M. R. Kersten on their first speeches. They illustrate the talent, wealth of experience and expertise that reside within this House and just how much could be achieved towards a more just and equitable society if members on both sides of the House were allowed to cooperate, even in a limited way, on policy issues. This may seem to be politically naive but it accurately reflects community frustration with the political process in New South Wales.

The Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill has raised extremely complex issues and has involved a variety of different interest groups. To gain consensus has been a great challenge for the Government. Therefore, any simplistic portrayal of the bill as involving a trees-
Page 2287
versus-jobs argument does not reflect the issues or the conflicting groups involved, and creates unnecessary conflict. We must realise that there are both economic and social benefits accruing from caring for the environment - for example, eco-tourism. Protection and renewal of the environment are absolutely essential to ensure that our children will enjoy both an appropriate standard of living and quality of life. Children prefer playing in natural surroundings to playing on sterile play equipment. This emphasises the psychological necessity of humans to both explore and be surrounded by nature. Environmental psychology is a new research area and one that will become increasingly important in the coming years.

Over the last month or so, in conjunction with the Greens and the Australian Democrats, I have been involved in prolonged, and at times intense, negotiations with the Government on the bill. We have had discussions with Ministers Allan and Yeadon in order, from our point of view, to gain the best dollar value in terms of conservation and benefits to families. Contrary to the perspective of some members, I have found the process of working with the Greens and the Democrats on both process and policy to be a very beneficial experience. The Greens in particular are often portrayed as being extremists - the radical, looney fringe of the environmental movement. I have found that the Greens have a deep and passionate interest in both social justice and ecological sustainability.

As crossbenchers - my party, the Greens and the Democrats - we have an important responsibility in relation to the use of our vote to facilitate good government. We as crossbenchers have developed a rare quality called trust, which is often perceived as lacking in the political process. However, I emphasise that while I worked closely with the Greens and the Democrats at no time did I feel any pressure to sacrifice the ideals or vision which my party represents or to vote in a way contrary to my beliefs - nor would I have tolerated any such pressure. The process of different parties working together on a particular issue of joint concern over the next seven and a half years will bring in a new dimension to the notion of political consultation. It is a process which I referred to before and which I urge the Government to consider. I congratulate the Government on the way, especially in the latter stages of consultation, our concerns were listened to, respected and accommodated where possible. The process augurs well for any similar environmental legislation that I will be involved in with the Government in future.

I particularly congratulate the Government on referring the proposed Coolah Tops National Park to the Resource and Conservation Assessment Council or RACAC. Four crossbenchers visited Coolah Tops earlier this year and the Hon. J. S. Tingle and I approached the Government about giving the community of Coolah Tops and the so-called compromise package proposed by the community a second hearing. The willingness of the Government to first consider and then to agree to this action as part of the negotiation process is to be applauded because it showed the Government's desire to take into consideration both environmental and socioeconomic aspects of this unique situation. The bill has obvious benefits for the environment, families and children, both now and in the future. Throughout Australia there is a growing realisation that it is no longer environmentally or economically viable to log native forests. The increase in plantation softwood timber will very soon bring to an end the operations of those mills which rely on old-growth timber.

Although major transitions will be involved, it is better to help those employed in the mills to find employment while they have the opportunity to do so. To continue to prop up a dying industry without taking a long-term perspective for both the industry and families involved is self-defeating and will only lead to more pain for those involved because the safety nets will no longer apply. The bill has my support. The process I have gone through has been worthwhile, if not exhausting at times. I look forward to continuing my work with the Greens, the Australian Democrats and the conservation movement to ensure that the environment is given the protection it deserves. We must never forget that we have a custodial role towards our planet, and that our children trust us to hand to them an environment that is in better shape than that which we inherited. In closing, I lend my support to the proposed amendment to reinstate the environmental education fund to its previous level of funding. I congratulate the Government on the money allocated to schools and community groups which will enable them to continue to enhance the natural beauty of their surroundings and their respect for the natural environment.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [8.51]: I support the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill. Like many other speakers, I point out that this is significant and special legislation. In fact, it is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to be debated in this Parliament.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It should be called the destruction of the forest industry bill.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: I am disappointed that members of the National Party continue to make such interjections. As has been said by previous speakers, this bill is not only important for saving high-value wilderness areas, for saving ancient forests and for saving endangered species, it is also important for the timber industry. The coalition has shown a mean-spirited approach to this legislation. Unlike Government and crossbench members, coalition members have been unable to take a positive approach to the bill. On the one hand the bill will protect our ancient forests and wilderness areas and, on the other, it will address the need to restructure the timber industry, to protect our timber resources, to create an
Page 2288
ecologically sustainable industry, to protect the jobs of workers and to maintain a viable, high-tech and sustainable industry.

The previous Government was unable to come to grips with this problem during its term of office. I am proud to be a member of a government that can immediately come to grips with the issue, and realise it exactly as was promised prior to the election. Members opposite cannot deny that the Government not only has a mandate for the content of the legislation and for its objects, it also has a mandate for the financial means that are being adopted to deal with it. I do not want to speak for very long in the debate tonight. Most of the major points have been made and most of us know where we stand. I reiterate that the legislation is historic. As honourable members are aware, there are three main parts to the bill.

One part of the bill relates to the restructuring of the timber industry. I shall read a couple of sentences from a letter which I believe has been sent to all members of the New South Wales Parliament. It was written by Col Dorber, the Executive Director of the Forests Products Association Limited. It is important to place on the record that timber workers and the Forests Products Association support the Government's proposals to restructure the timber industry. That is a real breakthrough. The Labor Government has designed a package that meets the needs of the timber industry and solves what was a running sore under the previous Government. The letter from Col Dorber stated:

The Association has come to the view that the essential elements needed to ameliorate the impacts of the inevitable restructure of this industry upon the rural communities and, the forest industry companies and workers dependent upon it, are met in the Government's proposed Bill.

The Association has communicated its support to the Government. We have also separately sought the support of the Commonwealth for the proposed legislation and suggested that its passage meets the necessary test for Commonwealth matching on a dollar for dollar basis of the NSW Government's $60 million industry restructure fund, given that we consider it meets the requirements of the National Forest Policy Statement.

I refer also to a letter sent today by the Minister for the Environment, Pam Allan, to three members of the crossbenches: the Hon. A. G. Corbett, the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and the Hon. I. Cohen. Those three members, along with many representatives of the environment movement, have negotiated for months on this legislation. That process has been productive. Tonight each of those members has congratulated the Government on this legislation. This is a historical package which will deliver all that has been promised. I refer to what the Minister for the Environment has said in response to item 10 of the requests and points put forward by the crossbenchers. Pam Allan pointed out that the Government's proposed threatened species legislation, which is due to be introduced into the Parliament before the end of the year, will include tougher penalties to ensure better protection for threatened species. The Minister pointed out also that the legislation will make it easier for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to secure successful prosecutions in the courts for breaches of threatened species laws.

The Minister also stressed that the Government has stopped logging in all National Parks and Wildlife Service identified wilderness areas. In line with its policy the Government is working towards the protection of those areas. There has been discussion about the issue of acquisition versus expenditure on management of new parks in the nature conservation section of this legislation. The Minister has gone to some lengths to make the point that the acquisition budget is not sufficient. Indeed, some of the original requests put forward by the environment groups and the crossbenchers have now been dropped or resolved. It is important to place on the record the Government's belief that it is not enough to acquire national parks, to acquire the land; it is also important that land in the reserve system be properly managed to preserve the nature conservation values which were the very reason for their reservation.

The inclusion of land within the reserve system without adequate resourcing has been a problem in the past. The Carr Labor Government is committed to redressing that problem. Under the previous coalition Government the inclusion of land without adequate resourcing was a short-sighted and damaging policy. The proposal to amend the legislation to require 50 per cent of the $50 million allocated to be spent on new acquisitions was not supported. It would have compromised the management of new park areas and prevented the service from fulfilling essential functions. The National Parks and Wildlife Service is to spend an incredible amount of money - the largest amount ever spent in one year.

Over the next four years the National Parks and Wildlife Service will spend an estimated $40 million on acquisition, sourced from the nature conservation funds as provided for in schedule 1, as well as from other budget allocations of the service. This will be in addition to any moneys that may be provided by the Commonwealth for acquisition purposes. There will be a program of priority acquisitions and, as Pam Allan has said, the Minister will be pleased to receive nominations from the conservation movement of appropriate lands for that program of acquisitions. The Minister is committed to consulting the conservation movement regarding the final program. Treasury has agreed to a loosening of the eligibility criteria for the remaining $16 million of acquisition funds. Some discussions are taking place about three areas nominated by the conservation movement; that is, additions to Bungulla, Mimosa Rocks and land at Lake Wallarobba.

The Minister for the Environment has asked the National Parks and Wildlife Service to enter into negotiations with the relevant land-holders in the area regarding application of the policy. In this
Page 2289
respect, as with a number of other examples, negotiations over the last few weeks have achieved a great deal, and the legislation is better for it. The Minister was not prepared to agree to any changes in one area, namely, the proposal for a continuation of the environmental education funds with grants to community organisations of $150,000 a year or $750,000 over five years. However, this issue will be resolved by Parliament. I understand that the Independents will be moving an amendment in Committee which will be determined tonight.

This Government is doing a great deal of important work in environmental education. Environmental education initiatives are being taken by the Department of School Education, working with the Environment Protection Authority, to retain the greening of schools grants. We are being rather cautious in this area because we are advised that it is hard to predict the final capacity of the fund, and that aspect may be resolved slightly differently. Some discussion took place over the proposal from the crossbench and a conservation group that certain items be removed from schedule 1 to the bill.

The Hon. Pam Allan pointed out that the majority of these clear promises were made prior to the election, so the Government has a clear mandate to fund them. Schedule 1 was amended somewhat in the other place. The areas to which we have committed ourselves include the lead remediation program at north Lake Macquarie, the development of Green Point in the Lake Macquarie regional park and a proposal in the Blue Mountains National Park. Basically, these commitments were made prior to the election, and the Government has a mandate to implement them. We are not prepared to tell the people of the central coast, the Lake Macquarie district or western Sydney that the Government will stop funding important recreational facilities in regions which have a dearth of quality open space and greenbelt.

The parks under discussion in areas like Penrith and Lake Macquarie are essential to stop urban sprawl in areas of high population growth and density. Some other problems will need to be resolved, including the Willandra Lakes world heritage area, but I will not go into detail on those at this stage. The Minister for the Environment has agreed that schedule 1 should be ordered on a priority basis, and among the items for the highest priority are the Bongil Bongil National Park and the Ocean Shore area on the north coast. In relation to Lake Macquarie, the Minister has made it clear that the lead remediation program is non-negotiable as this is an important project to protect families from lead pollution in the area. Any move to cancel that commitment is out of the question. However, as discussions have proceeded, schedule 1 has received broad agreement.

I will not speak at length because everyone's position is clear. The Opposition's performance in the lower House was disgraceful in moving a large number of amendments and making outrageous statements about the legislation. In so doing the Opposition made it clear that it had not consulted and was not representative of the forest products industry, the unions and the conservation movement. In fact, it is difficult to determine what the Opposition thought it was doing. Perhaps the fact that the opposition from the benches opposite has been muted - the two speakers from that side of the House have announced that the Opposition will not oppose the bill - indicates the poor quality of the Opposition's arguments in the other place and how short-sighted its policy has been on this issue. This has been a big change from the performance in the other place.

Finally, I return to the point on which I started: the Government is proud to introduce this legislation, and I am proud to be part of this Government. More than 10 years ago the Wran Labor Government introduced landmark legislation when making decisions about the rainforests and the creation of two new national parks, and that Government was justly praised for those significant conservation initiatives. Although the achievements of the Wran Government were spectacular, they pale into insignificance compared to the imminent creation by this Government of 24 national parks in its first year and implementation of a forestry reform package which creates a balance between industry needs, workers' needs and the protection of old-growth forests and the continuation of an ecologically sustainable industry.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [8.07]: As other coalition members have indicated, we will not be opposing the bill. However, I wish I could be happier about this bill. My wish is that the bill will do what the people introducing it claim it will do: if the bill will look after people who have lost jobs, families who have been dislocated, and forests, while giving dignity to all people involved, I would happily support it. Like many of my colleagues, I sadly believe that this bill will fail on many of those points. Sadly, the dignity of the people who are losing their jobs, who want to work, and who have tried within the industry to practice proper forestry procedures, will not be protected by this bill. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has attempted to interject throughout my speech; he preaches tolerance, but he knows only intolerance. He should not deliver such sermons. The attitude of the Minister who has carriage of the bill, Mr Yeadon, has been appalling, as it was with the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 46. The problem was not so much with what the SEPP contained, which was bad enough; the attitude of the Minister and the speeches he delivered to the farmers at the time that the SEPP was introduced caused the outrage.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On a point of order: the honourable member is not speaking to the question before the Chair, and I ask that he be directed to return to dealing with the bill.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. J. R. Johnson): Order! No point of order is involved.

Page 2290

The Hon. D. J. GAY: There is an unjustified adverse attitude towards farmers. Over the past 10 years the people of regional and rural New South Wales have made a quantum leap in change of attitude towards improvement of their farms and the environment.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You have not shown that change in attitude.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The honourable member interjects and shows the intolerance that has been typical of his statements in the House tonight. That intolerance is beneath the attitude that he normally professes. He said, by way of interjection, that I had not shown any of that change of attitude. How on earth would he know! Once again he comments on something that he knows nothing about. This belittling of farmers who are trying to do the right thing is turning attitudes against those people. The farmers and land care groups have been trying to address one of the most serious problems in New South Wales.

During one Federal election I was in the company of a camera crew in the Federal electorate of Eden-Monaro. All the camera crew wanted to do was film forests. Well, we did stories on forests and regrowth and some of the good and bad practices in the south-east forests, but when we went along to Michelago, where the soil erosion problem was at least equal to the forest problems facing this country, we could not interest the television crew in taking footage of the land degradation. Apparently the issue was not warm and sexy and did not involve the hugging of trees. I suspect that is the sort of attitude of one or two people who have been behind the introduction of and support for this bill.

The sad thing is that the bill is alarmingly inadequate, and the Greens would make it even more inadequate if their amendments to it were successful. My wish would be that at the end of the night, after this bill has been dealt with, we could rule a line under this issue, content that we have in place proper plantation practices and management, that the bill was a significant achievement, and that it would allow us to move on to a new tomorrow. But in the second reading debate the Hon. I. Cohen heralded that the bill is but a forerunner to further measures. If I thought this bill would achieve something, I would be happy. But a line will not be ruled after the passage of this bill tonight, and this type of issue will continue to be brought up.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.12], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and their general support of the bill, although on the part of the Opposition that seemed to be rather equivocal and begrudging. The bill underpins the Government's major commitment to the environment. Its passage will enable the Government to deliver upon its promises to the people of New South Wales to protect our old-growth forests and to establish 24 new national parks. It will enable the Government to implement the most significant environmental reforms that New South Wales has seen.

Consider the environmental reforms that will result from this legislation: the establishment of 24 new national parks within our first year of government; the protection of old-growth and wilderness forests; the eventual establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system; a number of significant environmental initiatives, including acquisition of lands to extend national park boundaries, managed biodiversity surveys and undertaking inventories of urban bushland. This fulfils commitments made by the Labor Party before the election. Another reform is the substantial contribution to the joint New South Wales-Commonwealth financial package for the Willandra Lakes region world heritage property. This should include major additions to Mungo National Park and resolve the longstanding hardship of local land-holders created by the intransigence of a former coalition Federal Government.

The bill provides for funding for a program of structural adjustment assistance for workers affected as a result of our forestry reforms. The Government accepts the principle that workers affected as a result of conservation decisions demanded by the community deserve assistance. We want to protect New South Wales old-growth forests, but we will not consign workers to the social scrap heap in the process. This legislation will ensure that an appropriate structural adjustment package is in place for workers and their families.

The Government has a clear mandate for the passage of this legislation. These proposals form part of our clear and public commitments made prior to the 25 March election. They have been endorsed by the people of New South Wales, and the Government now seeks to honour its commitment. The process of fund expenditure described by the bill is transparent and accountable. Importantly, it is clear on the face of the bill that the funds from the trusts will be used to achieve lasting environmental benefits.

The bill will underpin the resolution of one of the most divisive debates that the community has seen - the debate over forests. It will enable this Government, in partnership with timber workers, their union, industry and environmentalists to work together towards resolving the conflict in our forests. It will provide workers affected as a result of conservation decisions the opportunities for retraining and relocation or, in the last resort, redundancy. It will enable workers to be employed in a value-added hardwood industry or in the softwood sector. It will enable workers to get access to training, to allow them to take the opportunities that our industry strategy will create. This bill delivers the Government's unprecedented reforms - reforms of lasting benefit to the people of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Page 2291

Clause 4

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.18]: I move Government amendment No. 1 as circulated:

Page 3, clause 4. After line 16, insert:

(3) Money is not to be paid from the Funds under this Act in respect of forest industry restructuring expenditure unless the Minister for Land and Water Conservation certifies that the expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of implementing a program designed to assist persons affected by Government forest conservation initiatives.

(4) Nothing is to be paid from the Funds under this Act in respect of nature conservation expenditure incurred in the purchase of Crown land or lands of the Crown (as defined in the National Parks and Wildlife Service Act 1974).

This amendment will ensure that environmental benefits will result from the use of trust funds, and it specifically links the use of the trust funds to environmental outcomes. It establishes the principle that trust moneys must only be spent on assisting persons affected by conservation decisions, requiring the Minister responsible to certify that expenditure is limited to those purposes. So the amendment introduces further accountability measures into the expenditure process, because the Minister must be satisfied that there is an environmental outcome underpinning the expenditure of trust moneys. This amendment will ensure that the use of trust moneys is transparent and accountable. The proposed insertion of subclause (4) is an amendment requested by peak environment groups. It is National Parks and Wildlife practice already, but it is a matter of clarifying that.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.19]: The Opposition supports the Government amendment. It is, in part, in response to some matters I mentioned in my speech on behalf of the Opposition, but is only a part response to the matters I raised. One concern of the Opposition was that although $60 million was to be allocated for expenditure out of the environmental trust funds very little detail had been given as to what that $60 million was to be spent on. Subclause (3) says that no expenditure is to be made unless the Minister for Land and Water Conservation certifies that the expenditure has been incurred for the purpose. I am not exactly sure what the Minister must certify. The Opposition views that as fairly lame wording. Obviously the Minister will be prepared to certify that any expenditure meets that particular criterion. There is no provision for demonstrating whether the particular claim has been met. That is one reason the Opposition will move an amendment about the relationship of the bill to the Public Finance and Audit Act, to ensure that should certain statements be made by Ministers, they will be held accountable to the aims and objectives of the Act.

The peak environmental groups have agreed to the bill and the Opposition will not frustrate the Government's intention. The Opposition welcomes with more enthusiasm the reference that expenditure under this proposed legislation for the purchase of national parks will not be used to purchase Crown land or lands of the Crown as defined under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. One concern raised by the Opposition in this House and in the lower House was the possibility for the Government to pay itself funds from the trusts by simply buying public land and recycling those funds into consolidated revenue to use for other purposes. The Opposition was concerned that the bill had more to do with the budget than with environmental protection. This amendment goes some way to providing protection so that funds expended on national parks will be expended on new land that the public does not already own, rather than buying land owned by another government department.

I am sure honourable members who represent country constituents would acknowledge that in many instances the land that would need to be bought under those circumstances, land which is held by private individuals, has been blighted by environmental restraints that might be imposed on landowners. In many instances people in country areas want to sell their land back to the Government because it has been made virtually unusable for their purpose, whether it was pastoral or agricultural. Landowners are keen to sell their land back to the Government and would want the greatest amount of funds available doing the greatest amount of good, that is, buying lands that owners desperately want to sell.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.23]: I support the comments of the Hon. J. F. Ryan, but I should like the Minister to clarify if amendment No. 1 to clause 4 is designed to do exactly as stated, that is, to buy blighted land that surrounds national parks. I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister of the importance of his comments in the Committee stage of a bill. The Opposition hopes that is the purpose of the amendment. I would appreciate the Minister's confirming if that is the correct interpretation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.24]: The Australian Democrats naturally support this amendment, which will ensure that the funds are spent for the purposes for which they were taken out of the trust. Though we have faith in the Government, this amendment is an insurance policy. We are also pleased that there can be no possibility of purchasing Crown land or lands of the Crown. The Australian Democrats did not consider that would happen, but we are pleased the provision is included to ensure that there is no possibility of transferring funds from one pot into another without any acquisition of land.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.24]: I should like to clarify with the Minister the wording in amendment No. 1 which says, ". . . for the
Page 2292
purpose of implementing a program designed to assist persons affected by Government forest conservation initiatives." Does the reference to persons include, for example, a small logging mill that may be forced by this legislation to close? Is the word "persons" not restricted in its interpretation to mean a single individual such as a timber worker?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.26]: The plural "persons" obviously includes the singular, and the word "persons" includes corporations.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.26]: I reiterate some of the issues I raised in my contribution to the second reading debate. I should like to give further emphasis to the proposed amendments circulated in the name of the Hon. I. Cohen. The honourable member proposes to add at page 3 clause 4(1)(b), further wording that would ensure that a substantial part of the funds available for the purchase of land would be allocated to the purchase of freehold land and leasehold land the subject of the 8(b) planning instrument that I mentioned had been calculated as totalling $40 million. The subject lands had been influenced by this decision for up to 14 years.

It is absolutely outrageous in this day and age that there should be any prevarication about the Government's position with these land-holders. It is not simply a matter of control over the use of land, which is not the issue in many cases; rather that the land is completely devalued and is totally unattractive to any future purchaser on the open market. The only body that could have any continuing interest in land adjacent to national parks, generally referred to as buffer land, is the Crown. The general public today believes that the Government has an obligation to follow these things through. I acknowledge that historically that was not the way governments went about business; proclamations were made over lands that at some future time the land might be required for government use. We went through that with closer land settlement policies and people suffered from proclamations about road reservations.

We are in a new age and if the community considers that the land represents community values, the community should pay for it. It should not be left to the individual who is suddenly caught in this situation to fund the community's conservation objectives. I reiterate that the Opposition is caught in a very difficult position. Opposition members believe that the bill should pass with the minimum of obfuscation and difficulties, because it is essential that this package of restructuring compensation go through. Opposition members want to place firmly on the record, however, that we believe that priority for the funds, which are basically being transferred from the trusts, should be meeting the legitimate reasonable demands of land-holders who have been waiting for an unconscionable time for settlement of their claims in this matter.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.31]: The contributions of the Hon. J. F. Ryan, the Hon. D. F. Moppett and the Hon. D. J. Gay have been interesting but they are not relevant to the amendment. I should like to make a specific comment about the question asked by the Hon. D. J. Gay. As I said when moving the amendment, proposed new subclause 4(4) will simply provide that expenditure not be incurred in the purchase of Crown land or lands of the Crown as defined in the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The conspiracy theories being uttered in the Chamber are nonsensical and have nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment is designed to make sure that money is not spent on purchasing land already owned by the Crown. The other point is that just terms legislation already provides that lands to be acquired will be acquired at a fair price.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.32]: It is important to make these issues absolutely clear at the Committee stage. Just terms legislation does not cover lands that have been affected as a result of a planning instrument, which have fallen outside the purview -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What you are saying has nothing to do with the amendment.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I made clear the reason that I have raised the question. In the whole negotiation of these amendments the Opposition has, to the best of my knowledge, been locked out. First, the Opposition was presented with a series of amendments, which, it was understood, had been negotiated with the Government. Opposition members were asked to study those amendments in preparation for the debate. When it came time for the debate today Opposition members found that a completely new deal had been brokered. It is important that during this discussion the Opposition's position be made clear. That is the purpose of Committee stage. Having signified that the Opposition does not oppose the bill but has reservations about its detail, it is at this stage that those reservations should be expressed clearly and in detail.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.33]: In case Government members remain hard of hearing, my question was asked of the Minister, not of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I acknowledged that in what I said.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods answered the question, and I reiterate that -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: The Minister is going to answer it as well - in case the honourable member is hard of hearing.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Then I shall wait for the answer of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations.

Page 2293

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.33]: That would seem to be the rational procedure. The Hon. D. J. Gay asked me about the intention of proposed new subclause 4(4), which would be inserted by the amendment if passed by the Committee. The intention is to ensure that trust funds are not used to purchase lands already owned by the Crown. The issue of blighted land is not relevant to that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.33]: I asked the Minister to indicate whether any of the money would be used to purchase land that was not Crown land. That was a clear question.

The Hon. J. W. Shaw: I thought it was a profoundly unclear question.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: That wasn't the question.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: It is not precluded; it is certainly open to the Government to do that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The inference that Opposition members have received in briefings is that some of the money will be used to purchase land that surrounds national parks. I simply ask whether the Minister will give a commitment to use some of the money to purchase land, not exclude the purchase of land. Is the Minister indicating in his answer that the purchase of land from this money will be excluded?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.35]: I am not giving any commitments or undertakings. The Committee is concerned with what the text of the amendment means. What I have indicated is unequivocal: the intention of the amendment is to ensure that trust funds are not used to purchase lands that are already owned by the Crown. Apart from the text of the amendment and elaboration of what it is intended to mean, I am not in a position to give any undertakings.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.35]: This is a very simple question. I have received a lawyer's answer. Lawyers have trouble, I know, saying yes or no. The question was: could some of this money be used to purchase land? The answer to the question is a simple yes or no.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.36]: Madam Chair -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I didn't ask you.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The Hon. D. J. Gay is not a very polite person, but even though he has not asked me I thought I would reiterate what I said earlier. In my contribution on the second reading debate I spoke at some length about acquisitions and the fund for acquisitions. Of course land will be acquired from private owners. It would be hard to understand what other purpose the acquisition budget could have. The Committee is now dealing with Government amendment No. 1, which specifically deals with the Government not paying to purchase Crown land. It seems that we have gone over this point several times already. The question may have been clear to the Hon. D. J. Gay, but I do not think it is clear to anyone else.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.36]: This has become a very important issue. As I said earlier, there are two disparate elements to the bill, which, unfortunately, are linked together. One is forestry restructuring and the other is a capacity for the Government to transfer moneys from the environmental trusts. Those two things have been linked together by the Government for a specific purpose. The Opposition has said that it disagrees with that purpose, to make it an all-or-nothing bill. The Government is asking the Committee to support the redirection of environmental trusts funds, which were specifically set aside for different purposes. It is perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask a question of the Minister on a major public issue.

Does the Government intend, in its general ambit of purchasing private land, to use part of this money to relieve the anguish that has been imposed on the land-holders as a result of planning instruments and their land being zoned 8(b)? Land that has been zoned 8(b) is unable to be sold, land-holders are not able to borrow money to carry on their operations - legitimate operations, operations of which the Government approves - and because of the damage to the capital structure of land-holders' enterprises they can no longer operate. This is a question to which a responsible government would address itself. A responsible government would give that assurance, not just to the Committee but to the public who are vitally interested in the legislation, so that the link between the two factors may be accepted.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.38]: The Hon. D. F. Moppett should know that the previous Government set up a fund, of which there was $16 million still in the budget, for buying land zoned 8(b) and 6(c). That is not part of this structure. There is a separate budget to buy land zoned 8(b) and 6(c).

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [9.39]: Some of the nature conservation funds will be spent on acquisition of land adjacent to national parks.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 6

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.40]: I move:

Page 3, clause 6. After line 34 insert:

(2) Of the total amount paid from the Funds under this Act in respect of forest industry restructuring expenditure, no more than $10 million is to be paid in respect of expenditure shown in the Budget Papers as expenditure to compensate timber lorry owner-drivers.

Page 2294

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.40]: In discussions with the Minister concerning this legislation I gained the impression that a certain amount of money would be set aside for compensation. It would be better not to impose the limits proposed by this amendment as that would give the Government greater flexibility. Timber lorry owner-drivers might require $10.5 million or $11 million in compensation, but this amendment provides for an arbitrary cut-off point. Obviously, no-one would want lorry owner-drivers to get $60 million in compensation, but that provision needs to be flexible. Call to Australia respects the Government's statement that this would be done fairly, after assessing real needs. When I saw this amendment I immediately asked myself what amount is required. How much is needed? Apparently, only the Hon. I. Cohen knows the answers to those questions. This dangerous restriction would not be necessary if we all had confidence in the ability of the Government to administer this money.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.41]: It is a great pity that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile did not take time - as we did - to discuss this matter with the Minister and his advisers. He said,"I support the bill" without understanding some of the matters contained within it. We thrashed out these matters for many hours - a condition imposed by the Greens and the Australian Democrats in order for them to be able to support the legislation. The problem is that big vested interests are trying to grab the money. We were concerned about ensuring that the little people got the bulk of the money. There are many more little people -

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: What do lorry owner-drivers have to do with that? They are not the big people.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The point is that Federal funds would be coming from the business exit program, which will cover any shortfall. We wanted to ensure that the bulk of the money from the trust funds went to the people we met at Coolah, about whom the Hon. D. F. Moppett does not give a stuff. We wanted to make sure that those people, who may lose their jobs over this, have enough funds so they can restructure their lives. We want the bulk of the money to go to the little people, the families and the wage-earners, not to the big business people - some of whom are millionaires. Opposition members do not care about the little people. They have not been involved in negotiations. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile have not been involved in negotiations because they do not care about the little people at Coolah. If they did they would have been involved in the negotiations that we had with the Minister.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.43]: As the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said during the lengthy negotiations to which he referred concern was expressed about the amount of money that may be claimed. The Government does not oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.43]: I regret that we had to suffer that ill-directed diatribe on this important compensation issue. I am certain that people reading this bill will use anecdotes such as the camel was the product of a committee. This deal is obviously a negotiated deal that has been brokered. The Government, without giving any real thought to the logic of the situation, decided to put a limit on the amount of compensation available to truck operators. It is ludicrous to imply that that element of the timber industry is the big end of town. That is the sort of thing we have come to expect from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones in these debates. The Opposition has clearly stated that the amount of compensation being offered to the forestry industry in this bill is totally inadequate. It does not compensate in any way for the damage that has been caused by the decision - which we acknowledge to be an election manifesto - of the Labor Party. We could argue whether the Labor Party has a mandate - a word which is commonly used - to represent the views of the forestry industry.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Have you read what the forestry industry says about the legislation?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I have often reminded the Hon. Jan Burnswoods that the Government has gone through small towns such as Dorrigo, Kyogle and Woodenbong like a holocaust. It is offering this pittance of $60 million to a totally devastated community. The final insult is that the Government will place a cap on that amount. The Government, instead of saying, "We will see whether this is enough money and, when we have met some of the claims, we might come back again", is limiting the amount of compensation available to lorry owner-drivers, who have a tremendous investment in this industry.

I said earlier that it is illogical to have a clause limiting one section of the industry. How will lorry owner-drivers be defined? The Government, after taking a blind stab at a figure, has decided to impose a limit on the compensation payable to one group. Are lorry owner-drivers any less deserving than chainsaw operators or mill hands? That is not the way in which other compensation packages operate in the Commonwealth of Australia. We have an ideological commitment to shift the forest industry out of New South Wales, not close it down This bill contains illogical clauses. Members of the Opposition will not attempt to stop that small amount of money going to the industry because we are powerless to convince the Government that it should provide adequate compensation. But we state quite clearly on behalf of all lorry owner-drivers that it is irrational and unconscionable to cap the amount of compensation to be paid to that group within the timber industry.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [9.47]: I am also opposed to this amendment. The cap to be imposed on the amount of compensation to be paid has prompted my opposition. As the Hon.
Page 2295
D. F. Moppett said, we do not believe that this compensation package is adequate. All sections of the forestry industry should be treated on their merit. If we oppose this amendment the Government will be forced to treat all sections of the timber community on their merit. The sad thing is that I do not know how the Government was persuaded to accept this amendment. Some honourable members are prejudiced because some poor bloke in the timber industry might be doing all right. Shame on them! Just because some poor bloke in the timber industry has worked his butt off and has done all right, we are going to impose a penalty on everyone else who drives long hours and worries about lease payments on his truck. Those lorry owner-drivers will suffer.

The Opposition and Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile want that cap removed so that the Government treats the people of Coolah, the people of Berridale, the people of Nimmitabel, the people who drive trucks, and the people who have sawmills on an equal basis and on merit. These are the same people who talk about glass ceilings and tolls, yet they come into the House with blind prejudice and because some bloke has worked hard and made a few bob out of a truck, they want to disadvantage him. I reiterate, the Opposition is firmly opposed to this amendment.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.50]: I allowed my colleagues to lead in the debate because they obviously feel passionately about it. Their level of expertise on that aspect of the industry is greater than mine. Generally speaking, the Opposition has a difficulty with this amendment because we do not want to distinguish between one aspect of the timber industry and another. To give the Hon. I. Cohen his due, I understand his motivation in moving the amendment. Since he was not expansive in speaking about it, perhaps I might reveal what he said to me. I can understand his concerns that some truck drivers are represented by the strong Transport Workers Union, which does not have a great reputation for taking the public interest at heart.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: It has a great reputation.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: The Hon. J. R. Johnson says that the TWU has a great reputation. I remember many occasions in this State when business has been ground to a halt because a couple of tanker drivers have been upset at the Caltex oil refinery. We have heard from the leader of the NWU, Frank Belan, and all of us have come to love his remarks in the press, for their brevity and lack of clarity. He simply said, "We have the numbers, we have done it, we are not telling you about it." Whilst I understand that the Hon. I. Cohen was concerned that some deal could be brokered between the Australian Labor Party and one aspect of its constituency, it is possible that it could have squeezed out other areas of the forest industry. The Opposition's concern is that the amendment seems to suggest a level of prejudice that one aspect of the timber industry is more valuable than others. The Opposition will not support the amendment as it sets up an area of confrontation that is unnecessary. I suspect the Government is not really excited about the amendment and would express a similar point of view to mine. I would not be one to suggest that the amendment was proposed for other than the best of motives. The Opposition is opposed to the amendment but will not divide on it.

The Hon. I. COHEN [9.52]: I apologise for not being expansive at the beginning of my remarks, and I thank the Hon. J. F. Ryan for his educated elucidation on the amendment. The Hon. D. F. Moppett can like it or not but $60 million is available, and I appreciate that. Any allocation of funds will of necessity rob funds from other areas. I gave time for honourable members to express their view, although I disagreed with them strongly. Earlier today I made it clear that there was a strong commitment to the workers with most need in the industry. I have visited timber areas and timber mills and had discussions with people in the industry, the conservation movement and Government.

I have also spoken with the leaders of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and I know that a job training program has been carefully allocated. People on the bottom rung, those working on the floor in the mill at Coolah, work under adverse conditions with oil on the floor and the rain coming in. This industry has lacked strong union support for many years. For example, a worker losing a finger is awarded a mere $3,000, which is appalling. The allocation ought to go to the people in most need; for example, those on the shop floor who need a complete education program. That is the purpose of the cap. The lorry owner-drivers have some capital equipment, some assets.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: Timber jinkers.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Let me get to that. I am talking about people on the shop floor who have no assets and are facing a terrible future.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: They have homes in a timber milling town.

The Hon. I. COHEN: And lorry owner-drivers have homes in timber towns, in many cases. Under present economic circumstances, owning a home in a timber milling town does not guarantee one employment. I am trying to do the fairest thing by the industry within the constraints of the amount allocated.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You are finding gold, you are picking winners.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. D. J. Gay would be picking winners all right if he looked at lorry owner-drivers who had an asset.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Put it to an independent arbitrator.

Page 2296

The Hon. I. COHEN: May I finish? We intend to have independent arbitrators determine the proper allocation of funds. The honourable member would be screaming if there were no cap on the money and he found out later that 50 per cent of the allocated $60 million went to lorry owner-drivers instead of workers on the mill floor. They do not have an education, they need training, they cannot go to TAFE colleges. They need training by their union, where they feel comfortable to take advantage of the restructuring in the industry.

[Interruption]

The Hon. J. R. Johnson may disagree with me, but the TWU represents the lorry owner-drivers and it is very powerful. It will be able to extract inappropriate, unbalanced amounts from that fund. Every dollar that goes from that fund to lorry owner-drivers will be a dollar robbed from the people who need it most. It is as simple as that. That is why I ask for the cap in this instance, and I have had negotiations with the Government and various unions to determine a reasonable amount. Quite frankly, I do not rely on trust in dealing with situations like this. I want to see a degree of control.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You don't trust the Government.

The Hon. I. COHEN: With the pressures that come from any government or organisation dealing with unions and people who want a share of the cake, there needs to be some degree of control. The Opposition members would be the first to make a loud noise if the lorry owner-drivers, or the TWU, were to take a disproportionate percentage of the funds.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Let an independent arbitrator decide.

The Hon. I. COHEN: An independent arbitrator should be appointed to assess allocations within the $10 million. Let us look at the industry. The Hon. D. J. Gay talks about independence, but I am talking about the opportunity for that section of the industry to move to the softwood plantations, with relatively inexpensively converted jinkers and altered differential ratios to enable them to work on the open road or in other sectors of the same industry. There are simple mechanical solutions that do not cost much. Control is needed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith): Order! If the Hon. D. J. Gay wishes to contribute to the debate, he will have ample opportunity to do so.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The timber lorry owner-drivers have opportunities to retool their significant equipment. I could give a number of examples to show that they are in a far better financial position than timber workers on the mill floor. Lorry owner-drivers have an asset that they are working with. When the industry is restructured they will be able to convert that asset to haul smaller logs, or to work in road haulage or other industry areas. They have a far greater opportunity with that asset. The Hon. D. F. Moppett must admit that owner-drivers have far greater flexibility than workers on the mill floor in the timber industry, who will be thrown out and not catered for unless sufficient funding is provided to allow them to retrain during the restructuring process.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.04]: Both the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones have revealed their absolute ignorance about timber lorry owner-drivers. The Hon. I. Cohen said that owner-drivers have an asset, and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones spoke about massive corporations being involved. In my contacts with timber lorry owner-drivers, and in conversations with them when travelling in their trucks driving along the roads around Eden, they have told me first hand that they do not have an asset at all. They have massive debt. They have borrowed money. They have hardly any asset value left in the truck. The money they owe to the bank is greater than the value of their truck. Many of the men I met who own and drive these trucks had been timber workers in the mills.

They had faith in the timber industry, they launched their businesses on the basis of that faith, they borrowed money, mortgaged their homes and bought a truck, thinking they had a future and a way of earning money to pay the truck off. These men have almost been having nervous breakdowns, and some of them are in tears thinking their whole future is on the edge of a cliff. They launched their truck businesses in good faith but suddenly the wheels are collapsing in front of them. These men are not sitting on assets worth $250,000. That is a myth. I do not know where the Hon. I. Cohen and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones have been, but they have not been with the timber industry workers in New South Wales. The way they presented the arguments in this House was a disgrace. I understand they even tried to blackmail the Government to make the ceiling limit $5 million. So much for their great bleeding-heart concern for the workers in the timber industry.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Why don't you go lobbying on their behalf then?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I have been.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You were not with us, were you?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I meet with them separately. I am not part of the green front in the Legislative Council. I am a member of this House. I can meet with the Government, with Ministers and their staff when I please, and have discussions with them, as I do regularly on many issues. I do not have to go hand in hand with the Richard Joneses of the world.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith): Order! I call the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to order.

Page 2297

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I do not have to get permission from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones to have a discussion with a Minister on any issue. All members of this House, even coalition members, still have the right to discuss these complex issues with Ministers. I appreciate the Government's willingness to give time to discuss these issues with me, to assist my understanding, based on my own prior knowledge. That is confirmed by what the Minister said to me and others about the Government's concern for workers in various areas of the timber industry, whether as a timber lorry owner-driver, or as workers on timber mill floors or in the forest, and that each one must be taken care of.

The Hon. I. Cohen destroyed his own argument when he said that some timber lorry owner-drivers could be relocated to the softwood plantation part of the industry. No-one is going to give them $250,000. An assessment will be made on merit and on need as to what is required. Perhaps nothing, or only a small amount, will be required by some. Others will go over the edge and collapse financially. Their trucks and even their homes will be repossessed because they have nothing else. The men I have spoken to are not highly educated. They are younger men who have tried to get themselves off the timber mill floor or out of the forests to become small businessmen. They have stepped out in good faith. We should support them. The Greens and the Democrats say they do not trust the Government. In this case we are giving our trust and confidence to the Government as we have been assured this action will be taken fairly. The merit of each case will be weighed up fairly, to ensure that each person is dealt with justly.

It may be, as the Hon. D. J. Gay said, that there is not sufficient money. That would present a major problem which might have to be brought back to the Parliament to discuss what else can be done, and what money will come from the Federal Government. The $60 million is an artificial figure linked back to the trust funds. The real need has not been assessed, and it may be that as the cases are dealt with one by one that funding will not be sufficient. The Government is trying to be a good financial manager and not have a deficit. That may mean another process will have to be put into effect to find extra money. Delay might be experienced by people seeking to obtain just compensation. Flexibility is needed to move forward.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [10.07]: The Opposition does not believe that members of this House have the expertise to decide who will be the winners and losers in the division of this cake. I have much more expertise than most members of this House in this matter because at one stage in my career I was an owner-driver. But I do not know whether less than $10 million will be needed for the lorry owner-drivers when the Government divides up the pie at the end of the day. The case that the Hon. I. Cohen put about Coolah is compelling, and I do not disagree with it. The case he put reflects his visit to Coolah, an area in genuine need, but it does not reflect the places he has not been to. He has not been in the cabin of a timber jinker, as has Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. He has not been in sawmills around Nimmitabel talking to people about that and other areas. The Opposition in opposing the amendment is asking that the artificial ceiling be removed and that every case be treated on its merit. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I also ask the Government to reconsider and to support us in our opposition to this particular amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

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

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

Mr Egan Mr Lynn
Mr O'Grady Dr Pezzutti

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 8

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.16]: I move Government amendment No. 2 as circulated:

Page 4, clause 8. After line 14, insert:

(2) The schemes and programs listed in Schedule 1 (Additional commitments expenditure) are listed in order of priority and the order of payments out of the Funds in respect of those schemes and programs should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect that order of priority.

Page 2298

This amendment changes schedule 1, which the Committee will deal with later of course, by listing the additional commitments in order of priority, and spelling out that the order of payments should reflect that order of priority. I discussed this at some length in the second reading debate, and because members are probably anxious to go home I will not talk at length about it now.

As I explained when quoting the letter from the Minister for the Environment to members of the crossbenches, the Minister was unable to support the proposal they put up about removing certain items from schedule 1. The majority of them related to promises made prior to the election and the Government certainly has a clear mandate for them. After those discussions took place, the Minister agreed that the schedule should be ordered on a priority basis, and in particular that Bongil Bongil and North Ocean Shores should have the highest priority. Those specifics are in schedule 7, which we will come to, and this amendment provides that they be listed in order of priority rather than in no particular order.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.18]: As has been said earlier, there have obviously been negotiations about various aspects of this bill between the Government and some members of the crossbenches at different times. One of the disappointing things about the traditional relationship between governments and oppositions is that oppositions tend to have these sorts of things thrown at them at the last minute and their opportunity to negotiate or discuss or seek an explanation is somewhat limited.

The Minister for Land and Water Conservation, who is at the back of the Chamber, put his finger to his lips and gestured in what I would have thought was a fairly offensive manner, as if negotiation between the Government and the Opposition was something that was offensive. Minister, I would have thought that we would be given credit for being interested in finding out about your legislation and getting more detail, and responding to it intelligently.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: He is the most unpopular Minister in the other place.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I do not know about the other place, but that kind of action is certainly not part of the tradition of this House. This amendment lists a series of priority commitments. I was not aware that the purpose of the bill was to fund some areas but not others. As a representative of western Sydney, I suggest that the establishment of public facilities at, and ongoing management of, the Penrith Lakes state recreation area leads the priority list, while I am not comfortable with some other items listed on the schedule. However, extensive negotiations have taken place on the issue. The amendment does not radically change the nature and intent of the bill. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.20]: The Australian Democrats also support the amendment. There is a good reason for the priority list. There may not be enough money available for all the activities referred to, and a drafting error in the original legislation omitted Billinudgel nature reserve, but that is now second on the list. Bongil Bongil National Park is to be extended, because the previous Government failed to buy some important land to the west of the park, which left the park vulnerable. The then Minister had been repeatedly asked to acquire that land, which was relatively cheap. Land for the Billinudgel nature reserve is extremely important and sensitive coastal land, and is currently under an interim protection order.

The previous Government was half-hearted in its acquisition of that park and bought only a fraction of the area needed for a viable nature reserve. Going down the list, some items do not relate to nature conservation. That is why the most important nature conservation area is highest on the list and the areas least important in terms of nature conservation are lower down the list. However, some are extremely important programs, such as the lead remediation program and the establishment of facilities at Penrith Lakes regional park. Each is important, but they are probably in the optimum order when the money becomes available.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [10.22]: I refer to the incredibly wide shopping list of commitments for expenditure from this fund. The theme that the Opposition has pursued all along is that there simply is not enough money to meet the commitments that the Government is undertaking throughout the bill. I refer particularly to a contribution to the New South Wales and Commonwealth financial package for the Willandra Lakes region World Heritage property. This vexed and unconscionable act by the Government has devastated the lives of a number of people. Their access to compensation has been a protracted saga which has filled them with disillusionment, bitterness and anguish.

The declaration of Willandra Lakes, whatever its ultimate value, was taken capriciously and without any thought to processes that would be undertaken if such a project were contemplated now. For years the project has languished, with negotiations taking place about a management policy which would govern the existing land usage around the Willandra Lakes World Heritage area. In the meantime, owners of those properties have been cut off from access to any capacity to borrow money during the drought and during the collapse of the wool industry, and they have virtually been put into economic limbo. It is almost as though their rights as citizens of Australia have been suspended.

I am concerned that lead remediation, which vitally affects the health and welfare of many people in north Lake Macquarie, is low on the list. Not enough money is available for such things, and I am suspicious of the way the Government has presented this legislation. The Opposition intends to make
Page 2299
every effort to ensure that the bill is passed so that at least what is offered by the Government can be passed on to those who need it. At a later stage the Opposition will take up the case of Willandra Lakes and other areas which have a high priority demand for government funds.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.25]: In reference to the latter remarks of the Hon. D. F. Moppet, I did not refer to what the Minister for the Environment said about Willandra Lakes. Her letter referred to the urgent need to resolve the longstanding dispute about the Willandra Lakes World Heritage area - a dispute which the previous Government had seven years to resolve. The Hon. Pam Allan agreed that farmers have been disadvantaged as a result of the area being listed as a property of World Heritage significance. This Government intends to resolve the issue.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.26]: Call to Australia supports the amendments. The Executive Government usually decides the order of priority for such projects. There may be practical reasons to change the order of the projects. The amendment includes the words, "as far as is reasonably practicable", which gives the Government some flexibility. The Greens and the Democrats have once again indicated that they do not trust the Government and are trying to hogtie the Government down to the last detail.

The projects relate to the environment, to forests or to the restoration of foreshores, et cetera. It seems strange that the two matters that affect human beings - the north Lake Macquarie lead remediation program and the inner city lead study - are low on the list of priorities. This perhaps indicates the irrational attitude of the Greens and the Democrats, who put human beings at the bottom of the list.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [10.28]: I want to rebut the comments of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods, who inferred that in some way the previous Government had been dilatory in its attention to compensation and development of a management plan for the Willandra Lakes area. The honourable member should recognise that the nomination of the Willandra Lakes World Heritage area dates back to a previous Labor administration. If she researched it, she would agree that it was done with considerable haste to fit the election timetable. It was one of the first World Heritage nominations, if not the first. Many lessons have been learned, and those involved would not take the same approach again. However, it is a matter for the Federal Government to resolve. World Heritage is not confined to the statutes and responsibilities of the State of New South Wales. It has become a complex matter, involving the interests of the Aboriginal people. Negotiations were difficult, and the fact that they were not resolved is hardly the responsibility of the previous Government.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.30]: I ask Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile to read the title of the bill. It is the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill. That is why listed in schedule 1 are nature conservation priorities. The last ones obviously are not nature conservation priorities. Lead remediation is nothing to do with nature conservation. The enhancement of walking tracks on the north coast is the reverse of nature conservation. Establishment of public facilities at Penrith Lakes State Recreation Area is not nature conservation either. That is why they are in that order. The nature conservation priorities are at the top and the ones that -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith): Order! If honourable members would assist by keeping the noise level down in the Chamber, I am sure the task of Hansard would be much easier.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: As I was saying, it is not the forestry restructuring and human conservation bill; it is the Forestry Restructuring and Nature Conservation Bill - hence the priorities for nature conservation. Maybe Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile will finally realise that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 10

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [10.32]: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Before the honourable member proceeds I note that on the sheet on which the amendment is listed there are two amendments relating to clause 10 to be moved -

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I intend to seek leave to move them in globo.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Does the honourable member wish to seek leave of the Committee to move them in globo?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I was about to do that, Madam Chair. May I seek leave of the Committee to move -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I should have thought that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones had been a member of this Chamber for long enough to know that it is discourteous to interrupt the Chair. Does the member have something to say?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I seek leave of the Committee to move the amendments in globo, Madam Chair.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES, by leave: I move:

No. 1 Page 4, clause 10(2), lines 22-29. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(2) Grants under the Environmental Trusts Acts are permitted but only as follows:

Page 2300

(a) to schools under the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act 1990, up to a total of $0.080 million during each of the 5 financial years of the Trust under that Act beginning with the financial year current when this section commences,

(b) to community organisations under the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act 1990, up to a total of $0.850 million during each of the 5 financial years of the Trust under that Act beginning with the financial year current when this section commences,

(c) to community organisations under the Environmental Education Trust Act 1990, up to a total of $0.150 million during each of the 5 financial years of the Trust under that Act beginning with the financial year current when this section commences.

No. 2 Page 5, clause 10(3), lines 1-5. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(3) The grants referred to in subsection (2) can, despite section 10 of the Environmental Restoration and Rehabilitation Trust Act 1990 and section 10 of the Environmental Education Trust Act 1990, be made from capital of the Funds under those Acts and the provisions of section 11(1) and (3) of each of those Acts do not apply to those grants.

The intention of the amendments is to continue Environmental Education Trust grants of $0.150 million a year. Over the past couple of years the grants have provided valuable resource materials. The 1994 Environmental Education Trust grants provided grants, amongst others, to the C. B. Alexander Agricultural College for wetlands on farms; to the Department of School Education for the Our Coast Education program for primary schools - the Hon. Virginia Chadwick would know about that one; to Greening of Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, for education materials on sand dunes for schools, kindergarten to year 6; to the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales for the "Act Locally" do-it-yourself guide to environment protection; and to the Botanic Gardens for environmental education for isolated schools in New South Wales.

The 1995 Environmental Education Trust grants included grants to the Australian Association for Environmental Education for environmental education competencies, kindergarten to year 12; to the Australian Association for the Teaching of English for integrating environmental education into English teaching learning; to the Cape Byron Headland Trust for an education program for the environmental value of the Cape Byron Headland Trust; and to the Department of Land and Water Conservation for the frog watch program. Regrettably, we are losing our frogs. With that grant perhaps we will find out where they are going. There have been a number of very important grants from the Environmental Education Trust. I am pleased that the Government will support continuation of provision of $150,000 a year for five years for the grants.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.35]: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods said during the second reading debate that she was proud to be part of a government that was going to spend $20 million over the next five years to expand the national parks estate. I was part of a government that added $45 million each year to the National Parks and Wildlife Service budget for maintenance. We were able to double the budget in a single year without raiding the environmental trust funds. There were more than $5 million worth of programs under the environmental trust Acts, covering environmental education, environmental research and environmental restoration and rehabilitation. The money was provided for environmental involvement at the grassroots level in local areas. People could act globally and think globally. There were all sorts of projects - in schools, local government, caring for rivers, Landcare projects and so forth. I am disappointed that funding for the noble objectives within the community have been whittled down from $5 million to $180,000.

The Government has decided to devote the money instead to expanding national parks so that it can claim to have greater environmental credentials than the last Government. The previous Government doubled the budget of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and that level of funding would have continued, well and truly swamping the money the Labor Party is giving to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Labor Party is funding the National Parks and Wildlife Service by robbing the environmental trusts. We welcome the fact that the amendments of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones will add $150,000 a year for the next five years for the Environmental Education Trust project. We understand that the Government has been less than enthusiastic about supporting the amendments but we hope that it will do so. As the Opposition and, I presume, crossbench members will support the amendments there is not much point in the Government opposing this noble objective. Our only disappointment is that the money is not as much as was provided by the previous Government on these very important grassroots environmental projects.

The Hon. A. G. CORBETT [10.37]: Continuation of the grant even at the minimal level proposed has been one of my priorities in negotiations with the Government so I shall support the amendments. They will empower people, and they acknowledge the importance of local people and communities, including schools, being involved at a grassroots level in both renewing and engendering respect for the local and wider environment. I support the amendments and commend the Government for any shift it made during negotiations on them.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.38]: Call to Australia supports the amendments. As other speakers have said, they involve a relatively small amount but keep faith with the original objectives of the environmental trust Acts in establishing the
Page 2301
trusts. The bulk of the capital is being removed by the bill but we are pleased that the Government is agreeing to the provision of this level of funding. Some of the projects have been mentioned. We would like a list to be published of the groups receiving grants so that we can see that the money goes to what I would regard as genuine groups, not green fronts or Democrat fronts or anything else but genuine organisations which should be supported with the grants.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.39]: Following advice the Government took the view that, because it was hard to predict the capacity of the trusts to accommodate all commitments or what the final capacity would be, it would be cautious about continuation of the grants. However the Government will not oppose the amendments. As I said at the second reading stage, it is incorrect to suggest that the Government lacks commitment to environmental education. The work of the Department of School Education, the environmental education projects carried out by the Environment Protection Authority and the greening of schools grants give the lie to that.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan either misheard or was confused about what I said. I did not say that $20 million would be spent over the next four years. I said that under the Government the National Parks and Wildlife Service would spend $40 million over the next four years on acquisitions only. That is the biggest amount that has ever been spent on acquisitions. I am not sure where the honourable member got his figures. The amendment deals only with the environmental education fund, not the broader areas of acquisition to which the honourable member referred. The significance of the package is the incredible increase that the Government will make in the national park estate in its first year. In fact, the Government is adding in its first year more than the total area added by the coalition in its seven years in government.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [10.41]: As I tried to say by way of interjection, the claiming by the Government of credit for this provision as if it were meeting a responsibility to its conservation policy is similar to the trustees of Tutankhamen's tomb, having sold off all the artefacts, providing guided tours of the evacuated tomb to educate people about the value of the artefacts that had been sold off. As I said before, the trust funds have been all but misappropriated. The Government and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones have claimed that in some way they will achieve something by amending legislation that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones says is about restructuring of the forestry industry. The bill is in fact about disposition and dispersion of the environmental trust funds for certain diverse purposes, some of which relate to forestry restructuring. As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, the bill is a disgrace.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 12

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.42]: I move:

Page 6, clause 12, line 5. After "Act" insert "and of the reports referred to in section 11".

The amendment relates to the auditing of reports referred to in clause 11. One of the general complaints of the Opposition is that some of the definitions in the bill are loose. An attempt has been made to strengthen it a little by an amendment that would at least require the Minister for Land and Water Conservation to certify that expenditure has been incurred for the purposes of implementing a program designed to assist persons affected by government forest conservation initiatives. However, one is still left with the view that there is a fairly broad explanation as to how $60 million is likely to be spent between now and the year 2000. The Opposition has suggested that one means of at least trying to counter the problem of a fairly loose definition within the bill is to require a greater level of auditing.

Each Minister who spends funds under the bill is required to report to the Parliament on a six-monthly basis about expenditure details. However, there is no requirement for statements by Ministers in those reports to conform to the guidelines under the Public Finance and Audit Act. Ministers may say virtually anything. Given that the definitions in the Act are fairly broad, I suspect that some fairly loose explanation may be used as to what constitutes conservation and forest restructuring. It has been argued that the amendment will somehow double the amount of auditing required under the Act, because clause 12 requires that payments made from the funds will be audited. The Auditor-General will not require two audits of material that he has already audited. The amendment relates only to additional material that is added in the statements by the Ministers to the Parliament. The amendment is about making Ministers accountable for their actions. As ordinary members of Parliament we are not always able, because we are not in possession of the necessary data, to determine whether what Ministers tell the Parliament is true, but we know that the Auditor-General is in a position to ensure that those statements are true.

Undoubtedly honourable members will hear from Government members about how expensive and difficult this auditing will be. I simply remind members opposite of the sorts of things that they used to tell the former Government about expenditure of the environmental levy, about expenditure on the clean waterways program, and about expenditure under the 3 x 3 roads program and so on. Members opposite expected those expenditures to be audited by the Auditor-General. Indeed, the role of the Auditor-General was expanded monumentally in the previous Parliament. The Opposition expects that the amendment will lead to a small amount of extra work, but it is important to account for public funds, particularly public funds that are allocated specifically for the purpose of restructuring the forest industry under a bill with fairly loose definitions.

Page 2302

The previous amendment, which was moved by the Hon. I. Cohen, led to a fairly vigorous level of debate. That debate proved that funds allocated to this program are so limited that some people will miss out. The Opposition has made that claim from the outset. There are not sufficient funds in the environmental trusts. Taken with the matching funds that come from the Commonwealth Government, the money in the trusts will not be sufficient to fulfil the objectives of the legislation. Therefore, it is important to ensure that every dollar made available under the legislation goes to those who need it and fulfils the objectives of the bill. The Opposition is simply asking for an extra check. It will not be a particularly expensive check, although undoubtedly the Government will argue that matter. It is an extra check that will assist the Parliament in the scrutiny of this important program. The Opposition commends the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.48]: The Government opposes the amendment moved by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. The amendment will produce unnecessary duplication, and will achieve the exact opposite of what the honourable member seeks to achieve, that is, ensuring that every dollar goes to those who need it. If the Auditor-General were to make these proposed reports, the cost would come from the money in the trusts, which would achieve the reverse of what the honourable member claims will be achieved. Clause 11, which deals with the responsibility of Ministers to report on payments from the funds, is detailed and is onerous in its demands. It stresses that the reports must be tabled in both Houses. The reports must be made for each six-month period. Each report is due within three months of the end of the period to which it relates, and the reports are to give detailed breakdowns of expenditure. They must show how much was paid out of each fund and how much is referable to each scheme or program.

Ministers are required to report to Parliament in a prescribed way. The Government believes that those reports do not need to be checked by the Auditor-General. I understand that the Auditor-General said on radio today that his role is not to comment on policy; his role is to carry out the functions spelt out in clause 12. The Westminster system is based on the premise that Ministers will report to Parliament, and the Parliament ensures that Ministers are accountable. I do not believe that members of this House would want the direct responsibility and accountability of Ministers to the Parliament to be interfered with by the unnecessary imposition of Auditor-General's reports of details of expenditure that will have already been checked in the narrower financial sense by the Auditor-General. The amendment is unnecessary, and the Government opposes it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.51]: Call to Australia was concerned about the extra costs involved in carrying out the additional auditing. Obviously, all members support in principle the concepts of open government and disclosure. There seems to be sufficient provision for that in the legislation. I commend the Auditor-General for his diligence. I hope the Government continues to give him its full support.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.52]: The Opposition is somewhat disappointed, but not surprised, that the Government will not support this additional accountability. However, the record will show that the Government does not want this level of accountability. Although the reports will be tabled in Parliament, they will be amongst dozens of other tabled reports. The ability of members to check the reports will be somewhat limited. The Government has a difficult relationship with the Auditor-General, particularly because of remarks made by the Minister for Roads. The Opposition is not surprised that the Government does not support accountability. Of course, the Government will tell the Committee that the additional auditing will cost loads of money. That is not true. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods said that the amendment will lead to duplication. The Opposition is sure that the Auditor-General is clever enough to make sure that he does not audit the same material twice. There would, therefore, be no additional cost. The Opposition seeks only to have the funds expended by Ministers audited to ensure that such funds are expended in accordance with the objectives of the bill. The Opposition is disappointed by the attitude of the Government, but not surprised by it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.54]: The comments of the Hon. J. F. Ryan reminded me that I omitted to refer in my earlier remarks to the multitude of reports that are tabled in this House. If honourable members are concerned about some aspect of the expenditure the Parliament is able refer the matter to the Auditor-General for investigation. Our role has not been completely blocked. I am sure the Attorney General will give us his assurance that, if such action were necessary, the Government would facilitate it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [10.56]: I move the following Government amendment:

No. 3 Page 7, Schedule 1, lines 3-25. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Acquisition of land to extend Bongil Bongil National Park

Acquisition of land at North Ocean Shores for Billinudgel Nature Reserve

Acquisition of land to be dedicated as nature reserves

Development of inventories of urban bushland to assist with future planning for the protection of remnant urban vegetation

Management across government agencies of biodiversity surveys

Page 2303

Management of wild and scenic rivers

Establishment of initial capital infrastructure to enhance foreshores at Green Point, in connection with development of Lake Macquarie Regional Park

Management of Lake Macquarie foreshore as a Regional Park

Department of Land and Water Conservation

Contribution to New South Wales and Commonwealth financial package, Willandra Lakes Region World Heritage Property

Department of Health

Lead remediation program at North Lake Macquarie

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Acquisition of land for open space at Mt Riverview

Establishment of public facilities at, and ongoing management of, Penrith Lakes Regional Park

Enhancement of walking tracks on the north coast

I shall not say a great deal in relation to this amendment. Honourable members who spoke to Government amendment No. 2 debated some of the items contained in Schedule 1, which are now listed in order of priority. I do not believe there is any need to say anything further.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [10.56]: The Opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [10.57]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [10.57]: During debate at the Committee stage of the bill the Hon. Jan Burnswoods gave a number of undertakings. It was apparent that she was, in effect, leading in the debate for the Government. I appreciate that those undertakings were given by her in good faith. However, if undertakings are given on behalf of the Government they should be given by a Minister who is appropriately answerable to the House as a Minister of the Crown and is therefore able to accept responsibility on behalf of the Government if those undertakings are not adhered to. Should there ever be any court disputes over what has been put before the House, for the purpose of analysis the undertakings of a Minister are on the record. I ask the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, who has been in the Chamber throughout this debate and has heard the undertakings, to make an affirmation that those undertakings will be given by the Government. The Government will then be properly answerable.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [10.59]: To the extent that any statements or declarations made by the Hon. Jan Burnswoods could be construed as undertakings, I will adopt them and give them.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.


The Hon. R. D. DYER: (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.00]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [11.00]: I raise this evening what I believe is one of the saddest and most tragic cases that I have had the misfortune to deal with since becoming a member of this House over 11 years ago. I speak of the case of Mr Ernest Edward Greig, who is now under strict custody in the mental ward at Morisset Hospital. Mr Ernest Greig and his son, John Greig, are well known to me in my local area in the Hunter Valley. I have the full permission of the son, Mr John Greig, to make this statement.

Ernest Greig was born on 2 January 1914 in Paddington. His mother was Alfreda Fay Greig and, of great interest, his father's name was Norman Lindsay. I can provide a copy of his birth certificate which lists these facts and also that his father deserted the mother and child. He was surrendered for adoption and made a ward of the State until 14 April 1932. During this period, at age 10, Ernest Greig was sexually assaulted. Despite the difficulties of his early life Ernest married Vida Georgina Smith in 1938 in Scone. During the Second World War, like many members, he served with the Australian Army over a four-year period and fought in the Middle East and New Guinea.

After the war Mr Greig returned to Scone, worked as a builder and was recognised by everyone in the Upper Hunter as one of the finest builders in the trade. He became a highly respected member of his local community, was an active member of the Returned Services League and assisted in many of the community projects in Scone. He was a chartered member of Scone Lions Club and a justice of the peace. He and his wife successfully raised five children who are all respected members of the community. Unfortunately, as often happens - it may well happen to many of us - in later life Ernest developed dementia. He was referred to the aged care assessment team of the James Fletcher Hospital in Newcastle. His wife and children, sadly, were no longer able to take care of him.

Page 2304

On 17 June 1994 he was transferred to Morisset hospital and placed in a locked ward whilst awaiting assessment. It is appalling to note that in this ward all patients were put to bed at night naked from the waist down in beds covered in plastic sheets. On the third night of his stay Ernest Greig was discovered at one o'clock in the morning standing by his bed in which another of the 16 patients was lying dead - the man had been strangled. The police were called and subsequently Mr Ernest Greig was charged with murder.

I raise a number of important questions in regard to the investigations carried out in this case. Honourable members would appreciate that there were no witnesses to the crime and limited evidence was forthcoming. However, a transcript of the subsequent trial indicates that the police carried out their duties in a manner which, if I were generous and kind, I would describe as totally incompetent. The police failed to send many items for laboratory examination, including a pair of shorts found near the deceased and a plastic mattress protector, which were not fingerprinted or examined for blood. Despite the degree of violent force used, which was revealed after an autopsy on the body of the deceased, and despite the general disarray of the bed in which he was discovered, Mr Greig did not have any traces of blood on his clothes or any apparent injury.

It is also apparent from the trial transcript that the officer in charge of the investigation did not ascertain who may have held keys to the ward on that night. It was many hours before other detectives spoke to each other or to the patients in this particular ward. The officer in charge was unable to state whether the other patients were examined to determine whether they were injured in any way. By the time the other patients were interviewed, they were showered, dressed and had had their breakfast, and the detectives did not view the clothing worn by the patients during the night. In this case the Director of Public Prosecutions utilised the provisions of the Mental Health Act to obtain a finding of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, at a hearing in which limited evidence was brought forward.

Mr Greig is now back at Morisset Hospital under strict custody. Prior to the finding, his son John Greig obtained bail for his father, but since 12 October he has been unable to obtain approval for the appropriate care. At the hearing His Honour Justice Hunt encouraged the son John Greig to accompany his father from the court but insisted that they be transported by an official. Would the Attorney General please review the case and make an appeal under compassionate grounds? [Time expired.]


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.05]: I add to the statements made previously by the Hon. Ann Symonds and the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith about the sudden and very sad resignation of Alexandra Shehadie from the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. I worked with Alex during my time on the committee, and I know what a valuable, hard working, highly responsible and greatly competent research officer she was with that committee. I was delighted when I heard that she received the promotion she justly deserved to the position of director of the law and justice committee. It is a tragedy for this Parliament that, for whatever reason, Alex Shehadie felt that she could no longer continue with her duties and she felt forced to resign. She will be the greatest loss to the committees of the Legislative Council.

A few days ago Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said that he believed it was necessary for the full circumstances of her resignation to be ascertained. He believe that she should be given an apology, and that every effort should be made to persuade her to come back to her duties at Parliament House. The way the story has been explained to me, it will not be possible to persuade her to return. As far as I can make out, she was deeply distressed about what happened to her, not only because her committee was not getting the funding and staffing it needed, but also because she was apparently abused and verbally harassed by a member of this House. In those circumstances, she could not possibly answer that member in the terms in which she was being addressed. This is a very wrong use of power.

If people work as project directors, research officers and directors of committees, the fact that they are not elected members of this House does not make us their superiors - we work with them as equals. They are our support staff, and they do not deserve under any circumstances to be verbally or in any other way harassed. I am very sorry that Alex saw fit to resign. I too hope that an apology will be made to her. I sincerely hope that, maybe if not in the near future, at some time she will be persuaded to come back to work as a director of a committee of the Parliament. She has a very great talent and great good sense. She is extremely hard working, and she is the sort of person we cannot afford to lose.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [11.09]: I continue the submission offered earlier by the Hon. J. H. Jobling, who indicated that the son of Mr Ernest Greig, John Greig, had prior to the court determination obtained bail for his father, but since 12 October he has been unable to obtain approval for appropriate care for his father. At the hearing Justice Hunt encouraged John Greig to accompany his father from the court, but insisted that he be transported by an official. The police refused to allow John to accompany his father. Later the judge was informed of this and expressed his desire to take it up with the local police superintendent. I appeal to the Attorney General, whom I have always considered a most compassionate man, to
Page 2305
personally review this case and personally read the transcript of the hearing in order to offer some help to Mr Greig. I ask him to review this most tragic case and assist Mr Greig in his application for legal aid. I seek leave to table supporting documents that have been entrusted to me by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

The PRESIDENT: Order! What is the nature of the documents?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: They are court transcripts not released otherwise and details of a birth certificate mentioned by the Hon. J. H. Jobling in his speech.

The PRESIDENT: Order! What is meant by the comment "not released otherwise"?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: It has not been released to the public through the normal channels.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If the documents are not public transcripts, a question arises whether they should be released publicly if leave is granted in these circumstances. I suggest that the court would have had good reason for not releasing the documents to the public. I caution the House against granting leave.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On a point of order: I received the documents from John Greig, who is the son of Ernest Edward Greig. I have a statement from him giving me liberty to release these documents. The documents contain a Department of Community Services document, an old record that has been discovered in relation to birth records and extracts from the court hearing before Mr Justice Hunt, which may become available in due course. Those documents make clear the basis on which I raise this matter. Therefore, if the Attorney General is asked to deal with the matter, it will be clear why leave is sought for him to review this case. To those who have the opportunity of reading these documents - these are all that are available - the tragedy of the case will become apparent. I hand the documents to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services,
and Minister for Disability Services, who, with his legal training, may understand the reason I ask for them to be given to the Attorney General.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not for the Chair to grant or deny leave; it is for the House. I merely caution the House against granting leave.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On the point of order: if it is intended for the documents simply to be given to the Attorney General, there is no need to table them in the House. Otherwise, they become public documents.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: On the point of order: is it possible that documents tabled can have restricted access on application to you, Mr President, for release?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have been advised that there is precedent for restricted access at the President's discretion.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: On the point of order: my attitude, on behalf of the Government, is that it would be preferable for the documents to be tabled rather than incorporated in Hansard.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Further to the point of order: with due respect, could I request of the Hon. J. H. Jobling that he tables the document with restricted access and that it be released only at your discretion?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Further to the point of order: if that makes your task easier in determining the point of order, Mr President, I would accept the view of the Hon. J. R. Johnson.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: In those circumstances, I seek leave that the documents be tabled to be made available to members only at your discretion.

Leave granted.

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:14:42   :   Update this page