Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 22 October 1998, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Virginia Chadwick) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

Bills received and, by leave, read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.05 a.m.]: I move:

1. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to immediately and urgently review the terms and conditions of any project deeds, contracts, preliminary agreements or variations reached, or proposed to be reached, between the New South Wales Government and the winning tenderer for the M5 East Motorway project, Baulderstone Hornibrook and Bilfinger Berger.

2. That in conducting any review, the Auditor-General obtain independent engineering, environmental and all other necessary advice on all matters relating to the Government’s proposals, including, but not restricted to:

(a) whether the proposed M5 East Motorway represents the best deal for the New South Wales taxpayer;

(b) the reasons for the blow-out in the cost of the M5 East Motorway project, from $520 million when originally announced by then Roads Minister Michael Knight in November 1996 to an estimated cost of $750 million reported in a media release by Roads Minister Carl Scully in August 1998;

(c) whether Roads Minister Carl Scully’s estimation of the final cost of the M5 East project of $750 million is correct;

(d) the reasons for the M5 East Motorway project now running two years behind its original forecasted completion date;

(e) a comparative costing between the proposed route of the M5 East Motorway and the original road reservation through the Wolli Creek Valley;

(f) the effect of the proposed method of payment for the M5 East Motorway project over the next five years on other road projects throughout New South Wales;

(g) how many times the Government directed the three short-listed tenderers to change their bid documents, including design, financing and completion date;

(h) whether the continued requests for changes to the three short-listed tenderers' bid documents and the extraordinarily long time in announcing the winning tenderer resulted in any probity issues becoming apparent;

(i) a ruling on the ownership of intellectual property rights of the three short-listed tenderers and their bid submissions, including design and financing;

(j) the cost to New South Wales taxpayers of property resumptions made by the Government in relation to the M5 East Motorway project and whether the Government acted in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the Just Terms Compensation Act;

(k) the full cost of the Government’s contribution to the M5 East Motorway project in terms of necessary associated roadworks and other expenses; and

(l) the termination of one of the three short-listed tenderers just weeks prior to the finalisation of the tender.

3. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to investigate the cost to New South Wales taxpayers of any delay in the completion date of the M5 East Motorway as a result of the Government signing the M5 East letter of agreement and the memorandum of understanding on 31 October 1996, as outlined in the supplementary prospectus dated 5 November 1996, relating to the prospectus dated 22 October 1996 issued by Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Limited (CN 072 609 271) (Prospectus) in respect of an offer of units in Infrastructure Trust of Australia (1) and Infrastructure Trust of Australia (11) as Stapled Securities.

4. That this House calls on the Government to make all documents, including Cabinet and legal documents, available to the Auditor-General to ensure a full and in-depth inquiry under the terms of reference.

5. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to investigate whether the proposed M5 East is an impediment to public transport options, that is, whether the design has taken into account bus lanes or alternative public transport options.

6. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to provide a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed M5 East Motorway.

7. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to calculate the cost to residents affected by the proposed M5 East Motorway project, both socially and financially.

Page 8824

8. That this House calls on the Government to allocate any additional funds to the Auditor-General that the Auditor-General considers necessary to properly complete the inquiry.

9. That should the House stand adjourned:

(a) the Auditor-General has leave to send any such report to the Clerk of the Parliaments;

(b) the report be printed and published and the Clerk forthwith take such action as is necessary to give effect to the order of the House; and

(c) the report be laid on the table of the House at its next sitting.

10. That the Auditor-General report to Parliament by 31 January 1999.

Should this House take the view that the Auditor-General should investigate the M5 East contract? Joanne Jones of Bardwell Park believes it should. She wrote a letter to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, which published it under the heading "Strange way of selling tunnel homes":

The RTA has a strange way of buying and selling homes affected by the M5 East tunnel.

On September 26, I attended the first Bardwell Park auction for a home above the tunnel.

The auctioneer opened the bidding at $300,000 and then proceeded to decrease the price in $10,000 decrements until the house was passed in at $270,000.

The RTA, in implementing the project’s purchase guarantee policy, will reportedly pay the home owner around $470,000 which includes expenses.

Can the Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, explain why the bidding for this home started $150,000 below what it cost the RTA? Neither the RTA nor the Government has advised anyone that homes above the tunnel would be going cheap with the taxpayer picking up the shortfall.

The Auditor-General of NSW has been advised of this unsatisfactory financial dealing.

I understand that a number of representations have been made by the residents in the Bardwell Park-St George area to the Auditor-General to undertake an investigation into the M5 East. Tony Hatzis of Bardwell Park, whom the Hon. E. M. Obeid would know quite well, also has a view about the M5 East.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: I don’t know Tony Hatzis.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The honourable member says that he does not know him. That might explain why the Australian Labor Party is going backwards in the Rockdale area. In the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader of Tuesday, 13 October, under the blazing banner "ALP complacent over M5 plan", Tony Hatzis wrote:

When the Carr Government announced the re-routing of the M5 under homes, residents cried out that home values would plummet.

A local valuer even certified that homes above the tunnel would drop in value between 15-50 per cent.

Denying these claims, a dismissive Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, and State MP for Rockdale, George Thompson, told residents there would be no reduction in values, as "the tunnel will be deep beneath the surface and will not affect your quality of life or your property (Govt pamphlet distributed to residents 26/6/97).

Media reports have now confirmed that houses located above the M5 East tunnel have fallen in value by as much as 40 per cent. The residents were right!

Residents protested there was no justification to move the route of the M5 under our homes, away from the planned road reservation.

Again dismissive, Mr Scully and Mr Thompson said it would be cheaper.

The drastic falls in home prices now being experienced along the M5 East alignment will result in the Government losing many tens of millions of dollars under its obligation to pay pre-1997 market value for homes above the tunnel. Therefore, any savings the Government hoped to achieve by building under our homes will be more than wiped out.

The residents were right again!

Through their written pledges, thousands of residents warned the ALP that it would lose the seat of Rockdale if the M5 East is built under our homes. Complacently, the Labor Government has ignored the residents warning.

You can be sure that the residents will be right again.

This issue is significant in the Rockdale area but it is important also for the economy of New South Wales. We ought to know exactly what this project will cost the people of New South Wales by the time it is finished. Let us keep in mind that, under the coalition, it was not going to cost the State economy anything. The Labor Party initially announced that it would cost about $500 million. That figure increased to $600 million and then to $700 million and, according to the Labor Government, the current figure is about $750 million.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: For the maintenance?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: When costing a project a government does a whole-of-life costing. It does not filter out certain costs. Even in these costings the Government has not taken into account acquisition and lost opportunity costs. Let us put this whole issue into perspective. During the 1995
Page 8825
election campaign the shadow minister for roads, Brian Langton, promised:

Moves to extend the M5 Motorway past Beverly Hills will be ‘put on hold’ if the Labor Party wins the March 25 State election.

That is the commitment that the Labor Party made before the March 1995 election.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You would build it, though?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Of course we would! We have been open about it. We acknowledged that the motorway would be built. The Labor Party said it would be put on hold. That commitment was broken on 3 November 1996 - another backflip on a commitment clearly made by the Labor Government.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: It is part of the whole ring-road.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Absolutely. Why did members of the Labor Party lie to voters before the 25 March election? Why did they tell voters that they would not go ahead with this project? Now the Government is saying that it is a vital link. Of course it is a vital link; everyone knows that. But the Labor Party lied, through Brian Langton, before the 25 March election. At least Michael Knight came clean on 3 November 1996 and said that the Government would go ahead with the project. The extension of that motorway became a festering sore for residents in the municipalities of Rockdale, Hurstville, Canterbury and Kogarah.

Members of the Opposition have received numerous representations from residents concerning the social, environmental and economic costs of this Government’s proposals to extend the M5 Motorway. To address the concerns of the communities affected by the Government’s proposal to extend the M5 East through residential areas, the Opposition introduced a private member’s bill in the lower House which would have seen the M5 East Motorway being re-routed back to the reservation that has existed in that area for 47 years.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What about your direct costs?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The cost of that project was not going to be a direct cost to taxpayers.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: A tunnel?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Our proposal was for an underground tunnel to be dealt with by way of a toll. That was the coalition’s commitment at that time. The Labor Party won the election and we are now not faced with that proposal. The Government has entered into a contract for this proposal. We want to establish the true cost to the community of the Government’s proposal. When the M5 East Motorway was originally announced, Michael Knight stated in his media release:

Work on the $520 million project would commence in September 1997 and would be completed in July 2000. It will be funded from within the roads budget.

Since Michael Knight’s announcement in 1996, both his predictions have proven to be wrong. The cost of the M5 East project will have an enormous impact on every road project throughout the State. The Government said that this project will be funded wholly and solely from within the budget of the Roads and Traffic Authority. If it is to be done within that budget the Government has to put off all other funding for road projects.

The Hon. Franca Arena: Why are they paying tolls?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: The Government made a commitment that people will not pay tolls. This morning some of my colleagues and I got a taxi to the offices of the Council for Civil Liberties. When I got into the taxi, the taxidriver said, "I know you. You are a politician, aren’t you?" I said that I was and told him my name. He said, "Do you know that you are going to win the next election? I come from the inner Sydney area but you have to understand that the community still remembers Carr’s promises on the tolls and the fact that he lied. Mr Hannaford, I want you to understand that the people are still angry. Bob Carr lied and they still remember it." Is it because of the lies that were told in 1995 that Scully, Knight and Langton have reduced the State’s economy to its present levels?

The Government should not believe that, because it now intends to spend several hundred million dollars on this project, it will assuage the anger of the community. This morning, almost four years since that commitment was made, the taxidriver gave me the message that I related to the House. It is ironic that we are now debating this matter. The winning tenderer for the M5 East Motorway, Baulderstone Hornibrook and Bilfinger Berger, was announced on 14 August 1998. At that time the construction cost of the project was predicted to be $645 million. So that figure of $500 million has now increased to $645 million.

Page 8826

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Does that include maintenance?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: No. We have not yet dealt with the maintenance aspects of this project.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Is that a separate contract?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: That is a separate contract. The cost of the project increased from $520 million to $645 million. Then the Government referred to property acquisition, the cost of which had not previously been included. The Minister for Roads has estimated that the total cost of the M5 East project, including property acquisition, will be $750 million. Further, only a few days ago the Government announced that the cost of a maintenance contract had to be added. The Government had not previously announced that cost because it was a separate contract. The Government only announced the cost of contracts it wanted us to know about. The maintenance contract adds a further $90 million. The price of the project is now in the $800 million bracket.

The Opposition understands - although the Government does not release such information - that because the relevant company is carrying the finance of the project there is also a financing package. Is that a further cost about which we were not made aware? We understand that the final cost of this project will be close to $1,000 million. As we go to the next election the community needs to know how much of the State’s road budget will be quarantined for this project - which is a Government proposal to win back votes in the south-west of Sydney. The expenditure of each additional $100 million from the roads budget to this project will have a significant impact on the roads program for regional New South Wales.

This House has previously asked the Auditor-General to examine infrastructure projects, and the coalition has indicated its preparedness to allow the Auditor-General access to all documents. For the sake of transparency, the House should be informed up-front of the total cost of projects. But this Government has not taken that approach. The Government did not learn any lessons about community expectations when it was in opposition, and it certainly has not learned any while in office. The Opposition takes the same position that it took on the city east motorway. The Auditor-General reviewed that project. This project should also be reviewed, with a report from the Auditor-General to the Parliament about the total cost and impact on the community and the State budget. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [11.23 a.m.]: The Government opposes the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. An audit is already under way within the Auditor-General’s Office. Therefore, the action being sought by the Opposition is redundant.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: If the Auditor-General is already undertaking an audit, why do you oppose the Opposition’s requests?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: As I stated, the motion is redundant given that the Auditor-General has embarked on an audit of the M5 East project. The Auditor-General has had a number of discussions with the office of the Minister for Roads. A draft scope document, as it is described, has been communicated to the Minister’s office and comment has been sought on that document. I will respond to the motion in sequential form, using material provided to me by the Minister for Roads. The motion states:

1. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to immediately and urgently review the terms and conditions of any project deeds, contracts, preliminary agreements or variations reached . . . between the New South Wales Government and the winning tenderer for the M5 East Motorway project

I am advised that throughout the planning, assessment and awarding of the contract for the M5 East project the Government has followed the processes as required under the planning legislation, and has used external consultants to provide independent views to assist in the engineering, environmental and contractual assessments that are required. Tenders were submitted and assessed in accordance with an invitation to tender. The guiding principle was for equity in the tendering and assessment process, with equal opportunity being provided to each tenderer.

The tender evaluation team comprised two representatives from the Roads and Traffic Authority, an independent from my department, the Department of Public Works and Services, and an independent from Evans and Peck Management. The evaluation process included assessment of both price and non-price components of the tenderer’s proposals. Tenders were assessed on a 40-year whole-of-life basis to determine which offer represented best value for money. In addition, a probity auditor, Deloittes Touche Tohmatsu, was engaged to independently review the submissions and evaluate the tenders. Representatives of the
Page 8827
probity auditor attended all meetings to ensure that the process was fair and equitable and independently validated.

Following the announcement made by my colleague the Minister for Roads that the motorway would not be ready for the Sydney Olympics and would be completed by mid-2002, a tender finalisation protocol was prepared to complete the project procurement process. For reasons of fairness and probity, all tenders were included in the tender finalisation process to give each tenderer every chance of submitting a competitive offer. The Independent Commission Against Corruption advised that no changes were necessary to the protocol to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of corrupt behaviour.

That is an important point - no changes were regarded as being necessary by ICAC. The evaluation team’s assessment was considered by a review panel of senior executives from the RTA and the Department of Public Works and Services. Tenderers advised the RTA that they did not have any probity issues of which the RTA should be aware before the awarding of a contract. I refer to paragraph 2 of the motion and I will deal seriatim with subparagraphs (a) to (l) inclusive. The motion states:

2. That in conducting any review, the Auditor-General obtain independent engineering, environmental and all other necessary advice on all the matters relating to the Government’s proposals, including, but not restricted to:

(a) whether the proposed M5 East motorway represents the best deal for the New South Wales taxpayer;

The Minister’s response is that the M5 East project will provide enormous benefits for motorists by reducing travel times between Port Botany and Liverpool by up to 20 minutes and avoiding 20 sets of traffic lights. It will link the existing M5 to General Holmes Drive and provide a major freight link between rural New South Wales, western Sydney’s commercial centres, and the airport and port. The current project has been developed and assessed in consultation with the public and the community, and its cost is the result of invited tenders and commercially competitive prices.

Paragraph 2(b) of the motion calls for the reasons for the blow-out in the cost of the M5 East project from $520 million when originally announced by the then Minister for Roads, the Hon. Michael Knight, in November 1996 to the estimated cost of $750 million reported in a media release by the present Minister for Roads, the Hon. Carl Scully, in August 1998. The response of the Government is that the estimated cost of the M5 East project has increased as a result of significant changes to the project to address community concerns raised during the environmental impact statement process, such as the inclusion of the underpass at King Georges Road and Cooloongatta Road, Beverley Hills; changes to the ventilation system, including the reduction from three ventilation stacks to one stack located in the industrial area of Turrella; the addition of a long auxiliary tunnel to the single stack; and a tunnel under the Cooks River rather than a bridge.

The motion then asks whether the estimate of the final cost of $750 million for the M5 East project made by the Minister for Roads is in fact correct. I am advised that the current estimate of $750 million represents the total capital cost of the M5 East project, including the design, construction, property acquisition and project management costs. The motion seeks that the reasons that the M5 East project is running two years behind its original forecasted completion date be specified in the review contemplated by the motion. The completion of the M5 East project has been delayed to mid-2002 because of changes to the environmental and technical requirements to address community concerns. Delays were also experienced in gaining approval from the Federal Airports Corporation to purchase land at Sydney airport.

Paragraph 2(e) seeks a comparative costing between the proposed route of the M5 East and the original road reservation through the Wolli Creek Valley. The original route, using the Wolli Creek Valley road reservation, was strongly opposed when presented to the public in an environmental impact statement in 1989. There was a strong preference for a tunnel to avoid the Wolli Creek Valley. As that route is unacceptable to the community, cost comparisons with it are futile. The 1994 EIS proposed a tunnel along the Wolli Creek Valley road reservation and a viaduct through Arncliffe. This proposal was also rejected by the community. If a tunnel were to be constructed under the Wolli Creek road reservation the capital cost has been estimated at no less than $878 million, well in excess of the current estimated cost of $750 million.

Paragraph 2(f) questions the effect of the proposed method of payment for the M5 East project over the next five years on other road projects throughout New South Wales. The Government’s response to that point is that the M5 East will be funded from within the urban roads budget over the next four years. No current projects, that is those for which where contracts have been let, are affected. Paragraph 2(g) asks how many times the Government directed the three short-listed
Page 8828
tenderers to change their bid documents, including design, financing and completion date. I am advised that contractors were never asked to revise designs. Other aspects of the bid were adjusted in order to achieve better value for the Government.

Paragraph 2(h) asks whether the continued request for changes to the three short-listed tenderers’ bid documents and the extraordinarily long time in announcing the winning tenderer resulted in any probity issues becoming apparent. The Minister answers in the negative in that regard and further advises that at no time did any of the tenderers raise a probity issue with the independent probity auditor or, for that matter, with the Roads and Traffic Authority itself.

I am advised that paragraph 2(i), which seeks a ruling on the ownership of the intellectual property rights of the three short-listed tenderers and their bid submissions, including design and financing, is not relevant. Paragraph 2(j) addresses the cost to New South Wales taxpayers of property resumptions made by the Government in relation to the M5 East motorway project and whether the Government acted in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the Just Terms Compensation Act. I am advised that property acquisition for the M5 East is estimated to cost $60 million and is proceeding in accordance with the legislation identified in the motion.

Paragraph 2(k) seeks a review of the full cost of the Government’s contribution to the M5 East motorway project in terms of necessary associated roadworks and other expenses. I am advised that the current estimate of $750 million represents the total capital cost of the M5 East project, including design, construction of all roadworks and associated works, property acquisition and project management costs. Finally, subparagraph 2(l) of the motion seeks a review of what is said to be the termination of one of the three short-listed tenderers just weeks prior to the finalisation of the tender. The response is that one tenderer was terminated prior to finalisation because its bid was not considered to be competitive.

The effect of paragraph 3 of the motion is to call on the Auditor-General to investigate the cost to New South Wales taxpayers of any delay in the completion date of the motorway. The response is that liquidated damages payable by either the RTA or Interlink cannot be viewed in isolation from arrangements that enable the Government to have Interlink repay its loan ahead of schedule. Paragraph 4 calls on the Government to make all documents, including Cabinet and legal documents, available to the Auditor-General to ensure a full and in-depth inquiry under the terms of the reference.

The Roads and Traffic Authority already has stated its willingness to comply with the requirements of the Audit Office, as it has done in the past in regard to all of its major projects. In paragraph 5 the House calls on the Auditor-General to investigate whether the proposed M5 East is an impediment to public transport options - whether the design has taken into account bus lanes or alternative public transport options. I am advised that the M5 East will not form an impediment to public transport. In fact, it complements public transport in the sense that it runs parallel to the East Hills rail line and provides improved facilities for on-road public transport. Bus priority measures and measures to accommodate appropriate bus services on the surrounding road network will also be investigated.

In paragraph 6 the House calls on the Auditor-General to provide a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed M5 East. That is a general request to the Auditor-General. A full cost-benefit analysis has already been completed and I am advised that it is currently being confirmed by consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers. Paragraph 7 asks that the Auditor-General calculate the financial and social cost to residents affected by the proposed M5 East project. The current proposal will provide significant social and financial benefits to residents, particularly in Rockdale, Bexley, Earlwood and other suburbs along the route. These areas will continue to suffer from noise, air pollution and loss of urban amenity caused by the impacts from trucks and other heavy traffic if the M5 East is not built.

The remaining aspects of the motion are regarded by the Government as not applicable in the sense that the Government, as I said at the outset, is co-operating with the Auditor-General regarding his request for an audit of this whole matter. So the procedural matters, in the Government’s view, do not arise. For those reasons the Government is opposed to the motion. What is sought is happening already.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.43 a.m.]: The Australian Democrats are not great fans of urban freeways. We believe that with adequate public transport and a good rail network large freeways which effectively perpetuate reliance on the motorcar in an increasingly more polluted environment are not good. We note that the final cost of this freeway link is about $750 million. A large tunnel and ventilation stack need to be built in order to preserve pre-existing houses. This provides a lesson that it is much better to put down
Page 8829
infrastructure before there is large-scale building that makes it necessary for projects going underground.

If this much money can be spent on a freeway link, at least this much money, and probably more, should be spent prospectively on areas of western Sydney that are poorly served by other forms of public transport. We have a public transport plan for Sydney which we will improve in future. If the Government spends this amount of money on this project, it must recognise the magnitude of expenditure that is necessary in western Sydney. If it is to spend this money on one freeway link, how much more should it spend on a comprehensive transport network for Sydney? This sort of vision is absolutely necessary and we will be fighting for it. We are continually confronted with the cry that the Government cannot afford the additional expenditure because there is not a crisis yet, but we do not accept that.

The Opposition has made detailed demands in its motion. To what extent they are as a result of submissions from disappointed, unsuccessful tenderers, I am not sure. The types of detailed questions asked are perfectly reasonable in the sense of providing accountable government and transparency in government. The Government’s response has been reasonably detailed. It would seem that the Auditor-General is acting correctly. This morning I was given a letter from the Minister for Transport together with some material from the Roads and Traffic Authority. It states:

Tom Maddigan
General Manager, Treasury and Revenue
Roads and Traffic Authority

Tom,

As we have discussed on several occasions we are intending doing a review of the M5 East project. Attached is a draft scope document.

Our comment on such for inclusion in the Auditor-General’s report VIII is required to be completed by 9 November 1998 thus we don’t have much time.

As indicated in the scope document initially we require the following documentation for the project -

•contracts involved in the project
•a list of available documentation and location of such
•any contract summaries
•tender supporting documents - advertisement, tenderer valuation reports, probity auditor reports,
•details of financing arrangement for the project
•details of timing and pattern of progress payments
•details of government/RTA property guarantees
•details of whether other schedule projects were deferred/cancelled as a result of the decision to go ahead with this one
•any other documentation that will assist in gaining a full understanding of the entire project and tender process and its implications for the Authority and the State.

Obviously the above is needed as soon as possible. Initial agreement was for 19 October.

Regards

K. DORING
SENIOR AUDIT MANAGER
21 October 1998

That is dated yesterday, and an attached memo suggests that the initial documents were requested on 13 October. The Leader of the Opposition, the mover of the motion, has told me that he had been having discussions with the Auditor-General for some time before the request was made on 21 October, so the Auditor-General presumably would have been looking at the possibility of doing this and having discussions with the Government. It would seem that the Government is making a reasonable response. We are delighted that there is this degree of openness. In terms of the currency of this response, I wonder whether the Opposition motion is providing a spur to this transparency. I try to be open-minded and think the best of everybody, but as the Treasurer is absent from the House at the moment because of a dispute over the production of documents, it seems that it is not unreasonable to keep some pressure on the Government to ensure that its processes are open and transparent.

As a general statement of the Democrats’ position, we support the Auditor-General and wish to strengthen his hand. We notice in a recent document from him that he had difficult getting documents that he wanted. That is unfortunate. Accordingly, we will vote to strengthen the hand of the Auditor-General and to improve open and transparent government in New South Wales.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [11.48 a.m.]: I have spent some years in this place opposing various tollways and motorways. We fought the M2 and lost. A large number of people were very much disadvantaged by the building of that road, and their property values have been reduced tremendously. Some stare into noise barriers and the homes of others have been demolished. The M2 was a big tragedy for many people on the north shore. They did not get the same consideration that has been given to people affected by the M5 East. The Roads and Traffic Authority acquired homes in the way of the M5 East for at least full market price. I suspect that many people along the route of the M2 did not receive the same consideration.

Page 8830

There was huge community outcry at how the M2 caused the loss of thousands of old trees. I went down into one valley that is now part of the motorway and it is a tragedy that the government of the day did not listen to the concerns of residents along that route. However, that is history. At the time I pointed out that the environmental impact statement showed that the motorway would not have the level of traffic expected, and that has proved to be the case. Even so, apparently the value of the shares in that project has increased.

Members who have been here long enough would recall the many questions I asked and the speeches I made on Wolli Creek and its potential destruction. For many years Wolli Creek road was a road reservation, and that is why it still remains. There was tremendous controversy within the former Government about whether the road should be built through Wolli Creek, alongside it, or under it. A number of meetings were held with the Roads and Traffic Authority and when the environmental impact statement was finally released in 1989 there was considerable opposition to the use of the Wolli Creek road reservation. This Government has listened to the residents and that is why the M5 East is more expensive. One cannot complain about Carl Scully; he consults more than any other Minister.

The majority of the increased cost has resulted from the Minister listening to and responding to the demands and requests of residents, who complained about the stacks. Celebrated meetings were conducted and demonstrations were held outside Parliament House. I made representations about those stacks on behalf of the residents and the matter has largely been resolved. One cannot complain about the increased costs because residents will be better off than if the road were built through Wolli Creek or without taking into consideration the concerns of residents. As a result of these changes the motorway may cost approximately $200 million more, a figure which the Auditor-General will no doubt specify in his report.

I would have preferred a tollway so that the Government could recover the full cost. Funds in the order of $750 million - whatever the final figure might be - should not be allocated from the budget to build this public road. Rather, the private sector should fund a tollway. There was tremendous controversy over the tollways out west and the Government did not fulfil its promise, for fear of causing a huge blow-out in the budget. Therefore, the Government decided to use public money to build the road. If the coalition had been in government it may have built the road through or under Wolli Creek, and perhaps not listened to the residents.

However, if a private consortium had built a private tollway, it may have asserted that residents’ concerns to build four kilometres of it underground or to move the stack could not be taken into consideration; so it may have ridden roughshod over the residents and built a road that would make money. This road will never make money because it is not designed to do so; it is being built as a public service. A tollway would have been quite expensive to build and the cost would have increased. I received the same letter from Minister Scully that the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans was sent. I also received the same documents from Ron Christie, the chief executive, and Mr Doring, the senior audit manager.

The M5 East audit review scope document is similar in many ways to that proposed by the Opposition. In one hour I will meet with the Auditor-General and ask him whether the passage of this motion is necessary in order for him to examine the relevant issues. It is the Opposition’s job to try to win the next election and to get as much mileage as possible, so it will use the upper House in any way it can. That is the way the political process works, and no doubt several more motions will be moved before the session ends in November. It may be that the majority of crossbenchers will assist the Opposition in its attempt to win government by supporting those motions.

Although this is a valuable House of review the Independents should not be used as pawns by one side or the other to gain a political advantage, particularly in the media. I will not consider the motion from a political point of view but on the basis of whether it is appropriate for this House of review to pass the motion at this time because that is necessary for the Auditor-General to examine appropriate matters, and even whether the motion is redundant because of the present review. I shall not make a decision on how I will vote until after I have met with the Auditor-General.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.56 a.m.]: I have listened with interest to this important debate. I represent a number of groups in the community that are concerned with motorway developments throughout Sydney by the former Government, such as the M2, and by this Government. I also attended rallies outside Parliament House that were conducted by local residents concerned about the M5 East motorway, its hidden costs and environmental issues.

Some years ago I lived in Bardwell Park and I am aware of its beauty. I am concerned about the protection of that wildlife corridor, which originally was earmarked as a transit corridor. As late as last night the Minister guaranteed that the motorway will
Page 8831
go underground through Bardwell Park and that the valley will come under the responsibility of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. That is an indication of his good intent.

I am also mindful of residents’ concerns about the value of their homes and other problems in the Bexley, North Arncliffe and Bardwell Park areas above the proposed tunnel. As a Green I am concerned also with the positioning of the exhaust stack. Though fumes will be directed away from homes to the industrial area of Turrella, a chimney stack in the valley could cause significant pollution problems. I question the viability and appropriateness of the ring-road-motorway concept being pushed by the RTA, which, over a period of several governments, appears to have greater control than any individual Minister.

Concern is still being expressed about the positioning of the chimney stack, the pollution that will affect the people of the Bardwell Park valley, property devaluation, disruption to the quiet neighbourhood and the cost to residents following this development. The matter is difficult to assess. I came to the House this morning considering that as a representative of the Greens I would support the referral of this matter to the Auditor-General. At the same time I am cognisant of the political issues revolving around the straightforward requirement to refer the matter to the Auditor-General. I will attempt to discuss the matter with Tony Harris, the Auditor-General, within the next hour and I hope to be able to separate some of the political issues from the substantive issues.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is underfunded to the extent that the budget allocation for 1998-99 is $1 million short of the necessary funds to cover award wage increases incurred in 1997? Further, is it underfunded by $267,000 for the current wage structure for the balance of this financial year? Is it a fact that three crown prosecutor vacancies remain unfilled? Is it also a fact that many trials scheduled for the next three months are unbriefed? Why has this situation been allowed to continue? Given the desperate financial position of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the impact this will have on criminal trials, what action will the Attorney take to address these issues?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: My understanding is that the budget for the Director of Public Prosecutions has been progressively increased over the last three years. In so far as the question refers to the lack of funding for award wage increases, I understand that that applies to every agency in the public sector. Certain percentages of the wage increases were funded and certain percentages were required to be absorbed by all agencies. It is not as though the Director of Public Prosecutions has in any way been singled out for differential treatment in that respect.

The Council on the Cost of Government is completing an analysis of the administration of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am hopeful that the council’s report will recommend some efficiencies and alterations of practices that can be effected so as to make the Director of Public Prosecutions a more efficient prosecutorial authority. However, in all candour, it is true that in respect of some cases looming before the courts at present no prosecutor has been briefed. I had discussions with Mr Cowdery yesterday, and the Government is considering what steps ought to be taken to address that situation.

The Hon. E. M. OBEID: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Why is the Howard Government trying to penalise New South Wales for supporting rice growers from the Murrumbidgee and Murray regions? Given the failure of the outgoing Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to support New South Wales rice growers, what action is the new Minister taking to show his support for this vital industry?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. E. M. Obeid for his continued interest in the New South Wales rice growing industry. I take this opportunity to advise the House of the New South Wales Government’s position on the rice industry. Honourable members will be aware that the Carr Government has sought to retain the vesting powers of the rice industry in New South Wales - a position that has the full support of the rice industry itself. The Minister for Agriculture has been vocal on this issue and is keen to support the industry in recognition of its continuing success.

Page 8832

About 99 per cent of Australia’s rice industry is located in New South Wales, predominantly in the Murray and Murrumbidgee regions. It is an extremely successful industry which continues to grow in value each year. The rice industry came under a National Competition Council review in 1995. Under the Council of Australian Governments - COAG - agreement, the New South Wales Government is required to comply with National Competition Council reviews. The Government has done that, but I point out that there is no compulsion on the New South Wales Government to decide on a particular outcome for the industry under review.

In the case of the rice industry review a recommendation was made to remove the vesting powers of the Rice Marketing Board for the domestic sale of rice. The New South Wales Government chose to oppose that recommendation, for a very good reason: in order to support the stability of the rice industry. The industry is extremely happy with the New South Wales Government’s decision. The National Competition Council and the Federal Government, however, seem determined to remove the vesting powers as they affect the domestic market. The Federal Government has subsequently threatened to withdraw $10 million a year from the New South Wales Government unless it reverses its decision. The Government’s position is that this is simply not on. The Federal Government is effectively holding the New South Wales Government to ransom and totally ignoring the real value of the rice industry in this country.

The Minister for Agriculture, my colleague the Hon. Richard Amery, has lobbied hard, both before and during the recent Federal election campaign, for this threat to be withdrawn. The Federal election is over, but we have not received a commitment from the Federal Government that the New South Wales Government will not be penalised for its decision. The Hon. Mark Vaile is the new agriculture Minister in the Federal Parliament and I can but hope that he will push to support the decision to retain the vesting powers of the rice industry. However, we are still waiting.

As I have already said, the rice industry is worth more than $600 million and in 1997 produced 1.38 million tonnes of rice. The industry directly employs 6,500 people and provides a stable and secure economic base for more than 6,000 families in the Murray and Murrumbidgee regions. Further, more than 85 per cent of our rice is exported and competes very well on the international market. The industry also competes well domestically, with more than 85 per cent of all rice eaten within Australia grown locally. Imported rice is not subjected to tariffs or duties, so there is very much a free market. As an example of further success, the consumption of rice within Australia has risen dramatically in recent years, from an average of 2.5 kilograms per person in 1971 to an average of 5.5 kilograms per person in 1992. I understand on advice from my colleague the Minister for Agriculture that that figure continues to grow.

The Government’s overriding argument is this: If the system is not broken, why fix it? If the industry is working so well, why change it? The rice industry has been in contact with the National Competition Council to try to nut out some alternative options to the single-desk arrangement. I understand that no workable alternatives have yet been put forward. I call on the re-elected Federal coalition Government to give certainty to the rice industry and clearly state that it will not penalise the New South Wales Government $10 million over the issue. I also call on the New South Wales Opposition, including those present in the Chamber, to lobby their Federal counterparts so that the rice industry can push ahead with certainty and confidence.

The Hon. R. T. M. BULL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister not agree that legislation passed by this Parliament to secure vesting of rice cannot be overturned unless agreed to by this Parliament?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: To state that fact is a truism. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is deliberately avoiding the nub of the answer I have just given, namely that this Government, and this Parliament for that matter, have legislated in favour of the rice industry, and it is secure as a result of that legislation. However, the Hon. Richard Bull is prepared to overlook the fact that his mates in Canberra are seeking to penalise the State of New South Wales to the extent of $10 million. We do not regard it as legitimate or appropriate that this State, in effect, is to be fined $10 million for looking after the rice industry.

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: Will you repeal the legislation after the election? Is that what you are saying?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is interesting to note how excited the Hon. Richard Bull and the Hon. John Hannaford are about this matter. I would
Page 8833
like to know if they are going to defend the interests of the State of New South Wales and the rice industry, or are they prepared to have New South Wales fined $10 million?

The Hon. J. P. Hannaford: You won’t answer the issue.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: You won’t answer the issue. You are deliberately avoiding the issue. You are prepared to have New South Wales fined $10 million. That is not good enough.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services to address his remarks through the chair, and I ask the Hon. J. P. Hannaford not to interject.

The Hon. A. B. KELLY: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading. Will the Minister tell this House what his department is doing to curb the activities of an unlicensed travel agent and the companies with which he is associated?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Michael John Bartlett has had a chequered career in the travel industry that stretches back to 1993 when one of his companies, Sunseeker Holidays Pty Ltd, failed to provide aircraft for Christmas flights, leaving some 200 unfortunate people stranded in Australia and New Zealand. History repeated itself in 1996 when Sunseeker Holidays again failed to provide aircraft to transport Christmas holiday-makers between Australia and New Zealand.

Mr Bartlett also operates the Atlas Travel Club Pty Ltd. Membership costs $25, which allegedly gives members access to special travel deals, competition prizes and discounted goods and services. Gold and silver memberships are also available. These cost up to $6,000 for eight years, and it is claimed that members will receive special travel deals for their money. Mr Bartlett maintains that the money is refundable, but he has not advised the Department of Fair Trading under what circumstances it would be refundable.

Mr Bartlett is also associated with a number of other companies - Bizstops, East Coat Tick-it Travel, the Seaboard Group Ltd, Seaboard Airlines Pty Ltd and Seaboard Airlines Pty Ltd (NZ). The Atlas Travel Club also has a website through which one can book hotel accommodation, and air and coach travel. These are activities confined to licensed travel agents. On the evidence available to the Department of Fair Trading, Mr Bartlett is clearly operating as a travel agent, yet he is not licensed to do so. It is important to realise that licensing in the travel industry affords significant safeguards for Australian travellers.

When people make travel arrangements through a licensed travel agent, they know that should things go wrong they will be protected by the Travel Compensation Fund. If the travel agency they are dealing with suddenly collapses, or if money is misappropriated, the Travel Compensation Fund will come to their rescue. They will be reimbursed, which is reassuring news for travellers.

However, anyone dealing with Mr Bartlett’s companies is not protected by the fund. Given his appalling track record, that is an alarming prospect. Mr Bartlett denies that he is acting as a travel agent, despite his close connection with these companies and despite advertisements appearing in the Sun-Herald as recently as 12 July 1998 promoting cut-price air fares to New Zealand through the Atlas Travel Club Ltd. The Department of Fair Trading believes otherwise, and is actively pursuing all means of clipping Mr Bartlett’s wings. But Mr Bartlett is proving an elusive bird to track down. His registered Sydney office is currently vacant, although it seems that he is conducting some business from his Coogee residence.

While the Department of Fair Trading is completing its ongoing investigations into the activities of Michael John Bartlett, I urge consumers to steer well clear of any travel deals that he or any of his companies offer. It is simply not worth the risk of dealing with Mr Bartlett, as hundreds of travellers have already found out over the years to their detriment.

I emphasise that when making travel arrangements, consumers should always ensure that they are dealing with a licensed agent. Consumers should also be wary of responding to heavily discounted or free air offers that are promoted from time to time by operators who are not established in the industry. These people may not be appropriately licensed or hold the necessary air operator approvals. Consumers who have any doubts should contact the Department of Fair Trading before booking or paying for a holiday. People in New South Wales work hard for their living. They should not lose money when they plan to take a well-earned holiday, especially at Christmas time. I will now issue media warnings to caution the public to be aware of this unlicensed operator and his dubious companies.

Page 8834

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works and Services, in his capacity as the Acting Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. I refer to comments made in this House on 11 November 1997 by the then Minister for Community Services that cost was a factor to be considered in any decision to screen all staff in the Department of Community Services. Why did the Premier not take any steps to ensure that appropriate funding was made available to the Department of Community Services? Why did the Premier not consider screening of all staff a priority?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The matter is clearly one that should be responded to by the Minister for Community Services. When I have her response I will convey it to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Corrective Services, whether the Minister is aware of the latest research showing how companion animals can help relieve the pain children may experience after operations and speed the healing process for all patients. Is the Minister aware of the enormous benefits of companion animals to assist alienated prisoners to become better adjusted and help them return to a crime-free life in society? What progress is being made in introducing companion animals into prisons to aid in the rehabilitation of prisoners?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will take the matter up with the Hon. Bob Debus and obtain a response for the honourable member.

The Hon P. T. PRIMROSE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development. The Minister would be aware of recent comments by the Hon. Franca Arena and in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning the gambling counselling sector. What is the Government’s response to those comments?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I thank the Hon. P. T. Primrose for his interest in counselling services for those who do not know when to stop gambling. I am aware of comments made by the Hon. Franca Arena and others on this matter criticising the operation of the Community Benefit Fund. I acknowledge the genuine concern of the Hon. Franca Arena in this matter, but her information was incorrect. It is important that the record be set straight on the allegations made in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Firstly, I am advised that one of the gambling services quoted in the Herald article, the Wesley Gambling Services at Chippendale, has so far received more than $750,000 from the fund and is continuing to be funded at a rate of more than $17,000 per month. So much for hitting a funding snag! I am also advised that the trustees of the fund recently received a letter from the Wesley service expressing its "sincerest thanks for the financial support and backing". That letter did not mention any need to lay off staff. Rather, it stated:

Every problem gambler who has received counselling assistance through this avenue, when they become aware of the contribution from the C.C.B.F., express their gratitude that ‘someone is putting something back in their lives’, not just taking it out.

I understand that since that Sydney Morning Herald article appeared last Saturday the acting manager of the Wesley service has written to the fund trustees refuting the statements attributed to the service in the article. In her letter the acting general manager said:

I am very distressed at the dishonesty and distortion of the truth . . . Please be assured that my intention was never to cast a slur on the very body which supplies our funding.

In relation to the criticisms that the trustees are, for some reason, sitting on millions of dollars of funds, it is important to note that $17.8 million dollars has already been allocated, leaving about $6 million available from the fund at present. Recently the trustees called for applications for problem gambling counselling services and they are assessing the 100 or so applications received, totalling more than $10 million. It is expected that the bulk of the $6 million available from the fund will be utilised for funding successful applications. However, I note that one of the projects which has been paid for by the fund has been research into the capacity of existing problem gambling counselling services to meet demand. I understand that this recent study showed significant underutilisation of existing gambling counselling services.

In other words, research shows that there is a sufficient supply of problem gambling counselling services to address the needs of problem gamblers in New South Wales. That is not to say though that the nature of the services cannot be improved, or that
Page 8835
services are necessarily appropriately spread throughout the State. The issue of problem gambling is an extremely serious one. I welcome the genuine interest displayed by some honourable members in responding to it. It is also a very emotive area, and I regret that the Sydney Morning Herald chose to print an article which was not as well researched as it might have been. In the interests of accurate and credible debate on this matter I urge honourable members to verify their information before public statements are made about gambling issues, either by contacting the Minister’s office or the counselling services direct.

The Hon. FRANCA ARENA: I ask the Acting Leader of the House, representing the Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Ethnic Affairs, a question without notice. Will intellectually disabled people face shocking problems if licensed boarding houses are freed from government regulations? Is the Government considering a radical proposal outlined in a secret State Cabinet meeting as reported in the media? Does the Government intend moving monitoring of regulations from the Department of Ageing and Disability, which has stringently enforced licensing requirements, to the Department of Fair Trading, which does not have such stringent requirements? Will the Government make available an extra $15 million for support services to residents left in boarding houses as recommended by the Cabinet Office commissioned report?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is a truism to say that Cabinet minutes are, of their very nature, confidential. The matter is still subject to Cabinet consideration. No final decision has been made. The best course for me to adopt is to request the Premier and the Minister for Community Services to respond to the concerns raised by the Hon. Franca Arena.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I direct my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Local Government. Why did the Minister for Local Government make an attack on local government reform in Victoria, as reported in the Border Mail on Friday, 9 October, referring to council bankruptcy and forcing the Victorian Minister for Local Government to correct him by stating that no Victorian council was bankrupt? Given the track record of poor management of this do-nothing New South Wales Minister for Local Government, for example, on the Companion Animals Bill and the septic tank regulation, why is he spending so much time commenting on matters outside his jurisdiction instead of fixing up his own backyard? When will this Minister for Local Government apologise to our neighbouring State?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is difficult in principle for me to deal with questions that ask why another Minister took a particular step. I have to say that I do not know, but I am sure that the Hon. Ernie Page knows why he did it. I will ask him.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads a question without notice. Was the Roads and Traffic Authority involved in any way in the preparation of what appears to be demonstrably false traffic projections for the M2 project? Did those overestimations have an impact on the share price for the Hills motorway? Will the Minister refer this matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to enable it to investigate conclusively whether this is a fraudulent representation of traffic figures?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I will seek from the Minister for Roads a response to the question asked by the Hon. I. Cohen and convey that response to him.

The Hon. J. KALDIS: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Services and relates to the upgrading of George Street and Railway Square. Is the Minister aware of recent public comment concerning disabled access in the city of Sydney? What steps are being taken to guarantee access for the elderly or disabled in the George Street-Railway Square area?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member has a long-standing and demonstrated interest in disability issues. I am aware of some recent public comment concerning disabled access to the Sydney central business district, especially as it affects the Railway Square and George Street precinct. The issue of disabled access in and around Sydney is important. It is an issue for which I have developed a strong commitment in my current ministerial role and, for that matter, I developed a strong commitment for this issue in my previous role. George Street has long been something of a
Page 8836
hazard for the elderly or people with disabilities, given its uneven surfacing and narrow footpaths. The current redevelopment provides a unique opportunity for the State -

[Interruption]

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is using a walking stick because he has been experimenting with baby walkers. He has not been going down George Street at all.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Don’t you make a joke about it. I slipped on Frank Sartor’s steps in his street. Frank Sartor is causing more trouble than he is worth.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The best advice I can give the honourable member is to try his chances with a legal action against Frank Sartor. The current redevelopment provides a unique opportunity -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: The baby walkers have been withdrawn. I have run around today and you can hardly buy the ones that are dangerous because the shopping centres are taking a very responsible attitude.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is obvious that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has a well-demonstrated interest in baby walkers. I am not sure why. The current redevelopment provides a unique opportunity for the State not only to upgrade and remodel this important area of Sydney but also to provide a permanent solution to disabled access from the Central railway station precinct north into the city centre. In January 1997 the Premier announced a project to redevelop Railway Square and that section of George Street running north to Bathurst Street near the Town Hall. The project followed a detailed assessment of the needs of the city.

The process started in July 1995 when the incoming Labor Government endorsed an accessible city strategy for all of Sydney. That strategy, endorsed via a memorandum of understanding between the Government and Sydney City Council, is directed at improving pedestrian safety and amenity and at striking a better balance between the needs of pedestrians and motorists. Following this agreement, the Government determined that principal pedestrian safety measures in this precinct would be achieved via the provision of wider footpaths to ease overcrowding and additional signalled street crossings.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Will you get courier bicycles off footpaths?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I take it that the footpaths will be wide enough to allow for the needs of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and his baby walker. The balance of improvements in other streets of Sydney are the full responsibility of Sydney City Council. The Government and Sydney City Council are well aware of the need to make the city accessible to people with a disability. The George Street-Railway Square project certainly addresses that need. Particular improvements that benefit people with a disability include: a lift and widened escalators in the Devonshire Street tunnel to facilitate movements from the bus interchange; widened laybacks at pedestrian crossings; more even footpath surfaces as a result of new paving and consolidation of service access covers; a 50 per cent improvement in lighting levels in Railway Square and along George Street; guides to indicate changes in footpath levels to assist the sight impaired; and better markings for pedestrian crossings.

Public concern was expressed that the upgrade works should be compatible with the State’s new low entry point buses, the introduction of which was announced recently by the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads. I am advised that a trial last month of the new George Street footpath and gutter conditions confirmed that this arrangement worked effectively with the new buses. Notwithstanding the success of the trial, I have directed my department to continue to work closely with the Sydney City Council to address the concerns of the Physical Disability Council and others with an interest in disabled access to the city centre. I am confident that the upgrade works will provide a much greater level of disabled access in and around the central business district of Sydney. I commend all those involved in the upgrade project for their diligence in ensuring that the needs of all Sydney residents, including those with disabilities, are catered for.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I direct my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Local Government. Is the Minister aware that a public notice indicating council approval for night racing at Canterbury Park Racecourse and inviting public inspection of the development consent was placed in the local newspaper, the Torch, on 27 May? Would the Minister advise whether files relating to that development consent were available for public perusal at Canterbury City Council premises on that date and subsequently? If the files were not available, where were they and why were they removed from council premises?

Page 8837

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I shall take on board the question asked by the Hon. J. M. Samios and ascertain whether the Minister for Local Government can shed any light on the matter.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the Clean Water Coalition, after undertaking a survey, is concerned about public availability of information and accessibility to data on regional drinking water quality? The group surveyed six key regions. While information was provided by some regions, the Health Department refused access to information in other areas. Apparently, there is no centre in regional New South Wales that tests for cryptosporidium or giardia. For example, the Health Department did not provide data from Inverell, Broken Hill, Murwillumbah and Coffs Harbour. What information is being routinely provided and how is it provided? Does the Health Department have guidelines about what tests should be performed and where test results should be made available? If so, are the results available in a forum, such as the Internet, so that information can be made available to everyone at any time?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I will obtain a response to that detailed question from my colleague the Minister for Health and convey it to the Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans.

The Hon. A. B. MANSON: My question is to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading. The Industrial Relations Act 1996 sets as an objective the prevention and elimination of discrimination in employment. Will the Minister inform the House what the Government has done in the past two years to achieve this object?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Hon. A. B. Manson is correct in suggesting in his question that one of the Government’s objects has been to try to bring together and to make more compatible the law against discrimination in the workplace and the laws governing industrial relations. That is why the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act incorporates an anti-discrimination framework, which I believe is unique in Australian industrial relations. Substantive provisions throughout the Act ensure that industrial outcomes are free from discrimination. The Government is pleased to report that these provisions have had a positive impact within the industrial relations community.

No longer will the Industrial Relations Commission make awards and agreements that discriminate. Parties must redraft offending provisions. The commission cannot settle industrial disputes in a way that offends the principles of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The president of the Anti-Discrimination Board now takes an active part in test cases and other proceedings before the commission, providing invaluable advice on discrimination matters to both the commission and the parties. In recent months the new president of the commission, Justice Wright, reiterated the importance of discrimination issues to the commission’s work.

Parties now identify awards that need reviewing to eliminate discrimination. Pursuant to section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act, which concerns a review of awards every three years, the commission will define what may constitute discriminatory practices in awards and develop principles to eliminate these practices. That will enable the commission to systematically remove discriminatory conditions from awards. The acceptance by the parties and the pro-active role demonstrated by the commission towards discrimination issues cannot be underestimated. Careful drafting of the Act has reaped enormous benefits and progress towards achieving the objective of preventing and eliminating discrimination from the workplace.

Within my Department of Industrial Relations and the Anti-Discrimination Board a co-operative approach to implementing the objects and provisions of the legislation has been adopted. The DIR and Anti-Discrimination Board continue to collaborate on a number of publications and training initiatives to ensure that recipients of government services understand the convergence of these two important areas. These developments are an encouraging indication of the acceptance and ability of the industrial relations jurisdiction to recognise and address employment-based discrimination and are a further example of the successful implementation of the Government’s industrial relations reforms.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Given the nature of the dispute between the Health Department and visiting medical officers about the supply of obstetric services in public hospitals, will the Minister reconsider his position in regard to legislative changes to overcome what is obviously market failure of the current professional indemnity insurance arrangements?

Page 8838

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: All sorts of details can be examined about professional indemnity insurance, but it would be a very large step - in fact, quite a radical step - to inhibit the right of people to sue for negligence.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I didn’t say that.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I do not want to be unfair to the honourable member. He is not, I gather, suggesting that. I shall take up the matter with the Minister for Health today and ascertain what steps might be taken to ameliorate the position. I have noticed evidence of this problem.

The Hon. J. R. JOHNSON: My question without notice is to the Acting Leader of the Government. What is the Government doing to assist the growth of the music industry in New South Wales?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I know that the Hon. J. R. Johnson has a particular interest in Irish music. Cultural industries in this country are big business, with new jobs growing at almost three times the national average. The music recording industry alone generates more than $600 million a year. The New South Wales Government has announced a package of $180,000 towards the development of young talent and the contemporary music industry in New South Wales. A new music promotion body, musicNSW, has been established this month and the head of the organisation has been announced. musicNSW demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the continued growth of contemporary music.

MusicNSW will help train and promote emerging musicians and band managers, co-ordinate services within the industry and provide advice to government. Bands such as silverchair, Grinspoon and The Whitlams are enjoying great success. However, the music of many other young talented musicians goes no further than the four walls of their garage, for want of good advice and promotion. Musicnsw has already established close links with industry leaders, and a series of forums for new musicians have been organised throughout Sydney and regional New South Wales. The musicNSW web site will be a vital tool to ensure that people remain closely involved with the association and are in touch with industry developments and events.

Eleven of Australia’s key industry representatives have accepted positions on the inaugural board, including Michael Chugg, the General Manager of Frontier Touring Company Pty Ltd; Jane Cruikshank, from Arts Training New South Wales; Marcella McAdam, from the Australian Record Industry Association; and Richard Kingsmill, from Triple J Radio. The funding package will deliver the musicnsw web site to keep emerging artists in touch with each other and industry developments. A series of workshops at Casula Powerhouse in Sydney’s west -

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher: Where?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Casula Powerhouse.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I have been there.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is just south of Liverpool.

[Interruption]

I sometimes think that the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti might need a map and a cut lunch to find anywhere in western Sydney.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I’ll bet you have never been there. Have you ever been there? I have.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti ever ends up at the Casula Powerhouse - he can stay there as long he likes - he will learn about sound production and how the music industry works.

The Hon. B. H. Vaughan: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti knows everything about sound production.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: He produces a lot of sound - whether it is melodious is another matter. Finally, the Government is providing $30,000 for youth music projects, including the funding of a musician in residence at the University of Western Sydney, a youth music fiesta at Mount Druitt - perhaps the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti might like to participate in that - and a battle of the bands in Liverpool. The New South Wales Government is actively supporting growth in the dynamic New South Wales music industry.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Deputy Premier, and
Page 8839
Minister for Health. On Tuesday I asked the Minister a question regarding the Central Coast Area Health Service. The honourable member for Wyong, Paul Crittenden, said on 25 June:

Governments must meet the challenge to provide funding and equipment to ensure that people’s health needs are met. I am pleased to report to the House that this is exactly what is occurring in the Wyong electorate.

Will the Minister explain why the honourable member said that? On Tuesday I quoted the remarks of the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Coast Area Health Service, Jon Blackwell, and today I have quoted the honourable member for Wyong, Mr Crittenden. Who is correct? If Mr Crittenden is incorrect, will the Minister move to correct him?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The honourable member has asked a remarkably silly question. I will ask the Minister for Health to provide me with a response. I note that the question asked by the honourable member on Tuesday was posed in a less argumentative form than the question he has asked today. I am seeking a response to that question from the Minister for Health. I will convey the response to the honourable member when I receive it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: My question is to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Police. Is it a fact that the police officers investigating the brutal murder of 14-year-old Edward Lee in the Punchbowl area have received threatening transmissions on police frequencies? Is it a fact that the perpetrators of this crime appear to know the names of the police officers involved in the investigation? What action will the Government, the Commissioner of Police and the Minister for Police take, first, to ensure that police radio channels are secure from outside interference and available only for police use, second, to protect the police officers involved in the investigation of this heinous murder and, third, to bring these murderers to justice?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I thank the honourable member for raising matters which, if correct, are of concern. I will refer his question to the Minister for Police as a matter of urgency.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister will recall that he announced recently that nine municipal councils had signed a groundbreaking safety pledge with the WorkCover Authority. Will the Minister report on the progress of this pledge?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Nine local councils signed a safety pledge with the WorkCover Authority, which was an important development. The following councils are involved: Shellharbour, Wagga Wagga, Mulwaree, Goulburn, Mudgee, Dubbo, Parkes, Gilgandra and Orange. The signatories to the agreement are committed to working with WorkCover to ensure the integration of occupational health and safety and rehabilitation management systems in each council’s business and operation culture. The ownership of those systems is thereby assumed by the council. Under the agreement WorkCover is helping the councils to improve and revamp their safety and management systems during the next 18 months, leading the way for other workplaces in their regions.

What prompted WorkCover to steer such a partnership was a quest to see a significant reduction in injuries and illness. This will also lead to other benefits for the councils, such as increased staff morale, greater productivity and large savings. The first step of the project has seen Workcover audit each council’s documentation about safety as a way to benchmark their systems. This means running a fine-tooth comb through each council’s procedures, policies and documents that show how they currently manage occupational health and safety.

That procedure was completed last Friday and a confidential report for each council is currently being prepared. The councils will decide whether they want to share the results with each other. They will be encouraged to do so because it will be fundamental to benchmarking - that is, comparing one organisation against another. Later in the project further auditing will measure the improvement in the safety systems and how they have taken on board information gleaned through dynamic WorkCover seminars to be held next month for key council staff, including the chief executives.

Shortly there will also be a survey to gauge the perceptions of managers, supervisors and employees about safety and occupational health obligations and issues. This survey will be completed in about a year’s time, providing insight into attitude change within each council towards safety issues. Each council has appointed an employee to be responsible for driving the safety agenda through the organisation. We are talking about an exciting project that will have ripple effects through the regions of each council, spreading the message to many workplaces across rural New
Page 8840
South Wales. We are not focusing on just one industry but many. I look forward to reporting to the House on further updates of the project.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware that of the 50 school term hostels in Australia only five remain in New South Wales? Is he further aware that, unlike Queensland and the Northern Territory, which have recurrent funding schemes, and Western Australia, which offers cross subsidies, this State offers absolutely nothing?

Is the Minister aware that Queensland has the highest remote area year 12 school completion rate in Australia as well as one of the lowest school hostel price rates? This Government has found an extra $22 million to fund free school travel and increased its total budget to $367 million for the service in 1998. Will the Minister provide financial assistance to any of the remaining five hostels in this State or to the students attending them, who at this stage number no more than 80?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I will refer the question to the Minister for Education and Training and obtain a response.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: I ask the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for the Environment: Is the Minister aware that the United States of America company In-Sink-Erator is lobbying residents within the Waverley Council area to oppose the proposed ban on food waste disposers? Is it a fact that Sydney Water supports the ban on such waste disposers? Will the Minister advise what research the Environment Protection Authority has done into the effect of food disposers on our water quality?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I undertake to refer the question to the Minister for the Environment and obtain a reply for the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: Will the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading inform the House about recent grants promoting education and professional developments in the New South Wales property industry?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: The Department of Fair Trading gives substantial grants to many groups throughout New South Wales. In the property services industry funding is given each year to both consumers and traders under the property services grants program. The grants program promotes consumer education and raises professional standards in the industry. Recently more than $300,000 was given to community groups under this worthy program. Both city and country groups benefited from the grants, which are for the 1998-99 financial year.

Under the program the University of Western Sydney was recently given $52,000 to help provide an external bachelor of commerce degree in property economics. This course, which will be provided by the university’s Hawkesbury campus, will help students to begin new careers in the property industry or increase their qualifications in their existing careers. Providing information on the Internet is an increasingly effective way to quickly inform consumers about their rights or the services available to them. The Redfern Legal Centre, which has an outstanding reputation in educating consumers about the law, has been given $26,525 under the property services grants program.

The funding will allow the legal centre to put its "Share Housing Survival Guide" on the Internet. People living in share housing, who are often young people, will be easily able to access information about this particular form of tenancy. The Real Estate Institute also will be able to provide Internet information about its services, after it received a $35,000 grant. The REI will use the funding to set up its own web site, which will be accessible to both the real estate industry and real estate consumers. Importantly, the REI web site will be linked to the property services home page of the Department of Fair Trading, so property consumers will be able to browse both sites.

The REI has also been given $35,000 to produce a video on strata living, which will help both property professionals and strata scheme residents to understand strata laws. It will add to the public’s knowledge of rights and obligations in property issues. The Redfern Legal Centre has also been given a second grant of $69,014 to provide a face-to-face training course on property law for property owners and managers. The course, which is entitled "How to be a Good Owner or Manager", will be adapted from the Redfern Legal Centre’s publication "Law for Non-Lawyers".

Page 8841

Other property services grants are: $46,000 to the Stock and Station Agents Association for competency-based training packages for stock and station agents; three grants totalling $17,000 to the Institute of Strata Management for a professional development workshop, a new certificate course and a professional accreditation program; and $61,000 to the Australian Property Institute for a continuing professional development program. I congratulate all the organisations on obtaining the grants. I commend them for their commitment to informing consumers and lifting educational standards in their own industries.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that, according to New South Wales recorded crime statistics for 1997, assaults have increased by more than 20 per cent since 1995 and assaults in the inner Sydney area, including the Chinatown precinct, occur twice as often as in the rest of New South Wales? Is the Minister further aware that robbery with knives and daggers has increased in the inner city by 300 per cent and that in the inner city robbery with a knife occurs six times more often than in the rest of New South Wales? What measures will the Minister take to protect the businesses and consumers in the inner city area, including Chinatown, to ensure that people are not fearful to walk down the street and that businesses are not affected because of robbery and assault? Many people have expressed their grave concerns to me, particularly recently.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: I know the interest that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho takes in particular in the Chinatown or Haymarket area of Sydney, an important tourist area and also an important recreational area for the people of Australia. I undertake to take up her concerns and her question with the Minister for Police and obtain a response.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: I ask the Minister for Public Works and Services, representing the Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Is it true that there is to be a three-month trial of an automatic syringe vending machine at Hawkesbury Hospital? In view of the outrage expressed by Hawkesbury businesses, will the Minister advise whether there is to be or has been any community consultation on the matter?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: It is a safe assumption to make that proposition in questions in this House to me from the Hon. J. F. Ryan that I refer to the Minister for Health are not necessarily factually sound. At the end of question time today I will deliver a response to a question asked by the Hon. J. F. Ryan about emergency department services at Mount Druitt Hospital. He will find that his information is wrong. I will convey the question just asked by the Hon. J. F. Ryan to the Minister for Health in case there is any credence to be attached to it. When I have a response, negative or otherwise, I will convey it to the honourable member.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT: My question is addressed to the Acting Leader of the Government in this House, representing the Minister for Roads. Bearing in mind that the flood waters are now receding from the north-west of New South Wales, what financial assistance will be provided - particularly to the Narrabri, Moree Plains, Yallaroi, Walgett and Brewarrina shires - for the repair of the extensive damage to the roadwork in the region?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: Clearly the widespread flooding in the north-west and other areas of the State in recent months has caused damage. My responsibility in this matter relates to the infrastructure of local councils. The Minister for Roads is of course responsible for roads, and to that extent I will refer this sensible question, which one expects from the Hon. D. F. Moppett, to the Minister and convey the response to him.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: My question without notice is to the Attorney General. One of the primary functions of the Anti-Discrimination Board is to investigate, and attempt to conciliate, complaints of unlawful discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. How successful has the board been in finalising complaints?

The Hon. J. W. SHAW: Honourable members will be aware that the Anti-Discrimination Act empowers the Anti-Discrimination Board to investigate, and attempt to conciliate, complaints of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex - including sexual harassment - marital status, disability, homosexuality, age and transgender status, as well as complaints of vilification on the grounds of race, homosexuality, HIV-AIDS status and transgender status. The board’s conciliation functions
Page 8842
are a crucial part of its work and reflect the Government’s view that all attempts should be made to resolve complaints of discrimination in a mutually agreed, non-litigious manner wherever possible.

In the 1997-98 financial year the board received 1,312 complaints, 1,083 of which fell within its jurisdiction. The total number of complaints received represents a decrease of 20 per cent on the previous financial year, and that can be attributed to the effectiveness of the board’s educational programs and its success in encouraging parties to resolve problems between themselves in appropriate cases. This is the point I want to make in response to the question. In that period the board finalised 1,520 complaints, of which 1,252 fell within its statutory jurisdiction. Of the complaints within its jurisdiction, 17 per cent were formally conciliated and another 50 per cent were not proceeded with.

There are many reasons why complaints do not proceed. The board’s investigations may reveal that discrimination is not the real cause of a dispute, and in other cases the board resolves complaints without the need for formal conciliation by enabling persons to resolve disputes by alternative means. So far as time frames are concerned, the board’s aim, as stated in its business plan, is to finalise 20 per cent of allocated complaints in two months, 60 per cent within six months and 85 per cent within 12 months. I am pleased to report that the board met or surpassed all of these targets in 1997-98. It finalised 45 per cent of complaints in two months, 66 per cent within six months, and 85 per cent within a year. They are tangible improvements in the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Board.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: I suggest that if honourable members have further questions, they place them on notice.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 17 September the Hon. J. F. Ryan asked me a question without notice concerning emergency department services at Mount Druitt Hospital. The Minister for Health has provided the following answer:

The Western Sydney Area Health Service has advised that claims that the emergency department at Mount Druitt Hospital is to close are wrong. The board of directors of the Western Sydney Area Health Service has not endorsed any proposal to alter or reconfigure health services in the area, nor is there any intention to put similar proposals before the board in the near future. The area health service will not endorse any proposals which reduce access to emergency services or reduce the quality or level of inpatient services to the people of Blacktown and Mount Druitt.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 17 September the Hon. I. Cohen asked me a question without notice about integrated total water cycle management planning. The Minister for Land and Water Conservation has provided the following answer:

The Government has released the report on the Codd inquiry so that all of its recommendations can be publicly debated, but has not yet adopted the recommendations. The Government supports the concept of integrated total water cycle management planning on a catchment basis. The Department of Land and Water Conservation has established an urban water management branch, which has responsibilities including the development of policies and guidelines for urban water cycle management and to facilitate the implementation of urban water cycle management through local government water authorities.

The approach being used for developing and implementing integrated water supply, sewerage and stormwater management strategies for water authorities includes:

•for each major catchment, in consultation with the catchment stakeholders, the councils will jointly develop a catchment-wide strategic framework for meeting the river flow and water quality objectives, the agreed total water cycle approach that each council will take, and opportunities for joint development of services by councils;

•each council will then develop a long-term integrated water, sewerage and stormwater strategy, which will consider the overall water services needs together to find sustainable economic solutions with minimal adverse environmental impacts.

The Department of Land and Water Conservation is also preparing guidelines for demand management and waste minimisation to reduce the sewage effluent produced. The department is also undertaking a strategic review of both sewage effluent and stormwater reuse and disposal to identify cost-effective options and regulatory constraints.

In addition, the department is assisting local government to prepare integrated water, sewerage and stormwater strategies for a number of pilot projects. The experience gained through the application of a total water cycle management approach on these projects is expected to result in more practical guidelines and strategies. Government financial assistance is also available to water authorities under the country town water supply and sewerage program to prepare strategy studies for integrated water, sewerage and stormwater management.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: On 17 September the Hon. Franca Arena asked me a question without notice about Internet gambling. The Minister for Gaming and Racing has provided the following answer:

The Government has no plans at this stage to legalise Internet gambling.

Page 8843
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: On 15 October the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked me a question without notice about Moree prisoner escorts. The Minister for Corrective Services has provided the following answer:

I have nothing to add to my previous answer on this subject and note that the honourable member’s question appears to have been misdirected.

Questions without notice concluded.

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that earlier today amended summonses were issued out of the Supreme Court in the Administrative Law Division in proceedings No. 30102/98, the plaintiff being the Hon. Michael Egan and the defendants the Hon. Virginia Anne Chadwick, Mr John Denton Evans and Mr Warren Cameron Cahill. The plaintiff claims:

(a) a declaration that the Legislative Council has no power to order the production of documents the subject of legal professional privilege or public interest immunity or to determine itself a claim for legal professional privilege or public interest immunity;

(b) a declaration that orders 3(ii), 4, 5 and 6 of the orders of the Legislative Council made on 13 October 1998 are beyond the powers of the Legislative Council;

(c) a declaration that order 2 of the orders of the Legislative Council made on 20 October 1998 is beyond the powers of the Legislative Council;

(d) a declaration that order 3 of the orders of the Legislative Council made on 20 October 1998 is:

(i) punitive in nature; and
(ii) beyond the powers of the Legislative Council;

(e) an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps to compel compliance by the plaintiff with order 3(ii) of the orders of the Legislative Council made on 13 October 1998;

(f) an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps to compel compliance by the Plaintiff with order 3 of the orders of the Legislative Council made on 20 October 1998;

(g) such further or other order as the court thinks fit;

(h) costs.

I also inform the House that Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Solicitors, have been engaged to represent the defendants in the proceedings.

[The President left the chair at 1.06 p.m. The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.]

Bill received and read a first time.

Suspension of standing orders agreed to.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.41 p.m.]: An interesting debate took place outside the precincts of this House today as I, as a member of the crossbench and a Green member of the upper House, tried to grapple with a number of somewhat parallel but often conflicting issues that have evolved from the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, who is the shadow attorney general. For many years the M5 East project has been a vexatious issue for the Greens, and I have been lobbied by, and had in-depth discussions with, people who have expressed great concern about the motorway, which is to be constructed through the Bardwell Park valley. The development will have a significant impact on increased traffic flows in the valley and throughout Sydney in general. As the Greens have always argued, these types of developments induce traffic and intensify the car culture in New South Wales, which is expanding rapidly. They also create long-term, grave implications for the health and wellbeing of our community.

During my discussions with various people outside the House today, including the Minister, reference was made to the way in which the Government is approaching the issue. Parallels were sought to be drawn between the present function of the Auditor-General and the potential function of the Auditor-General under the guidelines of this motion. In a letter sent to me today by the Hon. Carl Scully, the Minister for Transport, and Minister for Roads - copies of which, I imagine, were sent to all members of the crossbench - the Minister states that he is advised by the Roads and Traffic Authority that the Auditor-General’s Office is already examining the M5 East proposal, as would occur as a matter of course for a project of this size. The Minister goes on to say:

The Auditor-General’s report will look at the M5 east contracts, tender documentation, financing arrangements, property guarantees, the effect on other RTA projects and any other related documentation.

The Minister stated that the RTA has already met with the Auditor-General’s staff to discuss the issues
Page 8844
and will fully co-operate with the Auditor-General’s inquiries. The Greens received feedback from the Auditor-General during today’s meeting, and he indicated that he would be able to report on these matters by December this year. After discussing the matter with the Auditor-General, other crossbench members and the Opposition, I accept that the investigation requested by the motion will go further than what is being required by the Government at present.

I am very interested in the details of this matter and the fact that the motion presents a tempting further investigation of the matter. However, after speaking with the Auditor-General, I understand that the deadline for reporting will now be extended to the end of January 1999, which is very close to the State election. I am concerned that a legitimate investigation will be mixed up with astute campaigning by the Opposition, headed by the shadow attorney general, which is already under way, and that a political debate will overlay the important debate about ensuring transparency in this issue.

If the Minister dealt with the problems referred to by the coalition, no doubt the Attorney General would be able to resolve the matter, but I am not sure how quickly or efficiently it could be done. The public can be assured that the matter will be investigated, but it will not be completed until very close to the New South Wales elections in 1999. I am keen to see that the outstanding issues relating to the environment, and the economic and social impacts of the M5 East Motorway are examined. Members who wish to further inform themselves about the Government’s dealings with the private sector in relation to providing road infrastructure should visit the web site www.com.au/nickpossum.hills.report.fiscal.98, which examines the finances of The Hills motorway

So many things need to be investigated that the investigation may go beyond the term of this Parliament. It will be ongoing. In May 1995, in my first speech in this House, I was keen to highlight the economic mismanagement of the M2 Motorway. Since the Minister has announced an estimated $1.4 billion in construction and compensation costs associated with the motorway, the Opposition claims to have found approximately $90 million in additional costs, including approximately $60 million in compensation costs and an estimated $11 million to be paid to Interlink should the motorway not be open past July 2001. The Minister has announced that the project will not be completed until mid-2002. The Minister has presented me with information regarding the audit process that would be appropriate for a State project of this size as part of the normal checks and balances. That process is in train.

As a result of reviewing the information given to me by the Minister and speaking with the Auditor-General, I have concluded that the information is different, as I have said previously. The Auditor-General’s office is looking solely at the material transactions relating to the project and whether due process was followed in the tender process. This information will be included in volume 3 of the Auditor-General’s annual report to Parliament. The coalition has called for a review of any project deeds, contracts, preliminary agreements or variations reached between the Government and Baulderstone Hornibrook.

The information supplied by the Minister states, "After this phase some of these aspects may be chosen for more in-depth examination." That statement is not a specific reference to examining the issues raised in this motion, but I believe it is a commitment by the Minister to examine these issues in greater detail at the appropriate time. I was interested to meet with the Auditor-General today during the luncheon adjournment. He said he felt he would be unable to satisfy the more detailed requirements of the motion by December, which is foreshadowed by the deadline of 31 January. The Auditor-General is currently working on nine reports, and would find it difficult to complete this report by the first quarter of next year. The Government could give impetus to the conclusion of the report by supporting the Auditor-General with extra finances and extra staff.

Two issues have to be considered. The first is to resolve these matters through proper transparency in the debate. The second is to deal with the Opposition’s artful pressuring of the crossbenchers to create a political momentum in the run-up to the next New South Wales election. The M5 East, though not a tollway, will add value to the toll road. That aspect should be further investigated. It may be that such investigations would take longer than the term of this Parliament. Both sides of the House have been guilty of being involved in these types of developments. When the coalition was in Government it committed certain transgressions and pushed for the development of motorways in New South Wales, which has been continued by the current Labor Government. That is an example of the power that exists in the bureaucracy of the Roads and Traffic Authority.

In discussions with the Auditor-General it became evident that this motion is not the only
Page 8845
prompt for him to investigate and report. He will investigate and report on any issues put to by any member of the crossbench. Any member of the House has the opportunity to have matters investigated and reported on if the primary objective is a resolution, rather than a sophisticated political campaign tactic prior to an election. If the motion is unsuccessful I undertake to write to the Auditor-General. I cannot support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but I will ensure that other, perhaps less colourful, political avenues are explored to provide the same and, perhaps, a more effective, result.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.57 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party fully supports the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which states:

1. That this House calls on the Auditor-General to immediately and urgently review the terms and conditions of any project deeds, contracts, preliminary agreements or variations reached, or proposed to be reached, between the New South Wales Government and the winning tenderer for the M5 East Motorway project, Baulderstone Hornibrook and Billfinger Berger.

2. That in conducting any review, the Auditor-General obtain independent engineering, environmental and all other necessary advice on all matters relating to the Government’s proposals, including, but not restricted to:

To save the time of the House, and because the motion will appear in today’s Hansard, I will not read the subparagraphs and further paragraphs. We support the Government’s amendment to omit the reporting date of 31 January 1999 and insert instead 12 November 1998. It supports our view that this matter is urgent and should be investigated urgently by the Auditor-General. The time will come when, depending on the stage of development, it will be difficult to make changes. It is important that the Auditor-General review this matter in accordance with the terms of the motion. The M5 East Motorway project has been a disaster from the beginning. I blame the noisy activities of the so-called green groups for that. They are often in opposition to any development, for example Darlinghurst Road, but they particularly oppose the Wolli Creek aspect of this development.

If the original planning requirements that were laid down 50 years ago had been complied with, this matter would not be so controversial. The M5 would have been built and there would have been no smokestacks, no impact on the environment and no loss of property values. Planning through the Roads and Traffic Authority has been strangled by green tape and the Government has been dancing to the green tune. The Government tried to respond to these pressures so as not to antagonise the green vote - it wanted its preferences and support - and that has resulted in a total disaster.

Governments cannot operate in that way. Governments have to make decisions that are in the best interests of the State and not just in the interests of some noisy lobby group. As a result of the Government’s decisions there will be more environmental damage and more air pollution. We can thank the green groups for the huge smokestacks that will be built, which will pollute the environment and dramatically reduce the value of family homes. This proposal has upset hundreds of families in the areas that will be affected. The Government has bent over backwards to appease the green groups. It will probably get no thanks for doing so. The Government has sold its soul but it has gained no benefit. Paragraph 2(e) of the motion states:

a comparative costing between the proposed route of the M5 East Motorway and the original road reservation through the Wolli Creek Valley.

A costing of that nature would be peanuts compared to the Government’s costing of $750 million - almost $1 billion - for the project. Perhaps the account for the $1 billion should be sent to the green groups.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [3.02 p.m.]: The Hon. I. Cohen said earlier in debate that during the suspension of the sitting for lunch the crossbenchers had a revealing and interesting meeting with the Auditor-General, Tony Harris. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Hon. I. Cohen that we should have meetings like that more often. I am one of those people who cannot even add up cheque butts and my eyes glaze over when money matters are referred to, but after that meeting I found that I was beginning to understand the ramifications of this motion. I got the clear impression that the Auditor-General believed that the motion of the Opposition was not really necessary to enable him to conduct a full investigation. He said that the Opposition’s motion was certainly wider - I believe that to be the case - than the investigation he had intended, and that it would require more resources which he had not intended to put into the investigation of the M5 East.

I do not suggest for a moment that the Auditor-General was saying that the motion would not succeed. He pointed out to us that it did not matter whether the motion succeeded; it would make only a minor difference to whether he should carry out a wider investigation. He also indicated that it might delay his reporting of this matter, which he had originally scheduled for December. He said that he was not anxious to bring down a report after
Page 8846
December, that is, in the first quarter of next year, because that might result in the politicisation of his office, which he rightly believes should remain quite separate from politics.

The Auditor-General told us that he could widen his planned investigation if he felt it was necessary to do so, whether or not this motion succeeds. He also told us that he was not necessarily obliged to undertake the wider investigation envisaged by the motion, even if the motion were passed by this House, although he would obviously take such a vote as an important indication of the Parliament’s wishes in the matter.

Transparency of government, particularly the control and expenditure of public funds and the integrity of letting contracts, is central to accountable government. I and the Hon. I. Cohen believe that we do not always have this level of financial accountability and transparency in government in this State. The level of accountability in financial matters on projects such as this and projects dating back to the Sydney Harbour Tunnel leaves a great deal to be desired. I would like to see a much greater and much more open level of understanding of the amount of taxpayers’ money that is being spent on projects such as this.

When I first became aware of ongoing concerns about the financial arrangements surrounding the M5 East, I believed that a much deeper and wider investigation was justified. I had intended to vote to support the motion because I felt it was a necessary motion to open up the facts behind this quite bedevilled extension. I gained the clear impression from the Auditor-General that it was not necessary for the purposes of his investigation. The Auditor-General can fully investigate the matter without this motion, which might divert resources and delay his report. Reluctantly, under the circumstances, I do not support the motion.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [3.05 p.m.]: As my colleague the Minister for Public Works and Services has made abundantly clear, the Government opposes the motion. Against the contingency that a majority of members in the House may be prepared to support it, I propose an amendment with respect to the time frame envisaged in the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. As I am advised the Auditor-General is already undertaking an investigation of the M5 East contracts. Honourable members are suggesting that there ought to be some further investigation as contemplated by the motion.

The motion, as it stands, requires the Auditor-General to report back to the Parliament by 12 November 1998. I am informed that the Roads and Traffic Authority is already providing all necessary documentation to the Auditor-General’s office. The Government takes the view that three weeks should be an adequate time within which to consider the matter and report back to the Legislative Council. That would enable the Government to take action on any appropriate recommendations made by the Auditor-General. The time frame proposed - about three weeks - is similar to the time frame that the Auditor-General was given to report on the Eastern Distributor project. So there is a precedent for a time frame of this kind. I will suggest something slightly over three weeks. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "31 January 1999" from paragraph 10 and inserting instead "12 November 1998".

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.07 p.m.], in reply: The Government’s amendment would require the Auditor-General to report on these matters by 12 November 1998. The Minister was unable to indicate to the House whether there had been consultation with the Auditor-General and whether the Auditor-General will be able to complete his inquiry by that date. I understand that the cut-off date of 31 January 1999 was arrived at having regard to the workload of the Auditor-General. The Hon. J. S. Tingle said earlier that it was the intention of the Auditor-General to report to this House by Christmas. He has a significant workload at the moment, but he wants to complete these reports before the end of the year as he does not want his office to be politicised.

I would be happy for the Auditor-General to report as soon as possible. If the Auditor-General is able to report by 12 November I would be happy with that as well. We should not make 12 November the cut-off date before we establish that the Auditor-General is able to comply with that reporting date. We do not know whether he can comply with that requirement, so the cut-off date of 31 January should remain. The Auditor-General will be aware of the Government’s wishes that he should complete his report by 12 November.

The Government will allocate whatever resources are needed to enable him to do so. The Auditor-General will also be aware that I, as the mover of the motion, will be happy if that target is achieved. The object of this motion is to obtain a report from the Auditor-General. The cut-off date is not the relevant issue. The Opposition will not support the Government’s amendment. As to the
Page 8847
matters raised by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, in a recent speech Mr Harris referred to an occasion when the lower House asked him to undertake an inquiry into a motorway project. I think it was the Castlereagh freeway, the M2. For reasons I do not understand, the former Government -

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Your Government.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: My Government. For reasons that I do not understand, and do not seek to justify, the former Government did not make the contracts available to the Auditor-General until after significant pressure had been applied.

The Hon. E. M. Obeid: Not for the first time.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Your Government did the same. All honourable members should be cognisant of that when considering this motion. However, Mr Harris was able to download the documents from the Internet. American financiers, under the open arrangements in the United States of America, had made the documents available on the Internet. The motion states in part:

4. That this House calls on the Government to make all documents, including Cabinet and legal documents, available to the Auditor-General . . .

On one occasion, the Auditor-General sought copies of Cabinet documents to clarify an issue. This Government would not even make Cabinet documents available to assist the Auditor-General in his inquiry. By passing this motion the House will be sending a message that we regard an inquiry into this project as important and expect the Government to co-operate and make all documents available to the Auditor-General. More importantly, by passing this motion the House will be sending a message to this Government, and to subsequent governments, that they are accountable, through the Auditor-General, for government infrastructure contracts.

This Parliament has passed three resolutions calling for an inquiry by the Auditor-General into infrastructure projects - Port Macquarie Hospital, the M2 and the city east motorway. I hope that the Government gets the message that the Parliament wants the Auditor-General to report on the implications of novel contractual arrangements. I assure the House that the next government has got the message about accountability for such contracts. It is important for the House to continually make the point not only to government but also to the next Auditor-General.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Can Mr Harris be replaced?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: He cannot be replaced. As I understand the Act, his appointment, which expires at the end of next year, is non-renewable. It is not a matter that is within our purview. I again acknowledge that Mr Harris has done an excellent job in his dealings with all governments.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: He is fiercely independent.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: He is fiercely independent, as the Hon. R. S. L. Jones said. By keeping an oversight on these matters the House will send an important message to the Auditor-General’s successor. It should be acknowledged that Mr Harris has been given a difficult time by all governments. Governments invariably find Auditors-General difficult entities to deal with. Honourable members will recall what happened in respect of the Auditor-General in Victoria, which I do not consider acceptable.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Are you going to get rid of him?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: No way. He will have a successor in September, October or November next year. I do not know the date, which shows the extent to which I reflect on the matter. It is important for the Auditor-General’s successor to know that this Parliament keeps a close eye on infrastructure contracts and takes a very firm view about the role of the Auditor-General in undertaking audits of these types of projects. I urge the House to consider the motion in terms of sending a message to the Government about its contracts in the future. Perhaps it would be better to seek advice from the Auditor-General about the contract documents even before they have been signed.

The community will find out - maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow - the full cost implications of the project. The Hon. J. S. Tingle said that the Auditor-General can undertake an inquiry of his own volition. The Hon. I. Cohen said that he had received advice from the Auditor-General that he would consider expansion of an inquiry if asked to do so in a letter from an honourable member. I have not heard that previously from the Auditor-General. Although I accept that the Auditor-General said that, I regard it with some scepticism. On reflection he would regret saying it because it is an invitation for every member of Parliament to write a letter seeking to have an inquiry broadened.

I ask honourable members to seriously consider their opposition to the motion. By passing this motion the House will send an important long-
Page 8848
term message to this Government and to future governments that this Parliament, through the Auditor-General, will ensure that infrastructure contracts will be fully reported on to the community. I commend the motion to the House.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr Primrose
Mr Johnson Ms Saffin
Mr Kaldis Mr Shaw
Mr Kelly Ms Tebbutt
Mr Macdonald Tellers,
Mrs Nile Mrs Isaksen
Rev. Nile Mr Manson

Mrs Arena Dr Pezzutti
Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Samios
Mr Cohen Mrs Sham-Ho
Mrs Forsythe Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gallacher Mr Tingle
Miss Gardiner Mr Willis
Mr Hannaford
Mr Jones Tellers,
Mr Kersten Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Mr Dyer Mrs Chadwick
Mr Vaughan Dr Goldsmith

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Dr Pezzutti
Mr Bull Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Smith
Mr Hannaford Mr Willis
Mr Kersten
Mr Lynn Tellers,
Mrs Nile Mr Jobling
Rev. Nile Mr Moppett

Noes, 17

Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Ms Burnswoods Mr Primrose
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Saffin
Mr Cohen Mr Shaw
Mr Johnson Ms Tebbutt
Mr Jones Mr Tingle
Mr Kaldis Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mrs Isaksen
Mr Macdonald Mr Manson

Mrs Chadwick Mr Dyer
Dr Goldsmith Mr Vaughan

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

General business notice of motion No. 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Elaine Nile.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.34 p.m.]: I move:

That this House urges the New South Wales Government to adopt a bipartisan approach to:

1. increase New South Wales’s participation in the Asia-Pacific region with a view to improving trade, investment, exports and sustainable jobs for this State; and

2. recognise that 60 per cent of tourists visiting Australia come from Asia, and promote tourism as an industry which has enormous potential and which is in our best interest to develop.

In September last year I gave notice of this motion, at a time before the economic crisis hit Asian economies - they were still buoyant and active. Since then there has been severe economic downturn and significant social upheaval in many Asian economies. However, as I thought about this motion in the context of these tumultuous events, I realised that the motion is as relevant today as it was when I gave notice of it - perhaps even more so. It is hard to see the relevance or the opportunity, however, when each week we are confronted by media reports warning of the economic malaise gripping Asia. No doubt there are serious concerns to be raised in a region undergoing such a decline, but continued negativity may be obscuring potential opportunities which still exist in the region and hinder New South
Page 8849
Wales from progressing with developments beneficial to all concerned.

I shall give some of the reasons I believe we should be increasing our participation in the Asia-Pacific region. If one looks closely, the signs are visible that things may be changing for the better. The decline in the value of Asian currencies seems to have stabilised. The Japanese yen has recently risen 14 per cent against a weakening American dollar and the US dollar has declined against many other currencies. This has been the yen’s greatest increase since World War II. Combined with recent reforms to the banking sector pushed through by the Japanese Government, it may be that the Japanese economy is about to begin a recovery.

The Indonesia rupiah, one of the hardest hit of all currencies, has also gained against the US dollar. It is too simplistic to look at Asia as one amorphous mass. While individual countries such as Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand are in deep trouble, other countries are holding up. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures released in July show that while our exports for this year to Indonesia and South Korea have taken a heavy battering, they have been well offset by a strong performance in China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan.

I mention China as an example of a country quite insulated from the effects of the crisis. It is a country with which we should be engaging. If I may add, the yuan is not going to be devalued. There are amazing opportunities if we seek them out. China’s manufacturing and industrial bases and the rapid pace of change mean that our abilities will be in demand. The manufacturing sector is vast and requires the raw products which we can supply. The rapid pace of modernisation means that there will be demand for intellectual products, information technology services, and people interaction.

A recent Boardroom Report released by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and KPMG states that Australian company directors are optimistic about their prospects in Asia despite the present troubles. The findings show that Australian businesses are adopting a longer-term view regarding their presence in Asia. While Federal and State governments seem to be adopting a wait and see approach, Australian businesses are looking towards the longer-term picture. In responding to the questionnaire on which the report was based, 69 per cent of company directors thought business in Asia would be more competitive after the shake-up. A majority of those questioned revealed that corporate Australia wants government at all levels to be more involved in dealing with the crisis by urging Asian countries to open up and reform their economies.

Food exports have not been as drastically hit as products in other markets. Most countries have diversified markets and in the Asian economies spending has fallen most sharply on luxury items rather than foodstuffs. The outlook for minerals and energy is also far from disheartening. The big buyers of Australian minerals and energy are not expected to dramatically reduce their purchases further. The September quarter survey of manufacturing in New South Wales prepared by the Australian Business Chamber showed that manufacturers are slowly beginning to adjust to the problems caused by Asia, with firms still keen to invest and willing to look for new export opportunities.

According to the survey New South Wales manufacturing firms are intending to boost their capital expenditure over the next three months after cutting back over the past three quarters. In June I was present at a function at which Tung Chee Hwa, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, was present. He agreed that Hong Kong was currently in the midst of a serious economic downturn but, bolstered by the large amount of moneys being injected by the Chinese Government, he believed Hong Kong was set to enjoy a substantial recovery in the very near future, and I agree with him.

Now is the time for Australia to change its orientation and New South Wales should be leading the way through a bipartisan approach. Throughout the economic crisis Australia has continued its contact and engagement at least on the foreign affairs front. Only comparatively recently Australia assumed the leadership of the Association of South-east Asia Nations Consultative Group and the leadership of the Asian-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum. We were also heavily involved in monitoring the recent Cambodian elections. New South Wales cannot seek to claim a leading role in this area without backing up claims by demonstrating commitment to the Asia-Pacific region and being involved when and where it counts.

Now is the time to put substance behind the sound initiatives. This can be achieved by changing our focus towards again encouraging trade, investment, exports and tourism with our regional neighbours. New South Wales must look to the longer term, and I am sure the Hon. M. F. Willis would agree with me. The factors which led to Asian growth in the recent past have not changed: young people, high savings rates, entrepreneurial culture and the high value placed on education will fuel the next stage of economic growth.

The Government should be doing more to assist these companies as they boldly take steps to
Page 8850
get back into Asia. In fact, the Government should be urging our companies in all sectors of New South Wales to defend, consolidate and improve their markets in these countries and provide incentives, options and directions to enable them to do so. Although there is current economic downturn we should take advantage of the opportunities that this opens up. With Asian currencies readjusted to lower, more sustainable levels, entry and set-up costs for New South Wales businesses are lower. and supplies, plant and labour costs are similarly lower. On a trip to Hong Kong in March I observed that real estate prices are almost 50 per cent lower than they were before the economic crisis hit. As Tung Chee Hwa put it, this is a correction of the market in Hong Kong. It is now cheaper to do everything in Hong Kong.

The Hon. M. F. Willis: Not the hotel I stay at.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: The honourable member should take a holiday package, like I did, because it is good value. This is the time to negotiate. That is my point. There are great opportunities to invest in Hong Kong. Australia is geographically close and its various governments can provide effective support for those businesses willing to take risks. When confidence about investing in Asia is low the only way to reinstil it is by taking a step forward. New South Wales should not be frightened but should be pro-active and seek avenues for re-engagement in Asia. By doing this now New South Wales will reap the rewards later.

These rewards will be in the form of stronger and, more importantly, more robust economic growth achieved by internationalising the New South Wales economy. New South Wales must increase its business involvement and trading links with Asia not despite the economic problems in Asia but because of them. The rewards will not just be in financial terms but in gaining respect and loyalty, assuring our strategic interests and aiming for a safe and cohesive region. Asia cannot be ignored. New South Wales must place itself in a prime position to take advantage of the Australian recovery when it occurs.

Economically, Australia is in a good position to do this. In a study of the Australian economy released recently by Westpac Banking Corporation and the Melbourne Institute, Australia’s economy was shown to be riding out the economic crisis very well compared to other countries in the region. It estimated growth of between 2.5 per cent and 3 per cent for Australia’s economy this year. In geopolitical terms Australia is in an excellent position to be a bridge between Asia and the countries with which it traditionally has close ties, such as the United States of America, England and Europe. The global economy is a reality and it will take the resolve of all nations to help bring about worldwide recovery. Led by New South Wales, Australia can take a leading role in facilitating the rebuilding of the economies of Asia. With such an integrated world others will take our place if we do not act.

I believe that Asia’s recovery will be a true recovery based on more sound economic foundations, enabling it to emerge stronger and more stable than before. If Australia does not take this role, it runs the risk of being marginalised by Asia once it recovers. With 18 million people, Australia makes up only one-third of 1 per cent of the world’s population. While Asia may need us now, with this population differential and the increase in communications it may be that eventually we will need Asia. Loyalty is a value highly respected in Asian cultures. If Australia assists Asia in its time of trouble, it will allow Australia to share in the more prosperous times.

New South Wales is the largest State of Australia in terms of population. It has the highest migrant population, relies heavily on tourism and controls more assets than the rest of Australia put together. The New South Wales economy has a strong services base, with particular strengths in information technology, telecommunications and finance. All of these are significant factors and reasons why New South Wales should take the lead in Australia reaching out to its regional neighbours.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald in March a trade expert with the Victorian University of Technology, Jim Lang, predicted that New South Wales would remain the most quarantined from the Asian impact of all the States because of its size, its diversified export base and the momentum of the Olympics. As New South Wales has been less affected than other States, it is therefore in the best position and most able to take these steps. Sydney is the jewel in the New South Wales crown. It will host the Olympic Games and it will need to be promoted again as the gateway to Australia. We must ensure that it is even more attractive to do business in Sydney.

In times of trouble the Government should look to increasing incentives for businesses to establish or re-establish offices in Sydney. Sydney is still regarded as the financial capital of Australia and we must work to maintain that impression. Currently Australia ranks ninth out of the top 20 tourist
Page 8851
destinations. This is not good enough and while attributable in part to the economic slowdown in Asia, Australia’s image has been harmed by the impression left by Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party. They have damaged our reputation, in Asian countries in terms of tourism, trade and investment. I resigned from the Liberal Party because of the weak and inadequate response of our national leader to curb the rise of the One Nation Party and its antimigrant and racist antics.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: That is not true.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: It is true. I will digress here for a moment to express my disappointment yet again. An article appearing on page 2 of today’s Sydney Morning Herald reports that the National Party is likely to do a deal with One Nation by giving preferences to that party in the State election on 27 March. That preference swap distresses and disappoints me. Although the Hon. Peter Collins, the Leader of the Opposition, will not make deals with One Nation and will put that party last on how-to-vote tickets, it means nothing if the National Party does not do the same. It is disgusting that the Leader of the National Party, Ian Armstrong, did not come clean about sending one message to the city and another to the bush. This will only increase my efforts to expose politicians who are prepared to do deals with One Nation. I took a principled stance on that matter, and I hope that the Liberal Party will respect that stance.

With the drawcard of the Olympics I encourage and support all initiatives to change the impression created by One Nation and to promote New South Wales as a wonderful, welcoming tourist destination. Part of the instilling of confidence which I referred to earlier is the use of positive tourist advertising to overcome the damage done, at all levels, by Hansonism. A concerted bipartisan approach is also called for to demonstrate to Asian travellers that the people of New South Wales are wholly welcoming of them and that Australia is not a racist country. Despite the economic crisis, tourism is still a huge money earner for Australia, and Asians have been the most substantial investors in the tourism industry. Before the crisis hit, it was estimated that 60 per cent of the tourists visiting our shores came from Asia.

They have been the fastest-growing component of our overseas visitors, comprising more than 50 per cent of the total in recent years. Income from the education of Asian students in Australia - 130,000 of them last year - has become a significant factor in our foreign exchange earnings. According to an article published in the Australian on 15 July, tourism has not declined as markedly as was first thought, despite the crisis. The outlook as far as international visitors is concerned could now be less severe than many commentators had originally forecast. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the March quarter arrivals had decreased by 9 per cent on the same period for 1997. But more up-to-date estimates have found that foreign visitors have decreased by only around 5 per cent for the same period in 1997. The decline in the Australian dollar is one of the reasons that Australia has remained an attractive tourist destination.

With these encouraging signs we need a bipartisan approach to consolidate and increase our tourist numbers. The benefits for so doing are overwhelming. A report initiated by the Tourism Council of Australia, the Property Council of Australia and the tourism task force and undertaken by Access Economics in 1997 states that every dollar spent on marketing tourism overseas generates $10 in export earnings. Our tourism industry offers greater potential for employment growth than any other employment industry. The dollars that we get back help to benefit Australian businesses, which in turn leads to the creation of more jobs.

The Olympics will be a great boon to our economy. Leading international financial consultants KPMG Peat Marwick have prepared a study of the economic impact of Sydney hosting the Games. The study concluded that the period 1994-2004 will add $7.3 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product, create 150,000 full- and part-time jobs, and bring an extra 1.3 million visitors to Australia. These good figures can be deceptive. Commonly, host cities suffer a slump after the Olympics. On the back of these good figures we need to construct now the strong underlying foundations for the tourist market. If we do not start now, we face the prospect of suffering that severe slump at the conclusion of our Olympics. Given the present difficult economic circumstances, this slump could be particularly severe for New South Wales unless those underlying foundations are in place. I call for a bipartisan approach on this aspect as well, to ensure that we plan ahead to prevent this slump from occurring.

Asia will continue in the foreseeable future to be the region of greatest relevance to Australia’s economic wellbeing. It will be the greatest market for our exports. Indeed, more than 60 per cent of our exports already go there. This will in turn generate employment. But this high rate will not continue because Asia will not be open to our exports if we are not open to imports from that region. Asia will be the main international impetus to our tourism industry and a significant source of
Page 8852
income for other service industries. We need positive, substantial and constructive engagement to build the confidence which copes with the establishment of real, purposeful links, and I urge a united bipartisan approach to undertake this goal. A united New South Wales will demonstrate to the other Australian States and the countries of our region that we are committed and focused. The momentum for change can and must begin with us.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [3.58 p.m.]: The coalition strongly supports the motion and agrees that there should be a bipartisan approach towards increasing New South Wales’ participation in the Asia-Pacific region with a view to improving trade, investment, exports and sustainable jobs for this State; recognising that 60 per cent of tourists visiting Australia come from Asia; and promoting tourism as an industry which has enormous potential and which it is in our best interests to develop. The statement I make in this House in that regard is no different to the statement I made to the Treasurer, the Hon. M. R. Egan, when he was state development Minister, and to the Premier. I believe that the two political parties should focus on trade as a bipartisan issue. Government has a significant role to play in being able to facilitate trade opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region.

There needs to be a clear policy targeted at developing export opportunities for New South Wales in that region. I am not aware of the latest figures, but nine years ago when I was the Minister for State Development I continued to make the point that the size of the New South Wales economy per capita was greater than the combined economies of Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. That is a significant leverage. We think that we are a small economy, but we are in fact a very big economy. People do not understand the trading opportunities that exist in that part of the world and the dominance of our State’s economy in that region. I recall that as Minister for State Development I took a group of business people to Indonesia. At that time I was the first New South Wales Minister in 17 years to visit Indonesia in a formal capacity, despite Indonesia being our closest neighbour.

Such visits are now more frequent, but not nearly as frequent as they should be. Government, because of media intimidation, is not prepared to allow Ministers to travel to South-east Asia and to lead delegations to develop trade opportunities. That is a myopic approach. Queensland regularly sends delegations comprising Ministers to South-East Asia, as do the Northern Territory and Western Australia, much to their economic benefit.

Doing business in South-east Asia is different from doing business in western countries. It is a matter of developing long-term relationships, long-term contacts, respect and trust, and recognising associations. The association of a Minister or senior government official with trade delegations provides significant credibility and entree to business organisations. It also lends an element of respect to and confidence in companies for those who wish to do business in an economy with which they are not familiar.

Government must take on that leadership role on a bipartisan basis because governments change. If the history of contact, confidence and knowledge can transcend the usual political divide, the attitude of Asia to Australia and New South Wales will change significantly, and that will profoundly benefit New South. Although most Asians know that Canberra is, in fact, our nation’s capital, they regard Sydney as the focal point of Australia. governments must take advantage of that situation. As a Minister in the next government I expect to have responsibilities in this area. Government will facilitate a change in direction to encourage trade and business opportunities.

Government will play a vital role in bringing together trade organisations in this State to further consolidate our position in the Asia-Pacific region. It is simply not a matter of leaving it to Austrade. The New South Wales Government must work with Austrade to improve business opportunities for New South Wales. It is not a matter of picking winners or companies that might be winners, but of positioning this State as a partner of Asia, as part of Asia, to increase trade opportunities. I first visited Asia as a Minister at the time of the "recalcitrant" comment in Malaysia. On that visit I commented that Australia is an Asian country with a European culture. The response to that comment was, "we wish that government leaders in Australia would embrace that concept as a strength and be proud of it."

In Australia we have a significant multicultural basis upon which to grow economic relationships. I am appalled at the number of companies that do not wish to use Australian nationals of Asian origin as negotiating and trading agents in dealings with such countries as Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Such people could bridge the cultural dimension in trade negotiations. The Government has a role to play in facilitating an information base to achieve just that. The opportunities in Asia are only as narrow as our minds. If we think about that, we will realise that Australia, as an Asian nation with a European culture, has an unlimited future as a leading trading partner on the Asia-Pacific rim. I support the motion and congratulate the member on moving it.

Page 8853

The Hon. A. B. KELLY [4.05 p.m.]: I support the motion, which states:

That this House urges the New South Wales Government to adopt a bipartisan approach to:

1. increase New South Wales’s participation in the Asia-Pacific region with a view to improving trade, investment, exports and sustainable jobs for this State; and

2. recognise that 60 per cent of tourists visiting Australia come from Asia, and promote tourism as an industry which has an enormous potential and which is in our best interest to develop.

As chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development, I wish to highlight a number of State projects that focus on achieving the goals of improved trade: investment, exports and sustainable jobs for New South Wales. However, before doing so, I acknowledge that many of the countries that were among our strongest trading partners are now suffering from widespread social and economic hardship as a result of the Asian financial crisis. This difficult time is expected to last for some years. Australia has a new and important role to play as a supportive neighbour rather than as a mere trading partner. I would like to focus particularly on initiatives within the agricultural sector that hold great promise in expanding our trade relationship with the Asia-Pacific region and creating jobs through rural New South Wales.

Australia’s largest regional export market has long been North-east Asia, closely followed by South-East Asia. For several years, South-East Asia has had a significant growth market, underpinned by economic growth rates of 7 per cent to 8 per cent per annum, far outstripping our economic performance. During this time Asia-Pacific trade has become increasingly important for the Australian economy, yet we remain relatively dispensable to Asia as a source of imports. This challenging situation called for a great deal of market research, development and innovation by our rural industries to establish, secure and maintain markets in the region for Australian produce. With the additional pressure of the sudden economic downturn throughout Asia, our exports to the region have dropped dramatically. As a result, Australia is now faced with even greater challenges and increasing regional insecurity.

This is an opportunity to forge new relationships and patterns of exchange with the Asia-Pacific region, to build our strength as a country and to help rebuild our future as a region. The current turmoil should lead to reforms that will guarantee more sustainable regional growth. In turn, this will guarantee greater trade opportunities across agriculture and other markets. A number of new and existing State projects will see New South Wales well placed to take advantage of such opportunities. The first is the agribusiness alternatives program.

In January this year 12 agribusiness advisers were appointed to service the State as part of a $1.6 million agribusiness alternatives program. The aim is to help producers diversify, value add, improve sustainability and enter export markets. So far the program has exported 49 projects or initiatives after only six months. It provides jobs where we need them most in our rural and regional towns. This follows on from the business advisers in rural areas program - BARA - which was a combined Federal and State program that employed eight BARA officers in New South Wales. Unfortunately the current Federal Government withdrew from that program. Wisely, the New South Wales Government took on the total funding of that project and continued to employ those people.

Many of these projects involve the formation of networks for new and growing industries. They range from research projects, like the aquaculture project in the Murray that breeds snapper in inland water sites, to the establishment of a supply chain and $10 million export market for St John’s wort, which will employ 90 workers in harvesting alone. If all the St John’s wort in New South Wales is able to be exported, the project will employ many more people. The agribusiness program is an example of our State’s commitment to targeted and strategic intervention that will ensure the future viability of our rural producers and their communities. The Government is taking up projects that have been abandoned by the Federal Government. It is not sitting back and letting market forces determine our fate; it is seeking to secure a future for agribusiness in New South Wales.

Another example of the New South Wales Government’s commitment to expanding trade with the Asia-Pacific region is the establishment of the regional export adviser network. This program aims to increase participation in international markets through direct sales partnerships with overseas buyers using licensing, joint ventures and business networks. The net social benefits of the program will be improved business profits, sustained and new employment opportunities and increased investment in regional locations. Export advisers are now located in Bathurst, Nowra, Tamworth, the Griffith-Wagga Wagga region and Coffs Harbour, and they are funded by the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development.

Page 8854

The advisers give hands-on advice and encourage and assist companies to take full advantage of international market opportunities. Since the program commenced last year, over 300 businesses have received support. In recent months clients of the service have entered more than 22 new international markets. They have also raised the profile of New South Wales in the international arena by introducing several clients to high-level overseas buying missions, including delegations from Beijing and major food retailers such as the Siam Makro group from Thailand. This is the future of business networks in the region, forming co-operative partnerships with the Asia-Pacific region based on information-sharing, contract building and improved market access.

In addition to these initiatives, the ongoing hard work of New South Wales Agriculture’s Agsell program, with which a number of honourable members would be familiar, must be acknowledged. Agsell has, for a number of years, provided assistance to domestic food and fibre producers, manufacturers and exporters, with the aim of increasing New South Wales exports. Agsell seeks to identify and secure new markets for New South Wales food and fibre and has identified the Asian food market as a prime opportunity for our agricultural industries.

Agsell also participates in major trade promotions within the Asia-Pacific region and facilitates buying and investment missions from Asia to New South Wales. Recent achievements by Agsell include: assisting a major Japanese supermarket chain to source citrus from New South Wales growers and packers; assisting a major Australian citrus juicing company to introduce its product to the Taiwanese market; convincing one of the largest food groups in Korea to source potatoes from New South Wales growers for crisp production; and working with a New South Wales vegetable exporter to secure export of asparagus to Singaporean and Korean markets.

The export culture developed through these government initiatives has improved the ability of individual producers and producer groups to seek out their own markets. This in turn has led to profitable achievements at the grassroots level. A recent example close to home is the success of the Schmitt family, which operates market gardens on the Bell River and has contracts with a number of other operators along the Macquarie River. They grow and export in excess of a million dollars worth of potatoes and onions. This year those exports will go primarily to Korea, Japan and Europe. Some substantial trade and investment barriers still remain in our trade with Asia. While most of the investment barriers have been swept away by the tide of globalisation, trade barriers within the region are still firmly in place.

Many honourable members are aware that New South Wales producers, unlike their trading partners, have little protection in the way of tariff and non-tariff barriers. As a result, they are suffering considerable hardship at the hands of the Federal Government’s flawed level playing field policy. While in theory there could be gains from liberalising agricultural trade with the Asia-Pacific region, it is a highly unrealistic goal and needs serious revision at the Federal level. In spite of this, New South Wales agricultural producers are rising to the challenge of adjustment under duress. As we have seen, they are developing Asian markets and forging new partnerships within the region, assisted by many New South Wales Government programs. The Hon. Helen Sham-Ho's motion mentioned the importance of Asia-Pacific tourism to Australia -

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted. The House continued to sit.

Motion by the Hon. R. D. Dyer agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday, 27 October 1998, at 2.30 p.m.

Bill introduced and read a first time.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services), on behalf of the Hon. J. W. Shaw [4.17 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The main purposes of the Victims Compensation Amendment Bill 1998 are: to introduce changes to the Victims Compensation Act 1996 arising from certain recommendations in the second interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Victims Compensation entitled "The Long Term Financial Viability of the Victims Compensation Fund"; and strengthen the Act’s powers to pursue offenders who dispose of property to avoid restitution. The Joint Select Committee on Victims Compensation released its interim report on the long-term

Page 8855
financial viability of the Victims Compensation Fund in December 1997. This comprehensive report examines a range of issues affecting the cost implications of the current victims compensation scheme. The report includes suggestions for change to the eligibility criteria for claiming monetary compensation; the categories of injury which should be treated as compensable; and the practices and administrative arrangements of the Victims Compensation Tribunal, as well as recommending other matters which require further investigation.

The select committee report and the Government acknowledge the difficulty in conducting a meaningful review of the new scheme, which only commenced operation in April 1997. In light of this, the Government will give further consideration to a number of the committee’s other proposals after further experience is gained with the continued operation of the scheme. However trends are already emerging in some areas of the scheme which warrant the Government’s attention, in particular the categories of awards for psychological injury under the 1996 Act, operation of the "approved counselling" scheme, and current restitution powers and changes to psychological injury. Currently monetary compensation for psychological injury is awarded pursuant to the injury category of shock. The amount of compensation awarded is determined according to the length of time that the injury persists. The select committee report acknowledges the varying viewpoints on psychological trauma injuries and the difficulties associated with their diagnosis.

The evidence considered by the select committee suggests that the present categories of shock may be enabling tribunal applicants, who would not be eligible for compensation for their minor physical injuries, to claim shock as their major injury and therefore obtain monetary compensation. Experience to date under the new scheme does indicate that a significant proportion of shock claims do relate to physical assaults. This claim pattern is indicating to the Government that action taken under the 1996 Act to remove awards for soft tissue injury and to restrict "pub brawl" type claims may be being counteracted by a number of claims now being lodged identifying shock as the primary injury. The select committee considers that the longer term financial interests of the scheme may best be served if monetary awards for psychological injury are available only in cases where a crime victim experiences long-term injury. The select committee suggests that eligibility to claim for psychological injury should be restricted to victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and other victims demonstrating a permanent psychological injury. The Government supports this view.

To address the issues raised by the select committee concerning monetary awards for psychological injury, the bill provides for the existing injury categories of shock to be replaced by a single category of psychological or psychiatric disorder. The new injury category will require diagnosis of a long-term psychological injury which results in severe impairment of the person’s ability to function in their usual day-to-day activities. To claim for this injury an applicant will be required to undergo an independent medical assessment. The bill also provides for the creation of a new global injury category of domestic violence. As the select committee acknowledges, on present award trends, the majority of claims arising from domestic violence have been for psychological injury. The creation of this injury category will enable such claims to continue to be considered.

The creation of this category will enable domestic violence victims, like sexual assault victims to elect whether they wish to claim for separate injuries suffered, or alternatively apply for a global award. The changes to the approach in providing monetary awards for psychological injury will ensure that genuine claims for severe psychological injury, which could occur as a result of for example a vicious street assault, an armed hold-up or a home invasion, may still be considered. The changes will also ensure that psychological injury may still be claimed by sexual assault victims and victims of domestic violence, which is commonly the major injury they experience.

Changes to counselling arrangements

The Act currently provides that persons eligible to receive a victims compensation award can apply for approved counselling paid for by the Victims Compensation Fund. Arising from the changes to the eligibility to claim awards for psychological injury, it is considered appropriate that eligibility criteria for counselling be broadened. This will ensure that victims of violent crime may continue to access counselling to address the psychological effects which they may experience, even though they may now not be eligible to claim monetary compensation. The select committee also consider that the present system which provides an automatic entitlement to two hours of counselling and further counselling of up to 20 hours, may provide an incentive for counsellors to recommend the maximum amount of counselling for their client irrespective of client’s needs.

Evidence presented to the committee by counselling professionals and agencies with experience in counselling victims of crime suggests that in most cases trauma counselling for crime victims should not need to extend beyond six to eight sessions. This view is also shared by the Victims of Crime Bureau. It could generally be expected that a counsellor could address the needs of a victim of crime within the initial two hours and up to a further six hours counselling, recognising of course that in some cases longer intervention will be required. It is therefore proposed to modify the current arrangement. The initial two-hour automatic entitlement to approved counselling for eligible victims will be maintained. The bill however introduces a revised cap of six hours on further "approved counselling". Importantly, the bill provides for family victims of homicide, sexual assault, domestic violence and other victims demonstrating special need to apply for additional hours of counselling beyond the six-hour cap. These changes will enable the provision of counselling to be more effectively monitored and administered by the tribunal.

Reducing award payments

The select committee report examines other options for reducing the cost of the scheme including changes to the minimum award threshold and the payment of legal costs. These matters will be given further consideration by the Government. However, it is proposed to introduce at this time an award deductible of $750 to apply to awards under $20,001. This will not be applicable to awards made to family victims of homicides. The deductible will only apply where the total compensation awarded to a primary victim and any secondary victims claiming through the primary victim, is less than $20,001. This deductible will assist in meeting the objectives of ensuring that genuine victims will be eligible to apply for victims compensation, whilst balancing the need to ensure the long-term financial viability of the scheme.

Increased powers to recover restitution

The House will recall recent media allegations that a convicted sex offender disposed of his property assets for a token amount some months prior to his conviction. Such action

Page 8856
could enable a convicted offender to avoid paying restitution in the event that compensation was awarded to any of the victims of their criminal acts. Restitution powers under the 1996 Act only become applicable once an order for restitution has been made. This bill provides additional powers to respond to the situation where an offender, prior to a restitution order being made, makes or attempts to make, arrangements aimed at avoiding paying their restitution obligations under the Act.

The bill firstly provides for the Supreme Court to set aside transactions entered into to avoid restitution responsibilities. This power will not however affect the rights of any party which acquired property in good faith and for consideration at least as valuable as the market value of the property. The bill also provides the tribunal with the power to order restitution against any person, other than the offender, who has participated in a scheme to avoid restitution. The bill further provides power for the Supreme Court to impose restraining orders to prevent an offender or an alleged offender from disposing of property where it is satisfied that the person has been charged with, or convicted of, a violent offence for which statutory compensation may be paid and considers that it is appropriate in the circumstances to make the order.

The court may also impose restraining orders to prevent disposal of property by any other person who was a party to a scheme to avoid restitution. It is expected that the situation in which action is taken against an offender’s property prior to conviction would be exceptional. Such action may however be particularly relevant in circumstances where there are multiple victims and there is a likelihood of multiple claims against the fund. To deter offenders from engaging in any actions designed to avoid payment of restitution, the bill creates offences concerning the contravention of restraining orders and the disposal of property for the purpose of avoiding restitution.

The bill also strengthens powers in relation to the enforcement of restitution orders, by enabling the tribunal to register a restitution order by way of the creation of a charge over land owned by the defendant. As members are aware, a basic principle underpinning the statutory victims compensation scheme is to ensure that victims eligible to receive compensation, receive an award irrespective of the means of the offender. Notwithstanding any action by an offender to dispose of assets the victims in such circumstances always remain eligible to claim for compensation. However actions taken by an offender to avoid paying restitution impact on the taxpayers of New South Wales as the majority of the moneys paid out of the Victims Compensation Fund come directly from consolidated revenue. Accordingly, it is to protect the interests of the taxpayers of this State that the Government has moved to extend the Act’s powers to pursue any offender who attempts to avoid their liability for restitution. This bill continues to ensure that the genuine needs of victims of crime are addressed through the provision of counselling and compensation; and convicted offenders do not avoid their obligations to pay restitution. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Debate resumed from 21 October.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN [4.18 p.m.]: I will support any bill that attempts to address the massive problem of crime in New South Wales and proposes tougher actions against criminals. Unfortunately, very little in that regard has been forthcoming from the incumbent Labor Government. On the contrary, the Government has introduced laws, such as legislation that makes it an offence to carry a knife, which offer no substantial deterrent to criminals. By an act of flagrant political opportunism the Government now supports a bill that was introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle in 1995, almost four years ago. I remind the Attorney General of his statement when speaking to that bill in May 1997. He said:

. . . the Government has formed the view that the common law on self-defence operates satisfactorily and fairly.

Further, the Attorney General said:

The Government opposes the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill.

I am amazed at the ease with which the Government changes its views the closer we get to an election. However, it is not so amazing when one considers the number of backflips this Government has performed during its four years in office.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: Fair go, you changed your mind on your political allegiance.

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: I never did. Unfortunately, it takes an election for this Government to acknowledge the incompetence of its handling of crime in this State. The Carr Government has read the statistics on crime levels in this State. Its poor performance on crime prevention is written in black and white. During the campaign the electorate will ask the Government what it has done to try to curb crime levels. In a classic piece of patchwork policy the Labor Government has hit the panic button, and hit it hard. The Government now supports legislation, originally introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, which until very recently it utterly opposed.

When the Premier is asked during the election campaign what his answer is to the spiralling levels of crime he can point to this bill and say, "I am fair dinkum. Look at what I have done." The Government’s support for this bill is nothing more than a cynical attempt to con the New South Wales voters into thinking that it is getting tough on crime. It is too little too late. I supported this bill when it was introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, and I still support the bill wholeheartedly. But the Government has not fulfilled its pledge to the people of New South Wales to get tough on crime. The Government’s decision to support this legislation,
Page 8857
after opposing it for nearly four years, is in response to its own failures. This is the Carr Government’s umpteenth policy backflip.

I am pleased to say that the Opposition supports this bill, as it always has. However, that is not to say that it is averse to proposing some changes. The Opposition believes that this bill does not go far enough. While the bill provides certain rights for people in their own homes, it does not provide for people in their workplaces. The bill does not protect the thousands of people going about their ordinary course of business. A glaring example of a workplace to which this bill should apply is the taxicab. In my home town of Broken Hill security screens, which are currently being installed in taxis in Sydney, were installed in taxis a couple of years ago. However, despite the protection barriers, taxidrivers in Broken Hill are still being harassed and attacked. Despite the dangers that taxidrivers face every night in Broken Hill, and throughout New South Wales, they do not receive the same statutory protection that this bill provides for home owners.

By way of example, I refer to an incident that occurred in Bourke a couple of years ago. The local veterinary surgeon, Mr Brian Hodge, while conducting his normal daily work practices at his business premises, was the victim of an unprovoked and vicious attack by Mr Gerald McKellar Jnr. During that assault occasioning actual bodily harm Mr Hodge was attacked with an iron bar, and he ended up in hospital with a wound to the side of his head.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Wasn’t that Iron Bar Tuckey in Western Australia?

The Hon. M. R. KERSTEN: No, it was not, you silly woman. Mr Hodge is a veterinary surgeon in Bourke. Under the provisions of the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill Mr Hodge is not granted the same rights that are granted to people who are assaulted in their homes. His only legal protection is the common law of self-defence, which the Attorney General and his fellow Labor colleagues once thought operated satisfactorily and fairly. What this Government says and does is often completely contrary, and, considering this Government’s track record on policy backflips, it will probably not be long before it agrees to extend the provisions of the bill to include people who are assaulted in their workplaces. That would be a positive step. However, Labor will soon be in opposition and it will not have the opportunity to make any further provisions.

The Opposition proposes to extend the provisions of this excellent bill to protect people who are assaulted in their workplace, such as Mr Hodge, taxidrivers and shop owners. The Carr Government is furiously trying to bale itself out of an electoral backlash by cynically supporting policies it once opposed. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods may be interested to hear about a vile case of home invasion that occurred in Bourke. I refer to it in this place because of the seriousness of the crime. Fortunately, no-one was seriously injured, but it was a terrifying experience for the home owner and her children. The woman wrote to me about the incident. I will read her letter to the House, and I do not apologise for the language it contains. If it would be of assistance to such people, I would read the letter onto the record every week. Honourable members will be shocked and saddened by the incident. The woman wrote:

I was asleep in my bed at 5.45 am on June 15 1996, when I heard a window being smashed, I immediately pressed the duress button on my security alarm. At this time my six (6) year old daughter Erin who was sleeping in my bed (due to the fact that someone had smashed a window in our home last year while we were in bed and now she is too scared to stay in her own room) awoke and asked what was the smashing noise, I replied that someone was breaking into the house and to be very quiet while I had a look, by this stage she was very scared and started to cry, so I sat on the bed to comfort her.

After, what seemed like forever, I looked out my bedroom door and saw a man with a cricket bat walking up the hall turning on all the lights on the way (I have a large house so it took him a while). I then went back to my daughter who was becoming hysterical. At the same time being very concerned for my other two (2) children who were in their own bedrooms at other parts of the house (who are very brave and sensible children, and have been told what to do in case something like this were to happen, not only do you have to teach your children fire safety and what to do but also what to do if someone were to break into your house while you are at home, which is quite often the case around here now).

The man then walked straight into my bedroom and tried to turn on the light but the light had blown the day before and had not been replaced, seeing that the light did not work he turned on the light in the ensuite near the bedroom door. He turned around and told me to lay down, when I would not lay down he started belting me with the cricket bat, every time he told me to lay down and I would not he continued to belt me around the arms, legs and tried to hit me on the head but I put my hand up to protect myself, while at the same time holding my daughter behind me so that she would not be hit while she was still screaming.

After hitting me a dozen times the phone rang and I knew it would be the security company, I dived across the bed still holding my daughter and grabbed the phone and screamed at them to get the police around here now. I dropped the phone onto the bed and during this time the bastard continued to hit me. He said to give me some money then (so to me his intentions seemed to be rape and not only break and enter with intent to steal).

Page 8858

He then ordered me to give him some money. I told him that I didn’t have any money because I didn’t think I had any in the house. He yelled at me to take him to where I kept my purse which he had walked right past in the hallway. I refused to walk out in front of him, fearing that he would hit me from behind and thinking of what he would do to my children while I was unconscious or dead. During this time he continued to hit me with the cricket bat.

In the end he walked out in front of me. I emptied my handbag and told him again that I did not have any money and threw my purse at him. He flicked the purse back at me with the cricket bat and told me to give him what I had. I found 15 cents in the purse and I put it on the cupboard in the hallway. He picked it up and had the hide to wipe off any fingerprints that he had left.

Whilst this was happening my nine (9) year old son Christopher came walking up the hallway behind the bastard, fearing that he would be hurt. I told him to go, but being very concerned that I was being hit by an intruder in our own home (while there are no raised voices between my husband and myself let alone domestic violence in our home) he refused to go. The bastard continued to ask for money and my son came past him to me, I asked him to go to his sister and look after her, which he did while she was still hysterical and sobbing her heart out.

After Christopher went into the bedroom I could hear him talking to Erin and trying to calm her down. I found $20 on the cupboard in amongst some papers so I told him to take it, he made me hand him the money, then when he decided that maybe the police would be here soon that he should go. He did not even bother to run which also made the whole experience even more frightening to know that he did not fear the police. I knew that he had left the house due to the fact that I heard more glass falling out of the window when he climbed through it.

I knew where my children were and that they were now safe, my 11 year old daughter Tiffanie had the good sense to stay in her room and continued to press the duress button which she also has in her room while listening to her mother being bashed in her own home.

I opened the front door to the house which is near my bedroom and started screaming for someone to come and help us, there was a police car across the road about two doors up. The policewoman who was driving the car drove to the next house which is a police house and shone the spotlight into the police residence, a neighbour from up the street got to me before the policewoman had even noticed that I was screaming (at this time I do not hold her in very high regard). My neighbour came running into the house and straight out the back to look for the bastard but he had disappeared.

In total I would think that the bastard was in my house for a total of eight to ten minutes before he left and then it would have been a further two (2) minutes before the police turned up.

Since this incident happened we have been treated like fools by the police, little do they know that a great many of them are considered fools by the community.

We have started to have counselling which for me is to be ongoing for quite a while and I have to travel either two (2) hours to Nyngan or four (4) hours to Dubbo, and Christopher who refused for a long while to talk about what happened has to see a counsellor which comes to Bourke occasionally. We are told that our daughters Erin and Tiffanie will need a great deal of time to overcome this terrible ordeal. All of our children still sleep in our bedroom and will continue to do so for some time I imagine.

There are a great many other fears that we are all going through even though our families, friends and the whole community have been very supportive during the whole ordeal.

I do not write to urge you but to beg for your help in this matter before things go any further and someone is killed.

That is a home invasion! Can honourable members imagine the absolute trauma that woman and her children are still suffering to this very day? That is one of the most heart-rending pleas I have ever received and one of the most shocking things I have ever heard. As the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn has said, it is a sad indictment of our times, but unfortunately it is an everyday occurrence in many outback towns.

That is just one example of what happens in those places. I spoke to an old lady in Bourke a couple of weeks ago whose home was broken into while she was in the kitchen. The intruders blatantly took her television and video recorder while she was there and she could do nothing about it. Imagine how terrifying that must have been for that poor old lady. It is a shocking thing when people can break into somebody’s home and do what they like. If the woman who suffered the home invasion had hit the offender over the head with a baseball bat and done him some serious damage, I do not think anybody in this House would have wept for him.

As far as I am concerned, a person who breaks into and invades one’s home, one’s privacy and personal space, loses all rights; they have no rights. Members of the public have every right to defend themselves against these criminals - they are scum and deserve no pity whatsoever from the lawmakers of this country. I fully support the bill. I supported it last time and I was sorry that it was not passed then. I have repeated the things I said then. I congratulate the Hon. J. S. Tingle on having the gumption to stick to his principles and introduce the bill. I even go so far as to say it is about time the Government did it, but I acknowledge that at least somebody on this side of the Chamber has had the foresight to realise that the community has wanted a bill like this for a long time.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [4.35 p.m.]: The Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill 1997 was originally introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle and read a second time on 16 November 1995. At that time the Government rejected the bill, mainly on the basis that it authorised occupants in dwelling houses to use
Page 8859
"deadly physical force" to repel an intruder, and to defend himself or herself, other occupants of the house, and property. The opponents of the bill, including the Hon. Elisabeth Kirby, felt that this would lead to an increase in the possession and use of guns in the community, similar to the situation in the United States of America.

The introduction of the concept of "deadly physical force" would have been a departure from the present law operating in New South Wales and was opposed by the Government and civil libertarians. In fact, the Hon. J. S. Tingle described the opponents of the bill in his second reading speech as ". . . the world-saving media interviewers" and ". . . arty-farty, bleeding heart, warm and cuddly, socially moonstruck" people. Surely this is too good a description to go unrecognised. The Government, seeing mileage in milking law and order for all its worth in the run-up to the next election, took up the mantle and suggested a compromise to the Tingle bill. That compromise is to codify the existing law of self-defence with regard to home invasions. The case law on self-defence states:

A person may be entitled to use force to defend himself or another person or even in certain circumstances their property from attack from someone else.

However, the defence is qualified by the fact that you may only use as much force as is reasonably necessary in all the circumstances. Given the attitude taken by the Supreme Court at present with regard to property offences, and the voracity with which the Opposition is pursuing the law and order issue, "reasonable in all circumstances" may still translate to killing an intruder to protect life or property even if that intruder is unarmed. All that is required by this bill to activate the defence is "a belief on reasonable grounds".

Years ago, while a student, I shared a flat in Glebe. My flatmate always left the window open and I constantly said to her, "You stupid fool! Shut the window. One of these days we will be burgled." At about 3.30 one morning while she was out I heard someone climbing in the window. In something of a cold sweat, I got up and saw a head coming through the window and so I punched at it through the blinds. I am not a very good pugilist and the blind landed on my head. There was then a loud scream because not only had my flatmate left the window open, she had also forgotten her key! Fortunately, as I said, I am not much of a pugilist and I did not have a gun by the bed, and in those days it was not common practice to have knives. So after a little peacemaking the situation settled down.

Some years later I was with my wife in Newtown - a lovely place to live - and some time in the small hours a head started coming through the window. Again I quite surprised myself, leaping to my feet with a loud shriek and running towards the offender, who was only a few feet away. The offender withdrew from the window and disappeared. By the time I got a dressing gown on and got outside there was nobody to be seen. On reflection, I remembered that we had Aboriginal next-door neighbours. It was quite common for people to come from the country and go to their house. They always left it unlocked and the friends would simply climb in the window. I would wonder whether the neighbours were being burgled. I would watch for a few minutes and if nobody came out with their television I would conclude that it was a brother from the country and forget about the matter.

As someone came into my house in the early hours of the morning these thoughts were not uppermost in my mind and I simply attacked the intruder, as one would attack an intruder in the night. Both times I did it, it has been more or less on instinct. I am glad that I did not live in a state of total fear with a gun by my bed. I am glad I did not have a knife available in case anyone attacked me. Otherwise, I could have faced a manslaughter charge by now. If we allow our responses to escalate there is a finite danger to the society in which we live in addition to the dangers from home invasion. Perhaps I have been lucky: both invasions were innocuous.

In my medical practice I have seen a number of people who have felt violated by people who have held them up at gunpoint. This has become a major source of stress, and it is becoming a major problem in society. The Hon. M. R. Kersten just told a story which warrants attention. But we have to recognise the limits of legislation. It does not necessarily help to make the law tougher on intruders or easier on home owners. The main issue is whether the crimes can be prevented. The increase in crime and the change in the types of crime relate to unemployment, rising levels of social inequality, and people being driven to desperation by the need to get money for a drug habit. These things are the engines of crime in our society and they must be tackled. It is not simply enough to tighten the responses to crime; we need to get to the causes of crime.

I confess that when I first looked at this bill I was concerned, particularly by clause 10, which seems to reverse the onus of proof in relation to a person injuring somebody invading that person’s house. I am informed by lawyers who understand
Page 8860
these things that this provision codifies the existing self-defence aspect of the common law. The bill will give the judiciary a green light to be more liberal in interpreting self-defence in the court, and will give more latitude in favour of occupants than would be the case if the present position had prevailed. No doubt proponents and supporters of the original Tingle bill will be hoping that this is the case.

If this is not the case and it is merely a codification of the existing position, there seems little danger in the bill. I hope that is the case. The Australian Democrats trust that the separation of powers is alive and well and that members of the judiciary will interpret the bill as they deem appropriate. We have some misgivings and we give some warnings about the bill as we are concerned about an escalation of force. We are concerned that, while the causes of crime are being relatively neglected, burglars may assume that should they be challenged they will be immediately killed. They might then undertake burglaries with the attitude that if the occupant makes any move or is even there it would be better to kill the occupant straight away. This is how the bill could lead to an escalation in violence. There is a cause and effect.

My training is in occupational health and risk management. The more one takes risks, the more dangerous the situation becomes, the smaller the trigger it takes - literally and metaphorically - to cause great human tragedy. I flag this concern. If the bill simply codifies the common law, that is fine and we support it. But the Australian Democrats are concerned about the other aspects. The issues of crime should be thought about and addressed by the Parliament.

The Hon. I. COHEN [4.47 p.m.]: The Greens oppose the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill for the same reasons as the Attorney General set out in his speech on the second reading of the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s bill, which the Government opposed, on 8 May 1997. He raised some very pertinent points which are still relevant to this amended bill. On that occasion he said:

The Government has taken the view that there are aspects of the bill which are unnecessary and, I must say with great respect, dangerous, and that therefore the bill ought to be opposed.

He said later that the bill was "risky" and that it "could legalise the use of grossly disproportionate violence" and that it could even legalise the killing of an intruder. The Greens can never support such a bill. The Attorney stated, and the Greens agree, that the common law of self-defence operates satisfactorily and fairly. The test for self-defence was stated in the High Court of Australia case of Zecevic. It is: whether the defendant believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what she or he did. If she or he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then she or he is entitled to an acquittal. The test is that the defendant must have actually believed that the degree of force used was necessary and the belief must be based on reasonable grounds. Importantly, the test makes sure that the indiscriminate use of force is not allowed.

The bill will set up two tests for self-defence: one relating to dwelling houses as set out in the legislation; and the common law test for all other places except dwelling houses. This will be complex and confusing. The Greens are most concerned about how the bill will impact upon intruders who perhaps steal for social or medical reasons. Many drug addicts pay for their drug habits by stealing from dwelling houses.

The Greens consider drug addiction to be a social and health issue. Additionally, some people with insufficient money due to lower socioeconomic circumstances may steal from dwellings so that they can survive. While the Greens do not condone this sort of conduct in any way, we are concerned that these types of people may be violently attacked, perhaps even killed, whilst carrying out a robbery. Yet this legislation will legalise brutal attacks on such individuals. The Greens are concerned that the requirements of proportionality would be significantly weakened through this legislation. The Greens do not agree with people taking the law into their own hands. We prefer intruders to be prosecuted through the court system.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: You are condoning home invasion.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It would appear that the Hon. C. J. S. Lynn does not have the ability to listen. I do not condone home invasion or robbery, but his narrow-minded interpretation of legislation is stunning. He cannot understand that the common law covers these types of matters.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: I am talking about the protection of people, especially the elderly, in their homes.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Are elderly people going to be armed? Are we going to arm the whole of society? You are making one law for homes. You have such a narrow interpretation. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn, who has had such experience on these matters -

Page 8861

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Yes, I have.

The Hon. I. COHEN: He can take people up the Kokoda Trail and flog the kids along.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: It is the Kokoda Track, not trail. If you are an Australian you would know that.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I am as Australian as you are; I am an Australian who is trying to promote a sense of peace in the community. The common law adequately maintains that sense of protection in the community and this home invasion bill is part of the law and order auction prior to the next State election, which unfortunately gives the upper hand to narrow-minded, right-wing individuals, some of whom are members of this House. In concert with this type of law and order campaign are media reports. A New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research bulletin entitled Crime and Justice and dated August 1996 states:

"HOME INVASION"

"Wake in Fright: The Growing Terror of Home Invasions

"Home Invasion! When Terror Strikes the Family"

"Gang Raids: The Terror that Waits at Home"

These are some of the headlines which have appeared in popular newspapers in NSW in recent years. In these and other newspapers stories on "home invasion", the typical "home invasion" is depicted as an evening raid on a family home by a gang. In these raids, violence is usually threatened or used with the aid of weapons, and family members are often bound and/or gagged. Events of this nature are very frightening for the victims, and disturbing to the general community. With all the attention they attract from the media, the community could easily be forgiven for believing that they are a common occurrence. Police statistics indicate that this is not the case: armed robbery in the home is a relatively infrequent event.

There has not been such an effective campaign to flog newspapers and upgrade the gutter media since they reported sharks along the coast in the 1950s and 1960s to scare the hell out of people during summer when there was no political news to report. A political agenda is driving this and it is not relevant. The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn makes irrelevant statements and has a one-dimensional answer to social issues. The bulletin continued:

. . . that the majority of robbery incidents recorded by the police in 1995 (67.8%) did not involve the use of a weapon.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: So what?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn says "So what?". That means that a person who enters a house without a weapon is committing a crime and therefore the occupant has the right to shoot him, to kill him!

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: I did not say that. Nobody has said that. The intruder should not be there in the first place.

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn has no idea. Young kids who have gone off the tracks may enter a house unarmed - kids who have no idea, who are addicts, whom some people look down their noses at and consider riffraff. Often they are victims of circumstances. They may be unwell emotionally and at the bottom of the barrel financially. Drug addicts spend a lot of time committing crimes to obtain money for drugs because of the drug laws in this State. They break and enter of a weekend to obtain this money.

It is a terrible situation. This legislation would result in more people being bashed or murdered and people taking the law into their own hands. It would encourage violence in society. I do not condone the robber or the person breaking the law because I know it is a horrifying experience to have an intruder enter one’s home. I have great sympathy for the victims but that does not mean that we should have a vigilante-style reaction. Violence will only add fuel to the fire. The Crime and Justice bulletin also stated:

According to police statistics, armed robbery in the home (or "home invasion") is an infrequent event. In 1995, 127 incidents of armed robbery in the home were recorded by the police in the Sydney SD, representing a rate of 0.3 incidents per 10,000 resident population.

This bill has been introduced as part of a law and order campaign, but it would be a dangerous direction for any government to take. It is fuelled by the Opposition and it will raise the incidence of violence and encourage the disempowered in our society to become scapegoats. It does not point towards a non-violent, caring and peaceful society. It will bring our society closer to that in America. The Greens oppose this bill in the same way we opposed the bill introduced by the Hon. J. S. Tingle.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [4.56 p.m]: I support the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill. I have followed with interest this debate because I believe that people should have every right to defend themselves, without facing the risk of prosecution, when confronted in their own homes by someone breaking the law. It is clear that the legislation is not perfect and that certain parts of it
Page 8862
will require amendment. Further legislation may have to be introduced to protect occupants of business premises from prosecution for self-defence when confronted by criminals.

The Opposition has made its position on this legislation clear. When the coalition wins government in March 1999 it will amend the legislation to clarify those areas that are still unclear. The common law provides for people to defend themselves using reasonable force when they are under threat. The problem with the common law is that it does not clarify under what circumstances a person is threatened. Proposed section 9 states:

Whether grounds are reasonable grounds for the purposes of section 6, 7 or 8 is to be determined having regard to the belief of the occupant, based on the circumstances as the occupant perceived them to be.

This is an important measure. Many honourable members in this House and in the other place have expressed concern about the clause on the basis of objective or subjective definitions of "reasonable grounds". These are legitimate concerns, but I believe that in the instance of an unlawful intrusion into someone’s home the subjective definition is the most justified. If a gun is pointed at your head, you could reasonably argue that you believed that the person with the gun would kill you, even though the person with the gun may have never had that intention.

The psychological impact of a home invasion manifests itself deeply on victims and the fear experienced by them is not alleviated by the suggestion that the criminal had no intention of hurting them. Many members of the public do not fully understand their rights under the common law. The Hon. J. S. Tingle said that when he was a radio commentator he invited former Attorney General John Dowd into the studio to "explain again and again that under the common law of this State people have the right to self-defence".

It seems that despite the efforts of the Hon. J. S. Tingle people still seem to be unsure of their rights. This bill goes some way towards clarifying those concerns. It could be suggested that the bill does not go far enough, but I believe it provides the community with a reasonable codification of their basic rights. It provides honourable members with an opportunity to observe how the notion would work if applied practically, and then observe what changes need to be made over and above those already identified.

One of the most abhorrent realities of our legal system is that criminals, when injured as a result of their unlawful activities, are provided with the opportunity to sue the inflictors of their injuries. I regard that as an absolute disgrace. I would almost support this legislation on the basis of clauses 11 and 12 alone. The notion that a person whom I belted for breaking into my house could sue me because I may have hurt him or her is absolutely deplorable.

A criminal should not have any right to argue that a person should be prosecuted for trying to stop the intruder from doing what he or she was not legally allowed to do. It is preposterous to imagine that if the woman to whom the Hon. M. R. Kersten referred - the one who was belted with a cricket bat by an intruder - had picked up a bat or other object and belted the intruder, she could have been prosecuted for such an act. Stupid laws such as that encourage disrespect for and distrust of the legal system.

I believe it is of the utmost importance that we send a message to the people of New South Wales that this House firmly believes that a criminal injured during the commission of an unlawful act does not have the right to claim that he was unlawfully assaulted by a person who was merely trying to protect himself, his family and his property. I have never before heard such pompous drivel as that spoken by the Hon. I. Cohen in his contribution. What he said has nothing to do with reality.

I know that I may be a one-dimensional thinker, but I am also a husband, a father, and a member of this society, and I know what it is like to be subject to a home invasion. It is not an academic exercise; it cannot be covered by the statistics quoted by the Hon. I. Cohen. As I have said in this House on a previous occasion, I am reminded of the person who was drowned in a river with an average depth of one metre. It simply has no resemblance to reality.

A friend of mine who lives in America was a crewman on the Australia II when it won the America’s Cup. Last year he came to Australia to visit his father. This fellow being the size that he is - a big, strong man - I could imagine his father would have been of a similar stature. His father and his mother, who are in their late seventies, live in absolute fear every night of their lives. My friend said that their home is a fortress. Elderly Australians are the pioneers of this country; they developed it, protected it, and gave us the wealth, peace and prosperity that we enjoy today. Every night in their homes they are forced to live in fear because -

Page 8863

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It’s like a gaol.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: It is like a gaol. These are the conditions under which people must live every day, whilst members of Parliament argue these points - in a one-dimensional fashion, according to the Hon. I. Cohen. The Opposition is concerned about real people and their real fears. I am referring to people -

The Hon. I. Cohen: Do you want them to be armed with guns?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I have never said that they should be armed with guns. I have never owned a gun, and I have never professed that anyone should own a gun. The Hon. I. Cohen is operating in drivel mode again.

The Hon. I. Cohen: What else are you going to do? Are you going to give them boxing gloves?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: The Hon. I. Cohen should have boxing gloves.

The Hon. I. Cohen: What else are you going to do for 70-year-old people - ?

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. I. Cohen has made his contribution and I ask him not to interject.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Boxing gloves have more than one purpose in life. Another family that I know that live in Campbelltown came to this country as Italian migrants, worked very hard by day and by night, seven days a week, and established a very successful business. A couple of years ago when their house was invaded the wife and husband were tied up and assaulted. The psychological impact that that incident had on those people will never go away. If intruders do not want to be damaged or hurt during home invasions, they should not invade homes. The firm message we must send out to people is: if you do not want to be prosecuted or hurt, do not commit the crime.

My house was once burgled by a person who had a drug habit. He stole a whole heap of stuff. I actually tracked the bloke down because I wanted returned the possessions that he took. I wanted my wife’s engagement ring, eternity ring, wedding ring, and items that were not worth a lot of money but had a lot of significance to us. So I went to see this bloke. He said, "I have just got out of prison. I don’t have any money; I don’t have any food." I said to him, "Mate, if you had come into the pantry and taken all the food, I would have said that’s fine. In fact, if you want food, I’ll give it to you." But he took the television set and my wife’s jewellery - the things he could carry out - with absolutely no respect for the sanctity of my house.

On another occasion when I was living in Ingleburn I had been working in the yard on the Saturday afternoon, went to church that night, had a roast meal, and was in a sound sleep at about two o’clock in the morning when all of a sudden I heard a tremendous noise outside. A couple of blokes were kicking my fence in. I went out there in my dressing gown and asked them if they could move on. They were not satisfied with that. They walked across the lawn and a pushing and shoving match started. One of the blokes fell to the ground, injuring his eye on the way down. They then went off to get their mates.

My wife and daughters, aged about 10 and 12 at the time, were in the house, and I was very concerned for their safety. I asked my wife to ring the police immediately. I went inside, put on my track suit, got hold of a bar that I had there, and I went outside. By this stage there were about eight people in the front of my house throwing rocks at the windows, on the roof, and so on, and they were going to get me and my family.

The last thing on my mind at that stage was my common law rights. My senses were totally and specifically tuned to the protection of my family. I said to those blokes, "We have called the police. You should go. If you step across that line, you are going to cop what I have got here." It was not a gun, but it was something that would have done a lot of damage. I recall them saying, "He’ll only get one of us." I said, "That’s right. You have to work out which one it’s going to be." We had a stand-off for about half an hour.

It took the police 45 minutes to arrive. That was the longest 45 minutes of my life. My wife and three daughters were in the house, and I was all that stood between them and the offenders, without any assistance from the legal system. When one is in a situation such as that the last thing on one’s mind is one’s common law rights. My total focus was on the protection of my family, and I would have done whatever was necessary to protect them.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: You could have given the Greens a phone call.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Yes, that would have been great. I would have got a lot of help there. I do not believe that anyone has any excuse to invade another person’s home. On occasion when I
Page 8864
have been asleep at night I have woken up thinking there was an intruder in the house. The invasion of one’s home is a frightening experience that has a major impact on the family. I can imagine the psychological impact that it had on the poor woman I referred to earlier and on her children. One does not get over such an incident in a day or even a year, if one ever gets over it. Last year my house was burgled and a great deal of stuff was taken. When I got home at two o’clock or three o’clock in the afternoon and discovered that the door was open, the windows were open and the blinds were flapping, at first it did not dawn on me what had happened, but as it did dawn on me and as I went through the house I realised that I had been done over.

I got angry. There was no thought of common law rights. I went through the house. It was burglary because we were not home, but if anybody had been in my house I certainly would have attacked them. It has cost me probably $6,000 or $7,000 to update the security system in my house so that my wife can feel secure at night, but she does not. She continues to barricade herself in the room every single night that I am not home, even though we have alarms, duress alarms, security lights and other security devices. She should not have to feel like that every night that I am away, but that is the impact these sorts of crimes have on people. It is not an academic argument: we are dealing with real people.

I am fortunate that I am in a position to provide some sort of protection. We have a responsibility to ensure that elderly people who live in fear are given every protection the law has to offer. It must be clearly understood that when people decide to enter the criminal world they forgo certain rights that apply to law-abiding citizens. If a person is going about his law-abiding business and someone assaults him in an attempt to stop him from doing his job, that person has a legal right to be protected and a legal right to ensure that the person who is doing the assaulting is prosecuted. If a criminal is carrying out his job of breaking into people’s homes and he is assaulted when someone tries to stop him, he should not have any right to question that assault.

That is the choice criminals make when they decide to become criminals. If criminals do not like that, I do not care. We have to make it very clear to the people of New South Wales that we, as a Parliament, will not tolerate criminal behaviour. We will not tolerate criminals taking advantage of our legal system. We will not tolerate criminals trying to obtain some kind of sympathy vote because they were belted during a home invasion. It is a perverse suggestion. I hear what the Hon. I. Cohen said, that it is not the fault of a lot of criminals that they became criminals -

The Hon. I. Cohen: I didn’t say that.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: That is what he said. He said they are drug addicts as a result of their circumstances and their environment, et cetera. I totally support the suggestion that we should investigate the causes and do what we can to break that cycle, but we have to draw a line in the sand and criminals have to know where that line is. The law-abiding people of New South Wales need an assurance that this Parliament is absolutely intent on protecting their interests. We are not here to protect the interests of those who choose a criminal lifestyle. The legislation provides that an occupant can use reasonable force to stop an intruder. That is fair enough. The use of reasonable force is entirely justified, and the public needs to clearly understand that it is entitled to that protection without the risk of prosecution. I am pleased that the Government has finally come to its senses and supports the legislation.

I am always sceptical of a government that changes its mind just before an election. The Premier has, with much fanfare, claimed ownership of this legislation - quite unjustifiably, in my view. The Government opposed the legislation saying, "The Government has formed the view that the common law and self-defence operates satisfactorily and fairly." This is not the case, and the Government knows it. The common law provides that one can use reasonable force to protect oneself. However, the common law does not provide one with immunity from prosecution for doing so. The Government only now, three years after it won office, has woken up to the fact that ordinary people in New South Wales fear they will be prosecuted if they attempt to stop someone who is breaking the law. It is blatant political opportunism on the part of this Government, and I hope people are made aware of that fact.

As I stated previously, some aspects of the bill need to be clarified, and parts of it require amendment. There is good reason to suggest that another bill will need to be introduced to provide similar protection for occupants of commercial premises. The Opposition is committed to dealing with these issues when it reclaims government in March 1999. I share many of the concerns of honourable members with respect to the bill, but I believe it is a good start. It will provide some comfort to the people of New South Wales and some clarification: this Parliament does not believe
Page 8865
that criminals should enjoy the same rights as those enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. The bill provides that home owners will not be prosecuted if they use reasonable force when trying to prevent a criminal from robbing, raping, or killing them. It is on this basis that I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The Hon. R. D. DYER (Minister for Public Works and Services) [5.15 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.15 p.m.]: I was disappointed and disgusted this morning when I read, in an article on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald, that the National Party is likely to give preferences to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in the New South Wales State election on 27 March.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On a point of order. The honourable member has referred to a press article that appeared today, relating to the National Party. If that is so, she is therefore referring to the Leader of the National Party and the members of the National Party in this House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! What is the point of order?

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Under Standing Order Nos 80 and 81 it is both wrong to make an attack on members -

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I have not attacked anyone.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: - and to impute to a party and, therefore, to the members of that party, a cause. I draw your attention to a number of matters on the definition of "impute" under Standing Order No. 81.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I have not mentioned a person.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! No point of order is involved. The honourable member did not mention the Leader of the National Party.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I am disgusted by this news, because I believe that such a move would be extremely divisive and lead to terrible consequences for the future of New South Wales. Only this afternoon I spoke on a motion which sought a bipartisan approach to encourage greater contact with Asia. Members who spoke to the motion were in favour of it, but what sort of sign would New South Wales send to Asia if we were to allow One Nation to gain seats in the New South Wales Parliament? The National Party’s refusal to rule out preference deals with the One Nation Party and then the Liberal Party’s inability to exert pressure -

The Hon. M. R. Kersten: On a point of order. The honourable member is operating on pure hearsay from an article that appeared in this morning’s paper, and maligning members of the National Party in the lower House and in this House. It is an improper motion.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! What is the point of order?

The Hon. M. R. Kersten: It is an improper suggestion.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: They want to waste time, that is all. They are wasting time so that I do not have time to speak.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will be quiet during the point of order.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: On the point of order. Standing Order No. 81 clearly says that all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be deemed disorderly. If the member is referring to a statement in the paper, it is an imputation on the National Party and its members. I draw your attention to a statement that suggests that it is also incorrect, and that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho is misleading the House: the National Party and its leader have stated that they are not involved in deals and are not doing as has been stated. I put it to you that the definition of "impute" falls under Standing Order No. 81. An imputation is being suggested by the member. I can refer to the Oxford Dictionary for that definition.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT Order! That is not necessary. At this stage, I am reluctant to rule the honourable member out of order, but I remind her that in using parliamentary privilege she has a responsibility to ensure that her remarks are accurate.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: The incident that just occurred is devised, as the Opposition Whip
Page 8866
knows very well, to deter me from speaking as my conscience dictates. I have not spelled out whether it imputes any intention. Two Opposition members are here to deter me from speaking out on behalf of my constituents. I should expose them to the fact -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are not telling the truth.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I am telling the truth, because it is the truth of the newspaper.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are misleading the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: We all read the newspaper. We have to depend on the report in the newspaper. I can only go on what the newspaper has said. I was going to say that my decision to resign from the Liberal Party was not taken lightly.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: It was for your own personal gain.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I felt that in good conscience -

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Conscience! That is a contradiction in terms. You wanted to be President, but you bombed out.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: - the only option available to me was to resign from the Liberal Party because I could no longer stand back when the voices of intolerance and prejudice remained unsilenced, as they are in this adjournment debate.

The Hon. C. J. S. Lynn: Tolerance! It was a personal ambition. It had nothing to do with that.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT:Order! I ask members not to interject.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I will repeat it now. In the press release I obtained - [Time expired.]

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [5.20 p.m.]: I draw attention to a matter that I was distressed to see reported in the paper today - the resumption of hostilities on the part of the mining company Rio Tinto against its workers and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and, in particular, the workers union. I draw attention to a comment made by Tony Maher, President of the mining division of the CFMEU that all but two of the 30 union delegates at Hunter Valley No. 1 mine have been sacked. I say that it is a preplanned payback. One of the many things that concern me about this report is the fact that it is no coincidence that Rio Tinto, which has embarked for many years on a planned campaign against the CFMEU, should have put its activities on hold during the Federal election campaign.

Obviously, neither the company nor its friends in the Howard Government wished to have these kinds of issues splashed all over the media while the Federal election campaign was in progress. Now that the Howard Government has won office, Rio Tinto has resumed its long battle to try to drive the CFMEU out of the mining industry. I remind honourable members that I have spoken in this House on many occasions about the Vickery dispute near Gunnedah, and the role of Rio Tinto in that dispute, and the Hunter Valley No. 1 mine dispute. I remember when Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, the Hon. B. H. Vaughan, the Hon. J. F. Ryan and I visited the picket lines at Hunter Valley No. 1 mine while on a parliamentary committee trip to investigate issues of work safety.

The terrible record of death and injury in the mining industry throws some light on the emotions that are involved in that industry when conflict occurs between the bosses and the union. I have spoken about those issues before and I have visited those places. Another mine at Mount Thorley has been the subject also of a serious dispute. I am reminded of another debate in the Legislative Council - an earlier stage of the dispute at Hunter Valley No. 1 mine that went to court. Justice Bruce managed to make an amazingly rapid decision. He found against the union, of course, but he did not delay his judgment for six months, 12 months, two years or 15 years; he managed to make a decision within about a week.

There is a long history of pressure against the CFMEU and mineworkers at Rio Tinto in particular. I deal now with some of the issues that are involved. Arguments are ensuing about redundancies. The coalmining industry has been doing badly in relation to exports in recent years and the crisis in Asian economies has not helped that situation. Tony Maher, President of the CFMEU mining division, pointed out that it is hardly a coincidence that all but two of the 30 union delegates have been sacked. One would have to wonder why the company has picked those people and why it seems to try to run the whole business in this confrontational and totally unsatisfactory way.

Page 8867

As the president of the union pointed out, it is a preplanned payback. It was planned prior to the Federal election, it was put on hold and now it is operating. I believe that the Premier, Mr Carr, and the Attorney General, Jeff Shaw, played an excellent role in bringing mediation and commonsense into previous Rio Tinto disputes, obviously in the interests of workers and their families, the economy, the Hunter Valley, New South Wales as a whole and the company. Other companies can achieve decent relations with their workers. Rio Tinto has to learn that long overdue lesson.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [5.25 p.m.]: It has been brought to my attention today that certain bureaucrats have made decisions relating to whether court proceedings should be held in Camden and Campbelltown. A memorandum sent to local magistrates by the co-ordinating magistrate reveals that certain legal processes will no longer take place in Campbelltown; those processes are being shifted to Burwood. That strikes me as a completely absurd case of bureaucracy gone mad. It is interesting to note that the decision was made in consultation with the Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions, but not in consultation with local barristers, solicitors and other people working in Campbelltown and Camden.

It was not made in consultation with the parliamentary representatives in the area, and certainly not in consultation with the people of Campbelltown and Camden. Campbelltown and Camden are not part of the metropolitan area, but because of a bureaucratic decision those two areas are to be included in the metropolitan area. The large amount of green land separating Campbelltown from the metropolitan area is still there. Public transport is difficult enough in my area, but it is ridiculous to expect people to travel all the way into Burwood. It is difficult for people living in Camden because there is no public transport from Camden to Campbelltown to enable them to catch the train to Burwood.

This may be a method of making the courts more efficient and it may be a way of saving the Government money, but is not suitable for the people of Campbelltown and Camden. Areas like Campbelltown and Camden must not be further neglected by this Government. The people in those areas are entitled to the same service as everybody else. I can understand why the Government is not too fussed about the Camden area as the Labor Party does not hold that seat. Perhaps this an indication that the honourable member for Campbelltown is expecting to lose his seat in March next year because he has neglected that area for the past 3½ years.

It important to remember that the people own the courts; they are not owned by the judges or by the bureaucrats. Any decision that will affect the services that the people of Campbelltown and Camden are entitled to should not be made without proper consultation. It would be wise for the Government to examine this matter and review the decision that has been made as soon as proper consultation has taken place - consultation that actually takes into account the views of the people and not merely the bureaucrats that such a decision will affect.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.28 p.m.]: I share with members of the House an important and historic event which took place yesterday. I was asked to host a delegation of 30 British citizens who flew from Britain at their own expense. Those people, who represented different parts of the United Kingdom - England, Scotland and Wales - were led by Reverend Brian Mills and Reverend Roger Mitchell on a reconciliation visit. They came to Australia on behalf of the British people to apologise for a number of things. Their visit was important because they were travelling with a goodwill message from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The British Prime Minister had requested them to report back to him on what had occurred in Australia and on what they were able to achieve.

They came to Australia, guided by God through their prayers, for a number of reasons. They wanted to travel to various capital cities around Australia and apologise first for Britain’s treatment of the convicts. They gave a great deal of evidence at a meeting which was held in the Jubilee Room. With the permission of the Clerk they entered the Chamber during the luncheon adjournment of the House. I gave them an historical background of the Chamber and thereafter a simple reconciliation ceremony was held.

During the presentation in the Jubilee Room the delegation referred to evidence that children as young as 10 or 11 years of age were deported to the colony, many of them for stealing handkerchiefs. The strong and valid point was made that the deportation of people without real justification to the New South Wales colony was akin to an enforced emigration program. The delegation of British
Page 8868
citizens had the opportunity to meet with descendants of convicts who had been sentenced to deportation for minor crimes.

The delegation apologised for their treatment of the indigenous people of Australia, particularly during the early years of the colony. It is more than 200 years since European settlement of our nation. In the early days of settlement Aborigines were treated harshly by British citizens. Statistics were presented which showed a staggering decimation of the Aboriginal population throughout various parts of Australia. Two Aboriginal leaders who were present, Pastor Peter Walker and Pastor Rex Morgan, accepted the apologies from the British representatives. Pastor Walker told how his family acquired its surname. His father and grandfather had fled from a massacre in Queensland into the Tabulam area in northern New South Wales. When they arrived a white farmer said, "You’ve walked a long way. I will call you the Walkers."

It was very moving when the British representatives, Reverend Brian Mills and Reverend Roger Mitchell, expressed their sorrow and extended their apologies, which were accepted by the Aboriginal representatives. The British delegate also apologised to the stolen Aboriginal children - another sorry chapter in our history, which had been concealed for many years but has now been made public through the royal commission investigations. I think that some Aborigines were ashamed about having been stolen children. I have only recently been told by some Aboriginal people that they were stolen from their parents at a young age. Now that it has become a public matter, perhaps Aboriginal people are willing to talk about their background. [Time expired.]

The Hon. I. COHEN [5.33 p.m.]: Daishowa was Australia’s first native forest export woodchipper. Its 30 years of operation in the Eden region, rubber-stamped by a succession of Liberal and Labor governments, has resulted in the decimation of forests, the sawmill industry, jobs and social harmony within the community. Daishowa’s native forest woodchipping has created conflict that the south-east region of the State does not deserve and does not want. With overwhelming local and national outrage about the sanctioning of woodchipping by governments, woodchip industries do not have a place in any community.

Daishowa employs 33 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union workers, and approximately five secretarial and engineering staff. Fifteen contractors supply the chip-mill. Daishowa employs fewer than 100 workers in total. That is contrary to the information released by the wealthy chip-mill industry through its lobby groups, such as NAFI, FPA and FPS. However, woodchip industry lobby groups will not report that since the introduction of woodchipping the rate of employment and prosperity in regional communities has plummeted, while the rate of native forest destruction and unemployment has soared.

For 30 years governments, whether Labor or Liberal, have been responsible for bitterly dividing communities in the Eden region, destroying the sawmill industry and decimating our native forests and the native animals they house. Since the introduction of woodchipping, the Eden management area has one native forest sawmill in Bombala. Native forest woodchipping is not an industry; it is a parasite that should not be tolerated. Today more than 90 per cent of the wood logged from the magnificent Eden forests goes straight to Daishowa’s chip-mill. That is a national disgrace. Labor’s John Button, a former Federal Minister for Industry, said, "It’s a bastard of an industry."

The Premier promised to end native forest woodchipping by 2000. The Greens will keep reminding the Premier, and the Australian Labor Party generally, of that promise. We have the public on our side. National polls show that 80 per cent of Australians do not want native forests woodchipped. Who elects our governments - voters who do not want native forests woodchipped or globally irresponsible companies like Daishowa? An added heartbreak for the communities of the south-east region is that the ending of Daishowa’s native forest woodchipping would not cause much concern. The problem is that this Government does not have a conservation vision for the south-east forests. Government members pop down for a day, declare a few parks areas, sell the message of what a wonderful job the Premier has done to save the south east forests, and off they go.

The Bega and Braidwood Greens proposed a very achievable strategy to close Daishowa and stimulate employment in the south-east region. Their proposal was sent to the Premier on 29 September. Although the Premier’s secretary confirmed receipt of the proposal, the Greens have not received a reply. If the Premier is serious about employment, the environment and winning support for the Australian Labor Party, he must offer a real solution to the people of the south-east region - one that protects our forests and creates sustainable employment. As long as Daishowa is allowed to continue its operations, that vision will never be realised and the problems and conflicts will not go away.

Page 8869

The only way the people of the region will accept dealing with Daishowa is for its operations to be closed and sustainable jobs to be created; the two go together. The conservation reality for the south east forests is that koalas are in danger of extinction, and the protection of high conservation value old growth forests - a habitat for many native and endangered animals - is uncertain. This area is being sacrificed because of the Premier’s myopia about Daishowa. Daishowa employs fewer than 40 people in its chip-mill. The Premier is allowing thousands of hectares of irreplaceable native forests to be logged in the south east forests to feed Daishowa’s chip-mill. There cannot be any reasonable conservation outcome for these forests until the Premier honours his promise that he gave before the previous State election to end native forest woodchipping by 2000.

The Government has an obvious stumbling block. It should listen to the majority of people in the south-east region, and in the rest of the State, who repeatedly say that native forest woodchipping is unacceptable. Or are the woodchip industry lobby groups pulling the Government’s strings? If Labor governments want any support from the Greens in the south-east region, the stumbling block - to once and for all close down Daishowa chip-mill - must be overcome. Mr Steve Whan, a Labor candidate for the marginal seat of Eden-Monaro in the recent Federal election, would already have informed the Premier of the Greens’ position - that Daishowa must leave the south east forests. The solution is clear and achievable.

Daishowa should be notified in writing that it will no longer be supplied by our State forests. The Government would then be required to seek a serious investor for the softwood industry, and to assist the small number of chip-mill workers to find employment in the new softwood plantations industry. Woodchip industry workers have been misled by governments and the woodchip industries. The real opportunity for their sustained employment is in plantation processing, which even at this early stage could offer more than 300 jobs. I formally offer the Carr Government the Greens' strategy to once and for all deal with the problem of Daishowa, which will also enable him to honour his promise to end native forest woodchipping by 2000.

The Hon. P. T. PRIMROSE [5.37 p.m.]: I raise a matter which I am sure is of concern to all honourable members. The terms "family", "families",
"needs of families" and "family parties" are regularly bandied about in public policy and political debate in this Chamber, and indeed throughout the whole community. However, the concept of "family", in the context of discussion, constantly changes and is never made clear. I refer to the excellent work that is being done by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

I cite an article by Christine Millard in the winter 1998 edition of Family Matters. Ms Millard studied the various types of support that are given to adult children by parents in their fifties and sixties. This House needs to consider that area in its policy deliberations. The relationship between older parents and adult children can be seen as a support resource. For example, the study found that the majority of parents in our community are helping their adult children. The most common form of assistance is emotional support and advice.

Approximately 80 per cent of parents stated that they were still providing emotional assistance to their adult children; 72 per cent said that they were providing money and other financial resources; and 62 per cent said that they were providing other types of financial assistance. Honourable members may think that I am talking about people who are 18 or 20 years old. However, approximately 23 per cent of adults aged 36 years and above receive help from their parents. The survey found that approximately 25 per cent of adults aged 36 years and above were still receiving substantial support - financial, emotional and otherwise - from their parents. The parents of those surveyed were often in their fifties and sixties and were often also providing support and assistance to their aged parents.

Prolonged periods of education, the increased incidence of sole parenthood and fewer employment opportunities have resulted in families extending support to their adult offspring. The changing face of the welfare state, which restricts financial support for young adults, has implications for an increased load on older people. People in their fifties and sixties are now expected not only to support and care for their parents but, increasingly, to support their adult children. Such support is expensive in terms of time and finances. The House should examine this policy area. The issue is worthy of closer examination, perhaps by the Standing Committee on Social Issues or another committee of this place.

Motion agreed to.