Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 23 June 1998, Corrected Copy)

The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann
The Hon. Virginia Chadwick
The Hon. M. J. Gallacher


The Hon. P. F. P. Whelan, Minister for Police

New South Wales Police Service
Mr P. Ryan, Commissioner
Mr D. Mooney, Executive Director, Management Services

Minstry of Police
Mr L. Tree, Director-General
Ms J. Fitzgerald, Chief of Staff



Page 451

CHAIR: At this meeting the Committee will examine the proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund for the portfolio area of the Minister for Police. Paragraph 7 of the budget estimates reference provides that a member of a committee and any Minister present to answer questions may have staff present to assist during the hearing of evidence, and may refer to those staff at any time. However, I remind members’ staff and any other persons that they should take care not to interrupt proceedings and that they should observe the usual courtesies which apply to a meeting of the House or of the Committee. Where possible messages for members should be given through the attendant on duty or to the Committee Clerks. I note that the Hon. Virginia Chadwick is an alternative member of the Committee today in lieu of the Hon. Charlie Lynn, and that the Hon. Elaine Nile is not present. Members of the media, the House resolved on 4 June 1998 that the press and public may be admitted to proceedings of the Committee. I wish to explain to you what is required by the Standing Order of the Legislative Council so that you will be aware of the position. Legislative Council Standing Order 252 provides:

Evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House and documents presented to such Committee which have not been reported to the House may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee or by any other person.

In reporting the proceedings of this Committee, as with the reporting of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, you must take responsibility for what you publish or what interpretation is placed on anything that is said before the Committee. I have to point out too that the Committees are accustomed to pooled media resources. We are absolutely overcome by what we have here today and we would ask that the media behave themselves.

In order to accurately complete the Questions and Answers paper the Committee Clerk requires that members complete and sign the appropriate form when a question is taken or given on notice.

For the benefit of Committee members and Hansard I ask departmental officials to identify themselves by name, position and department or agency before answering questions. The proposed allocations of time are as follows: the Police Service - Opposition 30 minutes, Government 30 minutes, crossbench 30 minutes, and a 15 minute break for morning tea. The Police Integrity Commission - Opposition 15 minutes, Government nil, crossbench 15 minutes. The Crime Commission - Opposition, 15 minutes, Government 15 minutes, crossbench 15 minutes. The Ministry - Opposition 15 minutes, crossbench 15 minutes. One minute is allowed for questions and four minutes for a reply.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, Budget Paper No. 2 at page 4-183 refers to the 1998 police numbers being a record high, at 13,378. Does that figure include the final increase of 100 as set out in the 1997-98 budget?

Mr WHELAN: We do have record numbers and we do have a record budget. To answer your question we have to look at the facts. In November 1994 the actual police strength of the entire Police Service was 12,678. Of that, only 8,801 police were allocated to patrols. We obtained those figures from documents under a provision in the Legislative Assembly Standing Order 54 notice. Those documents proved the entire Police Service was under strength and that the worst area affected was the front line and naturally the Government of the day was reluctant to provide that information. We undertook upon coming to government to increase the number of available police by 650 by returning 150 police to policing duties, thereby increasing the strength of the Police Service to 13,407 by 1999. The claim you make is the same sort of claim made by the member for Eastwood, but we are ahead of schedule. The budget paper shows that at the end of the financial year the strength of the Police Service will be 13,378. That will be 700 more police than there were in November 1994. As you would understand, the actual strength of the Police Service varies from month to month, indeed from day to day.

The records show that the actual strength in October 1997 was 13,281, and the truth is that last November’s figures are a consequence of the Government’s determination to meet its electoral commitments. The peaks and troughs in police strength conclusively prove that the Government has factored in not only the effects of increased attrition arising from the police royal commission but also our commitment to ensure we hire extra officers to replace those on long-term sick leave. I am sure you are of the view that we should take this opportunity to remove corrupt and non-performing officers from the Police Service. We have maintained that the service always needs new blood and we expected police attrition rates to be high, particularly during and following the royal commission. The Government is ahead of schedule in providing extra police. We have already returned 150 officers to operational duties by replacing those undertaking prisoner escort and administrative tasks, and that is an ongoing improvement. If you look at the budget you will see that in the coming year we will free up another 53 police. So we are going to exceed our commitment, but we will not stop there, that is not all.

We have also promised to restore police strength in patrols. I recall that in November 1994, there was 8,801 on patrol; and as at May 1998 the actual strength of local area commands was 10,701. The
Page 452
honourable member does not need any information about local area commands but I must say that a lot of members do not understand that concept. That means that 1,900 police have been redeployed to the front line. That is 20 per cent more under the control of local commanders to better protect the community. The honourable member will recall that I established Scorpio to deal with a range of human resources issues and to help the Government implement its election commitments.

Scorpio has achieved many things, including: a savage reduction in the number of police out of position; recruitment to offset long-term sick leave; the formal abolition of functional differences to give commanders greater discretion to respond in a timely fashion to calls from the public as a first priority; the establishment of a State transfer unit to centralise the processing, adjudication and publication of all transfers; and ensuring the appropriate staffing of the Child Protection Enforcement Agency, which I have to add, Mr Chairman, was recently acknowledged by the FBI as the best in the world.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 603. The program description refers to the civil forfeiture of assets. Can you tell me the quantum of assets that were forfeited in the last 12 months?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, I can, if you will just give me a couple of seconds. I do not have that ready reckoner on me right at this present moment.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I presume that that would be an indication of the success of the program?

Mr WHELAN: Sure. I will give you some further indication of that.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: While your assistant is searching for that material, would you be able to at least indicate whether the value of the assets forfeited goes into the police budget or does it go to the Treasurer?

Mr WHELAN: I am sorry, I thought you were asking me about police. We will deal with the Crime Commission later.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, the forfeiture of assets.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, can we deal with the Crime Commission later? The Chair said we are dealing with the Police Service for the first two hours, and then we will deal with the Police Ministry, the Crime Commission and the Police Integrity Commission after.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, you probably are aware of documentation that was received from the Police Service under freedom of information legislation dated 30 November 1997 that shows the actual strength of the Police Service at 30 November 1997 as 13,415. If the figure in the budget is a record high, can you explain the discrepancy, please?

Mr WHELAN: I am advised that following an FOI request by the Opposition, information was dispatched last week that showed that the police strength as at 31 May 1998 was 13,462. That should be in your hands.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I have not got it.

Mr WHELAN: It should be; it was sent to the Opposition.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Can you explain the discrepancy between the your budget high figure of 13,378 and the figures shown on these documents?

Mr WHELAN: This document shows 13,462 and I have already explained to you why we are on track. You are quoting a lower figure. We have more police above the May figure. The May figure sent to the Opposition is 13,462. The figure you are quoting is 13,300.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The budget says 13,378. Which is correct, the FOI document or the budget?

Mr WHELAN: They are both correct, but as I explained -

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But they are different figures, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: As I explained to you, there is an ebb and flow in police numbers as a result of attrition, up and down. You would know that there is a variation in police numbers on a day-to-day basis, with police officers joining at various stages. The budget is an estimate to the end of the financial year; the FOI is at May. They are two different dates. As I was saying, the police numbers vary from day to day. The total attrition per annum is a public figure; it is somewhere between 500 and 600, maybe 700 at stages. I have explained that earlier in my answer.

Page 453

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So Minister, the budget is therefore technically incorrect because 13,378 is not the record high number of police in the New South Wales Police Service.

Mr WHELAN: No, the budget is correct and so is the information I have given you.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So if it is 13,378, that is the highest number of police ever recorded in New South Wales?

Mr WHELAN: I will give you a copy of the document that was sent out to the Opposition. That may be able to solve your problem.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Just to expedite that, Minister, if you could just assist me. The figure of 13,378, as recorded in the budget, is the highest number of police ever employed in New South Wales?

Mr WHELAN: Probably expressed in budget terms.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Could you express it in real terms?

Mr WHELAN: Do you understand that the budget is an estimate and that it is a projection at a certain date? The freedom of information figure was at 30 May. You do not have the same number of police officers in Police Service on any one day; it varies.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But you have an authorised strength, Minister. You have not yet got an idea how much you are going to pay.

Mr WHELAN: No, the authorised strength was abolished in December.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So you do not know, Minister, exactly how many people you are going to pay at the end of the month.

Mr WHELAN: We have, and we have consistently paid them. We have got record high numbers and a record high budget. I do not know why you persist in this argument. At least the shadow minister for police acknowledged to the Police Association that we have record police numbers and a record budget. They are the facts. Go and ask Mr Tink.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I am just trying to determine where the goal posts are, Minister. You seem to be moving them all the time.

Mr WHELAN: No, I am not moving anything.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Most certainly.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Budget Paper No. 2, at page 4-181, reflects the overall table of anticipated expenditure. Can you tell me where in this year’s budget papers is the proposed $19.5 million in agency specific savings cuts from the Police Service which were outlined in last year’s Budget Paper No. 2? Are these savings still planned to be made or have they been foregone?

Mr WHELAN: I will get the specific answer for you but overall the budget was increased by some $82 million, as you appreciate by looking at the budget papers.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So you have been fortunate enough not to have had to achieve those productivity savings?

Mr WHELAN: No, we have got an $82 million increase, and that is set out in the budget figure.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So out of that $82 million, $19.5 million may well have gone in savings?

Mr WHELAN: Would you repeat that.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Have you been given an $82 million increase before or after the $19.5 million savings?

Mr WHELAN: It is an increase on last year’s budget. But you have to understand that we are reforming the Police Service, and we are not achieving this by scrimping and saving; we are doing it with funds that come to the budget and continue to come from the budget.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: That is admirable. My simple question is whether the $82 million includes, or is after the, $19.5 million identified in savings?

Mr WHELAN: Well, it is a real increase; $82 million more than the previous year.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So did you or did you not achieve the $19.5 million dollars in savings?

Mr WHELAN: I will find out.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You do not know?

Page 454

Mr WHELAN: Savings from where?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: From within the portfolio as identified in last year’s budget?

Mr WHELAN: You mean efficiency gains?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes.

Mr WHELAN: Productivity?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes.

Mr WHELAN: We will give you some answers.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It is on page 1-42 of last year’s Budget Paper No.2.

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to deal with this year’s budget, but if you would rather ask about last year’s budget I will answer those questions.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I would have thought it was relevant to this year’s budget whether you had achieved the $19.5 million target set last year?

Mr WHELAN: If we had achieved the full $19.5 million, the budget would have increased by $101.5 million.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: But it did not?

Mr WHELAN: We have $82 million in addition to last year’s budget.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, just to finalise on police numbers so we can continue with other parts of the budget, am I right in therefore assuming that the budget is correct, that the record high of 13,378 stands on its own merits, that it is the highest number?

Mr WHELAN: It is a record figure; just check the annual reports. I have already been over it for you once before.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I know, but there seems to be a degree of conflict not only in relation to the information the police supplied but in terms of your own statements about estimates. I refer you to the transcript of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3, Police, on 2 June 1997, where in reply to a question by me you said:

As at 16 May 1997 we had 13,379 police officers.

That is one more than you have in the budget?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, but we are dealing with this year’s budget here.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: We have gone back?

Mr WHELAN: Even on your own figures -

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: No, I am referring to your figures, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: We are dealing with this year’s budget, not last year’s budget. If you want to go over last year’s budget we will have another meeting. But let us deal with this other issue. I have explained it to you. The budget figure is there, the police numbers you know are there. The Opposition acknowledged they are record numbers and a record budget. We could talk about this all day but it is not going to serve any purpose. Even your own Opposition members publicly acknowledge it.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It is worth clarifying though, Minister. You say we have an additional 100 police in this budget, when in actual fact we are down one officer. With that additional 100 we are down one as compared to the figures of May last year; and they were your own words, Minister, not mine, and not Andrew Tink’s?

Mr WHELAN: I have explained that all to you before, and your counterpart in the lower House acknowledges the record numbers, so that is good enough for me.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, pages 591 to 598. Minister, can you explain the rationale behind abolishing the six original Police Service budget programs of property theft, street safety, personal safety, road safety, alcohol and drug related crime and safety in custody, and creating the four new ones, community support, criminal investigation, traffic, and judicial support?

Mr WHELAN: We tried to make the budget descriptions meaningful, so that they meant something. A police officer does a lot of jobs and whilst there are specific jobs within the Police Service, a police officer can do multiple jobs and in the past the funding for those jobs has not necessarily come directly from a budget line item. The overall strategy of the Police Service, as you would understand, is community based. It is based on customer-focused service delivery. The new corporate plan 1998-2001 has been developed to reflect the priorities for reform and to focus attention on the actual services provided and the outputs delivered in seeking outcomes. The formal
Page 455
corporate plan, published in 1995-98, identified key result areas of property theft, personal safety, street safety, roads safety, victim support, alcohol and drug related crime, and safety in custody. These issues remain important but are outcome orientated.

We have now grouped four programs: namely, community support comprising 24 hour service; crime prevention and events emergency management; criminal investigations; and traffic and judicial support. The corporate plan includes descriptors for the outcome performance indicators; and performance indicators have also been devised for inputs, outputs, efficiency, economy and quality of service. The program structure for the Police Service broadly aligns with that of other States and will allow for benchmarking, and that is one of the reasons why we changed. The new program structure more clearly describes the service delivered to the community. The programs are based on service delivery classes and align with the Government’s budgeting approach.

Information on both inputs and outputs will be available from various systems within the service such as the rostering and finance system, the computerised operational policing system and the complaints information system. These systems have been redeveloped to ensure that information will become available. Outcome information is usually obtained from outside sources such as community surveys, perceptions of policing and satisfactions and, of course, victim surveys.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, did you not say that the previous system was far too outcome orientated and that this system is going to be based more on benchmarking? Have you established those benchmarks, and if so how did you do that?

Mr WHELAN: They are being established now.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: They are being established now?

Mr WHELAN: Yes.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: When will they be operational?

Mr WHELAN: In due course.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 4, page 69, the major works entitled "Telephone communication equipment". I preface my question by referring to category 1 offences that can become the subject of an investigation by the Police Integrity Commission, and particularly allegations that a member of the Police Service has provided to any unauthorised person information pertaining to any part of the Police Service. There is no mention about this category being relative only to criminal offences.

Mr WHELAN: Just ask the question.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, will you give an undertaking to the Committee, indeed to the Parliament, that telephone monitoring facilities currently employed by the New South Wales Police Service will not be used to identify the place of origin of telephone calls made to police phone numbers ascribed to members of Parliament where it is believed they are made from within the New South Wales Police Service.

Mr WHELAN: This question relates to the Police Integrity Commission. I understood that the Committee was to spend two hours on Police, and then deal with the Ministry, the Police Integrity Commission and then the Crime Commission. I will answer the question this time, but is the Committee following the agency schedule or not?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Mr Chairman, I can assist. I asked the question purely to assist the Minster so that he would have it in the back of his mind and save me having to come back to it at a later stage. I am only here to help.

CHAIR: According to the running sheet the Police Integrity Commission will be discussed at 11.30 a.m.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The question actually relates to the Police Service. I was assisting the Minister.

CHAIR: The Minister said he would answer the question.

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to do so just this once, but can we then confine ourselves to the Police Service and talk about the Police Integrity Commission later, rather than keep jumping across? I refer you to the answer I gave in Parliament and also to the commissioner’s press release. Further, later information reveals that the system that is in place now is the same system that was in place 6½ years ago and that the journalists who protest about the allegation should remember what the allegation is: that someone heard from someone who allegedly heard from someone who allegedly heard from someone else that something may have been the case. That is hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. The present telephone system is the same as was in operation 6½ years ago; there have been no changes to the system.
Page 456
And the journalist who complains now is the same person who was former Commissioner Lauer’s press secretary, who worked under the same and existing regime.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, my question was specific to members of Parliament, bearing in mind our public disclosure responsibility. I am after an assurance from you, Minister, that where a member of Parliament, acting in that capacity, receives a phone call or phone calls from members of the Police Service, none of the $1.3 billion in this year’s budget will be utilised to monitor from where in the Police Service the phone calls come. The question has nothing to do with journalists, Minister; I have not mentioned journalists.

Mr WHELAN: Are you talking about telephone tapping? You know the provision about that.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: No, Minister, I most certainly have never mentioned telephone tapping. I am talking about monitoring the origin of telephone calls made to members of Parliament from within the New South Wales Police Service.

Mr WHELAN: Police Service phones are not the only phones that are used by people either inside or outside the Police Service. I do not understand your point.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, that is why I referred you to schedule 1 of the Police Integrity Commission. You might read it in the interim and we can come back to it during the PIC section. Then you will see exactly what I am referring to.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 597-8, and note that the program description refers to Prisoner Custody and Prisoner Transport Facilities. In 1995 the Premier made a promise that he would "make an additional 150 officers available for police work by replacing those doing clerical work or prisoner escort duty". Why then are police still doing this duty so many years later and why is it still listed in this program description? What happened to the promise of 150 people to free up police?

Mr WHELAN: In my answer to the first question of the Hon. M. J.Gallacher I referred to the 650 officers and the 150. The 150 have already been reallocated, but it is a continuing process within the Department of Corrective Services and the Police Service of police being removed from prisoner escort duties. There are several instances that spring to mind where the matter is still being negotiated between the Police Service and the Department of Corrective Services. The 150 figure has already been attained.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So I presume that by the time we meet again next year that program description will have been deleted. You will have achieved your goal, will you? And if you have achieved your goal, why is it still in the program description?

Mr WHELAN: It is an ongoing attempt to improve efficiency by increasing the rightful role of the Department of Corrective Services and returning police to policing functions.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: If it is an ongoing discussion, a goal between the Police Service and the Department of Corrective Services, could you give us a ball park figure? Is it 50 per cent achieved, or 80 per cent achieved?

Mr WHELAN: The commitment of 150 officers has been achieved.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It has been achieved?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, it has been. I said that earlier.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 591, Community Support "Operating expenses." Minister, as you would be aware, the role of VIPs includes victim-witness support at court, community liaison support, attending community-based meetings such as Neighbourhood Watch, senior citizens, etcetera - all important, time-consuming jobs that must be filled. Now that there has been a massive collapse in the number of VIPs from approximately 1,100 towards the end of 1997 to approximately 500 today, where are the additional 600 police personnel needed to fill the hole left by these disenchanted volunteers?

Mr WHELAN: I just find this question hard to believe. I opened the volunteers in policing conference at Wollongong two months ago and I met a very enthusiastic group of people, like I did on the central coast.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: There has been a massive drop in numbers.

Mr WHELAN: No, I cannot subscribe to that view. With the establishment of community safety officers in each of the local area commands, there are 80 dedicated police officers in local area commands to raise community awareness and to satisfy the commitment of the Government to fully support community safety officers working with the community. I would expect that community response would be very supportive of the police in any area, rather than as you have indicated.

Page 457

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The community response is very supportive.

Mr WHELAN: Volunteers in policing have a very important role in the Police Service and we have been encouraging them. Our safer communities action plan forms an integral part of a broader government strategy to reduce crime. We are committed, as you know, to making our streets safer for everyone. The plan allows police, community service officers, councils and individuals to work together to develop community safety plans. We intend to revitalise Neighbourhood Watch and Safety House. The plan is about assisting local area commanders do their job in a much more efficient manner than they could in the past, and with much more direct community involvement. No, I do not subscribe to that view, and volunteers in policing have a very, very important function and role within policing.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, do you know then - it would appear to me that you do not know - that there has been a massive drop in the number of volunteers. There has been a massive decrease, not in authorised positions, we have got rid of that idea, but in the number of actual people who are volunteers in policing today. Can you tell us the actual number of volunteers we have today?

Mr WHELAN: I cannot subscribe to that view, as I said before, because when I went to Wollongong to attend a statewide meeting of volunteers in policing, it was packed. I cannot tell you how many people were there. It was a packed hall. Likewise when I went to the central coast, it was also packed. I do not know where you get the figure of 1,100 from, but I know -

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I did say 1,100, Minister, approximately 1,00 at the end of last year.

Mr WHELAN: Well, I can tell you there would have been more than 1,100 at those two meetings of volunteers in policing that I attended. As I go about the State I do not count everyone who is wearing a yellow jacket as a volunteer in policing, but I can assure you they are very enthusiastic and I would be very surprised if the number was not more than 1,100, but I will find out for you.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Last year The Entrance had 13 police officers and it now has 3. Dee Why had 17 officers last year, and it now has 6. I can list quite a number of stations if you want. There has been a massive drop. You should make yourself aware of it -

Mr WHELAN: Well, there may be. Yes, there are 170 police stations.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: - because that role has to be filled by police.

Mr WHELAN: There are 170-plus police stations in New South Wales. They each have varying degrees of interest, but overall I would have to say that volunteers in policing is very enthusiastically embraced by the Police Service. For the first time they have someone at the top level of the Police Service who is responsible for it. That has never happened in the past and I can only assure you that my travels and attendance at meetings suggests there is nothing but support from the whole of the community for volunteers in policing.

In fact, I would have to say it is going to grow. Once you see the work being done by the 80 community safety officers in each of the local area commands I am more than confident that volunteers in policing will continue to be a most important part of policing. Whether by helping victims, going to court or doing some minor clerical work in police stations, they do a fantastic job.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Yes, but how are you going to make up the numbers there were last year?

Mr WHELAN: I am confident there is already more than the 1,100 that you are referring to.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, there is not.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 4, page 70, because I am really interested in the proposed police station at Narellan, which appears to have been part of an ongoing saga for several years.

Mr WHELAN: How many years would you suggest?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, I would say 1994 was when the Leader of the Labor Opposition promised a police station at Narellan.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the Opposition promised it in 1994?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, and he is now in Government.

Mr WHELAN: He must have had a different budget, did he, the Leader of the Opposition?

Page 458

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: He is now the Premier so presumably he has some control over the budget. I want to know, given this great heartfelt promise that was made in 1994, why we still do not have it, why only $50,000 is allocated this year, and what sort of inroads you expect to make if you allocate only $50,000 a year? When do you anticipate it is going to be finished?

Mr WHELAN: I do not think you are going to get very far with $50,000, are you?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: No, you are not.

Mr WHELAN: I concur with that. But maybe when the Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, made that commitment in 1994 - at a time when you were in government, so the first question is why did not you build it, to which there is no answer - he did not realise, until he came to government, that there was a $400 million capital works backlog. That massive backlog has gradually been resolved in three record Labor budgets, and the capital works program of the Police Service has seen substantial improvements, particularly to the occupational health and safety of police officers who are working in police stations. I am not too sure whether there is a police station at Narellan of a type that you referred to or whether you are talking about building a new police station.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Given that you allocated $305,000 in 1995-96 -

Time expired.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: - $1.6 million in 1996-97, $2.7 million in 1997-98, it is still not built, and this year you allocated $50,000.

Mr WHELAN: There may be a property problem, there may be a problem about the purchase of a site.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I think there is an accounting problem. I think there is a credibility problem.

Mr WHELAN: No, not at all.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I think you have got a real credibility gap there.

Mr WHELAN: I think that honourable members must be aware - you must be aware of this, and if you are not I will make you very aware now - that this Government is not building police stations simply because every member of Parliament wants a police station in his or her electorate.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The Premier promised it.

Mr WHELAN: Those days are gone.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The Premier does not count for anything? He promised it.

Mr WHELAN: The Premier promised it, as you said, when he was the Leader of the Opposition in 1994. Obviously his commitment fell on deaf ears because you were in government and you did not build it.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: He promised if we all voted for him he would build it.

Mr WHELAN: There are multiple reasons for that. We have built 16 new police stations, and 26 large-scale extensions and upgrades have been completed.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: But you have had three years of promises. I am only interested in Narellan at this stage.

Mr WHELAN: We have six major works under construction and minor works in 52 locations.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: $305,000, $1.6 million, $2.7 million.

CHAIR: Minister, you are not obliged to go any further.

Mr WHELAN: No, I do not mind. I will just go and get the list of promises about schools that the Hon. Virginia Chadwick promised to build.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Narellan, Narellan.

Mr WHELAN: This is the same Minister who wanted to close down that beautiful school.

Time expired.

The Hon. Dr Meredith BURGMANN: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 593. Can you tell me of the results to date of the Police Service integrity testing program?

Mr WHELAN: I certainly can and I thank the honourable member for her question. Integrity testing is an integral part of the Police Service commitment to
Page 459
eradicating corruption; it was the key recommendation of the Wood royal commission. We responded swiftly in introducing the Police Legislation Further Amendment Act in December 1996. The law gave police the power to conduct sting operations, and they began the following year. The royal commission further recommended that the Government introduce legislation to protect officers who were involved in approved covert operations to catch corrupt colleagues. The recommendation was fulfilled last year with the enactment of the Law Enforcement Controlled Operations Act.

A recent regulation allows officers of the integrity testing unit to use forfeited property in their targeted operations to increase the effectiveness of their integrity tests. I am pleased to say that integrity testing has had a positive and successful impact on the New South Wales Police Service. Tests are conducted on a targeted basis using intelligence and pro-active investigations relating to officers suspected of being involved in criminal activity, serious misconduct or deficiencies in systems and in management. As a result of the program’s success, there is a great awareness amongst police of the existence of the integrity testing unit and the serious consequence for those who choose to act corruptly.

The program has also encouraged the reporting of alleged criminal activity and serious misconduct by serving members to their local area commanders. This is extremely encouraging as the service and the Government remain vigilant in the fight against corruption, especially of the type that was so graphically exposed by the royal commission. The innovative approach of the integrity testing unit to identify corrupt and criminal conduct has extended to the investigation of criminal elements in the community.

Specifically, I refer to people who encourage or participate in police corruption. Already one civilian has been criminally charged with association with an officer involved in corruption as a result of integrity testing operations. The example shows a wider value of the unit in its positive work in our approach in dealing with corruption, detection and prevention. Today I am pleased to say that since its inception, 40 integrity testing operations have been conducted resulting in six criminal charges, one suspension, five dismissals or resignations as a result of being charged, four loss of commissioner’s confidence and dismissals, three applications submitted for consideration for loss of commissioner’s confidence, one civilian criminally charged - an associate of a target of integrity testing - three optional resignations, one departmental charge, 44 managerial issues, and two inconclusive matters that will be re-tested.

It is also important to note that 18 officers passed integrity testing operations. There are currently 29 targets in various stages of development, and further targets have been identified, profiled and will be integrity tested at the conclusion of the current operation. This is a great success story, one of which the Government and I am sure the commissioner, are very very proud. It is the adoption of the royal commission recommendation. It is about getting a cleaner Police Service, and there is a timely message to police as well. The message is that police who involve themselves in corruption will be caught, dealt with and criminally charged.

CHAIR: The residue of time is now allocated to the Opposition.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: In Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, at pages 595 to 596, why is the new program 61.1.3 Traffic funded to the tune of $23.7 million less than the previous category of Road Safety?

Mr WHELAN: I said in an earlier answer to the honourable member that the programming has changed. They are not comparable; you cannot draw any comparison from a previous year’s budget for this.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So can you give the Committee an absolute assurance that has been no diminution of either effort or money in the traffic program?

Mr WHELAN: I can give you the assurance that it has increased. But let us be careful about assurances. There are only two guaranteed assurances in life: we promote one and the good Lord looks after the other.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, that is very heartening for people interested in the traffic program.

Mr WHELAN: I can tell you that as per Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, at page 595, average staffing has gone up 22 and the total expenditure has been increased by of $1.1919 million. But it is very difficult to try to translate a different program from the previous year to the next.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I presume that is not why you changed the identification of the program.

Mr WHELAN: No, you will have the output. You will have the details.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to your previous comments about the
Page 460
provision of additional police to the front line. In light of that answer, why is it that the forum of local area commanders sent a memo to the commissioner dated 14 April 1998 asking where were the extra police that had been promised and what had happened to civilianisation? Why is it that the 80 local area commanders do not recognise the milestones you claim to have achieved?

Mr WHELAN: Well, I read that newspaper story with a great deal of interest, but can I just refer you to what the Police Association says? It said, "The pre-election commitment about police numbers has been met by this Government." It also said, "We welcome the upgrade of the police radio network." Those numbers have been met, local area commanders are satisfied and happy.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So the local area commanders forum was wrong in saying what it did?

Mr WHELAN: I do not have the document.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Do you want me to hand it to you, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: You can if you like, but it is the same sort of story that appeared two months ago or three months ago in the newspaper.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Well, you should be aware of it then, Minister. I should not need to refer you to it. I am quite happy to assist. I will come back to it.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, Budget Paper No. 4, page 69, deals with capital works. Why has the construction of Ashfield, Auburn and Kogarah police stations been listed as new works in this year’s budget when in previous budgets you will find that exactly the same projects were listed a couple of years ago and then dropped from the capital works budget two years ago. Now, they are listed again as new works. Is there an explanation for this?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, of course there is. Let us deal with Ashfield first, then Auburn, and then we will deal with Kogarah. I am pleased to advise that money has been allocated in this year’s budget for a new police station at Ashfield. We have already purchased two adjoining residences next to the historic police station and plans are being finalised for the new station. According to the Police Association this station had just about the worst conditions for police officers in the whole of the State. It was only beaten by Marrickville, and a new police station has been built at Marrickville. A development application has already been lodged with the local council and plans are under way. Part of the problem at Ashfield is that some of the police stationed there have moved to a new location on the corner of Holden Street and Liverpool Road, and they will be there until the major problems associated with Ashfield have been resolved.

The difficulty with Ashfield was the purchase of the land next door. The honourable member would be aware that governments do not like to resume properties. The owners did not want to sell but ultimately did sell to the police at the market price. But again I repeat: the presence of a police station is very important for every local member, not only the members here, but they have to understand that we are not building police stations in every member’s electorate. The days of a wish list for every member of Parliament to have a police station in his or her electorate are gone. Local area commands are now in place and the local area commander and the commissioner, of course, will have a very, very important say in determining where police stations are built.

I make no exception. If the commissioner said to me that, because there are stations in various states and forms at Strathfield, Burwood, Leichhardt, Annandale and Canterbury, there is no need for a station at Ashfield, I would have to say that there will not be a station at Ashfield. But, because of the demand and because it should be upgraded at least to provide decent occupational health and safety requirements, Ashfield will have a new police station.

The entire needs of the Police Service are being looked at and this eventually will result in both Auburn and Kogarah having new stations. Every police station has a degree of difficulty when it comes to buying additional property. Ashfield has been allocated this year $4.8 million. In last year’s budget there was an amount of $500,000 for Ashfield, for Kogarah and I think likewise for Auburn. This year’s budget provides $4 million for a major new police station at Auburn, and that is because the Auburn Municipal Council, as is happening quite frequently now, is working with the Police Service. Council has an old building that the Police Service wants to use and council is happy to provide a strata title to a piece of that property to enable a police station to be provided there. In that way we are able to work with the local council to serve both our needs, and to achieve savings in the Police Service. Kogarah is a real problem.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I know.

Mr WHELAN: But Kogarah is not the real problem; the real problem is with the local council. Mr
Page 461
Chairman, I notice that my time has expired, but I would like to finish this answer. The real problem is not with the Government or the funding or the Police Service. The real problem is with the local council. Yesterday I had a meeting with the Police Association, and it gave me a copy of the letter it had written to the general manager of Kogarah Council. I would like to table the letter.

Leave granted.

Mr WHELAN: It says:

I am writing to you in relation to the provision of a new police station at Kogarah. The Police Association understands that Kogarah Council has been involved in negotiations with the Police Service over the redevelopment of council owned property within the CBD which would result in the incorporation of a new police station within this development. The Association has been advised that the Police Service provided council with all the necessary specifications for the new police station on 1 September 1997, more than six months ago. The Police Association is concerned about the extent of period of time taken by council to progress.

The Police Association, rightly so, requests the council consider the Police Service -

CHAIR: Excuse me, Minister, we might as well incorporate that letter, with the consent of the Committee, at the conclusion of your answer.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, but I would like to refer to it now. That letter is dated 30 March. It indicates that since 1 September 1997 the Police Association has been begging Kogarah Council to do something about it. Yesterday at the meeting the Police Association told me it is so frustrated.

CHAIR: Do you want to table that letter or incorporate it?

Mr WHELAN: I will table that one and then I want to table this one too, Mr Chairman. If I could just briefly summarise what is in it.

CHAIR: Will you identify it for the record?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, this is a letter dated 10 June from the Police Association of New South Wales addressed to the Honourable Craig Knowles, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. It is signed by the Secretary of the Police Association, Peter Remphry. It says:

Dear Minister: Re Kogarah Police Station

The Police Association advised me yesterday that they were so frustrated with Kogarah Local Council, that they had asked the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to grant a special state environmental plan to enable the police station to be built at Kogarah. Kogarah Council is frustrating the Police Service and the Police Association in its attempt to provide decent police accommodation both for the police and to provide protection in the community for the people at Kogarah. At the present moment the people at Kogarah have got a police station that is inadequate in an historical building that is spread all over the place and the one reason why we cannot build a police station at Kogarah is because the local council refused to assist the Police Service and the government.

This is a very serious letter by the Police Association, dated 10 June, written, as it says:

. . . to express our concerns regarding the delays and to seek your assistance as the Minister responsible for Urban Affairs and Planning to have council expedite the planning process. Your help in rectifying this log jam would be appreciated especially from those police officers.

Yesterday the Police Association told me that it wants the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning to provide a special State environmental plan to enable the Police Service, the Government and the Police Association’s wish to be agreed to and for the council to assist rather than obfuscate about the provision of a police station and services at Kogarah. In relation to Narellan, I am advised by the Police Properties Branch that it is currently negotiating to purchase the site for the new police station at Narellan.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: For $50,000.

Mr WHELAN: No; $2.49 million has been allocated in the budget for the new station.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: At least it will have a door and a window now.

Mr WHELAN: My understanding is that $2.492 million has been allocated for the new station, and that the $50,000 is to pay for architects and so on to draw up the plans.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I thank the Minister and I know how thrilled he must be to have resolved this problem at Kogarah and elsewhere. However, that had nothing to do with my question. My question is: why is it that for two years these were listed as new projects in the budget? Why were they then dropped and why are they now back as new projects? I well understand the general rule of politics that something is not real until it has been announced three times, but how can there be a budget allocation for what is called a new project, which is dropped off and then restored as a new project again?

Mr WHELAN: Well, you are aware of the restructure of the Police Service, are you not?

Page 462

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Are you restructuring capital works as well?

Mr WHELAN: You cannot restructure the Police Service without looking at every dollar being spent in the budget. You will recall what I said about the days being long gone when members could expect to get a police station in their electorate? That applies.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So your budget figures two years ago were all wrong?

Mr WHELAN: No. The accommodation needs will depend upon the requirements of the Police Service following the restructure. Okay? Just get that indelibly imprinted on your mind. The Police Service is looking at accommodation and policing needs. Capital allocation, as with recurrent allocation, is all about ensuring a very successful restructure of the Police Service. These projects that you refer to, those referred to in the budget, are being given a high priority.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Under those circumstances, what is the explanation for Raymond Terrace police station? At the same time that these other stations were listed a couple of years ago, dropped off, and have now re-appeared Phoenix-like in the budget papers as new projects, poor old Raymond Terrace, which dropped off, has not been restored. Does that mean you are not planning on building a police station at Raymond Terrace?

Mr WHELAN: No. If you look carefully through the budget papers, you will find that $2.45 million has been spent on Raymond Terrace. That is a lot of money; it is more than you spent when you were in government.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, you have had an opportunity now to look at the letter I gave to your staff from the 80 local area commanders, who asked, "Where have the extra police gone and what has happened to civilianisation?" You asked for an opportunity to look at it and you have now had the opportunity. Can you now respond please? Perhaps the commissioner could answer the question.

Mr WHELAN: This is a letter dated April that had already been published; it was leaked from the Police Service. My only answer is that I do not know who leaked it, but I can only say -

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: They did not use a phone.

Mr WHELAN: - there has been an increase of 1,900 in actual front line strength, from the indicated strength of 8,801 in November 1994 to 10,701 today. That would tend to placate the fears of the author of this letter.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: He is writing on behalf of the local area commanders forum.

Mr WHELAN: I would imagine that any forum of 80 local area commanders would want a full and frank discussion, and I am sure the commissioner would have asked every local area commander to put forward his or her view. Whether the person who wrote this understood it all?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: A superintendent of police. I would assume he would understand the restructuring program. Otherwise he would not be there.

Mr WHELAN: He may not.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Well, he should not be there. Are you saying he should be there if he does not understand the restructuring program?

Mr WHELAN: Point two of this letter says, "LAC says we are told the new structure; it is extra police to the front line."

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: And if you continue, he says, "Where are they?"

Mr WHELAN: Well, I just told you.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: No, he says, "Where are they?" The letter says, "Where are they?"

Mr WHELAN: As I said, there has been an increase of 1,900 in actual strength to the front line. The actual strength has gone from 8,801 to 10,701. Now that I have a copy of the relevant document I will take great delight in telling you where they are.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Dealing with figures and dealing with reality, Minister, are sometimes two different things. The author is obviously dealing in the real world, and he does not see the personnel, and nor do the people he represents.

Mr WHELAN: Well, I opened a police station in his area after the date of that letter, and I am surprised that he did not raise any issue with me at all.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I will be surprised if he ever asks another question in public again, given that the letter has been revealed.

Mr WHELAN: It has been public since April.

Page 463

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 591. What budget program covers Olympic security, and what is its funding for 1998-99?

Mr WHELAN: You would have to ask the Minister for the Olympics about that.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You do not know?

Mr WHELAN: It is at page 4-184 of Budget Paper No. 2, but if you want to know specific details about the Olympic budget you will have to ask the Minister for the Olympics.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am interested in how much money is coming out of the police budget or how much extra has been allocated to the police budget that is related to the Olympics.

Mr WHELAN: Well, I referred you to page 4-184 of Budget Paper No. 2. I suggest you ask the Minister for the Olympics those details.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I hate to be obtuse but I do insist on being persistent. Your police budget is affected here, not Mr Knight’s budget. You must know how much money has been allocated for Olympic-related matters within your own portfolio, surely?

Mr WHELAN: But you are asking me about Olympics budget; you are not asking me about the police budget. If you ask me about the policing budget I will be happy to answer.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am asking about policing related to Olympic security within your budget. I am not asking about SOCOG.

Mr WHELAN: I refer the honourable member to page 4-184, which says in the fifth paragraph:

Additional funding is provided in 1998-99 to assist with the costs of implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the Commissioner’s reform agenda, and to meet the costs of the Olympic Security Group.

If you want to find out what the funding is, ask Minister Knight.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So that is money that will come out of your total budget?

Mr WHELAN: No, read it. It is additional funding.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, in light of your answer I would have to openly confess that I am confused. Who is in charge of Olympic security? You or Mr Knight?

Mr WHELAN: Neither.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Neither?

Mr WHELAN: No.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, that is reassuring. Who is?

Mr WHELAN: The Commissioner of Police.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: How much is he spending on Olympic security?

Mr WHELAN: That comes out of the Olympic budget. I repeat: read page 4-184, paragraph five. It refers to additional funding. Read it.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It says on that page:

An additional $1 million has been provided for the Internal Affairs Branch to increase its investigative and surveillance capabilities.

Mr WHELAN: It says:

Additional funding is provided in 1998-99 to assist with the costs of implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the Commissioner’s reform agenda, and to meet the costs of the Olympic Security Group.

It is additional funding.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: What proportion of it is related to Olympic security? Is it 50 per cent, three quarters, a tenth?

Mr WHELAN: This is additional funding.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, but given that some of that money is related to the royal commission, how much of it relates to Olympic security?

Mr WHELAN: I will get you the answer.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So I will take that on notice?

Mr WHELAN: No, I will get you the answer before we leave today.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume No. 2, pages 591 through to 598. Which budget program covers
Page 464
police internal affairs and what is the total funding in the 1998-99 budget for police internal affairs?

Mr WHELAN: It is on the same page, 4-184 of Budget Paper No. 2, second last paragraph. It says:

An additional $1 million has been provided for the Internal Affairs Branch . . .

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: What is the total number?

Mr WHELAN: I will get you that total figure, but an additional $1 million.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: And which budget program does it come under?

Mr WHELAN: At pages 593 and 597 of Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Where is it under "Judicial Support"? I just cannot see it?

Mr WHELAN: Under "prosecution of offenders".

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Do departmental inquiries also come under that reference?

Mr WHELAN: I think it would come under legal services.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Legal services are not involved in investigation, though. That is what I am concerned about?

Mr WHELAN: It is at page 593 as well, under crime detection and investigations dealing with offenders.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The budgetary restructure has probably made it more difficult to find these items.

Mr WHELAN: No, not really.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: In my view, criminal investigations would have nothing to do with departmental investigations or conciliations. I am trying to determine exactly where that is in the budget process?

Mr WHELAN: I do not subscribe to that view. These are general provisions, and the program is a description of what is in the program. It certainly is prosecution of offenders.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But we are trying to change the police mindset that they have to be reactionary all the time, and make them realise that conciliation is the way to go. I think we are up for a big increase. Where exactly is it?

Mr WHELAN: That is why we are implementing the employment management system. If someone could find me the details of that in the budget we will -

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The budget papers are not really good, are they?

Mr WHELAN: They are excellent. They are good working documents but you have to know what is in them.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Stevie Wonder would be the only one who would be able to find his way through them.

Mr WHELAN: You have to be able to find what is in them. I am going to educate you about that.

CHAIR: The time conceded by the Government to the Opposition has elapsed. In the absence of the crossbench member, I will allow the Opposition to continue.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 595. Can the Minister say how much money has been provided in the budget to reduce the need for police pursuits and the danger they have posed to the community over the past few years?

Mr WHELAN: Recent events have really drawn our attention to police pursuits. Last year I met with the Police Association and their representative to discuss their concerns. I made a commitment to the association to follow up those concerns. The association raised the issue of road spikes, and I am advised that to allow road spikes to be appropriately tested on public roads, amendments to the Local Government Act and the Traffic Act would be required. I have written to my colleague the Minister for Roads seeking changes to the Traffic Act and he has agreed to amend the relevant section. Recent advice from the Minister for Roads is that the RTA is in the process of developing a proposal which will go to Cabinet in the near future. The Minister for Local Government has indicated that he is supportive of any amendment to the appropriate section of the Local Government Act and that he will be working closely with his colleague the Minister for Roads. I am committed to introducing these amendments in the spring session of Parliament.

Page 465

The association also referred to the possible use of moveable road blocks, which had been previously rejected by the Staysafe committee. I am advised that that matter has been referred to the Police Pursuit Management Committee for further consideration. I am advised that a Police Service committee has been established to examine the issue of in-car videos for police vehicles. That committee has representatives of all relevant stakeholders, including Staysafe, the RTA, the Police Association, as well as the Police Service. I advise that a report from the committee has been completed and that a final report is being prepared to be submitted to the executive team in the near future.

The association also raised concerns about current legislative provisions relating to pursuits. I undertook to seek the Crown Solicitor’s advice, and it identified a possible gap in the current law. I have written to the Attorney and requested that he examine the possibility of introducing legislation making it an offence to deliberately engage police in pursuits. The Attorney has now responded and has supported a full review. I am also advised that police are investigating the possibility of upgrading the metropolitan police radio network to digital format to enable the use of vehicular terminals. I have also been advised that the commissioner’s instructions in regard to safe driving policy have been amended to restrict the circumstances in which probationary constables can drive. They are now not to undertake pursuits. I have requested monthly updates on the status of these initiatives and I am committed to making pursuits safer for the community and for the police. Pursuits, as the honourable member is aware, can occur anywhere. There is no specific allocation. Costs come from the LAC budget.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, you referred to on-board video cameras. Am I to take it that you have accepted the Staysafe recommendation?

Mr WHELAN: A working party has been set up by those involved. They are looking at that and they will make a recommendation, which will be considered in due course.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: When do you anticipate that they will make recommendations to you?

Mr WHELAN: In due course.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Given you said that legislation would be introduced in the spring session, it is logical to presume that recommendations would come to you prior to the drafting of that legislation; otherwise there is not much point in it.

Mr WHELAN: Legislation will not be required for the on-car videos, but it will be for the road spikes.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So the tyre-deflating devices, if you decide to proceed with them, would require -

Mr WHELAN: Amendments to various Acts, including the Local Government Act.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So we will expect tyre-deflating devices in spring?

Mr WHELAN: Let us wait and see what the committee of experts say about it.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Staysafe is not a committee of experts?

Mr WHELAN: It is, but it rejected the proposal once.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, pages 597 and 598. Why does budget program 61.1.4 Judicial Support include in its duties "prisoner custody" and "prisoner transport facilities" when the Premier promised in 1995 to make an additional 150 officers available for police work by replacing those doing clerical work or prisoner escort duty?

Mr WHELAN: I actually explained that in my answer to your first question and also in reply to a question from the Hon. Virginia Chadwick. I said we have met that commitment of 150.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But does not the budget indicate that you are again returning police to prisoner escort duties?

Mr WHELAN: No, I said it was ongoing. We have met our commitment of 150, but it is ongoing. The Government believes that police time should be spent on policing, not on doing corrective services work.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, why then is prisoner escort duty shown as a judicial support role in the police budget?

Mr WHELAN: Police still do carry out a prisoner escort role in certain circumstances in certain locations.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I note that Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, at page 591, program 61.1.1, provides funding for community support.
Page 466
Specifically it says, and I quote, "maintaining a high level of police presence to deter criminal activity". Does this mean that the Government intends to reintroduce the concept of quarantined beat police positions, a policy previously abandoned following the recommendations of the Scorpio report?

Mr WHELAN: Scorpio’s recommendation was that quarantining be abolished but, as you should know, the allocation of resources is a matter for local area commanders. If our local area commanders feel there is a need for foot patrols, that will be the case.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So if they wish to reintroduce it, they can?

Mr WHELAN: You are correct. That is up to the local area commander.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So depending upon the local area commanders, if they wish to have quarantine beat positions they can?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, they have more discretion than they had in the past.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, why does Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, at page 587, predict that retained revenue for the Police Service in 1998-99 will be $1,468,000 less than for the revised 1997-98 budget figures, and a bit over $1 million less than was budgeted for in 1997-98?

Mr WHELAN: Are you talking about investment income?

Mr RYAN: Investment income is down. That is beyond our control.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, with lower interest rates there is less investment income.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 588. Why have total cash flow payments from operating activities, excluding employee-related expenses, had cuts of just under $44 million in this year’s budget?

Mr WHELAN: I can only repeat: record budget, record numbers.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I appreciate the record budget, but could you explain -

Mr WHELAN: I am pleased to hear you say it.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: All I mean is that we are not going to go over it; we have been down that path before. But can you explain why at page 588 there is a $44 million decrease in "Other operating expenses"?

Mr WHELAN: I would have to take that on notice, but I have to say that receipts decrease for a variety of reasons.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I would suggest that $44 million is a reasonable receipt, would you not? You could build a lot of police stations or perhaps put a lot of police back on the streets with $44 million.

Mr WHELAN: You will find much to your chagrin that it is somewhere else in the budget. Much to your disappointment it will be found in some other location in the budget.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I suggest a considerable amount, $44 million, of operating expense has been taken out. Do you agree with me, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: No, you are talking about cash flows from operating activities?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: In a complicated budget.

Mr WHELAN: No, you are talking about cash flows coming from a record budget in one particular program. You are not talking about a diminution in the amount of money going to the Police Service. You are talking about the reduction of cash flow in one area. So if it is there, there is -

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So it has just been moved around, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: No, it is not. You have got record budget and record budget figures. You have $82 million more than you had last year.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, but you cannot find things in it, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: You do not lose $82 million, Virginia. You might have.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, that is what we are worried about. We cannot find anything.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: See if it is printed on the side of the page. It is definitely not there.

Page 467

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 588, line item "Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment". This year you plan to sell $2.05 million worth of plant and equipment. Why is that figure down on last year’s revised figure of $3.55 million. I am also interested in just what sort of things the police sell these days to generate that sort of money? It is a pretty big garage sale, is it not?

Mr WHELAN: I think the answer to the first question is superannuation plans.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: The reference is to proceeds from the sale of property, plant and equipment. How could that possibly include superannuation?

Mr WHELAN: No, I am responding to the last question asked by the Hon. M. J. Gallacher about the cash flow.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You are not selling any police stations, are you?

Mr WHELAN: No.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You are not selling any sites?

Mr WHELAN: No.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: What are you selling?

Mr WHELAN: Could you repeat your very dynamic question about how police made money out of selling ill gotten gains and -

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I take exception to that. I did not say that.

Mr WHELAN: Maybe confiscated assets.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I did not say that at all. I just notice that last year’s revised figure was $3.55 million -

Mr WHELAN: What is the budget reference?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 588, line item "Proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment". I have given you the figures. I want to know why this year’s figure is lower than last year’s figure and what type of things you are selling off.

Mr WHELAN: It is a very simple answer, and it is probably the best answer.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: At last! What?

Mr WHELAN: It is there before you: we are selling less.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes, but less of what?

Mr WHELAN: Whatever property, plant and equipment that is superfluous to needs.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Such as? It is $2 million worth; it is scarcely a laughing matter.

Mr WHELAN: We will get the detail of that.

CHAIR: Do you want to take it on notice?

Mr WHELAN: No, my staff will find it.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, pages 591 through to 598. How much money has been devoted to the former budget program of "Property theft" in the 1998-99 budget?

Mr WHELAN: Not comparable.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Pardon?

Mr WHELAN: The figures are not comparable one year to the next.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So you and I as members of Parliament cannot tell the community that so much money has been allocated in the budget to solve the problem of property theft? Is that what you are saying?

Mr WHELAN: This is what I can tell you: in the budget programs that I have indicated before, the average staffing in "Community support" has increased from 7,776 in 1997-98 to 7839, an increase of 63. Total expenses has increased from $595,537,000 in 1997-98 to $601,005,000, an increase of $5,513,000. In "Criminal investigations" the average staffing has increased from 4,395 in 1997-98 to 4,431 in 1998-99, an increase of 36. Total expenses have increased from $336,607,000 to $339,723,000, an increase of $3,116,000. In "Traffic", average staffing has increased from 2,075 - I think I gave these details before - in 1997-98 to 2,727 in 1998-99, an increase
Page 468
of 22. "Total expenses" as revised were $207,143,000 in 1997-98, and are $209,062,000 in 1998-99, an increase of $1,919,000.

"Judicial support" average staffing has gone from 2,028 in 1997-98 to 2,045 in 1998-99, an increase of 17. And the total expenses for the judicial support area has increased from $155,360,000 in 1997-98 to $156,795,000 in 1998-99, an increase of $1,435,000. I will give the Crime Commission figures later. They are the budget programs and the increases in staffing and total expenses. Again, they are not otherwise comparable between the previous year’s budget and this year’s budget.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So we do not know and we cannot say exactly, Minister, how much money is going to be spent targeting street crime or property theft in New South Wales - as just two examples to compare with last year.

Mr WHELAN: No. You can say there are record numbers and a record budget, and you can say there are 10,700 police in local area commands, compared with 8,801 when you had the Treasury purse strings, an additional 1,900 officers. I thought you would be congratulating the Government today on what it is doing to provide resources to the front line. We are providing resources to the front line.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: You have gone down on numbers from last year’s.

Mr WHELAN: In the meantime we are trying to find out the superannuation figure to answer your question on this very in-depth issue.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 4, pages 69 and 70. How much money is being spent on improving the equipment of the Water Police?

Mr WHELAN: I do not know whether the honourable member was a Minister in 1990 when the coalition committee produced a report. It had august members, including the Hon. R.T.M. Bull and the member for Gosford, Mr Hartcher. The committee went around the State looking at the Water Police, the name of which I have forgotten. It was a wonderful report that made vast findings in 1990 about how the Water Police were in such dire straits, how they were going to sink beyond sight, and how they could not rescue anyone. Well, things have improved a lot, notwithstanding that your Government ignored it. I am advised by the Commander of the Water Police that there are more 120 officers patrolling the waterways of New South Wales, 20 more Water Police than there were in 1994. In relation to available boats the service has made a capital bid for replacement which is currently before the budget committee.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So you do not actually have any new boats yet to replace those that you said were sinking in 1990?

Mr WHELAN: Be patient, be patient. You know that I cannot tell you what happens in the Cabinet budget committee, but I can advise you that $580,000 has been allocated in the budget for new boats, and this includes two diving support boats, two 6.5 metre twin hull vessels, one 9.8 metre twin hull vessel and six mono-hull runabouts.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Where in the budget?

Mr WHELAN: If you see me after I will explain that to you.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: No. That is quite a commitment, and indeed a very welcome commitment, but I ask where is it in the budget?

Mr WHELAN: I will find it and show you.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: When?

Mr WHELAN: Before we leave.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Good.

Mr WHELAN: To assist the Hon. Virginia Chadwick, Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-186, refers to $3.2 million in 1998-99 for the Olympic Security Group. That is in addition to the matter I referred to earlier.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Where?

Mr WHELAN: On the bottom of the page. You have to read them.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: That is for PABX equipment and an electronic mail system.

Mr WHELAN: Keep going, keep reading.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: That is the end of 186.

Mr WHELAN: It says that $3.2 million is provided in 1998-99 for the Olympic Security Group to purchase vessels to be used in the official sailing test event.

Page 469

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Does this mean that it is an Olympic initiative rather than a Water Police initiative? It says that $3.2 million is provided for the Olympic Security Group.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, for the Police Service.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Is that what we call the Water Police?

Mr WHELAN: No, the Olympic Security Group is the Police Service.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Right. What about the Water Police?

Mr WHELAN: It is capital funding.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Where is the Water Police?

Mr WHELAN: I just gave you the answer. I said that $580,000 has been allocated to purchase new boats.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Where is that in the budget?

Mr WHELAN: it is part of the $3.2 million.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: But is it in your budget or the Olympic budget?

Mr WHELAN: It is in the police budget because it is for the Water Police.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Right. What will you get for $580,000, Minister? You will not get many diving boats.

Mr WHELAN: I am not the one who purchases them, but I am advised that we are getting two diving support boats -

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: For $580,000?

Mr WHELAN: Virginia, you have asked me and I am giving you the answer. If you want to check, you can. We are also getting two 6.5 metre twin hull vessels, one 9.8 metre twin hull vessel, and six mono-hull runabouts.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: That is a bargain.

Mr WHELAN: It just shows you how astute I am as a financial manager.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, pages 591 to 598. Why has expenditure on the firearms buy-back scheme been included in the budget figures for 1997-98, but the corresponding Federal Government grant has not?

Mr WHELAN: The buy-back scheme is finished, that is one answer. The Commonwealth buy-back scheme commenced on 1 October 1996 with firearm dealers, and on 1 November 1996 with the general public, and it ended on 30 September 1997. The Commonwealth Government gave a total of $12.105 million to cover the administrative cost of the new firearms laws, including the administration of the buy-back scheme - after a struggle, I must say - and $3.535 million was allocated to the administration of the buy-back scheme.

In addition to the firearms buy-back, the APMC Ministers agreed to pay firearms dealers compensation for loss of business caused by the new firearms laws. The Commonwealth provided money to pay compensation for both surrendered firearms and dealer’s loss of business from funds raised from the additional Medicare levy imposed on a one-off basis for this purpose. In New South Wales a total of 182,302 firearms were handed in under the buy-back scheme, of which 155,285 were prohibited firearms and 27,000 were non-prohibited. One hundred and seventy six firearms dealers have indicated they intend to claim compensation and so far 114 have submitted claims. Thirty-eight claims totalling $1.1 million have been approved for payment, and I can give you the breakdown. The Commonwealth agreed to pay the one-off costs of implementation of the New South Wales receipt as I indicated, of $12.105 made up as follows: state publicity campaign $3 million; Commonwealth buy-back scheme $3.535 million; registration $2.320 million; national registration database $1.9 million; and licensing $1.440 million. That should answer your question.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, I refer you to Budget Paper No. 4, pages 69 to 70. How much money was spent on the Police Communications Unit?

Mr WHELAN: $22.5 million.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: How much of that related to the relocation of the unit?

Mr WHELAN: I will get you a breakdown, but there are five new communication areas and I had the honour of opening the one at Tamworth last Friday. It covers an enormous area, some 450,000 square miles from Tamworth right to the South Australian border.
Page 470
I will give the Committee a breakdown of the police local area command project and the funding from the communications centre. Effectively it means that regional New South Wales now has a 24 hour police radio network. Tamworth was the last to come onto line and, as I said, that was a $22.5 million commitment to improve statewide communications to ensure better protection for families and of course for police. For the first time, regional communities and police now have the communications they need. As well as Tamworth, there are centres in Newcastle, Warilla, Wagga Wagga and Sydney. These centres will create much-needed employment and the Mayor of Tamworth thanked the Government profusely for providing an additional 50 jobs in the town of Tamworth.

As I said, the Police Service has a $1.307 billion record budget, and part of that budget funding has been used to continue the upgrade of police communications. We are upgrading the 000 emergency communication system, with $8.6 million being spent on that, as well as $3.9 million to eliminate radio black spots. The police will also benefit from $5 million additional funding to upgrade telephones and PABX systems in police stations. That really is a boon for regional and rural New South Wales. For example, in the police local area command at Mudgee the project is called Sidings Springs base, for which $21,606 has been allocated. At Barwon, the Emmaville base gets $26,000 from the communications centre at Tamworth. Orana, which carries Narromine and Trangie base, gets $47,000. Tamworth-New England gets $23,400. At Albury, the Bullock-Bullock radio site gets $60,000.The Southern Rivers portable coverage update is $120,000. The Southern Rivers, Broken Hill, UHF coverage upgrade is $120,000. Wagga Wagga gets $73,000. The Mt Gavin radio site, which covers Cootamundra and Tumorrama Hill base, gets $100,000. And Batemans Bay also benefits.

So you can see that it covers the whole of regional New South Wales including Burren Junction at Castlereagh; the base there gets $20,000. This is money well spent because it provides a great communications link for the community and for police, and I am really thankful you asked me the question. Further to my earlier answer, the $44 million difference is due to the gun buy-back scheme. We are no longer making payments on behalf of the Commonwealth.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You did not acknowledge it was Commonwealth money in your budget paper.

Mr WHELAN: It is classed as grants, and is under grants. Further, finance for the Internal Affairs Branch is apportioned across all commands and aggregated by headquarters.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, it is not under grants.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, it is, at page 181 of Budget Paper No. 2.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: On page 591 of Budget Paper No. 3 it is under "Operating expenses". It is an operating expense.

Mr WHELAN: It is there.

[Short adjournment.]

CHAIR: The Committee will now deal with the appropriation for the Police Integrity Commission.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, before we proceed onto the Police Integrity Commission, I am sure you would be quite happy to talk about the workers compensation changes that you announced at the Police Association’s Biennial Conference. Could you tell me where that is reflected in the budget, and what is the total cost of the changes that you announced at the conference.

Mr WHELAN: As you know only too well, workers compensation for police is a very important issue. Prior to the last election we made a commitment to recognise the unique nature of policing and to negotiate over time an improvement in the superannuation and workers compensation benefits available to police. You would be also aware that police officers who joined the Service after 1 April 1988 are covered by the WorkCover Workers Compensation Scheme; and those who joined prior to that date are covered by the "hurt on duty" provisions in the Police Regulations (Superannuation) Act.

In April 1996 I established a ministerial working party to examine the whole issue of workers compensation for police officers. The working party comprised representatives from the Police Association, the Commissioned Police Officers Association, the Police Service, Treasury and WorkCover. The working party has now delivered its report to me, and you are correct because I did announce to the Police Association Biennial Conference that the Government will implement the recommendations. The recommendations include continued funding to top up workers compensation from a source other than termination of the cashing in of leave scheme; a review of the service rehabilitation-redeployment program for post-1988 officers; ensure that discharge is used as a last resort; and ensure that injured officers
Page 471
are offered meaningful employment without financial penalty.

Dramatic improvements to special risk benefits include a significant enhancement to the lump sum payments upon death, fatal and permanent incapacity, or discharge where redeployment is not possible; redefinition of "special risk" to take account of the dangers particular to police work; and establishing an appeal to the Compensation Court. I indicate that in the spring session of Parliament the Government will introduce legislation to implement those recommendations. That means that we will have restored equity between pre- and post-1988 police. Frankly, that was an issue that your Government could not fix, but we intend to fix it. The question of funding is currently before Cabinet.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: So there is no provision in the budget, Minister, for the additional moneys you have outlined?

Mr WHELAN: It will be funded.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But I am asking you whether it is in the budget as yet?

Mr WHELAN: The working party did not deliver its report until the end of May. The matter is before the Government and the Government will find the necessary money.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: In other words, no. Thank you.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, you promised earlier that you would reply to me about the quantum of civil forfeiture of assets.

Mr WHELAN: I thought we were dealing with the PIC.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: When I asked you, you told me I had to wait until the PIC. Now we are dealing with the PIC.

Mr WHELAN: Are we doing the Crime Commission now?

CHAIR: No, the Police Integrity Commission.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I will have to wait again.

Mr WHELAN: We had better make a note of this question.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Why in Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, at page 605, has $400,000 been cut out of the operations budget of the Police Integrity Commission?

Mr WHELAN: The commission sought re-allocation of funds of part of a previously protected item within "Other operating expenses" to fund employee-related expenses. However, you will recall that the Police Integrity Commission was established in 1996 to detect and investigate and prevent serious police misconduct and corruption. Prior to the commencement of the commission it was initially estimated that a staffing level of 68 would be required, but a number of significant new functions have recently been given to the Commission to fulfil.

These additional responsibilities are the establishment of a telecommunications interception facility; the oversight and co-ordination of a qualitative and strategic audit of the reform process within the Police Service; responding to requests of information and assistance emanating from investigations and briefs of evidence by the Police Royal Commission; and the former royal commission paedophile holdings with the introduction and enactment of the Police Integrity Commission (Records) Bill. With this increased responsibility the commissioner has sought appropriate funding to enable an additional 32 staff to be employed.

The commissioner sought additional levels of funding and re-allocation of part of the previously protected item to enable the commissioner to fulfil these roles, and the Government has approved the following resources being allocated: telecommunications, capital $900,000, recurrent $800,000; oversighting and co-ordinating the qualitative and strategic audit of the reform process, $700,000; and the prosecution response unit, $500,000. That is a total of $900,000 capital and $1.5 million recurrent. Negotiations are under way with Treasury at the present moment for additional funding to be allocated for processing paedophile records. The honourable member referred to a decrease, but the net cost of the commission has gone up from $10.207 million to $12.885 million, and staffing has gone from 68 to 107.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I gave you a copy of the schedule of matters that can be investigated by the Police Integrity Commission, and as at the time you determined it to be a PIC matter I now take that opportunity to raise it with you. I again hark back to the use of telephone facilities at police
Page 472
headquarters to monitor the location from which telephone calls are made inside the Police Service to outside sources. If you look at the schedule, if I might just abbreviate it, No.6 on that schedule that I supplied you with earlier, says, "If any member of the Police Service reveals any information to any - "

Mr WHELAN: I have a copy and I will read it. "A complaint that a police officer has or may have disseminated to a person not authorised to receive it, or has or may have used for an unauthorised purpose any information which he or she has become aware through proper or improper use of the information storage system of the Police Service or of any unit or part of the Police Service, or of a system to which the Police Service or any unit or part of the Police Service has access". What is that schedule?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: That is the schedule for the investigation of complaints that can be conducted by the Police Integrity Commission. What I am interested to find out, Minister, is whether police resources are being used to monitor the location of calls made from within the Police Service to sources outside the Police Service. We have had this discussion so I do not have to go through the background of it. I am interested to find out from you whether the phones of members of Parliament can become subject of an investigation that is clearly spelled out in paragraph 6?

Mr WHELAN: No, it relates to a complaint by a police officer.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It most certainly relates to a police officer but if they are investigating a police officer and they do not know who the police officer is but they know the member of Parliament who is receiving the information, they would then monitor who was making the calls or from where inside the Police Service those calls are being made. Do you agree with me, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: I cannot understand the question, to be honest.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It is quite clear, Minister. I am trying to get you to consider whether paragraph 6 of this Police Integrity Commission schedule, which is most certainly the schedule of offences that can be investigated, category 1 offences -

Mr WHELAN: This document is an agreement between the Ombudsman and the PIC Commissioner.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: They are the category 1 offences. Minister, your Government set them down as the offences that can be considered for investigation by the Police Integrity Commission. No. 6 clearly details that if a member of the Police Service gives information to any person outside the Police Service, irrespective of what that information is, if it relates to the Police Service it actually becomes subject of an investigation.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, such as a criminal.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: No, it says "any information". It could be the rostering of Bondi Police Station. It does not say "criminal offences". I put it to you, Minister, that that clearly puts in place a barrier that will stop members of the Police Service coming to parliamentarians and revealing concerns that they have about the Police Service. That clearly shows, Minister, that if they provide information, that is a breach and they can become subject of an investigation.

Mr WHELAN: No, this is category 1. This deals with serious complaints and serious misconduct of criminality.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, read what it says.

Mr WHELAN: It deals with serious misconduct or serious criminality. A member of Parliament involved in serious criminality will not get any protection from anyone.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, that clearly flies in the face of public disclosure legislation. It most certainly flies in the face of whistleblowers, and you know it.

Mr WHELAN: This relates, as I have said, to category 1 complaints.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It refers to any part of the Police Service, any information, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: Wait a minute, you have had your go. It relates to serious misconduct or serious criminality. No member of Parliament, no judge, no-one who is involved in criminal activity deserves anyone’s protection. Are we agreed on that?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I agree, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: Correct. That is exactly what this schedule 1 of the agreement signed by the Ombudsman and by the PIC Commissioner says.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It does not say that at all, Minister.

Page 473

Mr WHELAN: It says that. That is category 1 complaints. They are category 1 complaints: serious misconduct or serious criminality. That is exactly what it refers to, category 1 complaints, and nothing else.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: In evidence given by Judge Urquhart before a Police Integrity Commission public hearing, I put to the judge virtually the very same scenario and, Minister, he agreed with me. Contrary to what you are saying, he agreed with me. I am correct. You are wrong.

Mr WHELAN: I am not going to fetter the PIC Commissioner’s discretion. The PIC Commissioner is entitled to, and we have empowered him with, the utmost powers possible, including telephone intercepts, and he uses those powers without regard to me as Minister and will continue to do so. If that means that the PIC has telephone intercepts in place for any member of the community, that is up to him. That is not up to me. That is the power that the Parliament has given the Police Integrity Commissioner, not me. This schedule is part of an agreement between the Ombudsman and the PIC Commissioner setting out the formats.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: And the Government.

Mr WHELAN: There is no government signature there.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But it is your legislation, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: Of course it is my legislation but we are not a signatory to the document. This is done by the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission to look at serious misconduct and serious criminality. That is the issue and that is what the Police Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman have signed off on. They are free to do what they have signed off on and they have established their protocols without interference from the Government. We passed the legislation to give them that power.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, will you give an undertaking as Minister that you will direct the Commissioner of Police that where a member of Parliament is acting in accordance with his or her lawful role as a member of Parliament, under no circumstances will Police Service phones be monitored in respect of calls to phones accredited to that member of Parliament? Will you give an undertaking that that will not occur in this budget?

Mr WHELAN: I listened with a great deal of interest to what you have said, and it just so happens that in the last couple of days I received my telephone bill. It comprises six or seven pages and sets out where I was, who I spoke to and the duration of my calls. That is just me. I would assume that the Police Service system, which has been in place for six and a half years, is much the same as the Telecom system and provides all that information. Presumably the same would apply with phones at Parliament House.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 609. I am interested in the trend here, Minister, where your EFT staff last year was 68 and this year is 107, and your operating expenses have increased $5.4 million to $8.09, and your total expenses from $10.2 to $12.9. Are you anticipating that this rather dramatic increase will continue?

Mr WHELAN: I referred earlier to the four added responsibilities of the Police Integrity Commissioner: telephone intercepts, qualitative and strategic audit of the reform process, requests for information assistance emanating from investigations and briefs by the police royal commission, and looking at the paedophile holdings of the royal commission. Those powers were by the Government, and the Government and the Opposition, I think, have supported that process. Those added responsibilities require an attendant increase in budget and staffing to ensure that the responsibilities are met.

CHAIR: The Opposition’s segment has just expired. We have one question from the Government side and then you can come back to it.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 4, page 70. Can you advise the Committee about progress with the capsicum spray tender?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, I can. No doubt like other members, the honourable member is aware of the tragic death of Constable Peter Forsyth, which is still fresh in the minds of his family, friends and colleagues. It illustrated clearly the life-or-death risks that police face and reminds us that police deserve our support. At any time they could be faced with a split second decision on how to protect themselves, the community, or an offender. Last year, on behalf of the Government, I announced that New South Wales police would be equipped with capsicum spray to help defuse dangerous conflict situations.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Is this a PIC question?

CHAIR: No, it is not.

Page 474

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: We were pulled up for this.

CHAIR: Well, you have an enormous amount of time and I hope you will indulge Dr Burgmann.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: As long as it is acknowledged that this indulgence was not granted to us.

CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Which shows that we are far more gracious about this than others have been.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, I am a very indulgent person, as evidenced by my answer about workers compensation.

CHAIR: I recall that, and that is why I thought the Chair should indulge Dr Burgmann.

Mr WHELAN: My only thought in seeking to compartmentalise questions was that various people are responsible for various areas. For example, was the Commissioner of Police expected to stay here for the whole time? I was not worried about me, I was worried about people who need not be here, who should be back doing their jobs.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am perfectly happy as long as you acknowledge our graciousness.

Mr WHELAN: Mr Chairman, last year, on behalf of the Government, I announced that New South Wales police would be equipped with capsicum spray to help defuse dangerous conflict situations. The Government’s action was endorsed and commended by Coroner Hand in his recommendations arising out of the Roni Levi inquest. Today I am pleased to announce that the tender to equip police with capsicum spray canisters has been finalised. The tender has been awarded to Grycol International Limited, an Australian distributor, and I am advised that the service is on track to equip its officers with the spray next month. Meanwhile, the training program for police use of capsicum spray is continuing. I am advised that police weapons trainers across the State’s 11 regions are conducting training and more than 300 general duties officers have completed the program. The Police Service is committed to providing the most efficient and effective defensive equipment available for the protection of police and the public.

Sadly, this does not seem to be the case nationwide. At the recent Australasian Police Minister’s Conference in Wellington I was disturbed to learn that the Western Australian Government is of the view that capsicum spray should not be prohibited under their law. In other words, that capsicum spray should be available for general use. New South Wales and the other States want capsicum spray prohibited so its use is limited to specific police purposes. Western Australia’s attitude flies in the face of every other jurisdiction who agreed to support the classification of capsicum spray and indeed all similar disabling substances as a prohibited import. This is particularly disturbing in light of the statistics which show the criminal use of capsicum and other disabling sprays is far worse in Western Australia than in most States.

So, Mr Chairman, I make a plea to the Western Australian Government that it should prohibit the use of capsicum spray except for specific police purposes. In Western Australia the criminal use of capsicum spray and other disabling sprays is already far worse than it is in any of the other States. Western Australia has recorded 67 incidents of criminal use of capsicum spray. That is three times higher than Victoria’s 22, Queensland’s 10 and Tasmania’s one. There is no incident recorded in any other jurisdiction. Both national and international research has shown that capsicum spray saves lives, diffuses violent situations, protects the community and offenders and officers involved. Officers who use capsicum spray in the course of their duties will be required to justify their actions. This will be done through records kept on a "use of force" database of each incident where the spray is used.

All police equipped with the spray are required not only to know how to use it but how to care for someone that they have sprayed. People who are affected by the spray will be accompanied and kept under constant observation until the symptoms of the spray are no longer apparent. Any police officer who uses capsicum spray improperly or unnecessarily will be disciplined. A comprehensive report by the National Police Research Unit found capsicum spray was the preferred product for use by operational police as less than a lethal tool. The Government has constantly improved many of the long outstanding issues of police officer safety.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Why did it take 12 months to get it off the ground?

Mr WHELAN: They include providing bullet-resistant vests for first-response police, the replacement of outdated sidearms, the elimination of police radio blackspots, and new powers regarding knives. The issue of capsicum spray will give New South Wales police what they need to defuse dangerous situations and save lives - theirs and others.
Page 475
Today, as I said, I take this opportunity to make a plea to the Western Australian Government to reconsider its attitude on capsicum spray. Even if it is classified as a prohibited substance in New South Wales and the other States who support New South Wales, its availability in Western Australia increases the likelihood of it falling into the hands of criminals and being used against us all, particularly New South Wales police. So I urge the Western Australian Government not to hold out on the rest of Australia. This is a substance that should be banned nationwide.

By way of interjection the Hon. M. J. Gallacher asked why has it taken 12 months? Well, let me tell you why it has taken 12 months. The Levi inquest finding was only handed down this year and we had to wait for the Coroner’s recommendations.

CHAIR: The Minister has exceeded his time for the answer but I take it you are quite happy to hear the answer?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Absolutely, it is fascinating.

Mr WHELAN: If the former Government would have adopted the recommendations of Task Force Alpha in 1992, which had the very simple message of new weapons and bullet resistant vests, the Hon. M. J. Gallacher and the Hon. Virginia Chadwick could imagine what that would have done for the New South Wales Police Service and the lives that we could have saved. The Opposition has that on their conscience. In the 1997 budget the Government provided bullet resistant vests and a new weapon, the Glock, to replace the Smith and Wesson.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Are you blaming us for the deaths, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: I am not saying that at all.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It sounded awfully like it, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: If you would have exercised greater fiscal restraint and provided the money and adopted the recommendations of your own task force that you set up in 1992 you would have engendered a great deal more community safety and police officer safety in this community. You were neglectful by not providing the money. Task Force Alpha was your own creation and you chose to ignore its recommendations. Thank you for the interjection.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: Thank you, Minister. I have no further questions on the Police Integrity Commission.

CHAIR: The Government concedes the balance of time to the Opposition.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I return to the question that I was asking from page 609 of Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2. Am I to take it from your answer that you anticipate that, proportionately, next year there will be yet another increase in both the budget and staffing of the PIC because you have to accept that an increase of 39 EFT staff in one year, with a concomitant salaries increase from $10 million to $12.9 million, is quite a significant jump. Are you expecting that rate of increase in each budget for the foreseeable future? That seems quite a lot of money and quite a large increase?

Mr WHELAN: You do understand that it is a new agency?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes.

Mr WHELAN: You do understand as well that the Government is providing new statutory obligations to that body?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I understand all of that but it is a worry, is it not -

Mr WHELAN: You are not criticising the Government for properly resourcing the PIC?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: No, I am not. I repeat again: given that the commission’s staff has increased from 68 to 107 in one year, with salaries increased from $10.2 million to $12.9 million, does that mean we can expect next year at one of these estimate committee meetings to be discussing the commission’s staff having increased to something like 120 EFT positions, and salaries to $15 million, which would be about the proportionate increase?

Mr WHELAN: We are going to give the Police Integrity Commission the resources it needs to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. If the Parliament and the Government decide to give it additional powers, it will have to have a consequential increase in staff and/or funds for that purpose. I make no apology for that. This is a very different position taken by the Opposition. In November last year the Opposition was attacking the PIC for not doing its job, but that criticism was quickly dispelled as a result of the great work done by the PIC. The Government is going to fund the PIC to do the job that the Government and the Parliament gives. Your budget position is completely different now; previously you attacked the Government for not providing the resources.

Page 476

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I am not attacking. It is a straight question. Are we to expect that this proportionate increase is about what you anticipate for, let us say, the next three or four years - in which case we will have a PIC of 200 people with a budget of over $20 million?

Mr WHELAN: Well, we have provided a record budget for the Police Service for the past three years, and record numbers. I think we will continue to do that every year. We will continue to resource the Police Integrity Commission and increase funding in a manner commensurate with any additional work that the Parliament gives it. We will provide the resources and staff that are necessary for the commission to do its job. It is a very important police body and I might say that it is far more important than any other body created anywhere in the world, including New York.

I had the opportunity to talk to Judge Mollen, who wrote the famous Mollen Commission Report in New York. He commended the New South Wales Government for implementing what they failed to do in New York because there is no political will. That was the creation of the Police Integrity Commission as the body to oversight the Police Service. They have not got that equivalent in New York. They have an enhanced Internal Affairs section, which we have, but they do not have this oversighting body that we have in New South Wales. The Police Integrity Commission is one of the great success stories of the royal commission and it will be a success unto itself.

We will provide the necessary level of funding for it to do its job, but whether its growth is going to double or treble will depend upon its workload and its staffing requirements and the determination of the Government to ensure that we have a clean Police Service.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I just make the observation and I certainly do not want to get howled down if I simply use the New South Wales Crime Commission as an example -

Mr WHELAN: You are not saying that in government you would close it down, are you?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: No, I am looking at the quantum and the relativities of increase. That was my question, and I make the observation, Minister, that in one year the total expenses -

Mr WHELAN: I take it the Opposition’s view is to close it down and I am counselling you against it.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: - have increased from $10.2 million to $12.9 million, and the staffing has increased from 68 to 107. You are sanguine about that and you are very happy for it to continue to increase in those sorts of proportions from year to year. I make the observation that you are spending $12.9 million on the PIC, yet the program to combat illegal drug trafficking and organised crime in New South Wales has a manpower of 88 EFT and a budget of $9.5 million, so that you are spending more money investigating police misconduct than you are spending on drug trafficking and organised crime. That is why I am asking. You are sanguine about this. It just seems very odd.

Mr WHELAN: We can talk about this but they are both vitally important.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I agree.

Mr WHELAN: To suggest, as you are suggesting, that you are going to chop back the Police Integrity Commission budget and put it -

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Don’t verbal me, Minister; don’t verbal me. That is not what I said. Go and check the transcript.

Mr WHELAN: Well, you will have to explain yourself because you are talking about -

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: I talked about an proportionate increase of manpower and budget and whether it will continue. That is all I asked.

Mr WHELAN: You are talking about decreasing the Police Integrity Commission budget and allocating that budget towards drug attempts by police.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You are verballing me.

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to talk to you about drugs at any time that you want but you have to understand that all my portfolios have had an increase in funding and in staff.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: But you need $4 million more to look at corrupt police than you do to look at drug traffic and organised crime.

Time expired.

CHAIR: The unexpired portion of the Government’s time that was allocated to the
Page 477
Opposition has now expired. In the absence of a crossbench member, the Opposition now has another 15 minutes to ask about the Police Integrity Commission.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I start by noting your comments about integrity testing. I might remind you that the Police Association wrote to you in 1995 - I was part of the team that wrote to you - asking for integrity testing, and you ignored us until 1997. Imagine what we could have done if we had got off the ground in 1995 when we asked you. You know that you opposed it from the outset and that finally you were worn down. In relation to integrity testing, your press release mentioned forfeited property. Without being so specific as to identify any case, could you tell the Committee what the forfeited property was?

Mr WHELAN: Well, let us come back to the first part. I was unaware that you went to New York. You must have gone with Mr Lauer did you?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: No, I typed the letter when they came back. I did not get free trips. I typed the recommendation and spoke about it through the Police Service and recommended, together with a small team of others, in 1995 that the matter be sent to you.

1 Mr WHELAN: They had a pretty good time in New York.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I did not. I was working here arresting police.

Mr WHELAN: You were arresting police?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: For criminal acts.

Mr WHELAN: Well, you better have a talk to your colleague beside you about winding down the PIC because I know where she is coming from.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Stop verballing me.

Mr WHELAN: I am not verballing you. I am just amazed about why you are not supporting and committed to the PIC and its funding.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Are we in another room?

Mr WHELAN: No, but you adopt this pious approach. You are the same people who voted against the royal commission, who attacked the commissioner, who assailed the royal commissioner. You never stop attacking the Commissioner of Police. Now, you are trying to reduce the PIC.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Dream on.

Mr WHELAN: Your spokesperson in November last year, October-November, railed against the Police Integrity Commission and said it was a failure and should be wound up.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: You were the one who stood up in the Parliament and said that police were not going to investigate police any more, and it is the same story here again today.

Mr WHELAN: So we know where you are coming from.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Go and have a look at the record. That is not what I said at all.

Mr WHELAN: I do not know why Mr Lauer did not write me the letter and tell me that he wanted the legislation for the Police Integrity Commission.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: You got it, you received the letter.

Mr WHELAN: Yes, but Mr Lauer was coming from a different position and, as I have outlined to you, there is a big difference between the New York model and the New South Wales model.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: We did not ask for the New York model, we asked for target specific integrity testing. You know that, and you have ignored it for two years.

Mr WHELAN: I am happy to talk about the history of the Police Service and how we got here, but two things are very, very important. One, we supported the royal commission and you did not. Second, this is a great lesson for me today about how you are going to wind up the PIC and allocate its resources elsewhere.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Dream on.

Mr WHELAN: I am not going to dream on.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: What about forfeited property?

Page 478

Mr WHELAN: Forfeited property?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Exactly what was it? Without being so specific as to identify any specific case?

Mr WHELAN: It would be stolen goods: videos and cassette recorders.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Are you sure?

Mr WHELAN: Yes.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, could you outline to the Committee how many integrity testing programs have been undertaken solely by the Police Integrity Commission, not in conjunction with the New South Wales Police Service?

Mr WHELAN: You will have to wait for the annual report. The Police Integrity Commission does not tell me what it does. It is independent; you should know that. It is independent of the Minister; it makes its own running.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: But if the police commissioner tells you how many he has done, why has the integrity commissioner not told you how many he has done?

Mr WHELAN: It is completely separate from the Minister. It makes an annual report. The Police Integrity Commissioner makes an annual report to me that I present to Parliament. Sorry, the Police Integrity Commissioner makes a report direct to Parliament without going through the Minister.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, as it is akin to the PIC, I refer you to comments made by the Ombudsman, Irene Moss, recently in which she expressed her very severe concern about what is happening with serious complaints about corruption involving New South Wales police. Do you have the very same concerns as Irene Moss or do you feel that her claims were unwarranted?

Mr WHELAN: No. The Ombudsman sits in an independent position and you have to value what is said by those who are monitoring the Police Service, whether it be the Police Integrity Commission or others. They sit in judgment about the workings of the Police Service. I found that what was reported from Irene was not in fact what she said. She reported that there were structural improvements and structural changes and better systems in place in the Police Service, and I am happy about that. But as I said earlier about integrity testing, there are still people in the Police Service who are corrupt and people who are dealing with corrupt or criminal figures in the New South Wales Police Service, and you should understand that the integrity testing of the Police Service is not just a flash in the plan. It has no sunset clause; it is going to continue, and I would hope it will continue for a long, long time. The aim of eradicating all corruption from the New South Wales Police Service is very admirable but whether it is achievable in five or 10 years remains to be seen.

The Police Service has 13,500 officers and 2,500 to 3,000 administrative staff, a total of 16,000 people. We would like to be able to achieve that aim but we may not able to get to that Utopian position of having a corrupt-free - and I use that word in all its meanings - Police Service. We now have the systems, many more than we had in the past, and we have implemented the systems to deal with corruption. As Virginia has acknowledged, the PIC staff has increased to 107. The PIC has a record budget. The Internal Affairs Branch has been re-vamped, as the Hon. M. J. Gallacher would know only too well, probably better than most. But we have to be vigilant. We have to learn from the recommendations of the royal commission. We have delivered all the systems in place to achieve our aim. I value the comments made by the Ombudsman and by the Police Integrity Commissioner and by the Commissioner of Police about the integrity of police officers in New South Wales. It is an ongoing task and one that we should be very vigilant about as members of Parliament to make sure we provide an honest Police Service in New South Wales.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: That is why we have to get back to the point I made earlier that the police have to be confident that if they call a member of Parliament, there will be no way that their phone calls will be checked.

Mr WHELAN: Well, I have answered that, but this is a much more serious issue about corruption within the Police Service. We have seen that highlighted day in and day out from the Royal Commission, and we see it now day in and day out as a result of integrity testing. But do not forget with integrity testing that 18 police who were put under the spotlight passed the test. That is a good sign, I would like to see that go right to the very top. You have got to live in the real world about policing. Policing is a very difficult job, they are dealing with lots of different people, some shady, and it is most important that members of the community can trust the Police Service. And we have put in place all those systems now to ensure that integrity is an issue and that we are going to weed out corruption.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Minister, we have talked at length now about the increase in EFT staffing of the PIC to 107 this year. I am curious
Page 479
how you are going to accommodate those staff, given that your employee-related expenses will in fact decrease. How can your employee-related expenses decrease when your staffing has increased by 39?

Mr WHELAN: The operating expenses will increase not decrease.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: No, the employee-related expenses have seen a diminution.

Mr WHELAN: From $5.4 million to $8.08 million.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Last year’s revised figure was $4,906,000 and this year’s figure is $4,532,000.

Mr WHELAN: That is "Other operating expenses".

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes.

Mr WHELAN: It is not employer-related expenses, it is other operating expenses. I answered that before when I said the commission sought reallocation of funds or of part of a previously protected item within "Other operating expenses" to fund employee-related expenses.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You said they were employee-related expenses. Given you have had an increase of 39 staff, how can the employee-related expenses item go down?

Mr WHELAN: The total operating expenses go from $10.2 million to $12.9 million. Do you concede that is an increase?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Yes.

Mr WHELAN: Okay, well, the operating expenses are $5.4 million and $8.08 million, and the employee-related expenses, as you rightly pointed out, show a loss of $60,000-odd.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It has doubled.

Mr WHELAN: In an overall budget increase of $2.7 million a decrease in "Other operating expenses" of $66,000 is insignificant but I will find out the reason for that decrease.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, because you have got a staff differential of 39 and yet your operating expenses are going down. It just does not make any sense.

Mr WHELAN: No, that is "Other operating expenses". I will find out why the "Other operating expenses" figure has been reduced.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Before we go home today? Should we take it on notice?

Mr WHELAN: No. I will give it to you as quickly as I can.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: But what does that mean, sir?

Mr WHELAN: That means, madam, that I will get you the information as quickly as I can.

CHAIR: During this session?

Mr WHELAN: In due course, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: We will either take it on notice, Mr Chairman, or we will have it this session. Which is it to be?

CHAIR: I think the Member is entitled to that.

Mr WHELAN: Would you take that further and have me arrested if I do not provide the information?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: There is the case of Willis v Egan, and it would be a contempt for you not to either take it on notice or answer it this session.

Mr WHELAN: Well, I will do my best.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Well, why do you not just take it on notice?

Mr WHELAN: Why do we not wait for the decision on Willis v Egan before I make a decision. It is $66,000, I will find it for you.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Why can you not simply accept it is on notice and you will answer it?

Mr WHELAN: No, I have got too much work to do.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, the Ombudsman said she was concerned that the percentage of serious complaints she currently receives is similar to the level of serious complaints she was receiving prior to the royal commission. How much is provided in the Police Integrity Commission Budget for corruption prevention measures? The ICAC did some fantastic work with corruption prevention units
Page 480
but it no longer has a role with the Police Service. Where is that funding to be found for the PIC?

Mr WHELAN: The program description on page 609 deals with the mechanism for protection. There is a $2.7 million allocation but the honourable member’s question is a serious one. I am sure he is aware but I just mention for the public record that corruption prevention is not only an issue for the PIC, it comes out of the ICAC and, as you only know too well, it comes out of the Police Service, itself. So there is more than one body looking at corruption prevention within the Police Service.

[Time expired.]

CHAIR: The crossbench time having expired, I now call on the Opposition for the next 15 minutes on the Crime Commission.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: For the fourth time, Minister, I refer to page 603 of Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, at which the program description refers to the civil forfeiture of assets. What assets and how much?

Mr WHELAN: It could be any asset. It could be a house, a car, a boat, which you seem to have so much interest in. There was a good example of confiscated gym equipment which was given to the Bankstown PCYC. It can be any asset. It could be cash, it could be loans, any asset.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Do you collect much?

Mr WHELAN: Yes, millions of dollars worth.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: What is the quantum?

Mr WHELAN: I can give you that figure in due course.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: When is due course, Minister?

Mr WHELAN: Within the next hour.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Who makes the decision? You said you gave away the gym equipment to the Bankstown PCYC. Who determines what you do with the equipment; which community group or whatever you give it to?

Mr WHELAN: That would follow a recommendation.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: From whom to whom?

Mr WHELAN: In that instance, the Bankstown Police Citizens Youth Club would have made an application.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: How did it even know the equipment was available. The rest of the community did not.

Mr WHELAN: I do not know the answer to that question but I will find out, probably within an hour. It could have come from some information it had.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Suppose you confiscate a boat, what happens to the boat?

Mr WHELAN: It is sold.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Would you give it to the Water Police?

Mr WHELAN: I read not so long ago a very interesting piece, and I should share it with the Committee. Part of the task force that you set up when you were in Government found that the Water Police were so desperate for funds and boats. A very important person in this city, named Kerry Packer, was so frustrated by the fact that there was no Water Police on the Pittwater peninsula that he donated a boat to the New South Wales Police to look after the people of Pittwater.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: He is very civic minded. He also gave heart equipment to ambulances.

Mr WHELAN: A very, very admirable gesture. But the then Government ignored all the views of the people in the peninsula when it came to looking after them on water and their safety on water. So, yes, if a boat could be used it could be given to the Water Police.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Who decides all of this?

Mr WHELAN: It is sold by the Public Trustee.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Who gets the money?

Mr WHELAN: It goes into the confiscation proceeds account.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: So does it stay with your department or does it go to Mr Egan?

Page 481

Mr WHELAN: No, it is under the same legislation that operated when you were in Government.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Whose portfolio?

Mr WHELAN: Mine.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 600. In relation to the line item "Proceeds from sale of property plant and equipment" for the New South Wales Crime Commission, what was sold in the last year and how much did each item receive? What items of property, plant and equipment are budgeted to be sold in the forthcoming year?

Mr WHELAN: You want to know about the sale of equipment?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The sale of property, plant and equipment of the Crime Commission.

Mr WHELAN: I am advised that there is a variance attributed to the following factors, and I do not know whether this is the answer to the question. You are asking what assets were sold; is that correct?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Yes, what sort of items are being sold there?

Mr WHELAN: It could be anything - a computer terminal or anything else.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Last year’s sales realised $100,000; this year’s budget anticipates sales worth $80,000 so obviously it is substantial.

Mr WHELAN: I will find out about that $80,000. That is $66,000 and $80,000 we have to find the details for.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: In due course?

Mr WHELAN: In due course. Could I just give a supplementary answer now. According to the Police Integrity Commission the $66,000 was reallocated to increased employee-related expenses in the line item above, so that is one answer. Now I have to find out about the $80,000 for the Crime Commission.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Minister, if I could impose further upon your generosity in answering questions, I forgot to ask you about $16,000 being approved for a police launch at Ettalong. Can you tell me when it will be operational again on the high tide?

Mr WHELAN: I will give you an answer in due course. Just to be sure, you asked when it will be operational?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Yes, $16,000 has been approved and I would like to know when it will be back in the water?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Through the course of the Committee’s deliberations the Minister has on a number of occasions indicated that he intends to provide further detail before the Committee adjourns.

Mr WHELAN: I gave supplementary answers just before we adjourned for morning tea, the two answers there, and I asked when I came back if the answers had been recorded and I was told they had. I have just given information about the missing $66,000 and I undertook to find out the details of the missing $80,000. If there are any other amounts missing in a budget of $1.307 billion I will find them. I will find that $80,000 for you and I will do it as quickly as I possibly can.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: You should watch the pennies, Minister.

Mr WHELAN: I do.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: And then the pounds take care of themselves.

Mr WHELAN: I do. People think I am Irish, but I am actually Scottish.

CHAIR: Is the Hon. Virginia Chadwick satisfied about the unanswered questions?

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: No, but we will go through Hansard and place any further questions on notice.

CHAIR: In the unexpired portion allowed to the Opposition the Government will ask a question.

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 603. To some extent this has already been canvassed, but can you advise the Committee how much money the Crime Commission has confiscated from large-scale criminals like drug dealers?

Mr WHELAN: The Crime Commission is one of the great success stories in the war against serious crime, but because of the sensitive nature of much of its operations I am not at liberty to elaborate on more of its sensational achievements. Today I can confidently say that the Crime Commission has
Page 482
figured prominently behind the scenes in some of the most serious arrests and criminal prosecutions. As Minister for Police I am very happy about that because I am also the chair of the management committee of the Crime Commission. In that role I am able to closely monitor the Crime Commission’s activities and I am regularly briefed about its operations.

The Crime Commission’s investigative activities cover a wide field but concentrate mainly on the most serious forms of organised crime and drug-related crime. In these areas it works closely with task forces from other law enforcement agencies, most often with the New South Wales Police Service. Included in the commission’s success are arrests involving major drug distribution, drug importation, revenue fraud, corruption and murder.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: Why did you not give this information when I asked you earlier?

Mr WHELAN: I have just received it. As well as its investigative work -

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: But you said you sit on the management committee?

Mr WHELAN: No, I am the chairman of the management committee. As well as its investigative work the commission is responsible for the confiscation of assets of people engaged in the drug trade, under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act. The success of the Crime Commission in proceedings under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act has doubled the effect upon those involved in serious criminal activity. I am pleased to say that the Crime Commission has confiscated a record $9.3 million in assets from drug dealers and other criminals this financial year.

The Hon. VIRGINIA CHADWICK: It pays for itself, in other words.

Mr WHELAN: The message is very clear: If you deal in drugs you will lose everything and you will end up in gaol. Not only will we come down hard on you in the criminal law but we will confiscate every asset that you have. This is the message which is starting to spread within the criminal community. The second message is this: some of these confiscated funds will find their way back into law enforcement to provide the increasingly sophisticated resources needed to pursue major criminals. There are two very, very important messages: record funds confiscated by the Crime Commission; $9.3 confiscated this financial year is a record. And there is a message to those who break the criminal law: we are not only going to confiscate your assets but we are going to gaol you as well.

The knife education campaign, which was launched yesterday, was actually funded under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act. That advertising campaign is all about reducing the number of knives in our community - a very, very important message. Confiscated drug proceeds were used specifically for that purpose; $750,000 allocated from confiscated assets of drug dealers was used to pay for advertising about this cultural change we want to enforce to reduce the incidence of knives being carried in our State.

CHAIR: Are there any more questions?

Mr WHELAN: There is the outstanding matter of the $80,000. I am advised that $100,000 derived from asset sales in 1997-98 was mainly from motor vehicles and a small amount of old equipment. The $80,000 in 1998-99 will result from the Commission leasing vehicles in the future.

The Committee proceeded to deliberate on the recommendation of the vote.


Page 483




The Hon. I. Cohen
The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn
The Hon. E. M. Obeid
The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith

The Hon. G. M. Harrison, Minister for Sport and Recreation

Department of Sport and Recreation
Mr W. Gillooly, Director-General
Ms C. Bloch, Deputy Director-General, Client Services
Ms M. Spencer, Deputy Director-General, Corporate Services
Ms W. Gillett, Director, Participation
Mr N. Goldspring, Director, Talent Development
Mr P. Keady, Director, Facilities and Events
Mr A. Russell, Director, Operations
Mr J. Cuthbert, Financial Controller

Minister's Staff
Mr D. Howse, Chief of Staff
Ms I. Sheil, Policy Officer

Page 484

CHAIR: I declare this Committee open. At this meeting the Committee will examine the proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund for the portfolio area of Sport and Recreation. Before the questioning of witnesses commences, I remind Committee members that on 6 June 1997 the Committee authorised the broadcasting of public proceedings. Should it be considered that the broadcasting of these proceedings be discontinued, a member will be required to move a motion accordingly. I advise that the Leader of the Opposition has written to me advising that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn has been nominated as an alternative member in place of the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith.

Before questions commence, some procedural matters need to be dealt with. While paragraph 7 of the budget estimates reference provides that a member of a Committee and any Minister present to answer questions may have staff present to assist them during the hearing of evidence and may refer to those staff at any time, I remind members’ staff and any other persons that they should take care not to interrupt proceedings and to observe the usual courtesies which apply to a meeting of the House or of a Committee. Where possible, messages for members should be given through the attendant on duty or to the Committee Clerks. I wish to explain what is required by the standing orders of the Legislative Council and also the resolution of the House on 4 June 1998 that the press and public be admitted to proceedings of these Committees. Legislative Council Standing Order 252 provides:

Evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House, and documents presented to such Select Committee which have not been reported to the House, may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any Member of such Committee or by any other person.

In reporting the proceedings of this Committee, as with reporting the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, the media must take responsibility for what they publish or what interpretation is placed on anything that is said before the Committee. In order to accurately complete the Questions and Answers paper, the Committee Clerk requires that members complete and sign the appropriate form when a question is taken or given on notice. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask departmental officials to identify themselves by name, position and department or agency before answering each question. The usual allocation of time is 30 minutes each. We have reduced that allocation to 25 minutes so that there can be a morning tea break. Questions will be asked first by Opposition members, then by Government members, followed by crossbench members. I remind Ministers and members that each question is limited to one minute and the reply to four minutes. Are there any questions?

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197, line 24, which reads:

Particular emphasis has been placed on ensuring greater access by disadvantaged groups to Departmental programs. This has included the implementation of a new performance-based sports development organisational grant program that requires applicant organisations to include a social justice priority. In the Department’s direct delivery of services, a variety of specialised programs are conducted for people from disadvantaged groups such as the leadership development scholarships awarded to women by the Women in Sport Unit.

By way of criteria, how does the department define a disadvantaged group?

Ms HARRISON: We treat that fairly broadly. In each program that we put in place you may find different disadvantaged groups, but obviously disabled people would fall into a group that has limited access to normal sport and recreational facilities and programs. On a number of occasions people of ethnic origin have had trouble accessing certain programs, and one that comes to mind would be the Swimsafe program. We ran a Swimsafe program last year that particularly targeted Muslim women. Women traditionally have had less access to sporting and recreational facilities. Lower participation rates for women across the board would indicate that they are a disadvantaged group. As each program is developed, we consider what groups in the community should be particularly targeted.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: How does this criteria determine the status of grant applications within the new performance-based sports development organisational grant program?

Ms HARRISON: I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Which specific disadvantaged groups have benefited from the program, and which ones will benefit in the 1998-99 fiscal year?

Ms HARRISON: Which program in particular are you referring to? Disadvantaged grouped have benefited from all our programs across the board in the last three years of this Government.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Which ones, though? I am seeking clarity.

Ms HARRISON: Disabled sports in particular have benefited enormously from this Government.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: To what extent?

Ms HARRISON: To a huge extent. We increased funding for disabled sport by more than 400
Page 485
per cent over funding by the previous Government and we established the Academy of Sport at Narrabeen as a centre of excellence for disabled sport, which has been extremely well received. We have made great inroads with women’s sport. We established the women’s unit within the Department of Sport and Recreation, which has received some fairly good results. We targeted older people specifically and, of course, we will support the International Year of the Older Person. We believe we have increased participation by older people with such programs as the walking for pleasure program, which is designed to keep older people as active as possible. When this Government came to office there was, from memory, a fee of around $5 to register. We abolished that fee as we felt it was not conducive to encouraging a number of old people to participate, and that has been working as well.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Did I understand you to say that you had increased expenditure by 400 per cent compared to funding by the previous Government?

Ms HARRISON: For disabled sport, yes.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Is their any difference in categorisation between a disadvantaged group and a normal group with special requirements?

Ms HARRISON: As I said earlier, disadvantaged groups would be a fairly loose category. In each program and each grants system you have to consider which groups have been disadvantaged traditionally under those programs and that would vary from program to program.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Do you feel that you are stigmatising them by branding them as disadvantaged?

Ms HARRISON: No, it would be silly to suggest that we are stigmatising people. We have considered what we need to do to encourage society to be healthier and happier. Young teenage girls are leaving sport at an alarming rate and at the same age are increasingly taking up smoking. We decided that group must be disadvantaged in some way because their problems are far greater than other children at that age, particularly young boys, although they have certain problems also. We decided we would target those girls.

In relation to disadvantaged groups, as a pilot program we took high-profile women into schools in certain areas, including Auburn and Nowra, and ascertained the success of that program. The girls involved in the program said they had been encouraged to return to participating in sport and recreation, with the result that young girls now have higher self-esteem and better health. If you can keep somebody healthy and happy that is a benefit to the whole community. If you are suggesting in some way we have stigmatised those girls because we have targeted them to compete and have active life styles, that is clearly ridiculous.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Referring to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197, to what degree does the inclusion or exclusion of a social justice priority in a grant application determine its outcome? What guidelines are in place to ensure that potential applicants are aware of this criteria for grant applications?

Ms HARRISON: Application forms for the capital assistance program or the regional facilities development program spell out exactly the objectives of the Government. That is just one of many criteria.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: What specific increases made up the 400 per cent increase you referred to earlier?

Ms HARRISON: I would like to take that question on notice, but I can answer it before we leave today.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 623, line item "Operating expenses". What was the quoted cost and the actual cost of the Australian Quality Council review of the Department of Sport and Recreation completed in 1997?

Ms HARRISON: I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Referring to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 623, line item "Operating expenses", what was the purpose of the department undertaking the Australian Quality Council review?

Ms HARRISON: I will refer that to my director-general, Bill Gillooly.

Mr GILLOOLY: Approximately 18 months to two years ago the Government advised all departments that they were required to undertake a guided self-assessment under the auspices of the Australian Quality Council. I understand that it was actually an election commitment of the Government. That is basically how the process came into being. I understand that every government agency has been part of the process. In terms of cost, whilst the
Page 486
Minister is taking that on notice at the moment, I believe it was approximately $7,000. We will need to check that, but a discount rate was obtained by the Government because of the large number of agencies involved.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Referring also to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 623, line item "Operating expenses", why were the recommendations of the Australian Quality Council review largely ignored by your department? Do you consider it acceptable that the cost of the review was effectively wasted?

Ms HARRISON: I take great issue with any statement that says we effectively ignored the review.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I said "wasted".

Ms HARRISON: You suggested that the department ignored the recommendations and, therefore, wasted the review. We did not ignore the recommendations. Therefore, the review was not wasted. But again I would defer to my Director-General.

Mr GILLOOLY: You have to understand that this review was undertaken about 15 months ago. There were certainly a number of recommendations. We are in the process of implementing those recommendations.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Referring to the same item on page 623, did you support the implementation of a review of the department by itself without the benefit of anonymity following the receipt of the damning Australian Quality Council review? If so, why did you support it and what steps did you take to determine why the Australian Quality Council review came up with damning results for the department as opposed to the internal non-anonymous review, which found diametrically opposed results?

Ms HARRISON: I will defer to my Director-General again.

Mr GILLOOLY: The initial guided self-assessment was undertaken on an anonymous basis, and all staff who filled in questionnaires did so anonymously. We subsequently conducted a follow-up review, which again was undertaken on an anonymous basis. The only change was that we asked people to identify which part of the department they worked in because performance across the department was a bit like a curate’s egg. In some areas it was very, very high, and in other areas not so high. From a management point of view we tried to identify problem areas because those were the areas we needed to work on to bring those parts of the department up to the same level as other parts of the department.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I appreciate the explanation, but I asked the Minister why she supported the implementation of the review and what steps she took to determine it.

Ms HARRISON: Quite clearly, this was an internal management exercise undertaken by the department, and I fully support any inquiries the department needs to make and any submissions it eventually makes to me from those inquiries. I will look at them then. My director-general has the right to assess his department’s performance at any time to ensure that we are achieving best practice. If you are suggesting that I should not support my director-general’s internal management techniques and his effort to improve them, I am sorry but again I find that quite ridiculous.

Mr GILLOOLY: I am a great believer in management improvement. I am a great believer in the department achieving best practice on both an Australiawide and international basis. In some areas we do that and in others we do not. Part of achieving management reform is to continually examine aspects of the department’s operations. Sometimes those examinations are conducted externally and sometimes they are conducted internally. One of the issues that came out of the Australian Quality Council guided self-assessment was that communication within the department could be improved. I decided perhaps, foolishly, that I would make known to all staff in the department the outcomes of that particular assessment.

This so-called secret report that has been referred to quite often was issued to 55 cost centre managers in the department, many of whom then had the right to provide to any of their staff. We have endeavoured to improve communication and point out where the problems are. If I was silly to make that available because the information then became publicly available, I still do not resile from that position because I believe staff are entitled to know because we are all working towards better management of the organisation. I would say that it is the same in every other government agency in New South Wales.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, Volume 2, page 4-197, where it is noted that the department has been involved in the direct delivery of a program called Swimsafe. What is the target audience for Swimsafe, how was that determined, and what was the cost of determining the target audience?

Page 487

Ms HARRISON: The role of the department in safety in and around the water revolves primarily around the appropriate attitudes towards water safety, the recognition of dangers and the promotion of water safety survival, and lifesaving skills involving a broad cross-section of the community. As a result, $1 million has been allocated to the Swimsafe program, which is recovered by user charges. This program has been part of the New South Wales Government’s water safety campaign for the past 51 years. Since Swimsafe is a statewide learn-to-swim and water safety education program implemented by the department, the essential thrust of Swimsafe is the development of water confidence, swimming ability and survival skills. The Swimsafe program targets children in the preschool and primary school age category as well as the poor or weak adult swimmer. Initially in January each year the department conducted swimming classes for children of school age at about 330 pools throughout the State. However, the department then expanded the program to include the months of October through to March.

In the expanded program offered to school-age children Swimsafe embraces a specialised approach to the principles of water safety and skill in the water directed towards specific community participants, such as adults, pre-school children, people with disabilities and older children requiring instruction after school. The program is also available to non-government schools during school hours. An average of 60 per cent of participants are able to swim a minimum of 10 metres in a recognised stroke after completing one program. A high client satisfaction level of 92 per cent has been expressed in surveys. Since 1976 more than 1.8 million school-age children have been taught to swim under this program, an impressive contribution towards the safety of our young people, most of whom frequently engage in water-based activities during the summer months. Certificates of performance are provided for all participants in the program, and each certificate lists the skill levels relevant to each age group. All instructors in the program have completed the Austswim training course. This course is the benchmark qualification for swimming instructors in Australia. Extra training has to be undertaken to enable an instructor to teach pre-school children, adults and people with disabilities.

Austswim is a nationally recognised program for teachers of swimming and water safety. The department conducts courses of accreditation designed to improve the quality of teacher education in swimming and water safety thereby increasing the number of qualified teachers available to Swimsafe and other water safety programs. Austswim graduates are given the option to develop further skills and obtain in-depth knowledge by completing extension and specialist programs, including teaching disabled people to swim and working with pre-school children. As well, a commitment to equipping the community with its essential lifesaving skills continues with my department conducting resuscitation courses on behalf of the Royal Lifesaving Society.

Practically orientated programs focus on tuition and certification of mouth-to-mouth and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Course are conducted at venues throughout the State with participants receiving resuscitation certificates after undergoing a practical and theoretical test prior to gaining certification. These courses provide community members with the skills to save lives. It is to be noted that increasing competition in the learn-to-swim market is reflected by a reduction in the overall numbers participating in the department’s program notwithstanding its strengths and sound operating base. There has been, however, an increase in the number of preschool participants.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: What market research was undertaken to determine that you were the most appropriate spokesperson for the advertising campaign to achieve the maximum audience awareness of the Swimsafe campaign? If there was no market research undertaken, how did you determine that you were the most appropriate person to do the voice-overs?

Ms HARRISON: We attempt in all cases to limit costs, and I was free.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Referring again to line 21, what was the cost of the advertising campaign and how many hours of advertising space was bought? I refer you also to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 627, line item "Outputs: Swimsafe program (participant days)". In 1995-96 there were 650,000. That will drop this coming year to 410,000. Can you explain the reason for that?

Ms HARRISON: There are a couple of questions in that, but that is all right. If you had been listening, I just dealt with the Swimsafe participation days, but there is a continued decline because the department is focusing more towards supporting the industry to take on this role itself. And Austswim training is now an industry responsibility. We are still the principal provider in isolated and disadvantaged areas of the State. The other question was about the advertising cost. I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: When you refer to sporting industries, can you indicate what industries you are referring to? If you mean sporting industries away from the department, what are they? Are you referring specifically to schools?

Page 488

Mr GILLOOLY: The reference there was actually to the swim training industry, and that industry really is the swim coaches that you will find certainly in most swimming pools throughout the State. That was the reference the Minister was making to the industry.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Just the swim coaches in the pools?

Mr GILLOOLY: Yes.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: What about the schools?

Mr GILLOOLY: Swimming programs are undertaken within the schools as part of the school curriculum. We are certainly not involved in that aspect.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I find that rather peculiar because, after all, the department has been responsible over the years for this Swimsafe program and I do not believe it is right that you should lean on the sporting industries. After all, you talk about the attendances of coaches at swimming pools. That is hardly their job; they have to look out for children who may go under and rescue them.

Mr GILLOOLY: This is becoming a bit confused. Swimming coaches have found that learn-to-swim programs are lucrative. In the more populated and more affluent areas a number of swimming coaches now have exclusive rights to a lot of the pools in Sydney. They are Austswim-accredited coaches and they offer the same sort of Swimsafe programs as the department offers and from memory our fees are basically the same, but certainly it is a lucrative part of the industry. As the Minister said previously, an increasing amount of our attention now is drawn to isolated or low-income areas where we endeavour to provide these services, certainly at a fee, but to some extent they are cross-subsidised by the services we provide in more affluent areas. Swimming coaches have found this to be a fairly lucrative source of income and we are not forcing it on them.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Will you advise whether the Swimsafe campaign was free or whether it was paid for?

Ms HARRISON: There were some production costs and there was a small amount of bought advertising but most of it was free to radio. I have just said I will take that question on notice.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Given that the campaign was given free air time by radio stations, did you not let the public of New South Wales down by failing to appoint the most effective spokesperson to maximise its impact? Given the part of it that was paid for in the Swimsafe campaign, how can you justify using the Swimsafe campaign as a vehicle for self-promotion?

Ms HARRISON: The interest that we have at all times is to encourage the maximum number of people to learn to swim, to learn about water safety, to understand that when a dam or a river looks quite smooth on the surface it may not be underneath, and to realise that if they have toddlers they have to watch them around water. There are a number of strategies that we have put into place and I will continue to do so to increase the community’s awareness of their need to be safe around water. We have a beautiful country in which everybody loves our waterways and our beaches. They love having a pool, but they have to be careful around water. If I can do anything to increase awareness, to increase safety around pools, I will do so and I will defend any role that I take on in increasing that awareness.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I appreciate that, but would it not be more effective to have somebody like Dawn Fraser, somebody associated with swimming and water safety, as a community spokesperson rather than yourself?

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: That is your opinion.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I am asking for the Minister’s opinion.

Ms HARRISON: I have just told you why I have been actively involved in that program. I am very committed to advertising our Swimsafe program and our safety message and I will continue to remain committed and involved. I will also remain committed to reducing the department’s costs as much as possible.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: You do not see any conflict in using your name and position to obtain free publicity?

Ms HARRISON: I do not see that.

CHAIR: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-198. On that page the statement is made that major priorities for 1998-1999 include development of a more co-ordinated sport system for talent development for the New South Wales Institute of Sport and State and national sporting organisations. Will the Minister briefly outline whether regional academies of sport will be part of this support system for talent development, and also the processes that will be used to ensure that the support system for talented athletes is more co-ordinated?

Page 489
Ms HARRISON: The short answer is yes. Regional academies of sport will be part of the more co-ordinated support system for talent development for the New South Wales Institute of Sport and State and national sporting organisations. Since 1995-1996 the Government has increased the global budget for regional academies of sport from $240,000 to $860,000 per annum. So that is great news for our Carr Labor Government. My department now supports nine regional academies of sport located at Newcastle, Wollongong, Lismore, Bathurst, Wagga Wagga, Armidale and Cobar. Two others were established last year in the Sydney metropolitan area to service the western Sydney and south-west Sydney areas respectively. They currently operate from my department’s regional offices at Parramatta and Liverpool. The Far West Academy of Sport at Cobar also acts as a subregional office for my department to ensure that more equitable opportunities exist for people living in the remote areas of western New South Wales to participate in sport and recreation, and access its programs and services.

It is the Government’s goal to strengthen the regional academy of sport network in New South Wales by ensuring that their operations are more closely linked with the activities of the department and other major stakeholders in talent development. In doing so, the pathways for talented athletes in selected sports will be clearly defined and will underpin the directions and priorities of the New South Wales Institute of Sport. To develop a more co-ordinated support system for talented athletes the department has consulted with 30 sports, the main operational areas of the department and all the major stakeholders in talent development in New South Wales to gather information for development of a State plan for talent development. The 30 sports consulted included all the major participation sports in New South Wales, Olympic and non-Olympic sports and peak bodies representing athletes with a disability.

The major operational areas that the department consulted included the Sydney in Winter Academies of Sport, sport and recreation centres and regional offices and regional academies of sport. The other major stakeholders in talent development included all the other regional academies of sport, sports hostels and the New South Wales Institute of Sport. The State plan will include a policy framework and strategic plan for talent development in New South Wales. It will outline the roles and responsibilities of each of the major stakeholders involved in the plan’s implementation. The plan will focus on supporting the needs of individual sports to develop their talented athletes and coaches in areas where there is a demonstrated need for support. Primary responsibility for the development of each sport will continue to rest with the sport. As such, the plan will be supported by performance agreements between targeted sports and each of the major stakeholders involved in assisting the particular sport.

There is no doubt that additional funding is required for specific activities and programs to underpin the priorities of the New South Wales Institute of Sport in particular sports and assist the implementation of a State plan for talent development. The department’s principal objective for this year in the area of talent development is to improve the effectiveness of the use of existing resources to increase co-ordination and more effective planning. This will ensure that New South Wales continues to have the most effective talent development network in Australia and in time an athlete development system that is using world’s best practices for the targeted sports.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question relates to asset acquisitions. Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-199, indicates that the asset acquisition program of $3.2 million includes $900,000 for the decontamination of the shotgun range at the Sydney Academy of Sport, which is estimated to cost $3 million. Will you outline the reasons for the Government undertaking this project? What steps are being undertaken by the Department of Sport and Recreation to ensure that the Wakehurst Clay Target Club and the Wakehurst Pistol Club do not lose the site in the future?

Ms HARRISON: Good question, and I suggest that it may be of some interest to the Hon. I. Cohen as well. The Wakehurst Gun Club, now known as the Wakehurst Clay Target Club, and the Wakehurst Pistol Club have both been operating at the Sydney Academy of Sport since the Department of Sport and Recreation took over the site in 1976. In 1996 the department undertook to enclose and soundproof the pistol range at a cost of $500,000. In the course of obtaining approvals for the building works for the enclosure lead pollution was found on the site and the adjacent shotgun range. Construction of the new indoor pistol range is now completed and the lead has been removed under controlled conditions in that part of the pistol range site now covered by the building.

Preliminary findings from the overall site inspection indicated that the shotgun range, together with the remains of the outdoor pistol range, which is approximately 170 metres long by an average of 68 metres wide, is highly polluted. Leaching of lead is occurring to a significant extent. There may be some poisoning of ducks and other water birds, and the water table is very close to the surface. In subsequent
Page 490
meetings with the Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Public Works and Services, the EPA instructed the department to prepare a plan specifically designed to stop lead and other pollutants from leaching into the water table and the marine environment by 31 March 1998. This has been undertaken with the assistance of the Department of Public Works and Services and external consultants.

Initial cost estimates for soil remediation of the site indicated that up to $3 million may be required for cleaning up the soil and approximately $1.1 million for the planning and relocation of the shotgun facilities to another site at the Sydney Academy of Sport. Action has been implemented to determine a final cost for the overall project and to stop the lead and other pollutants from affecting the water table and the local environment. Detailed planning is now under way to undertake the remediation work and to determine the most suitable options for relocating the shotgun range now that funding is available. The Wakehurst Clay Target Club has been informed of the soil contamination problem and the EPA’s directive. It has also agreed to move to an alternate site and to use bismuth, which is a non-toxic shot. As with the new pistol range, the shotgun range will be designed to minimise environmental pollution in the surrounding area. Work is expected to commence before the end of 1998 in respect of soil remediation and shotgun range relocation projects. It is anticipated that the overall project will take three years to complete.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question relates to the New South Wales Institute of Sport. I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, volume 2, page 628, subprogram 66.1.1, line item "NSW Institute of Sport". An amount of $3 million has again been allocated in 1998-99 for the New South Wales Institute of Sport. Will the Minister please advise the members of the Committee of the current status and achievements of the New South Wales Institute of Sport?

Ms HARRISON: Established by this Government in late 1995, the institute became fully operational at Olympic Park, Homebush Bay, during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. Unlike the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra, NSWIS is a non-residential, decentralised organisation. This structure allows athletes to remain in their familiar and supportive home environment without compromising their access to international level coaching and world-class daily training facilities. The institute works with State sporting organisations to co-ordinate high performance and talent development programs throughout the State. Some 680 athletes are currently on scholarships representing 25 different sports. The NSWIS is, by design, not simply a grant organisation. While many athletes have their attendance at national and international competition completely funded, there is no wholesale handing over of large sums of money.

The institute aims to maximise the sporting performance of its scholarship holders and it also offers a wide range of services to complete the personal development of athletes and coaches. The support services available to athletes and coaches include things like career support, education guidance, counselling, personal development, psychology, and sports science testing - many options never previously available to the athletes and certainly not at such an advanced or targeted level. The institute aims to assist in the development of well-rounded and balanced athletes. In partnership with the various State sporting organisations and in line with national and international standards, the NSWIS has developed a sports policy framework to ensure consistency and transparency in the admission of sports to the NSWIS program and the allocation of funding and other resources.

Generally athletes on the institute’s books are representatives on junior or senior national teams who are internationally competitive and, in the case of individual athletes, ranked in the top ten in the world. Many are already well-known to the community, names like: swimmers Ian Thorpe, Grant Robinson, Shelley Taylor-Smith, Natasha Bowron, Simon Cowley, Malcolm Allen, Chris Fydler and Nadine Neumann; track and field athletes Melinda Gainsford-Taylor, Matt Shirvington, Louise McPaul, Andrew Murphy, Debbie Sosimenko and Jane Jamieson; ice skaters Stephen Carr, Danielle McGrath and Joanne Carter; rowers Rebecca Joyce, Bronwyn Roye, Robert Walker, Richard Wearne, David Weightman and Rob Scott; hockey player Alyson Annan, and equestrians Andrew Hoy and Matt Ryan. Of course, there are many more and the institute would like to see all of its athletes become household names, and I think we all have a feeling that that may happen in the next few years.

In accordance with the New South Wales Institute of Sport Act 1995, I am pleased to advise that the institute has presented to me its annual rolling business plan and budget for the 1998-99 financial year. The business plan’s impact is based on the institute’s business drivers outlined in its corporate plan. These business drivers are: athlete performance; Sydney Olympic and Paralympic opportunities; Sporting Centre of Excellence; strategic partnerships; resource allocation and management; and respected profile and prestigious image. The success of these business drivers is measured not only in excellence in service delivery but, more importantly, through the development of performance indicators of accountability and performance. The performance of
Page 491
each service delivery area will directly impact on the achievement of the institute’s objectives.

The corporate performance indicators based on the business drivers are the percentage and number of athletes that make national teams from targeted institute sports, squad institute sports and campaign institute sports. The business plan and budget for 1998-99 reinforce the direction of the institute. The institute sees itself not only as the provider of high performance sports programs, but also as the focal point for elite sport in Australia leading up to and beyond the 2000 Olympics.

CHAIR: I would like to ask a question about the regional sport facility program, particularly various regional facilities. I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-198. In the second paragraph on that page it is indicated that the capital grants program will include an additional $2 million for regional sporting facilities. Will the Minister please outline how these funds will be used to assist in the development of facilities?

Ms HARRISON: This particular program is aimed at extending the range, availability and quality of major sport and recreational facilities throughout New South Wales. The State Government is endeavouring to progressively develop and enhance a network of regional sporting facilities in the State which will meet the needs of talented and high performance athletes as well as the community in general. To this end a further $2 million has been approved for the program in 1998-99.

In addition to this amount, I have already approved funding for the following 18 regional facility projects with a total cost of more than $15 million in the 1997-98 financial year: Tweed Shire Council, $25,000; Waratah-Mayfield Rugby League, $75,000; Blaxland High School, $150,000; Parramatta City Council, $150,000; Kiama council, $100,000; Hurstville District Small Bore Club, $30,000; Ice Skating Club of New South Wales, $300,000; Central Darling Shire Council, $166,000; Greater Taree City Council, $300,000; Coffs Harbour District Hockey, $200,000; Deniliquin Heated Pool Committee, $60,000; Liverpool City Council, $147,000; Wellington Council, $30,000; Hornsby council, $39,000; Lower Clarence Rowing Club, $75,000; Camden and District Netball, $70,000; Blue Mountains City Council, $100,000, and Penrith Sports Stadium, $150,000 - which is a total of $2,167,000.

Applications for the 1998-99 program are currently being finalised by the department. Applications should be available for distribution some time early in the new financial year. The guidelines will provide sporting organisations, local government bodies and other relevant not-for-profit organisations with the information they need to support applications under the program. The construction of new sporting and ancillary facilities will be eligible for consideration for funding, as will the upgrading of existing sporting and ancillary facilities. Private commercial ventures or the straightforward replacement of existing facilities, and operating costs or costs related to facility maintenance will, however, not be eligible for funding. Basically the applicant organisations will need to demonstrate that an advanced stage of planning has been reached and that work on the facility can start within six months of the receipt of the offer of a grant and be completed preferably within eighteen months.

Among other things, we will need to see that the projects have the capacity to include access for talented and high performance athletes as well as all sections of the general community. The applicant organisation must demonstrate a strong commitment to a sound management structure and an acceptable financial management plan, and that the support of the relevant State sporting organisation and the local council has been given. Projects that have been identified in regional sports facility plans or in sport and recreation needs studies will be given a higher priority for funding. Projects that are able to demonstrate the facility development will improve opportunities to attract overseas sport and recreation groups to train and/or compete in New South Wales will also be given a higher priority. Funding will normally be provided on a dollar-for-dollar basis and, except in exceptional circumstances, the maximum grant available through this program will be $300,000. I am anxious to make certain that all sections of the community are aware that this Government is firmly committed to providing, wherever possible, quality sporting and recreational facilities which will support and encourage a healthy lifestyle and provide a safe and secure environment for the people of New South Wales to enjoy.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My next question relates to pre-Games training. I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-198, subheading "Strategic Directions". The third major priority for 1998-99 is "facilitating overseas team visits to both metropolitan and rural New South Wales prior to the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games". Will you outline the Government’s progress in this initiative and how it has involved the regional areas of New South Wales?

Ms HARRISON: My Department of Sport and Recreation established the pre-Games training task force in 1996 as a joint venture with the Department of State and Regional Development as well as Tourism New South Wales to maximise the benefits of
Page 492
pre-Games training for New South Wales. The Government is also conscious of the need to enable all areas of New South Wales to absorb as much of the Olympic spirit as possible. New South Wales has been very successful nationally in pre-Games training results. Of the 37 Olympic teams in individual sports so far committed to pre-Games training in Australia and New Zealand, 20 will train in New South Wales, 13 in Queensland and one each in South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and New Zealand. Recent advice from SOCOG indicates that the Victorian Olympic task force is not providing SOCOG with details on pre-Games training arrangements in its State. Numerous rumours are circulating in Olympic and sporting circles regarding the positioning of particular teams in different areas throughout Australia.

New South Wales believes it is better to report on fact rather than relying on rumour with respect to pre-Games training arrangements. In terms of tangible results for regional New South Wales, the Ukraine Olympic team will train in Albury as well as the Finnish athletics team; US and Swiss rowing teams to Maclean; Australian paralympic archery and fencing teams to the Shoalhaven; Korea, Thailand and Swaziland equestrian teams to Lochinvar; the US equestrian team to Scone and the Irish track and field team to Wollongong. Other contracts have been negotiated, with the German and Italian rowing teams going to Penrith; the US and Swiss rowing teams to Maclean; the Great Britain, New Zealand, Italian, American and Portuguese yachting teams to Sydney; and the Belgian track and field team to Sydney.

A number of swimming federations inspected the facilities at Blacktown, Mingara on the central coast and Newcastle after the World Cup in Sydney in February. The US Olympic Administration has contracted with the Bankstown Council to situate their operations in that area. The team administration for Japan has made arrangements with Campbelltown City Council. The Canadian Olympic Administration is currently negotiating with Ryde City Council and Macquarie University for a similar arrangement. This follows a successful visitation by officials from Canada recently. The pre-Games training task force and regional Olympic task forces in the Illawarra and Hunter regions assisted in hosting this delegation to showcase prospective pre-Games training venues. The pre-Games training task force continues to work closely with SOCOG and SPOC particularly in relation to the pre-Games training guide and visits from national Olympic committees and the national Paralympic committees. Through the contacts it is developing with Olympic nations the pre-Games training task force will continue its endeavour to ensure training through the whole of New South Wales, so that the spirit of the Games will be brought to these communities.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: I have a question on the capital assistance program. I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-198, where it is indicated that $4 million will be provided towards the capital assistance program to assist in the development of sports and recreation facilities which have a broad community orientation. Will the Minister please outline how these funds will be distributed and give details of assistant programs in relation to the development of these facilities?

Ms HARRISON: These funds have been distributed more fairly than under the former coalition Government. The availability of adequate sporting facilities is essential if the community is to participate in sport and recreation activities. The Government is committed to assisting with the development of these facilities throughout the State, which will have a direct impact on the community’s level of participation in sport. The capital assistance program is one of two major programs used by my department to improve facilities in the community. My department’s capital assistance program will provide a total of $4 million in 1998-99 to develop facilities throughout the State. Application forms and information regarding this program are currently widely available throughout New South Wales

Following an assessment of applications I would expect to announce the successful applicants towards the end of the year. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that distribution of funds is equitable geographically and demographically throughout the State and between the various sporting and recreational activities. The Government believes that the importance of recreation to the community is a high priority. With the assistance of other departments it will be possible to co-ordinate and plan beneficial programs for people in all areas of New South Wales. Local councils are encouraged to formulate proposals to my Department of Sport and Recreation for both the medium- and long-term development of sporting and recreational needs, so that more co-ordinated and effective programs can be implemented.

With the selection of Sydney to host the 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games there will be an opportunity and an unprecedented focus on sport in New South Wales, particularly the opportunity for New South Wales to host pre-Olympic training programs. There will, of course, be an expectation that the Government will assist with the provision of suitable training venues which will not only meet pre-Games training requirements, but also provide a legacy to regional sport after the Olympics.
Page 493
Accordingly, it is imperative that the long-term benefits of all proposed facility development be properly assessed before funding decisions are made. The Government will ensure that proper support is provided towards the development of local sport and recreational facilities and regional standard sport and recreational facilities with priority given to the areas of greatest demonstrated need. Under the capital assistance program of the former Government there was a far greater emphasis on who held the seat than on areas of greatest demonstrated need.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question relates to athlete assistance. Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 628, subprogram 66.1.1 "Sport and Recreation Development", line item "Grants and subsidies", states that $3 million will be allocated to the operating costs of the New South Wales Institute of Sport in 1998-99. Does the Government’s continuing commitment to the New South Wales Institute of Sport mean that funds will be restricted towards assisting high performance athletes within Olympic sports?

Ms HARRISON: No. The Department of Sport and Recreation will continue to play a key role in the identification and development of talented athletes throughout New South Wales, across a wide range of both Olympic and non-Olympic sports. The establishment of the institute has allowed my department and the Sydney Academy of Sport to focus on supporting the development of talented junior and sub-elite athletes from New South Wales to achieve success in State, national and international competition. The academy will also assist in the development of elite athletes in sports that are not included in the institute’s programs. My department has developed a number of specialist facilities, programs and staffing resources at the Sydney Academy of Sport to achieve this objective. The academy is acknowledged as a world-class residential sports training complex second in Australia at this time only to the Australian Institute of Sport. The academy also conducts an extensive range of broad-based participation and sport development programs.

The academy school programs have the highest occupancy of any sport and recreation centre and provide specialist sports programs in addition to the conventional outdoor education programs. The residential and training facilities of the academy are used year round by a wide range of sporting and community groups. I am pleased to report that work was completed late last year on a new dining and meeting facility for children and others participating in sports and outdoor education programs. The department has employed two well-known elite coaches to conduct various programs to support the athlete development programs conducted by the Sydney Academy of Sport, regional academies of sport and sporting organisations in country areas of New South Wales. Some of the work of those coaches with Melinda Gainsford-Taylor is reported in the Daily Telegraph today. Community sporting organisations in isolated rural areas in particular have welcomed this initiative because it provides them with access to technical support and other services they have not previously been able to access readily through the Sydney Academy of Sport.

The department has established a talent development division within the Department of Sport and Recreation as part of the department’s re-alignment process. This division has overall responsibility for these coaching initiatives and other program initiatives that will be identified in the State plan for talent development that is currently being developed to underpin the programs of the New South Wales Institute of Sport. My department is continuing to work closely with State sporting organisations in administering its athlete support programs. It is also continuing to work very closely with the major stakeholders in talent development throughout the New South Wales regions. The widespread consultation in developing the State plan for talent development is an excellent example of the department’s commitment to good working relations.

In addition to supporting the role of the Sydney Academy of Sport the Government is committed to providing ongoing financial and other support to the network of regional academies of sport throughout the State. The Government’s annual commitment of $660,000 to regional academies, which was mentioned earlier, has enabled my department to proceed with the establishment of new academies to service western Sydney and south-western Sydney areas and the far west area of New South Wales. Exchange programs are conducted with Japan in athletics and Austria in snow skiing to ensure that talented young athletes have exposure to international competition and high level coaching.

My department also has a co-operative agreement with the city of Yokohama in Japan to facilitate the exchange of sports science and sports medicine information. My department is also working closely with SOCOG and State development and tourism, with respect to pre-Olympic training and competition opportunities for athletes in Olympic and non-Olympic sports. The Government has supported the establishment of new sports high schools in the Hunter and the Illawarra for the last three years. I am pleased to report that my department has been working closely with the Department of School Education at both State and regional levels to assist in their establishment.

Page 494

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 623. Line item "Expenses - Other operating expenses" shows an allocation of $16.568 million for 1998-99. Of this amount how much will be spent on the department’s data network?

Ms HARRISON: The department has a wide area network, WAN, linking head office with its regional offices, centres, academies, sports house, the New South Wales Institute of Sport, and my ministerial office, a total of 27 locations. The network connections comprise two types of data lines. These are the ISDN, Integrated Services Digital Network, and dial-ups, standard telephone line connections, with semipermanent ISD end lines being the preferred choice of service due to greater speed and fixed cost. The annual cost of the network will be approximately $170,000, which includes a recurrent $155,000 for the data lines and $15,000 for hardware and software maintenance for the network equipment.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 627, line item "Regional sports facilities developed or planned". There is a water quality problem, including blue-green algae, at Lake Ainsworth Sport and Recreation Facility at Lennox Head. Does your department have similar pollution problems in other areas? What investigations are being undertaken to ensure the health and safety of children at these types of facilities?

Ms HARRISON: I will refer that question to my department officer.

Mr RUSSELL: At the Lake Ainsworth centre we work with the Ballina council and the Environment Protection Authority up there to assist in protecting the lake from blue-green algae. The only other problem we had was at Myuna Bay, on Lake Macquarie. We are working with the EPA there as well. We are actually transferring our waste from Myuna Bay to the Eraring power station and obviating any necessity for any run-off into the lake. We do not have any other problems.

Ms HARRISON: Funds are available for those works at Myuna Bay.

Mr RUSSELL: We expect those works to be completed in about two months. We have allocated about $500,000 for this project at Myuna Bay and we expect that to be finished in August this year.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197. What is the current situation in terms of athletes with a disability gaining access to sports development assistance?

Ms HARRISON: As I said earlier, we are committed to ensuring that the full range of sport and recreation services is accessible to people with a disability. We are pursuing four strategies to ensure that access is effectively achieved. The first of those is the active and able project, a joint initiative between the Department of Sport and Recreation and the New South Wales Motor Accidents Authority. That project aims to ensure the sustainability of sport and recreation programs for people with a disability, particularly as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Some $1,012,500 has been committed to the project by the Motor Accidents Authority and $727,800 by the Department of Sport and Recreation over a three-year period. Five key areas have been identified to be addressed over the next three years and they include educational training, promotion, infrastructure development, program services monitoring and evaluation.

A project co-ordinator for the active and able program is currently being appointed by the department to provide a centralised support system and to prevent duplication of services throughout the State. This project will be overseen by a steering committee consisting of a broad range of government and non-government representatives. Key stakeholders for the joint program activity and partnerships in regional areas will be identified to facilitate a more co-ordinated approach right across the State for this program. The second strategy is the disability strategic plan, which the department has actually prepared in consultation with peak disability bodies to ensure that people with disabilities have fair access to the department’s services. Three key areas for action have been identified under that plan. They are access, employment, and disability specific services. All strategies within the plan have targets and performance measures to assess outcomes and outputs achieved against expected targets.

All the current capital works undertaken at sport and recreation centres have been designed to facilitate access to people with disabilities. The department runs programs at its sport and recreation centres, catering specifically for people with disabilities. We have also conducted an access audit right across our sport and recreation centres and identified modifications to older facilities which are being progressively implemented. All sports receiving government funding are expected to develop programs to assist participation involvement by people with disabilities. The third strategy relates to the Sports Council for the Disabled which we fund. The department was instrumental in creating the Sports Council for the Disabled in 1984. The council
Page 495
acts as an umbrella organisation for the development of sport for the disabled in New South Wales, and currently provides assistance to disabled competitors participating in 40 sports. The council also caters particularly well for the needs of the intellectually disabled participating in athletics and swimming.

Funding continues to be provided to assist with the administration costs of the New South Wales Sports Council for the Disabled and funding of $150,000 will be provided to support that council in 1998-99. Apart from that funding assistance the Government provides office accommodation for the council at State sport centres accessible to people with disabilities. The Sports Council for the Disabled works closely in a promotional and educational role with non-disabled sporting organisations, State and local welfare organisations and educational institutions. That council provides a number of services to all its member organisations. Finally, the department itself has provided a number of initiatives to develop the talents of people with disabilities. We have provided $220,000 for elite disabled sport under the elite sports grants scheme.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. I. COHEN: I asked you this question last year. I refer again to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197. Has the department undertaken any projects in disability surfing? It has been undertaken on a private basis on the northern peninsula of Sydney, with great results.

Ms HARRISON: I am not aware of the department’s particular involvement in disabled surfing, although I am aware that it is a particularly good program.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I would recommend it, once again. I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 628. Has your Government undertaken any projects for facilities for youth offenders and disadvantaged youth in economically and regionally disadvantaged areas? I note that Byron Bay does not have its skateboard facilities yet.

Ms HARRISON: We have undertaken a number of particular pilot programs which have been extraordinarily successful and they have received an increase in this year’s budget. They include among other things midnight basketball, which was particularly successful in areas such as Redfern. As to the skateboard facility at Byron Bay, I am not aware but I will undertake to find out whether it was applied for under regional facilities funding. The department has funded skateboard facilities in other areas and under this round of funding I believe a skateboard facility was funded at Kiama. We realise that those facilities are particularly beneficial to teenage members of the community who love skateboarding. If you want to get young people off the streets you have to give them something to do and it has to be something they want to do. For that reason that skateboard facility was identified as a high priority for the south coast by a number of other stakeholders, including the council and the regional department office. I would be quite pleased to look at a skateboard facility in Byron Bay but it would have to be considered under the regional facilities funding.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Has your department undertaken any expenditure on investigation or inquiry into facilities, particularly in non-competitive or high level sporting facilities that youth in regional areas suggest they would like to be involved in?

Ms HARRISON: Certainly that is one of our social objectives for which I was criticised earlier. We include grant forms and regional facility forms in our capital assistance program. The Government has social objectives and a responsibility not just to look at some of the more high profile sports but to look at a variation on a sport that increases activity, and that would include things like cycle tracks, skate board facilities and even one-third basketball courts. I guess that some competitive teenagers would not like that to be described as a full competitive sport. We look seriously at those facilities in terms of crime prevention and access to facilities for youth that will not cost them anything. One of the problems is that youth sometimes do not access mainstream sport because of the cost. If a one-third basketball court constructed in the corner of a park is free and access is readily available, you get kids off the street doing something that is good for them.

A one-third basketball court was built under the capital assistance program near my home. Since it was built I have never seen it not occupied. Nine times out of 10 it is occupied by, say, 15- to 20-year-olds, which is exactly the target market. The department looks quite seriously at facilities that target youth. One of the problems is that under all these programs demand far outstrips anything we can supply, particularly as the Federal Government pulled out of funding facilities. Some young people do not have access to the corridors of government and they often do not have the level of local government support that perhaps a better funded, better organised community sporting group may have. Unfortunately, under our program you need to have half the funds, but there are areas where kids have got together and raised half the funds; and we have then come to the party and helped them build those facilities.

Page 496

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer again to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197. Regarding women’s participation in sport. Does your department focus on non-competitive sports? You mentioned bushwalking and I mentioned yoga. Is there a special role for non-competitive sport to encourage women’s participation in sporting activities?

Ms HARRISON: Yes, that is certainly another avenue for involvement for women. The reason women do not participate to the same level as men is the subject of a never-ending debate. Certainly the ministerial task force for women has come up with strategic directions to address problems with a number of the programs we have put into place to increase the awareness of women and girls for the need to participate. Some of the problems with organised sport include child-minding responsibilities and the regularity of having to attend a competitive sport. Having to be there at a certain time to play the game is a major problem for women.

I mentioned earlier the active girls role model project. One of the strategies also is to try to increase the profile of women in sports in the media. If girls see their role models in the media we might encourage them to be more active. A survey carried out in the country showed that the reporting of women’s sport was not only below that of men’s sport such as football, but it was below horseracing and just above greyhound racing. That is not conducive to encouraging young women to be active. I guess you cannot fix it all overnight. That is why the department has established the women’s unit. Active Australia was actually a Federal Government initiative that we jumped on board with. As we were the only State willing to get involved and put funds into that program, we have now been selected as the lead agency for it. The slogan for active Australia is all about taking exercise regularly not seriously. It is not particularly for women; it is basically for the whole community to become more active.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Does your department have figures for the participation rate of women in aerobics vis-a-vis other sports and also the participation of women in aerobics?

Ms HARRISON: From memory the highest participation rates for women in organised sport was for netball. I have not got my hands on the latest statistics, so I will have to take that on notice.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 628, subprogram 66.1.1. When will the proposal by South Sydney District Cricket Club and South Sydney Council for a multi-use facility at Bicentennial Park receive necessary funding to assist young people and others in this highly disadvantaged area?

Ms HARRISON: Again, I am not aware of that particular application under regional facilities. I will take that on notice. We received over 200 applications, of which we were able to fund 18. It is quite possible that it was one of those that we could not fund, but I will have to look into that.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197. Does your department target specific assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities particularly in regional areas regarding sporting opportunities?

Ms HARRISON: As we discussed earlier, in looking at a number of disadvantaged groups that we consider have limited access to mainstream sport and recreational programs and facilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have needed special help to encourage them to participate in these programs. We have provided $300,000 per annum for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sport program. That includes the pathways program, which is increasing opportunities for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders through education and training support to enter into permanent employment in the sport and recreational industry; and the street beat program to reduce crime through providing an opportunity for youth to participate in an organised and self-determined outlet in sport, develop self-esteem and enjoy a healthy lifestyle.

That program has also been connected with our PCYC program that I spoke about earlier to discourage youth crime. We have connected that to areas where we felt we could target Aboriginal communities to get them involved in sport. There is also the skill-up program, which aims to enhance participation levels in sport and recreation and to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to become coaches and administrators capable of developing and implementing their own programs and strategies, to identify and develop potential Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander athletes, and cross-cultural and reconciliation training programs to develop an awareness within my department on issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in sport. We fund also a number of specific programs to help encourage Aboriginal participation in sport and recreation. A particular event held at Coffs Harbour has been enormously successful. There they run a drug and alcohol free event, including a concert, based around sporting events to encourage youth to play sport. We have seen that it has been beneficial for the area and beneficial in ongoing involvement in sport by young people, and we have been helping to fund that.

Page 497

The Hon. I. COHEN: Does your department produce material on, or fund a campaign into, smoking and sport, using sport to help young people avoid the tendency to smoke and also to inspire them to participate in sport rather than move towards drug abuse?

Ms HARRISON: No, we have not entered into an education process against smoking. I would see that perhaps as being a little outside my portfolio; it is necessary, but it is not in my portfolio.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 628, subprogram 66.1.1 "Sport and Recreation Development". An amount of $15.99 million has been estimated as revenue from sport and recreation centres. What is the extent of use of these facilities by the community, and what is this Government’s policy on maintenance and upgrading of these centres?

Ms HARRISON: The percentage of their occupancy or percentage of community use?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The extent of usage of these facilities by the community and the Government’s policy on maintenance and upgrading of these centres.

Ms HARRISON: Last year we had a boom with increased revenue and were able to carry out extra maintenance on those facilities. We had a very good year last year.

Mr RUSSELL: We have various programs within the centres. One is the outdoor education program, which is conducted each school term for schoolchildren visiting the centres. Last year we had a total of approximately 200,000 client days or 200,000 days when the children were there, a client day being one person per day or one child per day. We also had vacation programs in which we had 27,836 client days. We had family camps of 16,259 client days, and 6,812 client days by senior adults using our camps. We had weekend community use with 22,119 client days. We had 21,124 client days at self-contained facilities at the centres used by members of the community. The centre facilities were also used by the community on 21,000 client days. We also had sport and training courses. Some 208 courses were conducted at the centres overall. Sport development courses were conducted at the centres and stays by organisations using the centres totalled 3,300 client days. Basically that was the usage of the centres.

Ms HARRISON: I might just add with regard to maintenance and upgrading that we have a policy of constantly upgrading the capital works program. Last year we did a lot of work. Work has now been completed on the new dining and recreation hall at Lake Ainsworth, and a new pool has been built at Milson Island. An amenities block has been constructed for the clients using the new pool at Milson Island as well. Originally the accommodation lodges were to be built at Myuna Bay from the 1997-98 budget, but after the Environment Protection Authority identified the problems there with wastewater, money went to that, but money is now available to build the lodges this year at Myuna Bay. I think we acted fairly responsibly in the transfer of funds to bring forward that project and put the other one back a year. In this financial year a total of $1.2 million has been allocated for cyclic maintenance of the centres, and I think this maintenance program will ensure that centres do not run down and cause us to have expensive refurbishment in the future.

[Short adjournment]

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: In response to earlier questions you said you were keen to have Swimsafe reach the maximum audience. Did you make any effort to determine whether there was some other person, for example, a sports star or local sporting hero, who would have more effectively reached the target audience? If you did not do that research how could you say that your voice-overs were not at least partially about self-promotion?

Ms HARRISON: With respect, you are very repetitive. I have answered this question. The announcements provided important water safety information to the community as well as promoting my department’s Swimsafe program, and I felt as Minister I would be the appropriate person to advertise my department’s programs. The intention was to distribute the announcements to radio stations throughout New South Wales in an attempt to get free air play. The announcements were distributed to every radio station across the State, and that included the major metropolitan and regional stations as well as small community radio stations. Under the guidance of corporate relations, regional offices were responsible for distribution, contact and follow-up with local radio stations. Corporation relations dealt with the major Sydney stations. At the end of January, regions were requested to follow up with their local stations on the airplay of the announcements. In most cases an exact figure could not be provided by radio stations, just an estimate, so a station-by-station breakdown was worked out.

The general results were that 107 stations were in a position to air the announcements, and some of those were reading services only. Of these, 66 aired
Page 498
the announcements over summer; six stations did not air the announcements; and the remainder did not play the announcements for a number of reasons, including misplacing the advertisement. Corporate relations took the decision to pay for advertising on two Sydney radio stations, SBS and 2WS. The decision to use paid advertising for those two stations was based on the fact that 2WS does not accept pre-recorded community service announcements and that western Sydney was an important target audience. SBS plays nationwide community service announcements only. However, it was considered very important to have the water safety hints playing on SBS as we were also targeting the ethnic community, many of whom we realise often come to Australia and have not had access to Swimsafe. We were trying particularly to target ethnic adults who had come to Australia without swimming skills.

In total it is estimated that the announcements were played a minimum of 5,400 times on New South Wales radio over 10 weeks through December, January and February. On average most stations aired the announcements twice daily. The estimated value of this air time is more than $190,000. The total cost of the exercise in producing, including tape production and courier charges, was $2,500. So we produced those commercials for $2,500 and bought over $190,000 of advertising space for the promotion of what is an important community message. The majority of stations indicated that they would be interested in a similar initiative next year or community service announcements of another nature on sports safety. Whilst the intention of the campaign was simply to raise awareness, as we discussed earlier, it is interesting to note that a number of the regional offices indicated a significant number of public inquiries as a result of the announcements. So it worked, and I think that is the bottom line.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Will you be doing those announcements again this year?

Ms HARRISON: We will be considering those announcements again, yes.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I mean you doing your own voice-over.

Ms HARRISON: We will be considering those announcements again. As I said, it has worked, so why wouldn’t I?

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 623, line item "Operating expenses". What proportion of the budget for the Department of Sport and Recreation was allocated in 1997-98 to entertain staff and/or overseas sportsmen and sportswomen? What amount will be allocated in 1998-99? Furthermore, who is authorised to make such expenditure, and to whom and on what conditions are credit cards issued for such purposes?

Ms HARRISON: We will take that on notice. The answer that I just gave was actually an answer in part to a previous question that I said I would take on notice. That question has been answered.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 623. How do you justify allowing 50 Department of Sport and Recreation staff to accommodate eight Japanese cyclists who did not speak English at Doyles Restaurant during 1997? Was this according to the guidelines of the department? If so, do you consider that such guidelines are acceptable? What was the total cost to the taxpayer of this Carr Government’s sporting largesse?

Ms HARRISON: So far as I am aware we did not entertain Japanese cyclists.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 630, subprogram 66.1.2 Eastern Creek Raceway. Bearing in mind that your program objective is a commercial return on Eastern Creek, can you state for how many months rental payments have been behind since commencement of the lease; the maximum arrears of rental at any one time; the current rental fee per month; whether the rental is currently in arrears; and if so, how much?

Ms HARRISON: To summarise, you lost $135 million. We have leased it out. Their repayments are up-to-date and we are doing much better than you ever did.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: So the rental payments are currently not behind?

Ms HARRISON: The rental payments are up to date.

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 630. In relation to the lease of the Eastern Creek Raceway, another of your program objectives is to have a world-class objective. Did the lease require expenditure by the tenant on upgrading and maintaining the track? If so, what was required? What tasks that should have been undertaken have not been undertaken, thus reflecting a possible breach of lease conditions? What action have you taken to ensure that Sydney facilities are brought back to world class?

Ms HARRISON: I will take that question on notice.

Page 499

The Hon C. J. S. LYNN: I return to my previous question. You answered the fourth part of the question but you avoided the first three parts. I would like to repeat them. How many months have rental payments been behind during the course of the lease? How much was maximum rental arrears at any one time, and what is the current rental fee per month?

Ms HARRISON: I will take those questions on notice.

The Hon C. J. S. LYNN: I turn to the same reference. Having in mind that your program objective is that Eastern Creek be a world-class motor sports facility, why did you fail to respond to the letter sent to you on 23 April 1998 by the E. T. Drag Racers Club of New South Wales, asking that you look into drag racers’ concerns that Eastern Creek was no longer available for drag racing? How do you justify that drag racing events since September 1997 have no longer been held at Eastern Creek, causing at least six major events to go interstate, including the Premier State Nationals in October this year, which have transferred to Brisbane, taking with it 30,000 spectators and millions of dollars of direct and indirect income to Queensland?

Ms HARRISON: You are saying all this upside down again. Two types of drag racing are run at Eastern Creek raceway, national open events and street drag events. The national open events are restricted to ANDRA members and prize money is high, whereas the street meetings are the amateur non-commercial version of the sport, open to anyone with a driver’s licence, and no prize money is paid. When the department ran Eastern Creek raceway, the national open event had the potential to make large profits or large losses, depending on whether it rained. In the final year of running Eastern Creek raceway the department lost money in running open national events. Street drag races are conducted over a shorter period and do not require extensive preparation costs. Potential profits are up to $25,000 but average out at $8,000 to $10,000 per meeting. Rain had less of an impact due to the shorter meetings, and because the track does not need to be prepared potential losses from a rained out event are only in the order of $5,000.

Due to the tighter safety restrictions imposed by CAMS the traction compound used to prepare the drag strip for the national open events, not for the street meetings, has to be cleaned off the track. This involves considerable cost, $30,000 to $40,000 and some track deterioration. The need to clean the track has made the national open events even less viable to run. In addition, the drag-stripped surface has deteriorated from the repeated cleaning, which has resulted in ANDRA banning vehicles faster than 10.99 seconds elapsed time until the track is resurfaced. The majority of cars at national open events and some cars at street meetings fall into this category. The problem of cleaning traction compound off the track is now affecting another multi-use track, Calder Park raceway in Victoria. However, Calder relies more heavily on drag racing than Eastern Creek raceway and is therefore more likely to leave the track prepared for drag racing and needs to be cleaned only occasionally for the major circuit racing events.

In the 1995-1996 financial year, Eastern Creek raceway had 86.6 per cent of event income provided by circuit usage and only 2.4 percent provided by drag racing. Therefore, it is more viable for Eastern Creek to cut back on national open drag racing events and minimise the impact on circuit racing and hiring. ANDRA has certainly written to me expressing interest in leasing Eastern Creek raceway should the ARDC fail. ANDRA has also written to the department expressing concern over the lack of national open events at Eastern Creek raceway. In 1998 the ARDC had three national open events scheduled and 19 street meetings. In the last year the department ran Eastern Creek there were nine national open events scheduled and 23 street meetings, and rain cancelled some of these events. The ARDC has cancelled all national events in 1998 due to the restrictions imposed by ANDRA as a result of the condition of the track and the desire by the ARDC to find a permanent solution rather than a stop-gap solution.

The ARDC has plans to build a separate drag strip parallel to the main straight between the straight and the grandstand. The ARDC has stated in the motoring press that it is open to offers from potential investors who may wish to build, lease and operate the drag strip. ANDRA wrote to the ARDC requesting representation on its board and was invited to attend all future board meetings where drag racing is discussed. Voluntary administrators have been appointed to the company running the Heathcote Raceway Park drag strip in Victoria. According to the article, Heathcote Raceway Park ran three national open drag racing events before going broke. The first event was successful, the second was affected by a heat wave and the third by rain. The financial difficulties experienced by the Heathcote Raceway Park in Victoria is an indication that a separate drag strip in New South Wales would face similar problems, and, as I said, the ARDC is dealing with that problem at the moment.

The Hon C. J. S. LYNN: I have a supplementary question. Firstly, in my previous question I asked why you had not responded to a letter of 23 April 1998 in regard to the drag racers club’s concerns that Eastern Creek is no longer available for drag racing. Secondly, I understand that the lease requirement for world-class motor sports requires that
Page 500
Eastern Creek be a world-class motor sport facility for all motor sports in New South Wales. Are you condoning a breach of the lease in not allowing it to be developed as a world-class facility?

Ms HARRISON: As I said, you are very repetitive. I just explained all that. As for the 23 April 1998 letter, we have had ongoing discussions with ANDRA and Eastern Creek, and, as I said, we have leased this out. It is really up to the ARDC and ANDRA to work out proposals for the drag strip, and the ARDC is dealing with that. If there is a particular letter that I have not responded to in writing, I will find it and do so, but ANDRA are well aware of my position on this issue. I have met them.

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 630, subprogram 66.1.2 Eastern Creek Raceway. How will you ensure in 1998-99 that there is an upgrading of the track, following the track having fallen into such a state of disrepair that all major motor cycling and drag racing events have now left the venue? If not, is your Government concerned about the millions of dollars worth of income lost by New South Wales through the loss of these events? Finally, does the fact that the only use that Eastern Creek now gets by motor cycle clubs is occasional tar testing comply with the lease requirements that the lessee provide a world-class facility for motor sport?

Ms HARRISON: As I just said, the ARDC has a lease of the Eastern Creek facility. If it fails to meet the terms of that lease, we will take appropriate action at that time, and I find it unbelievable that you are trying to make mileage out of something that you mucked up totally.

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refute that suggestion completely and utterly.

CHAIR: Is the honourable member making a speech, or is he asking questions?

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I do not like those sort of remarks being made and I object to them.

CHAIR: Are you going to ask a question?

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 630. Eastern Creek Raceway, according to your program objective, is to provide, through a leasing arrangement, a world-class facility for the motor sport industry while achieving commercial return from the Eastern Creek raceway. Are you aware that back in 1989 when we first started Eastern Creek the program was not only for the raceway but to establish two golf courses? What is your Government doing about that?

Ms HARRISON: I have explained this quite adequately. We have leased out Eastern Creek. We have a return.

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: The whole area?

Ms HARRISON: Eastern Creek. There are a number of undertakings as part of that lease that ARDC has to take over future use. If it falls short with those undertakings, we will deal with it at that time.

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Does that include the two golf courses?

Ms HARRISON: The golf courses you are referring to are on land owned by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.

The Hon R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: It belongs to the Government, not the department.

The Hon C. J. S. LYNN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 627, subprogram 66.1.1 Sport Development and Recreation. Having in mind that the Olympic Co-ordinating Authority and SOCOG are already charging volunteer sporting administrators and families supporting athletes $10 to park a car and upward of $12,000 just to hire the State Sports Centre for the recent schools "Senses Alive" concert, and also $3,000 for daily sports hire of the State Sports Centre for sports groups, what plans has your department made for rational and sensible post-Olympic price structures for this sporting facility once it has come under the control of your department?

Ms HARRISON: I would like to refer that to my Director-General.

Mr GILLOOLY: As everyone would be aware, there will be a significant number of world-class sporting venues available to the people of New South Wales, indeed the people of Australia, following the Olympics. I am the chairperson of a task force which has been established by the Olympic Co-ordination Authority to look at future management, costings and whatever else for a number of these facilities after the 2000 Olympics, and that extends from the velodrome, to shooting and archery facilities, and to a whole range of other facilities as well. Certainly, one of the facilities that we are looking at is the State Sports Centre, its role and what the Government’s commitment should be to it following the Olympics. Most of those who have visited Homebush will have noticed that many more facilities going in there.

The State Sports Centre will face far greater competition post Olympics. The multi-use arena, which is the working title for the building which will be called the Sydney Superdome, a 20,000 seat indoor stadium under construction at present, will be a
Page 501
significant competitor of the State Sports Centre. The RAS has a number of facilities within its grounds, which I am sure many would have seen at the Royal Easter Show this year, and it too will compete with the State Sports Centre. Two buildings on the boundary of the showground have been tentatively titled the Sydney Indoor Training Centre, with an area of 7,000 square metres, and they too will compete with the State Sports Centre following the Olympics. The question of charging for the State Sports Centre and the question of the role of the State Sports Centre post Olympics are issues that the task force that I chair through OCA is currently considering and will probably consider over the next 12 months.

It is a fairly complex question because part of the State Sports Centre legislation requires that facilities be available for community use. Parking is a major issue at the moment, but in conjunction with the State Sports Centre my department and the Olympic Co-ordination Authority are endeavouring to resolve those problems. We are very conscious of the role that volunteers play in sporting organisations and it is our belief that they should not be charged for parking in the Homebush precinct.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Given that the recent "Senses Alive" concert was put together by volunteers for the schools, do you condone charging them $12,000 to hire the facility when you only charge $3,000 a day for hire by sporting groups?

Ms HARRISON: I do not have a day-to-day role in the charging of the State Sports Centre as I have a trust which is instructed to operate commercially and get the best return possible on the Government’s assets whilst encouraging community participation in sport. I have no knowledge of individual costs of separate events throughout the year, of which there are many.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: It seems to be an exorbitant charge. Would you condone that sort of charge for schools staffed by volunteers when you are trying to get maximum usage of it?

Ms HARRISON: I am not involved in day-to-day charging of any event or day-to-day negotiations with hirers of that facility.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Bearing in mind that the Australian College of Physical Education is one of your larger clients, if not the largest, do you believe it is fair that you should charge $3,000 a day for students undergoing training in that college?

Ms HARRISON: As I have said, I do not get involved in day-to-day commercial operations with that trust or any of the other trusts are under my portfolio.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Do you not believe it is incumbent on you to do so, since the State Sports Centre comes under your control?

Ms HARRISON: I believe that that is why you establish a trust: to operate a facility commercially.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Can you not talk to the trust? You are in charge of it.

Ms HARRISON: I believe I have answered that question.

CHAIR: Questions should be directed properly through the Chair.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 4, page 74, regarding your department’s program overview. Why did you allow the closure of the Little Wobbly or Little Wobby Sport and Recreation Centre? How do you demonstrate a closure of a million dollar resource which would have catered for 40 participants at the same time as you are publicly calling for greater participation in sport?

Ms HARRISON: You just answered your own question. You knew what the answer was going to be, and that is why you made that mistake. Your question was a little wobbly. Unfortunately, there were health and safety issues at that sport and recreation centre and it became necessary to close it. I would like to refer to my department officer with responsibility for that area.

Mr RUSSELL: The Little Wobby centre came into the possession of the department in about the 1970s. It is only a very small tract of land around the Broken Bay area. At that time it was owned, I think, by the education department, which signed it over to us and gradually over the years it was built upon, and added on to, if you like. Given the nature of the climate - the wind and water and so on - obviously the maintenance of the centre was very, very expensive. Over the years we tried to maintain the centre and keep the facility open for 40 people attending the centre. Our other centres, such as the one at Broken Bay, can take up to 160 children at a time. The Little Wobby one can only take 40 children at a time. In effect, it was not all that cost effective for us and cost us a lot of money, even though the facilities are very good, the outlook is wonderful, the trip across from Broken Bay to Little Wobby is an excellent little trip, and the kids can go out on the schooner yacht and have a good time and fish off the wharf.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH: Thanks to a coalition government.

Mr RUSSELL: That is right. However, over the years, as I said, the condition of the building deteriorated to such an extent that rust was getting in
Page 502
and so on. The Department of Public Works looked at the centre a number of times to deem whether it was safe. Gradually there was an earth slippage as well and that was undermining the foundations of the centre. The Department of Public Works gave us general updates on the condition of the building. Of course, we have to take into account the safety of the people there, including our staff. It was also monitored from the Broken Bay site, which is joined to the Little Wobby site, if you like, by a three-kilometre road, and maintenance of that cost a lot of money.

Eventually, the year before last, we had another estimate from the Department of Public Works which recommended that we either pull it down and build a new one or close it down altogether. We estimated about three or four years ago that to build a new one would cost about $3 million. Now we think it would cost between $4 million and $5 million. We just do not have that money at this time, so we decided to close the facility down to ensure that people were not being put at undue risk. Evaluation of the future of the centre is being undertaken, but it will take some time.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-198. Bearing in mind the Premier’s promise to allocate $12 million to the transfer of the North Sydney Bears to Grahame Park, will you or your Government now allocate a similar amount to the Manly-Warringah Leagues Club, whose representatives have met with you seeking assistance to improve the seating and ground at Brookvale Oval? Bearing in mind that this is the only north shore facility between North Sydney and Palm Beach, do you consider that it should be treated similarly to the Bears’ funding request?

[Time expired.]

The Hon. I. COHEN: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-197. Does your department target, in any way, over-fifties sporting teams, financially supporting them and also encouraging seniors to actively participate in team sporting events?

Ms HARRISON: I do not believe there is a specific budget for, say, over-fifties sporting teams, but the Walking for Pleasure programs are excellent. The Active Australia program targets older adults with the International Year of the Older Person. We are looking at a number of strategies to use that idea as a springboard for a number of future projects.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Do you recognise that there are team sport organisations other than bowls and such like? I understand there is a men’s over-fifties hockey team.

Ms HARRISON: Absolutely. I can give you a full answer on what we do, but we have recognised that older people’s participation in sport should be encouraged. Our primary focus was on increasing activity rather than increasing organised sport, although we see that as just as important. That is what we will look for in the International Year of the Older Person, but I will refer the question to my departmental officer.

Mr GOLDSPRING: The department gets involved in supporting sporting bodies, both at the State and community level, in developing skills to assist people throughout the whole community participate in sport. One of the major areas in which we are able to assist sport across the State is in the development of coaching personnel. The Sydney Academy of Sport plays a part in this, as do the department’s regional officers. More recently we in the department, particularly in the talent development division, have been focusing on initiatives which will enable us to improve the level of coaching available to people throughout the State, and included amongst those people would be the over fifties. Increasingly people are inquiring of the coaching centre - sports science personnel and people such as the two coaches referred to previously by the Minister - to assist in technical aspects of sport which can help people, irrespective of whether they are talented people, youngsters, or people participating in master sports or other particular groups.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Is there any allocation of funding to over-fifties sporting bodies at all, or is there an opportunity for them to create an arrangement of part club participation and part government sponsorship for organised sporting activities?

Ms HARRISON: The branches of sport that would deal particularly with the masters section of sport or with seniors, amongst other groups, would be affiliated with their State sporting organisation. We give money to State sporting organisations from our sports development programs for them to run their sport, so they would receive their help originally from their State sporting organisation. We do not deal directly with the youth section, senior section or women’s section of a sport. We fund the sport and the sport runs itself. They would get the help they need through their sport. It would be up to the State sporting organisation.

The Committee proceeded to deliberate on the recommendation of the vote.

Page 503






The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith
The Hon. J. R. Johnson
The Hon. D. F. Moppett
The Hon. P. T. Primrose
The Hon. M. F. Willis, President of the Legislative Council

Mr J. D. Evans, Clerk of the Parliaments
Mr G. McGill, Financial Controller

Mr S. Bennett, Manager, Parliamentary Building Services
Mr R. Brian, Parliamentary Librarian
Mr D. Draper, Manager, Food and Beverage Services
Mr M. Faulkner, Acting Editor of Debates
Ms M. Ganesan, Acting Manager, Parliamentary Information Technology Services
Mr R. Lawrie, Manager, Parliamentary Archives
Ms P. Makin, Acting Manager, Parliamentary Printing Services
Mr G. Spindler, Acting Manager, Education and Community Relations



Page 504

CHAIR: I declare General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 open. Before the questions commence, I remind Committee members that at the hearing on 29 May 1997 the Committee authorised the broadcasting of public proceedings. Should it be considered that the broadcasting of these proceedings be discontinued, a member will be required to move a motion accordingly. I am pleased to welcome the President, the Clerk of the Parliaments, and the Financial Controller, and I thank them for their attendance. At this meeting the Committee will examine the proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund for the portfolio area of The Legislature. Before questions commence, some procedural matters need to be dealt with.

While paragraph 7 of the budget estimates committee reference provides that a member of a committee and any Minister present to answer questions may have staff present to assist them during the hearing of evidence and may refer to those staff at any time, I remind members’ staff and any other persons that they should take care not to interrupt proceedings and that they should observe the usual courtesies that apply to a meeting of the House or a committee. Where possible, messages for members should be given through the attendant on duty or to the Committee Clerks. For the information of members of the media, the House resolved on 4 June 1998 that the press and public be admitted to proceedings of the Committee. I wish to explain to the media what is required by the standing order of the Legislative Council in this regard so that they will be aware of the position. Legislative Council Standing Order 252 provides:

Evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House, and documents presented to such Committee which have not been reported to the House, may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any Member of such Committee or by any other person.

In reporting the proceedings of the Committee, as with reporting proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, you must take responsibility for what you publish or what interpretation is placed on anything that is said before the Committee. In order to accurately complete the Questions and Answers paper, the Committee Clerk requires that members complete and sign the appropriate form when a question is taken or given on notice. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask departmental officials to identify themselves by name, position and department or agency before answering each question. I will now outline the proposed allocations of time agreed to in relation to questioning. There will be three 20-minute blocks. The Opposition will be first, followed by the Government and then the crossbenchers. I remind the President and members that each question is limited to one minute and that each reply is limited to four minutes.

The PRESIDENT: I shall endeavour to be brief.

CHAIR: We do not wish to inhibit either the questions or the answers to anything that is relevant to a matter before the Committee. We will commence with questions from members of the Opposition.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: What parliamentary delegations will go overseas and what foreign delegations will be hosted by New South Wales in the financial year 1998-99?

The PRESIDENT: Under our sister-State agreements, this coming year delegations from this Parliament are scheduled to travel to sister Parliaments in Seoul, California and Tokyo. No arrangements have been made as yet in relation to any of these delegations. Because it is an election year, it may be necessary to postpone them until some later stage. I have not had discussions in this regard with the Speaker at this stage. Similarly, in this coming financial year we are due to receive a reciprocal delegation from the Guangdong province of China.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: What is the cost of the alterations to levels 11 and 12 to relocate members and staff?

The PRESIDENT: The total cost has been budgeted at $559,000. In this current financial year approximately $46,000 has been expended and the balance will be expended in the coming financial year. To date we have received supplementation to The Legislature’s budget from Treasury in the sum of $103,00 to temporarily relocate certain committees to FAI House while the works are being done. We have had assurances from the Treasurer that the whole of the cost will be the subject of supplementation. The bottom line is that it will not impact adversely on The Legislature’s budget.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: Could you indicate the total legal costs that have been incurred in the inquiry undertaken by the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics into the conduct of the Hon. Franca Arena?

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: On a point of order. Is it appropriate for that question to be asked at this time?

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: On the point of order. We are only talking about costs. We are not making any kind of legal comment on the issue.

Page 505

CHAIR: I do not know whether the President has the answer.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: On the point of order. The answer may draw comment from the press before the matter has been determined by the privilege and ethics committee. It would be better left unasked.

CHAIR: As I understand it, it is not a question about the decision or the processes of the Committee, or any matter before the Committee. It is simply a financial question. If the President is prepared to answer it -

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps I can put it this way and the Committee can determine whether it wants me to go into detail. This expenditure is also the subject of supplementation by Treasury - and I am not talking about the actual costs of the sittings of the committee to the Parliament; I am talking about the legal costs involved in representation. They are the subject of moderation and advice from the Crown Solicitor upon request from the Treasurer. After the moderation of those legal costs by that process, fees are paid from the budget of The Legislature but they are supplemented automatically, in effect, by arrangement undertaken by the Treasurer. So far as the legal costs are concerned, the bottom line is that they do not impact adversely on the budget of The Legislature because they are the subject of supplementation.

CHAIR: Therefore it is not actually directly related to the business of The Legislature.

The PRESIDENT: They are paid by The Legislature but then they are moderated, and whatever they are moderated at is reimbursed to The Legislature by way of supplementation arrangement from Treasury.

CHAIR: It may be best to put that question on notice so that the President can then consult with the Clerk of the Parliaments as to what information is released before it is released by the Committee. The Committee has to present a report to Parliament.

The PRESIDENT: That is the answer in principle.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: In view of the objection raised by my colleague the Hon. J. R. Johnson, I am satisfied with that answer. No doubt the full cost will become known at a later stage. It is a relief to know that it will not immediately impact on the budget of The Legislature. Will funds be provided in the forthcoming financial year for relief staff to be employed in the absence of members’ staff when they are on leave?

The PRESIDENT: This is the classic perennial question. If I have failed The Legislature anywhere it is certainly in that regard. I have written to Treasury on a number of occasions in regard to this matter - not just a number of occasions in the last financial year but in every financial year that I have been President - and to date no additional funding has been provided. The fact that provision has not been made for temporary relief when members’ staff are on annual leave results in considerable administrative problems for all members because for at least five weeks of the year members do not have any secretarial or research assistants. That does not include unplanned absences that may occur as a result of illness, incapacity, family or emergency matters.

I point out to the Committee that members of the Legislative Assembly are entitled to relief staff on any day that staff members are absent on leave, except for training. In my view the provision of relief staff to members of the Legislative Council will place members on the same footing as their counterparts in the Legislative Assembly. I regret to say that I can do no more than I have, unsuccessful though my efforts have been. I also regret to say that replacement staff cannot be funded from within the global resources of the Legislative Council’s budget, because the amount involved comes to something in the vicinity of $200,000 a year. We just do not have that kind of money unless we cut savagely into some other area. I must admit failure.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I move now to the Parliamentary Library. What provisions are being made regarding the Australian Association Press service in the Parliamentary Library?

The PRESIDENT: The AAP service provided by the Parliamentary Library has been terminated as from 9 January 1998. Therefore, it has not been available to members since then. However, I have recently received a report from my technology adviser group in the Legislative Council which is chaired by the Hon. D. J. Gay. The bottom line of that report is that because of the valuable nature of the AAP service, as assessed by that committee, I have been requested to ascertain whether it can be funded from within the Legislative Council’s global budget as a service to Legislative Councillors.

If the service that was curtailed when the Library Committee took the decision was to be provided to all members of the Parliament it would cost in the vicinity of $38,000 to $39,000 a year. If it were to be provided to Legislative Council members only it would cost in the vicinity of $20,000 to $21,000. In view of the nature of that report, I am currently
Page 506
looking at whether we can accommodate that cost within the budget for the forthcoming year. It is a matter of finding the money within the budget.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I note that there has been a reduction in staff in the Parliamentary Library. As somebody who is an intensive user of the library reference and information service I note there has been a reduction of two in the number of staff in that section. Can the President expand on the necessity for that reduction?

The PRESIDENT: Money.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Why was that area targeted?

The PRESIDENT: That is a matter which is largely left to the Parliamentary Librarian if he has to make cuts. I would draw to the attention of the Committee that the development of the library’s program was put in place some years ago, shortly after I became President of the Legislative Council, and had been planned before that, during the presidency of President Johnson. Whilst the program progressed apace for a number of years, as the Parliament has come increasingly under financial restriction in the last few years, we obviously have not had the money to do these things. As a consequence not only has a brake been put on the implementation of further sophisticated library services, but there has been a necessity for some staff cutbacks.

It has been brought to my attention that one of the problems is the provision for the equivalent of 4.5 per cent sector pay increases. The library is required to effect savings of more than 3 per cent to meet the overall cost of these increases. The Legislature is required to do that from within its own budget. The bottom line whenever one is required to do that by Treasury is that staff have to be shed somewhere. I regret to say that is the reason.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: I note in Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, at page 25, that the total budget for the Parliamentary Library has been cut in absolute as well as real terms not on the actual expenditure but certainly the allocated budget from last year. Last year it was $2.764 million and it is $2.684 million this year.

The PRESIDENT: I hear what you say. It should be borne in mind that these are estimates and the Parliamentary Library faced a similar situation last year. It is fair to say that with restrictions on resources the library came through the year pretty well.

Bear in mind that as the year progresses Mr Speaker and I have the capacity to move money around within the global budget of The Legislature. If there is underexpenditure in some areas we are able to reallocate money and thus mitigate the slash-and-burn potential. Basically that is what happened with the Parliamentary Library in the current financial year, but things are screwing down year by year and increasingly there is less fat available.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: What provision has been made for funding the establishment of any standing or select committees within the current year?

The PRESIDENT: None, if you mean new standing committees. This is a great problem. When we are budgeting forward we have no idea what select committees might pop up or what new standing committees might be established. All we can do is go on the historical rule of thumb. We basically estimate for all the currently established committees and as ad hoc committees or new standing committees are established we use the same kind of reallocation process. We take from the global committee budget as much as we can - some committees overspend, some underspend - and we muddle through as best we can.

Unfortunately, unlike other legislatures, we have no contingency fund upon which we can call. I repeatedly tell the Treasurer and others in authority that we cannot establish committees willy-nilly and expect them to operate without funds being allocated by way of supplementation. Whenever a new committee is established, as a matter of principle we cost out an estimate and seek supplementation. We always get a letter back saying, "Take it from within your own budget."

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: Page 17 of Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, agency 1 The Legislature shows a substantial increase for asset acquisitions in the coming year. What does that substantial increase relate to?

The PRESIDENT: I am informed that the main component is the $1 million allocation to deal with the millennium bug, as well as other computer matters.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Has provision been made for the payment of agreed salary increases to staff members, and when can they expect it?

The PRESIDENT: What do you mean by staff members?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Staff of the members of the Legislative Council.

Page 507

The PRESIDENT: You mean members’ personal staff?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Yes. They were on strike a few weeks ago over pay increases.

The PRESIDENT: My advisers do not have a specific break-up for Legislative Council members; I can talk about staff throughout the Parliament. Treasury has provided $1.206 million to fund the 3 per cent increase from July 1998 and the 3 per cent from January 1999. We have been told that we have to find the other 2 per cent that is payable from July 1998 and the further 2 percent that is payable from January 1999 - a total of $555,000 - from corporate support savings, that is, from within our budget. In other words, over this period we have to find $844,000 within our global budget.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: As a result of negotiations, when will that be paid?

The PRESIDENT: From those dates.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: I note that the effective full-time average staffing of Parliamentary Building Services has reduced the number of cleaners from 27 to 23. What effect will that reduction have, if any, on the overall cleanliness and maintenance of the parliamentary precincts?

The PRESIDENT: It can mean one of two things: either those who are left work will harder, or the place will not be as clean as it used to be - or a bit of both. Overall my observation, which is mainly the public areas, is that the cleaning staff do a pretty good job. Again, that is something that has been imposed on us by virtue of overall cutbacks. We cannot take much more of a reduction or we will begin to see a significant decline in the daily maintenance of the premises.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: I am concerned about the first option you put: that those who are left will be asked to work harder. Given that the cleaning staff do an excellent job, it is not fair to ask -

The Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith: On a point of order. This is a question session, not a general discussion group. Members of this Committee should ask questions, not engage in discussion.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: I thank the honourable member for her advice. I am concerned about the cleaners.

The PRESIDENT: I am concerned not only with cleaners but with staff of all departments. As I said to the Hon. Dr Marlene Goldsmith, in recent years the Parliament has been subject to increasing restraint and cutbacks. We have reached a point where there is no fat left. From here we move into the area where, in order to meet the reductions imposed upon us, we have to start cutting back on staff.

We have reached a point where any further cuts to staff numbers will result in a deterioration in services. To date we have managed to hold the line.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: Given that I am not allowed to comment, I ask the following question in relation to financial strictures. Can you give an assurance that those employees at the bottom end of the pay scale will not be asked to bear the burden, as always occurs? I refer particularly to cleaners being asked, because of a reduction in resources, to do far more than they do now to meet the continuing demands.

The PRESIDENT: I would like to be able to give a cast-iron assurance, but I cannot. We are already under pressure from government to examine whether a number of areas can be more economically dealt with by outsourcing. I am not necessarily an unthinking disciple of outsourcing. I do not necessarily believe it is cheaper or more efficient, particularly in an establishment such as this where a great deal of confidentiality, for want of a better word, is involved; members must be able to have confidence in staff such as cleaners and security people in particular. I am sceptical about whether outsourcing is the answer. However, I make the point that we are coming under increasing pressure to save more money. I take the point made by the Hon. P. T. Primrose. The only assurance I can give is that I am alive to the problem he is talking about and I am not necessarily a hard-nosed economic rationalist in that regard.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: I am pleased that the President shares my view, unlike others who do not want me to ask questions about cleaners. Once again referring to average effective full-time staffing, the number of staff providing food services will be reduced from 20 to 14 and the number providing beverage services will be reduced from 12 to 8. What effect will that have on members?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. P. T. Primrose is talking about a reduction in permanent staff as opposed to casual staff. That reduction has occurred by attrition, not by forced redundancies. It is more economical for the food and beverage services manager to replace permanent staff who have left with casual staff, who work only when required. I have seen no evidence that it has caused any decline in the food and beverage services.

Page 508

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Will additional money be made available to the gardening service, particularly for the usual planting of annuals in the roof garden? I have been advised that the gardeners have brought in a number of plants from their own establishments because there was no money available for plants. Further, our Parliament does not have quality products for sale for members to give to international, interstate or constituency guests. The President has no doubt observed the fine display of products for sale in the House of Commons, and also in the legislatures of the United States of America, Canada and some of our sister Parliaments in Australia.

The PRESIDENT: I assume the Hon. J. R. Johnson would like some waratahs planted?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Not with the same result as last time.

The PRESIDENT: In relation to gardening services, the problems are again caused by cutbacks in funding, which I find sad. Restrictions have been placed on building services, and gardening is one of the areas that has suffered as a consequence. Only one annual planting is now permitted from the funds available.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Perhaps a few packets of seeds could be scattered.

The PRESIDENT: Breed our own seedlings? I will pass that on to the building services manager. I take the honourable member’s point about product gifts.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Their introduction is something that has eluded me.

The PRESIDENT: You mean that you failed?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps it might be my successful swan song. I will try.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: I will assist. I ask the President to convey to all of his departmental staff our appreciation of the tremendous service they render for each and every member.

The Hon. Dr MARLENE GOLDSMITH: The Opposition joins in those remarks.

CHAIR: The Committee has already had discussions regarding renovations costing $559,000. Lengthy negotiations have delayed the renovations proceeding until now. However, in view of the election that will be held on 27 March 1999, what consideration has been given to possible changes in the party membership of the upper House? As further renovations may be required, is there a contingency plan?

The PRESIDENT: I would not begin to speculate on the composition of the Legislative Council after the next election. I wish my successor good luck in the rearrangements.

CHAIR: The underlying point of my question is that perhaps the renovations have been delayed until March next year to save the Parliament unnecessary expense?

The PRESIDENT: Irrespective of the make-up of the Legislative Council after the next election, any accommodation rearrangement costs would be minimal and within the normal budget that is allocated for rearrangements that occur after every election. The same thing occurs in the lower House. I will stick my neck out and say that I do not consider it will be a great problem. I take the opportunity in this context to add that I am aware of the probability of a two-year delay in the implementation. To some extent that has been because of my obstinacy in that I would not approve anything unless all the ramifications had been thought through and agreed to.

Many people who wanted things done in a hurry failed to understand that things have a ripple effect. Fortunately, that seems to have been worked out and the whole thing is going ahead. However, there is a subsequent ripple effect, that is, the long-term accommodation needs of the Parliament. This is currently the subject of an investigation by an Executive Government committee, and it involves such matters as FAI House, Nightingale House, the courts building, et cetera. The committee has been consulting closely with the Presiding Officers.

CHAIR: When the renovations are completed where will the standing committees be located?

The PRESIDENT: Of the upper House?

CHAIR: Of the upper House, in general terms.

The PRESIDENT: The two committees located on level 8 will remain where they are, and the committee located in FAI House will remain there until the longer-term accommodation needs of the Parliament are determined by the committee to which I just adverted and the Presiding Officers.

CHAIR: As all members and you, Mr President, would know, a great deal of pressure is placed on members in relation to meeting rooms, particularly as
Page 509
Federal committees regularly hold meetings in Parliament House. How many meeting rooms will be available when the renovations and the reconstruction is completed?

The PRESIDENT: When the translation to level 11 occurs after completion of the current renovations an additional two meeting rooms will be available.

CHAIR: Are there any plans for one or more of those meeting rooms to be fitted out for public hearings, for example, by our standing committees, in terms of communications equipment, Hansard equipment, public address equipment and so on?

The PRESIDENT: The answer to that is no, but it is a good point and I will take that up with Building Services.

CHAIR: I note that in Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 23, the committee staff is shown as having been reduced from 40 to 34. What impact is that having on the operation of committees?

The PRESIDENT: No committee chairman has complained to me about it, so I presume that the committees are managing. There are two factors involved. First, the Clerk Assistant (Committees) informs me that there is an increasing tendency for committees, instead of having permanent staff, to call in specialised staff for the period of a certain inquiry. Second, we are in the run-up to an election and, if
history is any guide, there will be less and less committee activity as we get closer to the election.

CHAIR: Not according to the timetable that has been released. I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 1, page 27. I note that the number of Hansard staff has been reduced by one. However, the budget papers contain a reference to Hansard contract staff. Are contract staff included in the figure on page 27, or do they appear in another part of the budget papers, if there were contract staff?

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: There are contract staff.

The PRESIDENT: The answer is that, first, one permanent staff member has not yet been replaced and that is the Editor of Debates. We have an Acting Editor at the moment. The appointment of an Editor is currently under consideration by Mr Speaker and me. Secondly, as permanent staff drop off by attrition, departments are being required to engage contractors during sessions as needed. It is a management measure imposed by the Editor of Debates as a means of satisfying financial constraints.

CHAIR: My other questions relating to cleaning staff, food services and other matters have already been dealt with by other members of the Committee.

The Committee proceeded to deliberate on the recommendation of the vote.


Page 510

The Hon. A. B. Kelly
The Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby
The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti
The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho

The Hon. Dr A. J. Refshauge, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

Department of Health
Mr M. Reid, Director-General

Department of Aboriginal Affairs
Mr D. Gates, Acting Director-General

Health Care Complaints Commission
Ms M. Walton, Commissioner


Page 511

CHAIR: I declare this General Purpose Standing Committee open. I have been advised by the Opposition Whip that the Opposition wishes to replace the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner with the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho. I remind Committee members that at the hearing on 2 June 1997 the Committee authorised the broadcasting of these public proceedings. Should it be considered that the broadcasting of these proceedings be discontinued, a member will be required to move a motion accordingly. The order of procedure will be the Health Department, the Health Care Complaints Commission, and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

The allocation of time for questions is as follows: the Opposition, 30 minutes; the Government, 30 minutes; the crossbench members, 30 minutes; the Opposition, 25 minutes; the crossbench members, 25 minutes. The Government will forfeit its final 25 minutes of questioning. At this meeting the Committee will examine the proposed expenditure from the Consolidated Fund for the portfolio areas of the Health Department, the Health Care Complaints Commission, and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Before questions commence, some procedural matters need to be dealt with.

While paragraph 7 of the budget estimates reference provides that a member of a committee and any Minister present to answer questions may have staff present to assist them during the hearing of evidence and may refer to those staff at any time, I remind members' staff and any other persons that they should take care not to interrupt proceedings and observe the usual courtesies that apply to a meeting of the House or of a committee. Where possible, messages for members should be given through the attendant on duty or to the Committee Clerks. On 4 June the Legislative Council resolved that the press and public be admitted to proceedings of these estimates committees. Legislative Council Standing Order 252 provides:

Evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House, and documents presented to such Committee which have not been reported to the House, may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any Member of such Committee or by any other person.

In reporting the proceedings of this Committee, as with reporting the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament, the media must take responsibility for what it publishes and what interpretation it places on anything that is said. In order to accurately complete the Questions and Answers paper, the Committee Clerk requires that members complete and sign the appropriate form when a question is taken or given on notice. For the benefit of members and Hansard, I ask departmental officials to identify themselves by name, position and department or agency before answering each question. I remind Ministers and members that each question is limited to one minute and the reply to four minutes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 485, subprogram 49.2.2, Overnight Acute Inpatient Services and to page 487, subprogram 49.2.3, Same Day Acute Inpatient Services. Given that the Government's policy designed to reduce waiting lists by restricting procedures carried out in public hospitals has been reversed, what funds will be available in 1998-99 to reduce waiting lists at St George Hospital, Sutherland Hospital, Prince of Wales Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital, the New Children's Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Women?

Dr REFSHAUGE: First, a Government policy was not reversed; the proposal had no merit. It was not endorsed by the Government or the department. Second, the budget -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Is this one of the decisions you make after Mick has put his foot in it?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Madam Chair, I find that offensive and I ask the member to withdraw that remark.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: There is nothing offensive in that remark, Madam Chair, but if the Minister takes offence I am happy to withdraw.

Dr REFSHAUGE: In regard to the question of specific allocations to hospitals, that has not been finalised as yet. It will not be long. Those processes are going through at the moment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Will the Minister release those publicly when they are announced?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The area health budgets are regularly released publicly.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: On the basis of that answer, I again refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 486, subprogram 49.2.2, Overnight Acute Inpatient Services. How can the Minister blame record high waiting lists on lack of funding when the money allocated for overnight acute inpatient services was underspent by some $6.6 million in 1997-98? Will the Minister ensure that all funds allocated in 1998-99 are used?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The variation represents a refinement of the programs. It is not an
Page 512
underspending. The money was inappropriately allocated to that area and has been reallocated to the appropriate area.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: On the basis of that answer, again, how can the Minister blame record high waiting lists on lack of funding when money allocated for same day acute inpatient services was underspent by $525,000 in 1997-98? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the 1998-99 allocation is fully expended?

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is again a program definition about what funding is for each individual item. As the honourable member knows, this is trying to be more specific than in the days of the coalition Government when those items were not separated. We are trying to get better information, and sometimes during the course of the year, say, in this case for day surgery, funds should have been allocated to a different part of the portfolio. There is no underspending.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I am at a loss to understand that, given that these are your budget papers. The year before they were your budget papers and the year before that they were your budget papers. Will the Minister further explain why there has been underspending on both the acute overnight admissions and the same day inpatient services? He has given a most unsatisfactory answer.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It may be unsatisfactory to the honourable member but the reality is that it is important to make sure that the allocation is appropriately identified and put into the appropriate budget item, and as happened in your Government's time, occasional flaws needed to be corrected. I assure the honourable member that there has been no underspending of either inpatient services or day surgery.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Given that the Minister must approve each area health service's budget along the allocated line items, has there been significant reinvestment of acute overnight admission money into other line items?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I do not understand the question.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Minister, as recently as last week acute surgical services were withdrawn from the Mullumbimby and District War Memorial Hospital and the $220,000 saved was diverted to community health services. Is that something that happens across the board, with your knowledge and approval?

Dr REFSHAUGE: There are a whole range of changes that occur in line with best practice in conjunction with discussions with the health system, those employed with it, those who are contractors for it, and the community, to improve the quality of care and the range of services. The money available this year to health has been fully spent. There is no underspending on health services, but at times there are areas where things come up that have a significant priority and obviously funding needs to be spent for those.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Is the Minister saying that money allocated to acute overnight admissions can be used for any purpose and, therefore, that money allocated by him to various area health services that is underspent is transferred for spending in other parts of the portfolio?

Dr REFSHAUGE: No.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 479, subprogram 49.1.1, Primary and Community Based Services, line item "Patient fees and other hospital charges". Will the Minister explain how the 44 per cent increase in retained revenue patient fees and other hospital charges is to be achieved in 1998-99 over the 1997-98 budget figure?

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is no specific direction to increase fees. However, fees often go up in line with the consumer price index. There are a number of areas in which the fees may change. One is that patients may be more keen to use their private insurance, if they have it, than they have been in the past. Then, I think, this is probably more than for primary and community-based services.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Minister, that does not explain the increase in retained revenue that you anticipate.

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is an expectation that, as a result of discussions and proposals by the Federal Government in regard to veterans affairs, increased patient charges could be quite significant.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The 1997-98 patient fees and charges are expected to raise $10.8 million in primary and community-based services, yet your advice was that figure was 36 per cent greater than that. Will you explain your better than expected result?

Dr REFSHAUGE: We got more in than we expected.

Page 513

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Could you explain how and why and under what circumstances?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Patients pay fees. We provide services that are not patient-direct services but are charges the hospitals have made. We received more in revenue than we predicted.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Would they be retained by the area health services that raised them?

Dr REFSHAUGE: In general they are. It depends where they were raised. If they were raised from head office they would be kept with head office.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 481, subprogram 49.1.3, Outpatient Services. Will he explain the 90 per cent blowout in employee-related operating expenses in 1997-98 from a budget of $196.69 million to $233.936 million?

Dr REFSHAUGE: We had a supplementary budgetary enhancement during the year, and that is reflected in that figure. That was announced at the time.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Will the Minister explain where that came from, and how he got that budget enhancement?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government decided that it wanted to spend more money in health, and I was happy to receive it and provide it to the health list.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: How much was your budgetary allocation from consolidated revenue augmented?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I cannot remember at the moment. I will come back to you on that.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Was it a large amount of money?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Yes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: More than $100 million dollars?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I will come back to you with the exact details.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Minister, given last year's difficulties with overdue creditors and your assurances at last year's estimates committee hearing that the problems had been addressed, will you detail the level of outstanding debts from 31 December 1997 and 31 March 1998?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I do not have the figure for 31 December 1997. My understanding is, as of when I checked it earlier this week, there are no debts outstanding over 45 days.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: There are no debts outstanding over 45 days?

Dr REFSHAUGE: That is my understanding. Some debts have been challenged by people who do not believe that the bill is correct. The budget supplementation was $134 million.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: In Volume 3 of the 1997 report to Parliament the Auditor-General identified some $40 million in loans from Treasury in 1996-97 to supplement the Health Department’s budgetary appropriation. Principally it repays the accumulation of accounts payable which had occurred in various area health services. The Auditor-General said this loan was earmarked to be repaid by the department in 1997-98. How much of this loan was repaid to Treasury in 1997-98, which area health services were unable to pay back in full or in part their loan component, when will those area health services be able to pay back their loan repayments and what penalties are there for late repayment?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It has all been paid back.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It has all been paid back? Is the $134 million by way of a loan or grant from the Government?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is recurrent funding.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Was that $40 million taken out of the $134 million that you achieved in that way?

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, it was a loan and it was paid back before the extra $134 million was allocated.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: What financial measures has the Government taken to ensure that this is not repeated in 1998-99?

Dr REFSHAUGE: We obviously have a large system, with some 20 million occasions of service per year, and we face significant decreases in Federal funding and extra pressures as a result of the fall in private insurance. If we had not had a fall in private
Page 514
insurance, and if we did not have a Federal Government that cut our budget indiscriminately, without any warning, then we certainly would have no problem. While we have a Federal Government that arbitrarily decides to cut funding from us, while we have a Federal Government that cannot provide surety and continuity of the same level of private insurance, or at least compensate us for it, I cannot guarantee that Federal funding will come and, therefore, that puts extra pressure on us. We are doing significantly better than other institutions of that size that would be facing that type of massive, indiscriminate and arbitrary cuts.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Treasurer's Budget Speech indicates a continuing rise in Commonwealth Government allocations to you, not any cuts. Would you please explain where these cuts have come from?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The cuts have come from a number of areas. One is the cut in what is called the cost shifting penalty.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: A penalty, Minister; hardly a cut.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is a cut that now totals more than $100 million. That is directly related, as the Federal Minister said, to the efforts of the former Government in New South Wales - that is, the former coalition Government - for cost shifting. The Federal Minister has said that at the time of imposing the cuts there was no evidence the Government here had done any cost shifting at all. In fact, he praised us for it and criticised the former coalition Government for cost shifting, for attempting to undermine the principles of the agreement in that sense, and imposing upon the people of New South Wales what he called a cost shifting penalty. There are also further cuts in regard to dental health. I am sure you are aware the Commonwealth decided to discontinue its dental health program and, as a result, cut our budget by an amount equal to the cost of the dental health program. That has been of the order of $94 million over three years.

Interestingly, my colleague the Minister for Health in Victoria is quite incensed about it. The Ministers for Health in Queensland - a National Party member until the recent election - in Western Australia and in South Australia have strongly criticised the Liberal-National Federal Government for what they believe to be unfair and uncaring cuts that have caused people with dental problems in their States to unnecessarily suffer, at the expense of Peter Costello developing a surplus. I admit that I find their logic to be pretty spot on. I agree with Mike Horan, Pete McKay, Rob Knowles, Dean Brown, Kevin Prince and Denis Burke in their condemnation of John Howard, Michael Wooldridge and Peter Costello for making such a very poor decision on policy and affecting so many people.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 479, subprogram 49.1.1, Primary and Community Based Services, line item "Grants and subsidies, National Campaign Against Drug Abuse". Why was the 1997-98 amount underspent by $237,000? Why has the 1998-99 amount been cut to $3.3 million, which is below the 1995-96 funding? Will the Minister guarantee that the $3.3 million, small as it is, is spent entirely, as the previous two allocations were equally underspent?

Dr REFSHAUGE: One of the problems we have with a number of Commonwealth programs is that the money arrives late. As a result, the Commonwealth Government has agreed, because we asked it, to allow us to roll over funding that has not been spent that year.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: You have underspent three years in a row.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Maybe we should be talking to the Federal Government. The honourable member has to realise that the Federal Government decided to make a productivity cut to its SPPs of 5 per cent, which it decided the States should bear rather than it making that saving.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: You keep mentioning these Commonwealth Government cuts and you say there can be rollovers, why have you underspent three years in a row in this very important area of health care?

Dr REFSHAUGE: This is a joint program with the Commonwealth Government. I am not criticising the Federal Government for delays in its allocations to us and agreements with us, but in many cases it is directly a result of its and its bureaucracy's ability to get the funding out to be able to be spent.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, Page 479, subprogram 49.1.1, Primary and Community Based Services; to page 486, subprogram 49.2.2, Overnight Acute Inpatient Services; to page 495, subprogram 49.6.1, Teaching and Research. All three programs have the amount budgeted for grants and subsidies to third schedule hospitals underspent in 1997-98 financial year. Will the Minister detail where the underspending occurred?


Page 515
Dr REFSHAUGE: There has not been any concern raised by those who would be the recipients. I will take that question on notice and get an answer for the honourable member.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Further to that, all three programs have experienced a reduction in the amount budgeted for in 1998-99 compared with the budget announced in 1997-98. Could you please explain why these third schedule hospitals have received less than State Government grants and subsidies?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Some of them have been changed. My understanding is that one may relate to Port Macquarie Base Hospital, but I do not know the details. I will take the question on notice and forward the details to the honourable member.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 486, subprogram 49.2.2, Overnight Acute Inpatient Services, line item "Isolated Patients' Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme". What is the current average rate of payment for IPTAAS claims from the time claims are lodged to the time the cheques are sent?

Dr REFSHAUGE: They are done at the local level. I do not know.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Will the Minister find out?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It would take a significant amount of public time. If it is reasonable, I will certainly find out.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is a source of considerable problems in rural New South Wales, as the Minister would be aware, and those people spend a lot of time waiting.

Dr REFSHAUGE: If you would prefer people to spend their time getting an average rather than paying it, you can certainly argue that case.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: What amount is currently owed to patients or guardians for more than 45 days? How long is the time taken to process a payment? That is a fairly reasonable straightforward question. If I come up and ask for a payment under IPTAAS -

Dr REFSHAUGE: If you are asking for the average over the last year that would involve checking every payment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: How long does it take at the moment?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I could find that out for you. I understand it is -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: And how many people did in fact receive IPTAAS payments last year?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I do not know.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 487, subprogram 49.2.3, Same Day Acute Inpatient Services. Given that same-day admitted patients as a proportion of the total of acute admitted inpatient is estimated to be 34 per cent in 1998-99, which is less than the proportion of 34.6 per cent in 1995-96, how do you propose to achieve your pre-election promise of having 60 per cent of operations done on a same-day basis?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The commitment was to increase the number of operations to 50 per cent, not 60 per cent. In most areas that has been achieved, and I would expect that it would increase.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The average is now lower than it was in 1995-96.

Dr REFSHAUGE: That is talking about operations in hospitals.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No.

Dr REFSHAUGE: But it still is in a hospital setting. If you are referring to surgery, it is not just performed in a hospital setting. It can be done in other clinics.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: What were the results of the feasibility study into a drug and alcohol detoxification unit in Lismore, scheduled for completion in September 1997? What amount of money has been allocated for this project in 1998-99, and when will it open?

Dr REFSHAUGE: My understanding is that the feasibility study is still progressing. When we have that finalised we will be able to ensure rapid progress with the building and opening of it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Given that the chief executive officer of the Northern Rivers Area Health Service has refused to rule out cuts to the Tweed Heads, Murwillumbah and Lismore hospitals in the 1998-99 financial year, will the Minister give a
Page 516
guarantee that services of staff and operating theatre hours will not be reduced in any of these hospitals in 1998-99?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Much has been made by the honourable member and the Opposition about the budget for the area health services. I think it would be enlightening for the members of the Committee to hear what we have achieved in the Northern Rivers Area Health Service since coming to Government. In 1994-95, the coalition's last year in Government, the budget for the Northern Rivers Area Health Service, which was at that stage a number of districts but now with combined boundaries is able to be identified, was $134 million. Under the Labor Government the Northern Rivers Area Health Service budget increased in 1995-96 to $141 million and in 1996-97 to $151 million.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: So has the debt.

Dr REFSHAUGE: And so too has the fallout of private health insurance, which your colleagues in Canberra are unable to do anything about along with the major cuts to the dental program and cost shifting. The 1997-98 budget was $162 million, almost $30 million more for that area health service than was provided by the coalition Government. Certainly in that time inflation has not been running rampant. It is not as though that would have been gobbled up by inflation. That is an absolutely massive increase. The increased budget has been able to provide for a range of expanded services and also to cope, to some degree, with the drop out of private insurance, the cuts that the Federal Government has made to us - the specific cuts to programs such as dental health, women's health - and the 5 per cent cut to the special purpose payments.

It is a great tribute to the Carr Government that it has been able to increase funding for the Northern Rivers Area Health Service by almost $30 million in four years. It would be difficult to find any area of similar size where the former coalition Government could claim to be able to provide anywhere near that increase in funding. It is a great credit to those who are working very hard in the health system that they are using it wisely; it is a great credit to those who are helping us plan better services that they are prepared to look at imaginative ways of improving the range of services and looking at how they can maximise for the patients of the area the use of that money. I am also very proud that in three years we have been able to have such a significant increase not only in the Northern Rivers Area Health Service but in all area health services.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 480, subprogram 49.1.2, Aboriginal Health Services. The operating statement indicates that the Aboriginal health budget was underspent by $3.335 million, of which grants and subsidies to voluntary organisations were underspent by $1.168 million. Which voluntary organisations had their funding underspent and which other services had their funding underspent?

Dr REFSHAUGE: None of the voluntary agencies, to my knowledge, underspent. It may be not of large consequence, but certainly if there are any that vary from that I will let the Committee know. It is important in the area of Aboriginal health that we do not miss out on the important part of program development, which is consultation with the community. Often a program is delayed while the community assesses it, develops their approach and informs us of the direction in which they want to go, which may have been different or may have been the same as the direction we intended to go.

We have a new policy, which is that there is a partnership with the Aboriginal Health Resources Co-operative, which is the peak organisation of the Aboriginal medical services in this State, with the Health Department. Part of that partnership agreement is that we must discuss issues such as funding, the parameters of those issues, and policy with the AHRC and get its agreement before we move on them. That sometimes means that things will be delayed in establishing them while the AHRC goes through its internal processes of consultation and discussion with its communities.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Are you saying that these budget papers continue to be incorrect?

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, I am saying that they are correct, but the important thing is that we have processes that I am not prepared - and I hope that the honourable member is not arguing that I should be prepared - to undermine for your value, against the interests of the Aboriginal community. I will not do it.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Minister, how does the level of State funding for health detailed in Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-152, compare with that received from the Commonwealth?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Over four budgets the Carr Government has been able to deliver a record $1.3
Page 517
billion in additional funding to the public health system, which is a massive increase. In contrast, the Howard Government has been cutting funding to health in each of its budgets. The day after the Federal budget was released the current Federal Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, boasted:

It is unpopular but it is a fact we have been very good at cost containment. The increase in health funding over and above CPI has been contained from 5 per cent down to 2.6 per cent annually. It has declined as a proportion of government outlays in GDP.

He went on to tell his audience that the Federal expenditure on health in terms of GDP is now the third lowest in the western world. This is the Federal Government that boasts that it is spending the third lowest on health in the western world. It is a boast that is quite at odds with the community's expectations. The Commonwealth Minister has been a complete failure in his negotiations with the States for the new Medicare agreement. Not one State has signed up.

The Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have agreed in principle but have not signed up. Instead of finding a way out of the current impasse, the Federal Minister has criticised the States and Territories for allegedly pulling money out of health over the life of the current Medicare agreement while claiming that the Commonwealth has increased funding. But I am pleased to be able to advise members of the Committee that this myth has been rebutted by Access Economics. Access Economics was appointed by the Western Australian health department with the support of the other States and the Northern Territory to report on the comparative effort of health financing by the Commonwealth compared with the States. This independent agency made the following findings:

1. It appears that in the recent Medicare agreements the Commonwealth's offer has provided front end financial carrots to induce the States to enter a five-year agreement and in the process boosted, at least initially, the Commonwealth's share of hospital funding, but the escalation formula for the grants has left much of the financial risk, the risk of growth and per capita utilisation at the States' doorstep.

2. It seems an inevitable outcome that the escalation of the base grant by price and population leaves the States with an increased financial burden towards the end of the five-year periods, and this generates demands for a higher base amount to kick off the next agreement.

3. Following the introduction of the first Medicare agreement in 1984 the State governments were funding around 45.3 per cent of public hospital expenditure. The Commonwealth was funding 54.7 per cent. In 1997-98 it estimates that the States' share would be 51.2 per cent and the Commonwealth's share 48.8 per cent.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That would include private income.

Dr REFSHAUGE: This is Access Economics' report. So the Commonwealth Government has reduced its -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That would include patient fees.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The report stated that bonus pool payments should be increased for the number of public patients and found as follows:

The Commonwealth's effort in financing public hospitals should have increased faster than the State's efforts and the bonus pool represents a structural change in the agreements with the Commonwealth effectively committing itself to picking up a larger share of the tab. Since 1993-94 State spending from own source revenue on both hospital and total health services has increased strongly in real terms and at a faster rate than the Commonwealth.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I am very interested in the answers to some of these questions for a hearing the Committee is conducting. If the Minister does not complete his answers because of the time restriction, will he provide the Committee with the full answer on notice? The next question relates to Aboriginal communities. What initiatives has the Government developed to improve infrastructure services in Aboriginal communities, as detailed in Budget Paper No. 2, page 4-153?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government has announced, and is very proud to have done so, an Aboriginal community development program. It is in response to the need for improving living conditions and infrastructure needs in many Aboriginal communities. This program is a new capital construction and upgrade program, which will raise health and living standards of communities with urgent environmental health needs. The program will be targeted with a high level of identified housing, water, sewerage, sporting, recreation and cultural infrastructure that are in need in a number of Aboriginal communities. A total of $200,000 million in funding has been allocated already to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs over seven years, commencing this financial year, 1998-99. An amount of $10 million has been allocated already in the first year.

The program will target a number of key areas which impact on health and living conditions, such as housing construction and repairs, water supply, sewerage disposal, dust control, internal roads, rubbish
Page 518
removal, priority recreational and community facilities, and preservation of significant cultural sites. The program will also prioritise the municipal infrastructure, such as footpaths, kerbing and guttering, safety lighting and security fencing. The initial program allocation of $10 million in year one will target high-level, urgent water and sewerage works. During this year the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, will develop a six-year capital program. This will involve the identification of priority communities, on-site infrastructure assessments, appointment of a program manager and formal approval of the program works.

Over the past three years, the Government has piloted the Aboriginal environmental health infrastructure program. It was piloted in Muli Muli, Dareton and Wilcannia, and it has provided a framework for the Aboriginal community development program. The Aboriginal environmental health infrastructure program has shown us key principles for success when working with Aboriginal communities to improve the infrastructure, and these will certainly provide the framework for the new program. The Aboriginal community development program will recognise the need to increase the involvement of the Aboriginal community in the provision of skills and labour in capital works programs. It will be done by maximising training and employment opportunities, which are in accord with the state of needs and aspirations in assisting Aboriginal communities. The program will consult with Aboriginal people in the design and construction of their housing by adherence to an open and participative consultative process in the development of individual projects based on the principles of self-determination and self-management.

The Government further recognises the need for sustainability in all infrastructure, including the maintenance of capital infrastructure, because it has seen that past governments have not provided a sustainable focus on their activities with Aboriginal infrastructure. As a result infrastructure has not been longlasting and living conditions have not reached the standards comparable generally to the non-Aboriginal community. The program recognises that sustainability must be undertaken by the communities. Therefore, a large component of the program will address the employment, training and management needs of the community. It is a program we will all be keen to support and hopefully significant improvements will be shown in the not too distant future.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I would like some more details. As a former general manager of an area with an Aboriginal community, I understand the reason that community would want the exclusive use of that money. The Government has achieved a good result. I turn now to other Aboriginal matters. Will the Minister explain the current budget level in Aboriginal affairs, given the decrease in the payments to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 a statutory amount equal to 7.5 per cent of land tax is paid to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and the provision of land tax payments was to continue until the end of 1998. The last land tax payment is due in January 1999 and following this period the land council system will be self-funding. The major component of the capital program of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is the payment of land tax to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. The 1998-99 funding estimate to the land council is some $13 million. This represents the final payment. The funds are allocated by Treasury to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs which provides them to the Aboriginal Land Council for the operations of the land council system. As a result, budget allocations to Aboriginal affairs will appear to decrease due to the statutory cessation of this funding.

To date the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council has received more than $500 million in land tax allocations, the purpose of which is to compensate Aboriginal people for dispossession from their lands. The Aboriginal Lands Rights Act acknowledges Aboriginal people's prior ownership of land in New South Wales and the cultural and spiritual significance of land to them. The Act also acknowledges that land was taken from Aboriginal people without compensation. Under the Act 50 per cent of the land tax funds allocated to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council are to be invested and moneys contained in the investment fund and interest accruing from it may not be dispersed. However, interest accruing after 31 December 1998, when the land tax allocation ceases, may be used to fund the operations of land councils. Whilst the land tax allocation ceases at the end of 1998, land councils will continue to be regulated under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

One of the most significant achievements of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act has been the development of the land council structure. The land council structure provides a representative body for Aboriginal people in New South Wales and provides them with an appropriate forum to ensure that their interests are considered at local, regional and State level. At the local level the local Aboriginal land councils play an important role in facilitating communication between the Aboriginal community and the local government, between developers and the community and between
Page 519
other community groups and the local Aboriginal community. They also provide important services in some instances, such as housing and community development programs. At a State level the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council was instrumental in facilitating native title claims and ensuring that Aboriginal people's views were heard within Government. In 1999 the land council structure will be fully self-funding.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Minister, how is the Government addressing the issues raised by ICAC and the Auditor-General in relation to the operation of the Aboriginal land taxes?

Dr REFSHAUGE: ICAC projects on the Aboriginal Land Council resulted from a relatively high number of complaints received by ICAC from Aboriginal people about land councils. The focus of the corruption prevention project recommendation is on preventing opportunities for corruption in land councils. In New South Wales the Aboriginal Land Council has endorsed ICAC's recommendation and has undertaken to implement it. In this respect some progress has already been made, for example, the council has prepared a code of conduct for members. It is important to note that the latest New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council's audited report was an unqualified report. It is the third unqualified report since 1990. This is a commendable performance and augurs well for the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council's ability to perform its statutory function.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is also working with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to improve its ability to produce annual reports. In addition, the Government has increased resources to the registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act to provide increased assistance to local Aboriginal land councils. The Government is also aware of some problems with the operation of the land council system. For this reason, in response to ICAC's discussion paper on land councils, the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act was announced. Amendments made to the Act followed a review by the Greiner Government in 1990 to limit the role of regional Aboriginal land councils. The amendments also expanded the functions of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council and strengthened the Act's financial provisions. As shown by ICAC, these changes have been largely ineffective. The current review of the Act is essential for the implementation of ICAC's recommendations and to also provide an opportunity to deal with the concerns expressed by the Auditor-General.

The aim of the review is to consolidate and improve the achievements of the land rights system. The first stage of the review will include the preparation of a discussion paper taking into account submissions, research and ICAC's recommendations. The second stage will involve a period of consultation. The review will go beyond the scope of the work done by ICAC and will consider issues such as the interrelationship between land rights and native title, the functions of land councils, alternative structures and possible international models for reform. The review will not include land rights or those provisions of the Act which deal with hunting and gathering, and mining rights. Processes impacting on these issues will be dealt with as part of the administrative review by their own relevant agencies. A steering committee, comprising the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, the registrar of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act and the Premier's Department, has been established to oversee the review. The Government expects to place advertisements seeking submissions from interested parties in July.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I refer to Budget Paper No. 4, page 56, line item "Central Coast Area Health Service Strategy". What steps has the Government taken to further enhance the health care services available on the central coast?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government has made a major commitment to improving health services for the people on the central coast. We are delivering on that important promise with the announcement this year of another $11.6 million for new capital works for the central coast. That funding is a top priority for central coast families. The $6.4 million commitment to build community health centres at Erina and Tuggerah is very welcome and, in fact, has had significant community support since the announcement. Since coming to office we have stressed that high-quality community health services are vital to protect the long-term health and wellbeing of children and families. We have made community health a key priority to emphasise the importance of health promotion and early intervention to prevent illness and disease. Nowhere are these services more important than in fast growing areas such as the central coast.

Significant new investment for 1998-1999 really showed our commitment to those families and their needs for community health centres at Erina and Tuggerah. Families will enjoy easy access to a comprehensive range of health care services in a comfortable and caring, purpose-built environment of local community health centres. Families are inconvenienced in travelling out of their immediate area for treatment and support. Improving community health remains a strong and enduring priority of the
Page 520
Government. We are determined to safeguard local communities from the fall-out of John Howard's damaging cuts to health services in Australia. We are determined to deliver better services to the areas disadvantaged by the previous coalition Government and we are determined to put families first. The greater investment in community health means we can protect families at the grass roots level, and improved early detection and better health promotion certainly will pay dividends in the medium to long term.

The $6 million initiative of the new community health centres builds on the $3.2 million commitment we made last year to the new community health centres at Lakehaven and Long Jetty, expanding the network of community health services and promising new benefits to families in the region. Families on the central coast will also benefit from the construction of a $5.2 million day surgery unit at Wyong. The new initiative in the 1998-1999 budget expanding day service facilities means easy access to treatment and faster recovery for more patients. This $5.2 million initiative will deliver shorter waiting times for surgery for thousands of central coast patients and their families.

Between 1993-1994 and 1996-1997 same-day surgery procedures on the central coast increased by almost 40 per cent. With the construction of a new day surgery unit at Wyong we can build on that achievement and put more patients on the road to recovery sooner. The central coast is one of the faster growing areas of the State and remains a key priority for the Government. The important investment in day surgery acknowledges that population growth and also will deliver significantly improved services to the Sydney to Wyong region. The Carr budget has delivered increased spending in New South Wales, despite Federal Government cuts and policy backflips, particularly for aged care. I am delighted that the families of the central coast will reap the benefits of record health spending from the State Government. We are maintaining a strong commitment to bring more and better services to a region that was for too long disadvantaged by the long-term underfunding of the Greiner and Fahey governments.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: I refer to Budget Paper No. 4, page 56, line item "Illawarra Area Health Service Strategy Stage 2". What improvements to hospital services have been approved for families in the Illawarra in the 1998-99 budget?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government's 1998-99 budget delivers a $62.5 million boost to Illawarra health services putting families of that region first. Wollongong and Shoalhaven families are a clear priority in this year's budget, which makes a major commitment to new health capital works in the Illawarra. The $62.5 million investment represents a clear win to health care in the Illawarra, a great win for the families throughout the length and breadth of that very important region. We will secure new benefits for local patients and their families and build on the work that has been already done to bring better health care and funding to this growing region. This commitment includes funding for stage two of a major redevelopment of the Illawarra Regional Hospital, replacing the outdated Hickman House and refurbishing the clinical services building. The new works will provide state-of-the-art treatment for patients and their families, as well as a comfortable, efficient working environment for staff.

Under this $62.5 million program a comprehensive range of diagnostic treatment services will be upgraded, including a new obstetrics ward, a neonatal intensive care unit and birthing suites, cardiac and gastroenterological inpatient services, and cardio and neurological diagnostic services. There will be new academic teaching facilities, lecture theatres, offices and research facilities. The upgrading of the clinical services block will include car parking and a new dialysis centre. The funding also provides for the project definition planning at Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital and the Illawarra area health asset strategy. We are determined to deliver further resources and improve hospital facilities for Shoalhaven patients.

Preliminary planning to determine the best course for future work will be part of that agenda. Proposals are now being invited from suitably qualified consultants to undertake planning and implementation of the strategy for both Wollongong and Shoalhaven. Carr budgets have increased each year which underscores the commitment we made to the Illawarra and families to right the imbalance caused by long-term coalition underfunding of the area. It builds on the work we have already done for this growing area, including upgrading the Wollongong clinical services block, which you might remember was a promise that the former Government ratted on -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No, that the former Government proceeded on.

Dr REFSHAUGE: - and left a hole in the ground.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The former Government proceeded on it, as you know.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It left a hole in the ground, and we had to come in.

Page 521

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Madam Chair, I find that answer by the Minister absolutely offensive and inaccurate. I would like it withdrawn.

Dr REFSHAUGE: We had to come in.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: On a point of order. That comment is inaccurate and offensive to me. I would like it withdrawn.

CHAIR: I did not hear the comment.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: He said the previous Government ratted on the Illawarra. I find that offensive and I want it withdrawn.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am happy to withdraw it.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am happy to withdraw that comment. I will say instead that the former Government, having said it would build the clinical services block, decided not to progress.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Madam Chair, I find that highly offensive and inaccurate. I would like it withdrawn.

CHAIR: It is not personally offensive.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I find it personally offensive. Given that I was the parliamentary secretary for health at the time, I am aware of what happened. The Minister is attacking me in my role.

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is a hole in the ground. We have pictures of it. We can prove it. If you do not like it, go and see the pictures.

CHAIR: There is no point of order. I entreat the member and the Minister to act with some degree of civility so that we can get through this hearing.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government will be reopening Kiama District Hospital, another hospital that the coalition promised it would never close when it was in opposition, and then closed when it took office. The Carr Labor Government will reopen it very soon. That valuable facility was closed by the former coalition Government.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Minister, in light of the delays during that answer, will you take the balance of it on notice? Will the Minister detail improvements to the New South Wales Ambulance Service, referred to in Budget Paper No. 4 at page 56?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am pleased with the New South Wales Ambulance Service. It is interesting to note that there were fewer ambulance officers at the end of the coalition Government's term than at the beginning. New South Wales ambulance officers provide immediate front-line care. That front-line care is so important to change the course of an accident, injury, illness, or somebody's life. On average, ambulance officers are sent out to care for patients 2,000 times on any one day; it is a massive enterprise. The Carr Government, in acknowledging its work, has committed $18.3 million to enhance the Ambulance Service.

The increased funding will go towards replacing the older F-series ambulances with the more modern GC-series vehicles; allow for construction of new ambulance stations at Bringelly, South West Rocks, Tanilba Bay and Morisset; refurbish a number of existing ambulance stations; and upgrade medical equipment carried by ambulances. The capital enhancement will allow an ambulance officer to provide even faster care to patients in New South Wales. A new fleet, new ambulance stations and new equipment will make their very difficult job that little bit easier. The Government is committed to the work of ambulance staff. Their work is vital to providing care for patients and families of New South Wales.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Will the Minister detail significant capital works projects being undertaken in rural New South Wales, as detailed in Budget Paper No. 4?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Government has shown a long-term commitment to country New South Wales, and this budget continues that commitment. The capital works that you highlighted are part of that commitment, and we are determined to secure a better health future for families and communities in rural and regional New South Wales. Since coming to office the Carr Government has embarked on a massive capital program, particularly in rural New South Wales, including the construction of new hospitals and the redevelopment of existing facilities. We have invested more than $170 million in rural hospital capital works. Since 1995 these major capital works include many new or greatly enhanced hospitals for the people of Broken Hill, West Wyalong, Taree, the Tweed, Coffs Harbour, Lithgow, Ballina, Cowra, Grafton, Mudgee, Boorowa and Dubbo. The list goes on.

On Friday the Premier and I will have the great pleasure of reopening Kiama District Hospital. As I
Page 522
mentioned earlier, it is one of the 30 hospitals that were closed, wound down or privatised by the former coalition Government. Despite the coalition Opposition promising never to close Kiama hospital, it did so when it was in office. The Carr Labor Government is reopening that hospital. Significant other capital works in rural New South Wales being undertaken include the $18 million Dubbo Base Hospital redevelopment; $5 million at Armidale; more than $32 million for the Broken Hill Base Hospital redevelopment, which is a very interesting design and if people could have a look at it would be worthwhile examining; more than $53 million to Coffs Harbour and District Hospital. An amount of 2.5 million for the Dubbo multipurpose service; $26.5 million for Lithgow; the $26 million strategy at Manning Base Hospital; Mudgee District Hospital upgrade of more than $2 million; Oberon multipurpose service of more than $2.5 million; Trundle multipurpose service; Tumbarumba multipurpose service; stage three of Tweed Heads over $31 million; Warren MPS, almost $3 million; West Wyalong, over $6 million; Wilcannia, $3 million; Grenfell, $3 million; Trangie MPS, over $1 million, and Lithgow Community Health Centre, $1.5 million. On top of that, rural health funding under the Carr Government has increased by 25 per cent. That is a massive increase - more than $170 million in rural capital works. We are performing more than 40 per cent same-day surgery in rural hospitals. We are performing 16 per cent more operations in rural hospitals than when we came to office. That is an enormous effort and the staff should be congratulated on the work they are doing, including the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti as an anaesthetist occasionally at Lismore. In addition, I refer to the $2 million rural work force strategy to build on ideas that are coming to us to develop -

[Time expired.]

CHAIR: The Government's 30 minutes question time has expired.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: Well, it was not quite 30 minutes because of the significant interruptions, so I will put some questions on notice.

CHAIR: The honourable member is permitted to put questions on notice.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I refer the Minister to page 56 of Budget Paper No. 4. My question is related to the previous question asked by the Hon. A. B. Kelly. I see that the Government has allocated $3 million on the redevelopment of Armidale Hospital and intends to spend $1 million rehabilitating the emergency department at Inverell Hospital, of which $173,000 will be spent in 1998-99. What is your intention in relation to the hospital at Taree? According to this budget paper, $8 million has been allocated for what is known as the lower north coast strategy. What will that strategy involve? Will Taree Hospital remain a level 4 hospital?

[Time expired.]

Dr REFSHAUGE: Could the honourable member repeat the last part of the question?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: People are concerned that the status of the Taree Hospital is to be downgraded. There is nothing in the budget papers to suggest that money will be spent at Taree Hospital, but $8 million has been allocated for the lower north coast strategy. What does that mean?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The lower north coast strategy is the redevelopment of the Manning Base Hospital, which is part of the confusion. The hospital at Taree is called the Manning Base Hospital. It is on the lower north coast.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Will the total $8 million go to the Manning Base Hospital?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is for the redevelopment of Manning Base Hospital, incorporating the theatres and recovery, the day-only service, emergency, intensive care and coronary care; the refurbishment of other areas of the existing hospital, such as physiotherapy, paediatrics, surgical and medical inpatient accommodation; and the relocation of community health services on site and their accommodation upgrade. It has been approved by Treasury; there is no indication of any delay in completion.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: In your reply to the Hon. A. B. Kelly you mentioned a great number of multipurpose service centres that ought to be funded by your Government. It has also been stated that no area would have an MPS unless it was the wish of the local community. Of all the centres you mentioned in your reply, can we be assured that they have all agreed to the establishment of an MPS?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Yes, I am advised that they have agreed; and another one was strongly recommended, but the community decided against it and so it was not proceeded with. The other day a man told me that he was so pleased with the multipurpose centre of which he is the chair of the board that he has encouraged and enthused anybody considering such a centre to come and visit. So a number are up and going. They are very keen to display what can be done. People often have a misconception about multipurpose centres and seeing
Page 523
them on the ground working can be valuable for a community contemplating such a centre.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: On page 57 of the same budget paper, $11.3 million has been allocated for an information management and telecommunications strategy. Will the Minister explain how that money will be spent?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is an information management and technology strategy. The cancer registry system provides for replacement of the outdated computer systems and the clerical-based paper systems. The new system is based on an open system and also on departmental standards to make cancer information available in different reporting formats within 12 months from the time it was gathered. Many reports will be made available on the Internet, in line with the Government's connect New South Wales strategy. That implementation provides the capacity for the registry to revise the business processes, and enhance its client service focus and approach to management and dissemination of population-based cancer information.

There is also the community health information development at a total cost of some $23 million for development and implementation of specialised clinical applications to support care providers by giving community health workers across the State access to office automation tools to roll out of the office productivity technology. The health information exchange, at a total cost of $11.5 million, is to establish reporting databases at area and departmental level to support outcome decision making in health service delivery for service managers and clinicians. A $10.5 million computerised dispatch system for the Ambulance Service will greatly improve timeliness and efficiency. The system allows the Ambulance Service to handle that ever-increasing volume of requests, while also maintaining and improving response times and service standards. Those are the major aspects of it.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I refer to Budget Paper No. 2, table 3.6, under the heading "Commonwealth Grants". The table shows that the hospital funding grant from the Commonwealth Government has been increased by 11 per cent to $1.7 billion. Will the Minister tell the Committee how this enhanced funding will be used?

Dr REFSHAUGE: My answer to this question is the same as my answer to an earlier question that referred to the comparison between State funding and Commonwealth funding. As you probably remember, the State's contribution to health funding has significantly increased over the time of the Medicare agreement, particularly in the last three years or so. In the first year one could argue that there was actually a cut in State funding to health by the former coalition Government. It argued in its defence that at the same time it cut its health funding and the Federal Government increased health funding there was a cut also in financial systems grants to the States. The Liberal Opposition has never argued that, which is a reasonable case to put. The Liberal Government argued that it cut funding of its own volition.

The reality is, though, with the increase in the age of the population, technology, the cost of drugs and new services being provided, the cost of health care is significantly increasing. As a result, factors have been put in to increase funding at the Commonwealth level, such as the last Medicare agreement, but with those factors included, funding has increased for every fall of 2 per cent in private health insurance. We reached an agreement with Carmen Lawrence that there would be no cost shifting penalty and there would be a wind up of the 2 per cent issue. The Victorian health Minister, Rob Knowles, is on record as saying it actually happened when I was at one of the earlier conferences of health Ministers. Since the change of government, the Federal Government has reneged on both of those issues. There should have been an increase in line with all of those things, including the fall in private health insurance, but it has not come through. In effect, with the ageing of the population, the increase in population, technology, drugs and those pressures, we have been picking up the slack at the State level because of a lack of Commonwealth commitment.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That same table also shows a funding increase of 11 per cent for highly specialised drugs. Are you able to say which drugs these are and which patients will benefit? Is that money to be spent at your discretion, or is it tied to certain types of drugs for specific medical conditions?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is tied by the Federal Government to specific drugs for specific conditions, and the amount of money actually spent depends on the number of those drugs being prescribed. In that sense, the responsibility has been accepted by the Federal Government. If anything, we work as a post office, passing on the funding to the hospitals where the costs are generated. If you want to know which drugs they are, and there is quite a range of them, we would be pleased to provide you with a list on notice.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It would be helpful if the Committee could have those details.

Dr REFSHAUGE: From memory, some drugs in relation to HIV-AIDS are funded differently, not through this process.

Page 524

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That was what I was leading to. The table also shows funding for drugs to combat AIDS and funding for essential vaccines. I assume that essential vaccines will not be covered by this particular grant and nor will drugs for AIDS. Is it possible for you to say whether there will be any additional funding through those particular grants for people who have contracted hepatitis C?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I think there is still negotiation with the Commonwealth in regard to that. But funding for HIV-AIDS, as you point out, is separate. The high-cost drugs are for particular conditions, and funding would be useful for recommended drugs. From our point of view, those drugs are prescribed on a cost recovery basis. The Federal Government reimburses and we reimburse the hospitals. There is certainly ongoing negotiation between the Federal Government and all States now - certainly it was only New South Wales originally - about treatment for hepatitis C, what is available, what should be supported and how it should be funded.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Again, referring to the same table, why has funding for breast cancer been revised downwards from $15 million to $12 million? Does any of this money go to the New South Wales Cancer Council?

Dr REFSHAUGE: A number of organisations are involved in breast screening. My understanding is that the Cancer Council has a program and would be in receipt of some of that funding. I am informed that the Federal Government decided to cut $4 million from the special purpose payments and that is probably the reason.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I asked that question because later in this section of the budget papers, on page 157, it says that the council has estimated total expenses of $23 million, which are primarily funded by donations from the community and grants. I wondered if one of those grants was a State grant, but initially from the Commonwealth Government?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The breast screening program is a joint State and Commonwealth funded program, so my understanding is that there is funding from both of us in the sense that if there is State funding there would be commensurate Commonwealth funding. I am reminded that the Federal Government did cut funding to women's health as well.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I note also that there is a considerable 9 per cent cut in funding from the Commonwealth Government for drug education campaigns. I realise that the Federal Government operates on a zero tolerance policy, but there is also the problem of the legal, deadly drug, tobacco. How will this cut assist to continue education so far as the abuse of tobacco is concerned?

Dr REFSHAUGE: With difficulty, as you pointed out. If the Federal Government unilaterally decides to cut a program it is difficult for us to do anything except to effectively pass on that cut. I take your point that the Federal Government has a different approach announced by its Prime Minister to that of its health Minister. The Victorian Government is concerned to try to help meld those two approaches to get some sense from the Federal Government's policy backflip and change of attitude or dual attitude. It seems to be difficult for those people to understand. I am certainly happy to work with my colleagues in Victoria and the Commonwealth to make sure that the services and the efforts we are applying, which include and should include people saying no to drugs, continue and are effective.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: It is a fact that in 1997 New South Wales spent only 25 cents per capita on education directed at the abuse of tobacco, compared with 35 cents per capita in 1995? Will you explain why the funding has declined, particularly when 10 years ago a higher level of funding was associated with declining smoking rates among both adults and children?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is important to realise that messages in education and preventive programs in regard to drugs do not always work if they are specifically targeted to one drug. I assume you have had experience in raising children. If your child says, "I'm interested in trying heroin", you do not ignore every other aspect of his life. On the other hand, if someone says that he wants to go out and get drunk, you would not talk about issues in regard to smoking or other drugs. The idea that they are so divisible that you can have totally separate programs is something we have learned over time to be not necessarily so. Some programs would and should be targeted to specific drugs, which is quite reasonable and will continue. However, as we learn from what we have been doing and the successes we have had, it is often important to change that mix and put it into more general or more targeted groups, rather than just make the advertisers happy by putting out advertisements.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Is the Minister aware of a report in the Australian New Zealand Journal of Public Health which states that smoking by adolescents demonstrates a growing inequity in expenditure on antismoking activities, compared with the revenue that is gained by government from the illegal supply of cigarettes to
Page 525
children? In New South Wales that revenue is estimated at $13 million, of which manufacturers collect $6 million and tobacco retailers collect $5 million. Do you not believe that, as you are getting the revenue, some of that revenue could be spent on smoking education campaigns solely directed at children?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Federal Government now collects all tobacco revenue. The argument has been used to some degree that funding comes from that source. At the present time, as a result of the High Court challenge on wholesale sales tax, tobacco revenues go to the Federal Government.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That is being refunded to you by the Commonwealth, is it not, despite the High Court ruling?

Dr REFSHAUGE: But it is the Commonwealth Government’s collection.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I see in the budget papers that the funding for the Health Care Complaints Commission has been increased. The explanation is that there will now be patient support officers. Apparently those patient support officers will be at only seven locations. How can those officers, serving at only seven locations, possibly cost $5 million?

Dr REFSHAUGE: They do not. Could you give me the page number?

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: That is the sum of money that you will find, Minister.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I think other things might have been funded from it. I am happy to take that question on notice.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Budget Paper No. 4 indicates that it will be $5 million, which seems an awful lot.

Dr REFSHAUGE: That is the total cost of the commission; not the patient support officers. The total budget is $5 million. The patient support officers have been partially funded from internal sources this year.

CHAIR: Will you still take that question on notice?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I pointed out that the $5 million is the total cost of the commission; not the patient support officers. The question is not relevant in that sense.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Could you provide the cost of the patient support officers?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am advised that it is about $270,000.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: If they are to serve a useful purpose in a State the size of New South Wales, seven locations seems a very small number. Many people will find it impossible to access them to explain their problems.

Dr REFSHAUGE: At the moment we want to make sure that the way in which they work is effective. The early indication is that it is certainly very effective and so far people have not had difficulty contacting them. We want to make people more aware of their existence and we are looking at ways to ensure that people are so aware. They have been very successful in resolving issues at a local level before they have become major problems.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: The capital works program includes a new 15-bed inpatient facility at Wallsend, at a total cost of $4.3 million, of which $1 million will be spent this financial year. I am sure you remember what happened when Wallsend District Hospital was to be closed. Why is it now believed necessary to spend $4.3 million for a 15-bed inpatient facility when only a few years ago the hospital was regarded as expendable?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It was not regarded as expendable by me, that is why I fought for its retention, certainly as a health care facility. The facility will collocate the family care cottage with other services and provide support services for parents in the Hunter. It is not, in that sense, a general hospital with 15 beds. It will focus on the issues and needs of new parents. Inpatient services will be provided for parents in the Hunter and adjoining areas, particularly those who have parenting problems such as feeding difficulties, and infant and toddler behaviour problems; for special groups of families, such as those referred by the Department of Community Services; and for mothers with mental disorders, including moderate to severe nonpsychotic depression. In that sense, it will be a much more specialised facility providing inpatient services for new mothers as well as a family care cottage.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Such a facility, particularly for people with a psychotic illness, is still necessary at Wallsend, even though there is a major mental health hospital in Newcastle - in fact, it is one of the biggest mental health hospitals in the State.

Page 526

Dr REFSHAUGE: The facility will be for mothers with babies.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Will mothers go into the hospital with their babies if they are suffering from postnatal depression?

Dr REFSHAUGE: That is certainly an option we will provide. It is not my decision; it is a clinical decision made at the time.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: In this year's budget $2.7 million has been allocated for the detoxification centre at Fairfield. Will the Minister tell me how many other detoxification centres there are in New South Wales and where are they situated?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I will take the question on notice and I will provide the honourable member with a full list of those centres.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I am aware of the need in the Fairfield area because of the problems in western Sydney. I have no objection to that amount of money being spent. There are drug problems all over the State - in the far west, in the north and in south. Those areas also need the sort of assistance and the sort of centre available to the people of Fairfield or western Sydney.

CHAIR: Will the Minister take that question on notice?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Yes.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Minister, during another committee hearing it was brought to my attention that there is a practice of moving patients who are occupying long care beds in a dementia unit in a State nursing home to the acute ward of a hospital over weekends because of staffing problems. This is causing great distress to the patients and, I would have thought, great expense to your department. If they are in a nursing home that is funded by the Federal Government and they are moved into acute care beds in your hospital, that funding is transferred back onto you. Can you tell me whether this is happening on a regular basis? If so, have you any method of stopping it?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Firstly, there is obviously a need for somebody in a dementia unit who has an acute episode to be in hospital - that would be a clinical decision. What you are describing excludes that. I am not aware that that is happening. I cannot think of any circumstances where it would be appropriate for it to happen, unless the services close down for some reason or are not available.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: Apparently there are problems of staffing and feeding on Saturdays and Sundays.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am happy to look at any information you have on that, investigate it and get back to you.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY: I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 480, which refers to specialist Aboriginal health. The recurrent budget for specialist Aboriginal health was underspent by $3.3 million last year, which is 18 per cent of that budget. Why did that happen?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I explained that in response to an earlier question. The Government has a partnership agreement between the Health Department and the Aboriginal Health Resources Co-operative, which is the peak body of the Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations. As part of that agreement, any overview of funding goes through that partnership for agreement before it actually occurs, which sometimes causes a delay. Obviously the Aboriginal Health Resources Co-operative wants to consult its community and to ensure that it is in agreement with the proposal. It can modify it if it wants to. That sometimes leads to the funding that we have available not actually being expended until that process has been gone through. It is not my intention, as you would imagine, to not continue to fund those things. I would not want to undermine in any way the consultative process of the Aboriginal communities for any reason.

[Time expired.]

[Short adjournment]

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 480, subprogram 49.1.2, Aboriginal Health Services. In particular, I refer the Minister to Aboriginal health facilities at Boggabilla. Has the $160,000 allocated to Aboriginal health services at Boggabilla been spent as intended? If not, is it still available? Have the funds been maintained for this purpose during the year, or have they been diverted and then paid back? If they have been diverted, to what project were they diverted?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am advised that there has been no diversion of funding. I do not think the funding has been expended.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It has not been spent?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The full amount certainly has not been spent. I am not sure if any of it has been
Page 527
spent. It may be that some small amount has been spent, and the intention is that it will be spent. It has not been diverted.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer to subprogram 49.2.2, Overnight Acute Inpatient Services, on page 486 of Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2. It shows an increase in budget expenditure of some $150 million compared with last year. If the Minister refers to page 485, he will see that the number of patients treated as inpatients was 723,000 budgeted for and expended last year and the year before, and this year he expects 723,000 to be treated. How does this budget item grow so rapidly in a time of relatively zero inflation and with otherwise stable costing?

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is no stable costing. An increase in wages has to be taken into account, and there is obviously a large number of employees: the average staffing is, I think, 42,000.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The staffing has remained relatively stable.

Dr REFSHAUGE: But the award has increased.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Does the increase relate only to payments for staff?

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, not only that. It would also include the increased cost of technology. As you are aware, there has been an increase in the use of stents for coronary artery surgery - the cost of which is between $2,000 and $3,000 - so new technology would increase the cost of operations. In addition, the specialised drugs used in conjunction with the stent cost approximately $1,600. Therefore, the way in which medical technology and medical practice is going will lead to significant increases in the cost of the otherwise equivalent operation. A number of factors would be involved, of which wage increases would be a major part.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That is about half the health budget. I note that this year, despite the huge increase in expenditure and the fact that no additional patients have been treated and no additional staff employed - in fact, there have been some variations in the retained revenue section, just to help you out a bit - you expect a big increase in retained revenue while the cost of services continues to rise dramatically.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The intensity of care and the complexity of the case mix of the patients have increased, and will continue to increase. The example I gave in relation to coronary artery surgery and the use of stents - I think it is called Reopro, which is used in conjunction with them - can add $5,000 to the cost of the service, and that is merely one item.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: That has to be compared with the cost of admitting a patient for open cardiac surgery, which is vastly more expensive. This procedure would involve a reduction in cost for that particular item of service.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It could be if we were to reduce the number of patients being admitted, but we are not; we are providing more costly service on medical advice. The Leader of the Opposition has highlighted the issue of the wages paid to New South Wales nurses, doctors and teachers. We stand proud: we are prepared to pay our staff. All public sector employees should know that the coalition's policy is to reduce their wages.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer to Budget Paper No. 4 and the State asset acquisition program. I was interested in the question from the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and the Minister's answer to it. Would the Minister explain why 10 multipurpose services currently under construction in rural New South Wales had their capital works allocation underspent and their estimated completion dates pushed back by up to two years? Will the Minister guarantee that health services have been and will be maintained at each of the 10 centres until construction delayed by him is finalised? How many rural communities have expressed an interest in having a multipurpose centre established in their town, apart from the ones already announced?

Dr REFSHAUGE: First, the Commonwealth Government has cut back its contribution to multipurpose services - a decision I am hoping it will change.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The Federal Minister announced an increase in that expenditure in the last budget, as the Minister is well aware. I have a press release upstairs.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The cutback on the present program is unfortunate; it certainly has not been welcomed by country New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: An amount of $34 million, Minister.

Dr REFSHAUGE: And the cutback has not been welcomed by those of us who have been trying to get these multipurpose centres going. Of course, as the honourable member is aware, the community consultation process is an important part of making sure that the communities are aware of, and are supportive of, multipurpose centres.

Page 528

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: These are projects you have announced. Therefore, I presume that you undertook consultation beforehand?

Dr REFSHAUGE: The 11 sites that I described earlier certainly are at different stages of development. We expect them to be commissioned on time - all of them within two years, and some of them earlier than that. The contribution of the New South Wales Government will be in excess of $26 million for capital. The Commonwealth Government has contributed only $3.2 million per eight MPS sites in phase one. In 1997-98 the Commonwealth Government announced that it would not contribute to the further capital costs of the remaining sites in phase one or any future MPS sites.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I have a press release from Mr Warwick Smith, to whom I spoke only two weeks ago.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Consistent with the New South Wales Government's intention to raise the priority of rural health, we have, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government, commenced planning for phase two of the MPS program. Approximately 11 sites could be progressed in 1998-99. The establishment of these sites is contingent on the availability of aged care licences from the Commonwealth. A number of communities have been seeking aged care licences from the Commonwealth. Not all of them have been agreed to by the Commonwealth. So far of the order of 50 communities have been interested in MPSs - the number sometimes changes because communities change their minds. The Culcairn MPS is to have about 27 beds: five acute, 12 hostel and 10 nursing home beds. That hospital has already undergone refurbishment.

At Delegate the total cost is about $1.7 million. The local community contributed about $100,000 and the Commonwealth Government contributed only $200,000, out of a total of $1.7 million. It will have about 12 beds in total - four acute and 12 nursing home beds. In addition, the Delegate MPS will operate two community aged care packages. The Delegate MPS is a totally new purpose-built facility. Previously there was no appropriate residential aged care services in Delegate. At Dorrigo, which has a more expensive and a bigger service, the total cost is about $2.4 million. There are about 27 beds there.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The subject of my next question was raised by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby and it relates to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 493. What were the New South Wales allocations to the mammography and cervical cancer screening programs for each financial year following the transfer of these programs from the Cancer Council in 1996? What is the projected allocation for each of these programs in 1998-99?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I do not have the details of that. I will take the question on notice.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer again to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 473. How many voluntary redundancy packages were offered in 1997-98? How many were paid out in 1997-98? At what cost? How many redundancy packages are anticipated this year?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Again, I do not have the specific details of those packages, but I will provide the information to the honourable member on notice.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 491, subprogram 49.4.1, Rehabilitation and Extended Care Services. Last year's estimates claimed that the rehabilitation and extended care service staffing numbers would be increased overall by 1,091 equivalent full time in 1997-98. Will the Minister explain why the number of staff decreased from 7,684 in 1996-97 to 7,431 in 1997-98? Why is that number to remain static in 1998-99?

Dr REFSHAUGE: I will come back to that question and provide more details, but certainly there has been some refining.

[Short adjournment]

CHAIR: Minister, do you remember the question you were answering?

Dr REFSHAUGE: It concerned rehabilitation. I am not convinced that the issue in regard to clearly defining each policy area which would lead to changes of the dollar value to the program and to the staffing numbers fully explains that. I think it may, but I will seek further advice to make sure that there is no other explanation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer again to the multipurpose centres. I quote from a press release, dated 12 May 1998, from Minister Warwick Smith:

As part of the 1998-1999 budget a $24.3 million package over four years will include the delivery of health and family services to rural and remote families by establishing a rural multi-purpose and family service network.

Under this new package 30 new multipurpose services will be established in rural and remote areas. I wonder, Minister, if you have caught up with your reading lately?

Page 529

Dr REFSHAUGE: No. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth has recognised the error of its ways, but there is no guarantee that any of that money will come to New South Wales. I certainly hope that you will enlist your party's support for a fair share of that coming to New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I have already done that.

Dr REFSHAUGE: The Federal Minister has been less than forthcoming in guaranteeing that New South Wales will get its fair share.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: A most approachable Minister he is, too. I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 489. Mental health service staffing numbers were budgeted to rise by 260 in 1997-1998 to 5,860 EFT. Will the Minister explain why the number of staff increased by only 150 in 1997-1998? What mental health services missed out because 110 additional staff did not materialise?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Not all of the staff would necessarily be factored in under subprogram 49.3.1. The number of recipients of mental health services has increased in the community health and acute overnight areas, I do not believe the figures you have cited reflect the totality of things.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My figures came out of last year's budget papers, Minister.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Yes.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: So last year's budget papers were wrong?

Dr REFSHAUGE: No, I am saying that each year we make sure that the programs are as active as possible, that there are changes between the programs. It is probably one of the most comprehensive budget papers that you have ever seen. Part of the change has been to create greater clarity about where particular programs or expenditure in those programs should be sited.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I refer to Budget Paper No. 3, Volume 2, page 474. Given that the Department of Health RDF formula indicates that the Northern Rivers Area Health Service is underfunded by between $15 million and $20 million annually, will the Minister implement the RDF fully in 1998-1999 as promised? If not, when is it expected to be fully implemented?

Dr REFSHAUGE: Is there not a conflict of interest that you would like to raise about that? Did you actually receive any money as a result of this?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No.

Dr REFSHAUGE: Do you want to declare a potential conflict of interest?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: No.

Dr REFSHAUGE: There is no doubt that under the former Government there were massive disparities in funding for different area health services, and one of those areas was, of course, what is now known as the Northern Rivers Area Health Service. Despite a large criteria, there was significant underfunding by the coalition Government. In fact, in 1994-95 the area health services received only $143,308,000 from the coalition Government’s budget. Each year the Carr Labor Government has increased that funding. There was an increase in 1995-1996 up to $141,611,000; in 1996-1997 up to $151,081,000; and in 1997-1998 $162,699,000.

As I said, the budgets have not been finalised for the area health services this year. However, as you can see our significant increases each year - almost $30 million more for the Northern Rivers area - were not always achieved easily. We have worked hard to do that. I am proud that we have been able to achieve such a significant increase in funding - a 25 per cent increase in funding. It would be difficult to find an area that had a 25 per cent increase in funding in any of the seven quiet years of the coalition Government.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: If that is the case, why have the waiting times increased and the