Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 29 May 1996, 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 any attempt to legalise euthanasia or assisted suicide be opposed and that the right to life be supported, received from Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.


Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.06]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Status of Children Bill is to improve the current system for determining a child's parentage which currently exists under the Artificial Conception Act 1984 and the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976. It is proposed to do this in several ways. First, by bringing the provisions of the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976 relating to parentage presumptions and parentage testing procedures into conformity with the Family Law Act 1975, by bringing those parentage presumptions which apply in relation to children born as a result of artificial conception procedures up to date with current medical technology, by incorporating the provisions of the Artificial Conception Act into the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976 and by making consequential amendments to a number of associated Acts. The bill will also promote consistency in registration of findings of parentage across Australia.

The Children (Equality of Status) Act provides a scheme whereby ex-nuptial children and children born within a marriage are treated identically for most legal purposes. In order to be able to establish a child's parentage with certainty, the Act allows certain presumptions to be made about the child's parentage. These presumptions assist courts to determine issues of parentage when there is no direct evidence of a child's parentage before the court. With the commencement of the Commonwealth Family Law (Amendment) Act 1987 the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia was enlarged to encompass proceedings not only relating to children born within a marriage, but also concerning the custody, guardianship, access and maintenance of ex-nuptial children. As a result, new evidentiary provisions relating to parentage were included in the Family Law Act.

Parentage presumptions contained in the Family Law Act apply in all proceedings taken under that Act and replace those presumptions which exist under the Children (Equality of Status) Act. Presumptions in the Children (Equality of Status) Act apply in all cases involving children who are subject to State child welfare laws and in all other civil proceedings. However, the presumptions in the Family Law Act are slightly different from those in the Children (Equality of Status) Act. Consequently, different presumptions could be made in different proceedings in relation to the same child. For example, in dealing with a probate matter in relation to which there is a question about a child's parentage, the Supreme Court of New South Wales could make a finding, by applying the presumptions in the Children (Equality of Status) Act, that person A is the father. The Family Court, in hearing a maintenance matter involving the same child, could, however, come to a different conclusion, based on the presumptions in the Family Law Act.

The situation becomes even more complex if a question of parentage has been determined applying Children (Equality of Status) Act presumptions before Family Law Act maintenance proceedings. In such cases the anomaly could arise that a person may be presumed to be a parent under the provisions of the Family Law Act which allow for the recognition of prior court decisions, yet that person could not be presumed to be the child's parent under other provisions of the Family Law Act. The difficulties arising from having different parentage presumptions in State and Commonwealth legislation was first considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, or SCAG, in September 1989. In order to achieve a degree of consistency between State and Commonwealth legislation, SCAG Ministers agreed, in June 1991, that the presumptions in the Children (Equality of Status) Act should be replaced by a set of model provisions. Legislation which complements the SCAG agreement at a Commonwealth level was recently enacted with the passing of the Commonwealth Family Law Reform Act 1995.

Other anomalies dealt with by the model provisions include the fact that, unlike the Family Law Act, the Children (Equality of Status) Act does not allow for the recognition of paternity acknowledgments and birth registrations which have not been executed under New South Wales law. Clause 3 of the bill enables birth registrations and paternity acknowledgments made under a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State, Territory or a prescribed overseas jurisdiction to be recognised in this State. Similarly, the Supreme Court is unable to recognise parentage determinations made by other Australian courts or courts of prescribed overseas
Page 1640
jurisdictions, or decisions of Federal courts including express findings of parentage, as well as findings that a court could not have made unless a particular person was the parent of a child. Under clause 3, the Supreme Court will now be able to do so.

In addition, the bill will allow presumptions about a child's parentage to be made in a broader range of circumstances, depending upon the circumstances in which the child is conceived. These include: whether the child is born to a married couple, whether the child can be said to be the product of cohabitation, whether there are relevant details contained in the child's registration of birth, whether the father has executed a paternity acknowledgment, where a State, Territory, Federal court or a court from a prescribed overseas jurisdiction has made a finding in relation to a child's parentage, and where the child is born as a result of a fertilisation procedure, such as through sperm or ovum donation. While there still exists the possibility that conflicting presumptions could be made about a child's parentage, the bill seeks to retain, but also to refine, the scheme created under the Artificial Conception Act for determining which presumptions should prevail.

In essence, all of the above presumptions, except for those relating to children conceived as a result of a fertilisation procedure, are rebuttable on the balance of probabilities - that is, evidence can be provided to a court to refute or disprove the presumption. In the event of this happening, it will be up to the Supreme Court to choose the presumption that is most likely to be correct. Where the child has been conceived as a result of sperm or ovum donation with the consent of a woman's husband or defacto spouse, the woman and her husband or defacto spouse are presumed conclusively to be the parents of that child. Presumptions made in this situation are irrebuttable - that is, they are not able to be refuted or disproved. Court findings which do not conflict with the presumptions made in relation to children conceived through fertilisation procedures will also be treated as irrebuttable. Such presumptions will prevail over any conflicting rebuttable presumption that has been made. In cases of conflict between a presumption arising from a court finding and a presumption arising from an artificial conception procedure, the presumption arising from the artificial conception procedure will prevail.

In order that the Register of Births in New South Wales can be kept up to date with such information, when the Supreme Court makes a declaration or annulment of a declaration concerning a child's parentage or orders that a paternity acknowledgment be annulled, the bill provides that a copy of the declaration or order shall be forwarded to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for inclusion in the register and in order to keep it up to date. The bill also resolves differences between the Family Court and the Supreme Court in relation to the types of parentage testing orders that can be made. Under section 69X of the Family Law Reform Act 1995 the court, in order to be able to establish a child's parentage, may require a person to submit to a medical procedure, provide a bodily sample or furnish information relevant to the person's medical or family history. Under the relevant provisions of the Children (Equality of Status) Act a person may only be required to provide a blood sample. Clause 27 of the bill will give to the Supreme Court the same powers currently exercised by the Family Court in relation to the making of orders concerning parentage tests.

The bill also provides for certain amendments to the provisions of the Children (Equality of Status) Act and the Artificial Conception Act to be made in order to bring up to date with current medical technology presumptions about the parentage of children conceived in this way. There appears no reason why parentage presumptions applying to children conceived as a result of fertilisation procedures should be contained in legislation separate from that relating to children generally. It is therefore proposed that the Artificial Conception Act be repealed and that all the provisions relating to parentage presumptions applying to children conceived by these means be incorporated into the Children (Equality of Status) Act. Moreover, at the time it was enacted, the Artificial Conception Act was concerned with overcoming the difficulties associated with determining the legal status of children born as a result of an artificial insemination procedure involving donor semen. Little consideration was given to the legal status of children born as a result of fertilisation procedures involving donor ova.

The definition of "fertilisation procedure" in the bill has therefore been broadened to include fertilisation procedures involving the use of both donor ovum and donor sperm, as well as the latest fertilisation procedures such as the zygote intra fallopian transfer, or ZIFT; gamete intra fallopian transfer, GIFT; or sperm microinjection methods which take place in other parts of a woman's body, not necessarily her womb. The definition has been drafted in such a way as to be wide enough to cover all children conceived as a result of fertilisation procedures. While the Artificial Conception Act deals conclusively with the issue of paternity, there are no equivalent provisions relating to maternity. All Australian jurisdictions, apart from New South Wales, currently provide that when a woman gives birth to a child following an artificial inception procedure using donated ova, the birth mother is presumed to be the mother of that child. In New South Wales the position of a child born from donor ova is unclear. In its report No. 58 entitled "In Vitro Fertilisation" the New South Wales Law Reform Commission recommended that this issue be clarified in favour of the birth mother.

Accordingly, clause 14 provides that when a woman undergoes a fertilisation procedure as a result of which she becomes pregnant, and the ovum used for the purposes of the fertilisation procedure
Page 1641
was taken from another woman, the woman shall be presumed to be the mother of any child born as a result of that pregnancy. The woman who produced the ovum for the purposes of the fertilisation procedure shall be treated as if she were not the mother of any child born as a result of that pregnancy. Apart from the above changes, the bill retains the substantive provisions of the Artificial Conception Act 1984 and the Children (Equality of Status) Act 1976. The bill also includes minor amendments to a number of other New South Wales Acts that will be affected by enactment of this bill. I commend the bill.

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


Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.


Debate resumed from 28 May.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [11.20]: Call to Australia is pleased to support the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Amendment Bill. The bill does not introduce the concept of periodic detention into the prison system; it was introduced in 1971, so it has been part of our judicial system for many years. The measure relates to offenders who break the law by committing minor offences for which it is unnecessary to impose full-time imprisonment but in relation to which a judge orders that any sentence be served by way of periodic detention, which is normally weekend detention served in a prison.

This is a valuable provision because it maintains the family unit and provides opportunities for the offender to remain in employment, thereby enabling the detainee to support the family unit. Prisoners sentenced to full-time imprisonment impose heavy cost burdens on the community - upwards of $50,000 per prisoner each year. The measure also provides the opportunity for offenders to undertake beneficial community work. It provides for prisoners who may be under some threat within the prison system to be transferred to periodic detention. Call to Australia supports the bill because it will strengthen rather than water down this area option. It will remove abuses that have been apparent in the past when offenders have sought to exploit those opportunities.

Offenders may be sentenced to a periodic detention ranging from three months to three years and the sentence is normally served by way of weekend detention at a periodic detention centre. If the detainee's progress is satisfactory, the detainee is then placed in what is known as stage two periodic detention, so that an overnight stay at a detention centre is not required. Periodic detention is part of the corrective services system and is a sentence of imprisonment. If the detainee fails to adhere to the conditions of the order, he or she faces the prospect of serving the remainder of his or her sentence by way of full-time imprisonment, and that acts as a strong deterrent to other offenders the subject of period detention orders. In 1994-95, 399 periodic detainees had their sentences converted to full-time imprisonment for non-compliance with the terms of periodic detention orders. When the system is abused the Government, albeit reluctantly, converts sentences to full-time imprisonment because the conditions of the orders have been breached and no other alternative is available.

As at 12 November, 1,481 offenders in New South Wales served sentences of periodic detention and by far the majority of these offenders attended at periodic detention centres in the week ending 12 November 1995 as required. The bill will tighten up those requirements to ensure that detainees fulfil their requirements under the law. It will introduce a new section 5AA into the Act which will require a sentencing court, when making an order for periodic detention, to make an order that the offender concerned submit to the taking of identifying particulars - in other words, to having his or her fingerprints and photograph taken.

The Attorney General has advised that the fingerprint records of periodic detainees will be held exclusively by the Department of Corrective Services and will not be entered on the national police fingerprint database, known as the automated fingerprint identification system. I cannot understand why that would pose a problem; it would have no adverse effect on the prisoner. It would, however, provide a more extensive fingerprint identification system so that if a prisoner reoffends - which one would hope would not happen - he or she would be identified by the information entered in the national police fingerprint database. Arguments opposing that proposal may have been lodged by the Privacy Committee and other groups which fear that the bill is going too far. I do not regard the entering of fingerprint details into the national police fingerprint database as a negative feature of the system.

The bill will amend section 21 of the Act to increase from two to six weeks the maximum period by which a sentence of periodic detention may be extended to penalise a periodic detainee for failure to report. Also, new section 20A will enable the Commissioner for Corrective Services, or his delegate, to direct that a detainee take leave of absence. At present, the power of correctional officers to send home a detainee who is under threat from his or her co-offenders is unclear. This amendment will clarify the issue by giving to correctional staff such a power.

The bill will further amend section 10 of the Act to enable staff to issue an order to each detainee covering a number of detention periods and stating the various approved registered places where the
Page 1642
detainee must work. Call to Australia is pleased that the provisions relating to medical certificates have been tightened. The bill will amend section 34 of the Act to allow for a regulation requiring a detainee to undergo a medical examination by a government medical officer if the department considers that such an examination is necessary. Such an examination would be conducted at the department's expense but in the detainee's own time. Clauses 32 to 38 of the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Regulation 1995 enable the department to test detainees for alcohol and drugs. That power has been strengthened also by this measure. The bill contains a number of positive features and Call to Australia is pleased to support it.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.27], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time

Schedule 1

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.28]: I move Government amendment 1:

Page 4, Schedule 1[4], line 17. Omit "second".

After this bill had passed through the Legislative Assembly a drafting error was identified in proposed new section 9(2A). The intention of the proposed section is simply to require a new detainee to report on the day after other detainees have reported so that the new detainee can participate in an induction program and the new detainee would still go home at the same time as other detainees leave. As the legislation stands a periodic detainee who attends periodic detention for the first time on, say, Saturday, has to remain at the periodic detention centre until 4.30 p.m. on Monday, rather than go home at the same time as other detainees at 4.30 p.m. on Sunday. The error can be corrected by deleting the word "second" from proposed new section 9(2A).

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [11.30]: The Attorney is quite correct: the amendment seeks to correct an error, and the Opposition supports it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.31], by leave: I move amendments 2 and 3 in globo:

Page 11, Schedule 1[23], lines 1-15. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 14, Schedule 1[31], line 14. Omit "[28]", insert instead "[27]".

New section 27A proposed by schedule 1 to the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Amendment Bill is designed to clarify rights of appeal in respect of cancellation of periodic detention orders. The Department of Corrective Services recently received advice from the Crown Advocate that the proposed section should be redrafted to take into account recent judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Parliamentary Counsel is drafting a new section. The purpose of proposed section 27A is simply to clarify existing law, not to change the law. The task of drafting an appropriate section is, however, proving quite complicated. Rather than hold up progress of the bill, I suggest that the proposed section 27A provision be omitted from the bill. When the wording of the section is finalised, the appropriate new section can be included in a new bill at a later time. Amendment 3 is consequential on a renumbering in the light of amendment 2.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [11.32]: The Opposition agrees with the Government. Quite clearly, the amendment tidies up the bill and clarifies a number of provisions. The Opposition supports both amendments.

Amendments 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) [11.33]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I take this opportunity at the third reading stage to deal with an omission. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question during the second reading but I omitted to provide a response to it. May I, for the record, indicate the answer to the question that was posed. The Government Medical Officer is a statutory officer. The Government Medical Officer can appoint other doctors to act on his or her behalf. The Department of Corrective Services understands that before making appointments the Government Medical Officer makes inquiries locally to determine whether suitably qualified persons are interested in taking on those responsibilities, checks their curriculum vitae, interviews them, and obtains a profile of the services that those persons can provide. The Government considers that the best way to prevent a periodic detainee fabricating illness is for the Government Medical Officer or that officer's nominee to re-examine suspect cases.

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) [11.34], on behalf of the Hon. J. W. Shaw: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Page 1643

This bill proposes to dissolve the Public Servant Housing Authority and transfer the assets, rights and liabilities of the dissolved authority to the Crown. In 1989 a review of public servant housing recommended that individual departments should become responsible for managing housing for their employees. Between 1990 and 1993 the authority proceeded to implement the recommendation of the review by transferring its assets and responsibilities to various departments. A Treasury direction was issued in June 1993 to wind up the authority and to transfer residual assets to the Crown.

The transfer of all assets, rights and liabilities of the authority to the Crown will not be subject to stamp duty. As well, the State of New South Wales will be recorded as the registered proprietor of any land which is transferred from the authority. The bill also will close the Public Servant Housing Authority account and transfer all money in that account to the Consolidated Fund. It will remove from office members of the authority and repeal the Public Servant Housing Authority Act 1975. The Public Servant Housing Authority has been inoperative for several years and no longer has management of housing for public servants. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.35]: The Opposition supports the bill because effectively it is the final chapter in a process that began with the review of public service housing in 1989 and is derived from the recommendations of that review. It is also the final chapter of the Public Servant Housing Authority. I commend the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.36], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its fulsome and wholehearted support for this measure.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Schedule 1

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [11.38], by leave: I move amendments 1 and 2 in globo:

Page 4, Schedule 1[1]. After line 33, insert:

(2) However, the Minister cannot give notice under subsection (1) of the publication of contaminated land planning guidelines unless:

(a) those guidelines are based (either wholly or partly) on draft contaminated land planning guidelines that have been publicly exhibited, for a period of at least 28 days, in such manner as may be directed by the Minister, and

(b) the Minister has considered any written submissions made within the specified public exhibition period in relation to those draft guidelines.

Page 6, Schedule 1[4], line 7. Omit "that section". Insert instead "subsection (1) of that section (whether or not the notification complied with subsection (2) of that section)".

After negotiations with the Opposition and the crossbench, it was agreed that the Government would move an amendment to allow the exhibition of changes to the contaminated land planning guidelines as directed by the Minister. It was agreed that the exhibition would last for a period of 28 days and that the Minister must consider any submissions made on the draft guidelines within the specified public exhibition period.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.41]: The Opposition supports the amendments, which strengthen the bill. The effect of the amendments will be that in the future, in terms of the development of planning guidelines, the Minister must put guidelines on exhibition for a period of 28 days. The Opposition believes that this will lead to more openness in the process and will encourage better community consultation and understanding of the issues involved with contaminated land. I am pleased that the Government has moved this amendment, because the Opposition would have done so otherwise.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.43]: The Government proposes to amend the bill to accommodate a concern raised by the Greens' office that the planning guidelines referred to in item [1], in relation to proposed section 145C, should be publicly exhibited prior to the future gazettal and adoption. The amendment provides for a minimal amount of public exhibition, being 28 days, with a requirement to consider any written submission on the draft guidelines. Although a minimal approach has been adopted, this process appears reasonable and is supported by the Greens.

Amendments agreed to.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.44]: I move:

Page 5, Schedule 1[1]. After line 11, insert:

145D Contaminated land registers

(1) Each council must maintain a register of contaminated land in respect of contaminated land within its area.

(2) A register is to include the following details in relation to any contaminated land:

(a) any previous use of the land of which the council is aware,

(b) any contamination identified by the council as affecting the land,

(c) any restrictions on the use of the land,

(d) any investigation or remediation carried out in respect of the contamination identified as affecting the land.

(3) A register must be available for public inspection at the principal office of the council during ordinary office hours.

Page 1644

(4) In this section, a reference to council includes a reference to:

(a) in relation to the area of Lord Howe Island - the Lord Howe Island Board, and

(b) in relation to areas of the State (other than Lord Howe Island) that are not within a local government area - the Western Lands Commissioner, and

(c) in relation to any area - an administrator with all or any of the functions of a local government body in respect of that area.

This amendment seeks to establish in each council area a register of contaminated lands which would contain information on any previous use of the land of which the council is aware, any contamination identified as affecting the land, any restrictions on the use of the land, and any investigations or remediation carried out on the land. The amendment also requires the council to make the register available for public inspection during ordinary office hours. Clearly, the use of section 149 in itself is not sufficient to communicate information on the issue of contaminated lands. This is identified in the planning guidelines at pages 24 and 25, which indicate that each council should also ensure that relevant details of the site history, the assessment and testing procedures, remediation, other management actions and results of testing are retained in council's file mapping system. This does not appear to have support but is a fundamental principle. If the public are losing certain rights through planning guidelines, council has a responsibility to provide a public and accountable register of contaminated lands.

The planning guidelines also indicate that, while such property information systems are essential, they may not be relied upon as the principal notation system for the State for a variety of reasons, including: individual property files do not operate as a uniform system throughout local government; council files are not automatically assessed during land transfer; and there is no statutory basis to the system. The guidelines note that council mapping systems and section 149 certificates are useful but are also limited. There is therefore a need for a system that meets the basic requirements of a register. The Government's green paper on the role of local government notes the need for the keeping of comprehensive records about land, which amounts to the information proposed as a contaminated lands register. I quote from the New South Wales green paper entitled "Managing Contaminated Land in New South Wales - proposal for a new legislative and administrative framework". Under item 7.2.2 at page 34, under the heading "Keeping comprehensive records about land", the green paper stated:

Councils already keep records about land within their respective local government areas. In addition to information about restrictions on the use of particular land, the information kept by councils might also include details of:

•historical land use of which the council may be aware

•any contamination identified as affecting the land

• any investigation or remediation carried out in respect of contamination identified as affecting the land

Councils already provide information under section 149 of the EP&A Act and they may be able to use this mechanism, or a similar mechanism which might be introduced under that Act, to record more detailed information about contaminated land.

The proposals will provide statutory protection to ensure that information about contaminated land provided in good faith in relation to prescribed matters will not expose the council to liability.

I commend my amendment to honourable members with a sense of urgency. A complete and authoritative contaminated land register is of essential relevance to the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [11.50]: The Australian Democrats believe that a register should be established, and that is why we support the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. The establishment of a register is important not least because it would be an extremely useful research tool for epidemiologists in future years. With a register, epidemiologists will be able to compare disease and ill-health statistics from people living on or near contaminated and former industrial sites against those who do not live in such areas. I cannot believe that the proposed amendment would be as onerous as some have suggested. I am certain that even the least advanced council in this State would have an old steam-driven 286 computer upon which it could store the relevant information.

As the Hon. I. Cohen has said, the matter of council databases is discussed on page 16 of the Government's green paper. At the time the green paper was released the establishment of a register was believed to be a necessary measure. I do not believe, either, that it would stretch the budget of the Environment Protection Authority too far to maintain a central database so that councils could transmit their information to the EPA, and I say that in the knowledge that councils already provide information under section 149 of the Environment Protection Authority Act. Perhaps the EPA could contract out the maintenance of such a database by an organisation such as the National Toxics Network, which has already produced a community information system that was developed by bioregion computer mapping and research. The National Toxics Network receives no government funding and might well be in a position to undertake such a project. The network has identified many thousands of contaminated sites across Australia.

I cannot accept the Government's argument that local councils and the Department of Agriculture already have the relevant information. The Department of Agriculture cannot possibly have information on the number of contaminated sites on individual properties all over New South Wales because many of those sites may not be known even to the current owners of the properties. Certainly if councils do have such information it is incomprehensible that what happened at Armidale could ever have been allowed to happen. At Armidale the Koppers log factory, which had treated logs with arsenic, closed down and the land
Page 1645
was rezoned by the Armidale City Council for residential land, with no mention to the developer that the land was contaminated. The contamination was never cleared up yet people in good faith bought houses on the land, subsequently discovering that contamination was coming up through the soil and that it was not possible for them to allow their children to play in their own backyard. Eventually the whole development - a whole street - had to be evacuated and people had to be compensated, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Obviously, the Armidale City Council had no register that the land was contaminated, but still it must have been extraordinarily lax. Surely some council officers must have known about the previous use of the land. Councils now have to be forced to keep proper registers, which must be collated by the Environment Protection Authority. The amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen attempts to make that a provision in the legislation. My view is that unless this provision is included in the bill, the legislation will be a toothless token - it will be of no value and we shall not progress. I place on the public record that very important work has been done by the National Toxics Network. I make particular mention of the work done by the network's coordinator, Marianne Grinter. The network has carried out magnificent work in identifying and cleaning up cattle tick dip sites. The insertion of this provision in the bill would mean that the network could assist the Government and the EPA in identifying further contaminated land. It is possible for the work to be done in a proper manner and for councils to collate the information and pass it on to the EPA. For those reasons, the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen has to be supported.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.56]: I strongly support the Greens' amendment. I draw to the attention of the Government the ever-present and unaddressed problem of contaminated cattle tick dip sites, a problem I have been working on for a number of years. I have been working with Marianne Grinter, particularly on the north coast, and have made representations to both this Government and previous governments in an effort to instigate some sort of government action on the issue and have the problem resolved. However, the only form of government action on the issue appears to be in the form of refusing to accept liability and failing to arrange for compensation by the operators for the owners of such sites.

For example, even within the recently published New South Wales Government green paper on managing contaminated land in New South Wales, which offers proposals for a new legislative and administrative framework, the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority can direct an action party - either the polluter or the controller, that is, the owner, occupier or mortgagee in possession - to take action to investigate and remediate any contamination on their land, for which they shall be held liable, while the controller is left to recover the costs involved, if possible, from the polluter. Only in cases in which the parties involved cannot be identified or cannot afford to pay will public funds be used.

It is clear that such actions are unacceptable to the public, and any future failure to adequately address the problem shall only result in its magnification and therefore extra expense in any eventual remediation and compensation. The dimensions of cattle tick dip site contamination in New South Wales are significant and expansive and will not be dissipated by our ignoring them. There are approximately 1,600 cattle tick dip sites in New South Wales, extending from Taree to the Queensland border and inland to Tenterfield. Of those 1,600 sites it is estimated that only 1,041 are still in operation, while 1,416 are considered to be contaminated with arsenic, 1,392 are considered to be contaminated with DDT, and 1,281 are considered to be contaminated with both.

Arsenic compounds, inorganic chemicals, occurring naturally, which are classified as human carcinogens, were widely used as tickicide to control cattle ticks in this State from 1895 to 1955, when DDT, which is known to be toxic to fish, birds, mammals and humans, bioaccumulates - that is, it accumulates in animal fatty tissue - and biomagnifies - that is, it increases in concentration with movement up the food chain - was introduced and used up until 1962. Arsenic and DDT contamination at dip sites occurs mainly around the dip bath and draining bed. However, DDT is also found spread over yards and/or in disposal pits adjacent to dips. As a result, and due to the persistence of arsenic and DDT as chemicals, the residue levels of such soils are extremely high, that is, up to 21,000 milligrams per kilogram and 100,000 milligrams per kilogram respectively, which levels are well over the present recommended interim human health investigation thresholds of 20 milligrams per kilogram and 50 milligrams per kilogram. The levels are 1,050 and 2,000 times the recommended thresholds.

In addition, while the average area of a dip site is approximately only 1,250 square metres, the contamination resulting from each one may spread over an area as large as 6,000 square metres if it is located on a slope. However, while it is known that broad-acre low concentration use of chemicals such as arsenic and DDT causes environmental problems, the actual proportions of cattle tick dip site contamination in New South Wales are not yet known. Cattle tick dip sites, with their high levels of arsenic and DDT contamination, do however have the potential to pose very significant environmental risks, and those risks are being vastly extended to humans because of rapid population growth in north-eastern New South Wales. In particular, at present 41 houses and a number of recreational areas and community facilities are located on or immediately adjacent to former dip sites. As a result, high residue levels of arsenic and
Page 1646
DDT have been detected in backyards and under gardens, lawns, foundations and fence lines, and concerns over health effects and possible negative impacts on property and resale values have emerged.

While there is no practical technology in Australia for the on-site extraction of arsenic and DDT from soil - nor can such soils be exported for destruction by high temperature incineration overseas - other remedies and controls are available which range in cost and effectiveness: for example, vertical and horizontal barriers, temporary on-site and collective off-site storage with cost ranging from $5,000 to $250,000 per site. I would like to put more details on the record but as I know that it costs $500 a minute to take up the time of the House I will make my speech on the amendment short. Suffice it to say that the problem of the cattle tick dip sites, particularly in northern New South Wales, has not been adequately addressed. I hope the Government will consider the issue seriously.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [12.02]: The Government opposes the amendment moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. I am not sure to what extent the remarks just made to the Committee by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones are relevant; I might have been somewhat generous in not raising a point of order. In the Government's view it is not appropriate for the bill to require councils to maintain contaminated land registers. That is fundamentally not the purpose of the bill. There are existing mechanisms for the gathering, recording and dissemination of information regarding land contamination which are emphasised in the planning guidelines.

First, chapter 4 of the planning guidelines deals with mapping, recording, notation and notification mechanisms. They record factual historical land use information and indicate when a precautionary approach is necessary. In addition, an important existing mechanism is the section 149 certificate, which is part of every contract for sale of land in this State. The planning guidelines highlight issues and information to be included in the section 149(2) and 149(5) certificates. The creation of shared databases between councils and government departments supports the philosophy behind registers. However, databases are only one mechanism in the broader context of the sophisticated land information systems which are currently operating. The Government will further clarify the issue of site-specific information as part of the response to the Environment Protection Authority's recently released public consultation document entitled "Managing Contaminated Land in New South Wales: Proposals for a New Legislative and Administrative Framework". For those reasons, which I have stated briefly, the Government opposes the amendment.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [12.05]: The Opposition also opposes the amendment, not because it opposes in principle the concept of a land register but in part because of concern at the way in which the amendment has been framed in the context of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to prevent councils being liable if they follow certain planning guidelines which have been provided by the Department of Planning. Those guidelines have been worked out over a considerable period as a response in principle to the Armidale case and other problems that came to light. A period of broad consultation preceded preparation of the guidelines. Separate issues are involved with the register of contaminated lands and the section 149 certificates.

Amending the bill to provide for a contaminated land register is not the way to solve the problems. The bill was introduced in December last year after extensive consultation with local government. The Local Government and Shires Associations published clear advice in a circular to local councils about what would happen following passage of the bill. The bill provides a cover from liability to councils, dating from when the bill was introduced. Notwithstanding that, the Greens approached me in April - when the bill was to be brought to this Chamber - with some suggested amendments. While this amendment has some validity, the Opposition cannot accept that making good law results from the addition of bits and pieces to bills. The introduction of the proposed land register would require consultation with the Department of Planning, the Environment Protection Authority and local government to reach agreement. A reason for granting councils freedom from liability is the lack of adequate information available. Councils are required to take a step-by-step approach. It would be far better if government agencies and local government established a shared database.

As I said at the second reading stage, the Auditor-General referred to the poor section 149 certificates of many councils. He identified Albury and Coffs Harbour councils as examples of best practice for other councils to follow. Contaminated land is a major problem because of the lack of information recorded. New South Wales does not even have a system of registered auditors, people appropriate to examine contaminated land. There is a lack of specialists available for councils to turn to for advice. The amendment would stretch the provisions of the bill further than they are intended to go. That is not to say that at some stage in the near future land registers should not be considered as part of the system for broadly addressing the problem of contaminated land. But this is not something to be done in isolation from the EPA and without full consultation with local government associations and councils.

The Greens approached me at the last minute when the bill was to be debated last month to seek help in having amendments accepted. I criticise
Page 1647
governments when they do not consult and I equally criticise crossbench members in this regard. It is not a question of having a good idea and assuming that members of all parties will adopt it; all players in the game, including local government, should be part of the process of consultation. The Department of Planning has done the right thing in its preparation of planning guidelines. As I said, I do not have an objection to a land register per se, but there should be greater evidence of input from the EPA and local government to this proposal. In the not too distant future, as part of the community's broad recognition of problems with contaminated land, a register may be necessary. At that time the Opposition may be more than happy to support an amendment, or indeed to support the Government, subject to provisions of any such bill. The Opposition does not oppose this amendment in principle but opposes the way it came to be brought before the Committee. The Opposition does not consider it appropriate to include in the bill at this time a provision requiring the keeping of a register. The Opposition would prefer greater consultation across the various fields of Government for the preparation of a better system of dealing with contaminated land.

The Hon. I. COHEN [12.10]: I thank the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for their strong support of this amendment by the Greens. I thank the Hon. Patricia Forsythe for her in-principle support of the amendment. The Greens may be out of step with some levels of bureaucracy, but are certainly in step with the general community. For a long time members of the community have asked for a register of contaminated land. I advise the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that information is available to show that members of community groups are concerned about the lack of a register. Marianne Grinter of the Toxic Action Network was mentioned by two members. She is a member of a group that has industriously and laboriously developed a network throughout Australia. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones alluded to tick dip sites in country areas, as well as 7,000 industrial sites, which need to be registered. This has been a catchcry in the community for a number of years. Staff from my office approached honourable members, including the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, on this issue. The debate has been ongoing within the green movement for many years. It is essential to have a register of contaminated sites. I strongly recommend the amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Corbett Tellers,
Ms Kirkby Mr Cohen
Mr Jones

Mrs Arena Mr Macdonald
Mr Bull Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Moppett
Ms Burnswoods Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Chadwick Mr Primrose
Mr Dyer Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Ms Saffin
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Gay Mr Shaw
Mrs Isaksen Ms Staunton
Mr Jobling Mrs Symonds
Mr Johnson Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Kersten Mr Obeid
Mr Lynn Mr Tingle

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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) [12.21]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill 1996 provides for a widening of the appointment eligibility criteria for the position of senior chairperson of the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal - GREAT. Let me make it clear at the outset that we on this side of the House regard this proposed legislation as anything but controversial. On this score I must state that I certainly welcomed the stance taken by the Opposition in not opposing the bill's passage in the other place. I shall briefly explain the bill's rationale so that all honourable members of this House may see that its policy is both timely and practical.

The GREAT is entrusted under a 1980 Act with the hearing of appeals against promotion and disciplinary decisions involving Public Sector Management Act employees and teaching and other Crown-employed personnel, together with police "hurt on duty" matters. The former Government since 1989 allowed the position of GREAT senior chairperson to be filled on an acting basis by one of the tribunal's chairpersons. This Government believes that the office demands a substantive appointment in the interests of a proper recognition being signalled of the role and independence of the GREAT. The independence of the GREAT may indeed be alleged to be fettered by having its senior chairperson appointed for continually renewed short terms. This practice must cease.

Page 1648

However, whilst the Government wants to correct this present unsatisfactory situation regarding the GREAT senior chairperson, it finds that it is hamstrung by a restrictive statutory provision. The 1980 parent Act currently provides that a person is qualified to be appointed as the tribunal senior chairperson if he or she is a judge of the Supreme Court or Industrial Court of New South Wales and has not attained the age of 70 years. The Government firmly believes that the possession of judicial office is too restrictive for the senior chairperson position. In short, it unduly limits the pool of potential appointees. Given that the senior chairperson determines general procedural matters relating to the conduct of tribunal business and assists chairpersons in deciding questions of law, it must be accepted that legal experience is an essential requirement for satisfactory performance in the position.

This is especially so when one has regard to the fact that appeals from the GREAT on questions of law presently lie to the Supreme Court. Whilst suitable legal experience must be considered as necessary for the position, judicial experience should not be a mandatory requirement. By way of illustration I emphasise that the appointment eligibility criteria for judges of the Supreme Court, District Court and Industrial Court permit the selection of a person who is a legal practitioner of at least 7 years standing. Accordingly, the bill proposes that a person is to be qualified for appointment as the GREAT senior chairperson if he or she holds or has held judicial office, within the meaning of the Constitution Act 1902, or is a legal practitioner of at least 7 years standing. This provision clearly covers current and past New South Wales judges and magistrates, together with the possibility of the appointment of a suitable person having a non-judicial background.

The position of the GREAT senior chairperson will be the subject of advertisement and merit filling based upon applicants' satisfaction of stated detailed qualifications. I assure the House that this Government's policy of open, merit competition for public employment vacancies will be adhered to. I conclude by informing honourable members that the remainder of the bill's provisions are consequential and minor in nature. I would, however, draw attention to the bill's proposed removal from the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal Act of the age stipulation of 70 years regulating the appointment and retirement of the senior chairperson. These existing statutory provisions offend against the Anti-Discrimination Act provisions relating to age and compulsory retirement. The bill before the House is, as I said earlier, policy wise, practical and timely.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [12.27]: The Opposition believes that the bill is a timely amendment and that it clarifies a number of matters. Certainly the widening of the class of persons eligible to be appointed as senior chairperson of the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal is desirable. Equally desirable is the removal of age limits imposed on senior chairpersons who are the holders of judicial office, as explained by the Attorney General. The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.28]: Call to Australia supports the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal Amendment Bill. It is a machinery bill which will widen the class of persons eligible for appointment as senior chairperson of the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal, and remove age limits presently imposed on the holder of that office. Our only concern - and we assume that the Government is aware of it - is that in widening the class of persons eligible to be the senior chairperson or chairman of the tribunal, the Government has gone further than merely stipulating that a barrister will be eligible: the effect of this amending legislation would be to make eligible a legal practitioner or a person qualified to be admitted as a legal practitioner. On my understanding, that would apply to a person who has never actually practised law but who may have the appropriate legal qualifications. Appeals made to such a tribunal are of a sensitive nature and I urge the Government to make sure that a person who is merely qualified to be admitted as a legal practitioner makes up for lack of practical legal experience by having other experience so that he or she can perform the role of chairperson of the tribunal. Otherwise that person may alienate those appearing before the tribunal who may have legitimate concerns and who may wish to have overturned some action that has affected his or her career. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [12.29], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Bill read a third time.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [12.31]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The general objective of this bill is to permit a slight alteration to the existing legislative requirement for the presentation of personal cheques
Page 1649
from patrons of the Sydney Harbour Casino. The bill seeks to achieve this objective by ensuring that cheques paid into a patron's deposit account with the Sydney casino operator are banked within 20 working days if the cheques are drawn on an account located outside Australia, banked within 10 working days if each cheque is for $5,000 or more and is drawn on an account located in Australia, or banked within one working day in all other cases.

Section 74 of the Casino Control Act prohibits the extension of credit to a patron of the Sydney Harbour Casino. Given that problem gamblers may seek to borrow money for gambling, a restriction on credit has always been considered important. It is customary for casino operators to accept cheques from patrons. The Act reflects this practice by allowing the Sydney casino operator to establish for a patron a deposit account to which may be credited cash, a personal cheque or a travellers cheque. Chip purchase vouchers may then be debited against the patron's deposit account. Some of the advantages of a credit restriction are lost if cheques are allowed to be cashed - if there is no money to cover the cheque, in practical terms credit will have been given.

However, the Act addresses this potential problem in three ways. First, the casino operator is required to bank a cheque accepted from a patron within one business day after it is accepted. Second, the operator is specifically prohibited from accepting post-dated cheques or cheques from persons whose previous cheques were not met on presentation to a bank within one working day. Third, the operator may not agree to the redemption of a cheque accepted from a patron for the purpose of avoiding the obligation to bank the cheque within one business day.

As a restriction on general domestic patrons chasing wins, which is common in some areas of gambling, the one-day cheque presentation requirement is an effective means of preventing patrons who can least afford to gamble from gaining de facto credit. However, as a means of permitting the Sydney casino operator to attract high-stakes domestic and international patrons, the current restriction means that the Sydney Harbour Casino is uncompetitive in these limited, but potentially lucrative, markets. The Government has determined that there are no commercial or public-interest reasons for a one-day cheque presentation requirement applying to premium domestic and international patrons of the Sydney Harbour Casino.

In seeking to introduce this change, it should be appreciated that the bill will not interfere with the current arrangements whereby all the risks of a dishonoured cheque would rest with the casino operator. In other words, the State cannot be the loser. The Government will not be affected by any bad debts because the gaming operations funded by those debts will still be included in the calculation of the casino duty and community benefit levy payable to the Government.

The bill will preserve the status quo for cheques of less than $5,000 in the case of patrons without Australian cheque accounts. On the one hand, this may have the effect of patrons writing cheques for $5,000 or more, simply to take advantage of available cheque presentation time frames. On the other hand, it is argued that writing a cheque for $5,000 or more will make many patrons think carefully about their capacity to afford a cheque of that value - which is just as it should be. It must also be borne in mind that the Sydney casino operator is unlikely to accept a cheque from a person without first establishing whether the person has sufficient available assets to meet the amount of the cheque.

As patrons will be required to establish a rating with the casino operator prior to gambling, the potential for a general patron to cash a cheque for chasing wins is greatly diminished. In the Government's view this is an important public interest safeguard. The new provisions will not apply to cheques accepted by the casino before the commencement of the proposed amendments - except that electronic funds transfer redemption will be allowed for cheques that have already been accepted.

The bill will allow electronic funds transfer as an additional means by which cheques can be redeemed by a patron. Currently this can be done by cash or cheque, including a travellers cheque, or a combination of the three. While the proposed amendments essentially will preserve the status quo for the receipt of cheques by the casino operator, they will also bring the commercial operation of the Sydney Harbour Casino more into line with other casinos around Australia. However, I stress that the proposed increases in the cheque-cashing time frame are still well below the limits set by other casinos in Australia and overseas. The bill provides benefits for important domestic and international casino visitors while, at the same time, includes appropriate safeguards to discourage those who cannot afford large wagers. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.37]: The Opposition is not opposed to the Casino Control Amendment Bill; in fact, the Opposition supports it. The bill will enable the Sydney Harbour Casino to operate more competitively with its counterparts in other States. It will provide a means for the casino to attract high-stakes domestic and international patrons. The current restrictions have meant that the Sydney Harbour Casino was unable to compete in the limited, but potentially lucrative, market of high-stake international patrons. The legislation will alter time frames within which cheques have to be paid and drawn on. Cheques drawn on an account located outside Australia must be banked within 20 working days; cheques for $5,000 or more drawn on an account located in Australia must be banked within 10 working days; and all other cheques must be banked within one working day. This simple
Page 1650
legislation will allow the Sydney Harbour Casino to be more competitive, and the Opposition supports that measure. For some time other States of Australia and countries around the world have enjoyed the form of gambling now provided by the Sydney Harbour Casino. Visiting a casino is not my favourite pastime, though it is for many people. Obviously many visitors to Sydney enjoy the experience of gambling in an Australian casino, and for those visitors appropriate facilities should be made available. The new developments in the permanent casino are ahead of schedule and will be finished earlier than expected. That will assist the Sydney Harbour Casino to be more competitive with other casinos, particularly the Crown casino in Melbourne, which is moving into permanent quarters on the banks of the Yarra River. With those few remarks, the Opposition expresses its willing support for these measures, which will make the Sydney casino more competitive with its counterparts throughout Australia.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [12.40]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I oppose the Casino Control Amendment (Cheques) Bill. As has already been pointed out, the object of the bill is to amend the Casino Control Act 1992 to extend the time within which the Sydney Harbour Casino is required to bank certain cheques paid into a patron's deposit account held by the casino. The bill also seeks to amend the 1992 Act to allow patrons to redeem a cheque by electronic funds transfer. I have been informed that it is customary for casino operators to accept cheques from patrons. The current Act allows the Sydney casino operator to establish for a patron a deposit account to which may be credited cash, a personal cheque or a traveller's cheque. The patron's chip purchase is then debited against that account.

The bill seeks to amend casino control to require the presentation of personal cheques from casino patrons in the follow manner: first, cheques from approved international patrons are to be banked within 20 business days when they are drawn on an account located outside Australia; second, cheques from approved international patrons of about $5,000 in value are to be banked within 10 business days when they are drawn on an account located in Australia; and, third, all other cheques are to be banked within one business day, a provision which accords with the current provisions in the Act for all cheques.

I am informed that there are some checks and balances already in place. For example, section 74 of the Casino Control Act prohibits the extension of credit to a patron of the Sydney casino. Given the problem that gamblers may seek to borrow money for gambling, a restriction on credit obviously is vital. Further, it should be noted that casino patrons will be required to establish a rating with the casino operator prior to gambling, therefore diminishing the potential for a general patron to cash a cheque in an attempt to chase wins. This also is an important public interest safeguard that has been taken into account.

However, while I realise that those safeguards do exist, I would like the House to reflect on the myriad social problems that gambling presents. Indeed, the only purpose of these amendments is to permit the Sydney casino to attract high-stakes gamblers and international patrons by means which are not at present available because of the current restrictions. The only reason that honourable members are debating these amendments now is simply to try to get more high rollers into the Sydney casino.

Although the bill is aimed at attracting international high-stakes gamblers, safeguards are in place in respect of local gamblers. Regrettably, that does not alleviate my concerns. I realise that I am going over old ground, but I would like to read an extract from the submission by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and the New South Wales Council of Churches to the New South Wales Government inquiry into the establishment and operation of legal casinos. I will quote from page 2 of that document and from a passage under the heading "Social Factors".

The PRESIDENT: Order! Is this document publicly available?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I believe it is.

The PRESIDENT: I hope the honourable member will not quote too extensively from it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I will not quote too extensively from it, only enough to make my point. Under that heading the submission stated:

It is obvious the economic benefits the government believes it can obtain from casinos have led it to ignore other factors such as gambling's destructive effects on society. These effects are already evident and should not be complicated or multiplied.

Some of these effects result from pathological gambling and involve chronic preoccupation with the urge to gamble, gambling behaviour beyond the individual's control, a psychological and emotional dependence on gambling, and loss of control leading to severe problems in the areas of personal, marital, legal, social and financial functioning.

The significance of the evidence of the socially destructive effects of pathological gambling is magnified when it is considered that the occurrence of pathological gambling rises in association with increasing opportunities for legally sanctioned gambling.

Later on the report points out what already has happened in New South Wales and Australia because of the increased opportunity for people to gamble. As my last quote from the document, I refer to page 8:

. . . the financial and human costs of uncontrolled gambling are staggering:

- The average indebtedness of 352 callers who responded to a Salvation Army request for information on compulsive gamblers was $20,860.

- In the workplace compulsive gamblers may function at only 50 per cent efficiency.

Page 1651

- Gambling is seen as the catalyst for a high percentage of fraud, corruption, confidence tricks and other crime.

- Fifty per cent of male pathological gamblers require marital therapy. Wives complain of stress and are forced to borrow to pay for basic needs. Forty seven per cent of wives report feeling depressed and 14 per cent attempt suicide.

- Results of a survey of Gamblers Anonymous groups in Victoria show that the annual cost in terms of lost productivity to the nation's employers exceeds $2 million. The average amount stolen from employers per compulsive gambler was more than $8,700. Up to 34 per cent of prisoners in Western Australian jails have been found to be problem gamblers. Of those 75 per cent had committed robbery or some other form of theft.

- With the establishment of a casino in Darwin financial assistance to needy families trebled in four years, breaking and entering offences doubled and larceny offences nearly doubled.

- Jim Connolly, secretary of the National Council of Compulsive Gamblers, said Sydney's Credit Line last year received 777 gambling-related phone calls and counselled 309 clients. Credit Line's Betty Weule has said, "The effects of individual debt problems and financial over-commitments go far beyond the heartbreak and personal disaster of those in difficulty. When the problems become severe they become social problems - problems which affect the whole community. Concern over debt can affect a family's health and solidarity. It is being increasingly recognised as a major factor in the cause of divorce and a main issue of friction in the home."

- In 1988 Lifeline Gold Coast said workload had increased ten per cent since the casino opened. This was in the form of individual and marital counselling related to gambling and welfare assistance requests.

When I contributed to debate on the Casino Authority Bill I put on the public record that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and I agreed on few things, but we are totally in agreement on gambling. At that time I made it clear that I was opposed to the Sydney casino and said I did not believe it would increase government revenue. That assertion has been proved to be right. The Sydney casino, amazingly, is losing money. This is probably the only city in the world that has a casino that is losing money! The reason the casino is losing money is that New South Wales has myriad games and activities on which people can gamble. Sydney has more poker machines than other cities throughout the world, with the exception of perhaps Las Vegas and Atlanta City. We have FootyTAB, Lotto, Scratch Lotto, harness racing, greyhound racing and horseracing.

There is a variety of areas in which people with a gambling streak can gamble to their heart's content. Yet, despite all this we had to introduce a casino - just to be on a par with Queensland, Darwin, Alice Springs and Hobart. Our casino is losing money. If it was not losing money, the Government would never have introduced this bill. John Hatton, the former member for South Coast, spent a considerable period in the United States of America surveying gambling outlets. The results of his study parallel the matters referred to in this document submitted by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and the New South Wales Council of Churches. It has been proved that when a casino is introduced to a city there is an increase in social problems, marital disharmony, family breakdown and petty crime. The Sydney casino does not serve any good or useful purpose. For those reasons I oppose the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.52]: I support the comments of the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby. Casinos are a cancer in society. As the social impact of casinos, particularly on families, has been realised there is a strong move in the United States against casinos. I have been to casinos in Las Vegas, Monte Carlo, London, Sydney, Beirut and Germany. I have even been thrown out of a couple of them. I had a system for winning and I won, and quite often I was asked to leave with my winnings. I was told to cash up my chips and to go. My view on casinos changed when I went to Adelaide as a member of this House and visited Wrest Point Casino in Hobart. There I saw many ordinary family people who seemed to be quite desperate in the way they were gambling. It was quite clear that some of these people were not very well off, that they had economic problems. Many were not gambling out of pleasure but rather out of desperation, in the hope that they could somehow balance their budgets.

At that point I realised that casinos do not benefit society. They may benefit the casino owners and those who work in them. They may benefit governments, which derive income from them. But on balance, casinos have a negative impact on society. We should never have gone ahead with the Sydney casino. I hope that it does not prosper. I hope that one day it will close. I hope also that casinos in other cities, like Melbourne and Adelaide, will close. Casinos are a cancer on society. They provide no benefit, apart from a passing thrill for those who happen to win. But generally speaking, those people and their families suffer pain and loss. Often people go broke, and many are forced to sell their houses, cars and possessions. Casinos are responsible for more misery than benefit.

[The President left the chair at 12.54 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.30]: The Casino Control Amendment (Cheques) Bill may be seen as a simple machinery bill. Its object is to extend the time within which the Sydney Harbour Casino is required to bank certain cheques paid into a patron's deposit account held by the casino. The Act is also to be amended to allow a patron to redeem a cheque by electronic funds transfer. It is my understanding that the reasons for the bill are that the Sydney Harbour Casino is in trouble with a number of its patrons; it is in trouble with the amount of profit it is making, which is much smaller than was anticipated; it has had to put off staff; and it is in a tenuous position. Much of the difficulty is said to be caused by the growth of the casino industry in Melbourne, with the Crown Casino being backed very strongly by the Victorian
Page 1652
Premier, Mr Kennett, to the extent that allegations have been made that his backing of the casino has to an extent compromised him.

The Senate is holding an inquiry into the Victorian Crown Casino - and it is unusual for the Senate to hold an inquiry into something that is peculiar to a State government and within a State. The development of the casino industry in Victoria demonstrates the way in which governments can become compromised by casinos. It has always been the argument of Call to Australia that casinos are so powerful and have such influence that they become the tail that wags the dog. We are seeing not only the social and economic problems caused by a casino but also the influence of a casino within a State and on governments. It is clear that the Victorian casino is having an influence on government there. Although the influence in New South Wales may not extend to the same depth, it is evident that we are moving in the same direction in that this bill is now before the House so that the Sydney Harbour Casino will be able to compete with the casino in Melbourne.

The Parliament here is aiding and abetting the operation of the Sydney casino so that it can be more economically viable than the Melbourne casino. If next week a new initiative were taken by the Crown Casino in Melbourne, for example, if the casino were to provide free taxis - if it does not do so already - or were to provide free accommodation for patrons to go to the casino, the Sydney Harbour Casino would come back to the Parliament requesting another bill. This bill demonstrates the influence of the casino on the State Government and, to an extent, on the coalition parties. With this bill, we reach a position similar to that reached with regard to legislation dealing with alcohol, any other form of gambling or, until recently, tobacco: the major parties agree to make any concession required. Those industries have often had the ability to get what they want.

The Sydney Harbour Casino is able to get whatever it wants from the Labor Government. The State Government wants revenue from the casino - through tax income, it is a direct beneficiary of the gambling at the casino. The State Government has to pay attention to the casino - it has to give the casino what it wants, and it wants priority and access to government. It is my guess that casino representatives would have no problem arranging appointments with Premiers, Treasurers and other members of government if they wanted to discuss problems in their operations. All this is happening for what I would call a sideshow casino. The Sydney Harbour Casino is simply an interim casino. If the casino has so much influence already, what will happen when the billion-dollar casino gets under way? Sydney will then be in the same position as Melbourne is with the Crown Casino.

The casino will become the centre of Sydney; it will be the centre of activity of our city, our State and even our nation. I have asked before why we should have what I regard to be a gambling-led economic recovery in this State and nation. Perhaps one could even ask why we should have a casino-led economic recovery in this and other States. The position is serious. The New South Wales Council of Churches has issued a statement calling for a moratorium on the establishment of any further gambling outlets until the findings of the current Sydney, Melbourne and United States research into the impact of all forms of gambling are known. The President of the New South Wales Council of Churches, Reverend Ross Clifford, said:

More funds need to be channelled into welfare, accommodation and rehabilitation for gambling addicts to help alleviate the problems being suffered by thousands across the state.

He also said:

The results of research being undertaken into gambling should be utilised by the government to assist in shaping a plan to protect the rights of the individual and the community.

In addressing Premier Bob Carr's lament over the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Casino, Reverend Ross Clifford said:

It was interesting to see just how the political roulette wheel revolves in the short space of a few years.

He went on to say:

When Neville Wran was NSW Premier, in a confrontation during a meeting with a deputation from the Council of Churches, he blamed them for preventing him from establishing what he termed a properly run government casino.

Reverend Clifford added:

The then coalition opposition vehemently opposed the establishment of a casino, however, this was soon to change during the Greiner reign as Premier . . . Now we have a Labor Premier, Mr Carr saying he would have stopped the creation of the Sydney Harbour Casino, referring to government use of gambling profits from casinos as "a sickness", while Opposition Leader Peter Collins endorses the casino claiming the Premier is "out of touch".

Reverend Clifford went on to make the following statement about Premier Carr:

I applaud the Premier's statement but it would appear that it is too little too late . . . The Sydney Harbour Casino is a reality with millions of dollars in licensing fees and residuals already paid over to the government but it's not too late to increase the help for those caught up in the morass of gambling.

As has been stated, Mr Wran was the first New South Wales political leader to come out strongly in support of the creation of a casino at Darling Harbour. We now have the Sydney Harbour Casino and the billion-dollar casino is on its way to completion. The present level of advertising for the casino will leap when the billion-dollar casino opens. In Melbourne there was advertising on radio and television and in newspapers. People arguing for casinos say that there is a market of people who love to gamble and now that it is not illegal they can come out of the shadows to gamble legally. But the advertising is aimed at increasing the market,
Page 1653
not at attracting the core of gamblers who would bet in casinos. The casinos want to encourage people who can ill afford to gamble - working class people. A Labor member said that revenue from casinos is really a form of indirect taxation. Both sides of politics raise revenue through gambling, so they have a vested interest in increasing gambling so that they raise more revenue.

I have inspected casinos - I am totally opposed to gambling so I have not played in casinos - and when I inspected the new Christchurch casino I was staggered to see that casino staff were training people how to gamble at learners' tables, for cards, roulette and so on. Obviously this is a form of recruitment, expansion of the market. I have not seen this occur first-hand in Sydney but I presume that it will be a feature of all casinos, to expand their operations. I believe there will be increasing opposition to the casino in Sydney. In some ways the churches may have been complacent in believing that it was inevitable that such establishments would go ahead. The Crown Casino in Melbourne is a massive development. It is probably the largest building in the inner city area, overshadowing other buildings. It covers more than one block.

The Hon. Franca Arena: They are making it bigger.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Yes. It straddles the main road, and it is not finished yet. No wonder the churches and the community in Victoria have been upset. The casino issue was one of the few issues at the State election damaging to Mr Kennett. However, he survived the criticism and regained government. There were mass rallies of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people in Victoria and I believe similar protests will occur in New South Wales. A ground swell is occurring against the casino. It is not a dead issue; it is a very live issue. The Government established an inquiry into the Sydney casino, which I would call a clayton's inquiry. I was one of the few people to appear before it, being strongly opposed to the disadvantages to be caused by the casino with the involvement of organised crime and so forth. It was made clear to me that the questions of whether the casino should be established or whether the casino would be harmful could not be considered; the only question before the inquiry was how to administer the casino. It was a foregone conclusion that the casino would be established but by setting up the inquiry the Government gave the impression that it was providing community input.

Many problems will arise from the casino - damage to family life and damage to the economy. The influence of casinos encourages criminal activity. People without criminal records, even respectable businessmen, may run the casinos but in due course there will be a growth of criminal activity in Sydney and New South Wales. The Wood royal commission has asked corrupt police to explain how their expenditure could be twice their earnings as policemen. A corrupt policeman's salary could be $60,000 but his spending on houses, units, boats and so on may be $120,000. When asked about this the police always say that they have great skills on betting on horses and that is where the extra cash has come from. But they cannot produce evidence to support this claim.

When Justice Wood asks them which horse won them the money he is told by the policeman that he cannot remember the name of the horse. When he asks when the winnings occurred he is told by the policeman that he cannot remember when he was at the races. The policeman will say, "Whenever I bet on the horses I always win." The money has been received from criminals - drug pushers, drug dealers. I hope that in future there will be no corrupt police - but there will probably always be some rotten apples. When they come before the Police Corruption Commission, the Independent Commission Against Corruption or some other commission in future and are asked where their extra money has come from they will be able to claim that the money came from the casino, that they have won thousands of dollars there. It will be very difficult to prove whether money has come from the casino. Money may also be laundered through the casino. So in that way the casino will indirectly encourage corruption in that those taking bribes will be able to point to the casino as their source of sudden wealth.

The Reverend Ross Clifford and other people have referred to the widespread concern across the United States about the impact of gambling. Addiction to gambling has caused despair, alienation and even suicide. A bill before Congress entitled the Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Bill provides for the establishment of a national commission to study the impact of gambling in America. The bill is receiving widespread support in the United States from various churches including the national agency of the United Church of Christ. Social issues and welfare departments of the churches will conduct inquiries into the effects of gambling on family life, the community and so on. It is unusual to have such a bill before the American Congress. It encourages me to introduce a similar bill to this House to provide for a commission to investigate gambling in New South Wales.

As other speakers have said, we do not just have a casino; we have many casinos in all the registered clubs. There are moves by the State Government to allow poker machines in hotels, which would result in their becoming minicasinos. Other countries are very restrictive on poker machines, some do not permit them, and some restrict them to casinos only. New South Wales had poker machines before a casino. This State did not need a casino because gambling was proliferating here already. I was pleased that on 4 April this year the Daily Telegraph reported:

The proliferation of casinos and government use of gambling profits has become a "sickness" in Australian society, Premier Bob Carr said yesterday.

Page 1654

Bob Carr is a successor to Premier Wran. The article continued:

If he could turn back the clock, Mr Carr said he would have stopped the creation of the Sydney Harbour Casino, the first stage of which opened last September . . .

Mr Carr said he agreed with critics that the levy imposed on Sydney Casino to fund counselling services for people addicted to gambling was only a band-aid solution.

"I think it is a sickness that in our country and in the United States that there has been this increasing dependence on casino gaming as a source of revenue at the state level," he told ABC Radio.

"There is no argument against casino gaming and the over-dependence of State budgets on gambling that I don't find myself agreeing with."

In other words, Premier Carr agreed with me on this issue: a convergence of views on this issue. I was disappointed that Mr Collins, who could have had a bipartisan policy, simply said:

I find Bob Carr's statement bizarre and out of touch with reality.

I believe Mr Carr was in touch with reality. I hope other Labor members in both Houses will agree with the point he is making. I know some honourable members agree but I hope the Premier's view becomes a majority decision. I do not know how to stop the massive $1 billion Sydney casino operating. Contracts have been signed. It would be difficult to stop further development, but steps should be taken to stop it opening. The Sydney casino should be closed down and development of the other casino should cease. The building should be developed as a hotel with theatrettes and reception rooms. I understand the development includes a number of theatres within the casino complex as well as restaurants and accommodation. The building could be developed to assist with tourism and accommodation for the Olympic Games, but should not be used as a casino. The two or three floors devoted to gambling are as big as football fields. They could be converted to reception centres for weddings and conferences accommodating 1,000 to 2,000 people.

The Darling Harbour Convention Centre is used, but it is not VIP accommodation and is very austere. Overseas visitors to conferences, including doctors and other professionals, prefer high-quality accommodation, which could be provided by the proposed Sydney casino building. I support the construction of the building but not the gambling or the operation of the casino. There must be ways that the building can made viable without using it as a casino. Given booming tourism and accommodation needs in the approach to the Olympic Games, any business group should be able to make that property pay without operating a casino there. Call to Australia opposes the bill because to do otherwise would be to give in to the casino industry. Members should stand up and be counted and say that the Government should not become a partner in a casino in Sydney, and should reconsider its position. I have always been opposed to a casino. Other honourable members have reconsidered their previous views and believe that gambling is a harmful social activity. The Opposition should change its policy on the casino. To demonstrate that, its members should vote against the bill today. The bill is not a major one but it is symbolic. The Casino Control Amendment (Cheques) Bill represents casino control over the Government's Casino Control Act so that the casino can get what it wants. Honourable members should vote against the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [2.54], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. It will be evident to honourable members that the bill is simple and straightforward legislation. The objective of the bill is equally clear: to extend the time period currently allowed by the Casino Control Act for the presentation to a bank of cheques made payable to the Sydney Harbour Casino by its gaming patrons. Nevertheless, the small relaxation proposed in the bill will ensure that cheque presentation limits applicable to the Sydney Harbour Casino will be commensurate with, or less than, the limits already operating in other Australian and overseas jurisdictions. The proposed new limit for cheques from international players, 20 days, is the same as the periods permitted in Queensland and Western Australia. There is no reason, in the Government's view, why the Sydney casino should not be subject to the same commercial standards as apply in those jurisdictions.

The bill, however, does not preclude the Sydney Harbour Casino from banking a cheque in a shorter period if the casino operator so desires. The proposal is, as acknowledged by the Opposition in the other place, little other than a procedural change. I note that the Opposition has expressed support for the bill. Before commending the bill to the House it is opportune for me to address, albeit it briefly, the comments made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby who, in the main, sought to rely on quotations from a submission by the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney to the public inquiry conducted by the former Chief Justice of New South Wales, Sir Laurence Street, in 1991.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is still valid.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am not suggesting it is not. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones remains patient he might hear what I have to say about Sir Laurence Street's findings. I am not suggesting that anything he said or found was other than valid. That inquiry was established to consider, among other things, the social impact of casino gaming should one or more casinos be established in this State.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: But not to investigate whether we should have one.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The terms of reference that Sir Laurence Street had are well recognised. He fully considered the points made by
Page 1655
the Anglican church and similar or identical points made in submissions by other churches and persons. The government of the day recommended that a law should be passed to enable the conduct of casino gaming in New South Wales. The Casino Control Bill, which was subsequently approved despite the opposition of crossbench members at that time, contains the public interest safeguards recommended by Sir Laurence Street as a result of his inquiry. Those safeguards are designed specifically to protect patrons from inappropriate casino gambling practices. The measures include: a prohibition on automatic teller machines within defined casino boundaries; a prohibition on credit betting; provision for the establishment of deposit accounts; provision for prohibition by the Commissioner of Police, the director of casino surveillance or the casino operator of patrons from entering or remaining in the casino; and the availability of self-banning orders for individuals with admitted gambling problems.

The casino control regulation, made law under the Carr Government on 6 September last year, includes additional controls to safeguard the public interest. First, the casino operator must not approve for publication in any form any advertising directly related to the operation of the casino that encourages breaches of the law, or includes children, or is false, misleading or deceptive, or is not conducted with decency, dignity and good taste and in accordance with any relevant advertising code of practice in force at the time the advertisement is published. Second, the regulation requires the casino operator to ensure that there are at all times prominently displayed in the gaming areas of the casino signs identifying and providing the telephone number of one or more counselling services available in the State in respect of social problems that may arise in connection with gambling. Third, the regulation has the effect of severely restricting the inducements that could be provided to a patron of the casino.

The regulation states that the casino operator, a casino employee or an agent of the casino operator must not provide a casino patron with liquor free of charge or at a substantial discount unless the liquor is provided in accordance with any direction given by the Casino Control Authority to the casino operator from time to time. Other public interest issues which have been addressed include a ministerial direction to the authority to the effect that the authority must exercise its functions to exclude from the casino persons who have left children unattended and exposed to risk in the vicinity of the casino. To supplement this the authority, on 11 September 1995, issued the casino operator with a binding direction that the name of any parent or person who is in loco parentis in respect of a child and who leaves a child in a situation of risk be included in the operator's list of persons excluded from access to the casino.

The area affected by the authority's direction includes the temporary casino complex, the permanent casino site, the Darling Harbour Authority lands and the entire suburb of Pyrmont. The casino operator has implemented action of its own in relation to abandoned or unsupervised children in the vicinity of the casino. I believe that these are all appropriate safeguards. Measures include prominent warning signs in car parks and shuttle buses, exclusion of patrons responsible for leaving children unsupervised, and appropriate publicity for this policy. As Minister for Community Services, and among other things being responsible for child protection, I am very keen to have these appropriate controls in place.

The Government's commitment to responsible public conduct in connection with the casino is also being implemented through financial grants made possible by the payment into the Casino Community Benefit Fund of a 2 per cent levy on casino gaming revenue. The operator has been required to pay this levy at weekly intervals from the commencement of casino operations on 13 September 1995. The proceeds of the levy are being used to fund appropriate research into gambling and its social and economic impact on individuals, families and the general community in New South Wales; to promote industry and community awareness of problem gambling and associated activities through education campaigns; to support voluntary organisations offering counselling services for problem gamblers and their families; and to fund such other community projects and services as the Minister may determine as being of benefit to the community generally.

The remarks I have made deal in my view more than adequately with the comments made by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby during the course of the debate. Contrary to what has been suggested by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the purpose of the bill is not to solve whatever trading circumstances may be experienced by Sydney Harbour Casino at this time, if in fact there are any. Sydney Harbour Casino is well capable of taking responsibility for its own commercial operations. That is a matter for the casino operator rather than for the Government. The Government's concern is rather to reflect the public interest that has been fostered in the establishment of casino gaming and in the conduct of casino gaming.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: And the social cost.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. R. S. L. Jones mentioned the social cost. I have spent a deal of time going through the various controls that are in place in an endeavour to deal with the problems to which he adverts. The notion of public interest extends to ensuring that the statutory framework within which casino gaming occurs in New South Wales does not unfairly suffer at the hands of competitive forces in other Australian, or for that matter international, jurisdictions with casinos. As has been noted by several honourable members, the aim of the bill is simply to ensure a proper competitive footing for the Sydney Harbour Casino. I commend the bill.

Page 1656

Question - That this bill be now read a second time - put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Kaldis
Mr Bull Mr Kersten
Dr Burgmann Mr Lynn
Ms Burnswoods Mr Macdonald
Mrs Chadwick Mr Moppett
Mr Dyer Dr Pezzutti
Mr Egan Mr Primrose
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Ms Saffin
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Gay Ms Staunton
Dr Goldsmith Mr Vaughan
Mr Hannaford
Mrs Isaksen Tellers,
Mr Jobling Mr Manson
Mr Johnson Mrs Sham-Ho

Mr Cohen
Mr Jones Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Mr Corbett
Rev. Nile Mr Tingle

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 17 April.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.13]: The Opposition supports this legislation. Honourable members will be aware that chemical residue is an issue of growing concern amongst consumers and producers of meat products. Though the industry has responded well to this concern, the Stock (Chemical Residues) Act needed to be amended to provide for additional regulation of chemical residues and other conditions relating to stock and land. Honourable members may recall the Helix issue, the problem of beef contamination through chlorfluazuron, that is, a chemical used principally in the cotton industry. Unfortunately, some cattle were fed residues from cotton stubble and by-products and became contaminated with Helix. This led to a crisis with New South Wales exports to other countries. The legislation will empower the Minister to restrict and prohibit entry into New South Wales of stock suspected of being residue-affected. A recent case involved the use of Acatak, a chemical used in Queensland for the control of ticks. That chemical creates long-term residues in cattle.

In New South Wales the application of that chemical has ceased and another method of controlling ticks through search and destroy has overcome the problem of chemical contamination of cattle in the northern areas of New South Wales, particularly on the north coast. The bill will also cover chemically affected stock, that is, stock that might have a residue of hormonal growth promotants, which have been widely used over the years in weaner cattle to obtain faster growth. Though it is not a chemical that leaves a residue, it is important to include chemicals of that type as a category in the Act. This bill achieves that end. Increasing demands are being made by consumers, trading opponents and environmentalists for the identification of stock and land that have been treated with products such as chemicals for controlling ticks, pesticides, drugs, other chemicals and fertilisers that can cause contamination.

The detection methods being used now are much more enhanced. In fact, one meatworks in New South Wales has become so proficient that it is probably causing problems by finding chemicals that no-one knew existed. Some chemicals are being detected now because of better testing regimes in New South Wales - in particular, the abattoir I just referred to that is detecting minor traces of contamination. Nevertheless, primary producers must be cognisant of that issue and be in a position to react. This legislation is about enabling the Minister and the department to contain crises when they develop rather than continue with the present ad hoc system. The legislation will provide legal protection to the department for the disclosure of information relating to residues where that information is disclosed in good faith. It is important that the department be totally fearless in providing information to those who need it.

Increasing demands are being placed on the department to provide information on residue levels to many affected groups, and any disclosures outside the narrow sanctions provided for under the Chemical Residues Act have the potential to make departmental officers liable. The legislation attempts to address many problems associated with livestock affected by chemical residues. The bill will assist the State Government in monitoring the movement of stock affected by chemical residue levels that threaten to enter New South Wales from interstate. The Opposition is supportive of the amendments, which are intended to reduce the possibility of the New South Wales livestock market being jeopardised by chemicals affecting livestock. With those few comments the Opposition supports the legislation.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.19]: I draw to the attention of the Minister problems with schedule 1[16]. Blanket immunity from suits against wrongful advice is a major problem in that currently several cases are pending against the Department of Agriculture for alleged wrongful advice. I give the example of the Jim Chambers case, a highly respected dairy farmer with a property near
Page 1657
Kempsey who followed Department of Agriculture advice and label instructions for the use of the organochlorine insecticide Heptachlor - which was incorporated into a fertiliser with application directions on the label - for the control of white-fringed weevils in lucerne. He was faced with the quarantining of a large part of his property and resultant losses well in excess of $70,000. In fact, it has been estimated that he could be due for a total of $250,000 in compensation under his claim, while the case against the Department of Agriculture and the manufacturers has been in process for nearly 10 years now.

Clearly, this case demonstrates the need for people in rural communities, who are using registered products, to have the legal and civil rights to sue the Government and other parties for wrongful advice. This is as much the case now as it was a decade ago, for the Department of Agriculture is staunchly pro-pesticide and does not seem to be able to grasp the implications of current research on the persistence of many pesticides. For instance, two of the chemicals specifically mentioned in the briefing notes for crossbenchers, Acatak and chlorfluazuron - CFZ or Helix - should have been known to be persistent chemicals due to the level of chlorine and fluorine which they contain, let alone through recognition of this fact in scientific literature and acknowledgments by Commonwealth testing laboratories of residue risk due to the presence of chlorine, fluorine or bromine - the halogens.

Helix is the trade name for chlorfluazuron, a benzole urea insecticide manufactured by ICI. It is used for the control of insects in cotton crops and acts as an insect growth regulator by interfering with the deposition of chiton, a substance essential for the survival and reproduction of many insect species. Concerns about the potential impact of Helix on the environment were noted by the Queensland Department of the Environment in 1991, specifically the possible impact on non-target species. As a result, there have been calls to have Helix deregistered, and individuals within the cattle industry have discussed possible legal action.

More specifically, since the 1987 beef export crises, Australian food exporters have lost millions of dollars because of residue problems. In late 1994 residues of Helix were found in beef destined for American, Japanese and Korean markets. Helix was given special government approval for use on cotton, and because of fodder shortages during the drought cotton trash was fed to cattle. Since it persists in the environment, Helix found its way up the food chain and into the beef. Hundreds of beef producers have been financially affected. The Helix incident therefore clearly raises concerns about the track record of governments on pesticide assessment and industry's commitment to its "responsible care". In addition, Helix is one of a number of export risk pesticides which still pose risks to Australia's clean green export drive.

While the widespread use of pesticides in agriculture invariably also leads to water and air pollution, it is interesting that American researchers have noted that the massive increase in pesticide use in the United States has not resulted in a concurrent decline in the number of pests. They have calculated the real cost of pesticide use in the United States of America to be nearly US$8 billion annually. That calculation - stated in US dollars - has been made on the basis of the following impacts of pesticide: public health damage, $787 million; loss of natural predators, $520 million; loss of natural resistance, $1.4 billion; crop losses, $942 million; fisheries, $24 million; birds, $2.1 billion; pollination and honeybees, $320 million; and ground water contamination, $1.8 billion - a total of about $8 billion.

The latest Helix contamination crisis is also set to be repeated, as feedback from testing laboratories indicates that a number of pesticides still cannot be readily detected by the commercially available test methods. Many pesticides containing chlorine and fluorine, a halogen similar to chlorine, are persistent in the food chain and pose clear risks of beef contamination. A number of abattoirs on the New South Wales north coast were closed because buyers wanted a guarantee of compensation if further contamination were to occur. Clearly then, rural producers have a right to know about pesticide persistence, and labels must include simple, easily understood phrases explaining environmental fate and persistence, just as they have or should have the right to sue for wrongful advice. I put those remarks on the record for I believe they should be noted.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [3.24]: The Australian Democrats are pleased to support the Stock (Chemical Residues) Amendment Bill. Governments and consumers around the world are increasingly choosing and demanding food that is as clean, green and environmentally friendly as modern production methods will allow. Sloppy administration by governments in Australia with regard to the monitoring and detection of residues in stock and other agricultural produce has the potential to cause enormous damage to Australia's export markets, especially when some countries are looking for any excuse that can be used as a non-tariff barrier to trade so that their own farmers may gain an increased economic benefit.

Our major competitors, the United States beef exporters, have seen their market grow from 0.68 billion pounds in 1988 to 1.72 billion pounds in 1996. Aggressive expansion into Asian and European markets due to reduced tariffs will continue. We must be aware of that. American food and drug administration samples taken almost a decade ago showed that dietary intakes of pesticide residues were well below the standards set by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and that they have continued to fall until the present day. It is against those kinds of benchmarks that our produce will be judged. It is
Page 1658
vital therefore that we strive to achieve and hopefully better those levels. The Minister has noted that permissible levels of residues in foods overseas are frequently higher than the levels allowed in Australia. Australians have to recognise that those requirements are largely driven by consumers and are willingly implemented by their elected representatives. We must acknowledge that the customer is always right if we are to retain the confidence of our overseas trading partners and ensure that our product complies with their expectations. This bill will assist in ensuring that Australian meat products do comply.

The Australian Democrats further support the notion that if it is unacceptable to allow diseased stock to impact upon our export markets, it is equally unacceptable for stock affected by chemical residues to impact negatively upon those same markets. It must be placed on the record and noted that pesticide residues are more often a problem in fruit and vegetables than they are in meat. I urge the Government to pay close attention to the monitoring of residue levels in the fruit and vegetables that we consume and export. The Minister for Agriculture must take this into account now that he is revamping the whole of the laboratory and testing stations in New South Wales and proposing the closure of one research station that was closest to the biggest market for fruit and vegetables in the Sydney area. That was a most unwise decision as far as monitoring pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables is concerned.

Animals are more able than plants grown for food to detoxify, metabolise, biodegrade and excrete chemicals commonly used in agriculture, and as long as strict withholding periods are adhered to, only a very small fraction of any chemical absorbed is even temporarily deposited in body tissue. This information has been established by the Department of Agriculture in the United States. After all, the United States is the birthplace of consumer advocacy, and it is the home of the most litigious consumers on earth. Much harder to detect, however, are substances such as hormone growth promotants. The Australian Democrats welcome the inclusion of those substances in the provisions of the bill. It is good that there is now a clear method of identifying any beef products that may have received hormone growth promotants. Tail tags and ear tags that are coloured pink indicate a guarantee that the animals being sold have never been given these hormones and are therefore hormone free. If that is abused, and if it is declared that animals are hormone-free when they are not, a heavy financial penalty is provided - and that is exactly as it should be.

Many European consumers are demanding that the meat they consume be free of hormonal growth promotants - HGPs. Whilst the jury is still out on the effects of consuming meats from animals produced with HGPs, if consumers demand HGP-free meat, and they are prepared to pay a premium in order to be guaranteed that the product they purchase is genuinely free of such substances, we have a duty to ensure that the product they are purchasing is indeed free of such substances at all stages of the production process. Whatever some honourable members may think of consumer demand for HGP-free meats, if people have a right to be confident on religious grounds that, for example, Kosher foods are indeed Kosher, or Halal slaughtered meat is the genuine article, they are also entitled to be guaranteed on ethical or philosophical grounds that the meat they purchase is genuinely HGP-free. The Australian Democrats support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.32]: Call to Australia supports the bill, which is concerned with the effect on stock of chemicals from which residues accumulate in the stock thereby making it unfit for consumption as human food. Stock can be affected by treatment with or exposure to chemical substances even though no chemical residue can be detected. I refer to hormone treatment, which is the main concern of this legislation. There are also some residues that diminish the sale value of the stock even though they are not rendered unfit for human consumption. The bill aims to broaden the scope of the principal Act, the Stock (Chemical Residues) Act 1975, in two ways. Firstly, control measures under the principal Act are to be made available in relation to stock that may be classified as chemically affected whether or not a residue exists or is detectable. Secondly, at the same time, the basis on which the effect of chemicals on stock is taken to require action will be broadened to include cases in which the stock are a danger to other animals or to the environment in cases where the condition of the stock is prejudicial to trade. There are other minor changes. We were all shocked when we heard that in the United Kingdom hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of beef cattle will be destroyed because they have been infected by contaminated food.

Debate is still raging about whether this matter has been confirmed scientifically, but there seems to be sufficient evidence to link this tragedy with the incidence of brain damage, particularly in children, as a consequence of the consumption of beef infected by contaminated food. Hormones have been used to make piglets grow faster and to grow with more meat on them. Farmers engaged in this activity have suggested that this should be of no interest to the consumer; that it is simply something that they do. The consumer does have a right to know such things, however. For that reason there is considerable debate about whether meat that has been produced by artificial means should be so labelled. For example, people are willing to pay more for eggs that are grown naturally than they are for eggs that are produced artificially. The same situation will apply to meat products; consumers will be interested to know the origins of the meat before they buy it, and perhaps will pay more for meat that has not been the subject of artificial hormone conditioning or treatment.

Page 1659

In the last few years a number of problems have arisen with regard to some substances, including HGPs, which do not leave residues. Under present legislation the Department of Agriculture has not had the power to contain such crises, other than by way of ad hoc means. This bill will empower the department in that regard. In 1993 an emergency ad hoc regulatory regime was imposed on the use of HGPs in Australian beef in order to retain Australia's export access to the European community market - an extremely important issue for the Australian economy. Recently the European community resolved not to accept British beef but, I understand, will accept Australian beef, which is controlled by strict quarantine laws. It is in our best interests to supply products of the highest possible standard to overseas markets. If we can continue to do so, many overseas markets will look to Australia for beef, rather than to other nations that may provide meat at cheaper prices but in relation to which there is suspicion about the quality. This bill will ensure that our beef industry and other industries are kept at the highest possible level, to avoid the possibility of future boycotts of our primary products.

There was another crisis in 1994 when farmers fed drought-affected stock cotton trash which had been sprayed with an insecticide containing CFZ. Farmers, quite innocently, moved into a grey area, with disastrous consequences for their livelihoods. At present there are 200 cattle herds in detention in New South Wales because their bodies contain excess levels of CFZ. In addition, many other herds have been exposed to CFZ, and this has resulted in expensive testing procedures at slaughter with resultant loss of market access. The bill will seek to rectify these practical problems. Just as many believe we are getting out of our depth with genetic engineering as far as human beings are concerned, we may also be getting out of our depth with regard to the birth, growth and development of animal products.

This bill may be the first of many that will be drafted to meet changing requirements associated with chemicals and hormones. Call to Australia supports the bill and urges the Government to ensure that the Department of Agriculture will be provided with the necessary resources to meet requirements of the legislation. I refer particularly to veterinary testing laboratories, which the Government seems determined to close down. There may be even a greater need for such facilities because of the problems this bill has highlighted. Perhaps even more money should be spent to purchase the latest scientific equipment to detect previously unexpected threats to primary industry. Call to Australia supports the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [3.40], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support for the bill and I thank all honourable members who have spoken in the debate. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones raised a query about the immunity conferred by a provision of the bill. The immunity does not cover the furnishing of incorrect advice.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Even in good faith?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I have circulated an amendment that I intend to move in Committee. It has been requested by New South Wales Farmers and I believe that it will cover the issue raised by the member and place the matter beyond doubt. The immunity covers information given to Commonwealth agencies such as the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to trace residue problems. Immunity is not provided for any negligence on the part of the Department of Agriculture. In response to a matter raised by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, I note that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service coordinates the monitoring and detection of residues in food products for export. The Government's view, on sound grounds, is that the Department of Agriculture must assist the AQIS in its service in order to maintain our export markets. I again thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Schedule 1

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [3.42]: I move:

Page 9, Schedule 1, line 12. After "liability", insert "arising from any confidentiality of those particulars".

The amendment will limit the protection for the Minister and any persons concerned in the administration of the Stock (Chemical Residues) Act 1975, that being immunity from liability for furnishing information or advice, to actions based on contract or breach of contract or breach of confidentiality. The amendment will mean that there will be no immunity for negligence or fraud in the administration of the bill. As I mentioned in my reply to the second reading debate, the amendment was requested by New South Wales Farmers and has been agreed to by my colleague the Minister for Agriculture. The amendment is required in order to enable the coordination of residue data between the Department of Agriculture and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service in their attempts to reduce the chance of residue-affected food reaching overseas markets.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.44]: I support the amendment. New South Wales Farmers has been in touch with the Opposition as well as the Government about the possibility of amending the legislation. I recall that the approach was made late
Page 1660
last year, and note that the date on the amendment is 13 December 1995. This issue still has currency but was raised quite a while ago. The Opposition strongly supports the amendment. The amendment will mean that the Department of Agriculture will have no less liability than any other member of the community in matters of fraud or negligence. This is an appropriate amendment that can only improve the bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendment and passed through remaining stages.


Debate resumed from 2 May.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.48]: The Opposition supports the bill, which will improve the control of exotic animals and the movement and housing of those animals within the State. Honourable members do not need reminding of the costs to our environment and our agricultural industry imposed by some non-indigenous animals. I think of the European rabbit, which was introduced to Australia many years ago. It costs us at least $600 million in lost agricultural production each year. The bill will enable New South Wales legislation to fall into line with the national classification system and legislation in other States. It will be difficult for owners to move exotic animals from New South Wales to other States. This State will adopt the classification system used nationally to assist in the adoption of a national approach to the control of exotic species and a ready understanding between the States as to the degree of pest potential attributed to a species. If a species is not listed, it will by default be placed in a category that is deemed not to be Australian. A species in that category will require a full assessment of its pest potential before it can, if at all, be imported.

The movement and housing of exotic animals should be controlled. As I said, the European rabbit is just one example, a pertinent example, of the cost caused to agricultural industries. Rabbits cause significant damage to the natural environment and reduce production in the farming community. The bill will incorporate a new system of classifications. Animals which have a high pest potential and which should not be allowed to enter or be kept in New South Wales in any circumstances are in the first category. Animals which have a high pest potential but significant conservation value, which are highly dangerous to humans and which may be kept only in government zoos or special collections are in the second category. Species of animal to be licensed and restricted to wildlife parks or that can be held privately under certain conditions are in the third category. Animals which are recognised domestic and/or farm animals - this would include most animals that we know - and recognised pest animals with populations already established in New South Wales, some of which can be controlled but some of which it is inappropriate to include in the other categories because of their numbers and widespread distribution or difficulty of control, are in the fourth category.

The Minister for Community Services from time to time has been excited about rabbit calicivirus, which was accidentally introduced into South Australia and which has reached New South Wales. It is spreading rapidly across the State and in a short time will overcome the problems and costs that the European rabbit pest has wrought on the agricultural sector in this State. The classifications will give better direction and may benefit or assist people who want to keep exotic animals in zoos or in special collections. Surveillance bodies will have more authority to keep out of New South Wales animals with a high pest potential. The legislation is extremely worth while and deserves the support of all members of the House. The Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [3.53]: Before speaking in support of the bill I thank the Minister for indicating acceptance of an amendment proposed in relation to the admissibility of self-incriminating evidence in criminal proceedings. There is no doubt that non-indigenous animals have devastated the flora and fauna of Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the effects of calicivirus on rabbits. In an interjection which was not recorded I said that I hoped that the virus would not jump species. I have a list of hundreds of non-indigenous animals covered by the bill. As well as exotic ones such as axolotls, Japanese giant salamanders, galago senegals and slender lorises, there is the usual collection of well-known animals such as canis familiaris - the dog - and cats, pigs, sheep, cattle, foxes, rats and goats. The major impact on our environment has been caused by the larger animals - cattle and sheep. We have cleared huge areas of Australia and reduced native species to very low levels to provide habitat for cattle. This has devastated the environment - flora and fauna.

The introduction of the fox and the cat and the pig and the dog is having a major uncontrolled impact on our native fauna in particular. Goats and rats and other creatures are also having a major impact. Regrettably, they are out of control. What we can control are the species that have not escaped into the environment, and I hope this legislation will go some way toward achieving that control. I also thank the Minister for reacting to representations made by me and others on behalf of the International Primate Protection League. In the April 1996 edition of the international newsletter IPPL News there is a report on page 21 headed "IPPL wins victory for primates in Australia"
Page 1661
written by the IPPL representative in Australia, Lynette Shanley. It states that primates may no longer be kept as pets. On 12 January 1996 the New South Wales Government Gazette listed the changes to the classification of primates in New South Wales. They were all reclassified category 1 and category 2. This means that no private individual can keep primates as pets. People who already have primates as pets can keep them but they cannot sell them or give them away.

One of the arguments used by those wishing to bring New South Wales into line with the other States was that there was a possibility that primates, if they escaped, could cause problems to crops as they do in other areas. In some countries monkeys contribute to the decline of native bird populations by climbing trees and stealing eggs from nests. They also cause damage to crops. For that reason alone it is a good idea not to allow the spread of the keeping of primates as pets, even though I am sure they are delightful pets. When I was in South America a number of people there kept small monkeys as pets. In fact, I bought a couple and released them back into the bush, because they looked rather distressed. Keeping one or two primates on a lead is not a good idea: they are highly intelligent creatures. That will no longer happen in this State. New South Wales has come into line with the other States. I hope that the hundreds of different animals listed do not escape into our environment; it would be chaotic and damaging if they did. With those few words I thank the Government for accepting my proposed amendment. I support the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [3.57]: The Call to Australia group supports the Non-Indigenous Animals Amendment Bill 1996, which will amend the Non-Indigenous Animals Act 1987, thus bringing New South Wales legislation into line with national legislation. New South Wales will adopt the national classification system to assist in the adoption of a national approach to control species and a ready understanding between the States of the degree of pest potential attributed to a species by a particular State. The national system, which is more comprehensive than the current New South Wales system, covers all classes of non-indigenous animals. It includes a category for species which are considered of such pest potential that they should not be allowed in Australia. This classification will enable the prohibition of importation to New South Wales of certain highly dangerous species. We know the damage such species can cause, particularly the wild European rabbit. It costs Australia at least $600 million every year through lost agricultural production. Anything that can be done to reduce the loss is to be supported.

The legislation will incorporate a system of five classifications. Category 1 is for animals which have a high pest potential and which should not be allowed to enter or be kept in New South Wales. Category 2 is for animals which have a high pest potential. Category 3 is for animals which are to be licensed. Category 4 is for animals which are recognised domestic and/or farm animals, some of which may have a pest potential and which are kept widely in Australia. Category 5 is for recognised pest animals with populations already established in New South Wales, some of which are able to be controlled, some of which are inappropriate to include in any category because of their numbers, widespread distribution or difficulties of control. Call to Australia is pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [4.00], in reply: I thank the Opposition for its support of the bill and honourable members who participated in the debate. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.



The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. I refer to my question last week regarding allegations concerning an eight-year-old State ward at Minali Receiving and Assessment Centre. Is it a fact that she is now back in the custody of the Department of Community Services? Was she located on the central coast? Has the Minister instituted an inquiry as to how she and five other children were able to run away?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I recall responding last week to a question from the Hon. Patricia Forsythe concerning this matter. I recall that among the children who absconded from Minali Receiving and Assessment Centre was an eight-year-old girl. I also recall that some of the children were said to have been located on the central coast. Last week I indicated that I had sought information from the Department of Community Services about serious allegations that children, including the eight-year-old girl in question, were assaulted at the department's Minali residential centre at Lidcombe. As a result she had run away. I am advised that the eight-year-old girl ran away from Minali with five other children, three of whom subsequently returned to Minali.

The three children have now been found. One child is currently with his parents and the other two have been returned to McCredie Cottage, a separate site from the Lidcombe complex. These are very serious allegations and I assure honourable members that an investigation is currently under way. As I
Page 1662
said on the previous occasion, the department will fully investigate allegations of any form of misconduct by departmental staff. It is my view that in the interests of the children in question the media would not be the appropriate place to conduct investigations into the allegations. I am not suggesting that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe would take any different view, although that is a matter for her. Based on expert advice from a psychiatrist that broadcast would exacerbate harm to the children, the Department of Community Services has taken Supreme Court action to prevent broadcast of any material relating to the children, in the interests of the children.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware of allegations that a network exists to hide these children? Was the child, in fact, in a house at Wyong while it was raided by police yet she remained undetected?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I am unaware of the matters referred to in the member's question. However, I shall find out and come back to her with any relevant information.


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the Auditor-General's Report states that the New South Wales Government is effectively paying for a hospital in Port Macquarie twice and then giving it away? Is it a fact that the Department of Health started making payments on the Port Macquarie Base Hospital in 1994 and these payments over 20 years will cost a total of $143.6 million based on construction costs of $52 million and servicing charges? Is it also a fact that after 20 years the Government is bound to give the hospital, the hospital land and the licence to the private sector? What action can be taken to prevent this?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I have a copy of the Auditor-General's Report for 1966, which he released yesterday. I have just started going through it. The first page contains significant items and states:

Additionally, in the case of the Port Macquarie Base Hospital, the Government agreed to pass over the hospital and hospital land (and hospital licence) to the private sector, after the Government has paid out the financiers in 20 years time.

These are the Auditor-General's words:

This inexplicable grant is additional to the significant fees paid by the Government for the private sector-provided hospital services. The Government is, in effect, paying for the hospital twice and giving it away.

The statement that the Government is "giving it away" referred to an agreement entered into by the previous Government and will cost the taxpayers of this State dearly over the next 20 years. Not only is this an enormous capital cost, but in 20 years the taxpayers will end up with no hospital. I heard my colleague the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health in the other place pointing out that the assessment of the annual operating expense to the Government, and a comparison of the operating costs of the Port Macquarie Base Hospital and similar hospitals, show that some 20 per cent to 30 per cent additional costs each and every year will have to be met by the taxpayers because of this agreement. That means approximately $6 million every year more than it would cost -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Privatisation didn't work?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, privatisation did not work. It is really a scandal that taxpayers' money was used in this way.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: This was the subject of a special parliamentary committee driven by the Labor Party.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Yes, but the Liberal Party had the numbers on it and it was a well-staged parliamentary committee, only having access to what we wanted to show it. The Labor Party consistently opposed this project. If honourable members have any arguments they should not have them with me but with the Auditor-General. It is an absolute disgrace that the man responsible for this fiasco, Mr Ron Phillips, the former Minister for Health, now parades around as the shadow treasurer. He wants my job.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: And he will get it.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Well, heaven help the people of New South Wales if he ever gets it because he has lost scores of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on this ridiculous deal. One would not want to let him loose with all the assets of the State and the $23 billion budget expenditure every year. One could chop off $5 billion of it if this is any indication of the way he would deal with taxpayers' money. He will chop $5 billion off it and pour it down the drain. It is an absolute scandal. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby asked me: "What can the Government do about it?" I really do not know; I have not completed reading the Auditor-General's Report fully. I have read parts of it, or I have thumbed through parts of it. What frightens me is that the Auditor-General's Report seems to indicate that the contract cannot be cancelled and that there is no way out. Unfortunately, it seems to me that all the Government can do is expose this fiasco, this scandal, but I would certainly be prepared - and I am sure the Deputy Premier, and Minister for Health, would also be prepared - to look at the matter very closely in case there is something the Government can do.

Page 1663

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Is the Treasurer aware that the Auditor-General, Tony Harris, in the report to which the Treasurer just referred, has expressed his concern to the Government about potential conflicts of interest involving Mr Gerry Gleeson? Does the Treasurer know that Mr Harris has suggested that Mr Gleeson be distanced from fixing the Auditor-General's salary since Mr Gleeson has such widespread interests in government bodies whose financial performances are audited by the Auditor-General? When did the Auditor-General first express those concerns to the Government? To whom did he express those concerns and what action has been taken on them? Does the Treasurer, as the Minister responsible for the Auditor-General, agree with the Auditor-General's comments?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Could I firstly correct the impression that I am the Minister responsible for the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General's Office, as an administrative matter, comes within the portfolio of the Premier. In any event, the Premier is not responsible for the Auditor-General's Office, in the sense that a Minister is responsible for any other government agency. The Auditor-General is a statutorily independent officer, independent from the Executive Government. The Leader of the Opposition asked me when this matter was brought to my attention or to the attention of the Government. I think, from memory, that the Auditor-General in a very recent briefing to me indicated that that was an issue he would raise. It is important that honourable members be aware of the issue that the Auditor-General has raised. He said that Mr Gleeson, in his capacity as either chairman or member of some government agencies -

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Four agencies.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Four agencies, the Leader of the Opposition reminds me - which are agencies audited by the Auditor-General, perhaps should not be in a position where he, as chairman of the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal, should set the salary of the Auditor-General. I am sure that the Premier would be prepared to consider the matter. These days very few salaries are determined by SOORT. In fact, only a relative handful of occupants of positions these days have their salaries determined by SOORT. I am really not sure whether there is any conflict of interest but I certainly would admit that it is a matter the Government should have a look at.


The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services. Could the Minister inform the House whether he intends to support changes to the existing law to allow the public naming of some serious young offenders?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Honourable members will recall that in January this year I asked the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council to review, and advise on, the desirability of publicly naming young offenders aged 17 years and over who have been charged with serious criminal offences. I believed that community concern about the nature of some violent crimes being committed by young people warranted serious consideration being given to this issue. At the same time, my colleague the Attorney General sought additional advice from the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. So, there were two bodies to which the matter was referred for consideration and advice, one of which reported to me and the other to my colleague the Attorney General. I have now had the opportunity to consider the detailed advice provided by the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council; I have also had the opportunity to consult with my colleague the Attorney General. The advice we have both received from these two expert bodies - as well as, I might add and stress, from magistrates, police and lawyers - overwhelmingly recommends against publicly naming young offenders.

The Juvenile Justice Advisory Council carefully considered a wide range of arguments and concluded that the negative effects of naming would outweigh any potential benefits. I am advised that there is no criminological research or other evidence to support the assumption that naming young offenders would deter them from committing further crimes. Indeed, there appears to be evidence that naming would actually be welcomed by some young offenders, as it would give them an undesirable celebrity status among their peers. Juvenile offenders are known to be much less likely than adults to be deterred from crime as they are impulsive and immature, and often offend in groups where they are influenced by peer pressure. It is universally accepted in our society that children who commit criminal offences should be treated differently from adults. Naming juvenile offenders would undermine this important principle. It would breach Australia's international treaty obligations as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It would also be contrary to the United Nations standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice, which highlight the importance of the right to privacy and prohibit the naming or identification of young offenders.

In my view, the safety of the community is better served by improving the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs available for serious violent juvenile offenders and by introducing new measures to prevent crime. Both of these avenues are being vigorously pursued by the Carr Government at present. I believe that New South Wales is the only State in Australia with a specific program catering for the rehabilitation of serious violent young offenders. This is the violent offenders program,
Page 1664
and it is currently introduced by the Department of Juvenile Justice. In addition, serious violent juvenile offenders in New South Wales can already be tried in adult courts and face adult penalties, including gaol terms, despite their youth. This is not always widely recognised in the community. Consequently, I am satisfied that New South Wales already has sufficient avenues to deal appropriately with older, more serious juvenile offenders.

I am not convinced that it is in the interest of the general community to amend the existing legislative provisions which prohibit the naming of juvenile offenders. However, I wish to assure the House that I remain committed to responding responsibly to community concern about juvenile crime. Only recently I announced an increase in the maximum number of hours which may be imposed for community service orders from 100 to 250 for more serious offenders aged 16 years and over. This addresses the concern expressed by judicial officers that the existing maximum was inadequate. It has also taken into account the various views contained in public submissions on the green paper on juvenile justice. I note that the former Government failed to act on this matter despite widespread consensus in the community on what clearly needed to be done.


The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: I refer my question to the Treasurer and Leader of the Government. I refer the Treasurer to comments made by the Auditor-General in his annual report released yesterday concerning the rundown in senior public servants in New South Wales. Does the Treasurer know that the Auditor-General said:

A rundown in [the SES], whether in terms of increasingly adverse remuneration disparities or decreasing skill, is arguably against the community's interest. It leads to a rundown in intellectual and management capital and eventually to a rundown in the community's well being.

Is the Treasurer concerned that the Auditor-General believes the Government's policies are against the public interest?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As I mentioned in my earlier answer, I have only started to go through the Auditor-General's Report, although I did notice a newspaper clipping this morning -

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You do not read newspapers.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: No, it was one of those media clipping services.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You will not even read the cartoons.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I do read the cartoons occasionally - and I noticed reference to this matter. On this question of the senior executive service and the salary levels that were introduced by the previous Government, the Auditor-General and I will simply have to disagree. A number of people maintain that the enormous increase in salaries for the top 1,500 public servants in New South Wales resulted when the senior executive service was introduced.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Well overdue.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti said, it was well overdue and it attracted top people. Experience in the first few years of the senior executive service under the Greiner Government indicated that the Government had started out with an ideological objection to public sector employees which they then found to be quite misplaced. Very often it was the so-called high-fliers recruited to the public sector that were complete duds. I am not saying that description applies to everyone who has been recruited from the private sector. Obviously many people who have reached senior positions in the private sector could make the transition very well. Many years ago for a period of two years I worked with the State Pollution Control Commission.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: You were not a high-flier.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I was not paid on the SES scale. The head of that organisation was a gentleman named Eric Coffey, who had been the General Manager of the Caltex ALOR refinery at Kurnell. He was appointed by the Askin Government. Though I worked in a relatively junior capacity, I worked fairly closely with him for a long time. He was one of the best public servants that I have ever come across. He understood the unique nature of the public sector and he certainly understood the role of a public servant in the Westminster system. I sometimes suspected that he might have been one of the few people in the public sector in Australia or anywhere else - or in politics for that matter - who had actually read Bagehot's English Constitution. If any honourable member has not read that, they should not be a member of this House. He was a superb example of someone making the transition from the private sector to the public sector, and I hope that will continue to happen.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It is getting the best people for the job.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: That is right, but by the same token I do not believe that one needs to pay what I would regard as ludicrous salaries, particularly in areas of public administration.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Do they get paid more than you?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: They get paid a lot more than I will ever get paid, and I do not mind that. In the government trading enterprise sector or in state-owned corporations, as we call those that have been corporatised, there is a slightly different situation because very often it is not public sector administrators that one needs but top business
Page 1665
managers. One is then competing with the private sector and inevitably the salary scales that will apply will be higher than might otherwise be paid in the general government sector. Some of the increases in salaries for top managers in the private sector, particularly in recent decades, were obscene. It is an absolute scandal that anyone should be paid $1 million, $2 million or $3 million.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: No government would ever do that.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Hopefully no government would ever have to do that, but salaries under the senior executive service virtually doubled when that service was introduced. I can remember when the previous Government lost office the highest paid public servant was Mr Gerry Gleeson, head of the Premier's Department. From recollection he was paid about $108,000 per year. The salary package at the top of the scale for senior executive service officers has increased to about $230,000 per year. One might argue that those salaries are necessary to retain or attract top level personnel. I simply do not believe that is the case.

The great public servants of yesteryear, Sir John Bunting in the Federal sphere, Nugget Coombs, and people well known in this State, did not need to be paid that sort of money. I think such salaries are inappropriate. The Government makes no apologies for cutting back on the number of senior executive service officers or for some measure of salary restraint - I emphasise the phrase "some measure of salary restraint". On this issue, just as I had a philosophical disagreement with the previous Government, I have a philosophical disagreement with the Auditor-General.


The Hon. DOROTHY ISAKSEN: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware that this week is International No Tobacco Week? What is the Government doing to address the issue of smoking in the workplace?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: All honourable members who have followed the issue of passive smoking, particularly in the successful development and implementation of a non-smoking policy for this Parliament, will be aware that even from a casual observation there has been a substantial change taking place in the bulk of workplaces in New South Wales. Smoking at work has gone from being commonplace a decade ago to being rarely observed except in areas such as the hospitality industry. I am informed that even in hotels employers are increasingly supplying non-smoking areas for their clientele. Regular surveys conducted since 1990 by the National Heart Foundation of workplaces with more than 20 employees found that, by 1995, 92 per cent of the workplaces had policies on smoking at work and 80 per cent of these had actually banned smoking from enclosed areas.

A similar survey of small business undertaken by the foundation has found a similar trend, with 50 per cent of those surveyed having no-smoking policies in place. The impetus for this rapid change has been the combined impact of the various provisions of the New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, plus other legislative obligations, which together with recent case law have had the effect of requiring employers to take concerted preventive action to remove environmental tobacco smoke from the enclosed areas of workplaces. Employers have undoubtedly concluded that the most efficient and cost-effective way to achieve this is by becoming smoke-free.

Smoking is now specifically prohibited by a variety of New South Wales legislation, including the Coal Mines Regulation Act, the Construction Safety Act, the Dangerous Goods Act, the Library Act, the Fisheries and Oyster Farms Act, the Food Act, the Passenger Transport Act and the Theatres and Public Halls Act. The net effect of these pieces of legislation is to prohibit smoking in a wide variety of public enclosed areas such as trains, buses, planes, all theatres and commercial cinemas, markets, butcheries, abattoirs and places where food is prepared and handled. Employees in mining, aluminium smelting, chemical manufacturing and oil refining have long been prohibited from smoking on site because of the hazards involved.

Under the Food Act 1989 beer, wine and other beverages are deemed as food, rendering the Act applicable to most licensed premises where food is handled and prepared. Workplaces such as registered clubs and hotels are also specifically bound by a range of legislation, including: the Local Government Act, in respect of smoking in fire escapes and stairwell; the Confined Spaces Regulation, in those areas where there is inadequate circulation of air, such as freezers, cellars and airconditioning towers; the Construction Safety Act, where a club has a lift; and the Food Act in respect of its kitchens and bistros. The Occupational Health and Safety Act applies equally to all workplaces, including the hospitality industry.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act applies to and binds the Crown. It applies to government buildings. However, in the hospitality industry the issue of passive smoking is a complex one due to the long usage of those premises as places for active smoking and the crossover between leisure activities and workplaces. This crossover has meant that the enforcement of legislation is more complex than it would be in a factory or office. The New South Wales WorkCover Authority, which has carriage of this legislation, has been working with the various hospitality industry associations, such as the Registered Clubs Association, the Australian Hotels Association, and the Restaurant and Catering Association, to alert their members to the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly given the vulnerability of hospitality employers to workers compensation claims from employees.

Page 1666

WorkCover has been intensively involved with passive smoking as a workplace issue since 1990, and formal employee and employer complaints, often running at 40 per month, have been dealt with by way of formal inspection. In most instances an inspectorial visit to the site has been sufficient to satisfactorily resolve the situation. However, most recently WorkCover has upgraded its enforcement program, with formal prohibition notices being issued to intractable employers. To date, four notices have been issued, one to an art gallery, another to a finance company, an insurance company and a factory.

The cases include a Sydney art gallery director who refused to refrain from smoking cigars in the administration area; a Wollongong foundry, where a worker continued to smoke despite the presence of dangerous and flammable chemicals nearby; a North Sydney finance company, issued with a notice after a co-tenant with medical records showing she reacted to tobacco smoke complained that the company was not observing the smoking ban; a central Sydney legal firm where one manager was burning incense to mask his smoking. The WorkCover inspector issued a notice to cease the smoking and the burning of the incense. If firms breach a prohibition notice, they are liable to pay fines of up to $100,000. If they continue to breach the notice, they face prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which has a maximum penalty of $500,000. This move to police non-smoking policies is the latest significant step in the cultural shift towards tobacco-free workplaces.


The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I direct a question without notice to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that earlier this afternoon the Minister for Police in another place said of the member for Vaucluse, "You are behaving like a westie"? Is this derogatory remark typical of his Government's attitude towards the people of western Sydney? Is this why the member for Campbelltown deserted his western Sydney constituency? Will the Treasurer call on the Minister for Police to apologise to the people of western Sydney for legitimising a stereotype?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Fascinated as I am by the words used by various members of the Legislative Assembly, I must say I am not completely up to date with exactly what has been said by various members or Ministers today. Members and Ministers of this Government have the highest regard for residents of the western suburbs of Sydney.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I direct a question to the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services, representing the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the decriminalisation of the personal use of marijuana in South Australia in 1987 led to a substantial increase in the use of marijuana, in that since its decriminalisation South Australia has twice the rate of increase of marijuana use as New South Wales for the 14- to 19-year-old-age group? Is it a fact that marijuana smoking is 10 times more harmful to the respiratory system than nicotine cigarette smoking? Will the Government therefore urgently launch an education campaign similar to the quit smoking campaign to discourage teenagers from smoking marijuana?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile raises an important question of public policy. I shall be delighted to refer his question to my colleague the Minister for Health to obtain a suitable response.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Minister for Public Works and Services, Minister for Ports, Assistant Minister for Energy, and Assistant Minister for State and Regional Development. I refer the Minister to a report last Sunday in the Sun-Herald. Is the Minister aware of a jet ski protest rally at Port Hacking calling for stricter controls on jet skis? Is the Minister also aware that this sport already has claimed the lives of two Australians in the past three years and that there have been a number of accidents involving injuries to riders and other water users? Does the Minister agree that jet ski riders are endangering the lives of other water users and destroying the tranquillity of Sydney's waterways? What steps will the Minister take to protect the lives of other water users and to implement stricter noise controls, but without destroying this sport?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: For many years I have heard jet skis on Port Hacking. I am pleased to say that Cronulla is the only beachside area with a railway station. Every weekend we welcome many thousands of young people, in particular from the western suburbs, who find that beach and the waterways of Sutherland shire the only beach and waterways to which they can get access by public transport. I remember the rivalry that existed years ago between those of us who were residents of the Sutherland shire and those who used to come to the area by train every day. I am aware of the problems caused by jet skis, and I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague the Minister for Public Works and Services and Minister for Ports. When I get a reply, I will advise the House.

Page 1667

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask a question of the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware that the community of Byron shire is still eagerly awaiting the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption? Can the Minister advise whether there is a period within which the ICAC must provide a report, as the hearings were held in May 1995? Is there an explanation as to why the most contentious cases in the shire were not addressed by the commission, those being the Club Med proposal and Batsons quarry, both of which were the subject of submissions sent to the ICAC, although this fact was denied by Commissioner Barry O'Keefe in his evidence to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice in September 1995? Can the Premier advise when the report is to be completed and made public?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: The Independent Commission Against Corruption, like the Ombudsman, is statutorily independent. I am not sure that it would be appropriate for the Government to bring any pressure to bear on the commission to inquire into particular matters or to report on them. My colleague the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services suggests that the matter raised by the honourable member could be appropriately taken up with the Select Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Other than that, there is no other assistance I can give. The honourable member could raise the issue directly with ICAC or take it up with the parliamentary committee. However, I point out that the Independent Commission Against Corruption is independent of government.


The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs. Is the Premier aware that on page 2 of the University News dated 23 May it is stated that the Premier envisioned an improved conservatorium in line with developments such as the addition of two floors to the Museum of Contemporary Art and a proposed cinematech? Can the Premier state when the Museum of Contemporary Art will receive the much needed additional two floors to enable it to serve better the cultural needs of the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It is a long time since I was a student at Sydney University. I am not sure whether this journal was published when I was there, but if it was, I never read it; and I am not a reader of it now. I am not sure what is said on page 2 of the document, but I am happy to refer the question to the Premier.


The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. What impact will Senator Vanstone's proposed 12 per cent cut in university funding have on regional towns such as Lismore, Bathurst, Port Macquarie, Orange, Coffs Harbour and Armidale, whose economies are significantly dependent on their university campuses? Is it a fact that proposed funding cuts will have a far greater impact on regional towns than on metropolitan Sydney? What is the Government doing to ensure that John Howard keeps his election promise to maintain university funding, especially with regard to universities in regional New South Wales?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I thank the Hon. R. S. L. Jones for his question, which has caused some embarrassment on the Opposition benches, as it should.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Why?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Why, asks the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. He is embarrassed. If no decision has been made to hack into university funding, someone should so advise Senator Amanda Vanstone.

The Hon. P. T. Primrose: She announced it on the radio.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: It was said again on the radio this morning. I have seen Senator Vanstone on the television news, indicating without any equivocation that the universities in Australia are about to have their funds slashed and hacked by the razor gang in Canberra. Senator Vanstone, as Minister for Education, seems to be encouraging that to happen rather than resisting it. The suggestion by Senator Vanstone - not by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones or anybody else - is that university funding should be cut by the order of 12 per cent. That is the equivalent of up to $158 million and 22,700 student places in New South Wales. Obviously, the New South Wales Government is deeply concerned about the impact of these proposed cuts on regional New South Wales in particular.

Unless sense prevails and the Howard Government relents, there will be an economic, as well as an educational, catastrophe in regional New South Wales. Regional universities are tightly knitted into their local economies. If universities are hit, also hit will be the local butcher, the local real estate agent, the cinema, the service station, et cetera. Let me take the University of Wollongong
Page 1668
as an example. The university at Wollongong is the second largest employer in the Illawarra region, with 1,525 full-time staff on its payroll. It directly puts about $1 million a day into the hands of local shopkeepers and other business people. Overseas students at Wollongong spend $60 million a year in the Illawarra region. My colleague the Minister for Education, John Aquilina, estimates that the Wollongong university would lose 1,401 places as the result of a 12 per cent cut. One does not need to be an economic genius to realise the hurt that would cause the Illawarra region. The Riverina campus of Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga employs 935 people.

The Hon. B. P. V. Pezzutti: They won't let the -

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Even the colleagues of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti are telling him to shut up. The Riverina campus of Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga employs 935 people and generates around $99 million of regional economic activity every year. It is the region's second largest employer. During term, more than 3,000 students attend the Wagga Wagga campus, including 500 overseas students. The coalition cuts would cost Charles Sturt University 2,224 student places. One can readily gauge the likely impact of these cuts on the University of New England and the subsequent effect on the local economy in that region. In the past few months 180 staff have been laid off from the university. As a result, in the New England region real estate values in Armidale have plummeted by 15 per cent, house sales are down from 550 to 360 a year, and local business sentiment is in the doldrums. That university is now threatened with a $9 million cut to its budget, which would axe 1,600 student places and would make it harder to attract full fee-paying students from outside Australia.

In short, the Howard Government is set to gut the University of New England and cripple the local economy. Sadly, the news is not much better in other regions. The north coast economy stands to lose up to $20 million a year, according to the community and public sector unions. The cuts threaten 170 jobs at Southern Cross University campuses in Lismore, Coffs Harbour and elsewhere on the north coast. Professor Gerard Sutton, the vice-chancellor of Wollongong university, estimates that the cuts will carve $50 million from the local Illawarra economy and could stop the development of the Shoalhaven campus from proceeding. In the Hunter, the Vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, Professor Ral Mortley, has warned that the university would be forced to retrench at least 250 staff. New South Wales is already $110 million behind the other States in its population share of Commonwealth grants to universities. There simply is not any fat to cut. For the sake of regional economic prosperity and educational quality, these cuts must be stopped.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council a supplementary question. Is it a fact that a 12 per cent cut in funding to Southern Cross University would cause $6 million to be taken directly out of the local economy with a multiplier effect of $18 million from the Lismore community? Has the Minister any idea how many jobs this would cost the area of Lismore?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: Indeed, that is the case. As I have pointed out, the north coast economy would stand to lose up to $20 million a year, that is, 170 jobs at Southern Cross University in Lismore, Coffs Harbour and elsewhere on the north coast. The indirect impact of these cuts will be catastrophic throughout regional New South Wales. If, as the Opposition suggests, these cuts are purely speculation, I will await the letter from Senator Vanstone to assure the Government that these cuts will not occur. Encouraged by the comments of Opposition members, I will write to Senator Vanstone today to ask her for that assurance.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I bet you won't.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I bet I will. I am not sure that I will get a response from Senator Vanstone, in which case I will be pleased to inform the House that I have failed to get a response. If I do get a response, I will be pleased to bring it to the attention of the House.


The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Is the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations aware of a compact between the New South Wales parliamentary Labor Party and the Labor Council of New South Wales public sector unions of February 1995, and, if so, could he outline some of the major details and the thrust of that compact?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Certainly before the most recent election there were discussions between the public sector unions and, I think, the Labor Council and the former Opposition, essentially about channels of communication, dispute resolution techniques and consultative committees that would operate during the time of the Government. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no document was actually executed and no arrangement was finalised in a formal or legal sense. There was an understanding that Ministers would consult relevant unions and that consultative committees would be established. Indeed, such committees have been established and have been useful. Certainly I have presided over a number of meetings of relevant unions to discuss issues of policy relevant to the Government. That sort of consultative framework is not only appropriate but is entirely desirable for any government.

Page 1669

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of the Minister's answer, would he be able to explain why his colleague the Minister for Community Services wrote to the industrial officer of the Labor Council of New South Wales suggesting that in his area of responsibility a senior consultative forum was established in accordance with the compact between the New South Wales parliamentary Labor Party and the Labor Council of New South Wales public sector unions?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Assuming that the Hon. Virginia Chadwick is accurate in recounting the letter that is said to have been written, it would seem perfectly in accordance with what I have said: that there is an understanding that there ought to be a consultative committee and that Ministers ought to be speaking to relevant unions about issues that affect them and their members.


The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I remind the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations of my question to him on 22 May about the extradition of alleged paedophile Philip Bell. I also remind him that he dismissed my question and suggested that it was inappropriate since the decision was not his to make. Does the Attorney General still think that the question is inappropriate? If so, why did the Attorney General tell the Australian on 6 April 1996 - nearly seven weeks ago - that the public has a right to question why Mr Bell had not been arrested? Why have charges still not been laid against Mr Bell?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I would need to see the text of the earlier question before giving an opinion as to whether it was appropriate or inappropriate. The fact is that whether charges are laid is a matter for the police. Under common law a person occupying the office of constable cannot be directed in relation to his or her duty as to whether he or she lays a charge, and the police exercise a discretion in accordance with law in that regard. I adhere to my view that the public is entitled to ask why over many years these people have not been charged. My understanding is that the royal commission is undertaking that very task; it is asking why for many years charges have not been laid.


The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I refer the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment, to reports that the State Government will introduce compulsory annual car exhaust tests at a cost of up to $80 for each test. Is the Minister aware that the reported cost of $80 is considered by experts to be unjustifiably high? What safeguards will exist to prevent the fee from escalating unchecked, representing yet another impost on motorists already faced with spiralling compulsory third party premiums and unanticipated toll charges for travelling on the M4 and M5, which affect mainly us westies?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for the Environment to obtain a reply.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I direct my question to the Treasurer, Minister for Energy, Minister for State and Regional Development, Minister Assisting the Premier, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, in his capacity as representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware that $328,000 is currently being spent on tiling the stairs of Summer Hill railway station? Is he further aware that the group Residents for Access to Summer Hill has obtained engineers' estimates that lifts and a ramp could be provided at Summer Hill for approximately $500,000? Why is so much money being spent on changes that will not increase access to the station, and why is access not being provided when Summer Hill has Grosvenor Hospital for the disabled, also a substantial elderly population, and is a comparatively disadvantaged area where many people cannot afford alternatives to public transport?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I shall refer that question to my colleague the Minister for Transport to obtain an answer.


The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Transport, further aware that the estimate of the State Rail Authority for providing lifts was $1 million to $1.5 million, several times higher than the engineers' estimate? Will the Minister investigate this discrepancy, given the recent comments made by the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption about corruption in the SRA?

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: I should hardly have thought that to be a supplementary question. Certainly it did not arise from anything I said in response to the original question. I should have thought that the additional questions could have been included in the initial question. As with the initial question, I shall be happy to refer the matter raised subsequently by the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith to my colleague the Minister for Transport.


The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Does the Attorney General remember late last year answering questions in the House relating to litigation between the National Trust and the Stead Foundation looking after the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary in Picton? Does he
Page 1670
further remember that the Government was going to organise the expediting of a court case so that the status of who owns the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary could be sorted out and its future determined? Could the Attorney General advise the House why no attempt has been made to expedite the hearing in the courts so that the future of the Wirrimbirra Sanctuary can be secured?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I recall the issue and I shall be happy to get a report as to the current state of the litigation from the Solicitor General, who I believe has the conduct of the matter. I am not aware whether there has been an application for expedition and I am unaware of the outcome of any such application. I shall find out those details. It would obviously be inappropriate to comment on the rights and wrongs of the case, as the matter is before the courts. I do not understand the Hon. J. F. Ryan to be asking for that, but the question as to whether an application for expedition has been made and whether the court has granted such application is a matter about which I could reasonably inform the honourable member. I point out that I have every faith in the Solicitor General to determine whether it is appropriate to make such an application, and I am sure that he would take the correct course.


The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I address my question to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware that the buildings at Yeoval central school are wholly inadequate for the teaching of the pupils at that school? Is he aware that there is no provision in the State capital works program for the construction of urgently needed new buildings? Would the Minister undertake to provide as a matter of urgency some form of heating in the demountable facilities used at the school now, as winter is approaching and some children will be at risk because the buildings are most inadequate?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for Education and Training and table a reply for the Hon. D. F. Moppett.


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 he is aware that McDonald's at Ballina is offering free tokens to high-achieving students at Ballina High School to entice them into eating unhealthy junk food. Can the Minister advise whether it is departmental policy to allow our schoolchildren to become junk-food junkies, using teachers as pushers? If not, will the Minister ensure that purveyors of unhealthy products, such as McDonald's, Mars Confectionery and the Coca-Cola company are kept away from our schools and our children?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall refer that question to the Minister for Education and Training and obtain a reply for the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.


The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I ask the Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services whether the Department of Community Services maintains a register of every child who has been in care for 14 days or more?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If I remember correctly it was a recommendation of the Usher report that such a register should be maintained. That did not happen under the previous Government. It is of concern to me that the substitute care system has been allowed to run down in recent years.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: You have been the Minister for 12 months.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: In the 12 months I have been Minister if I have been trying to concentrate on anything I have been certainly concentrating on child protection and the substitute care of children.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: It is just a matter of signing a green.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Leader of the Opposition is the last person who should be interjecting: he had an appalling record when he had responsibility for community services. It is my desire to focus attention on substitute care and to overcome some of the neglect by the previous Government. I have many issues under consideration regarding substitute care of children. I shall press on to improve the resourcing of the system. In regard to the specific matter the Hon. Patricia Forsythe raised, I shall get a precise answer about statutory provisions. This is an important issue. When we talk about substitute care of children we talk about disadvantaged children, and it is appropriate that a great deal of attention should be given to the issue - certainly a great deal more than was given to it by the previous Government.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.


Schedule 1

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.05]: I move:

Page 6, Schedule 1[17], lines 15-32. Omit all words on those lines.

Page 1671

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones has raised a query with the administration of the Minister for Agriculture about a proposed amendment to section 26 of the Non-Indigenous Animals Act, which relates to self-incriminating admissions. The honourable member wished to propose a further amendment to section 26 which would have far-reaching consequences for the portfolio of the Minister for Agriculture. However, it would not have any impact on the other amendments proposed in the bill. The Government has decided to remove the original proposal relating to the section for the time being to allow the more urgent provisions of the bill to proceed through the Parliament this session.

The reasons for removing section 26 and the related amendment in the bill for further reconsideration are as follows. First, the provision is common to all legislation of this nature throughout the portfolio of the Minister for Agriculture and legislation in other portfolios such as that of the Minister for the Environment. Such provisions relate to inspectors who require emergency powers but who do not have the powers of arrest and charge that police officers have. In addition, the provisions relating to cautioning by inspectors were considered by Attorneys General departments throughout Australia during consideration of submissions which led to the enactment of uniform evidence Acts throughout Australia in 1995.

Further consideration of these generic provisions, in the view of the Government, should be made at one time with appropriate advice from the Attorney General to allow a consistent approach to legal rights of defendants to be developed rather than allowing an ad hoc amendment to proceed in this instance. The current provisions leave the defendant in a better position, in the view of the Government, than that proposed by the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. The current provision leaves the onus on the court to determine whether information provided by the defendant may be used in proceedings against him or her. The provision is simple and straightforward. The Government's view is that the various suggested amendments would leave a contorted and difficult provision in place. However, as I said to the Committee at the outset, it is the desire of the Government to omit the words on lines 15 to 32 of page 6 so that the matter can be, in effect, put on hold and considered in a calm and mature atmosphere rather than be dealt with in a hurried fashion now.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.09]: The amendment moved by the Government is highly unusual given that it would delete section 26 to enable the Government to negotiate with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones on some possible changes -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is not negotiating with me; it is discussing it further.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: It is discussing the matter further. A similar position has been reached with other Acts of Parliament and the Hon. R. S. L. Jones and other members have had no problems on those occasions. However, the Opposition will not oppose the deletion of the words, which will necessitate, I presume, bringing back the legislation at some future time. The Minister might address whether the Government is seeking to adjourn debate on this bill until it can sort out whether officers should be given the power provided under section 26 of the Act, whether it will introduce some other measure, or whether the provisions of the Evidence Act will be amended to cover this possibility. It is unusual for a government to seek to delete a section relating to compliance and then to admit that at some stage it might have to introduce a measure that, in turn, will replace a section of the Non-Indigenous Animals Act. The Minister for Community Services may wish to clarify that matter for the Committee.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.10]: Due to an inadvertence, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made a mistake about this amending legislation. The effect of schedule 1[17] will be to omit section 26(3) from the principal Act. The amendment proposes to insert instead the provision set out in the bill. It is my view that the effect of the amendment I have moved to delete lines 15 to 32 inclusive on page 6, schedule 1, will be ensure that the existing provision remains intact. Section 26(3) of the principal Act will remain the law of this State until the Parliament decides otherwise. The Government proposes that the existing law remain as it is, that status quo remain and that further discussions be held not only with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones but also with the Opposition and other interested parties regarding the changes proposed in this bill. The Government is not seeking to leave a vacuum. It is simply setting aside, for the time being, a change that it proposed to the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.12]: I thank the Minister for Community Services and the Minister for Agriculture for acceding to this provision. It has wider ramifications than for this legislation. It makes good sense to consider its effect on other legislation as well.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.13]: I thank the Minister for Community Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture, for his explanation. The Minister for Agriculture and the department have not taken the time to inform the Opposition of any of these changes. I suspect that if the Government and the Minister in another place want the support of the Opposition to amend a bill at five minutes to midnight, as it were, they might take the opportunity to allow departmental officers to bring the Opposition up to date with any changes that might be introduced. I am sure that would assist the transition of legislation through this House.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

Page 1672

Debate resumed from 2 May.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.15]: The Opposition supports this bill. Honourable members would know that responsibility for the Exhibited Animals Protection Act was transferred from the Minister for the Environment to the Minister for Agriculture. This simple legislation will require zoos operated by the Zoological Parks Board - such as Taronga Zoo and Western Plains Zoo at Dubbo - to be licensed under the 1991 Act, which was introduced by the former Government, whereas they were exempt from any licensing provisions. This legislation will bring both zoos under the provisions of the 1991 legislation.

Honourable members would be aware of the fine work done by the Zoological Parks Board in maintaining and managing both zoos. The Western Plains Zoo is an outstanding initiative. It has enabled many hundreds of thousands of people - probably millions - to look at animals running in a natural, free-range environment. Interestingly, Taronga Zoo is taking steps to improve the conditions of animals and to present them in a more natural environment than has been the case in the past. I commend the Zoological Parks Board for its efforts in this regard. Both zoos are held in high regard internationally; they are among the best zoos in the world. They deserve the commendation of this House. The Opposition has much pleasure in supporting the bill.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.18]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the Exhibited Animals Protection Amendment Bill. I concur with many of the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Of particular importance is the breeding program for rhinoceroses in captivity being conducted by the Western Plains Zoo. For many endangered species, such a program may be the only way that gene pools can be developed and increased to ensure their survival. The legislation will remove what has been a serious anomaly. Whereas a number of small zoos and privately owned zoos had to be licensed and had to fulfil a number of requirements under the Act, the Zoological Parks Board zoos at Taronga Park and Dubbo were exempt from such requirements. That caused considerable resentment. It is only proper that all zoos should be on the same footing.

I am pleased the draft standards refer specifically to the exhibition of animals in circuses, which still occurs in New South Wales although the practice is frowned upon by many thousands in the community. The standards refer also to aquariums and to cetacea - dolphins and whales - and to the fact that circuses may not hold cetacean species. I am delighted that a limit has been placed on the number of dolphins and whales that may be exhibited. That is a very important provision. I know that the bill has been discussed at great length and that there has been wide consultation with a whole range of people and organisations - the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, people nominated by animal welfare organisations and so forth. The legislation has brought the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 into line with the needs of 1996, and it is appropriate that it should receive the support of all members of this House.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.22]: In their early days zoos were merely places at which rather strange animals from foreign places were exhibited - animals that people rarely saw. These days people see those same animals almost daily on many wonderful television programs. Zoos were very cruel places in the old days. Single lions, tigers, elephants and pandas were sentenced to wandering back and forth in tiny, cramped cages, on concrete or metal floors. In those days zoos were nasty places indeed and existed only for human amusement and pleasure. Things have changed over the years and even the ghastly orang-outang cage at Taronga Park has made way for a much more appropriate and desirable enclosure for these highly intelligent creatures. "Orang-outang" means man of the jungle - or perhaps person of the jungle. They were regarded even by those who lived among them as highly intelligent creatures, yet they were treated as less than animals.

I hope we are fast approaching an age when we will have far more respect for animals than we had in the past, and when zoos will have transformed from places exhibiting animals for human pleasure to places that strive to save species from extinction - as is happening now at the Western Plains Zoo with the rhinoceroses. Maybe zoos will become refuges for koalas in the future, although I would rather hope that the Government will deliver on some of its promises in respect of koala refuges, such as the Goonengerry koala sanctuary. Regrettably, around the world as we speak forests are being destroyed and animals and species are becoming extinct. It may be that when humans finally realise that we cannot continue to destroy animals at the rate at which we are doing so today zoos will become biological reserves for the future - designated areas into which animals that have been contained in zoos and like institutions can be released to enjoy their lives in the wild, to live in peace alongside human beings.

The Minister in the other place mentioned the draft standards being developed for the exhibition of circus animals in New South Wales. I have been a long-term opponent of holding animals in circuses. I have seen the way that circus animals have been treated. It is absolutely abominable. I have seen elephants chained up, forced to pace backwards and forwards in small confined spaces. I have seen lions and highly intelligent chimpanzees kept in tiny cages. I have been informed of animals being transported across the Nullarbor Plain in extremely
Page 1673
stressful states because of the oppressive, extreme heat. Fortunately, many rural and metropolitan councils are preventing circuses from exhibiting or displaying animals. At some time in the future there will be circuses without animals. Even now a number of successful circuses do not use animals. The Flying Fruit Fly Circus is one such circus.

I have a copy of the draft standards that were released by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture. They cover a number of aspects, including suitability and safety, housing, behavioural training, medical needs, interaction and husbandry. They state that lions are basically sedentary individuals, only becoming active during hunting, feeding, fighting, territorial marking or mating. That seems to suggest that it is all right to have lions in circuses. I do not agree. The draft standards state further that elephants are intelligent, inquisitive and social creatures and, therefore, circuses should not attempt to maintain single elephants. But, of course, they do. Even if a circus has three elephants, there is not much social interaction between the three. Often they are chained up or put into small cages and taken around the countryside in stressful condition. The standards also state that monkeys and apes are intensely hierarchical, very intelligent social animals and that their association with humans is based on their perception of humans as a source of food and other types of rewards, and their preferred perception of humans as being at the top of their social order. The document states:

Their intelligence also means that they need constant stimulation when not training or performing otherwise they become bored and frustrated.

Just as members of this House do from time to time. It continues:

Large apes (orangutans and gorillas) and arboreal apes (gibbons) are unsuitable animals for the circus environment due to their large living space requirements, and therefore must not be held by Australian circuses.

I would expect that even now people are trying to circumvent that standard so that the circuses can keep such animals. There is reference also to bears, in the following terms:

Circuses may hold bears if their performance employs the following method:

•In an arena cage, such as that used for the performance of big cats, in which case muzzles will not be mandatory; and that

•Entry to the arena cage is via an enclosed raceway or some other means by which the animal is enclosed.

When not performing, bears must not be muzzled unless such muzzling is required for short periods for medical access or circumstances when handlers must enter an enclosure containing bears.

The document fails to state that bears are also highly intelligent and inquisitive animals, just like orang-outangs, gorillas, apes, monkeys and chimpanzees. The standard suggests that animals in circuses are well looked after today, but my view, and the view of an increasing number of people and councils I am pleased to say, is that circuses with animals should be phased out and that circus animals should be released to areas where they can breed - such as the Western Plains Zoo at Dubbo, where there are natural surroundings, fresh air and open space. I hope that zoos will become biological reserves for bears, elephants, apes and other animals currently kept in circuses and in small zoos.

Australia may well become a reserve for these creatures and people may come from Africa to see our rhinoceroses, from India to see our elephants and from Sumatra to see our orang-outangs. Hopefully that parlous state will not be reached, though it is moving in that direction all the time. Honourable members may have seen an article in the Australian last weekend which stated that humans are causing the sixth great extinction and that we are taking many species with us. Eventually we may well become extinct, unless we wake up to what we are doing to the planet. We are moving gradually in the right direction but I hope that all Australian governments and governments worldwide will finally wake up to the fact that animals are not very different from ourselves. They are highly intelligent and have similar needs to those of human beings, though they are unable to express that in speech.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.30], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the bill and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.


The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [5.31]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

By leave, my second reading speech will be incorporated in Hansard.

The purpose of this Bill is to establish a new regulatory scheme for pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. The scheme involves streamlined licensing of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers who deal in `high risk of theft' goods. It also requires licensees to observe certain minimum standards of conduct, including record keeping. The proposal is to repeal the Pawnbrokers Act 1902, the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1906 and the Hawkers Act 1974, and replace them with a single statute targeted to prevent and remedy problems in the current marketplace.

Honourable members should note that the 1995 version of this Bill was passed only by the Lower House in 1995 and lapsed when Parliament was prorogued. This 1996 draft of the Bill has certain amendments. The details of these amendments are set out below.

Page 1674

The definition of second-hand goods which specified goods which had been used has been modified to include a reference to goods represented to be unused but previously purchased. This is to remove a potential loophole in the Bill where goods which were still packaged and demonstrably unused could be presented for sale to second-hand dealer by a vendor, and would not be caught by the provisions of the Bill and have to be recorded. This change was seen as necessary because goods which have been stolen often fall into the unused category and may be passed off by the vendor as being a gift or surplus to needs and hence available for sale.

In my Second Reading Speech for the 1995 Bill, I foreshadowed an intention to provide by regulation for the use of computerised records by licensees. A provision for the keeping of computerised records has been made explicit in the new Bill. This change reflects the Government's recognition that rapid provision of up-to-date information on stolen property to police will enhance their enforcement capability to combat property theft.

It is my intention to require all licensed pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers to keep computerised records as a condition of licence. While these details will be in the regulations rather than the bill it is an important addition to this legislation and reinforces my Government's stand on law and order. We are committed to assisting the police and working together with the community to stamp out home burglary.

Adequate phase-in time will be allowed for organisation of the technical requirements of this measure including the training of staff for both the Police Service and the industries concerned.

With respect to expediting the restoration of stolen property to people whose property has been the subject of court action and is thought to be held by a licensee, the court will now be required, in the absence of any particular impediment, to direct the police to seize such property.

In addition authorised officers who are usually police officers will be authorised to assist the claimant of allegedly stolen property to the greatest practical extent. This includes the power to act on their behalf in actions before the court to recover the goods.

The section relating to revocation of licences has been strengthened by adding a specific reference to employment by a licensee of a person who the licensee knows is disqualified under this legislation from holding a licence. This is designed to combat a constant problem in licensing where a licensee is disqualified only to be replaced by a close relative or `dummy' licensee who then has the disqualified person on staff.

Apart from these amendments the rest of the Bill is the same as its predecessor.

The main purpose of this legislation is to restrict the trade in stolen goods. There is no intention to restrict fair competition.

A secondary purpose is regulation of pawnbrokers in the consumer interest. This is seen as necessary in order to protect the interest of borrowers who pawn goods. With respect to the disclosure of the cost of borrowing the Bill provides comparable protection to that afforded to other classes of borrower whose transactions are regulated by consumer credit legislation.

An applicant for a licence must be adult, not be an undischarged bankrupt and have no convictions for dishonesty offences within the previous ten years. Similar provisions apply to applicants who are corporations and their directors.

Licences will be issued by the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading with appeals going to the Commercial Tribunal. Licensees will be required to display licence details at business locations.

Provision is made for issue of a single licence to be renewed annually in order to maintain the currency of information concerning licensee business and storage premises. This is necessary for effective enforcement and provision of information on the public register to members of the public.

Licences will only be required by those second-hand dealers who deal in goods which are at high risk of theft: portable goods of high value such as jewellery, electronic goods, power tools, and so on.

The new legislation is designed to reduce unnecessary paperwork for police and licensees. Record keeping will be targeted at pawn transactions and dealing in second-hand goods of types which are seen to be at high risk of theft.

Licensees will be required to keep records for inspection by police or other authorised officers. The trader will have to require and record proof of identity from those who are pawning or selling second-hand goods. The regulations will specify the necessary details and requirements as to proof of ownership of the goods. Traders must not accept any goods offered for sale or pawn if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the goods concerned are not the property of the person by whom they are offered. Such grounds would include frequent offering of high value goods by the same person or a person offering goods such as computers about which they appear to have little knowledge.

I have received a small number of complaints about the potential for stolen goods to be sold at markets and garage sales. It is not reasonable to impose restrictions on those who trade in second-hand goods for a livelihood and leave the backyard trade exempt. It is proposed to allow people to trade twelve times a year without a licence. The mechanism used in the Bill is a presumption regarding the carrying on of business. This will give the police guidance in dealing with the dishonest unlicensed dealers who trade sporadically on the fringes of the market through so-called garage sales and the like.

The sanctions for unlicensed dealing can be severe including fines and forfeiture of proceeds.

Enforcement agencies will be able to use information from newspaper advertisements, market records, and on-site visits to establish a pattern of dealing and thus prosecute the unlicensed. The twelve occasions of trading provision should not restrict the legitimate market in second-hand goods or catch those who trade in bric-a-brac at local markets. By and large their stock in trade does not consist of high risk of theft goods.

To deter the sale of stolen goods at fairs and markets, promoters of regular events of this type will be required to keep records of those selling goods in the nominated categories. This should not involve promoters of these events in much more recording than they would do now to run an event efficiently. It will give police a further source of information on potential illegal traders.

Another major grievance about which I have received many complaints is the restoration of stolen goods to rightful owners who have located them in the shop of a second-hand dealer or pawnbroker. The possibility of having police involved in an on the spot restoration of such property was explored, but there were many practical and legal barriers to this, such as the difficulty of proving genuine ownership of goods. However it has been decided to give the police and other authorised officers greater powers to assist people in following the legal procedure for claiming their property, as is indicated in the amendments noted above.

As part of this procedure the Bill proposes to `freeze' disputed property in the possession of the trader until the matter is resolved. If people see goods they suspect to be their property in the possession of a trader, they will be able to approach that person and lay claim to the goods.

Page 1675
At this point the trader must supply them with a document setting out the procedure to be followed in claiming their property and also supply a copy to the police, where the police are not already involved in the matter.

The trader may not change or dispose of the property until the matter has been resolved, with the local court being the final arbiter. To guard against vexatious or erroneous claims the claimant is required to supply information to the dealer and to act within a certain time frame.

The requirement that second-hand dealers must retain goods for 14 days before disposing of them will be continued.

It is important that the police have sufficient time to investigate matters and locate goods before they can be resold. Although low risk of theft items will not be caught by this legislation I now intend to include furniture above the wholesale value of $200.

The Bill provides sufficient regulation-making power for exemption from the 14 day provision of goods which are being sold on consignment: they are not the property of the licensee and the outcome of the sale requires further contact with the vendor. For these reasons consignment selling is not seen as a high risk area for stolen goods.

On the same ground of low risk it is proposed to exempt by regulation goods purchased by a dealer at auction from the 14 day holding period.

Submissions from police and dealers indicated that rightful owners of goods had a better chance of finding them if dealers were obliged to keep goods on hand for a period. This was important where the `stolen' goods fell into the `domestic theft' category - that is, they had been sold to dealers by family members where there was a drug addict in the family or where there had been a relationship breakdown and one partner had sold off the jointly owned property.

Police who suspect, on reasonable grounds, that a licensee has possession of stolen goods can direct them to be held for 21 days which period can be renewed once. This provision is considered important for criminal law investigations.

To enhance the capacity of the police to act in respect of licensees who do not adhere to the conduct requirements, a system of penalty notices and demerit points is proposed. These sanctions complement fines which may be imposed as a result of court action.

The effect will be that licensees who continue to infringe trading requirements will suffer the cumulative impact of breaches including the possible loss of licence.

Many of the sections of the legislation applying to pawnbrokers have been retained. In practical terms the legitimate pawnbroking marketplace has been conducted in an orderly fashion for many years.

The auction system for disposal of unredeemed pawns will be continued for goods on which a prescribed amount (proposed to be $50.00) has been loaned. Borrowers may apply for the surplus where goods have sold for more than the loan plus interest and charges. There was consideration given to removing the auction requirement on the grounds that refunds are rarely claimed. However as the present system seems to be well accepted by both pawnbrokers and clients as promoting a fair marketplace it seems preferable to retain it.

It should be noted that pawn transactions are subject to the reopening provisions of the Credit Act where the pawn, at the time it was entered into, was unjust. This is an important consumer protection provision and will be continued under the new Consumer Credit Code when it commences.

I have mentioned that the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading is the licensing authority. This carries the responsibility to take disciplinary action against licensees who, in a variety of ways, fail to observe honest and fair trading standards.

The Bill sets out a disciplinary system which is meant to be effective in the public interest whilst providing essential protections including appeal rights to the licensee, whose livelihood may be at risk.

I have not taken up the time of the House in outlining all the provisions of the Bill. This is adequately done in the Explanatory Note which accompanies the Bill.

I do want to emphasise in conclusion that the Bill seeks in an informed way to target current market problems and address them in a way to produce a net community benefit. Particular attention has been paid to the respective roles the Police Service and my Department should play under the regulatory scheme.

Most second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers are legitimate traders intent on providing their customers with a service. This Bill will not inhibit good business practice.

The Government is intent on enhancing the capacity of the Police Service to target thieves and those who trade with them and for the Department of Fair Trading to remove dishonest traders from the marketplace.

I commend the Bill.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.32]: The Opposition will support the bill, except for one clause, which I shall deal with later. I am very glad that the Government has decided to adopt this piece of legislation formulated by the former coalition Government. This bill will replace the Pawnbrokers Act 1902, the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1906 and the Hawkers Act 1974. It aims to restrict the trading of stolen goods and to protect the consumer by regulating the practices of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. Home invasion offends everything that is held sacred in Australia. It infringes on our rights to privacy, safety, security, possession and ownership of goods. If the opportunity to sell stolen goods can be minimised, the frequency of break and enter offences will decrease. I am sure the Minister for Police would welcome this, as would all honourable members.

The need for the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Bill is best illustrated by me relating to the House the experiences of my daughter and my son-in-law when they were trying to recover stolen goods. Last year their house was broken into and goods were taken, including some expensive musical instruments. My son-in-law reported the incident to the police, but then located in a pawnbroker's shop the rare and unusual musical equipment. The pawnbroker had purchased the goods for a great deal less than they had been worth, as far as I can recall slightly more than 10 per cent of the original cost. On informing the police of the incident my son-in-law was advised that the easiest way to get his property back was to purchase it back from the pawnbroker. This scenario raises several important issues - the importance of pawnbrokers requiring identification from those pawning goods and keeping good records that are easily accessible by police, and the practice of pawnbrokers purchasing goods for significantly less than their worth.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It happened to me - 10 per cent.

Page 1676

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: Yes, the same happened with the goods of my son-in-law. What the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said is true. Those goods were purchased at such a low price that either they must have been stolen, or the seller was not aware of their true value, or the pawnbroker was exploiting someone in need of quick cash.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Exploiting you and your family.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: That too, no doubt. I will explain that also. The third anomaly is that the victim of the theft is forced to repurchase his own property. That way the victim suffers a double burden. Not only is the victim robbed of the belongings but the victim has to pay a second time in order to recover his or her own goods. However, my daughter and son-in-law were insured and the insurance company encouraged them to buy the goods back from the pawnbroker as this would be a cheaper option than buying them new. My son-in-law bought the equipment back and the insurance company reimbursed the cost. The bill seeks to address this issue - and I am pleased about that - and it streamlines the licensing of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers for the protection of the consumer.

However, aspects of this bill need to be clarified and provisions need to be tightened in order to provide effective legislation, and I shall comment on these. The bill was originally introduced in 1995 in the other place. However, it never passed through the Legislative Council as Parliament was prorogued. The current bill contains several changes to the original version. Now the bill establishes a new regulatory scheme for pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers involved with high-risk-of-theft goods, being portable goods of high value such as jewellery, electronic goods, power tools, et cetera. That is a good measure. The bill also includes those goods that have been used, as well as those that have been previously purchased but never used. The purpose of the measure is to restrict the trade of stolen goods by making it harder for thieves to off-load stolen goods onto second-hand dealers.

Part 3 imposes minimum standards of conduct upon licensed second-hand dealers. They are required to keep records of transactions for police inspection. These records must include details of proof of identity from those pawning or selling second-hand goods. A condition of licence by regulation will be that all records must be computerised so that police can gain better access to records and thus enhance their enforcement capability. Outlined in the bill is a specification of the necessary requirements as to proof of ownership of the goods. The trader is required not to accept any goods offered for sale if it is suspected that the offerer of the goods is not the owner of the goods. Such a suspicion could be aroused by the frequent offer of high value goods by the same person, or by a person offering goods about which they have little knowledge, such as their true value.

Clause 21 of the bill attempts to address the problems surrounding restoration of goods to the rightful owners. There is a requirement that second-hand dealers must retain goods for 14 days before sale or exchange. This will give rightful owners a better chance to locate their goods. If people see goods that they suspect to be theirs in a second-hand dealer's shop, they may lay claim to those goods. Clause 22 provides that the trader is required to supply the claimant with a form outlining the procedure to be followed, and a copy must be given to the police. That did not happen in the past, and my son-in-law was very frustrated about that.

The trader must maintain possession of the property in question for 28 days or until the matter is resolved by a court. In order to safeguard against false claims, the claimant must provide certain information and act within a certain time frame. The court is now able to direct police to seize property the subject of a court action. Police officers are authorised to assist the claimant of alleged stolen property and act on their behalf in any action before the court to recover stolen goods. My son-in-law will be happy with that measure because until the bill is passed that is not possible. The proceeding is in accordance with part 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

Criminal investigations will be assisted by this bill. If police suspect that a trader is in possession of stolen goods, the police can order the trader to hold those goods for 21 days, and on expiry of that period the order can be renewed once more. Sanctions are provided by this legislation for dealers who do not abide by the conduct requirements of the bill. Apart from restricting trading in stolen goods, the bill seeks also to protect the consumer by restricting eligibility for a pawnbroker's licence. An applicant must be adult, cannot be an undischarged bankrupt, and must have no conviction for dishonesty offences in the previous 10 years.

A new provision implemented by the bill is that a business partner of someone who has been disqualified from holding a licence may not hold a licence. This is designed to prevent the operation of dummy licensees. The Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading will be the sole licensing authority and will have power to take disciplinary action against licensees who do not uphold fair trading practices and/or the regulations. This is a sensible approach which need not require the involvement of the clerk of the Local Court. The bill also contains sanctions on unlicensed dealings. However, it is difficult to envisage how unlicensed trade is to be policed. Police already have their hands full carrying out other duties without having to check through newspapers and keep count of how many garage sales an individual has held in one year. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify that matter for me.

There has been considerable debate as to who will be required to be licensed. Under clause 38 of the bill those who trade up to 12 times a year do not require a licence. After consultation, the
Page 1677
Opposition questions that requirement. Those who run garage sales or market stalls as frequently as once a month are not required to be licence holders under the current provision of the bill. This provision is aimed, I understand, at drawing a distinction between those who run a business and those who do not. However, the Opposition is of the view that someone who is operating a market stall or garage sale once a month is really engaging in business activity; it should no longer be assumed that person is getting rid of junk. It is difficult to imagine an individual householder having adequate surplus personal possessions to sustain a monthly garage sale. It seems reasonable to assume that what sustains those monthly garage sales is stolen property.

The Minister for Fair Trading has decided that garage sales are not likely locations for trade in stolen goods. This is, the Opposition believes, the only loophole in the legislation as it is possible that garage sales may easily become an outlet for stolen goods. Perhaps the bill would be more effective in restricting trade in stolen goods if the number of days on which garage sales may be held each year were reduced to four. Of course, the Opposition would not wish to infringe on the operations of monthly church markets and the like that raise money for charitable purposes. Similarly, those in country areas wishing to sell their crafts or produce at local market stalls would also be exempt from the four day per year restriction on the unlicensed operation of market stalls. Therefore the Opposition will move an amendment to that effect. Otherwise, the Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.44]: Honourable members who have been in this House for a few years would recall that I directed questions to the Hon. Ted Pickering and made speeches on a number of occasions about the rorts that pawn shops have been involved in. Now the family of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho has been caught by such rorts. I am sure other honourable members have been caught by them. My next-door neighbour had his house burgled recently. My advice to him was, "Go down to the local pawn shop and you will find your goods there." Of course, he did. The curious thing is that the person who pawned the goods left a correct name and address, and consequently was arrested. He was a heroin user, so maybe he was not in his right mind when he pawned the stolen goods. He is now in Long Bay.

It is curious also that the person who stole $10,000 worth of goods from my premises also left a correct name and address and also was arrested. But I had to go to the various pawn shops and buy back the goods at 10 per cent of their value. The people who bought those goods from the thieves were quite wealthy, and would know that a 15-year-old girl who is pawning rings worth $400 or $500 is most unlikely to have acquired them legally. So the pawnbrokers knew that they were taking in stolen goods. If they did not know, they must have been extremely stupid; but they looked pretty wealthy for stupid people. I am in full support of the amendments proposed by the bill as they address concerns that I have raised several times about deficiencies in the Pawnbrokers Act of 1902. We have read and heard about the stings that have taken place here and in America in which police have set up pawn shops and people have been pawning stolen goods by the dozen to them. The police have arrested dozens of thieves and burglars.

The Hon. Ann Symonds: But they encourage young children to get involved.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Some of them may have been encouraged to burgle and sell the stolen goods at the pawn shops, but the fact is that it would have been just as easy to pawn the stolen goods at any pawn shop. The thieves merely happened to choose the nearest, police-run shop. In June 1994 I made a submission to the Minister for Consumer Affairs to review the Pawnbrokers Act and made it clear that the current system of pawnbroking and second-hand dealing required urgent overhaul. I cited my own case of 1987 which forced me to repurchase my goods from the Newtown pawn shop.

It appears it would have been quite obvious to the casual observer that the seller of those stolen goods could not have been the rightful owner and had stolen the goods. However, the pawnbrokers were happy to purchase those goods from the thieves who robbed me and the family of the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, or any goods at all, for 10 per cent of their value. After all, who would not be happy to buy rings at 10 per cent of their value? Who would not be happy to buy video recorders, television sets and musical instruments at 10 per cent of their value? All the easily sold items taken from homes go straight to the pawnbrokers. In the light of such experiences, it was clear to me that the Pawnbrokers Act of 1902 needed tightening up, and I have called on this Government and previous governments to do so. I believe that pawnbrokers should be obliged to ensure as far as possible that goods being offered to them for purchase are legitimately owned by the persons offering them for sale. Snapshots provide adequate photographic evidence of ownership. Detailed and specific records should be kept for all pawned items to a certain value, and pawnbrokers should be required to make such records available to the police.

Of course, one must be careful not to unduly restrict or hinder legitimate trade in pawned or second-hand goods, such as auctioned and deceased estate purchases, weekend market trading, and charitable, sporting and community groups conducting fund-raising stalls. After all, we need to prevent thieves from being able to dispose of stolen goods so easily and with little fear of being caught. As pawnbrokers are largely the clearing houses for stolen goods, and most reports on stolen goods focus on cash converters and the like, it is those sorts of establishments that should be targeted. In fact, no complaints whatsoever have been received
Page 1678
regarding the sale of stolen goods through markets and stalls. This is not surprising when one considers that most thieves steal and sell their goods in the same day in order to limit their chances of being apprehended with the goods in their possession.

Obviously, therefore, the thieves are extremely unlikely to risk attempting to fence them at weekend markets and stalls, which are generally held only once a month at each local government area. The amendments proposed by the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Bill will make the keeping of detailed sales records by pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers mandatory in cases where the goods purchased are listed as high-risk-of-theft goods by police, where the purchase price exceeds set amounts for each category, for example, $200 for purchase of antique furniture and $20 for purchase of electrical goods, and where traders deal in such second-hand and pawned goods more than 12 times a year. Owners will also be able to request and complete claim-of-ownership forms for stolen goods at pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers, and to lodge applications for the return of those goods to a court. In cases where convictions are obtained, a court will be able to order the police to seize and return such goods.

Legitimate trade in pawned and second-hand goods shall be allowed to continue unrestricted and unlicensed in regard to dealers who choose not to trade in high-risk-of-theft goods, as will individual purchases at a set price from market stallholders who trade less than 12 times a year. Such amendments will therefore not only mean that legitimate bulk purchases of goods from auctions and small low-cost purchases from market and fundraising stalls will not be unduly restricted or hindered, but it will also serve to speed up and simplify the process involved in returning stolen goods to their rightful owners. After all these years, I am relieved that at last there will be some long overdue tightening of the Pawnbrokers Act. I hope that some of those who have knowingly been dealing in stolen goods are finally brought to account.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [5.52]: The House is today dealing with the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Bill of 1996. The proposals in the bill have been developed in close consultation with the police. They are designed to target high-risk-of-theft areas of trade and also to facilitate the return of stolen goods to their rightful owners. The intent of the bill is to catch thieves, not to regulate the second-hand goods market. Obviously, it would be very difficult to track any stolen goods in the absence of regulations. The intent of the bill is to give police the best means possible of catching thieves and not to overburden police with unnecessary work chasing unlicensed dealers in the second-hand market. I am quite sure that the police will not spend a great deal of their time targeting unlicensed dealers unless they have been directed by the Minister or they feel that the crackdown in their area is warranted because there have been a large number of thefts.

The further intent of the bill is to provide police with an objective and clear standard by which to decide whether a person should be disqualified from trading in second-hand goods. In this way, suspect traders, the main street fences, will be targeted and banned from the legitimate market. The provision allowing for 12 trading occasions will allow people to sell at local country markets once a month without a licence. Such trading is not seen as falling within the high-risk-of-theft category. There is no intention in the bill to monitor the activities of occasional traders or dealers in bric-a-brac. Restriction of local garage sales is not seen as being so important that valuable police time should be spent on it. Local councils have a role in restricting the use of premises for unauthorised purposes.

It is unlikely that a person would be able to make a living from trading 12 times per year, or even six times per year. The intent of the bill is to catch the professional fence and to discourage the dabbler in stolen property. The bill gives the police ample powers to do that. To require the police to chase up people who trade in the second-hand market six times a year would clearly be a serious waste of police time. It should be remembered also that this bill is not the only legislation that the police have at their disposal to assist them in catching thieves. The police have powers to investigate traders or persons of dubious reputation, whether they trade once, twice, or a dozen times a year. They also have the power to check up on itinerant traders who may choose to trade around the country without a licence. The aim of the legislation is to assist police in catching thieves; it is not to chase up people who hold garage sales. Another important aim of the bill is to allow the efficient return of stolen property to its rightful owners. The shadow minister for mineral resources and shadow minister for consumer affairs, in a letter addressed to me dated 13 March, stated:

The legislation as introduced largely reflects proposals developed by the Coalition when in government. However, there is one difference which I raised when the Bill was first introduced last year and which has since caused concern amongst some in the business of pawnbroking. That is the proposal that up to 12 "garage sales" can be held in a year without being subject to the licensing and record-keeping requirements of the Act.

I feel that no genuine "garage sale" could sustain 12 sales a year unless they had a considerable supply of goods! The concern that has been raised with me is the possibility of disposing of stolen goods that this provision in the proposed Bill allows.

She then went on to explain that an amendment had been drafted to reduce the number of garage sales to four a year without requiring any regulation. She also made it clear that it was her intention to ensure that monthly charity sales would not be affected by the amendment. The amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho states:

In this subsection, charitable organisation means any person or organisation (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established in good faith for a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose.

Page 1679

It is quite obvious that the street stalls that are held every Saturday in many small country towns, run by the Country Women's Association, local groups of boy scouts or girl guides, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the Salvation Army, church groups or parents and citizens associations, will not be affected. Even if this amendment is accepted, these groups will be allowed to continue to run their street stalls to raise money for their organisations. The amendment will not affect people who want to hold genuine garage sales. I agree with the shadow minister for consumer affairs that the average person could not possibly have 12 garage sales a year; they would not have sufficient goods to sell. When this argument was going on, I received a great deal of correspondence from the North Coast Association of Second-hand Dealers, based in Lismore. The association brought to my attention its concerns about changes to the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Bill, in these terms:

Under the current law, a secondhand dealer has to hold any goods out of sight of the public, for 14 days. If the property is stolen, the owners go to the Police who tell them to go to the secondhand dealers. The owners describe the goods in detail. If the dealer admits to having the property he loses the goods and the money he has paid out to purchase them - there is no compensation.

This surely should make a dealer extremely careful when he is taking the goods in the first place and paying what may be a third of the value of the goods over the counter. The letter from the association continued:

If the law is changed and auction sales remain excluded from the Act, what will stop an unscrupulous dealer, or in fact, any person with stolen property, from disposing of the property through auctions.

If the government continues to work towards the deregulation of garage sales, market stalls and itinerants and excludes auctions from the Bill altogether, What hope will the public have of recovering any property they have had stolen?

Auctioneers are the largest dealers in secondhand items in the State - without question!

There is NO legislation currently in place that covers Auction sales of household furniture, office furniture, antiques, work tools or machinery. ANYONE can run an auction!

The auctions in Brisbane distribute goods south to Coffs Harbour and north to Cairns, west to Darwin and Kununarra and all towns in between.

Auctions in Sydney service north to Brisbane, west to Broken Hill, southwards down the coast and even through to Melbourne. Goods also go to and from Canberra.

The reason for the interchange of stock between cities is price variation and differences in types and qualities of stock.

Mr Betterridge went on to explain that he and his wife, who run the business known as Bower Birds bought furniture from auctions in Lismore, Brisbane and Sydney and sold that furniture to a second-hand dealer in Darwin and that had any of the furniture been stolen there would have been no hope of the owners recovering it. He said:

The origin of the stock is not guaranteed as being honestly acquired and its eventual destination is usually unknown. Backyard operators are already dropping licences so they can trade at weekly markets and through auctions. Why are Auctions excluded from the 1996 Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers Bill when they are in fact the biggest sellers and distributors of secondhand goods in the country?

We ask that the bill be amended to include auctioneers and that the number of sales a person is able to have per year without a licence and without records be reduced from 12 to 3 or 4. (Part 6 of Clause 38)

I hope that the Minister in reply will explain why auctioneers have been excluded from the provisions of the bill. One of the amendments requested by the second-hand dealers association, to reduce from 12 to four the number of sales that a person is able to make without a licence, has been agreed to by the Opposition, and the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho will move an amendment to that effect. A few moments ago the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said that when some of his goods were stolen, more than 10 years ago, and taken to a pawnbroker in Newtown he had to pay 10 per cent of the value of the goods to get them back. I have been informed that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones did not have to pay 10 per cent of the value of his stolen goods in order to have the goods returned to him. In fact, he was able to find his goods only because the pawnbroker was licensed and kept records. The honourable member knew how much the pawnbroker had paid because a note was made of that, and he knew the name and address of the seller. It was the honourable member's choice to repay the pawnbroker the money he had paid out in order to have his goods returned to him promptly.

Had he taken the alternate steps, he would have had the thieves charged and waited for the return of his goods after court proceedings had taken place. It was his personal choice to pay the pawnbroker in order to have his goods returned to him promptly. It has been pointed out to me also that the Hon. R. S. L. Jones still has the opportunity to have a warrant issued for the arrest and charging of the thieves, if he so wishes. The points raised by the second-hand dealers association are valid. The amendment is valuable. It will not affect charities, garage sales or ordinary people trying to raise money for their local school or association by way of a street stall. It will, however, prevent the problems that still exist of stolen goods being brought on to the streets by people who have no licences and keep no records. People wishing to dispose of stolen goods will have a much easier way of doing so than taking the goods to a pawnbroker. Police may find that stolen goods are being disposed of in an entirely different way. The amendment has merit and it is my intention on behalf of the Australian Democrats to support it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [6.04]: Call to Australia supports the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Bill. The object of the bill is to revise the law relating to pawnbrokers, hawkers and second-hand dealers and enact it in a single statute that will replace the Pawnbrokers Act 1902, the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1906 and the Hawkers Act 1974. A single licence under the
Page 1680
proposed Act will authorise the undertaking of any one or more of the activities that were authorised under the three licences issued under the repealed Acts. The Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading will be the sole licensing authority. The bill proposes to deregulate dealing in second-hand goods other than those of a kind assessed to be at high risk of theft.

Call to Australia commends the Government for introducing the bill. The tightening up of these matters of licensing will ensure that honest persons are involved in the trading of second-hand goods and will eliminate from the trade those who have a criminal background. More important, it will be made more difficult for people who steal goods to dispose of them and obtain cash for them rapidly. I have been told of people trying to sell videos and other items in public bars. A more simple way to get cash is to sell goods through a pawnbroker. I am pleased that the bill clarifies the category of unused goods. The bill will remove a potential loophole whereby goods that were still packaged and demonstrably unused could be presented for sale to a second-hand dealer.

A few years ago we were robbed at Gladesville. I came home one evening round about the usual mealtime and noticed an amount of white foam material on the floor of the lounge room. I was puzzled that the lounge room should be so untidy; the material had not been there in the morning. I told my wife and it took a while to establish that we had been robbed. The people who had robbed us were very clever. They had selected goods that were either new or nearly new and had patiently found the cartons in which those items had been purchased. When one is a minister one moves frequently - sometimes every three years - and my wife and I developed the custom of holding on to cartons in which large items such as televisions, videos or cassette players were purchased, for future packaging.

The ingenious thieves who robbed us had found our store of cartons and had packed the stolen goods back into their original cartons. Some of the material had not been used. When the police arrived at our home they asked me whether I had been using the phone book. I said that I had not. Next to the phone the phone book was still open at the taxi truck section. The police deduced that the cool customers who robbed us - they must have been professional - had entered the house, located the items and calmly re-packed them all - which would have taken some time. They had then ordered a taxi truck to come to the front of our house as if they were the residents. They had loaded our goods with an unsuspecting taxi truck driver and had them taken somewhere else, pretending that they were moving from their residence.

The taxi truck was subsequently unloaded and goods were transported to the thieves' own vehicle for shipment elsewhere. From that experience I realised that in Sydney there are some very professional thieves. Legislation such as this is needed to close the potential loophole relating to unused goods. I recognise that there are amateur thieves also. Sometimes young people or teenagers break into a house out of curiosity to see what they can find to steal, possibly looking for cash. Sometimes people with addiction problems break into homes to steal an item they can sell for money with which to buy drugs. That is why I strongly believe that those who are addicted to heroin and other drugs should attend compulsory rehabilitation programs rather than be left to their own devices, which is when they rob from people, and worse.

Today I heard a heroin addict who was suffering withdrawal symptoms talking to Ita Buttrose on the radio. It was terribly sad to hear him tell of the way he commenced using heroin four years ago and of his addiction. He said that he got no pleasure from the drug; he used it simply to take away the withdrawal symptoms. He said that he was past the point of being satisfied in the use of the drug. Police workers encourage owners to engrave their names on their goods, along with the appropriate serial number. That is an innovation that should be encouraged to assist the police in trying to return stolen goods.

We were robbed a couple of times. The police contacted me and asked me to go to a nearby police station where I was staggered to see such a large room full of stolen goods, which had been retrieved from criminals who had been charged with stealing them. The goods were not arranged simply as they would be in a pawn shop. Instead of one or two transistors there were hundreds and it was difficult to identify my property. The identification engraving process is very simple, using an engraver similar to a fountain pen. The numbers on the goods help to prove to police who owns recovered goods, speeding the whole process.

We are pleased the Government has introduced the bill. As the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho suggested, it seems unusual for people to have 12 garage sales a year. I emphasise that I am referring to garage sales and not sales at a market or church sale or fete. Most people would not have enough goods to hold garage sales so frequently; they would get rid of their white elephant items with a sale once a year or once only. One of the main fundraising sources of Call to Australia is garage sales held by supporters. Each sale would raise an average of $200 to $400. I am sympathetic to the amendment foreshadowed. If there is a problem with it the Minister could advise us of it. We do not wish to interfere with charities and other groups conducting bona fide fundraising events - honest people, not people operating illegally and selling stolen items. Obviously we would be opposed to that. We support the bill.

The Hon. I. COHEN [6.13]: I have great sympathy for the members who have been robbed. I was interested in what Reverend the Hon. F. J.
Page 1681
Nile said. Prohibition fuels illicit trade. The problem the community has with drugs and associated crime is part and parcel of that prohibition on certain drugs. That is one reason that the Greens support the legislation. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones referred to the condition of offenders enabling them to be caught. To an extent, prohibition of drugs has created the trade in stolen goods. I am concerned about the remarks relating to the number of garage sales that can be held in a year.

To me this is a classic example of the law being manufactured by people who are very elitist and who have a special position in society. They do not consider the needs of people in the lower orders of society, people who are unemployed. I know of no other member of this Chamber who has been unemployed. I come from a community in which many people struggle to survive on unemployment benefit. It is no joke when the only opportunity to make a few dollars extra is to have a garage sale or sell old clothes or second-hand goods. In many cases people band together to go to the markets every month; they get together with their friends and make a few dollars.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: That is not a garage sale.

The Hon. I. COHEN: These people have garage sales and go to the markets; they are involved in a tiny financial operation. People receiving unemployment benefit are allowed to earn up to $500 so that they are given motivation not to depend solely on the dole. It is written on the form they have to fill in. Members of this Chamber do not know what it is like on the other side of the fence and I greatly resent the sort of proscription on people who do not have the experience or the opportunity -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Do not make generalisations, because you do not know.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I will make generalisations. They do not have the opportunity or the education to deal with situations such as -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: People should not be selling stolen property.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I have seen it first hand and in most cases these people are not selling stolen property; they are struggling to pay the rent. It is a very low-key enterprise. In many cases people will band together and have several sales from one person's garage.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: How many do you think they would have?

The Hon. I. COHEN: It would be reasonable for them to have 12 or 14 a year; one a month. They may not necessarily be registered charities but people who belong to environment associations and local -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: Registered charities are excluded.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I am talking about non-registered organisations, people who are struggling, often having to pay to get legal advice to champion reasonable causes in the community.

[Interruption]

I do not think I can accept that. I would like more information on that matter. It is arrogant for members of this House not to have sympathy for people having difficulty surviving in our society.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: There are many people who are not genuine at all.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Coalition members may not regard them as genuine people but I regard them as genuine. There are many people in the alternative community struggling and they need this tiny outlet without being loaded down with red tape, and organisation which is making it impossible -

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Twelve a year is a business.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I see single parents out there trying to sell a bit of knitting and a bit of old clothing to survive.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.18], in reply: I thank all members who have participated in the debate. I particularly thank the Opposition for its support of the bill, subject to an amendment that has been foreshadowed. The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby referred to auctioneers. Strictly speaking, her remarks were not relevant to the bill. I remind the House and the honourable member that auctioneers were deregulated some years ago. So the comments were not really germane to the bill in that sense, given that auctioneers have been deregulated. Whether they ought to have been deregulated is another matter, but that is the state of the law. A lot has been said about garage sales and so on. In Committee I will give a more complete explanation regarding the amendment foreshadowed by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. At this stage I will confine myself to stating that the 12 occasions rule, if I may put it that way, is by no means confined to garage sales. It also relates, for example, to someone who wishes to trade at a country or suburban market.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Second-hand clothes.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes. There is a market once a month at Hornsby. Such markets are commonly run. For various reasons the Government does not accept the amendments circulated by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. However, to save time I shall deal with them in Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Page 1682

Part 6

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [6.22]: I move:

Page 23, clause 38, lines 3-7. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) In any proceedings under or arising from this Act:

(a) except as provided by paragraph (b), a person who, on more than 4 days in any period of 12 months, or

(b) a charitable organisation that, or a person duly acting for a charitable organisation who, on more than 12 days in any period of 12 months,

sold any second-hand goods, is presumed to be carrying on a business of buying or selling second-hand goods, but the presumption may be displaced by evidence that satisfies the court to the contrary. In this subsection, charitable organisation means any person or organisation (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established in good faith for a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose.

This amendment is an attempt to reduce from 12 to four the number of garage sales that may be held by a person in any one year. The Opposition considers four to be reasonable, if they are truly garage sales. The Government proposal to allow 12 garage sales a year will provide a golden opportunity for criminals to pass off stolen goods; it is a loophole that will allow the disposal of stolen goods. That is against the spirit of the bill. Persons running 12 sales a year from their garage could not possibly sustain those sales unless they were running a business or receiving stolen goods. It would be easy for a group of people to organise a series of bogus garage sales and use that network to distribute stolen goods. That is the whole point of the Opposition amendment. If the Government is serious about cracking down on the distribution of stolen goods - and that is the spirit of the bill - it will adopt the amendment that will permit a reduced number of genuine garage sales and make sure that there is no loophole in the law. That would be a more effective provision. I received advice from the Minister's advisers that this amendment is unnecessary because, apparently, it is covered by clause 4(2) in part 1 of the bill, which provides:

(2) This Act does not apply:

(a) to dealing in second-hand goods in the course of a fundraising appeal authorised under the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 . . .

That is a very harsh provision, because it only applies to those who are registered as a charitable organisation. Many other people have garage sales or street stalls and are not registered charitable organisations. The proposed amendment to clause 38 would include those who are not registered as a charitable organisation. I make it clear that is why the Opposition amendment defines a charitable organisation to mean any person or organisation, whether incorporated or unincorporated, established in good faith for a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose. It is important to include groups who are not registered under the 1991 Act. That is where I differ from the advisers.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.26]: The Government does not accept the amendment moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho on behalf of the Opposition. The definition of charitable organisations comprises part of the amendment the Committee is considering. The Government takes the view that the bill contains two provisions bearing on this matter that go a long way towards meeting the point raised by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. The first is that in clause 3 market is defined as not including an annual event such as a school fete or any activity of a kind prescribed by the regulations. A school fete is given as an example; it might be a church fete.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Or Rotary.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Yes, a Rotary fete, or any prescribed activity that gives the regulation-making power the scope to extend the ambit of the exemption. The second matter in regard to charitable organisations is that clause 4(2)(a) provides that the Act does not apply to dealing in second-hand goods in the course of a fundraising appeal authorised under the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991. Taken together those provisions go a long way towards meeting the point made by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. However, it is the Government's view that the more important purpose of the amendment relates to frequency of trading. The proposals in the bill have been developed in close consultation with the police. They are designed to target high-risk-of-theft areas of trade, to facilitate the return of stolen goods to their owners, and to catch thieves rather than to regulate the second-hand goods market. That is the primary purpose of the bill.

The intent of the bill also is to give the police the best means possible of catching thieves and not to overburden the police with unnecessary work chasing unlicensed dealers in the second-hand market. The Government is not trying to regulate the police but to allow them to apprehend thieves. A further intent of the bill is to provide police with an objective and clear standard by which to decide whether a person should be disqualified from trading in second-hand goods. This way police will be able to target suspect traders, the main street fences - to use the vernacular - and ban them from the legitimate market. I want to make the point that the reference to 12 occasions of trading contained in the bill does not relate only to garage sales; it will permit people to sell at local country markets or suburban markets once a month without a licence. Such trading is not regarded by the Government, or for that matter by police, as being of a high-risk-of-theft nature.

Page 1683

It is not the intention of the Government, or of the police for that matter, to monitor the activities of occasional dealers in bric-a-brac. Restrictions on local garage sales are not regarded as of such important that valuable police time should be spent policing them. Local councils, however, have a role to play in restricting the use of premises for unauthorised purposes. The intent of the bill is to catch the professional fence and to discourage the dabbler in stolen property. The Government's view is that the bill will give police ample powers for that purpose. To require police to chase up people who trade in the second-hand market on as few occasions as four times a year - which would be the effect if this amendment were carried - would, in the Government's view and in the view of the Police Service, be a serious waste of police time.

It should be remembered also that the bill is not the only legislation police have at their disposal to assist in catching thieves. They have powers to investigate traders or persons of dubious reputation whether they trade once, twice or a dozen times a year. They also have the power to check up on itinerant traders who may choose to trade around the country without a licence. I emphasise for the sake of completeness that the aim of the bill is to assist police to catch thieves; not to chase up and harass people holding garage sales. Its other important aim is to allow the efficient return of stolen property to its rightful owners. They are the two basic purposes of the bill. For those reasons, which I have tried to encapsulate in a short time, the Government finds the amendment unacceptable and will oppose it.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [6.31]: What is the difference between police policing four times a year and their policing 12 times a year?

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.31]: One might ask how the police police anything. The police have a statutory duty cast on them. Honourable members know as a result of the inquiries of present royal commission that police have not always policed certain matters very well. However, it is a matter of what the legislature chooses to do. The Government maintains that the 12 occasions rule is quite satisfactory and will give reasonable latitude to people who wish to conduct a garage sale or, as the Hon. I. Cohen said, trade at what I have described as a country or suburban market. That seems to be the reasonable thing to do. Opinions differ on these issues. The Opposition apparently takes the view that four occasions is more appropriate; the Government believes that that is too restrictive and presses its opposition to the Opposition's amendment.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [6.33]: I seek clarification because I find myself bemused and confused to some extent. Reference was made to part 6, clause 38, as dealing with garage sales, but it is obvious on a reading of clause 38(2) that a great many more issues are involved. I have been tempted to support the amendment, but at the moment I find myself in a state of confusion and I seek clarification. I am concerned that if we accept the amendment, it will restrict to four days in any period of 12 months the sale of second-hand goods from shops, market stalls, premises occupied permanently, regularly or on occasion, residential premises, vehicle or water-going vessel or by an itinerant. I take the point made by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. Is it possible to police these sales even 12 times a year? Can they be any more effectively policed four times a year? Would it be reasonable to say to those who conduct their stalls in any place that if they sell second-hand goods on more than four occasions a year they must have a $200 licence or face a fine of the order of $10,000? I am concerned by some of the points raised by the Hon. I. Cohen about unnecessarily restricting small traders. I ask first of all: if the amendment is carried, does it mean that all groups of people mentioned in clause 38(2) are limited to four sales a year before they have to get a licence? Can it be policed? One other matter that concerns me about keeping records in a database is, will it mean that such people, once they have a licence, will also have to keep a database of their transactions? I would appreciate clarification of those points.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [6.35]: I condemn the Opposition for introducing this amendment. It is a very cruel amendment and has no regard whatsoever for the realities of market stalls throughout rural New South Wales. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner will know what I am talking about. I know a number of people, including single mothers, who are struggling to make ends meet and who go to Byron Market, Bellingen Market or Paddy's Markets once every month to sell bric-a-brac, and they make $80, $90, $100 or sometimes $50. They sell second-hand clothes and odds and ends of second-hand goods. A good friend of mine is one such person. She literally sells her cast-off clothes. That is all she sells. She was once quite a wealthy women but now she is very poor. Every month at Byron Market - that is for 12 months of the year, once a month - she sells second-hand clothes, shoes and scarves. She is not a trader.

An adviser to one of the crossbench members was heard to say, "Oh, Richard will not support this amendment because he wants to protect his mates up north". The person who said that knows who I am talking about. The reason I oppose the amendment is not to support my mates up north. This amendment is a cruel amendment and it will disadvantage single mothers and very poor people who turn up at markets in their kombi vans with second-hand clothes to sell. I have donated clothes to those people who sell their belongings at the markets to make ends meet. They sometimes buy goods at Lawson's. On Fridays Lawson's sell very cheaply goods from deceased estates. People buy such goods and sell them at the market.

Page 1684

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On a point of order. I cannot find any reference to the matters that the honourable member is adverting to. The Committee is dealing with an amendment which refers to more than four days in any period of 12 months or more than 12 days in a period of 12 months in relation to certain charitable organisations. The honourable member has deviated from the ambit of the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: On the point of order. The honourable member clearly has not read the legislation and has no idea what the amendment is about. If he did, he would not have taken this stupid point of order. What the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is trying to do, unwittingly, is to reduce the 12 occasions per year to four occasions.

[Interruption]

I am trying to explain why this is a stupid point of order, taken by a person who has no idea what the legislation is about.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I will hear the member on the point of order.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The amendment will prevent large numbers of people from being able to trade every month at the market.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. No point of order is involved. However, the honourable member should keep his comments relevant to the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I intend to do that and I have done that so far, Mr Chairman. I do not intend to deviate from the amendment and I have not done so yet, as you have adjudged. Those who will be caught by this amendment, if it is agreed to, will be people from the south and from the north. People from Victoria and from Queensland regularly visit markets in New South Wales and sell second-hand goods. There are probably 30, 40 or 50 such people at each market, and they would not have a clue about the provisions contained in New South Wales legislation. The police will attack such people and arrest them. There have been a number of occasions up north in particular when poor-looking people have been targeted by police and attacked, and have been searched illegally. This bill will present yet another excuse to harass poor people at the market. Markets will be kept under police surveillance. Police will see these people at the market five times in succession and they will say, "Gotcha, Rhonda from the Gold Coast. Now we are going to fine you $10,000. Tough luck. Pack up. We're going to take you along to the police station to fingerprint you."

That is what the Opposition is trying to do. I thought coalition members were free traders, but they are trying to manacle the poor in our community - those who are struggling to make a living by selling bric-a-brac and second-hand clothes. These people sometimes beg for those clothes or they get them from the Society of St Vincent de Paul and resell them to try to scratch out a living. They go to the Friday sales at Lawson's where they can buy items very cheaply indeed. For example, one might be able to buy an old radiogram for $1 and resell it at the markets for $10. The Opposition is targeting these people; it does not care what it is doing with their lives.

Many of these people are single mothers who are struggling to bring up one or two children. They receive some benefit from the Government but they are trying to honestly fend for themselves to pay rent that they can barely afford. Often what they obtain from the markets does not even pay the rent. Sometimes the monthly proceeds from the market might only pay half their rent. These are the people the Opposition is trying to attack. The bill will make it mandatory for such people to have a computer, and if they refuse to keep computer records, they will be caught if they trade in any goods over $20 or $200, which is said to be material of a high-risk-of-theft nature. This is a very unkind and cruel amendment.

[Interruption]

The honourable member does not understand. She has a $90,000 new car. She has no idea what it is like to scratch and save and live on about $150 a week.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I do not have a new car.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The Hon. Patricia Forsythe lives in the lap of luxury. She has no idea what it is like to scratch and save.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: How would you know?

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I have seen the poorest of the poor, those who have virtually nothing, trying to make a living.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I am not denying that.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: And the honourable member swans around in her $90,000 new car. She has no idea. She is out of touch with the reality of the very poor.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I have not had a new car for nearly four years.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: The honourable member lives in the lap of luxury and does not know what it is really like to have to struggle. Some people do struggle in our society; they are the people who go to the markets and have no other means of making a living. They go to the markets every month.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to address the amendment.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Yes, certainly. I was trying to shed some light on this matter, which is impossible because of the thickheads on the
Page 1685
other side of the Chamber who have no idea what life is like in the real world. I am trying to explain to them that people who go to the markets once a month at Byron Bay or at Paddy's live on the proceeds of their sales. That is how they supplement their income. It is food for their children, but the Opposition is trying to take that food out of the mouths of those children. These people will have to pay $200 for a licence. Some of them will not even realise that they need a licence, they will get caught by the police and be fined, maybe as much as $10,000. That will wipe out in one hit five years of earnings for some of these people, just because they went to the markets five times in a row - even though they did not even know they had to have a licence. I hope that members on the crossbenches will feel some compassion for the poor in our society. I hope they have the intelligence to realise what this amendment will do to the poorest in our community. I hope it is rejected for the cruel, inhumane amendment that it is.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Community Services, Minister for Aged Services, and Minister for Disability Services) [6.42]: In response to a question addressed to me by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, I am advised that a computer would be required in the circumstances he mentioned.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [6.43]: I would like to point out to those people who are confused that that is why the Opposition has included in the amendment paragraphs (a) and (b) of new subclause (1). Paragraph (a) refers to a person carrying on a business more than four times a year. That answers the question of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I was a single mother. I do not have clothes to sell four times a year to keep me afloat. I have to work.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Are you going to buy a computer for them?

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: No, I am saying that it is already in the legislation. Under paragraph (b) charitable organisations that have positive charitable purposes are covered. We are not going to police a single parent who sells off his or her clothes. But if such activity is engaged in 12 times a year, I wonder whether it should be regarded as a business.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Mrs Chadwick Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Miss Gardiner Mr Samios
Mr Jobling Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Kersten Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Gallacher
Mr Moppett Dr Goldsmith

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

Mr Hannaford Mrs Arena
Mr Rowland Smith Mr Johnson
Mr Willis Mr Shaw

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Part agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith) left the chair at 6.54 p.m. The House resumed at 8.30 p.m.]


Debate resumed from 28 May.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [8.30]: I congratulate our two new members of Parliament on their maiden speeches made yesterday. The Hon. Michael Gallacher spoke movingly of his experiences of life here as a young migrant from Scotland and after entering the police force. He brings to the House a maturity and wide experience in law and order and other community issues that will, no doubt, stand him in good stead for a promising political career in the years ahead. The Hon. Peter Primrose, a former member of the Legislative Assembly, brings to the House considerable experience in local government and in the other place. He spoke articulately about the importance of social justice and pointed out that social justice was the theme not only of this budget but also of the Government's previous budget. It is that theme that I wish to address today. This year's social justice budget statement, signed by the Premier, Bob Carr, and the Deputy Premier, Andrew Refshauge, includes a statement that:

Other new budget measures will ensure that people with disabilities, ethnic groups, older people, are more fully included in the life of the community.

Sadly, that important statement is not fully reflected in the initiatives of the Government's budget that deal with ethnic communities and with certain
Page 1686
specific grants. As most honourable members would be aware, the demography of this nation has changed dramatically with the mass migration program introduced in 1949 by the Labor Government and supported strongly on a bipartisan basis by coalition governments over the years. We have grown from a nation of some 7¼ million people in 1945, with 90 per cent of the population being Anglo-Celtic, to one of a population of some 18 million today, with one-third coming from non-English speaking backgrounds. Today ethnic communities are an integral part of Australian society, which includes some 242 ethnic groups. New South Wales represents the most culturally diverse State of the nation. With our dramatic and constantly changing demography, there are special social and community needs that have to be addressed.

Migration has brought this nation many rewards, both economic and social, and a new policy of multiculturalism which ensures that all Australians are treated equally, irrespective of religious, cultural or ethnic background. It would be naive to believe that the social harmony of our multicultural society can be taken for granted. Such dramatic demographic changes in such a relatively short space of time are presenting this nation with challenges hitherto not experienced. A failure to acknowledge the importance of social cohesion as relevant to good order and harmony within our society may well result in a breakdown in law and order and problems with youth, drugs and so forth, all of which would present this nation with challenging social tension. Clearly, it is incumbent on a State government with vision to acknowledge the important role played by ethnic community structures within a culturally diverse society. These community structures are initiated by the people themselves to serve the special and urgent needs of their specific communities, for which, for the established population, the Government has made provision.

If the Government is serious about its goal that ethnic communities be more fully included in the life of the community, it should act accordingly by providing ethnic groups with maximum support in financial grants and other resources. Community structures provide for the spiritual, cultural, educational and welfare needs of the community. To my knowledge, all of those organisations involved in the ethnic communities are under-resourced and have urgent needs. Whether they be welfare organisations such as the Arabic Welfare Council, the Australian Chinese Community Association of New South Wales, the Greek Welfare Centre or other cultural bodies, they all have a need for greater funding and resources. It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that there has been funding on a bipartisan basis by a number of governments over the years. We are now at the stage at which the community organisations are feeling the strain of the duties imposed on them.

Over the years the organisations have made Herculean efforts, not only in providing for the immediate needs of their own communities but also in playing an important role in underpinning the social and cultural stability of our multicultural society. Support for those ethnic community structures represents support for the people of this nation, for all Australians. In this regard I address the Government's decision to abolish the community capital assistance program amounting to $796,000. The grants were introduced in 1993 by the Hon. George Souris as a Minister in the Fahey Government to address a long overdue need. In a press release dated 24 May 1993, under the heading "Minister for Ethnic Affairs announces around $300,000 in Capital Assistance Funding to benefit NSW communities", Mr Souris said that the community capital assistance funding was aimed at the establishment of facilities that have an educational, vocational, recreational or aged focus that promotes the principles of multiculturalism. Indeed, the Ethnic Affairs Commission produced a pamphlet which stated:

The aim of the Community Capital Assistance Programme will be to encourage the establishment of facilities which have an educational, vocational, recreational or aged focus and which by their nature promote the principles of multiculturalism.

Such principles include mutual respect amongst Australians of diverse ethnic or cultural background, the right of all Australians to participate fully as members of our society and the recognition of the benefits of cultural diversity.

Special consideration will be given to projects which make a contribution to the facilities available to the ageing of non-English speaking background.

In that financial year funding was allocated to about 20 organisations. I will not read the entire list, but it includes the Lao-Australian Group in Camden; the Greek Orthodox Church of St Demetrios, Monaro, which received $20,000; the Turkish Welfare Association at Marrickville, which received $20,000; the Greek Welfare Centre at Heffron, which also received $20,000; Griffith Scalabrini Village, from the Italian community in Murrumbidgee, which received $35,000; the New South Wales Board of Jewish Education, which received $20,000; the New Italy Museum, which also received $20,000; and the Spanish Speaking Pensioners Association. Those organisations were all worthy recipients of grants under a commendable capital assistance initiative.

In the following year the grants were increased to $796,000 but I am informed that they were not paid out until 1995-96. Since coming to power the Carr Government in its wisdom has decided to abolish those grants. However, to be fair I concede that it has maintained other grants. The grants have been abolished despite the fact that New South Wales, particularly Sydney, continues to receive some 43 per cent of the total migrant intake. That brings with it an urgent need for community and welfare resources. Although it has been fashionable for the ill informed to denigrate grants
Page 1687
to ethnic communities, the reality is that the total amount of grants over the years has been modest when one considers the needs of the 242 ethnic groups which constitute almost one-third of the State's population. In a press release bearing the heading "Budgeting for Diversity" and dated 21 May, Angela Chan, who has been the very able chairperson of the New South Wales Ethnic Communities Council for two years, stated:

. . . the ECC is disappointed that there has been no real growth to the Ethnic Affairs Commission's community grants programme which still does not meet the demands of ethnic communities.

I should like to refer to another matter of concern in my capacity as assisting shadow minister for the arts. That is the Government's backdown from the plan to relocate the Sydney Conservatorium of Music to Rozelle to better cater to the needs of its students. The Government has reneged on the funding of $51 million, which the previous Government projected, for relocation of the conservatorium. The Government has not made any provision for essential refurbishment and upgrading of the conservatorium's present facilities.

The chairman of the conservatorium, Professor Pretty, expressed concern that after so many years the standard of facilities for students at the conservatorium had not been upgraded. The conservatorium plays a pivotal role in the cultural life of this State, and it is important that the Government address this issue. In the University News the Premier indicated that the Government hoped to have all facilities upgraded and in place by the year 2000. However, no funding has been set aside in the budget for upgrading the conservatorium's present facilities. The serious shortcomings in the budget with regard to community capital assistance funding for the Ethnic Affairs Commission and the failure to provide $51 million to relocate the conservatorium to Rozelle are matters of grave concern and reflect the shortsightedness of a government that lacks an appropriate vision for the future of New South Wales and Australia. I hope the Government will redress those matters urgently.

The Hon. PATRICIA STAUNTON [8.47]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the estimates and related papers which represent the second budget of the Carr Labor Government. Before I do so, I join with other honourable members in congratulating the Hon. P. T. Primrose and the Hon. M. J. Gallacher on their inaugural speeches. I look forward to their continuing contributions to debate in the House. I particularly welcome my Labor colleague the Hon. P. T. Primrose, who has served the community in south-western Sydney for many years. It is good to have him back in the Parliament.

I congratulate the Treasurer on delivering a budget that has more than met the test of public support. It has by any standards been well received and supported across all community sectors. It is, as the Treasurer noted, a budget that underpins the Government's four key commitments to social justice, economic development and jobs, environmental protection and sustainable financial strengths. The commitment to social justice, which is so important to Labor policies, is reinforced by the social justice statement that accompanies the budget papers. Equally significant in my view is a consideration of the budgetary implications that flow from the following further statement that appears on page 2 of the Treasurer's Budget Speech:

We were the first Government during the period of the Keating Government, to enact the National Competition Act - no stalling, no equivocation, simply an enthusiastic commitment to make Australia and New South Wales more competitive and more able to win the investment, business and jobs we need for the future.

The Government has done that, as is evidenced within the budget and in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Electricity reform is well under way, ports have been corporatised, reforms in the water supply sector continue, and the restructuring of State Rail into four entities to provide for competition and efficiency is due to take effect from 1 July next. There is no doubt that the contributions made by Professor Hilmer and the national competition policy intergovernmental agreements to a more competitive and unified nation are to be welcomed. However, the impact of the Hilmer reforms and intergovernmental agreements on government budgets, particularly State government budgets, and on the pricing of essential services has attracted less attention than the projected long-run benefits to the national economy.

It should be noted that the national competition policy will impact most heavily at the State government level. For that reason it is important to emphasise that both State and Commonwealth governments have a degree of latitude in implementing the national competition policy reforms. In particular, the application of the environmental, equity, social justice and regional growth goals in the intergovernmental agreements allow some room for policy choices, which is an important factor to retain in decision-making in this area for governments at both Federal and State level.

A major equity issue in the whole national competition policy debate concerns the continuing ability of infrastructure providers to deliver services to particular social groups in the community on a non-commercial basis. These community service obligations have traditionally been provided as part of society's broader macro-economic or social agenda - for example, in the areas of employment, regional development and equity for women. In many cases the community service obligations are funded by the use of cross-subsidies in industries where the service provider has a degree of monopoly power. The pricing of services tends to be uniform for all consumers despite differing location and demand-use cost structures. Rural and other disadvantaged consumers benefit from these
Page 1688
services because they are provided at less than full cost, using revenue from more profitable infrastructure delivery. A very good example of that is the provision of telephone services to our rural and remote communities.

The application of equity principles by way of cross-subsidisation has become an accepted feature of the financial and political decision-making of governments in Australia at both State and Federal levels. Government delivery of deemed essential services remains an important way of addressing locational and/or socioeconomic disadvantages and fostering more balanced and environmentally sustainable regional growth. Continuing to do that, and at the same time exposing such services to full competitive market forces, may require consideration of alternative funding of our community service obligations.

It is important to remember that competition implies that all services should be priced on a full-cost basis. When State monopolies are broken up and infrastructure markets are tested, government business enterprise will face some difficulties perhaps in financing the costs of community service obligations. Indeed, alternative funding of community service obligations may well be necessary if governments choose to continue to provide standard service levels to consumers, which they should. Labor governments have consistently regarded that as an important policy consideration, and it has been carried through by the Carr Labor Government.

Alternative funding options that may well have to be considered in this area are such things as direct cash payments to targeted users, the direct funding of infrastructure providers, or accepting lower rates of return from government business enterprises. It is interesting to note a comment of the Bureau of Industry Economics in 1995, which argued that those options, among others, will squeeze government budgets, particularly State government budgets, and revenue bases. The bureau's report stated that all of those options:

. . . require either direct payments from government or a reduction in government revenue by way of reduced dividends. These methods, if adopted, will impose additional strain on government revenue raising or, alternatively, require the government to reassess expenditure priorities.

Given the existing imbalance that is well recognised between State government revenue-raising abilities and its service responsibilities under the Federal financial system, further intergovernmental financial reforms may well be inevitable. In all of this, the consequences for equitable service delivery should not be ignored. Low income groups could be adversely affected by price changes; disadvantaged families, the unemployed, pensioners and especially women would be vulnerable to the rebalancing arrangement which is a tendency whereby prices fall for industrial and business users and rise for domestic consumers of essential services. It is for that reason that the groups to which I have referred need to be specially addressed, as they are mostly clustered in lower paid employment and form the majority of those groups living in poverty.

If cross-subsidies are eliminated in the interests of competitive neutrality, then pricing policies would need adjusting to cushion the cost impact. Rebates and/or concessions would have to be introduced for households unable to pay increased water, electricity and transport charges. Again, if governments - and this is particularly so for State governments - wish to remain responsible service providers, as they must be, to all groups in the community, they may well be forced to resort to additional budgetary measures to offset revenue shortfalls, unless they exercise their prerogative, as they are entitled to do under the intergovernmental agreements, not to expose certain essential services to the fullest application of the national competition policy.

All in all, if State governments choose to become efficient pricers of infrastructure services and maintain their community service obligations, they may well need to rethink the ways of bolstering their narrow tax revenue bases. It is important, therefore, to consider how governments, particularly State governments, will go about seeking to establish a balance between the costs and benefits associated with the national competition policy and related reforms. In response to potential reductions in government dividend payments, and a narrowing of the State's tax base, there are of course a number of revenue raising possibilities that present themselves.

The tax options available to State governments include a number of measures, but all of those have significant adverse outcomes for any State government unilaterally seeking to increase its revenue base. For example, State tax bases have been gradually hollowed out due to a multiplicity of concessions and variable tax rates. A New South Wales tax task force in 1988 found that tax exemptions, including concessional or multiple rate effects, reduced annual tax revenue in 1988 by $2.6 billion. However, the abolition or reduction of existing tax concessions could have adverse equity effects and encourage mobile capital resources to migrate to more attractive investment locations.

Raising tax rates is another example. However, apart from any political considerations, if this policy were pursued unilaterally, the State would reduce its ability to attract mobile investment capital. There is also the inherent risk of driving businesses and households to other States, which would tend to diminish tax revenue sources despite increased tax rates. Broadening the States tax base could help reduce what is referred to as vertical fiscal imbalance and correct a tendency of governments to use infrastructure service pricing to achieve fiscal goals. However, this option would require a cooperative approach by the States in order to prevent tax base mobility and interstate tax competition.

Page 1689

As is generally known, State taxes are generally viewed as inefficient, distortionary, regressive and complex. A large proportion of State taxes fall on business inputs, which reduces economic efficiency and international competitiveness. More alarmingly, many of the State taxes are levied on financial transaction bases which are, and have the potential to be, increasingly eroded by global competition and electronic banking innovations. In addition the share of public sector expenditure funded by State taxation is rising and the Commonwealth proportion falling, which only exacerbates the problems I have highlighted.

It is important therefore that an attempt is made to reach agreement between the States and the Commonwealth on this matter. Reaching agreement on the harmonisation and expansion of State tax bases would be extremely difficult. However, forums such as the Council of Australian Governments - COAG - provide opportunities for raising such issues with Commonwealth authorities. COAG could serve as a useful venue for negotiating future intergovernmental tax arrangements and the States should take every opportunity to raise such matters as they proceed to implement the agreed national competition policy reforms. To do otherwise would make it increasingly difficult for State Governments to deliver on further competition reform while maintaining their community service obligations which are so crucial to equity and social justice considerations within the context of State government service obligations.

In recent weeks much has been written in the media about the potential for adverse outcomes for State budgets - which of course includes New South Wales - which will flow from the forthcoming Federal budget. It is of course necessary to await that event but it is important to flag concerns that from all accounts will impact on the ability of State Governments to deliver those services at a level so necessary to sustain community needs in health, education or the welfare and community service sectors. Particular concerns that need to be flagged include the suggestion that New South Wales can anticipate an overall reduction in funding allocation and, second, the suggestion that the Commonwealth will transfer funding and responsibility to the States for areas such as health and aged-care services. There is some merit in this, as I have commented before. However, there are a number of steps which must be taken to ensure that such an approach is done in a way which properly compensates the States on a current and ongoing basis and which is sufficiently protected to ensure those services that I have mentioned are maintained on an equitable and universally accessible basis.

That brings us to the issue of tied grants. State Treasuries are, not surprisingly, somewhat wary of tied grants because of the inflexibility that they perceive within them in their ability to distribute funds received from the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, in some areas they are important and they are an essential way of ensuring that the money is spent for the purposes for which it was intended. This is particularly so in areas where the client base is vulnerable and not really its own best advocate. I speak of areas such as the health sector, particularly in mental health, the community support services and aged-care services. Whatever the funding allocation might be from the Commonwealth in areas such as this, funding should be tied and should take into account an appropriate formula which will be adjusted for population growth and an ageing community on a recurrent basis.

The problem for State Governments such as New South Wales is that if the Federal coalition Government in the forthcoming Federal budget proceeds in those areas in the way proposed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to continue to present future budgets underpinned by the four key commitments which have made this budget - the second Carr Labor Government budget - so widely supported by the New South Wales community.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.03]: Before I commence my comments about the budget I would like to join other colleagues in welcoming the Hon. P. T. Primrose and congratulating him and the Hon. M. J. Gallacher on their inaugural speeches. I have not yet had the opportunity to get to know the Hon. P. T. Primrose well but I was interested in what he said last night. I recall him in the years 1988 to 1991 when he and I had different roles in this place. I want particularly to say something about my colleague the Hon. M. J. Gallacher. I had an opportunity to get to know him over a number of years when we served together on the State Executive of the Liberal Party. Last night he spoke about what he stood for, about his background in western Sydney, about his identification with western Sydney and the central coast, and about his role as a union official.

The Hon. Franca Arena: He was a migrant child.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I was fascinated by some of the quiet comments made by members, for example, "What is it about the Liberal Party? Why are they attracting people like that?" Over many years the Liberal Party has attracted people from diverse backgrounds but perhaps honourable members opposite have not noticed. My colleagues on this side of the House represent and identify with areas as diverse as Broken Hill, the central coast, western Sydney, the Newcastle region and various parts of Sydney. I am very proud of the diversity of my colleagues in their geographical and ethnic mix and background. As the Hon. Franca Arena said of my colleague the Hon. M. J. Gallacher, his own background was that he had come to Australia as a young child. I think that all adds to the diversity of this Parliament and I am very glad to welcome our new members.

I wish to address the budget. I begin by referring to two lines from this year's Budget Speech. Firstly, in the words of the Treasurer, "This is every inch a Labor budget". I agree, it is
Page 1690
a Labor budget. It is a bodgie budget and it has phoney figures. The people of New South Wales know what a Labor budget is. A Labor budget is one like Paul Keating's - he promised a balanced budget but left a large black hole. This Government has promised a balanced budget with claims about "a helping hand for the less fortunate". That helping hand is really only available to a lucky few in New South Wales because where people live is as important to this Government as are their circumstances.

The Opposition knows this is a phoney budget, a pretend budget, a feel-good budget, a clever public relations exercise. The real budget will be in October or November. The Opposition knows why the Treasurer so stubbornly refused to shift the date for presenting his budget when the previous Federal Government abandoned its May budget. As the Federal Government moves to put Australia on a course to fill in the $8 billion hole, this Government will use the cover of the Federal budget for its own tough economic statements.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What are you saying the Feds are going to do to us?

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I am suggesting that the Government is going to use the Federal Budget as an excuse for anything. I want to touch on three areas of this budget - first, the Women's Court Support Service. Let me begin by congratulating the Government on the $1.5 million it has allocated through the Attorney General's Department and the Legal Aid Commission and its commitment over the next three years to spend $4.5 million on that program. I take issue with the comment in Budget Paper No. 2 that this scheme began in 1995-1996. That is just plain wrong. Let me get the history straight.

In fact, this particular program originated in 1986 with funding to the Domestic Violence Advocacy Service through the Legal Aid Commission. I well recall in May 1993 representing the then Minister, the Hon. Anne Cohen, at Liverpool at a community consultation in connection with a court support scheme that was being developed using funds under the Area Assistance Scheme for Liverpool. I also well recall in 1994 representing the honourable member for Lane Cove when I presented a cheque at Burwood, to one of two court support schemes, where funding of $100,000 was provided for a pilot scheme for part of what was a $400,000 package by the coalition to address domestic violence. I congratulate this Government on its commitment but I do want to get the history straight. The former coalition Government had a commitment in that area and I am glad that this Government has taken it further.

Let me say something about the provision of money under this program. It is a great pity that for women the program is a lottery draw based on where they live. I greatly regret that the lower north shore family support committee at North Sydney court, which provides excellent support, has failed to have its funding renewed. As a community we are battling the perception that domestic violence is not a problem in areas such as the north shore, when clearly it is. The failure by the Government to fund North Sydney has reinforced all of the stereotypes about domestic violence. But North Sydney is not alone. I hope that the time will be reached when domestic violence court support can be available for victims at courts across the State so that geography and political lottery draws are not barriers to the practical support offered by the court support scheme.

Yesterday in another place the Minister for Women referred to Federal Government cuts to women's programs and the many groups that might miss out. That was all speculation, of course. I wish to address her own program, as it is not above criticism. This year by providing grants in value from $50,000 to $120,000 the Minister for Women has effectively disappointed 235 groups that applied for funding. Only 14 projects are to be funded this year. The upward shift from the previous $5,000 grants to $50,000 grants will not only leave many groups disappointed but will prevent many good ideas from reaching fruition. I am always impressed by the ingenuity of community groups that can turn a relatively small grant into a significant local project. The decision to reward only 14 groups leaves many others disappointed.

Of particular note is the Government's decision not to fund the Women In Politics group and its proposal for an educational kit dealing with the significant contemporary issue of women in politics to be sent to all secondary schools. What an important tool that could have been to encourage young women to see their worth as citizens. However, in view of the Labor Party record on getting women into politics, I guess I cannot be surprised. I shall now deal briefly with aspects of the housing portfolio. The first thing to strike me about this year's budget was the presentation of the housing capital works budget. Instead of the usual list of projects, we are merely told that the various major works and so on are in "various" locations. For the benefit of local members, that simply is not good enough. One is tempted to think that the Government has something to hide.

Of greater interest is the capital works allocation of $94 million for new general housing to commence in 1997 and be completed in 1997. It will be interesting to see how much of that $94 million survives the Government's real budget at the end of the year. Equally of concern is the $12 million for supported housing initiatives and the allocation under the Burdekin commitments to commence in 1997. The Government has made much of its helping-hand approach in the budget. Let us hope that it can do better than the classic "Yes, Minister" story I identified last week. The Department of Housing found $300,000 to buy a house in the Lucas Heights area and contributed
Page 1691
$10,000 towards renovations and making the house suitable for use by people from the handicapped children's centre. The house was to be known as the Sylvan Lodge and was to be a residential group home, and all honourable members would recognise the value of that concept.

However, in classic "Yes, Minister" style, the Department of Housing, which had found the capital funds, waited for the Department of Community Services to find money under the transition process, and the house has sat empty for the best part of the past year. A second group was then identified, under the category of the supported accommodation scheme. The second group had money but no house, while the first group identified had a house but no money for the staffing of the house. I understand that since last week, when I asked questions in the House about this matter, it has been decided the second group, which had funds for staffing and support services, will be allocated the house originally bought for the first group. That surely is a classic "Yes, Minister" story. If the Government is out to provide a helping hand for those in need, it should be able to do a little better than that.

I turn now to the community services portfolio. The Government has made much of its increased child protection initiatives, yet it is happy to downgrade the role of children's services advisers. Yesterday in answer to a question the Minister made much about the national child-care agreement. In response to the fact that I have not received an answer to a question asked some weeks ago, however, I would have to say that the Government is not looking after the interests of its own. My question asked what the Premier had done with the report that has been on his desk since last September advocating a child-care facility for use by members and staff of the Parliament and other State government facilities in the area such as the State Library, the courts and the Sydney Hospital. Nothing has been done about that report. The Government talks about its commitment to children's services and the provision of child care, but when the issue gets close to home the Premier does not have it as a priority and has ignored the interests of his own members.

I wish to speak to other features of the community services budget also. There are no growth funds to enable young homeless people, for instance, to be given adequate crisis accommodation, despite the ever-increasing demand for it. Many young people are being left exposed to grave dangers, including - as we discover almost daily, regrettably - the danger presented by paedophiles. Juvenile justice specialists are being downgraded. While the Government has been proud to trumpet its juvenile justice capital works commitment, which I recognise as being important - and I certainly acknowledge that providing facilities in different parts of the State is important for the long-term assistance of many young people - there is no point in focusing on capital works if there are not adequate specialists in the system to provide the support needed by young people who for one reason or another are caught up in the juvenile justice net.

The calls of former State wards for an inquiry into their treatment as wards go unheard. State wards run away from the care and control of the Department of Community Services, and the Minister seems helpless to stop that. That is despite the Minister's own calls when in opposition for the previous Government to act and establish the register of State wards, for example. I welcome the announcement of funding for foster parents and foster children. I acknowledge, too, the strong advocacy by the Foster Parents Association and its President, Pat Walker.

The Minister has trumpeted the allocation of an additional 45 child protection field staff. I remind the House, however, that last year the Minister made much of the provision of 60 additional child protection specialists. According to the social justice statement of the budget papers, two-thirds of those workers have come on board. In the estimates committee last year the Minister referred to a rolling recruitment program. The Public Service Association suggested that in February only 18 of the new workers were on board. Whatever the final number - and I guess that will be discovered at the estimates committee meeting - the big question is whether the 45 additional child protection field staff are indeed additional or are being added on to whatever number has been achieved from last year's promise of an additional 60 workers.

The Government has made much of an increase in funding for the disability services sector. I welcome funding increases to projects such as post-school options, but a few gains will not get the Government off the hook on disability services funding. I look forward to the Minister explaining some of the missing services to the disability coalition public rally tomorrow. I look forward to an explanation about the $30 million that remains unspent from last year's budget. The Government cannot talk about a significant commitment while money remains unspent.

Of great concern to me is the lack of support, both respite care and specialist, in rural New South Wales. I have noted the concern of many members from country areas about the lack of specialist support. They have spoken of a lack of support in speech therapy services and in other medical areas. We pay much attention to regional development and taking industries to the regions, but people will not stay in those areas if they do not have fundamental specialist services. It may be difficult for the Department of Community Services to attract people to those areas. It will have to be a bit creative if it wants to attract people because there is a lack of specialist support in all parts of rural New South Wales. In areas such as Bega there is simply a lack of support staff in the Department of Community Services.

Page 1692

Earlier this year at a foster carer parents dinner I met parents from the Bega area who were providing foster support even though they had no training in that area. We have to be wary of a system that enables people to play such an important role without any backup. One of the great dilemmas in New South Wales is the inadequacy of respite care. Unless people live in one of the major centres it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain that sort of service. In my role as shadow minister one of the first areas I and the local member, Alby Schultz, visited was Cootamundra. I became aware of the isolation and sense of loneliness experienced by parents in that area because of the inadequacy of services.

I recall meeting parents who had organised a support group and had identified up to 50 families in the area that needed respite care for children with various forms of disabilities. After that meeting the Minister arranged for the area manager to visit the area to hear about their concerns. People in isolated areas lack support for children with challenging behaviour and families in crisis. It must be particularly frustrating for people in the Cootamundra and Temora area that the nearest respite care group homes for children are in Griffith - a 2½-hour drive from those communities. We must recognise the real issues in the community when we focus on government spending priorities. I thank Alby Schultz for drawing to my attention the problems of this group and the lack of services in this area.

The need for respite care has been identified as the second highest priority issue in the Riverina-Murray area. The Government will have to address these priorities and stretch its resources to meet these needs. I do not know whether the Minister has visited isolated communities and communities such as Cootamundra and Temora, but he should do so and he should listen to the concerns of needy parents in that area. If, as the Government has said, this budget is about providing a helping hand for the less fortunate, parents in this area are prepared to do a number of things to assist themselves, but they need the support of the Government. The Minister must give consideration to their need for respite care. I said earlier that in many ways this budget is a true Labor budget, but it is not one about which this Government should be proud.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN [9.23]: I wish to say a few things in response to the comments made by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. She indulged in some rather inappropriate gloating about the number of women in the Liberal Party in Federal Parliament.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Yes, it's pretty good, isn't it?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I note that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti also has the strange idea that having those women in Parliament is something to gloat about.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We are very proud of them.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I point out to the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe that, with a 1 per cent swing, 11 of those 17 women would disappear and, with a 2 per cent swing, 13 of those 17 women would disappear. There are four women from the Liberal Party in safe seats and there are four women from the Labor Party in safe seats. Opposition members are saying: at least they are in the Federal Parliament. I am saying: what good have they done? Those 17 women have been asked by the women's movement all over Australia to stop Reith and Howard from doing what they are doing to the industrial relations legislation. They have been asked to stop Reith and Howard abolishing equal pay provisions in industrial relations legislation, but they have sat on their hands. They have not raised their voices to protect the working women of Australia.

The industrial relations legislation which has been introduced by Howard and Reith will take Australia back to 1969 - to a time when women could not take an equal pay case to the Industrial Relations Commission. The women of Australia are the losers because those 17 women in Federal Parliament have taken a conservative 1969 view and they are not working to protect provisions in the industrial relations legislation. I ask the Hon. Virginia Chadwick whether she agreed with the comments made yesterday by Senator Jocelyn Newman. Jocelyn Newman said that if a budget was being dealt with by a housewife her husband would quickly send her packing. Do members of the Liberal Party want to stereotype women in that way? If those are the sort of women that are in the Federal Parliament, no wonder they are not standing up for the working women of Australia.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Was Senator Newman talking about my budget?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: No, I think she was talking about some other budget. But the point I am making is that she was stereotyping housewives. I want now to say something about our excellent State budget. I will concentrate basically on the corrective services part of the budget and what this Government is doing for female prisoners. The New South Wales Government is proud to be able to announce that it will be opening a transitional centre for women prisoners at Parramatta next month. The budget will improve facilities for female inmates classified as a low security risk. As announced in the New South Wales prison restructure overview released in April this year, $1.5 million has been allocated to begin construction of the redevelopment of Emu Plains correctional centre. Some months ago the Hon. Ann Symonds and I visited that centre. We were pleased to discover that women will be able to have living with them in cottages at that centre children who are under school age. However, as the Hon. Ann Symonds always says, it is important to get women out of gaols. We do not want babies in gaols in the first place. That is why the transitional centre is so important.

Page 1693

Other capital works expenditure in the budget includes continuing funding for the construction or redevelopment of periodic detention centres at Tomago, Broken Hill and Bathurst. I said in debate on another matter that the centres at Broken Hill and Bathurst are particularly important for Aboriginal prisoners and detainees. At Broken Hill in particular 50 per cent of detainees are Aborigines. These periodic detention centres are important for women prisoners as well, as it will enable them to keep in contact with their families. An amount of $3.2 million will be spent this financial year to complete crisis centres at Mulawa, Bathurst and Cessnock. Those units are designed to provide unstable inmates, who pose a threat to staff and to themselves, with intensive supervision, counselling and health care.

This restructuring of the whole system will enable the Government to close some of the most antiquated prisons while improving and expanding others. The Government will increase funding to important semi-government bodies such as Glebe House, which is situated in the community in which I live; Guthrie House, which does a lot of good work with prisoners with drug problems; Rainbow Lodge; CRC Justice Support Incorporated; the Prisoners Aid Association; the Children of Prisoners Support Group; maintaining the family unit program; the women's ex-inmate support project; and the women at work project. All those projects are enormously important and I am glad that they have continued to have good government funding.

The final point I make about the budget concerns something we should not have to talk about. Unfortunately, a problem facing New South Wales in the next six months to a year will be the devastating effects of Howard Government cuts in the university sector. The projected cuts of between 5 and 12 per cent mentioned by Amanda Vanstone would mean a loss of $85 million to $158 million in New South Wales alone. Cuts of this size are equivalent to the closing down of Southern Cross and Charles Sturt universities and abolishing half the faculties of the University of Wollongong. Labor would win a few more country seats if that happened. Such cuts would almost completely wipe out the growth in enrolments over the past five years.

Having worked in the university sector for 20 years, I was pleased that the changes introduced under Dawkins meant that for once the children of working-class parents got to university in numbers. When I arrived at university in 1966, 2 per cent of students came from working-class backgrounds. By the time I left the university sector 30 years later it was clear that 10, 15 or 20 per cent of students were coming from working-class backgrounds. The sorts of changes envisaged by Howard, Reith and Vanstone will drop the percentage of students from working-class backgrounds back to the 2 per cent figure of 1966.

We have called on Senator Vanstone to clarify the situation. Even this morning on radio she was refusing to rule out cuts of 12 per cent, so we can only presume that they will occur. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to a rally she will attend tomorrow. The biggest rally in Sydney tomorrow will be the rally of the university sector. For the first time vice-chancellors, academic staff, general staff and students will unite in an outcry against this vicious attack on the university sector. I will not go through the list of students projected to be lost from university following 5 to 12 per cent cuts; I will refer only to the universities in which I am particularly interested. The University of Sydney, my alma mater, will lose 3,562 students, mostly working-class students. Macquarie University, where I taught for 20 years, will lose 2,090 students. The University of New South Wales, of which I am very proud to be a council member, will lose 3,190 students.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I thought you would have sorted that council out by now.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: It is a very fine council indeed. We have a very fine new visiting professor.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Who is that? Paul Keating?

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Yes, a very fine visiting professor. We might have to indulge in changes to the budget later in the year but only because of the vicious attack on the people of New South Wales by a government which has not realised that the most worthwhile capital outlay is on education for a smart society.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [9.34]: I seize the opportunity to speak on the 1996-97 budget recently presented by the Treasurer, who is sitting at the table this evening. After delivering the budget in another place he graciously extended an invitation to members to join him and Treasury officials to celebrate the conclusion of their work. I congratulate the Treasury officials. There is no doubt that the documents are a professional piece of work, representing meticulous accounting and apolitical professionalism. However, I must say that the budget causes me great concern as a citizen of New South Wales. Some members attempt to go through the budget line by line or pick out a set of figures to suggest that they have expertise in particular programs. I will not do that because I do not think it is appropriate. Mr Deputy-President, I know that you are preoccupied with other things - events that may take place in the next 24 hours which no doubt will gladden your heart.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: What is that?

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I might come to that too later on but it is not germane to the point I am dealing with. Mr Deputy-President, I am sure you would say there is a sense of deja vu in these budget debates. There are always some members -
Page 1694
I will not say that they come from any particular group or that they are particular individuals - who choose to indulge in sycophancy. They pick out an item of the budget and embellish claims made by Ministers or optimistic projections from the budget. Others are more sceptical about conclusions to be drawn from the budget figures. On this occasion I think those members make a worthwhile contribution to the process. I approach it from my practical experiences as a farmer and, at times, the manager of small businesses. If I were the Treasurer's banker I would be saying, "Keep that file in the `Immediate Attention' cabinet." I can see all the well-worn strategies to make the budget read well. The background is somewhat less optimistic.

Anyone who moves around among people in the real world knows that we are still in reasonably tough times. It will take quite a while before things turn around under the new Federal Government's policies and we just have to await the dawning of better economic circumstances. In a question without notice I referred to international markets gradually warming to the prospect of the election of a new government in Canberra, the Howard-Fischer Government, expressing their confidence in Australia's future under that Government by causing the Australian dollar to appreciate steadily. In response to my request for an expression of sympathy for the industries that were being hard hit because of the appreciating dollar, the export industries of New South Wales, the Treasurer truculently dismissed my suggestion as if it were of no consequence to him.

All the objective indices, as well as those one can sense by moving around in the community, are alarming. In the housing industry there has been very low activity. During the month of April that fine city of Dubbo in the central west had one housing application before council for approval. That is the lowest number that many of the councillors could remember in living history. Housing activity is low and the industries that feed off it are in a state of depression - particularly the forestry and timber industries, which are paralysed in a state of depression at present. The timber industry is virtually prostrate before the policies of this present State Government. That is reflected in the economies of many of the regional cities and outlying communities that both harvest and process the products of our forests that have been so well run over many generations.

Under proper management, with enlightened resource allocation, forestry could be maintained as a viable and sustainable industry of which we should be proud and supportive. Regrettably, this industry has been dealt a body blow and has been treated shabbily by this Government. I am sure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will speak about the agricultural industries. Those industries are still experiencing very difficult times. The bright spot on the horizon is in cereal grains and other summer and winter crops. But across a wide range of other industries the outlook is very poor.

The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby: There will be no cereals unless it rains.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: The outlook is very different in other parts of the State. The northern end of the wheat belt has swung into almost a record planting but in the south of the State they are still waiting for opening rains for the season. I join with the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby in hoping that those rains are not far away. Any failure of the 1996-97 crop would be a catastrophe for the State. The high cost of grain across the world has contributed to the beef industry facing very difficult times. There are market adjustments going on in America but after all the rhetoric about the conclusion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round of negotiations, and the concessions that were gained in terms of reduction of tariffs against imported agricultural products into the European Union, I am reliably informed that of the 25 per cent reduction in barrier to beef that followed the conclusion of those discussions, 17 per cent of that has been clawed back by the administrative authorities in the EU. That has put the world beef market into a distorted state about which we have heard so much in criticism from farmer leaders and from world leaders throughout the past decade.

In these circumstances one would have to be apprehensive about the budget brought down by the Treasurer a few days ago. For those that have read State budgets over the years it is easy to see the telltale signs of over-optimistic growth projections contained in the assumptions. I believe Treasury officials were very professional in their accounting procedures but inevitably all these budgets are subjective. The Government has given Treasury officials a set of parameters which inevitably have produced an overly optimistic outcome, and we will see the consequences of that later. I join with the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, who showed great perspicacity projecting that when we get to November, or even earlier than that, we will be faced with a mini-budget. Mini-budget is the word the Government talks about, but this will be a maxi-impact budget that will send people reeling because this Government has lost the plot.

Government rhetoric is all about limiting the debts and deficits of State budgeting. But my prediction is that the budget will wilt under the strain. In specific areas we have seen how that strain is beginning to manifest itself. Whether it is one's farm or business, when things are ticking along well there is investment in plant and capital and activities proceed at a high level, with the business expanding. But across so many of the key portfolio areas in the New South Wales budget there is nipping and tucking, there is flat expenditure against increasing demand, a slowing up of capital programs and a reduction in commitment to new works - in other words, a cautious approach.

There has been a great deal of discussion in financial circles in New South Wales about the decision to change from the traditional September budget to a presentation in May. I have heard the
Page 1695
arguments of the Treasurer that this is a step forward, and that it provides early warning and indicative information for businesses on which to base their decisions. That sounds like a very worthy objective. It is interesting that there is not very much in the budget for the business sector on which to base decisions, other than a slowing up in the level of public sector activity. Therefore, the business sector should prepare for further contraction in the economy, although the background information to the budget paints a relatively optimistic picture, but that is contested by very serious commentators.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Have a look at today's national income statistics.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I have not had the opportunity to do that but I certainly will and that will be part of a wide range of statistics. The Treasurer has only to get out in those key industries which are so often seen as the harbingers of downturns in our industry to gauge what is going on in industry. The building and agricultural industries are not in full employment of their resources or in an expansion phase. Of course, the alternative would have been to bring down a budget in September and that provides information which, when reporting on 30 June figures, is obviously more accurate than the figures we are looking at.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: You would have said we were afraid to bring down the budget before the State by-elections.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: I am dealing with the here and now. There could be an argument that the decision to bring down the May budget was intended to provide an opportunity to give out some goodies before the date of those by-elections. But I am not of a suspicious mind and I want to remove politics and polemics from my contribution to the debate tonight and deal with this very serious subject. It is an exercise that was tried by the former Federal Government. The Federal Government set out on a course of early budgets. I am sure it did that for the same reasons advanced by the Treasurer, that is, to provide information prospectively to the business community. The Federal Government decided that that does not serve the public good and has returned to a September budget. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe raised the point that in accurately framing a budget to provide the services for the State, the Government has to take into account the effect of the Federal budget, and that has been the traditional approach.

The line taken by the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann that somehow the Federal Government, in a perverse way, will rock the foundations of the New South Wales public sector finances is a furphy. The projections made for Commonwealth payments to the State are the subject of continuing agreements. I accept that they are the subject of rolling funding, which is the term used to describe the predictability that exists around the funding that the State receives from the Commonwealth. I heard part of the address by the Hon. Patricia Staunton and I agree with what I heard. But, if she cared to go through Hansard she would find that the unsatisfactory nature of the financial relationships between Commonwealth and State governments, in particular the larger State governments, has been commented on as a matter of great concern. It is important to make sure that that relationship improves over time, although it is not likely to have a cataclysmic effect on the State budget. However, the level of economic activity will have a significant effect. It is already apparent that the projections for gross State product used to frame this current budget, are over-optimistic. That is the point from which this budget will unravel.

I suggest to honourable members who are cynical about my remarks that they spend some time looking at the figures in this budget that refer to the adjustments made from the projections of the 1995-96 budget. Honourable members will see how they had to be adjusted to cope with expenditure blow-outs and revenue shortfalls as well as the general tension that is building up as a result of the budgetary process. No-one would know more about that than the Hon. Patricia Staunton, who has more than a passing knowledge of the health industry. She would know the immense pressure on local hospitals to carry out their services with the funds available to them. I will touch on a few items of concern to me. First, I mention the difficult circumstances facing the mining industries because of the appreciating dollar. Honourable members need to remember the speculation about the effect that a US72¢ to US75¢ rate against the Australian dollar has on our export performance. At the moment the Australian dollar value is touching US80¢. For many mining operations that is getting close to the bone.

It is from that point that I want to refer to a project which I have been concerned about that has fallen from the Government's view, but was uppermost on the previous Government's agenda, that is, the renewal of the railway line between Nyngan and Cobar. That line is quite inadequate for the traffic it carries. Mining development at Cobar has been spectacular in recent years with new prospects opening up, despite a relatively dramatic earth subsidence that many honourable members will recall reading about recently. There is no interruption to the continuous production of the mines at present and, in fact, there are plans for expansion. It is important that the transport infrastructure is built up to meet that production because the world is very competitive. Anyone who has an idea that the mining companies have licences to print money really knows nothing about how tough that industry is and on what fine margins it operates in working a lot of the deposits that are still available.

On many occasions I have referred to my interest in education. I was concerned to note that the provisions for recurrent funding have obviously taken account of the need to meet the demands that
Page 1696
teachers have placed on the teaching service for salary justice. Honourable members will know that the Opposition supports teachers in their reasonable demands and has been critical of the Minister's prevarication. It is obvious that the Government has factored in a 7.1 per cent increase, but that has been factored in with no appreciable lift in the recurrent funding to the school system. Something will have to give. As we experience the new arrangements for centralised administration of education we will gradually see where those stresses and strains are taking their toll.

By way of question mention has been made of schools such as that at Yeoval, which is in urgent need of capital works. It is tragic to note that the capital works program allocation this year is $22 million less than it was last year, representing an 18 per cent reduction on last year's budget. It would be foolish for anyone to think that that is because we are coming to the end of the capital works program and that there is no more need for building or refurbishment of schools. Honourable members would be deluding themselves to think that that is the case. This is another straw in the wind that indicates that the Government is starting to find that its brave new world - which it spoke about in September last year - is coming unstuck because of its failure to have in place adequate policies and its failure to understand the dynamics of the New South Wales economy.

The provision of water supply and sewerage to country towns, which was once handled by the Department of Public Works but now is included in the portfolio of the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, is another area that has suffered severely in this budget. The total works projection over the next 12 months has decreased from $75 million to $67 million. This is even more starkly illustrated when we consider that the new projects undertaken for the current year amount to only $700,000 whereas in the previous budget new works commenced were allocated $5.5 million. The money available to country town water supply and sewerage schemes is gravely run down. By contrast, the Minister has claimed that all the small country towns that do not have modern water supplies or sewerage schemes will have their needs fulfilled as a priority. How is the Minister to do this if the budget is falling? There is only one way: the growth centres along the coast, the major country towns, will see their sewerage schemes slowed down. The work will be spread over a longer period and the benefit of the water supplies and sewerage schemes will be denied to the people of those rapidly growing areas for some time to come.

The reduction in the budget of moneys available for health illustrates the mounting pressure within the Government to meet its objectives. The capital works program was underspent and projected works have been reduced. There have been some brave new starts. I acknowledge to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations that I was delighted to hear that Broken Hill hospital will be rebuilt. Only a modest allocation was made in the budget, and no reference to it was made in the budget papers, although press releases published in the Broken Hill Barrier Daily Truth mentioned a figure of $27 million.

I could not help smiling wryly at the announcement about Broken Hill hospital, for I recalled that when the Minister visited Broken Hill prior to the March 1995 election. as part of the election campaign in Broken Hill he gave an undertaking that the coalition's promise to build a new hospital would not be fulfilled because the hospital in its present form was of such significance to the people of Broken Hill that it would be maintained as it was, whatever the cost; all that was necessary was refurbishment and redecoration. That was a perverse thing for him to say. Nevertheless, the Opposition unreservedly congratulates him on changing his mind and looks forward to the rapid implementation of that promise. The rebuilding of the hospital is vital.

I recently participated in debate on a matter of public interest related to law and order, a subject that is frequently debated in this House, so I do not need to establish my credentials in that regard. However, I deplored an article published in the Sunday Telegraph which listed what was described as "Crime: top 100 areas". The article was farcical, because one of the villages mentioned in the article is Coolabah, on the Mitchell Highway. It is misleading to suggest that it is unsafe to live in this place because of an aberration of statistics resulting from the size of the town. I would not congratulate the author of that article. Nevertheless, it refers to a problem in north-western New South Wales which has been documented and recognised in the course of a number of inquiries undertaken by this Parliament, including the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The budget contains no vote in either the community services or police allocations for those who are involved in trying to combat the many problems associated with law and order. Many of the projects which the Standing Committee on Social Issues urged on the Government in the report on juvenile justice seem to have been ignored by the Government.

The irrigation industry is important to the State and is often the butt of unreasonable criticism. I will be interested to learn what the Minister plans to do about stream control in the Snowy Mountains. The Government's intention to consider restoring flows to the Snowy River has been the subject of a deal of publicity. The only way to increase the volume of water in the river is to reduce the amount of water used for electricity generation or irrigation, and that would involve considerable cost. Everyone would like to see the Snowy River flowing in its pristine condition, but they want cheap electricity from the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme.

A campaign has been mounted against irrigation development along the Darling River. A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled, "Irrigators linked to river bank failures" is
Page 1697
the most tendentious article I have read. It used different units of measurement to imply that irrigators have extracted huge quantities of water from the recent massive flows down the Darling River. I believe the extractions were reasonable. They were controlled by the relevant authorities and were not the cause of river bank failures. It is regrettable that the irrigation industry in the Macquarie Valley is not given the support that it should receive. I look forward to the early resolution of the conflict about resource allocation between the wetlands of the lower Macquarie and the irrigation industry. Nothing is worse than uncertainty, and a compromise solution could achieve the objectives of conservation and maintain a strong and viable industry.

During the budget debate in September last year I mentioned the opportunities that exist for New South Wales and Australia generally in the growing economy of India. I congratulated the President on his initiatives in developing relationships with China and Japan. Australia must foster relationships with its Commonwealth partner, India, in recognition of its tremendous economic growth and the radical changes that have occurred over recent years. Honourable members would have followed with interest the recent elections in India. This emerging country follows similar parliamentary traditions to Australia and hopefully economically and politically the two countries will become major forces in the Indian Ocean region.

The Government has promoted strong ties and understanding with other Asian neighbours to the north. An opportunity exists for this Parliament to establish a similar relationship with the Government of India. Unless a determined effort is made to encourage the economy of the citizens of this State rather than the economy of the Government of this State, attempts to provide services for the people will be confounded. It is absolutely vital to look beyond the rhetoric and at the postulations of this budget in order to get to the reality. I believe the Government should take the budget back, recast it, and bring it forward in September in a more responsible way. It should include a real policy for financial development of the State, one which will have enduring benefits for the people of New South Wales.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby.


The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [10.10]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [10.10]: I would like to put on to the record a letter I have received from Child Flight, because it relates to a very important issue. The letter is headed "Government threatens children's life-saving service with closure" and it reads as follows:

One in every 80 babies born in NSW and over 450 children require emergency medical retrieval each year. Child Flight is always ready - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - to carry an emergency, medical team to 90% of the state in the fastest possible way, specifically to reach critically ill babies and children, as opposed to adult-specific rescue which is the focus of the current NSW Aeromedical Retrieval Tender.

After the seven years of operation, Child Flight has transported over 1,500 children in NSW and the ACT. Currently supported by a 50% state government grant, the service is provided free to the families. An increasing proportion of the service's running costs come from the public through community and corporate donations. In addition to the helicopter, Child Flight provides child-specific life-saving medical equipment for the medical team it carries. Child Flight provides a dedicated service for the NSW Newborn and Paediatric Emergency Transport Service (NETS) which is already based adjacent to Child Flight's headquarters in western Sydney.

Now this vital service is being threatened with closure by the NSW Minister for Health, Dr Refshauge.

The Government is planning to relocate one of Sydney's three rescue helicopters to Canberra. While this move may be beneficial for people needing rescue, there are no medical retrieval teams for babies and children in Canberra. This means that should the Canberra helicopter need to attend to an emergency for a child, it would need to fly to Sydney to pick up the specialised medical team first. Besides, Child Flight already services the ACT and surrounding areas with its emergency needs for children.

It is also possible that the Government will commission the services of a commercial, multinational to service all medical retrievals in NSW in an effort to eliminate any community involvement. Why, when the Government presently funds only 50% of Child Flight's operating costs. It has been suggested that current costs to the government would double under a commercial operator.

Before Child Flight was established in 1989, it often meant that critically ill children were not able to be transported to an intensive care facility for treatment as the helicopters available were often busy when called. Luckily, when every other medical aircraft (helicopter and plane) was attending either the Kempsey bush crash or the Newcastle earthquake, Child Flight was still available to fly critically ill children across the state for urgent attention. Recent emergency missions to flood-bound Grafton and Brewarrina were performed by Child Flight as Ambulance, Flying Doctor and the Military could not assist.

Although the TV news often shows dramatic pictures of helicopter rescues, these are actually very rare. In fact, only 7% of all helicopter retrievals are `rescues' and only a few of these cases require the use of a winch. However, over 77% of all medical retrievals are for babies and children, of which over one third are retrieved by air, by Child Flight. As Child Flight presently operates without a winch or search light, it is now being advised that it may be necessary to do so to comply with the Government's requirements or face closure. But why, when our service is dedicated to children? The reality is that the service may be closed anyhow considering the Government's alternative plans.

The Government changes are not likely to save money and the eventual cost to the NSW community will become greater. Even so, the proposed changes will not meet the NETS medical team's specialised needs.

The Health Minister's plan will not work.

After 1 July 1996, critically ill babies and children will have to compete with motor victims, rock fishermen and lost bushwalkers for a medical helicopter.

Page 1698

The risks being faced by the New South Wales community with the Government's closure of Child Flight are numerous. Child Flight is a non-profit organisation committed to continually increasing the quality of the life-saving service it offers. Child Flight is unique. It is the only service of its kind in Australia and is considered as a model for similar emergency operations internationally. It operates a state-of-the-art, twin-engine helicopter equipped with the latest in medical communications and navigation facilities, and is the only service that flies with two pilots on every mission to maximise safety and efficiency.

The Child Flight aircraft can fly almost twice as far as any other medical retrieval helicopter in Australia with an operational range of a 500 kilometre radius from Sydney. It can fly even further, if necessary. Pilots are trained to airline standards. The aircraft is the only medical aircraft operated to that standard in New South Wales - fixed wing or rotary wing - superior to standards employed by profit-oriented, multinational operators. Child Flight pioneered the development of satellite navigation for medical helicopters, which made it possible to reach over 60 New South Wales hospitals that otherwise could not be reached in bad weather. It pioneered the world's first extended-range fuel tank for use on medical retrieval helicopters. It also developed specialised, world-leading - [Time expired.]


The Hon. I. COHEN [10.15]: I bring to the attention of the House a matter that involves aerial spraying of bitou bush in the far north of New South Wales. It has been brought to my attention that Ballina Shire Council intends to undertake an aerial spraying program by using helicopters in the areas of south Ballina, Flat Rock Beach near Lennox Head and Seven Mile Beach - areas close to high population zones and tourists zones. The spraying program is intended to control bitou bush, which is recognised by authorities as a significant weed. The council intends to conduct three sprayings, two years apart. The Department of Agriculture is also involved in the program. The spraying program will be carried on in conjunction with the biological control of the tipmoth, which, it has been discovered, is not damaged by the spray.

The spraying program, approved by the local Environment Protection Authority, is considered by many people in the area to be overkill. Bitou bush comes in many different varieties and was imported from South Africa as a result of sandmining processes in times past. Conservationists in the area are worried that the impact of spraying large acreages along the frontal dune will leave the area denuded and therefore open to coastal processes. The program involves spreading chemicals to control the weed, which could be controlled by other means. Following recent major storms it was discovered that the bitou bush is naturally burnt back in times of strong on-shore, salt-laden winds and heavy seas. Native trees can then spring up in the area.

The spraying program is considered to be a very heavy-handed approach, but we are dealing with a chemical company, such as Monsanto, that produces the chemical. A lot of money is spent on chemicals rather than on people. Many unemployed people in the area could work on a far more effective strategy to clear areas of bitou bush and replant at the same time rather than embark on wholesale wastage of chemicals, which could endanger human life. As we know, contaminates get into the environment. The far north of New South Wales has many endangered species, including the wallum frog, but no species impact statement has been conducted into the effects of the proposed spraying program.

The types of problems that can evolve from the spread of synthetic chemicals into sensitive wetland areas are unknown, although we do know that a lot of species are lost due to the use of these types of chemicals in agricultural areas. There may be an argument for using such chemicals in the agricultural industry, but that is another debate for another day. However, in relation to problems in this sensitive area we believe that the chemicals will be wrongly used and will contaminate the area. It is a well-established fact that chemicals impact adversely on the reproductive system of males, and that shrinkage of certain vital male parts is a consequence of the misuse of such chemicals in the environment. I appeal to all males to take up this worthy cause to stop this form of misuse. I am very concerned that many active people in the community want to assist on dune care work. Programs should be put in place to enable unemployed people to undergo training and to do something that could be of great assistance to the environment. This program is the wrong way to go about it. Salt water has been shown to kill bitou and there are ways by which it can be controlled with other methods. A long-term program using a natural system is the best method. I am very disappointed that Ballina Shire Council and the Department of Agriculture see fit to use a system in an area that deserves some far better method.


The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [10.20]: The House may recall that on 15 May I asked honourable members to support National Reconciliation Week, which started on 27 May. It was launched by the Prime Minister, the Federal Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley, and the Leader of the Democrats, Senator Cheryl Kernot at Parliament House in Canberra. The event was very successful and was attended by 400 people including 20 Ministers and many distinguished guests. Aboriginal leaders were in attendance as well as past leaders associated with Aboriginal affairs.

Page 1699

Yesterday we had a further launch in the Powerhouse Museum which was supposed to be hosted by Ray Martin, who is a member of the Aboriginal Reconciliation Council, but unfortunately Ray could not attend and I was privileged to be asked to host the launch. It was attended by more than 200 people and was very successful. The guest speaker was Professor Colin Tatz, Professor of Politics and Director of the Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies at Macquarie University. His speech was very inspiring and stimulating. His comments were very important because honourable members would acknowledge that Aborigines have been suffering dispossession, displacement and disadvantage, so we have to think about restitution, reparation or compensation. I would like to highlight the response by Ms Pearl Wymarra, head of the Wyung Indigenous Australian Education Unit at the University of Western Sydney. Her response was very touching because she shared her thoughts, personal life and experience with us all to give us a further insight into the unfortunate situation facing Aborigines.

Today I again attended a function for National Reconciliation Week. As a member of Parliament I attend numerous functions, but today's function was special. It was the Women's Reconciliation Celebration at the Dickson Room at the State Library which was attended again by more than 200 women and one little man of six months. The contributions were very powerful, very exciting and very stimulating.

Linda Burnie, also a member of the reconciliation council, and I were the main speakers, but numerous speakers shared their experiences. I have never seen so many women cry at one time. Most of the women were in tears, I was on the verge of tears but I could not afford to because I had to return to the House. I arrived at the function late and had to come back early. The reconciliation movement has just started but it is gaining momentum. I hope honourable members in this House will help in the process in some little way, perhaps in a big way. I am constrained by the time, but I should like to say that tomorrow the council has organised two or three functions to be held in New South Wales. One is for the Australian of the year, at which Dr John Yu and the council chairman, Patrick Dodson, will speak on health as a reconciliation issue in a ward at Westmead Hospital at 9.45 a.m. Another function is the launch of the development of a cultural awareness package for medical students and doctors, to be held in this Parliament. [Time expired.]


The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [10.25]: I bring to the attention of the House concerns raised by the homosexual community about homophobia and the police royal commission. Those concerns include age of consent, the perception that the royal commission has become homophobic and fascist, diversity of opinion within the gay community about such claims, and allegations that the commission's line of inquiry fails to distinguish between abusive sex with children and consensual sex with males aged 16 years and over. The nature and type of evidence that the Wood royal commission has heard so far and the nature of the media coverage of the hearings has caused many gay people to express concern that the gay community is to be somehow blamed for organised paedophile activity among the wider community. The majority of reasonable people would recognise that this is clearly not the case and are capable of distinguishing between abusive sex and consensual sex.

The royal commission has stressed that its investigations are not an inquiry into homosexuality, but rather an inquiry specifically into paedophile and pederast activities within the terms of reference given to the commission by this Parliament. The relationship of police corruption in such activities is the subject of interest to the commission. In the course of the royal commission's investigations it may well uncover evidence of sexual activity with minors, but it must be remembered that the royal commission has no power to charge a person with an offence as a result of evidence gathered in the course of its inquiry. However, law enforcement agencies may decide to take this course of action in light of certain evidence, and of course it is probably appropriate for such agencies to do so in some cases.

Prominent members of the gay community reflect the feelings of the wider community in condemning the abuse of the sexually immature of whatever gender, particularly abuse by those in positions of trust in the immediate or extended family, clergy, teaching professions and others with an ability to use a position of power over someone less powerful for their own gratification. The abuse of this trust can deeply affect and shatter the faith of a young person and can lead to suicide, dependence on alcohol and other drugs, and give rise to other detrimental manifestations in later life as a result of sexual abuse. Children are entitled to grow up in a climate of relative trust and safety amongst adults in society until they are mature enough to determine with whom, when and how they will have sexual relations.

The real issue is at what age a young person decides to engage in sexual activity and, more importantly, whether this activity is with their conscious consent. I do not intend to enter into the argument of what age a person should be before the law recognises his or her right to engage in sexual relations, as no one individual matures in an identical manner to another. People of whatever gender will continue to let their hormones rule their attractions and defy any age that a parliament might decide is appropriate to begin sexual relations. I fear greatly that there is a potential for years of tolerance and acceptance of the gay community to
Page 1700
be significantly damaged by sensualist reporting and community ignorance of the issue. My personal experience is that proponents of paedophilia are as unwelcome in the gay community as elsewhere in society. The vast majority of members of the gay community support the exposure of police corruption in relation to paedophile activity. We should remind ourselves of a poem that used to hang outside a concentration camp in Germany that reads as follows:

When they came for the communists I did not say anything, for you see I was not a communist.

When they came for the trade unionists I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews I did not protest, because I was not a Jew.

When they came for the homosexuals I remained silent, because am not a homosexual.

Now they come for me, there is no one left that can speak for me.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [10.31]: I was shocked to learn this week that contained in a paper produced by the student representative council of the University of Wollongong were various attacks on me and my reputation. The paper was handed to me by one of the committee that produced it. The front cover of the paper showed a photograph of me next to a pregnant woman. In the photograph I am shown to be reaching out towards the woman with a coat-hanger that is streaked with blood. Obviously, I am totally opposed to abortion by abortionists, and I am also totally opposed to abortion by means of a coat-hanger. I am totally opposed to that abuse of a woman. I have great concern for pregnant women, particularly those who may be considering abortion. I found that representation offensive.

The paper had a cartoon supposedly representing me in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, with the white hood that we know from the southern States of the United States and the "KKK" and the Nazi symbols. By implication, the paper suggested that I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan, or that I support the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Party. I am totally opposed to any person who holds those views. Obviously, those responsible are hoping to incite students who may be Jews or who may be from other backgrounds to think, wrongly, that I am involved in these activities and am not welcome at the university. When I saw that cartoon I felt ill, because I have been an opponent of radical groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups in Australia. Honourable members know that I have raised concerns about the League of Rights and its claim that the holocaust was the greatest myth of the twentieth century. My opposition to these matters
is on the record of the House. As far as my association with those groups is concerned, I am a million miles away from them.

The implication is that I am anti-Semitic, but I am a close supporter of the Jewish community. When I saw the cartoon it reminded me that when I visited Israel I received an invitation from the foreign affairs department of the Israeli Government to attend the Great Synagogue of Jerusalem. It was a great privilege for me to be escorted into the synagogue during its Sabbath service, and I do not know how many non-Jews or Protestant ministers have been invited to such a service. The service was conducted wholly in Hebrew, but I could follow it because it was based mostly on the Old Testament and the Psalms. The congregation was singing and chanting psalms, and I was given an English version to follow. At one stage I heard the name "Nile", which I recognised because it is not Hebrew. My escort from the foreign affairs department told me that I was being accorded an official welcome. I was not sitting in the back row, hidden from people who did not know who I was, but in the front row; I was honoured with an official welcome. I thought that this showed my credentials with the Jewish community. As I have said, I do not think many Protestant ministers have been invited to, or would be honoured in, the Great Synagogue of Jerusalem.

The university paper also contained an article that said in effect "We do not want Fred Nile because Fred Nile has never attended a university." As I have said on many occasions, I have been a registered, enrolled student attending classes at the University of Sydney, the University of New England and Macquarie University. I have probably attended more universities than many other people. I do not have a university degree. However, I completed a theological course and received a diploma and certificates. I also passed various university subjects including Ancient History 1 and Philosophy 1.

As some honourable members may know, I studied education and politics. I even attended classes under the lectureship of the Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann. I attended those classes mainly to improve my knowledge of politics. I enrolled in the Master of Politics course at Macquarie University. I matriculated as an adult and had completed a tertiary theological course. So, I could go straight into a Master of Arts course. I did not attend for the purpose of getting the degree. I did not pass the examinations. I did not sit for the examinations but I wanted to get the benefit of the classes. Rather than having never attended a university, I have in fact attended three universities and passed some university courses. I object to that misrepresentation by the Student Representative Council. [Time expired.]

Motion agreed to.

Last modified 13/06/2007 08:14:19   :   Update this page